@apriljessica266 - Thank u April. There are some here who seek a tit 4 tat. The goal was always to promote discussion. Any1 who tells me my beliefs are wrong is practicing the exact same behavior as the "religious zealots" they complain about. When people can't respect others opinions, even when they don't agree, it shows a need for growth. That's something that needs 2 occur on their personal time. There are those like you who show respect regardless of personal opinion. I thank you greatly.
Hi all - well, most of the comments have been really open to discourse. Unfortunately, several others have been nothing more than intentionally insulting & combative. Since nothing new is being added 2 the discussion, I am now closing it. I only hope, in the future, those who are open 2 discussion & allowing both sides 2 believe what they choose will continue 2 communicate respectfully, openly & honestly. TY all who have respected me in this discussion, as I hope you feel the same about me. :)
OT still applies, but it was an expression of the fact that we can't follow all of the rules because we as humans are flawed. There are important lessons in it, but it doesn't tell us to murder people. However, pre-NT the OT did apply to saved people - and those were just Jews. It is a whole book to be understood completely, but the damnation in the OT is replaced with grace and mercy in the NT with Jesus. It is in the NT where the saved are expanded beyond Jews to all Gentiles.
Do you believe in unicorns and fairies? No? That's a doctrine and you need to provide evidence. Logic us all up with a video proving unicorns and fairies don't exist.
@HurdRandy - As I've said before, I've don't know if unicorns or fairies exist, but it would be irresponsible of me 2 discount their existence since some do believe. 2 discount the existence altogether would place the burden of proof on me 2 prove they don't exist. 2 CHOOSE not 2 believe, as a choice, is my right & does NOT require a burden of proof on my end. Likewise, those who choose 2 believe in unicorns & fairies make the choice 2 believe and do NOT bear a burden of proof either.
@darla5393 if this is your stance then religion has so polluted your mind that you deny logical thinking. The person that makes the claim will always hold the burden of proof, otherwise society would generally accept every claim that's made. Claims are not to be believed until proven with evidence. Just as you are innocent until proven guilty in our court system-- claims are not to be believed until proven true... this is to protect us from believing absolutely everything.
@SongADayChallenge - Faith isn't faith if you have proof to show others - it's proof. However, faith in a deity is a personal choice and does not bear a burden of proof, as not having faith in a deity without proof is a personal choice. "I saw bigfoot," is a claim, but someone can't say I didn't. Just because someone isn't viewed by all & I didn't have a camera doesn't make it "not real," it just makes it not widely known and pending further evidence. Now, what's wrong with believing in things?
@darla5393 And the burden of proof applies to deciding what is true and what is false. It has nothing to do with what you CHOOSE to believe. You can choose to believe whatever you want, that doesn't mean it's true or false. The burden of proof is required by someone making a claim in order for that claim to be true. This burden of proof does not need to be fulfilled by someone who rejects the claim that is made. Atheism is rejecting the unproven claim of a God.
@SongADayChallenge - Hi - I've already stated the exact same thing you are throughout the comments. However, as I clarified, for someone to declare "there is no God" (as apparently only SOME atheists do, but it is still true that SOME do - seemingly not most) is the same as declaring "there is God" in that both require the burden of proof. The choice to not believe due to lack of proof (as the choice 2 believe due to personal experience) are both choices, where neither bear the burden of truth.
There's something of a semantic issue at hand here. Many self-proclaimed atheists, myself included, use the word as an equivalent to what some apologetics have coined non-theism. The characterization of atheism being a lack-of-belief can have appropriate application (just as it can also be exploited disingenuously).
@ghbacch - Thanks for your comment. I encourage you to read the comments dialogue. You'll see that I gain a greater understanding of the usage and adjust what I say to only apply the concept of "doctrine" to those who outright say "There is no God," which places on them a burden of proof. The choice 2 not believe without proof is a choice and doesn't require a burden of proof.
BTW - u might not agree with my position in the video, but if u like my openness 2 REAL discussion & my comments throughout below, LIKE it - don't dislike it just because u don't agree with my point of view. LIKE discussion, DISLIKE close-mindedness.
We give words their meaning. Websters is only one accepted definition of the word. I am an atheist, because I haven't seen sufficient evidence for a god. If there is a god, it nows where I am and what evidence it would take to convince me of its existence. As far as the atheist experience, they shouldn't block you unless you are spamming them. However, I am not exactly convinced that they blocked you or sent you that message. Are you sure you weren't on an upload on a different users channel?
@amberview30 - Hi amber - If u read the comments u'll see that I believe your position is fair. If u read my comments throughout the notes, u'll c my intent is not 2 start an argument; therefore, 2 lie about it would b irresponsible & pointless 4 effecting dialogue. Yes TAE blocked me and Yes sent me the email 2 "Piss off." And yes, I was on the channel of TheAtheistExperience - however, I've learned that particular user is unrelated 2 the show, just a supporter.
@darla5393 That's fair. You are right. I didn't read all the comments. Also, I didn't think you lied. I wondered if you might have posted to someone other than the actual show, as it can be confusing. I am sorry to hear the supporter of the show was rude and blocked you.
@darla5393 You're welcome. It is not difficult to be respectful of others, but it seems there are a lot of trolls and rude people on the Internet that must think otherwise. I hit like on the video. I love hearing about other people's views.
Darla, "We should b open 2 learn". I totally agree. But what does it mean to "learn"? I can learn about Santa Claus, but that doesn't make him real. If someone makes a small claim, like "I love my Mom"--I can take this person on their word, because it's strictly limited to their personal experience and they do not expect it to be true for me. A BIG claim--like God, which is the biggest claim ever made--that requires seriously hard evidence. Thank you for your time.
@DandAinTac - TY 4 ur comment. When I say open 2 learn, it is more an act of personal research, not believing someone's else's perspective or experience (while the information gathered that way can be an effective part of research). If man were 2 prove God exists would require hard evidence, as for man 2 prove He didn't. But the decision 2 not believe without hard evidence & the decision 2 believe without hard evidence is a choice, neither requiring proof.
Darla, regarding your comment "Who am I 2 say the teapot doesn't exist because I may think it's ludicrous?" Well, you are a rational human being capable of thinking critically. Do you really believe this? Honestly? Do you agree that charlatans throughout history of hoodwinked credulous people? So on what basis do we tell the truth from the lies? The only reasonable answer is evidence. (cont) "He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him" We should b open 2 learn.
@DandAinTac - I believe dishonest & honest people exist. I believe dishonest people make themselves appear honest and make honest people appear dishonest. We can't know the inner workings of a man except through his outward actions. We must review the facts, do the research & then can arrive at our conclusion. However, that is re: man's behavior - knowing not doesn't mean lacking hard evidence. What u learn from past relationship experience isn't infallible, but still qualifies as ur proof.
Darla, I can't find your original response, so I'll start fresh (and this will take more than 1 post). First, I'm glad that you do not expect me to believe. However, this not usual for a Christian. Experience has shown me that other Christians not only expect me to believe, but DEMAND that I do. I know this because I am routinely threatened with the fear tactic of eternal damnation. Many Christians also demand that the schools make MY children pray to THEIR god in the public schools. (cont)
@DandAinTac - I'm sorry those u've come into contact with approached u as if conversion was their job. We're called 2 plant the seed - if it grows it's up 2 God. The Christian principles of mercy & grace seem 2 b lost in application 2 others by "Judgment Christians" (my term). The Bible speaks 2 hell & being saved among many things, but if u weren't first introduced 2 Jesus' saving grace, why would u accept hell & damnation? I don't know any US public schools where prayer is still required.
"principle' that God is in question." Yes I heard you the first time, And all unfalsifiable assertions especially the thousands of mutually exclusivity claims about gods, the super/natural/stitions are in question. Thats why I gave the example of Bertrand's teapot. None of us begin believing a-priori in any of these super cliams right?
" all Christians approach & experience God in the same way" Yet the same god tells some to gut their child,kill torture unbelievers,own people as property...
@Greathiway - 1st para - I believe my prior answer is in agreement. 2nd para - Where r u getting this? If u mean: a) Abraham - it was 2 test his faith. God never intended its completion; b) Jews going 2 promised land - that was then, not now & we can't apply current opinions 2 past behaviors. We can only review & consider beliefs then; c) slavery - c answer 2 b & <200 years ago slavery was practiced in the US regardless of religion. BTW, those r Old Testament msgs meant only 4 Jews & pre-Christ.
@darla5393 "my prior answer is in agreement." You didnt answer my question "possible that bigfoot & the cosmic teapot exists" Yes Thats the point the teapot is possible but believing it exists it silly and it should be in question, We are not saying its impossible for it to exist, so we dont have the burden.
" 2 test his faith" Even it true, you dont think a test that demand you kill your child shoudl be in question or id say rules it out as being from a god,But Jephthah Daughert wasnt so lucky.
@Greathiway - Zealots don't represent the communities they claim & r capable of anything sick and demented. If u read the entirety of the comments, u see I agree "I choose not to believe because I don't have facts" is fair position not bearing the burden of proof - just as "I choose to believe in God" is a choice and doesn't bear the burden either. Stating "God doesn't exist" merits "prove it." It's a good read - I recommend it. I believe God exists, but He proves Himself - it's not 4 me 2 do.
@darla5393 ""I choose not to believe because I don't have facts" I still dont agree (beliefs arent simple choice) still, B4 you were saying such a position was a dogma. But in fact you dont believe in many such unfalsifiable concepts like teapots expect you make special pleading for 'not having in question' one such Super concept, thats itself the definition of Dogma.
"choice and doesn't bear the burden"
U claim a god exist so do! " proves Himself" teapot proves itself,perfectly Circular!
@Greathiway - Yes - Read the comments as I gained better understanding. I believe is a choice. Period. If I don't believe in a teapot, I'm not so bold 2 discount others experiences because they can't prove it 2 me. Dogma is swearing God doesn't exist & God does exist. However, I don't need 2 prove it 2 u to make it real. Air still existed b4 it was proven. Not circular - He makes Himself known &, if He chooses 2 do so with u He will. I don't question His choices - just glad He chose me.
@DarkAngel182 - I can share my experience with God & that is my proof, but may b insufficient 4 u 2 believe. Ur conclusion is that, because I can't provide proof there is no reason 2 believe. However, if u were really seeking the truth, my experience would only b part of ur research. U would attempt to seek ur truth on ur own. Watch Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ." He was an atheist who set out 2 debunk Christianity full-force & after the evidence became Christian.
The problem is the word believe. The idea that God does not exist, cant be proven and is therefore a belief. But it isnt a belief like the theists use the word. There are no rituals, no churches, no doctrine. There is in the atheists community some kind of treshold to admit that there is a belief. No one wants to be on the same wagon as the theists.
@Ranokian - Based on Webster's definition of belief, rituals & churches aren't needed 2 qualify 4 "belief." Of the 4 definitions, only one speaks directly to religion. If a principle is taught or shared in anyway, it's a doctrine. TAE supports the principle of atheism, qualifying it as doctrine. Belief def. #1 - "Something believed; an opinion or conviction." Doesn't atheism qualify 4 that? See further down re: difference between "No God" & "I don't know so not believing w/o proof " discussion.
@darla5393 Atheism is a belief. True. I do not argue with that. The problem is that atheism is strong reaction to theism. And as such no one wants to be on "the other side". It is clearly a matter of one group vs the other. No one wants to be like the other team. This kinda polutes the discussion. And if atheist believe passes on from one generation to the other, is taught, it is a doctrine, you are right.
@Ranokian - Honestly, I see atheism both as a strong (negative) response 2 judgmental Christians & also a lukewarm response based on evidence sought. I don't believe it should b 1 vs. the other. If those who believe or disbelieve ANYTHING are open 2 discussion & 4 others to disagree, maybe the rank & nasty responses on opposing sides would diminish. 2 have discussion shouldn't b approached as "I stand my ground no matter what u say" b4 even starting. That stance only maintains ignorance.
@DarkEmergence - If I was part of a specific group that in PRINCIPLE didn't believe the Loch Ness Monster existed, then yes - it would b dogma. However, I can't prove s/he doesn't exist & I might choose 2 not believe without hard proof. That's how many here describe their "non-belief" and, like I've said b4, that's a fair conclusion.
BTW - I don't know Nessie doesn't exist, so I choose NOT 2 discount the possibility nor the experiences of others who claim 2 have seen Nessie. Can't know it all.
I've been informed SHOCKOFGOD is the man asking the question in the TAE video. I'll check him out. I would like 2 clarify that: 1) AS I DO NOT KNOW SHOCKOFGOD OR HIS BELIEF SYSTEM (all Christians, as all atheists, r not the same), THIS VIDEO DOES NOT SUGGEST I SUPPORT HIS PERSPECTIVE. JUST THE QUESTION; and 2) AS I STATE IN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION - ONLY DISRESPECTFUL COMMENTS FROM ANYONE (ANY SIDE) OR THOSE NOT ADDING SOMETHING NEW 2 THE DISCUSSION R BEING DELETED. NO CENSORSHIP OTHERWISE.
You need some context. ShockofGod is the youtube user who poses the challenge for atheists to prove that atheism is accurate and correct. ShockofGod is a complete troll who is guilty of all of the things you are accusing The Atheist Experience of. Furthermore, atheism is not a positive belief and is therefore not subject to the same burden of proof as a positive one. "That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
@UserBaines - Thank you 4 ur comment & the information. I would like to say, based on your description, the same can be applied to Christianity - the belief in God can be asserted without evidence, and dismissed without evidence. The difference would be where we state that God exists. Inherently, this is inevitably a belief and, as a belief, is individualistic & also does not meet a burden of proof. I don't think positive or negative factor into the equation of "belief." That's a personal thing.
@Danmill23 - TY 4 ur answer. I agree - there is no proof God doesn't exist & atheists choose 2 believe he doesn't w/o hard proof. How u define your "not-belief" is up 2 u & 4 no1 else. We couldn't c air, but it's always been there. Did it require a burden of proof 2 b there &, if so, was it not there until we found proof? A mutually respectful approach would allow theists & atheists 2 dialogue. Consistently I c atheists approach theists as if they are stupid - expressing a LACK of understanding.
@darla5393 " I agree - there is no proof God doesn't exist & atheists choose 2 believe he doesn't"
I so you agree there is also no hard proof that bigfoot or a cosmic teapot does not exist? Also I think the word proof is best saved for math or logic , In everyday terms or in science we care about good evidence and functional certainties not absolute proof
@Greathiway - Based on the description of Russell's teapot from Wikipedia, yes - I would say it's possible that bigfoot & the cosmic teapot exists. Who believes they know everything & even have the capacity 2 know everything? That's more absurd 2 me than the teapot. Unless I can prove bigfoot doesn't exist, I can't say he doesn't.
To illustrate: “He who knows not & knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him."
@darla5393 Your case of an angry response from the atheist experience (I honestly think) is indirectly from (specific) youtube theists specifically and deliberately not ignoring the answer atheists give to this question. A VERY persistent campaign was waged by "shockofgod". Who directed his attacks both generally and very specifically at the atheist experience show. This is why you we're treated rudely. Splash damage. (search for shockofgod and "question" here on YT to see)
@Danmill23 - Thank you for the information - although some additional, non-respectful non-helpful 2 discussion comments came after I posted that I wouldn't add anything else that didn't clarify or add to the discussion, this is very useful AND helpful. I will check him out. Thanks again - and for being so respectful.
@darla5393 "atheists choose 2 believe he doesn't w/o hard proof" First of all, we need to realize that there are literally millions of things one choose to not believe in without hard proof. Let's take Russell's teapot analogy. Suppose I asserted that there was a teapot in orbit around a distant star. Is it unreasonable to disbelieve this assertion? If you say you don't believe that, is it fair to demand that you should have to disprove it? Who should have the burden of proof? (cont)
@DandAinTac - As per Wikipedia, Russell's argument was "it would be nonsensical 4 him 2 expect others not 2 doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong." It's nonsensical 4 him TO EXPECT it. I don't expect others 2 not doubt because I don't doubt. That's nonsensical. I don't suggest atheists should believe in God. Who am I 2 say the teapot doesn't exist because I may think it's ludicrous? "He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him" We should b open 2 learn.
@sethecx - those who believe gods aren't real = atheists; "don't buy the arguments" = don't believe in theist experiences = atheists. Same thing, but 1 focuses on proof & the other tends 2 discount theist experience, usually as "stupid." I think we see in both atheism & theism that proof isn't paramount - I can't prove to u that God exists; He proved He exists 2 me. If I had proof it wouldn't be faith - it would be proof. U can't prove He doesn't. A mutually respectful dialogue would do wonders.
what do you think about the fact that millions of people of different religions have claimed to have their god prove himself to them.. doesnt this hint to gods being purely in peoples fantasy? or are there hundreds of gods? they arent all real or? and also there is never hard evidence to prove they exist.. doesnt this at best make deism the most honest way, if you first have to believe there are gods? (or just one god)
@sethecx - Re: fantasy - not at all...just not necessarily ur experience. Russell's teapot illustration is that it's nonsensical 4 him TO EXPECT others 2 believe. I don't expect others 2 believe because I believe. That's nonsensical. I don't suggest atheists should believe in God. Who am I 2 say the teapot doesn't exist because I may think it's ludicrous? "He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him." We should b open 2 learn.
I would like to say that I am very happy with the respectful responses that have been offered - so far I have approved every comment from individuals who seem to be atheists (not easily determined by the responses). I did receive one response that supported what I discussed in the video, however, I did not post it as I felt that the statement made was disrespectful toward atheists. The discussion must be fair, open and respectful on both sides to allow for responsible and thoughtful dialogue.
I thought about doing a video response, but I thought ya know that youtube user who blocked you was right. This has been done too many times before. HELL! I DID A VIDEO ON IT ALREADY! In a nutshell though atheism is the "nonbelief" in gods. Atheists maintain a nonbelief because theists are making the claim that Gods do exist and provide no evidence. Atheism does not claim gods do not exist. Atheism in the nonbelief because of a lack of evidence. That is why the question is bull. Do you get it?
@TheAnimeAtheist - I disagree about the blocking. I'm not someone who stalks atheism youtube pages - I simply happened upon a video & made a comment. I don't need or desire 2 read page upon page to find out if my point of view has already been shared. Whether it has been mentioned b4 or not, unless both pro & con repeats are deleted it's NOT open dialogue. Also, the addition of "piss off" is completely disrespectful. Re: your position - no space here, but I respond to that argument further down.
@darla5393 I never said he was right about blocking you, he was right when he said its been done too many times for you not know. Or in other words you were willfully ignorant when you posted (whether you should have been blocked is another matter all together), which is why I decided to leave comments instead of doing a video response.
@TheAnimeAtheist - I was simply a new visitor. I read the first few comments & then respond if I choose. I have as much right to say something already said as anyone else - it has nothing to do with willful ignorance. I may simply say it with a different tone, but it's still okay to repeat an idea. If repeated consistently, it doesn't negate that ALL repeated comments - pro & con alike - should be deleted for the action of doing so 2 be open & fair, otherwise it's one sided. Delete equally.
@darla5393 Think of it like this, a bunch of surgeons are meeting together deciding how they want to go about with a very complicated surgery. Then you bust in and say something. It becomes quite clear you have no idea what your talking about but you decided to open your mouth anyway. The doctors become pissed and throw you out of the room and make sure you don't come back. Now maybe kicking you out for good was a tad harsh, but you did just disrespect whether your realize it or not.
@TheAnimeAtheist - There was no disrespect. In fact I made every effort to express my position respectfully. I simply stated the truth. Whether he agreed or not, I simply stated a logical conclusion based on the facts. The response was entirely harsh. Delete it. Block me? Not necessary. "Piss off"? Completely blatant disrespect. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view does not make them disrespectful. They are simply stating their position. All you should do is respect it.
@darla5393 Let me compose an analogy. Imagine if someone asked you why Xians hate Jews. After you reply "We don't", he points at the writings of Martin Luther and repeats the question. You explain to him that Luther's views don't reflect all Xians, he repeats it again. More people join in asking it again. And again. And again.
Fast forward after 2 years of this, someone makes their first comment to your channel asking the same thing. What would be your reaction?
@Cafeeine My reaction would really b another video. However, in brief I'd say that religious leaders - as humans - propose their perspectives & understandings. My guiding principles come from the Bible. If something doesn't jive with the Word of God, I throw it out. The Bible teaches us 2 love 1 another as we would love ourselves & that jews are the chosen people. The birth, life, death & resurrection of Christ created a doorway 2 include Gentiles among the chosen. We're all brothers & sisters.
@darla5393 To remove any confusion, you don't need to defend yourself to the charge of hating jews. I used it as an analogy, not an accusation. If you had to defend your position from such a ludicrous claim, one obviously untrue with the opposing side refusing to acknowledge your response, you would become short-tempered with the subject. That you were a newcomer to the arena is unfortunate, but unavoidable.
@Cafeeine - Honestly, I'm really not the sort 2 become short-tempered. Consider my response in this video - I maintain my composure, didn't speak in anger, didn't intentionally insult & addressed the matter @ hand directly. Some have a short-tempered nature, but I rarely (like 5% of my life) ever do. Short-tempered to me would have been to email TAE and give that person the "what for" in response to the email they sent me. However, that's not really my style. Thanks for the dialogue. :)
I have no opinion on the alleged blocking, as I have no evidence of it. However, when the way you find best to argue for your position is to redefine what the other side clearly states their position to be, that is the exact opposite of respecting their opinions, and there can be no argument. You should take your own advice and take a look in the mirror.
@Cafeeine - I hardly redefine their position. I state a simple fact. The natural assumption is that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism. Whether the argument made by TAE in the video is intentionally or unintentionally incorrect, it is nonetheless false and misleading in both cases. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
@darla5393 "the natural assumption is that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism." Which is why when you bring up a definition that is not what they identify with, it should give you pause, rather than assume your definition is applicable.
'Atheos' was historically first used to describe the early Christians. One would think they understand by now how detrimental to discourse misrepresentation is.
@Cafeeine - It's not MY definition. It's THE definition. If I understand ur comment, it's like saying "Homosexuals chose 2 embrace the word 'gay' to change it from a negative term to 1 of empowerment." (quotes 2 reflect the idea). However homosexual & gay are still defined the same way. Many negative terms were used for Christians 2 discredit them but weren't actual definitions - just colloquialism. My premise doesn't discredit atheism - it simply provides the actual definition, accepted or not.
@darla5393 But it isn't THE definition, its A definition. The 'gay' example is excellent in this respect, as the primary definition nowadays is 'homosexual' rather than 'happy'. (indeed, slang is now that 'gay'='stupid')The definitions have changed, and in the case of 'gay' the dictionaries have caught up. Words change, gain and lose definitions all the time. Why would you object to the same process taking place here? Do you similarly address Mormons for calling 20yr olds "elders'?
@Cafeeine - You are correct - words change definition over decades & even centuries. Gay used 2 mean happy & I've heard people use it as "stupid." However, the current definition is all that applies because the entire discussion is based on those definitions. If the definitions were not as they currently are, I might hold a different position. However, I can only function in the present. Internal definitions apply only within the specific communities - they're not generalized 2 society at large.
@darla5393 In the present, you have a (growing) group of people that identify a particular concept to a particular word. Your initial ignorance of this gives you the leeway to have this position explained to you rather than having it assumed. But once this is done, you have no warrant to continue to apply on us a position you now know we don't subscribe to. At that point you are actively misrepresenting us, which is what SoG (who started this) has been doing for years.
@Cafeeine I'm not ignorant of it - the fact is that, until that sole definition is widely accepted by society, the atheist community's chosen definition is limited in its infancy (so to speak). Until society's definition (not opinion) of atheism no longer equals "the doctrine or belief that there is no God," my point of view remains valid. I'm not misrepresenting you - I'm using a widely accepted definition. Once your point of view is accepted by society @ large, then the definition will change.
There is no such thing as 'society's definition'. Definitions apply different concepts to different words by different segments of society. By applying a different position to us then the one you know we hold you are actively misprepresenting us. Even if your premise was correct, the proper action would be to call for us to stop calling ourselves atheists, not to appeal to an authority to tell us what our position is. Its disrespectful and tedious.
@Cafeeine - As a writer by profession & passion, I can definitely tell u my education has confirmed the difference between community usage & society wide usage. I'm not misrepresenting atheists - I offered a position on the TAE website (1 you don't agree with) that was deleted. My issue is less with the deletion & more with the blocking & "Piss off" statement. That's what the focus of this video is. 2 say I am intentionally misrepresenting atheists is a falsehood on its face. Allow me my belief.
@darla5393 If comment deleting and blocking are a sign of failure, then the YT christian side is still way ahead in terms of numbers.
I am incapable of disallowing you your belief, nor would I want to. But when you say that you accept definition A for a term I explicitly use with definition B, hows that not a misrepresentation? You don't get to have what you believe our beliefs are or aren't as a premise to our discussion, even if you do believe it, if you wish to have an honest discussion.
@Cafeeine - I can't speak 4 other Christians - 2 many fall into a category of Judgement Christians (my own term) & unfortunately they misrepresent those of us who aren't like that. I accept A, u accept B & both terms are true - or A wouldn't exist. You can't discount A if it still exists. That's why it is not a misrepresentation - it is a different representation. I don't suggest atheist beliefs - I use existing definitions 2 state that it's a belief system. The definition supports my argument.
@darla5393 But we reject that definition as /applicable/ to our position. You can search, and if you find atheists claiming A, then make that argument to them. We don't hold to that position, so we have no reason to defend it.
Its like me taking a Tea Party member TPM to task for the sex act teabagging just because 'teabagger' is applied to both. Both are valid definitions, and yet TPM has no obligation to defend or even address me, because Im at that point, talking nonsense.
@Cafeeine - I understand that "you" as atheists reject it. It doesn't, however, "therefore" make A invalid. It just makes B the chosen usage by that community. A still exists & is therefore valid. Some atheists may accept A (who knows?), but just because the community denies the A definition doesn't mean the definition is then not usable. That's false logic. A exists and is therefore useable - whether the atheist community uses it or not. I guarantee you - other communities use it. I do.
Which is my original point. you redefine what the other side clearly states their position to be. To go back to my analogy, you I know reject the 'Jew-hating Christian' idea, but that doesn't make it invalid, as several communities use it so Im therefore justified in believing you hate jews, and to ask you why you hate them.
If you can see whats wrong with the analogy, you can apply it to your position.
@darla5393 Oh but it can be. The idea that atheists follow a dogma of belief in no god is just as stereotypical as the belief that atheists are immoral (both of which at some point found themselves in dictionaries).
What else would you call an innacurate description of a group of people by a different group of people?
@Cafeeine - I don't believe that logic follows & this is why. I don't suggest 1 dogma/doctrine is followed by all atheists - at all. But the choice of disbelief (no response is a response) arises from the initial existence of some atheist dogma. They aren't mutually exclusive & don't exist apart from each other. Doesn't mean ur a "church going atheist" (??) following set rules, but it means that a pre-existing dogma helped form the disbelief - so disbelief comes from the belief of atheism.
@darla5393 "but it means that a pre-existing dogma helped form the disbelief - so disbelief comes from the belief of atheism."
Not really. What you call "pre-existing dogma" is in fact a basic principle of rational reasoning that we adopt out of necessity. That principle is to require evidence before declaring a thing to be existing. This is a general principle and does not only apply to gods. The reason we adopt it is that not requiring evidence leads to contradictory beliefs.
@darla5393 In other words, the disbelief is justified, and caused, by the lack of evidence. That doesn't mean it's true of course, but it's not like you have to presuppose anything about reality to not believe Christianity. You could make an argument that it's based on a value judgment though. I value a non-contradictory ontology, so I demand evidence for my beliefs. This happens to result in me rejecting religions, but it didn't have to be that way if there was evidence of gods.
@Gnomefro - TY 4 ur comment. I believe openness 2 the possibility is the important thing. I read that in what u say. People mention Russell's teapot. I say, if I can prove it doesn't exist, how do I know 4 sure? A conscious choice 2 reject theism is personal & fair. I don't understand why ANY1 here assumes I believe atheists should believe in God. That's nonsensical & isn't even biblical. I'd love if every1 did, but it's simply impossible as personal experience of God's existence is necessary.
@darla5393 The mere fact that I would have believed otherwise if there was evidence is pretty much conclusive evidence that there is no dogma involved. It's also quite amusing how easy it would have been if religions were true. Virtually all religions make claims about ritual magic, such as prayer, having effects. These would be easily demonstrable through statistical analysis, of crop yields, wealth, health etc yet fail every such test.
@Gnomefro - Does your comment suggest that someone cannot change their dogma? Are you able to provide an example of such analysis representing failure that is statistically significant? I'd be interested in seeing such a study.
A disbelief in something is not a claim that it doesn't exist. It just means that there has been insufficient evidence to justify belief at this time. It's not accepting something as true at this time, not the denial that it is true. The Atheist Experience people become annoyed by people who try to tell them that they're claiming something that they've stated many times that they don't claim.
@Chuck1863 - TY 4 ur comment. The fact that they don't claim it does not change the definition of atheism. As I mention in other responses, the natural assumption is that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism. Whether the argument made by TAE in the video is intentionally or unintentionally incorrect, it is nonetheless false and misleading in both cases. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
@darla5393 Dictionaries list two definitions. One is belief that there is no god and the other is disbelief that there is a god. The Atheist Experience uses the disbelief definition for themselves. It's not misleading to use a standard dictionary definition.
@Chuck1863 4 ur comment. Whether accepted by the community or not, both of Webster's definitions still apply to atheism. They reflect a full understanding of the term & are not mutually exclusive. They aren't negatives of each other - both definitions are corresponding statements. Atheism is the choice to not believe (disbelief) in God AND the belief that there is no God. It is not one & not the other - they are equal statements that reflect the same idea. Choosing one doesn't negate the other.
@darla5393 I disagree. Just because two descriptions of a word that is a noun exist under one heading does not mean that they go together. For example, the noun fag can be used for both a cigerate and as slang for homosexual. They are the same word, same spelling, and are both nouns but are not complimentary. As I stated before atheism is the rejection of theistic claims and dose not exclusivly state that gods do not exist according to the definition we are using.
@TheAnimeAtheist - I understand your point & agree that, in some cases, certain words are used that have multiple, unrelated definitions. However, both definitions of atheism apply 2 the same thing. A Fag cigarette or Fag homosexual are apples & oranges. Both atheism definitions are apples & apples. The rejection of theistic claims (that God or gods exist) is the acceptance & belief of the inverse idea - that there is/are no God or gods. Nonbelief in God = belief in NOT God. It's the same idea.
@darla5393 no, although similar there is a difference. The rejection of theistic claims is a nonbelief while the belief that gods do not exist is well a belief. They are different. As was already stated by other posters. Nonbelief is a lack of claim while belief is a claim. Atheism has two similar definitions because the definition was only recently changed, so the old one still exists. We are using the new one, the rejection one.
@TheAnimeAtheist - I disagree - non-belief is also a claim, as no response is a response. It essentially is an "If, Then" statement. IF atheists don't believe in God, THEN atheists believe in NOT God. I understand the community has chosen 1 over the other but, as I state elsewhere, that sole usage isn't yet widely accepted by society, so both definitions are still valid. This may just b 1 of those things where we agree 2 disagree. However, I appreciate your comments & the thoughtful dialogue.
@darla5393 The reason for listing two definitions is because they are different. If all atheists both disbelieved and denied the existence of a god then one definition covering both would be used.
@Chuck1863 - Definitions don't work like that in every case. 4 example, the multiple definitions of "knowledge" have the same end meaning. However, "speak" refers both 2 the process & the event of speaking - these are inevitably intertwined, but different. The definition of atheism is akin 2 knowledge more than it is 2 speak, however, even with "speak" both atheism definitions are still mutually intertwined. Some definitions of words are unrelated (fag=cigarette or gay), but not in this case.
@darla5393 I disagree. knowledge can mean acquaintance with facts, mastery of skills or even sexual intercourse. While the rationale that arrives at these meanings is similar, they are not the same.
With atheism, most meanings are related with 'god' and 'privation' but there are significant differences.
@Cafeeine There r other definitions - I agree. However, the predominant & highlighted definitions will take precedence. I don't understand the concept of atheism being related 2 privation, but my premise is that both definitions 4 atheism are equal 2 one another. No to something is Yes to its inverse. Some may agree or disagree. I accept the right of all 2 believe either. I can only hope 2 receive the same in return - acceptance of my right 2 hold my premise, whether or not there is agreement.
@darla5393 No, the applicable definitions will take precedence, especially when they are being explicitly stated to be the ones applicable. You don't get to decide which definition applies by terms of predominance! Where did you get that notion!?
@Cafeeine The subject always determines the usage of a word. My prior statement was to the widely accepted & used definition in the most general sense of many words - I venture to say my example was a poor choice. However, in the case of the atheism definition, 1 definition does not mean 1 thing & the other another. They both refer 2 the same subject. It's not like building (edifice) & building (creating something). Both are atheism, both r valid, both r equal & refer 2 exactly the same thing.
@darla5393 No they don't. They are similar, but one refers simply to the position of non-belief in god/gods, and the other refers to a dogma or doctrine that includes the position that gods do not exist. The difference is crucial to your point, so please try to understand this.
@Cafeeine - If I understand u, r u saying atheism as a belief & atheism as a non-belief r 2 different definitions? The non-belief position is derived from the dogma of belief - 1 does not exist apart from the other. I think we'll have 2 part ways here because we'll inevitably disagree as we come 2 different conclusions with the same evidence. I understand ur differentiating the 2 but I disagree with the conclusion. However, I thank u kindly 4 ur efforts 2 bring more understanding 2 the topic.
@darla5393 "The non-belief position is derived from the dogma of belief" No it isn't, it is a description of a position that is irrelevant of any dogma.
However, I will also agree to end this here, as I need to get ready for Xmas eve.
Hope you have a great Christmas, and thanks for the discussion!
@darla5393 Your premise is flawed because atheism reflects belief in the existence, not the fact of existence of god. Indeed, seeing as 'god' has so many conflicting and self-contradictory definitions, it is disingenuous to claim that belief in god/s is a binary proposition. I can disbelieve in the existence of gods without making the epistemologically incoherent positive assertion that god/s do not exist. Your right to hold your belief doesn't change the flaws in it.
@darla5393 You're not reading me carefully. I said atheism reflects belief not factual existence, but I've also said that atheism is a privative, which denotes lack. Atheism reflects a position of belief, namely the position of lacking a belief in gods, so it cannot itself be a belief, in that sense. Just like 'bald' reflects hair status, but isn't an actual hairstyle.
The position of holding the belief that 'any god/s do not exist' is a subset of this group, one most atheists don't hold
@Cafeeine I can't speak to bald not being a hairstyle, but I would assume it is as it is the choice to have the lack of hair - the lack of style. As I said somewhere here - no response is a response. Whether or not "most" atheists don't hold the first definition is irrelevant to the fact that definition exists and is valid. Usage doesn't deny existence.
@darla5393 Who gets to decide whether or not the two definitions are distinct? They're listed separately in the dictionary and I see people using both separately and distinctly. Since no one owns the language there is no final authority. It would seem to make more sense to use words as others are using them than to insist on your own usage.
@Chuck1863 - You see people using both separately & distinctly. By the same token, I see people using both equally. Therefore, I'm using not my own usage but an accepted usage in a different community than the 1 u refer to. As u stated: Who gets 2 decide whether or not the 2 definitions are distinct? I believe they can be seen that way, however the opposite is also true & the 2 definitions can be seen as equal to each other. I've seen it used that way & it's not just me who views it that way.
@darla5393 There is overlap. People who deny that any gods exist also disbelieve in each god, but not everyone who disbelieves also denies that any gods exist. The people at The Atheist Experience don't deny that any gods exist. You choice of word definition doesn't change that.
@Chuck1863 - That's a bit convoluted 2 me - let's see if I get it. Some deny gods exist (definition 1) & reject belief in gods (definition 2). Some reject belief in gods (definition 2), but don't deny the possible existence of gods (agnostic). Is that right? My premise is that both definitions are valid. In language there are exceptions 2 every rule, so 100% of the time ALL atheists would NOT fit under both definitions. That's fair & logical. However some will, so the argument still holds water.
@darla5393 When you assume that a definition 2 atheist is a definition 1 atheist and ask for proof of a claim that was never made, it causes confusion. This has probably happened to the the people at The Atheist Experience so much that it's become annoying. Since definition 2 covers all atheists and definition 1 covers only some atheists, it's probably better to assume definition 2 or ask first before treating someone as a definition 1 atheist.
@Chuck1863 - 2 clarify, I don't assume a definition 2 atheist is a definition 1 atheist. My premise is that atheism of any sort arises out of the dogma (principle) of atheism - that God is in question - regardless of the theoretical approach to why He is in question. I don't suggest that all atheists follow a specific approach 2 God. That would be irresponsible - like saying all Christians approach & experience God in the same way.
@darla5393 " that God is in question " Your saying gods are not in question? So you or all people begin with believing in some concept of god and its not to be questioned?
" all Christians approach & experience God in the same way" Even the westboro baptists and Falwell or even Martin Luther?
@Greathiway - To clarify: the 1st statement is that atheism is the 'principle' that God is in question. Sorry for any confusion. FYI - The Bible teaches us God exists, but that we should explore more deeply to confirm our faith. Not all do.
I think you misread the 2nd statement. I wrote: "That would be irresponsible - [it would be] like saying all Christians approach & experience God in the same way." The statement that all atheists have the same approach 2 God would be equally irresponsible.
youtuber TheAtheistExperience is only fan of TheAtheistExperience. he only post videos of TheAtheistExperience he is not member of TheAtheistExperience.
@weststainesmassiv79 - I appreciate your comment. Unfortunately, that individual is then effectively misrepresenting the show. The response reflects poorly on the show and even more so on that individuaI. If I were someone related to the actual TAE show, I would certainly have something to say about someone who doesn't even bother to allow the conversation to happen.
There are many cases of this kind of question. Take an empty room as an example. You can never prove a room is empty. But you can believe. The befief is quite reasonable. Other case would be life in universe. Once we find life, it is a proof for us. But once we have not discovered life, how should we think of it? Both cases are equally reasonable. The words "reasonable to belief" are quite a better choise than the words "has or should be proven". If you say God exists, please reason it.
@snifcjo - TY 4 your response. What I discuss in this video is the actual definition of atheism, which atheists at the very least should know. This has nothing to do with whether or not there is an argument for God; the point is that AS there is a question to whether or not God exists, the same question applies to whether or not He doesn't exist. It is a double edged sword. A base standard cannot be applied to one & not the other. The standard must be applied in all cases to be a valid standard.
There is a difference between the statements 'I believe there is no god' and 'I do not believe in a god'. One is making a possitive claim while the other is not. If you say there is a god, the burden of proof is on you and it is your responsibility to support that claim. Agnostic atheists do not make any possitive claims concerning the existance of god and therefore have nothing to prove.
@spenceII TY - a new term for me. Agnostic atheism is a particular "sect" among atheism. With the definition from Wikipedia (by no means necessarily reliable), a deity being unknowable in principle does not address knowledge gained by individual experience. Re: not being currently known in fact, this is relative: "in fact" being something that is provable and visible to all, say by scientific data (for example); or in fact by an individual's experience that is only reflected by personal change.
Firstly the Atheist Experience You Tube channel is not connected to the show. Secondly if you look up the word 'doctrine' you will see that atheism is not a belief. Almost all atheists do not considered atheism to be a belief or doctrine, but simply a lack of belief in deities, so please respect that.
The real question here is, 'is there a god or not' and we should keep our discussions to this.. Not on mislabeling the beliefs (or lack of) of those who disagree with us.
@OWC2000 Thank u 4 ur comment. I respect that the definition of atheism isn't accepted by some atheists, but that does not change the definition. The synonyms for doctrine are tenet, dogma, theory, precept & belief. For the definitions of doctrine, examples are provided as of religious institutions, but the definitions themselves are not related to religion exclusively. Atheism is, in fact, "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated." If it wasn't, TAE wouldn't exist.
@darla5393 no there are multiple definitions. It's not that we're using the wrong one, it's that...well, your using the wrong one. As I said before atheism is a nonbelief, rejection, or disbelief, it cannot be a belief, so it cannot be a doctrince, tenent, dogma, theory, or precept. As all of those things require a belief and atheism is a nonbelief
@TheAnimeAtheist - I'm not stating in any way that you're using a wrong term. You have chosen 1 explanation & I have chosen another - both are not mutually exclusive. You cling to #2 & negate #1. My premise is that #1 & #2 are equal. It's defined as a doctrine & belief. I support that description - u don't. I understand u feel your point of view is correct & mine is incorrect. My point of view is that we don't share the same perspective on IF THEN statements. We simply disagree & that's okay.
@darla5393 There is no THE definition of atheism, like most words, there are many based around non-belief.
For myself, I have no dogma, faith, or belief, I just find the concept of a deity nonsensical and lacks any rational meaningful evidence. I know of no other word that describe myself, than atheist. Neither you or a dictionary get to assign other values to me than those I choose myself. Likewise I respect you right to define yourself.and would not dream of pigeonholing your beliefs,
@OWC2000 - We must always define ourselves as we choose. That's an individual right 4 all. If u haven't had a spiritual experience 2 make the existence of a deity obvious, then ur experience & beliefs will b different than believers. Just as u don't know or doubt a deity exists (or believe 1 can't exist), you also can't prove that 1 doesn't exist. I appreciate ur candor & ur support of my right 2 my opinion. The view that I don't have a right 2 my opinion is nonsensical. It's been a pleasure.
@OWC2000 - TY 4 ur comment. Re: God in politics - every perspective is included in politics; to shut one out would be antithetical to America. In other countries without democracy (autocracy, monarchy) where religion is the base of politics - I agree with u. It takes away rights. Besides, the concept of church & state was intended 2 keep state out of the church - not the other way around.
I read God's helmet. TY. From what I read, I don't believe it's natural - I'd say it was measurable.
@darla5393 Absolutely wrong, the Founders were very clear on what Separation of Church and State meant and it does not allow for Church to interfere with state. The intent was to avoid a theocracy
The Supreme Court has indeed confirmed the reciprocal meaning of Separation of Church and State 25 times over the past 130 years.. To say otherwise is to fail to understand one of the cornerstone freedoms of the US.
@OWC2000 - Sorry - I know based on historical documents & Founder writings that the primary goal of the concept was 2 allow for the free exercise of religion. That was 1 of the most significant reasons 4 the colonists 2 separate from England, besides taxes. Droves of people fled to N. America 2 flee religious persecution. The Supreme Court has not "confirmed" ur point. As on multiple occasions, justices arrived @ opinions (called "opinions") & created policy judicially. Studied both in college.
@darla5393 The Founders writings are diverse and like the reason for the Pilgrims non-binding in light of the US Constitution, which makes all previous documents and writings and personal opinions obsolete.
Yes the Supreme court has confirmed Jefferson's phrase in Reynolds v.US 1878 and in 24 other rulings (not opinions) since.
@OWC2000 - Yes - the Supreme Court has made policy by their decisions. And they are called opinions in the writings of their decisions - look it up. The Founders approached the writing of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights & the Articles of Confederation based on their belief systems & an effort to reach general consensus. It would be irresponsible to say those beliefs become obsolete. They are inherent in the formation of this country.
I agree with your sentiments about respecting different beliefs/opinions and I do not agree with blocking people but I do know that TAE gets slammed with people arguing things they've covered a milliion times. I don't know why they added "piss off" but I have my suspicions. I do know for a fact that anyone can look up TAE videos covering your issue with atheism. Your logic is flawed if u cannot accept that or admit to it, THAT may be the cause of "piss off".....just sayin
@julzabro TY 4 ur comment. If TAE deletes pro & con repetitive comments, that's fair. However, if the only comments deleted don't support TAE's position, the discussion becomes one-sided - a bit shady. Re: the "piss off" response, it's natural to assume that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism. Whether TAE's argument is intentionally or unintentionally incorrectly applied, it's nonetheless false & misleading in both cases. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
@darla5393 TAE airs 100's of negative comments that DON'T support their position. IN FACT, their always trying 2 get believers 2 call in as there is usually a shortage of them.....especially any that r reasonable. Their best shows r when Theists call in & THEY KNOW THAT but they're not gonna waste their time with some1 who is incapable of debate by way of hanging onto an already corrected premise. TAE is not flase nor misleading about anything. I've been watching their show 4 many yrs.
@julzabro - I didn't say in the video that TAE was false or misleading - I said the logic was. My last comment may not have been clear due 2 space. Along the way I gained more understanding of the position (wrote it) & believe that outright denial is irresponsible due 2 lack of proof, but atheists not currently believing because they don't yet have proof is fair - it's personal choice. The youtube page isn't them - it's someone else. I don't know what they say regularly. 1st time visitor.
@darla5393 "I didn't say in the video that TAE was false or misleading - I said the logic was" I never said that & no u didn't say it IN THE VID but u DID say it regarding their argument.
"Whether TAE's argument is intentionally or unintentionally incorrectly applied, it's nonetheless false & misleading in both cases."
Yes, there r MANY who post TAE episodes. I suggest u look up some on ur topic as & others. U will c how TAE handles their opponenets & how the opponents treat TAE.
@julzabro - I believe any1 holding any position can treat others with disrespect, b unclear in their position & not actually open 2 discussion.
In the video I talk about the comment I made on TAE's page. I had to say it that way to save words here. Sorry if it was unclear.
I have appreciated the dialogue here, but don't know if I'll see more. Until recently I rarely visited youtube - mostly for music videos. May, may not - who knows? Not particularly driven 2 or seeking 2 debunk atheism.
@darla5393 Furthermore, how can u say this, "However, if the only comments deleted don't support TAE's position, the discussion becomes one-sided - a bit shady" when u YOURSELF are PREreading comments before u decide 2 let them b public?!?!? Why would u feel the need to do that at YOUR video if u think even opposing views should be aired and ur dissing TAE for doing the SAME thing?
@julzabro - I'm prereading because some people can't respect others. That's the only reason. Disrespect isn't shared. In fact, 1 of the comments insulted atheists. I deleted it. I "dissed" the TAE youtube manager because he was insulting. 2 delete is the site manager's right. To block me and say "piss off" is unnecessarily insulting and closes me off from any discussion in the future for any video. That is quite different. And besides - read these comments. All except 1 are atheists (I believe).
@julzabro - Read the comments - they are about 99% atheists (I assume based on the responses). I pre-read to prevent insulting, disrespectful comments ONLY. The first one I deleted insulted atheists. I have a right to expect respect - I have fostered discussion will all respectful people.
The only things I'm not posting now are comments that don't add anything to the discussion & those that are disrespectful.
@darla5393 - I'd like to add that I believe all people deserve respect, regardless of their beliefs. However, another's beliefs should not harm others - physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually.
Umm no....a lack of belief does not designate any doctrine. That would mean that anything anyone disbelievs would have a doctrine. Atheists do NOT believe, they DISbelieve. And saying that we do not have to prove pur disbelief IS logical becuz if weren't than ANYTHING you disbelieve must ALSO be proven. That's ridiculous! Atheists are not making a claim of truth, they're simple do not believe in yours!
@julzabro TY 4 ur comment. As both of Webster's provided definitions apply to atheism, the logical conclusion is that atheism is a belief because it's referred to as such. Let me say it like this - atheism is the choice to not believe (disbelief) in God. The logical inference (i.e., corresponding statement) that is NOT in the negative form is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. It cannot be one and not the other - they are equal statements, which reflect the same idea.
@julzabro - For some reason some of my responses don't seem 2 be saving. 2 write this again, I used Webster's. I'm open 2 reviewing other reference materials, but I do understand that SOME atheists in fact believe in #1 (not all), so it's still valid as a dogma for THOSE atheists. Hopefully my comment about gaining understanding saved - to many comments for me 2 locate it, but said it a few times.
@julzabro - I'm much less of a debater and much more of a open-minded discusser. Thank you for communicating respectfully and subscribe if you like. I'm more likely to do some videos about certain Christian biblical views that are misrepresented by what I call Judgement Christians. I think it'll help many understand that the dialogue offenders don't speak for us all.
@darla5393 We KNOW & HAVE KNOWN the meaning of the wrd Atheist
atheist 1570s, Fr. athéiste, from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism 1530s which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
It has nothing 2 do with belief. Y denying what the atheists r here telling u? R u an Atheist? If not, how do U know & how WOULD u know what atheism is & what makes u think u can define it better than WE can?
I agree with you we all should act like adults and take responsiblity for our own actions.
apriljessica266 1 month ago
@apriljessica266 - Thank u April. There are some here who seek a tit 4 tat. The goal was always to promote discussion. Any1 who tells me my beliefs are wrong is practicing the exact same behavior as the "religious zealots" they complain about. When people can't respect others opinions, even when they don't agree, it shows a need for growth. That's something that needs 2 occur on their personal time. There are those like you who show respect regardless of personal opinion. I thank you greatly.
darla5393 1 month ago
Hi all - well, most of the comments have been really open to discourse. Unfortunately, several others have been nothing more than intentionally insulting & combative. Since nothing new is being added 2 the discussion, I am now closing it. I only hope, in the future, those who are open 2 discussion & allowing both sides 2 believe what they choose will continue 2 communicate respectfully, openly & honestly. TY all who have respected me in this discussion, as I hope you feel the same about me. :)
darla5393 1 month ago
OT still applies, but it was an expression of the fact that we can't follow all of the rules because we as humans are flawed. There are important lessons in it, but it doesn't tell us to murder people. However, pre-NT the OT did apply to saved people - and those were just Jews. It is a whole book to be understood completely, but the damnation in the OT is replaced with grace and mercy in the NT with Jesus. It is in the NT where the saved are expanded beyond Jews to all Gentiles.
darla5393 1 month ago
Do you believe in unicorns and fairies? No? That's a doctrine and you need to provide evidence. Logic us all up with a video proving unicorns and fairies don't exist.
HurdRandy 1 month ago
@HurdRandy - As I've said before, I've don't know if unicorns or fairies exist, but it would be irresponsible of me 2 discount their existence since some do believe. 2 discount the existence altogether would place the burden of proof on me 2 prove they don't exist. 2 CHOOSE not 2 believe, as a choice, is my right & does NOT require a burden of proof on my end. Likewise, those who choose 2 believe in unicorns & fairies make the choice 2 believe and do NOT bear a burden of proof either.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 if this is your stance then religion has so polluted your mind that you deny logical thinking. The person that makes the claim will always hold the burden of proof, otherwise society would generally accept every claim that's made. Claims are not to be believed until proven with evidence. Just as you are innocent until proven guilty in our court system-- claims are not to be believed until proven true... this is to protect us from believing absolutely everything.
SongADayChallenge 1 month ago
@SongADayChallenge - Faith isn't faith if you have proof to show others - it's proof. However, faith in a deity is a personal choice and does not bear a burden of proof, as not having faith in a deity without proof is a personal choice. "I saw bigfoot," is a claim, but someone can't say I didn't. Just because someone isn't viewed by all & I didn't have a camera doesn't make it "not real," it just makes it not widely known and pending further evidence. Now, what's wrong with believing in things?
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 And the burden of proof applies to deciding what is true and what is false. It has nothing to do with what you CHOOSE to believe. You can choose to believe whatever you want, that doesn't mean it's true or false. The burden of proof is required by someone making a claim in order for that claim to be true. This burden of proof does not need to be fulfilled by someone who rejects the claim that is made. Atheism is rejecting the unproven claim of a God.
SongADayChallenge 1 month ago
@SongADayChallenge - Hi - I've already stated the exact same thing you are throughout the comments. However, as I clarified, for someone to declare "there is no God" (as apparently only SOME atheists do, but it is still true that SOME do - seemingly not most) is the same as declaring "there is God" in that both require the burden of proof. The choice to not believe due to lack of proof (as the choice 2 believe due to personal experience) are both choices, where neither bear the burden of truth.
darla5393 1 month ago
There's something of a semantic issue at hand here. Many self-proclaimed atheists, myself included, use the word as an equivalent to what some apologetics have coined non-theism. The characterization of atheism being a lack-of-belief can have appropriate application (just as it can also be exploited disingenuously).
ghbacch 1 month ago
@ghbacch - Thanks for your comment. I encourage you to read the comments dialogue. You'll see that I gain a greater understanding of the usage and adjust what I say to only apply the concept of "doctrine" to those who outright say "There is no God," which places on them a burden of proof. The choice 2 not believe without proof is a choice and doesn't require a burden of proof.
darla5393 1 month ago
BTW - u might not agree with my position in the video, but if u like my openness 2 REAL discussion & my comments throughout below, LIKE it - don't dislike it just because u don't agree with my point of view. LIKE discussion, DISLIKE close-mindedness.
darla5393 1 month ago
We give words their meaning. Websters is only one accepted definition of the word. I am an atheist, because I haven't seen sufficient evidence for a god. If there is a god, it nows where I am and what evidence it would take to convince me of its existence. As far as the atheist experience, they shouldn't block you unless you are spamming them. However, I am not exactly convinced that they blocked you or sent you that message. Are you sure you weren't on an upload on a different users channel?
amberview30 1 month ago
@amberview30 - Hi amber - If u read the comments u'll see that I believe your position is fair. If u read my comments throughout the notes, u'll c my intent is not 2 start an argument; therefore, 2 lie about it would b irresponsible & pointless 4 effecting dialogue. Yes TAE blocked me and Yes sent me the email 2 "Piss off." And yes, I was on the channel of TheAtheistExperience - however, I've learned that particular user is unrelated 2 the show, just a supporter.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 That's fair. You are right. I didn't read all the comments. Also, I didn't think you lied. I wondered if you might have posted to someone other than the actual show, as it can be confusing. I am sorry to hear the supporter of the show was rude and blocked you.
amberview30 1 month ago
@amberview30 - I appreciate that amber. And thanks 4 the respectful comments. :)
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 You're welcome. It is not difficult to be respectful of others, but it seems there are a lot of trolls and rude people on the Internet that must think otherwise. I hit like on the video. I love hearing about other people's views.
amberview30 1 month ago
Darla, "We should b open 2 learn". I totally agree. But what does it mean to "learn"? I can learn about Santa Claus, but that doesn't make him real. If someone makes a small claim, like "I love my Mom"--I can take this person on their word, because it's strictly limited to their personal experience and they do not expect it to be true for me. A BIG claim--like God, which is the biggest claim ever made--that requires seriously hard evidence. Thank you for your time.
DandAinTac 1 month ago
@DandAinTac - TY 4 ur comment. When I say open 2 learn, it is more an act of personal research, not believing someone's else's perspective or experience (while the information gathered that way can be an effective part of research). If man were 2 prove God exists would require hard evidence, as for man 2 prove He didn't. But the decision 2 not believe without hard evidence & the decision 2 believe without hard evidence is a choice, neither requiring proof.
darla5393 1 month ago
Darla, regarding your comment "Who am I 2 say the teapot doesn't exist because I may think it's ludicrous?" Well, you are a rational human being capable of thinking critically. Do you really believe this? Honestly? Do you agree that charlatans throughout history of hoodwinked credulous people? So on what basis do we tell the truth from the lies? The only reasonable answer is evidence. (cont) "He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him" We should b open 2 learn.
DandAinTac 1 month ago
@DandAinTac - I believe dishonest & honest people exist. I believe dishonest people make themselves appear honest and make honest people appear dishonest. We can't know the inner workings of a man except through his outward actions. We must review the facts, do the research & then can arrive at our conclusion. However, that is re: man's behavior - knowing not doesn't mean lacking hard evidence. What u learn from past relationship experience isn't infallible, but still qualifies as ur proof.
darla5393 1 month ago
Darla, I can't find your original response, so I'll start fresh (and this will take more than 1 post). First, I'm glad that you do not expect me to believe. However, this not usual for a Christian. Experience has shown me that other Christians not only expect me to believe, but DEMAND that I do. I know this because I am routinely threatened with the fear tactic of eternal damnation. Many Christians also demand that the schools make MY children pray to THEIR god in the public schools. (cont)
DandAinTac 1 month ago
@DandAinTac - I'm sorry those u've come into contact with approached u as if conversion was their job. We're called 2 plant the seed - if it grows it's up 2 God. The Christian principles of mercy & grace seem 2 b lost in application 2 others by "Judgment Christians" (my term). The Bible speaks 2 hell & being saved among many things, but if u weren't first introduced 2 Jesus' saving grace, why would u accept hell & damnation? I don't know any US public schools where prayer is still required.
darla5393 1 month ago
"principle' that God is in question." Yes I heard you the first time, And all unfalsifiable assertions especially the thousands of mutually exclusivity claims about gods, the super/natural/stitions are in question. Thats why I gave the example of Bertrand's teapot. None of us begin believing a-priori in any of these super cliams right?
" all Christians approach & experience God in the same way" Yet the same god tells some to gut their child,kill torture unbelievers,own people as property...
Greathiway 1 month ago
@Greathiway - 1st para - I believe my prior answer is in agreement. 2nd para - Where r u getting this? If u mean: a) Abraham - it was 2 test his faith. God never intended its completion; b) Jews going 2 promised land - that was then, not now & we can't apply current opinions 2 past behaviors. We can only review & consider beliefs then; c) slavery - c answer 2 b & <200 years ago slavery was practiced in the US regardless of religion. BTW, those r Old Testament msgs meant only 4 Jews & pre-Christ.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 "my prior answer is in agreement." You didnt answer my question "possible that bigfoot & the cosmic teapot exists" Yes Thats the point the teapot is possible but believing it exists it silly and it should be in question, We are not saying its impossible for it to exist, so we dont have the burden.
" 2 test his faith" Even it true, you dont think a test that demand you kill your child shoudl be in question or id say rules it out as being from a god,But Jephthah Daughert wasnt so lucky.
Greathiway 1 month ago
@Greathiway - Zealots don't represent the communities they claim & r capable of anything sick and demented. If u read the entirety of the comments, u see I agree "I choose not to believe because I don't have facts" is fair position not bearing the burden of proof - just as "I choose to believe in God" is a choice and doesn't bear the burden either. Stating "God doesn't exist" merits "prove it." It's a good read - I recommend it. I believe God exists, but He proves Himself - it's not 4 me 2 do.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 ""I choose not to believe because I don't have facts" I still dont agree (beliefs arent simple choice) still, B4 you were saying such a position was a dogma. But in fact you dont believe in many such unfalsifiable concepts like teapots expect you make special pleading for 'not having in question' one such Super concept, thats itself the definition of Dogma.
"choice and doesn't bear the burden"
U claim a god exist so do! " proves Himself" teapot proves itself,perfectly Circular!
Greathiway 1 month ago
@Greathiway - Yes - Read the comments as I gained better understanding. I believe is a choice. Period. If I don't believe in a teapot, I'm not so bold 2 discount others experiences because they can't prove it 2 me. Dogma is swearing God doesn't exist & God does exist. However, I don't need 2 prove it 2 u to make it real. Air still existed b4 it was proven. Not circular - He makes Himself known &, if He chooses 2 do so with u He will. I don't question His choices - just glad He chose me.
darla5393 1 month ago
No evidence for god = no reason to believe is such a being. How exactly do you expect people to prove a negative?
DarkAngel182 1 month ago
@DarkAngel182 - I can share my experience with God & that is my proof, but may b insufficient 4 u 2 believe. Ur conclusion is that, because I can't provide proof there is no reason 2 believe. However, if u were really seeking the truth, my experience would only b part of ur research. U would attempt to seek ur truth on ur own. Watch Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ." He was an atheist who set out 2 debunk Christianity full-force & after the evidence became Christian.
darla5393 1 month ago
The problem is the word believe. The idea that God does not exist, cant be proven and is therefore a belief. But it isnt a belief like the theists use the word. There are no rituals, no churches, no doctrine. There is in the atheists community some kind of treshold to admit that there is a belief. No one wants to be on the same wagon as the theists.
Ranokian 1 month ago
@Ranokian - Based on Webster's definition of belief, rituals & churches aren't needed 2 qualify 4 "belief." Of the 4 definitions, only one speaks directly to religion. If a principle is taught or shared in anyway, it's a doctrine. TAE supports the principle of atheism, qualifying it as doctrine. Belief def. #1 - "Something believed; an opinion or conviction." Doesn't atheism qualify 4 that? See further down re: difference between "No God" & "I don't know so not believing w/o proof " discussion.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 Atheism is a belief. True. I do not argue with that. The problem is that atheism is strong reaction to theism. And as such no one wants to be on "the other side". It is clearly a matter of one group vs the other. No one wants to be like the other team. This kinda polutes the discussion. And if atheist believe passes on from one generation to the other, is taught, it is a doctrine, you are right.
Ranokian 1 month ago
@Ranokian - Honestly, I see atheism both as a strong (negative) response 2 judgmental Christians & also a lukewarm response based on evidence sought. I don't believe it should b 1 vs. the other. If those who believe or disbelieve ANYTHING are open 2 discussion & 4 others to disagree, maybe the rank & nasty responses on opposing sides would diminish. 2 have discussion shouldn't b approached as "I stand my ground no matter what u say" b4 even starting. That stance only maintains ignorance.
darla5393 1 month ago
Disbelief is a doctrine? Is your disbelief in the Loch Ness Monster a doctrine?
DarkEmergence 1 month ago
@DarkEmergence - If I was part of a specific group that in PRINCIPLE didn't believe the Loch Ness Monster existed, then yes - it would b dogma. However, I can't prove s/he doesn't exist & I might choose 2 not believe without hard proof. That's how many here describe their "non-belief" and, like I've said b4, that's a fair conclusion.
BTW - I don't know Nessie doesn't exist, so I choose NOT 2 discount the possibility nor the experiences of others who claim 2 have seen Nessie. Can't know it all.
darla5393 1 month ago
I've been informed SHOCKOFGOD is the man asking the question in the TAE video. I'll check him out. I would like 2 clarify that: 1) AS I DO NOT KNOW SHOCKOFGOD OR HIS BELIEF SYSTEM (all Christians, as all atheists, r not the same), THIS VIDEO DOES NOT SUGGEST I SUPPORT HIS PERSPECTIVE. JUST THE QUESTION; and 2) AS I STATE IN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION - ONLY DISRESPECTFUL COMMENTS FROM ANYONE (ANY SIDE) OR THOSE NOT ADDING SOMETHING NEW 2 THE DISCUSSION R BEING DELETED. NO CENSORSHIP OTHERWISE.
darla5393 1 month ago
You need some context. ShockofGod is the youtube user who poses the challenge for atheists to prove that atheism is accurate and correct. ShockofGod is a complete troll who is guilty of all of the things you are accusing The Atheist Experience of. Furthermore, atheism is not a positive belief and is therefore not subject to the same burden of proof as a positive one. "That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
UserBaines 1 month ago
@UserBaines - Thank you 4 ur comment & the information. I would like to say, based on your description, the same can be applied to Christianity - the belief in God can be asserted without evidence, and dismissed without evidence. The difference would be where we state that God exists. Inherently, this is inevitably a belief and, as a belief, is individualistic & also does not meet a burden of proof. I don't think positive or negative factor into the equation of "belief." That's a personal thing.
darla5393 1 month ago
It has of course been covered 100 times before right? I will cover it again for you.
I could claim that there are no gods. I would have to provide evidence for that. Gods are unfalsifiable and you cannot prove a negative.
Therefore the ONLY HONEST thing I can say is "I do not find the claim convincing". Therefore I MUST define my not-belief as ... "a LACK of belief".
------------------
Now if I was to claim that I was god Could you provide evidence that I am not? Is that a fair burden?
Danmill23 2 months ago
@Danmill23 - TY 4 ur answer. I agree - there is no proof God doesn't exist & atheists choose 2 believe he doesn't w/o hard proof. How u define your "not-belief" is up 2 u & 4 no1 else. We couldn't c air, but it's always been there. Did it require a burden of proof 2 b there &, if so, was it not there until we found proof? A mutually respectful approach would allow theists & atheists 2 dialogue. Consistently I c atheists approach theists as if they are stupid - expressing a LACK of understanding.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 " I agree - there is no proof God doesn't exist & atheists choose 2 believe he doesn't"
I so you agree there is also no hard proof that bigfoot or a cosmic teapot does not exist? Also I think the word proof is best saved for math or logic , In everyday terms or in science we care about good evidence and functional certainties not absolute proof
Greathiway 2 months ago
@Greathiway - Based on the description of Russell's teapot from Wikipedia, yes - I would say it's possible that bigfoot & the cosmic teapot exists. Who believes they know everything & even have the capacity 2 know everything? That's more absurd 2 me than the teapot. Unless I can prove bigfoot doesn't exist, I can't say he doesn't.
To illustrate: “He who knows not & knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him."
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 Your case of an angry response from the atheist experience (I honestly think) is indirectly from (specific) youtube theists specifically and deliberately not ignoring the answer atheists give to this question. A VERY persistent campaign was waged by "shockofgod". Who directed his attacks both generally and very specifically at the atheist experience show. This is why you we're treated rudely. Splash damage. (search for shockofgod and "question" here on YT to see)
Danmill23 1 month ago
@Danmill23 - Thank you for the information - although some additional, non-respectful non-helpful 2 discussion comments came after I posted that I wouldn't add anything else that didn't clarify or add to the discussion, this is very useful AND helpful. I will check him out. Thanks again - and for being so respectful.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 "atheists choose 2 believe he doesn't w/o hard proof" First of all, we need to realize that there are literally millions of things one choose to not believe in without hard proof. Let's take Russell's teapot analogy. Suppose I asserted that there was a teapot in orbit around a distant star. Is it unreasonable to disbelieve this assertion? If you say you don't believe that, is it fair to demand that you should have to disprove it? Who should have the burden of proof? (cont)
DandAinTac 1 month ago
@DandAinTac - As per Wikipedia, Russell's argument was "it would be nonsensical 4 him 2 expect others not 2 doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong." It's nonsensical 4 him TO EXPECT it. I don't expect others 2 not doubt because I don't doubt. That's nonsensical. I don't suggest atheists should believe in God. Who am I 2 say the teapot doesn't exist because I may think it's ludicrous? "He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him" We should b open 2 learn.
darla5393 1 month ago
those who believe gods are not real are atheists.
those who dont claim anything, but dont buy the arguments that there is a god,
are also atheists. They arent theists are they??
sethecx 2 months ago
@sethecx - those who believe gods aren't real = atheists; "don't buy the arguments" = don't believe in theist experiences = atheists. Same thing, but 1 focuses on proof & the other tends 2 discount theist experience, usually as "stupid." I think we see in both atheism & theism that proof isn't paramount - I can't prove to u that God exists; He proved He exists 2 me. If I had proof it wouldn't be faith - it would be proof. U can't prove He doesn't. A mutually respectful dialogue would do wonders.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393
what do you think about the fact that millions of people of different religions have claimed to have their god prove himself to them.. doesnt this hint to gods being purely in peoples fantasy? or are there hundreds of gods? they arent all real or? and also there is never hard evidence to prove they exist.. doesnt this at best make deism the most honest way, if you first have to believe there are gods? (or just one god)
sethecx 2 months ago
@sethecx - Re: fantasy - not at all...just not necessarily ur experience. Russell's teapot illustration is that it's nonsensical 4 him TO EXPECT others 2 believe. I don't expect others 2 believe because I believe. That's nonsensical. I don't suggest atheists should believe in God. Who am I 2 say the teapot doesn't exist because I may think it's ludicrous? "He who knows not & knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him." We should b open 2 learn.
darla5393 1 month ago
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
darla5393 2 months ago
I would like to say that I am very happy with the respectful responses that have been offered - so far I have approved every comment from individuals who seem to be atheists (not easily determined by the responses). I did receive one response that supported what I discussed in the video, however, I did not post it as I felt that the statement made was disrespectful toward atheists. The discussion must be fair, open and respectful on both sides to allow for responsible and thoughtful dialogue.
darla5393 2 months ago
I thought about doing a video response, but I thought ya know that youtube user who blocked you was right. This has been done too many times before. HELL! I DID A VIDEO ON IT ALREADY! In a nutshell though atheism is the "nonbelief" in gods. Atheists maintain a nonbelief because theists are making the claim that Gods do exist and provide no evidence. Atheism does not claim gods do not exist. Atheism in the nonbelief because of a lack of evidence. That is why the question is bull. Do you get it?
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist - I disagree about the blocking. I'm not someone who stalks atheism youtube pages - I simply happened upon a video & made a comment. I don't need or desire 2 read page upon page to find out if my point of view has already been shared. Whether it has been mentioned b4 or not, unless both pro & con repeats are deleted it's NOT open dialogue. Also, the addition of "piss off" is completely disrespectful. Re: your position - no space here, but I respond to that argument further down.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 I never said he was right about blocking you, he was right when he said its been done too many times for you not know. Or in other words you were willfully ignorant when you posted (whether you should have been blocked is another matter all together), which is why I decided to leave comments instead of doing a video response.
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist - I was simply a new visitor. I read the first few comments & then respond if I choose. I have as much right to say something already said as anyone else - it has nothing to do with willful ignorance. I may simply say it with a different tone, but it's still okay to repeat an idea. If repeated consistently, it doesn't negate that ALL repeated comments - pro & con alike - should be deleted for the action of doing so 2 be open & fair, otherwise it's one sided. Delete equally.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 Think of it like this, a bunch of surgeons are meeting together deciding how they want to go about with a very complicated surgery. Then you bust in and say something. It becomes quite clear you have no idea what your talking about but you decided to open your mouth anyway. The doctors become pissed and throw you out of the room and make sure you don't come back. Now maybe kicking you out for good was a tad harsh, but you did just disrespect whether your realize it or not.
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist - There was no disrespect. In fact I made every effort to express my position respectfully. I simply stated the truth. Whether he agreed or not, I simply stated a logical conclusion based on the facts. The response was entirely harsh. Delete it. Block me? Not necessary. "Piss off"? Completely blatant disrespect. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view does not make them disrespectful. They are simply stating their position. All you should do is respect it.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 Let me compose an analogy. Imagine if someone asked you why Xians hate Jews. After you reply "We don't", he points at the writings of Martin Luther and repeats the question. You explain to him that Luther's views don't reflect all Xians, he repeats it again. More people join in asking it again. And again. And again.
Fast forward after 2 years of this, someone makes their first comment to your channel asking the same thing. What would be your reaction?
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine My reaction would really b another video. However, in brief I'd say that religious leaders - as humans - propose their perspectives & understandings. My guiding principles come from the Bible. If something doesn't jive with the Word of God, I throw it out. The Bible teaches us 2 love 1 another as we would love ourselves & that jews are the chosen people. The birth, life, death & resurrection of Christ created a doorway 2 include Gentiles among the chosen. We're all brothers & sisters.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 To remove any confusion, you don't need to defend yourself to the charge of hating jews. I used it as an analogy, not an accusation. If you had to defend your position from such a ludicrous claim, one obviously untrue with the opposing side refusing to acknowledge your response, you would become short-tempered with the subject. That you were a newcomer to the arena is unfortunate, but unavoidable.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - Honestly, I'm really not the sort 2 become short-tempered. Consider my response in this video - I maintain my composure, didn't speak in anger, didn't intentionally insult & addressed the matter @ hand directly. Some have a short-tempered nature, but I rarely (like 5% of my life) ever do. Short-tempered to me would have been to email TAE and give that person the "what for" in response to the email they sent me. However, that's not really my style. Thanks for the dialogue. :)
darla5393 2 months ago
I have no opinion on the alleged blocking, as I have no evidence of it. However, when the way you find best to argue for your position is to redefine what the other side clearly states their position to be, that is the exact opposite of respecting their opinions, and there can be no argument. You should take your own advice and take a look in the mirror.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - I hardly redefine their position. I state a simple fact. The natural assumption is that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism. Whether the argument made by TAE in the video is intentionally or unintentionally incorrect, it is nonetheless false and misleading in both cases. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 "the natural assumption is that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism." Which is why when you bring up a definition that is not what they identify with, it should give you pause, rather than assume your definition is applicable.
'Atheos' was historically first used to describe the early Christians. One would think they understand by now how detrimental to discourse misrepresentation is.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - It's not MY definition. It's THE definition. If I understand ur comment, it's like saying "Homosexuals chose 2 embrace the word 'gay' to change it from a negative term to 1 of empowerment." (quotes 2 reflect the idea). However homosexual & gay are still defined the same way. Many negative terms were used for Christians 2 discredit them but weren't actual definitions - just colloquialism. My premise doesn't discredit atheism - it simply provides the actual definition, accepted or not.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 But it isn't THE definition, its A definition. The 'gay' example is excellent in this respect, as the primary definition nowadays is 'homosexual' rather than 'happy'. (indeed, slang is now that 'gay'='stupid')The definitions have changed, and in the case of 'gay' the dictionaries have caught up. Words change, gain and lose definitions all the time. Why would you object to the same process taking place here? Do you similarly address Mormons for calling 20yr olds "elders'?
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - You are correct - words change definition over decades & even centuries. Gay used 2 mean happy & I've heard people use it as "stupid." However, the current definition is all that applies because the entire discussion is based on those definitions. If the definitions were not as they currently are, I might hold a different position. However, I can only function in the present. Internal definitions apply only within the specific communities - they're not generalized 2 society at large.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 In the present, you have a (growing) group of people that identify a particular concept to a particular word. Your initial ignorance of this gives you the leeway to have this position explained to you rather than having it assumed. But once this is done, you have no warrant to continue to apply on us a position you now know we don't subscribe to. At that point you are actively misrepresenting us, which is what SoG (who started this) has been doing for years.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine I'm not ignorant of it - the fact is that, until that sole definition is widely accepted by society, the atheist community's chosen definition is limited in its infancy (so to speak). Until society's definition (not opinion) of atheism no longer equals "the doctrine or belief that there is no God," my point of view remains valid. I'm not misrepresenting you - I'm using a widely accepted definition. Once your point of view is accepted by society @ large, then the definition will change.
darla5393 2 months ago
There is no such thing as 'society's definition'. Definitions apply different concepts to different words by different segments of society. By applying a different position to us then the one you know we hold you are actively misprepresenting us. Even if your premise was correct, the proper action would be to call for us to stop calling ourselves atheists, not to appeal to an authority to tell us what our position is. Its disrespectful and tedious.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - As a writer by profession & passion, I can definitely tell u my education has confirmed the difference between community usage & society wide usage. I'm not misrepresenting atheists - I offered a position on the TAE website (1 you don't agree with) that was deleted. My issue is less with the deletion & more with the blocking & "Piss off" statement. That's what the focus of this video is. 2 say I am intentionally misrepresenting atheists is a falsehood on its face. Allow me my belief.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 If comment deleting and blocking are a sign of failure, then the YT christian side is still way ahead in terms of numbers.
I am incapable of disallowing you your belief, nor would I want to. But when you say that you accept definition A for a term I explicitly use with definition B, hows that not a misrepresentation? You don't get to have what you believe our beliefs are or aren't as a premise to our discussion, even if you do believe it, if you wish to have an honest discussion.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - I can't speak 4 other Christians - 2 many fall into a category of Judgement Christians (my own term) & unfortunately they misrepresent those of us who aren't like that. I accept A, u accept B & both terms are true - or A wouldn't exist. You can't discount A if it still exists. That's why it is not a misrepresentation - it is a different representation. I don't suggest atheist beliefs - I use existing definitions 2 state that it's a belief system. The definition supports my argument.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 But we reject that definition as /applicable/ to our position. You can search, and if you find atheists claiming A, then make that argument to them. We don't hold to that position, so we have no reason to defend it.
Its like me taking a Tea Party member TPM to task for the sex act teabagging just because 'teabagger' is applied to both. Both are valid definitions, and yet TPM has no obligation to defend or even address me, because Im at that point, talking nonsense.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - I understand that "you" as atheists reject it. It doesn't, however, "therefore" make A invalid. It just makes B the chosen usage by that community. A still exists & is therefore valid. Some atheists may accept A (who knows?), but just because the community denies the A definition doesn't mean the definition is then not usable. That's false logic. A exists and is therefore useable - whether the atheist community uses it or not. I guarantee you - other communities use it. I do.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 "other communities use it. I do"
Which is my original point. you redefine what the other side clearly states their position to be. To go back to my analogy, you I know reject the 'Jew-hating Christian' idea, but that doesn't make it invalid, as several communities use it so Im therefore justified in believing you hate jews, and to ask you why you hate them.
If you can see whats wrong with the analogy, you can apply it to your position.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - I would classify that as a stereotype. My usage of a definition is not a stereotype of a group. Apples and oranges.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 Oh but it can be. The idea that atheists follow a dogma of belief in no god is just as stereotypical as the belief that atheists are immoral (both of which at some point found themselves in dictionaries).
What else would you call an innacurate description of a group of people by a different group of people?
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - I don't believe that logic follows & this is why. I don't suggest 1 dogma/doctrine is followed by all atheists - at all. But the choice of disbelief (no response is a response) arises from the initial existence of some atheist dogma. They aren't mutually exclusive & don't exist apart from each other. Doesn't mean ur a "church going atheist" (??) following set rules, but it means that a pre-existing dogma helped form the disbelief - so disbelief comes from the belief of atheism.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 "but it means that a pre-existing dogma helped form the disbelief - so disbelief comes from the belief of atheism."
Not really. What you call "pre-existing dogma" is in fact a basic principle of rational reasoning that we adopt out of necessity. That principle is to require evidence before declaring a thing to be existing. This is a general principle and does not only apply to gods. The reason we adopt it is that not requiring evidence leads to contradictory beliefs.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro - So that begs the question - did air not exist until it was discovered?
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 In other words, the disbelief is justified, and caused, by the lack of evidence. That doesn't mean it's true of course, but it's not like you have to presuppose anything about reality to not believe Christianity. You could make an argument that it's based on a value judgment though. I value a non-contradictory ontology, so I demand evidence for my beliefs. This happens to result in me rejecting religions, but it didn't have to be that way if there was evidence of gods.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro - TY 4 ur comment. I believe openness 2 the possibility is the important thing. I read that in what u say. People mention Russell's teapot. I say, if I can prove it doesn't exist, how do I know 4 sure? A conscious choice 2 reject theism is personal & fair. I don't understand why ANY1 here assumes I believe atheists should believe in God. That's nonsensical & isn't even biblical. I'd love if every1 did, but it's simply impossible as personal experience of God's existence is necessary.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 The mere fact that I would have believed otherwise if there was evidence is pretty much conclusive evidence that there is no dogma involved. It's also quite amusing how easy it would have been if religions were true. Virtually all religions make claims about ritual magic, such as prayer, having effects. These would be easily demonstrable through statistical analysis, of crop yields, wealth, health etc yet fail every such test.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro - Does your comment suggest that someone cannot change their dogma? Are you able to provide an example of such analysis representing failure that is statistically significant? I'd be interested in seeing such a study.
darla5393 1 month ago
A disbelief in something is not a claim that it doesn't exist. It just means that there has been insufficient evidence to justify belief at this time. It's not accepting something as true at this time, not the denial that it is true. The Atheist Experience people become annoyed by people who try to tell them that they're claiming something that they've stated many times that they don't claim.
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 - TY 4 ur comment. The fact that they don't claim it does not change the definition of atheism. As I mention in other responses, the natural assumption is that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism. Whether the argument made by TAE in the video is intentionally or unintentionally incorrect, it is nonetheless false and misleading in both cases. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 Dictionaries list two definitions. One is belief that there is no god and the other is disbelief that there is a god. The Atheist Experience uses the disbelief definition for themselves. It's not misleading to use a standard dictionary definition.
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 4 ur comment. Whether accepted by the community or not, both of Webster's definitions still apply to atheism. They reflect a full understanding of the term & are not mutually exclusive. They aren't negatives of each other - both definitions are corresponding statements. Atheism is the choice to not believe (disbelief) in God AND the belief that there is no God. It is not one & not the other - they are equal statements that reflect the same idea. Choosing one doesn't negate the other.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 I disagree. Just because two descriptions of a word that is a noun exist under one heading does not mean that they go together. For example, the noun fag can be used for both a cigerate and as slang for homosexual. They are the same word, same spelling, and are both nouns but are not complimentary. As I stated before atheism is the rejection of theistic claims and dose not exclusivly state that gods do not exist according to the definition we are using.
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist - I understand your point & agree that, in some cases, certain words are used that have multiple, unrelated definitions. However, both definitions of atheism apply 2 the same thing. A Fag cigarette or Fag homosexual are apples & oranges. Both atheism definitions are apples & apples. The rejection of theistic claims (that God or gods exist) is the acceptance & belief of the inverse idea - that there is/are no God or gods. Nonbelief in God = belief in NOT God. It's the same idea.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 no, although similar there is a difference. The rejection of theistic claims is a nonbelief while the belief that gods do not exist is well a belief. They are different. As was already stated by other posters. Nonbelief is a lack of claim while belief is a claim. Atheism has two similar definitions because the definition was only recently changed, so the old one still exists. We are using the new one, the rejection one.
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist - I disagree - non-belief is also a claim, as no response is a response. It essentially is an "If, Then" statement. IF atheists don't believe in God, THEN atheists believe in NOT God. I understand the community has chosen 1 over the other but, as I state elsewhere, that sole usage isn't yet widely accepted by society, so both definitions are still valid. This may just b 1 of those things where we agree 2 disagree. However, I appreciate your comments & the thoughtful dialogue.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 The reason for listing two definitions is because they are different. If all atheists both disbelieved and denied the existence of a god then one definition covering both would be used.
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 - Definitions don't work like that in every case. 4 example, the multiple definitions of "knowledge" have the same end meaning. However, "speak" refers both 2 the process & the event of speaking - these are inevitably intertwined, but different. The definition of atheism is akin 2 knowledge more than it is 2 speak, however, even with "speak" both atheism definitions are still mutually intertwined. Some definitions of words are unrelated (fag=cigarette or gay), but not in this case.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 I disagree. knowledge can mean acquaintance with facts, mastery of skills or even sexual intercourse. While the rationale that arrives at these meanings is similar, they are not the same.
With atheism, most meanings are related with 'god' and 'privation' but there are significant differences.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine There r other definitions - I agree. However, the predominant & highlighted definitions will take precedence. I don't understand the concept of atheism being related 2 privation, but my premise is that both definitions 4 atheism are equal 2 one another. No to something is Yes to its inverse. Some may agree or disagree. I accept the right of all 2 believe either. I can only hope 2 receive the same in return - acceptance of my right 2 hold my premise, whether or not there is agreement.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 No, the applicable definitions will take precedence, especially when they are being explicitly stated to be the ones applicable. You don't get to decide which definition applies by terms of predominance! Where did you get that notion!?
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine The subject always determines the usage of a word. My prior statement was to the widely accepted & used definition in the most general sense of many words - I venture to say my example was a poor choice. However, in the case of the atheism definition, 1 definition does not mean 1 thing & the other another. They both refer 2 the same subject. It's not like building (edifice) & building (creating something). Both are atheism, both r valid, both r equal & refer 2 exactly the same thing.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 No they don't. They are similar, but one refers simply to the position of non-belief in god/gods, and the other refers to a dogma or doctrine that includes the position that gods do not exist. The difference is crucial to your point, so please try to understand this.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - If I understand u, r u saying atheism as a belief & atheism as a non-belief r 2 different definitions? The non-belief position is derived from the dogma of belief - 1 does not exist apart from the other. I think we'll have 2 part ways here because we'll inevitably disagree as we come 2 different conclusions with the same evidence. I understand ur differentiating the 2 but I disagree with the conclusion. However, I thank u kindly 4 ur efforts 2 bring more understanding 2 the topic.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 "The non-belief position is derived from the dogma of belief" No it isn't, it is a description of a position that is irrelevant of any dogma.
However, I will also agree to end this here, as I need to get ready for Xmas eve.
Hope you have a great Christmas, and thanks for the discussion!
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well! Blessings to you and yours for a safe and happy holiday season.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 Your premise is flawed because atheism reflects belief in the existence, not the fact of existence of god. Indeed, seeing as 'god' has so many conflicting and self-contradictory definitions, it is disingenuous to claim that belief in god/s is a binary proposition. I can disbelieve in the existence of gods without making the epistemologically incoherent positive assertion that god/s do not exist. Your right to hold your belief doesn't change the flaws in it.
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine Actually, u just proved my premise - you state that "atheism reflects belief in." That alone is my premise - that atheism is a belief.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 You're not reading me carefully. I said atheism reflects belief not factual existence, but I've also said that atheism is a privative, which denotes lack. Atheism reflects a position of belief, namely the position of lacking a belief in gods, so it cannot itself be a belief, in that sense. Just like 'bald' reflects hair status, but isn't an actual hairstyle.
The position of holding the belief that 'any god/s do not exist' is a subset of this group, one most atheists don't hold
Cafeeine 2 months ago
@Cafeeine I can't speak to bald not being a hairstyle, but I would assume it is as it is the choice to have the lack of hair - the lack of style. As I said somewhere here - no response is a response. Whether or not "most" atheists don't hold the first definition is irrelevant to the fact that definition exists and is valid. Usage doesn't deny existence.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 Who gets to decide whether or not the two definitions are distinct? They're listed separately in the dictionary and I see people using both separately and distinctly. Since no one owns the language there is no final authority. It would seem to make more sense to use words as others are using them than to insist on your own usage.
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 - You see people using both separately & distinctly. By the same token, I see people using both equally. Therefore, I'm using not my own usage but an accepted usage in a different community than the 1 u refer to. As u stated: Who gets 2 decide whether or not the 2 definitions are distinct? I believe they can be seen that way, however the opposite is also true & the 2 definitions can be seen as equal to each other. I've seen it used that way & it's not just me who views it that way.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 There is overlap. People who deny that any gods exist also disbelieve in each god, but not everyone who disbelieves also denies that any gods exist. The people at The Atheist Experience don't deny that any gods exist. You choice of word definition doesn't change that.
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 - That's a bit convoluted 2 me - let's see if I get it. Some deny gods exist (definition 1) & reject belief in gods (definition 2). Some reject belief in gods (definition 2), but don't deny the possible existence of gods (agnostic). Is that right? My premise is that both definitions are valid. In language there are exceptions 2 every rule, so 100% of the time ALL atheists would NOT fit under both definitions. That's fair & logical. However some will, so the argument still holds water.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 When you assume that a definition 2 atheist is a definition 1 atheist and ask for proof of a claim that was never made, it causes confusion. This has probably happened to the the people at The Atheist Experience so much that it's become annoying. Since definition 2 covers all atheists and definition 1 covers only some atheists, it's probably better to assume definition 2 or ask first before treating someone as a definition 1 atheist.
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 - 2 clarify, I don't assume a definition 2 atheist is a definition 1 atheist. My premise is that atheism of any sort arises out of the dogma (principle) of atheism - that God is in question - regardless of the theoretical approach to why He is in question. I don't suggest that all atheists follow a specific approach 2 God. That would be irresponsible - like saying all Christians approach & experience God in the same way.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 I've never heard of not being convinced that something is true being called a dogma.
Since The Atheist Experience doesn't claim that there are no gods, they have nothing to prove, right?
Chuck1863 2 months ago
@Chuck1863 - Chuck - I would say ur inference is correct. :D
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 " that God is in question " Your saying gods are not in question? So you or all people begin with believing in some concept of god and its not to be questioned?
" all Christians approach & experience God in the same way" Even the westboro baptists and Falwell or even Martin Luther?
Greathiway 2 months ago
@Greathiway - To clarify: the 1st statement is that atheism is the 'principle' that God is in question. Sorry for any confusion. FYI - The Bible teaches us God exists, but that we should explore more deeply to confirm our faith. Not all do.
I think you misread the 2nd statement. I wrote: "That would be irresponsible - [it would be] like saying all Christians approach & experience God in the same way." The statement that all atheists have the same approach 2 God would be equally irresponsible.
darla5393 1 month ago
youtuber TheAtheistExperience is only fan of TheAtheistExperience. he only post videos of TheAtheistExperience he is not member of TheAtheistExperience.
weststainesmassiv79 2 months ago
@weststainesmassiv79 - I appreciate your comment. Unfortunately, that individual is then effectively misrepresenting the show. The response reflects poorly on the show and even more so on that individuaI. If I were someone related to the actual TAE show, I would certainly have something to say about someone who doesn't even bother to allow the conversation to happen.
darla5393 2 months ago
There are many cases of this kind of question. Take an empty room as an example. You can never prove a room is empty. But you can believe. The befief is quite reasonable. Other case would be life in universe. Once we find life, it is a proof for us. But once we have not discovered life, how should we think of it? Both cases are equally reasonable. The words "reasonable to belief" are quite a better choise than the words "has or should be proven". If you say God exists, please reason it.
snifcjo 2 months ago
@snifcjo - TY 4 your response. What I discuss in this video is the actual definition of atheism, which atheists at the very least should know. This has nothing to do with whether or not there is an argument for God; the point is that AS there is a question to whether or not God exists, the same question applies to whether or not He doesn't exist. It is a double edged sword. A base standard cannot be applied to one & not the other. The standard must be applied in all cases to be a valid standard.
darla5393 2 months ago
There is a difference between the statements 'I believe there is no god' and 'I do not believe in a god'. One is making a possitive claim while the other is not. If you say there is a god, the burden of proof is on you and it is your responsibility to support that claim. Agnostic atheists do not make any possitive claims concerning the existance of god and therefore have nothing to prove.
spenceII 2 months ago
@spenceII TY - a new term for me. Agnostic atheism is a particular "sect" among atheism. With the definition from Wikipedia (by no means necessarily reliable), a deity being unknowable in principle does not address knowledge gained by individual experience. Re: not being currently known in fact, this is relative: "in fact" being something that is provable and visible to all, say by scientific data (for example); or in fact by an individual's experience that is only reflected by personal change.
darla5393 2 months ago
Firstly the Atheist Experience You Tube channel is not connected to the show. Secondly if you look up the word 'doctrine' you will see that atheism is not a belief. Almost all atheists do not considered atheism to be a belief or doctrine, but simply a lack of belief in deities, so please respect that.
The real question here is, 'is there a god or not' and we should keep our discussions to this.. Not on mislabeling the beliefs (or lack of) of those who disagree with us.
OWC2000 2 months ago
@OWC2000 Thank u 4 ur comment. I respect that the definition of atheism isn't accepted by some atheists, but that does not change the definition. The synonyms for doctrine are tenet, dogma, theory, precept & belief. For the definitions of doctrine, examples are provided as of religious institutions, but the definitions themselves are not related to religion exclusively. Atheism is, in fact, "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated." If it wasn't, TAE wouldn't exist.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 no there are multiple definitions. It's not that we're using the wrong one, it's that...well, your using the wrong one. As I said before atheism is a nonbelief, rejection, or disbelief, it cannot be a belief, so it cannot be a doctrince, tenent, dogma, theory, or precept. As all of those things require a belief and atheism is a nonbelief
TheAnimeAtheist 2 months ago
@TheAnimeAtheist - I'm not stating in any way that you're using a wrong term. You have chosen 1 explanation & I have chosen another - both are not mutually exclusive. You cling to #2 & negate #1. My premise is that #1 & #2 are equal. It's defined as a doctrine & belief. I support that description - u don't. I understand u feel your point of view is correct & mine is incorrect. My point of view is that we don't share the same perspective on IF THEN statements. We simply disagree & that's okay.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 There is no THE definition of atheism, like most words, there are many based around non-belief.
For myself, I have no dogma, faith, or belief, I just find the concept of a deity nonsensical and lacks any rational meaningful evidence. I know of no other word that describe myself, than atheist. Neither you or a dictionary get to assign other values to me than those I choose myself. Likewise I respect you right to define yourself.and would not dream of pigeonholing your beliefs,
OWC2000 2 months ago
@OWC2000 - We must always define ourselves as we choose. That's an individual right 4 all. If u haven't had a spiritual experience 2 make the existence of a deity obvious, then ur experience & beliefs will b different than believers. Just as u don't know or doubt a deity exists (or believe 1 can't exist), you also can't prove that 1 doesn't exist. I appreciate ur candor & ur support of my right 2 my opinion. The view that I don't have a right 2 my opinion is nonsensical. It's been a pleasure.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 I have no desire to disprove god, he/she brings much happiness to many, although I do object to god being used in politics.
I have had many spiritual experiences (some religious), which are both natural and explainable. See 'Michael Persinger's god helmet'.
Merry Christmas, enjoy.
OWC2000 2 months ago
@OWC2000 - TY 4 ur comment. Re: God in politics - every perspective is included in politics; to shut one out would be antithetical to America. In other countries without democracy (autocracy, monarchy) where religion is the base of politics - I agree with u. It takes away rights. Besides, the concept of church & state was intended 2 keep state out of the church - not the other way around.
I read God's helmet. TY. From what I read, I don't believe it's natural - I'd say it was measurable.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 Absolutely wrong, the Founders were very clear on what Separation of Church and State meant and it does not allow for Church to interfere with state. The intent was to avoid a theocracy
The Supreme Court has indeed confirmed the reciprocal meaning of Separation of Church and State 25 times over the past 130 years.. To say otherwise is to fail to understand one of the cornerstone freedoms of the US.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 - Sorry - I know based on historical documents & Founder writings that the primary goal of the concept was 2 allow for the free exercise of religion. That was 1 of the most significant reasons 4 the colonists 2 separate from England, besides taxes. Droves of people fled to N. America 2 flee religious persecution. The Supreme Court has not "confirmed" ur point. As on multiple occasions, justices arrived @ opinions (called "opinions") & created policy judicially. Studied both in college.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 The Founders writings are diverse and like the reason for the Pilgrims non-binding in light of the US Constitution, which makes all previous documents and writings and personal opinions obsolete.
Yes the Supreme court has confirmed Jefferson's phrase in Reynolds v.US 1878 and in 24 other rulings (not opinions) since.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 - Yes - the Supreme Court has made policy by their decisions. And they are called opinions in the writings of their decisions - look it up. The Founders approached the writing of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights & the Articles of Confederation based on their belief systems & an effort to reach general consensus. It would be irresponsible to say those beliefs become obsolete. They are inherent in the formation of this country.
darla5393 1 month ago
I agree with your sentiments about respecting different beliefs/opinions and I do not agree with blocking people but I do know that TAE gets slammed with people arguing things they've covered a milliion times. I don't know why they added "piss off" but I have my suspicions. I do know for a fact that anyone can look up TAE videos covering your issue with atheism. Your logic is flawed if u cannot accept that or admit to it, THAT may be the cause of "piss off".....just sayin
julzabro 2 months ago
@julzabro TY 4 ur comment. If TAE deletes pro & con repetitive comments, that's fair. However, if the only comments deleted don't support TAE's position, the discussion becomes one-sided - a bit shady. Re: the "piss off" response, it's natural to assume that atheists, at minimum, know the definition of atheism. Whether TAE's argument is intentionally or unintentionally incorrectly applied, it's nonetheless false & misleading in both cases. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 TAE airs 100's of negative comments that DON'T support their position. IN FACT, their always trying 2 get believers 2 call in as there is usually a shortage of them.....especially any that r reasonable. Their best shows r when Theists call in & THEY KNOW THAT but they're not gonna waste their time with some1 who is incapable of debate by way of hanging onto an already corrected premise. TAE is not flase nor misleading about anything. I've been watching their show 4 many yrs.
julzabro 2 months ago
@julzabro - I didn't say in the video that TAE was false or misleading - I said the logic was. My last comment may not have been clear due 2 space. Along the way I gained more understanding of the position (wrote it) & believe that outright denial is irresponsible due 2 lack of proof, but atheists not currently believing because they don't yet have proof is fair - it's personal choice. The youtube page isn't them - it's someone else. I don't know what they say regularly. 1st time visitor.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 "I didn't say in the video that TAE was false or misleading - I said the logic was" I never said that & no u didn't say it IN THE VID but u DID say it regarding their argument.
"Whether TAE's argument is intentionally or unintentionally incorrectly applied, it's nonetheless false & misleading in both cases."
Yes, there r MANY who post TAE episodes. I suggest u look up some on ur topic as & others. U will c how TAE handles their opponenets & how the opponents treat TAE.
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro - I believe any1 holding any position can treat others with disrespect, b unclear in their position & not actually open 2 discussion.
In the video I talk about the comment I made on TAE's page. I had to say it that way to save words here. Sorry if it was unclear.
I have appreciated the dialogue here, but don't know if I'll see more. Until recently I rarely visited youtube - mostly for music videos. May, may not - who knows? Not particularly driven 2 or seeking 2 debunk atheism.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 Furthermore, how can u say this, "However, if the only comments deleted don't support TAE's position, the discussion becomes one-sided - a bit shady" when u YOURSELF are PREreading comments before u decide 2 let them b public?!?!? Why would u feel the need to do that at YOUR video if u think even opposing views should be aired and ur dissing TAE for doing the SAME thing?
julzabro 2 months ago
@julzabro - I'm prereading because some people can't respect others. That's the only reason. Disrespect isn't shared. In fact, 1 of the comments insulted atheists. I deleted it. I "dissed" the TAE youtube manager because he was insulting. 2 delete is the site manager's right. To block me and say "piss off" is unnecessarily insulting and closes me off from any discussion in the future for any video. That is quite different. And besides - read these comments. All except 1 are atheists (I believe).
darla5393 1 month ago
@julzabro - Read the comments - they are about 99% atheists (I assume based on the responses). I pre-read to prevent insulting, disrespectful comments ONLY. The first one I deleted insulted atheists. I have a right to expect respect - I have fostered discussion will all respectful people.
The only things I'm not posting now are comments that don't add anything to the discussion & those that are disrespectful.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 - I'd like to add that I believe all people deserve respect, regardless of their beliefs. However, another's beliefs should not harm others - physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually.
darla5393 1 month ago
Umm no....a lack of belief does not designate any doctrine. That would mean that anything anyone disbelievs would have a doctrine. Atheists do NOT believe, they DISbelieve. And saying that we do not have to prove pur disbelief IS logical becuz if weren't than ANYTHING you disbelieve must ALSO be proven. That's ridiculous! Atheists are not making a claim of truth, they're simple do not believe in yours!
julzabro 2 months ago
@julzabro TY 4 ur comment. As both of Webster's provided definitions apply to atheism, the logical conclusion is that atheism is a belief because it's referred to as such. Let me say it like this - atheism is the choice to not believe (disbelief) in God. The logical inference (i.e., corresponding statement) that is NOT in the negative form is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. It cannot be one and not the other - they are equal statements, which reflect the same idea.
darla5393 2 months ago
@darla5393 There are many varying definitions 4 Atheist but I find none that call it a belief. Try the Random House Dict.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
OR from Collins English Dict.
a person who does not believe in God or gods
julzabro 2 months ago
@julzabro - For some reason some of my responses don't seem 2 be saving. 2 write this again, I used Webster's. I'm open 2 reviewing other reference materials, but I do understand that SOME atheists in fact believe in #1 (not all), so it's still valid as a dogma for THOSE atheists. Hopefully my comment about gaining understanding saved - to many comments for me 2 locate it, but said it a few times.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 Yea I saw ur comment. Well, if u ever wish to debate or just wanna talk....lemme know. ;)
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro - I'm much less of a debater and much more of a open-minded discusser. Thank you for communicating respectfully and subscribe if you like. I'm more likely to do some videos about certain Christian biblical views that are misrepresented by what I call Judgement Christians. I think it'll help many understand that the dialogue offenders don't speak for us all.
darla5393 1 month ago
@darla5393 We KNOW & HAVE KNOWN the meaning of the wrd Atheist
atheist 1570s, Fr. athéiste, from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism 1530s which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
It has nothing 2 do with belief. Y denying what the atheists r here telling u? R u an Atheist? If not, how do U know & how WOULD u know what atheism is & what makes u think u can define it better than WE can?
julzabro 2 months ago