This video makes the word atheism confusing for people and should be taken down. QualiSoup has done a MUCH better video on atheism titled "Lack of belief in gods"
But I could argue that qualiasoup's video is equally confusing. Especially as he makes just so many errors. His most fundamental being that the word 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing 'theism' with 'a~'. Simply not the case because the word atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism. How can you prefix a word taht does not yet exist. His video violates the law of cause and effect and should be taken down!
Because he says that 'atheism' means 'a lack if theism' because of the way that the word is constructed, i.e. 'a~' + 'theism', which is wrong. And anyway, the meaning of a word is irrelevant when discussing the entity that it is applied to. Take the word 'submarine' for example. The word means 'below the sea' but I bet you pictured a vessel capable of submersive travel, didn't you?
What atheism is and what the word atheism means are two quite different matters.
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
I didn't engage you in a debate about god. I asked you how you the entity that is atheism can be defined as a lack of anything. It is logically inconsequential to try to do such a thing (that's formal logic, by the way).
"Atheists blindly belief in theories."
Such as?
"Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic."
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
1:50 You do not accept that the sun exists, yet know it exists? C'mon, poor example to distinguish knowledge and belief. If you know something, then you'll likely believe it, as well, unless in denial of your knowledge. Also, ignoring what your opinion on the definition of atheism might be (belief and/or doubt/disbelief a god exists) I will approach on "lack of belief" in my next comment based on my familiarity with the subject, supported by dictionary.
@Bourtini OKey, Lack can express "not", "lack of belief" = "not believe", synonymous with doubt, or disbelieve. Here, I see that "lack of belief" means doubt, something that inanimate objects or things ignorant of a claim cannot do. If it were to be taken another direction, away from the definition of doubt, as anything that does not believe then, yeah, ok.
Rocks lack a belief in god but do not doubt his existence. Lacking belief says what you don't do, doubting says what you do. Doubt is in the mind, lack of belief is nowhere. And the same goes for disbelief (thinking that something is not true). Lack uses the operator 'not' so can't mean anything other than that.
@mungbeanman No clue what you are saying here, my english is not well and these words in a form that confuse me. We'll just stick to our discussion on belief and knowledge, thanks.
Dictionaries record how words are used, they do not define the properties of an entity. "What does the word atheism mean?" and "what is atheism?" are two entirely different questions and the answers are derived using separate methods. That being said I have not once seen a dictionary defintion for atheism that states 'the lack of belief in god'.
Belief in god is a concept, a lack of belief in god is therefore a lack of a concept. It denotes nothing and certainly does not denote a whole new concept. If I tell you my name is not Mary I have not told you what my name is. 'Mary' is a name, 'not Mary' is not a name. And so on.
@mungbeanman Ah, I see. Question, is "disbelief in the existence of god or gods" not same as "not believe in the existence of god or gods"? I've seen some definitions of disbelief as a lack of faith.
@mungbeanman Say, this subject of disbelief has me quite curious, might you have any sources on hand that go in depth? No need to do any searching or discussion for me, as I do not wish to impose any more of a inconvenience, or burden, upon you. The reason I ask is that I trust you would have knowledge of good sources.
I would try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but if you struggle with English you will struggle even more here.
Anyway, there is an entry that discusses formal representations of belief which deduces that "belief in a proposition is characterized by disbelief in its negation". This basically translates that if belief is thinking that something is true disbelief is thinking that something is not true.
There are two types of proposition: those that are true or false and those that could be true or false (which are beliefs). If a proposition is true such as 'the sun exists' then there is no need for belief. Truth makes belief redundant.
@mungbeanman Belief, as I know it, is acceptance that something is true, or exists. If you do not believe the sun to exist, then you do not accept the sun to exist. Saying I believe something I know does not seem all too redundant if I accept the existence or truth of the thing I know. No?
@Bourtini Let me make some examples: I know my friend Ted, I believe my friend Ted is real. My friend Ted lost his cat and knows this, but denies it because he is in grief.
While I not only know Ted is real, I accept Ted's existence. Ted knows his cat is missing, but does not accept that his cat is gone. This is what I know, is this incorrect?
@Bourtini More elaboration... There are two felids: Knowledge and uncertainty. Knowledge: One can know the truth of something (of existence or a statement), one can know something is false. Belief is active in what we know and what we are uncertain about: Accepting the truth of that we know or accepting truth of something we are uncertain about, otherwise, not accepting something that is known or uncertain to be true.
In order to prove something's existence all you need is one truth about it. If you can apply a truth to Ted then saying you think he might exist is redundant. I'm not really sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the example of the missing cat though. Denying a truth is to be in possesion of a falsehood.
Belief is the attitude you have toward an unknown or unknowable proposition. If the proposition can be shown to be true then you don't possess a belief, you possess a truth. For example, it would be redundant to say that you believe 1+1=2 because it can be demonstrated to be true and is not an unknown proposition.
@mungbeanman Where, exactly, are you getting this definition of belief? If you go to wikipedia it will show you my usage and look under epistemology for a, possibly, better understanding of my application of belief and knowledge.
@mungbeanman Ah, you must be recognizing knowledge that is not belief, like how to ride a bike. What I refer to is justified-true-belief. If knowing the sun exists is your example of a knowledge that is not belief, ok, then.
Why do you propose a word denoting a lack of a condition may be applied to a rock, but not one denoting a condition? Now, for 'mute' to fit the comparison and make any sense in the conversation, I was necessarily using its noun form definition which denotes a person (not a condition) who lacks the ability to speak. If intended as an adjective of a person, lacking the faculty of speech would be the definition; if intended as an adjective of an inanimate object, it would mean absent of sound.
@mungbeanman "Where do I do this?" In your reply about week ago; when asked if you'd label a rock [a] mute, you said you wouldn't because it denotes a condition and not a lack thereof.
"so you'll forgive me for thinking otherwise"
There's no need for forgiveness. I was unclear; thus the clarification. Yes, I ought to have introduced 'mute' with 'a', and 'mentally handicapped' with 'or consider it amongst the'. Haste and character limits cause me a bit of grief now and then.
I think I understand what you are trying to say but I still don't see where I do this. 'Mute' denotes a condition but it is not a condition that applies to a rock, just as deaf and blind denote conditions that also don't apply to rocks but 'igneous' or 'sedimentary' are conditions that could.
We don't do it because a rock isn't a person that believes there is no god. This isn't just some vague guessing game, this is about what logically belongs to what set.
@mungbeanman "you would be happy to call babies, dead people and the present King of France mute?"
It's applicable to babies until they make vocal sounds we'd classify as words; to dead people, so long as you still consider them people; to the present King of France, so long as the subject is intended as an abstraction.
"Not according to any accepted logic."
Well, until you explain how it's erroneous, you can forgive me for using accepted definitions.
"It's applicable to babies until they make vocal sounds we'd classify as words"
I don't think that's correct at all. What of selctive mutes who don't lack the faculty of speech but rather are unable to employ it? Essentially, mutism is a speech disorder and does not apply to babies, dead people or people who don't exist. If you've ever had children the last thing you'd consider calling them at 4am during the first few months is mute.
"A different definition of mute applies; as with most words, there are multiple."
I wasn't talking about the meaning of the word 'mute', I was talking about what a mute is. A mute is someone with a specific speech disorder which is why rocks and babies aren't mutes.
When discussing the nature of an entity, in this case mutism, saying what it is not is insufficient in deducing what it is. For example if I try to denote a number by listing only the numbers which it is not you'll appreciate the futility.
@mungbeanman "saying what it is not is insufficient in deducing what it is. ~ if I try to denote a number by listing only the numbers which it is not you'll appreciate the futility."
Sure, if all you do is list what it's not. But that's not all you're doing; here you've started by telling me the subject is a number. Negating predicates adds specificity to the model and thus is saying something 'about' the subject. As with the word atheist, we start with a 'person' as a subject.
@mungbeanman That's right, that is what they don't do. You continue to act like there is a problem with negation, and your grammar presupposes validity of your argument/invalidity of mine when you're already aware that I don't share your view. It's basically a loaded question when you apply such restriction. I maintain that the label atheist does not necessarily convey a positive action by the denoted subject, although it may.
"You continue to act like there is a problem with negation"
There is a problem when people believe that a negated property is still a property. There is a problem when people think that saying what you don't do still says what you do. There is a problem when people think that a truth about what something isn't is a truth about what it is.
@mungbeanman "There is a problem when people believe that a negated property is still a property. There is a problem when people think that saying what you don't do still says what you do. There is a problem when people think that a truth about what something isn't is a truth about what it is."
@mungbeanman I'm not familiar with qualifiers for theism. If a theist is one who believes in gods, to say "weak theist" would be redundant since one cannot simultaneously believe deities exist and do not exist; the standalone label "theist" already implies that it's contrary is not the case. As one who does not believe in gods, an atheist's position on gods existing is subject to the ambiguity of a) not believing, and b) believing not; b implies a, a doesn't imply b. The qualifiers disambiguate.
"If a theist is one who believes in gods, to say "weak theist" would be redundant since one cannot simultaneously believe deities exist and do not exist"
Huh? Weak theist IS redundant (and helps to show why weak atheist is redundant too) but not for that reason. I don't think you read my comment properly. But I can't really tell because you have replies and new comments all over the place.
@mungbeanman "I can't really tell because you have replies and new comments all over the place."
It was only two new comments; one of which was a reply, and the other should have been. If you need to review your conventionally dissociated comment, it was your first reply to my first comment, which was about a week ago..
"To accept one definition and not the other is cherry picking"
Nonsense. If one "definition" actually makes no attempt to define anything why should I accept it? If one definition only allows for people intelligent enough to understand and reject god concepts to be atheists while the other allows for babies to be included then we have two entirely different definitions where it is perfectly acceptable to discard the logically faulty one.
@mungbeanman "Nonsense. if one "definition" actually makes no attempt to define anything why should I accept it?"
For a noun, I can't think of any reason you should, but that hasn't been the case. Yes, we have multiple definitions. I'm still waiting for an explanation of one being "logically faulty".
If you'll entertain an analogy, an artist may develop an image by drawing on a blank piece of paper, or by erasing from a full one. In both cases he starts with a page and adds detail.
"I'm still waiting for an explanation of one being "logically faulty"."
Because one "definition" includes babies and those who've never even heard of god concepts and the other excludes them. I can't accept both as definitions because they are in conflict.
All atheists don't believe in god but not all those that don't believe in god are atheists.
It's unfortunate that you still think that this is about the meaning of the word.
It's not.
"What does the word 'atheism' mean?" and "what is atheism?" are two entirely different questions and as such the answers are derived using different methods. You continue to babble on trying to answer the first question while I am trying to offer answers to the second.
There is no point arguing about the definition of words; they mean whatever people want them to.
@mungbeanman "It's unfortunate that you still think this is about the meaning of the word. It's not." "two entirely different questions"
Feel free to disambiguate.
This started with my addressing your false dichotomy of belief and knowledge (uncontested), your moot point about calling inanimate objects atheists (you followed the same convention with rocks and mutism as I did with atheism), and the congruous syntactical meaning of a- in atheist and non- in nontheist (uncontested).
@mungbeanman "There is what you know and there is what you believe. There are truths and there are beliefs. Nothing more."
Again, to believe is to accept as true. To know something and not accept it as true would be contradictory. Therefor they are not mutually exclusive, aka not a dichotomy.
"you just said something vague about it not being useful"
Me: We don't call inanimate objects atheists because it's a label for people and there's no context in which doing so would be useful.
Again, to believe, is to hold an attitude toward a proposition that is unknown or unknowable (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). To know is to be in possession of a proposition that has shown to be true.
"because it's a label for people "
And again, I demonstrated how whereas you just speculated. You added absolutely nothing new to your argument with this statement.
"and the congruous syntactical meaning of a- in atheist and non- in nontheist"
'Non-theist' is constructed by prefixing 'theist' with the logical operator used by set theory in order to create a negated set. 'Atheist' on the other hand was not constructed by prefixing 'theist' with 'a~' because as it is commonly known the word 'atheism' appears in language BEFORE the word 'theism'. And cause and effect wraps that one up nicely.
Hmm, and what fallacy was that exactly? I said that the word atheism predates the word theism so as to disprove any claim that 'atheism' was constructed by prefixing 'theism'. Your citation doesn't prove that I committed any such fallacy.
Atheist - 1566 -1571
Atheism - 1587
Theist - 1662
Theism - 1678
Your citation shows how the word was actually created ('atheos' + '~ism') creating a term that denotes a belief. Why add a suffix denoting belief only to ignore it?
Nothing, not even etymology, can violate cause and effect. Do you even know what cause and effect is by the way? Someone who does probably wouldn't have ventured that statement.
@mungbeanman "There is no point arguing about the definition of words; they mean whatever people want them to."
So what are dictionaries for? I would argue that if people don't follow a common convention for defining terms, it matters not what they intend to denote as an audience will have no way of comprehending their words. Definitions tell us what may be denoted, and when there are multiple definitions, it is by further convention or disambiguation that we become clear.
To record how words are used. They are not there to set in stone definitions of words nor are they there to define what things are. They do not decide how people are to use words.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that because I have been clear enough in my explanations to you about the difference that I am going to call strawman on that last comment. Strawman or a failure to recognise the difference between an entity and the label attached to it. Neither of which are especially desirable.
@mungbeanman Cry strawman all you want, but I've committed no such fallacy; you have refused to accept multiple definitions for atheist and mute. I haven't had any trouble discerning an entity from a label either; perhaps you would like to identify where you suppose that happened instead of just administering accusation.
@mungbeanman "Then you have failed to recognise the difference between a word and the entity to which it applies."
I have not. In fact I demonstrated my ability to discern noun from referent when I stated an 'atheist' denotes a person...
"I accept definitions that DEFINE things."
Very good. So why do you reject definitions for atheist which utilize negation? After all, you suggest such a label as nontheist. Doesn't that violate the same pseudo-principle you're suggesting?
"perhaps you would like to identify where you suppose that happened instead of just administering accusation."
Sure. Right where you said "It's unfortunate that you refuse to recognize more than one definition per word." I am not trying to offer a definition for the word atheism but a definition of what the entity that atheism is. And trying to define an entity by only saying what it is not does not do the job in the slightest.
This has been going on for years in many, many cases. The second people say that atheism is a lack of belief in god they have tried to say what atheism is by only saying what it isn't.
"I know the sun exists. Do I believe the sun exists? No." To believe is to accept as true, therefor if you 'know' something, then you believe it. Oak = knowledge / Tree = belief.
Would you call a rock mute or mentally handicapped? No. We don't call inanimate objects atheists because it's a label for people and there's no context in which doing so would be useful.
As for using the wrong word for the weak atheist position, a- and non- are syntactically equivalent, so nontheist == atheist.
"Would you call a rock mute or mentally handicapped?"
No, because mute and mentally handicapped denote a condition not a lack of a condition.
"As for using the wrong word for the weak atheist position"
If a weak atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god is a weak theist someone who lacks a belief that there is no god? If not, why not? And if not, what is the weak theist position?
People who define themselves as "lack of belief" like they allow for any relevant possibility of God, and in the same time say stuff like " religion is bullshit, theists are irrational, there is no god" have hypnotized themselves that they think they really have no belief about god.
and on top of that say how theists are the ones who are irrational.
lol, life is worse then anything you can think of.
The difference is clear and can be demonstrated by thinking about a baby or a rock that clearly don't believe in a god but also clearly don't believe there is no god. The two statements don't mean the same thing. The old axiom that an oak is a tree but a tree is not necessarily an oak springs to mind.
"Apply that to theism & the sentences mean the EXACT opposite of each other."
you cant apply the two sentences to theism, since these sentences are stating a negation on 2 different ways, and theism states affirmation on only one way.
Just out of curiosity: you do know that a-theist comes from ancient Greek and means "lacking god" (and not "denying god"), right? Wouldn't you think that this would be a proper translation of your "non-theist' in Greek?!!!
So your entire "non-theist nonsense is...well, nonsense!
Atheism IS a lack of believe in (a) god(s). There might be atheists BELIEVING in the lack of (a) god(s), but that's their private case of atheism.
You are wrong. Atheism isn't just a word but a denotation for an entity and that word only has it's roots in ancient Greek. A root word is generally not interchangeble with the new words they create. You are thinking of the word 'atheos' which means godless which creates the word 'atheism'. Notice the addition of the '~ism' which denotes a doctrine, a principle upon which a belief is built.
Again: how would you call a non-theist in Greek? It's YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEM that you've taken a word with a particular meaning and make it up meaning something else.
PS: "-ism" denotes "a doctrine, a principle UPON WHICH A BELIEF IS BUILT (my caps - grozde)"... Would you care to reconsider or shall you need my assistance for proving you wrong with this, too? How do you deal with ... say... CRITICISM??
In ancient Greek, when the word 'atheos' was first recorded, there would have been no equivalent for 'non' (Latin) or 'theist' (17th Century English). You may as well be asking what the ancient Greek for Blu-ray is.
"How do you deal with ... say... CRITICISM??"
Are you a criticist? Is there such a thing as sciencism? You need to brush up on your facts and logic before blundering so clumsily into an argument. Start with a dictionary.
You aren't making any point. Trust me, I have done a good deal of research into this from the emergence and application of the term in the English language to the logic that shows no entity can be denoted solely by an absence of another entity. Truth, belief, propositions and even how dictionaries define atheism all come into this and you have offered nothing more than your ill-informed opinion in opposition. You have utterly failed to convince me I'm wrong. Sorry, but you lose.
Either I'm right according to the emergence of the term and its original application, the dictionary and several branches of formal logic mulled over by such philosophers as Bertrand Russell or I'm wrong according to some randomer on YouTube who has failed to construct an argument worthy of consideration.
Hmm, I think I'll stick with what I know rather than what you think you know but thanks anyway.
By all means - you ARE completely free to stick to being wrong. However, don't expect other people to go with your flow just because you toss in BR's name ;-)
I often find that when debating a creationist they will say that Charles Darwin et al are wrong but, much like yourself, can not construct a single satisfactory argument as to why. Until you can show me how I'm wrong, or a likewise creationist, I will stick to demonstrable facts and logic.
So, if you are so sure that Bertrand Russell and I are wrong, it should be no problem for you show me how. You never know, you might even be able to do so without being a complete ass in the process.
Way back when I made a video arguing that we are born atheist. Along came an argument that showed that this was wrong using some very simple but irrefutable formal logic. I had to admit my error and adopt a new position built upon this logic. To call formal logic "ridiculous" is about as solid an argument as saying evolution is ridiculous.
I think you are using your laziness as an excuse. What you really mean is that you can't demonstrate my error. Your dishonesty is unsurprising.
If all you can do is assert that I am wrong without showing how or why then your "argument" is inconsequential. You can say it over and over all you want but it will get you nowhere. People don't learn by simply being told they are wrong do they?
For someone who has nothing to say you are sure spending a lot of time saying it.
At least I'm not making videos demonstrating my lack of understanding of basic concepts.
Atheism is NOT an intellectual achievement, it's NOT necessarily something to be proud of. And it's NOT necessarily related to higher IQ. It might even come from intellectual laziness.
There surely ARE atheists who REJECT a particular god or gods in general. However, the common denominator is that we do not believe in god(s), not that we reject him/them.
As I said previously, there is little point repeating over and over that someone is wrong unless you can offer an argument as to how or why because all you are offering is insubstantial rhetoric. You have to appreciate that I am a secure as one person can be that they are right - your empty blustering will do little to shake me. You can carry on if you want but you will be wasting your time.
So if I were to say that 1+1=2 and then you come along and say that I'm wrong with no explanation as to why or with no alternative solution, my assuredness in mathematics is to be equated to a prayer? Oh dear, I think you have clutched at you last straw now.
I have given you plenty of opportunities to offer an argument to best demonstrate my error and you have failed everytime. You have absolutely no comprehension of the subject at hand and are just trolling. I block trolls.
. . . and might I add that theism is an add on. Atheism is idle. Much like asociality is not against society like someone whose anti-social. I guess those that preach "atheism" are really anti-theists or borderline anti-theists. I dunno. To say that one cannot simply lack a belief is to say, infact, that there are no atheists at all. The world may never know.
Me? I'm not sure. Sometimes I think I'm an agnostic or a patheist. Maybe an atheist. It's all very confusing.
"I guess those that preach "atheism" are really anti-theists"
Believing there is no god has no bearing on whether or not you are opposed to theism. Stating that atheism is a belief is not preaching any more than a maths teacher preaches maths.
"To say that one cannot simply lack a belief..."
I never say any such thing myself. In fact I offer the set theoretical term of non-theist to cover this.
They are opposed to theism. Being opposed to belief is futile as we hold beliefs about allsorts of things.
"No, ya see. It's a non-belief."
So you have only stated what it is not. How about stating what it is? It would be like me asking your name and you saying 'not Mary'. Tells me nothing.
"I meant confused over my own beliefs."
My mistake. I thought you were confused about the terms.
@mungbeanman Oh, and that whole math teacher comparison. Not so sure it works that way. I quoted atheism as well as mentioned it as something to being preached as a supposition. It was the strawman I got caught on, right? So, I fucked up. Regardless, it's not the same as teaching math (numbers). It's proclaiming a definition.
Furthermore, it's a negative. Without God. I never believed that God was non-existent. I just didn't believe. This is what I call wordplay. Ol' Signifyin' Monkey.
"Regardless, it's not the same as teaching math (numbers). It's proclaiming a definition."
Not quite the comparison I was trying to draw. Claiming that atheism is a belief can be supported by formal logic just as claiming 1+1=2 can be supported by mathematics. I find the comparison to be ideal as logic and mathematics overlap.
"Without God. I never believed that God was non-existent."
Well I know that. Atheism is dependent on understanding the god concept.
I get the point of this video but it is a little dense. Regardless of how you think atheists all define themselves, atheism still literally means the lack of a belief in any god, regardless of any community. For instance, when you were a baby you didn't believe in anything. In fact, for quite a while afterwards you don't. That would make you an atheist. Not hearing or thinking about an all powerful creator makes it impossible to be a theist. So there. Perhaps I'm protesting against a collective.
"atheism still literally means the lack of a belief in any god"
I have only ever seen this offered as a definition by those who have little or no undersatnding of formal logic or who have not even bothered to check a dictionary. Hardly grounds to say that it literally means that.
"That would make you an atheist."
You have only said what I am not or what I don't do. How could you conclude what I am or what I do from that information?
Babies lack a belief in god, rocks lack a belief in god, I lacked a belief in god 1,000,000 years before I was a baby yet none of these things can be considered atheists.
@mungbeanman A rock is not alive. Neither were you when you were not alive. Duh. In (any) god you lacked a belief in when you were a baby. A baby is alive.
If it's that obvious to you perhaps you could show me where the qualifier is within 'a lack of belief in god' that states that atheism only applies to things that are alive. This implies that you would say that not only babies are atheists but also non-human animals, plants and even bacteria are atheists.
Read through a few comments here and my other videos where people realise there is no such qualifier and apply atheism to inanimate (and even non-existent) objects.
@mungbeanman You apply it to humans because, as far as we know, they are the only ones capable of belief. Now an older infant can do that. I think. Not so sure. It was an example. Possibly not a good one.
However, now that you mention it. It's possible to put the word "atheism" on anything that doesn't believe in a god. Possible.
"You apply it to humans because, as far as we know, they are the only ones capable of belief."
That's a different qualifier (alive) from your previous comment so I shall rephrase my question to suit - where in the definition 'a lack of belief in god' is the qualifier that only allows atheism to be applied to humans capable of belief? You have to appreciate that the definition I argue for does this explicitly.
"Possible."
Is it possible to apply it to non-existent entities?
@mungbeanman Well, I guess, now that I think of it, I guess you can apply it to anything that possesses the ability to believe.
"Is it possible to apply it to non-existent entities?"
Sorry, I looped that with a serious argument. That was my Hassan-ib-Sabbah-esque way of describing things. The old quote "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". I don't know why I was thinking of that sort of thing at that moment. It's possible I had a William Burroughs moment.
How in the hell is promoting atheism through a formal logic approach where zygotes and rocks aren't atheists because to be an atheist you require intelligence a shill for Christianity?
Oh yeah, I've seen that video before. It is a piece of crap built solely on one person's biased opinion and not on any facts. If people like it is because they have not studied any formal logic or philosophy and like a version of atheism that devalues us all to the intelligence level of rocks. The video can easily be refuted can be refuted by even long dead philosophers. Bertrand Russell killed qualiasoup 106 years ago.
A theist is a person who has a belief in a deity, thats it no doctrine. A person with no belief in a deity is an a-theist. a -"without" + theos "a god" A person would not be called an a-christian because without christian doesn't make sense. You sound like you are treading on the etymology fallacy. The etymology of atheism is the only logically defensible position. You seem to not have a good foundation for your arguments.
Atheist isn't constructed by prefixing the word 'theist' as 'atheist' appears in language before 'theist' and you can't prefix a word that doesn't exist yet without violating cause and effect.
I refuse to be "corrected" or accused of fallacies by someone who doesn't possess the facts. Go away, do some research and stop making it up as you go along.
"You seem to not have a good foundation for your arguments."
The only foundation for your argument is a falsehood.
Why change atheism's definition into the definition of a word we already have? You may be looking for anti-theism.
For real though, if you try to change the definition of atheism (theism: belief in a god, a - without... without a belief in god) then I wouldn't know how to describe myself :p
"Why change atheism's definition into the definition of a word we already have? You may be looking for anti-theism."
I'm not changing anything into anything. I'm pointing out that some people are describing atheism in a logically inconsequential way. There are numerous problems created by trying to define something by what it is not or what it is the lack of. Besides, when atheism was first described it was described as a belief.
Anti-theism is an opposition to theism. It is the position against theism in the same way an anti-fascist is opposed to fascism and not that they believe fascism doesn't exist.
"(theism: belief in a god, a - without... without a belief in god)"
Atheism is not created by prefixing theism. The word atheism predates the word theism. You can't prefix a term that does not exist yet without violating cause and effect. Maybe this is where your misconception about atheism springs from?
You spelled it out for yourself right there. You said anti-fascist is opposed to fascism. Well here's the deal, anti-theism is opposed to theism, i.e. belief there is no god. Atheism is not anti-theism.
I do not know whether or not the term atheism predated the term theism. If you could offer proof I would reply to that in full.
Question: if atheism is not defined as one without belief in God, then what term is used to describe those people?
I said AN anti-fascist is opposed to fascism. An opposition to something means you are against it, that you actively oppose it, not that you just hold the opposite position. Someone who believes there is no god doesn't have to be against theism. What term do you use to describe someone who is against theism?
Well, here's the long story short. Recently, homosexual people have changed the way people address them, you may have heard the term before, it's called 'gay.' This was not some random movement, this was a purposeful conscious act of the homosexual community.
Through the same routes, atheist, in the way I have defined before, have taken the same measures. I would say at least the plurality and all celebrity atheist agree. I believe people should be able to define themselves.
I see your point, but I think it is somewhat unnecessary. Atheism is generally accepted by atheists to mean, in a broad sense, lack of belief in a deity. Whether or not the prefix a- is correctly used isn't very important to me, as words are just a tool for getting across meaning, and this is the most commonly accepted meaning by people who use it. If atheism and theism define what you believe, and gnosticism and agnosticism define what you know, the default position is agnostic atheist.
Erm, yes. One states that you don't believe there is a god, and one states that you don't believe that there are no gods. It's odd when you look at it like this -
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
There is no situation where these propositions can be both be true or both be false. If 1. is true then 2. is false and vice versa so it seems strange that you have no belief one way or the other.
@mungbeanman My position is a rejection of both claims, until evidence is proven either way. However my rejection of claim 1 immeidately makes me an atheist.
"my rejection of claim 1 immeidately makes me an atheist."
Indeed it does. Now though, try to appreciate that there is a difference between not believing a proposition and rejecting it. Babies do not believe that there is no god but they also have not rejected the proposition of god. To reject something takes a cognitive process, intelligence, and the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to reject 1. Rejecting both makes you in the excluded middle though, not an atheist.
@mungbeanman No, there is no 'middle' between atheism and theism. By sheer definition, the act of not being a theist makes you an atheist. You're proposing that atheism can only be prevelant AFTER theistic claims have been presented to you, but that's not necessarily true. Atheism - 'without god'. Do babies believe in god? Because if they don't, they're not theists, and if they're not theists...what are they? Atheists.
"the act of not being a theist makes you an atheist."
Not being a theist is not an act, it is not a thing at all. Besides, did we not just discuss rejection of theism as being what makes an atheist? Again, babies are not theists but have rejected nothing.
"You're proposing that atheism can only be prevelant AFTER theistic claims have been presented to you"
Which is also what YOU propose. How do you reject something that you have not been presented with?
@mungbeanman I never said atheism is ONLY a rejection of theistic claims. You can reject them, disbelieve them, not believe them, whatever. Not being a theist makes you an atheist.
To be honest, the label 'atheist' itself SHOULDN'T have meaning. It's the same as being A-Loch Ness Monster or A-Unicornist or A-Flying Spaghetti Monster. But atheism is the only way to identify those who don't believe in something most people take more seriously than I feel they should.
Are babies atheists? Are rocks? Were you an atheist one million years ago? What about the present King of France who does not exist?
"To be honest, the label 'atheist' itself SHOULDN'T have meaning."
You really might want to check up on the emergence of the term before you go on. Everything you say just sounds like you've guessed it rather than actually reasearched it. And guessed wrongly at that.
@mungbeanman Oh jesus "Moving the goalposts fallacy!" Bullshit, you're definately reaching now. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming I'm doing anything so silly, because I'm not. When we're talking about a concept of belief or nonbelief, we can safely assume the axiom that we're talking with respect of those things capable of such thoughts.
And no, I don't find it odd. Because you're operating off of the idea that you already think atheism is believing actively that there are no gods.
First you say that atheism is not believing, then you say that what makes you an atheist is rejecting the proposition that there is a god and then you add a qualifier out of nowhere that means you have to have thoughts in order to be an atheist. The goalposts are all over the pitch! Please, define atheism once for me now and then stick to it so at least I know what I am arguing against. It's only fair, right?
@mungbeanman You have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on what an axiom is. You even demonstrate you don't know how to have an intelligent conversation, since all you can do is pick apart little sentences of mine, take them out of context, and even make shit up about what I'm arguing.
For someone who wants debate, you really suck at it, you don't convince anybody with these tactics, you only serve to piss them off, and that's why I'm not addressing you anymore you arrogant douche.
This video makes the word atheism confusing for people and should be taken down. QualiSoup has done a MUCH better video on atheism titled "Lack of belief in gods"
truckcompany 5 hours ago
@truckcompany
But I could argue that qualiasoup's video is equally confusing. Especially as he makes just so many errors. His most fundamental being that the word 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing 'theism' with 'a~'. Simply not the case because the word atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism. How can you prefix a word taht does not yet exist. His video violates the law of cause and effect and should be taken down!
mungbeanman 5 hours ago
@mungbeanman
"atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism"
Why does this matter? What matters is how most people use the word NOW, after all, words are for communication.
truckcompany 5 hours ago
@truckcompany
Because he says that 'atheism' means 'a lack if theism' because of the way that the word is constructed, i.e. 'a~' + 'theism', which is wrong. And anyway, the meaning of a word is irrelevant when discussing the entity that it is applied to. Take the word 'submarine' for example. The word means 'below the sea' but I bet you pictured a vessel capable of submersive travel, didn't you?
What atheism is and what the word atheism means are two quite different matters.
mungbeanman 3 hours ago
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
BigBangNeverHappend 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
BigBangNeverHappend 3 weeks ago
@BigBangNeverHappend
"I don't care about the god debate."
I didn't engage you in a debate about god. I asked you how you the entity that is atheism can be defined as a lack of anything. It is logically inconsequential to try to do such a thing (that's formal logic, by the way).
"Atheists blindly belief in theories."
Such as?
"Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic."
So the religious lack reason and logic?
mungbeanman 2 weeks ago
atheism is the lack of reason and logic
BigBangNeverHappend 3 weeks ago
@BigBangNeverHappend
Then demonstrate logically how an entity can be defined solely by its absence of other entities.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
BigBangNeverHappend 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman I don't care about the god debate. Atheists blindly belief in theories. And belief those theories as if they were facts. Therefor atheists are religious and lack reason and logic.
BigBangNeverHappend 3 weeks ago
1:50 You do not accept that the sun exists, yet know it exists? C'mon, poor example to distinguish knowledge and belief. If you know something, then you'll likely believe it, as well, unless in denial of your knowledge. Also, ignoring what your opinion on the definition of atheism might be (belief and/or doubt/disbelief a god exists) I will approach on "lack of belief" in my next comment based on my familiarity with the subject, supported by dictionary.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini OKey, Lack can express "not", "lack of belief" = "not believe", synonymous with doubt, or disbelieve. Here, I see that "lack of belief" means doubt, something that inanimate objects or things ignorant of a claim cannot do. If it were to be taken another direction, away from the definition of doubt, as anything that does not believe then, yeah, ok.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
"synonymous with doubt"
Rocks lack a belief in god but do not doubt his existence. Lacking belief says what you don't do, doubting says what you do. Doubt is in the mind, lack of belief is nowhere. And the same goes for disbelief (thinking that something is not true). Lack uses the operator 'not' so can't mean anything other than that.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman No clue what you are saying here, my english is not well and these words in a form that confuse me. We'll just stick to our discussion on belief and knowledge, thanks.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
Does not bode well.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
Dictionaries record how words are used, they do not define the properties of an entity. "What does the word atheism mean?" and "what is atheism?" are two entirely different questions and the answers are derived using separate methods. That being said I have not once seen a dictionary defintion for atheism that states 'the lack of belief in god'.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Yes, I acknowledge this. I was more interested in the concept of what a "lack of belief" entails.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
Belief in god is a concept, a lack of belief in god is therefore a lack of a concept. It denotes nothing and certainly does not denote a whole new concept. If I tell you my name is not Mary I have not told you what my name is. 'Mary' is a name, 'not Mary' is not a name. And so on.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Ah, I see. Question, is "disbelief in the existence of god or gods" not same as "not believe in the existence of god or gods"? I've seen some definitions of disbelief as a lack of faith.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
Are we talking about the meaning of the word 'disbelief' or are we talking about what disbelief actually is?
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman No matter, it is getting late. Nice talking, mungbeanman, appreciate it.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Say, this subject of disbelief has me quite curious, might you have any sources on hand that go in depth? No need to do any searching or discussion for me, as I do not wish to impose any more of a inconvenience, or burden, upon you. The reason I ask is that I trust you would have knowledge of good sources.
Bourtini 2 weeks ago
@Bourtini
I would try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but if you struggle with English you will struggle even more here.
Anyway, there is an entry that discusses formal representations of belief which deduces that "belief in a proposition is characterized by disbelief in its negation". This basically translates that if belief is thinking that something is true disbelief is thinking that something is not true.
mungbeanman 2 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Perfect explanation! Now, I understand this. Thank you very much.
Bourtini 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
There are two types of proposition: those that are true or false and those that could be true or false (which are beliefs). If a proposition is true such as 'the sun exists' then there is no need for belief. Truth makes belief redundant.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Belief, as I know it, is acceptance that something is true, or exists. If you do not believe the sun to exist, then you do not accept the sun to exist. Saying I believe something I know does not seem all too redundant if I accept the existence or truth of the thing I know. No?
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini Let me make some examples: I know my friend Ted, I believe my friend Ted is real. My friend Ted lost his cat and knows this, but denies it because he is in grief.
While I not only know Ted is real, I accept Ted's existence. Ted knows his cat is missing, but does not accept that his cat is gone. This is what I know, is this incorrect?
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini More elaboration... There are two felids: Knowledge and uncertainty. Knowledge: One can know the truth of something (of existence or a statement), one can know something is false. Belief is active in what we know and what we are uncertain about: Accepting the truth of that we know or accepting truth of something we are uncertain about, otherwise, not accepting something that is known or uncertain to be true.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
In order to prove something's existence all you need is one truth about it. If you can apply a truth to Ted then saying you think he might exist is redundant. I'm not really sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the example of the missing cat though. Denying a truth is to be in possesion of a falsehood.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
Belief is the attitude you have toward an unknown or unknowable proposition. If the proposition can be shown to be true then you don't possess a belief, you possess a truth. For example, it would be redundant to say that you believe 1+1=2 because it can be demonstrated to be true and is not an unknown proposition.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Where, exactly, are you getting this definition of belief? If you go to wikipedia it will show you my usage and look under epistemology for a, possibly, better understanding of my application of belief and knowledge.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
@Bourtini
"Where, exactly, are you getting this definition of belief?"
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Ah, you must be recognizing knowledge that is not belief, like how to ride a bike. What I refer to is justified-true-belief. If knowing the sun exists is your example of a knowledge that is not belief, ok, then.
Bourtini 3 weeks ago
Why do you propose a word denoting a lack of a condition may be applied to a rock, but not one denoting a condition? Now, for 'mute' to fit the comparison and make any sense in the conversation, I was necessarily using its noun form definition which denotes a person (not a condition) who lacks the ability to speak. If intended as an adjective of a person, lacking the faculty of speech would be the definition; if intended as an adjective of an inanimate object, it would mean absent of sound.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"Why do you propose a word denoting a lack of a condition may be applied to a rock, but not one denoting a condition?"
I'm sorry. Where do I do this?
"Now, for 'mute' to fit the comparison and make any sense in the conversation, I was necessarily using its noun form"
You said 'mute' and not 'a mute' (and followed it with 'mentally handicapped') so you'll forgive me for thinking otherwise.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "Where do I do this?" In your reply about week ago; when asked if you'd label a rock [a] mute, you said you wouldn't because it denotes a condition and not a lack thereof.
"so you'll forgive me for thinking otherwise"
There's no need for forgiveness. I was unclear; thus the clarification. Yes, I ought to have introduced 'mute' with 'a', and 'mentally handicapped' with 'or consider it amongst the'. Haste and character limits cause me a bit of grief now and then.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"In your reply about week ago"
I think I understand what you are trying to say but I still don't see where I do this. 'Mute' denotes a condition but it is not a condition that applies to a rock, just as deaf and blind denote conditions that also don't apply to rocks but 'igneous' or 'sedimentary' are conditions that could.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "I still don't see where I do this." That's fine. We can dismiss it since you've clarified what you meant to convey.
"'Mute' denotes a condition but it is not a condition that applies to a rock~"
This is the point I was alluding to in regard to your own about calling inanimate objects atheists. We don't do it because it isn't useful.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"We don't do it because it isn't useful."
We don't do it because a rock isn't a person that believes there is no god. This isn't just some vague guessing game, this is about what logically belongs to what set.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"If intended as an adjective of a person, lacking the faculty of speech would be the definition"
So you would be happy to call babies, dead people and the present King of France mute?
"if intended as an adjective of an inanimate object, it would mean absent of sound."
Not according to any accepted logic.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "you would be happy to call babies, dead people and the present King of France mute?"
It's applicable to babies until they make vocal sounds we'd classify as words; to dead people, so long as you still consider them people; to the present King of France, so long as the subject is intended as an abstraction.
"Not according to any accepted logic."
Well, until you explain how it's erroneous, you can forgive me for using accepted definitions.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"It's applicable to babies until they make vocal sounds we'd classify as words"
I don't think that's correct at all. What of selctive mutes who don't lack the faculty of speech but rather are unable to employ it? Essentially, mutism is a speech disorder and does not apply to babies, dead people or people who don't exist. If you've ever had children the last thing you'd consider calling them at 4am during the first few months is mute.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman
*selective mutes...
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman "What of selctive mutes who don't lack the faculty of speech but rather are unable to employ it?"
A different definition of mute applies; as with most words, there are multiple. Certain definitions of mute would even encompass both scenarios.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"A different definition of mute applies; as with most words, there are multiple."
I wasn't talking about the meaning of the word 'mute', I was talking about what a mute is. A mute is someone with a specific speech disorder which is why rocks and babies aren't mutes.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman We're not in disagreement here when we use the same definition.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"Well, until you explain how it's erroneous"
When discussing the nature of an entity, in this case mutism, saying what it is not is insufficient in deducing what it is. For example if I try to denote a number by listing only the numbers which it is not you'll appreciate the futility.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "saying what it is not is insufficient in deducing what it is. ~ if I try to denote a number by listing only the numbers which it is not you'll appreciate the futility."
Sure, if all you do is list what it's not. But that's not all you're doing; here you've started by telling me the subject is a number. Negating predicates adds specificity to the model and thus is saying something 'about' the subject. As with the word atheist, we start with a 'person' as a subject.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"As with the word atheist, we start with a 'person' as a subject."
And what does that person do?
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman Potentially anything a person does, minus believe in a god or gods.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"minus believe in a god or gods."
That's what they don't do. I asked (and let's for the sake of clarity emphasise that this should be solely in relation to god concepts) what they do.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman That's right, that is what they don't do. You continue to act like there is a problem with negation, and your grammar presupposes validity of your argument/invalidity of mine when you're already aware that I don't share your view. It's basically a loaded question when you apply such restriction. I maintain that the label atheist does not necessarily convey a positive action by the denoted subject, although it may.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"You continue to act like there is a problem with negation"
There is a problem when people believe that a negated property is still a property. There is a problem when people think that saying what you don't do still says what you do. There is a problem when people think that a truth about what something isn't is a truth about what it is.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mungbeanman "There is a problem when people believe that a negated property is still a property. There is a problem when people think that saying what you don't do still says what you do. There is a problem when people think that a truth about what something isn't is a truth about what it is."
Sure, but those have not been the case.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@mungbeanman I'm not familiar with qualifiers for theism. If a theist is one who believes in gods, to say "weak theist" would be redundant since one cannot simultaneously believe deities exist and do not exist; the standalone label "theist" already implies that it's contrary is not the case. As one who does not believe in gods, an atheist's position on gods existing is subject to the ambiguity of a) not believing, and b) believing not; b implies a, a doesn't imply b. The qualifiers disambiguate.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"If a theist is one who believes in gods, to say "weak theist" would be redundant since one cannot simultaneously believe deities exist and do not exist"
Huh? Weak theist IS redundant (and helps to show why weak atheist is redundant too) but not for that reason. I don't think you read my comment properly. But I can't really tell because you have replies and new comments all over the place.
"the standalone label "theist""
And the standalone term 'atheist'?
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "I can't really tell because you have replies and new comments all over the place."
It was only two new comments; one of which was a reply, and the other should have been. If you need to review your conventionally dissociated comment, it was your first reply to my first comment, which was about a week ago..
"And the standalone term 'atheist'?"
I don't know what you're asking me here.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"I don't know what you're asking me here."
You talked of 'weak' atheism at one point. I was wondering if there was a difference between atheism and 'weak' atheism according to you.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"As one who does not believe in gods"
As one who believes there is no god.
"an atheist's position on gods existing is subject to the ambiguity of..."
No ambiguity. An atheist does not believe in god but not all people (or things) that do not believe in god are atheists.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "As one who believes there is no god." "No ambiguity."
To accept one definition and not the other is cherry picking, which is fallacious. I'll cite legitimate sources for both if you'd like.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"To accept one definition and not the other is cherry picking"
Nonsense. If one "definition" actually makes no attempt to define anything why should I accept it? If one definition only allows for people intelligent enough to understand and reject god concepts to be atheists while the other allows for babies to be included then we have two entirely different definitions where it is perfectly acceptable to discard the logically faulty one.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman "Nonsense. if one "definition" actually makes no attempt to define anything why should I accept it?"
For a noun, I can't think of any reason you should, but that hasn't been the case. Yes, we have multiple definitions. I'm still waiting for an explanation of one being "logically faulty".
If you'll entertain an analogy, an artist may develop an image by drawing on a blank piece of paper, or by erasing from a full one. In both cases he starts with a page and adds detail.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"I'm still waiting for an explanation of one being "logically faulty"."
Because one "definition" includes babies and those who've never even heard of god concepts and the other excludes them. I can't accept both as definitions because they are in conflict.
All atheists don't believe in god but not all those that don't believe in god are atheists.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman It's unfortunate that you refuse to recognize more than one definition per word. Some have over 100.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
It's unfortunate that you still think that this is about the meaning of the word.
It's not.
"What does the word 'atheism' mean?" and "what is atheism?" are two entirely different questions and as such the answers are derived using different methods. You continue to babble on trying to answer the first question while I am trying to offer answers to the second.
There is no point arguing about the definition of words; they mean whatever people want them to.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman "It's unfortunate that you still think this is about the meaning of the word. It's not." "two entirely different questions"
Feel free to disambiguate.
This started with my addressing your false dichotomy of belief and knowledge (uncontested), your moot point about calling inanimate objects atheists (you followed the same convention with rocks and mutism as I did with atheism), and the congruous syntactical meaning of a- in atheist and non- in nontheist (uncontested).
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"This started with my addressing your false dichotomy of belief and knowledge"
There is what you know and there is what you believe. There are truths and there are beliefs. Nothing more.
"you followed the same convention with rocks and mutism as I did with atheism"
Except that I demonstrated logically how mutism and atheism don't apply to rocks, you just said something vague about it not being useful.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman "There is what you know and there is what you believe. There are truths and there are beliefs. Nothing more."
Again, to believe is to accept as true. To know something and not accept it as true would be contradictory. Therefor they are not mutually exclusive, aka not a dichotomy.
"you just said something vague about it not being useful"
Me: We don't call inanimate objects atheists because it's a label for people and there's no context in which doing so would be useful.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"Again, to believe is to accept as true."
Again, to believe, is to hold an attitude toward a proposition that is unknown or unknowable (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). To know is to be in possession of a proposition that has shown to be true.
"because it's a label for people "
And again, I demonstrated how whereas you just speculated. You added absolutely nothing new to your argument with this statement.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"and the congruous syntactical meaning of a- in atheist and non- in nontheist"
'Non-theist' is constructed by prefixing 'theist' with the logical operator used by set theory in order to create a negated set. 'Atheist' on the other hand was not constructed by prefixing 'theist' with 'a~' because as it is commonly known the word 'atheism' appears in language BEFORE the word 'theism'. And cause and effect wraps that one up nicely.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman "And cause and effect wraps that one up nicely."
Etymology isn't quite as simple as that.
atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect Not that I was impressed by your etymological fallacy anyway; I just thought you might find that interesting.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
Hmm, and what fallacy was that exactly? I said that the word atheism predates the word theism so as to disprove any claim that 'atheism' was constructed by prefixing 'theism'. Your citation doesn't prove that I committed any such fallacy.
Atheist - 1566 -1571
Atheism - 1587
Theist - 1662
Theism - 1678
Your citation shows how the word was actually created ('atheos' + '~ism') creating a term that denotes a belief. Why add a suffix denoting belief only to ignore it?
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"Etymology isn't quite as simple as that."
Nothing, not even etymology, can violate cause and effect. Do you even know what cause and effect is by the way? Someone who does probably wouldn't have ventured that statement.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman "There is no point arguing about the definition of words; they mean whatever people want them to."
So what are dictionaries for? I would argue that if people don't follow a common convention for defining terms, it matters not what they intend to denote as an audience will have no way of comprehending their words. Definitions tell us what may be denoted, and when there are multiple definitions, it is by further convention or disambiguation that we become clear.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"So what are dictionaries for?"
To record how words are used. They are not there to set in stone definitions of words nor are they there to define what things are. They do not decide how people are to use words.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@urcorrect
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that because I have been clear enough in my explanations to you about the difference that I am going to call strawman on that last comment. Strawman or a failure to recognise the difference between an entity and the label attached to it. Neither of which are especially desirable.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman Cry strawman all you want, but I've committed no such fallacy; you have refused to accept multiple definitions for atheist and mute. I haven't had any trouble discerning an entity from a label either; perhaps you would like to identify where you suppose that happened instead of just administering accusation.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"I've committed no such fallacy"
Then you have failed to recognise the difference between a word and the entity to which it applies. That's the only other conclusion we can draw here.
"you have refused to accept multiple definitions for atheist and mute."
I accept definitions that DEFINE things. That's the definition of 'definition', lol.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mungbeanman "Then you have failed to recognise the difference between a word and the entity to which it applies."
I have not. In fact I demonstrated my ability to discern noun from referent when I stated an 'atheist' denotes a person...
"I accept definitions that DEFINE things."
Very good. So why do you reject definitions for atheist which utilize negation? After all, you suggest such a label as nontheist. Doesn't that violate the same pseudo-principle you're suggesting?
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"I demonstrated my ability to discern noun from referent when I stated an 'atheist' denotes a person"
Now try it on 'atheism' and see how far you get.
"So why do you reject definitions for atheist which utilize negation?"
Because it only says what atheism is not. No good.
"Doesn't that violate the same pseudo-principle you're suggesting?"
Non-theist is the negated set of theists. If you have a problem with this then it lies with set theory not me.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"perhaps you would like to identify where you suppose that happened instead of just administering accusation."
Sure. Right where you said "It's unfortunate that you refuse to recognize more than one definition per word." I am not trying to offer a definition for the word atheism but a definition of what the entity that atheism is. And trying to define an entity by only saying what it is not does not do the job in the slightest.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman "And trying to define an entity by only saying what it is not does not do the job in the slightest."
And once again, that has not been the case.
urcorrect 1 week ago
@urcorrect
"And once again, that has not been the case."
This has been going on for years in many, many cases. The second people say that atheism is a lack of belief in god they have tried to say what atheism is by only saying what it isn't.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
"I know the sun exists. Do I believe the sun exists? No." To believe is to accept as true, therefor if you 'know' something, then you believe it. Oak = knowledge / Tree = belief.
Would you call a rock mute or mentally handicapped? No. We don't call inanimate objects atheists because it's a label for people and there's no context in which doing so would be useful.
As for using the wrong word for the weak atheist position, a- and non- are syntactically equivalent, so nontheist == atheist.
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect
"Would you call a rock mute or mentally handicapped?"
No, because mute and mentally handicapped denote a condition not a lack of a condition.
"As for using the wrong word for the weak atheist position"
If a weak atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god is a weak theist someone who lacks a belief that there is no god? If not, why not? And if not, what is the weak theist position?
mungbeanman 1 month ago
whats stupid is that atheists already use the word atheist taht is in use for like 200 years and now they redefine what it means ...
why not simply use a different word
niinja2 1 month ago
People who define themselves as "lack of belief" like they allow for any relevant possibility of God, and in the same time say stuff like " religion is bullshit, theists are irrational, there is no god" have hypnotized themselves that they think they really have no belief about god.
and on top of that say how theists are the ones who are irrational.
lol, life is worse then anything you can think of.
niinja2 1 month ago
I believe that no god's exist.
I don't believe in any gods.
What's the difference between those 2 sentences?
The only difference is the wording. Saying "I believe that no god's exist" means the EXACT same thing as "I don't believe in any gods".
Apply that to theism & the sentences mean the EXACT opposite of each other.
Atheism is a lack of belief wether you say that "you believe that no gods exist", or that "you don't believe in any gods".
They both state that you lack a belief.
Zentz29 5 months ago
@Zentz29
The difference is clear and can be demonstrated by thinking about a baby or a rock that clearly don't believe in a god but also clearly don't believe there is no god. The two statements don't mean the same thing. The old axiom that an oak is a tree but a tree is not necessarily an oak springs to mind.
mungbeanman 5 months ago
@Zentz29
"Atheism is a lack of belief wether you say that "you believe that no gods exist""
if you believe no gods exist, your not lacking a belief, you have one.
niinja2 1 month ago
@Zentz29
"Apply that to theism & the sentences mean the EXACT opposite of each other."
you cant apply the two sentences to theism, since these sentences are stating a negation on 2 different ways, and theism states affirmation on only one way.
"i believe god exists"
niinja2 1 month ago
Just out of curiosity: you do know that a-theist comes from ancient Greek and means "lacking god" (and not "denying god"), right? Wouldn't you think that this would be a proper translation of your "non-theist' in Greek?!!!
So your entire "non-theist nonsense is...well, nonsense!
Atheism IS a lack of believe in (a) god(s). There might be atheists BELIEVING in the lack of (a) god(s), but that's their private case of atheism.
grozde 7 months ago
@grozde
Oh, so you want to talk about it now though?
You are wrong. Atheism isn't just a word but a denotation for an entity and that word only has it's roots in ancient Greek. A root word is generally not interchangeble with the new words they create. You are thinking of the word 'atheos' which means godless which creates the word 'atheism'. Notice the addition of the '~ism' which denotes a doctrine, a principle upon which a belief is built.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman
It's funny that you insist on being wrong...
Again: how would you call a non-theist in Greek? It's YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEM that you've taken a word with a particular meaning and make it up meaning something else.
PS: "-ism" denotes "a doctrine, a principle UPON WHICH A BELIEF IS BUILT (my caps - grozde)"... Would you care to reconsider or shall you need my assistance for proving you wrong with this, too? How do you deal with ... say... CRITICISM??
grozde 7 months ago
@grozde
"how would you call a non-theist in Greek?"
In ancient Greek, when the word 'atheos' was first recorded, there would have been no equivalent for 'non' (Latin) or 'theist' (17th Century English). You may as well be asking what the ancient Greek for Blu-ray is.
"How do you deal with ... say... CRITICISM??"
Are you a criticist? Is there such a thing as sciencism? You need to brush up on your facts and logic before blundering so clumsily into an argument. Start with a dictionary.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman
You keep making less and less sense, trying to avoid the point.
Oh, well - what a surprise!
grozde 7 months ago
@grozde
You aren't making any point. Trust me, I have done a good deal of research into this from the emergence and application of the term in the English language to the logic that shows no entity can be denoted solely by an absence of another entity. Truth, belief, propositions and even how dictionaries define atheism all come into this and you have offered nothing more than your ill-informed opinion in opposition. You have utterly failed to convince me I'm wrong. Sorry, but you lose.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman
Whether I "win" or "lose" does not depend on YOUR conviction.
Sorry, you're still wrong.
grozde 6 months ago
@grozde
"Sorry, you're still wrong."
Either I'm right according to the emergence of the term and its original application, the dictionary and several branches of formal logic mulled over by such philosophers as Bertrand Russell or I'm wrong according to some randomer on YouTube who has failed to construct an argument worthy of consideration.
Hmm, I think I'll stick with what I know rather than what you think you know but thanks anyway.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
By all means - you ARE completely free to stick to being wrong. However, don't expect other people to go with your flow just because you toss in BR's name ;-)
grozde 6 months ago
@grozde
I often find that when debating a creationist they will say that Charles Darwin et al are wrong but, much like yourself, can not construct a single satisfactory argument as to why. Until you can show me how I'm wrong, or a likewise creationist, I will stick to demonstrable facts and logic.
So, if you are so sure that Bertrand Russell and I are wrong, it should be no problem for you show me how. You never know, you might even be able to do so without being a complete ass in the process.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
I'm lazy.
Your "arguments" are ridiculous.
And you're stubborn.
So I'll pass, thanks.
You can continue to think that atheists REJECT god. It's DEMONSTRABLY wrong - but still unconvincing to you.
OK. :-)
grozde 6 months ago
@grozde
Way back when I made a video arguing that we are born atheist. Along came an argument that showed that this was wrong using some very simple but irrefutable formal logic. I had to admit my error and adopt a new position built upon this logic. To call formal logic "ridiculous" is about as solid an argument as saying evolution is ridiculous.
I think you are using your laziness as an excuse. What you really mean is that you can't demonstrate my error. Your dishonesty is unsurprising.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
gklr's "argument" is wrong, too.
Logic is OK. It's just that you two are using it wrong.
grozde 6 months ago
@grozde
If all you can do is assert that I am wrong without showing how or why then your "argument" is inconsequential. You can say it over and over all you want but it will get you nowhere. People don't learn by simply being told they are wrong do they?
For someone who has nothing to say you are sure spending a lot of time saying it.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
At least I'm not making videos demonstrating my lack of understanding of basic concepts.
Atheism is NOT an intellectual achievement, it's NOT necessarily something to be proud of. And it's NOT necessarily related to higher IQ. It might even come from intellectual laziness.
There surely ARE atheists who REJECT a particular god or gods in general. However, the common denominator is that we do not believe in god(s), not that we reject him/them.
gklr's wordgame is unimpressive.
grozde 6 months ago
@grozde
As I said previously, there is little point repeating over and over that someone is wrong unless you can offer an argument as to how or why because all you are offering is insubstantial rhetoric. You have to appreciate that I am a secure as one person can be that they are right - your empty blustering will do little to shake me. You can carry on if you want but you will be wasting your time.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
@mungbeanman
Now where have I heard this before? Hmmm...
You just forgot to end it with an "amen".
grozde 6 months ago
@grozde
So if I were to say that 1+1=2 and then you come along and say that I'm wrong with no explanation as to why or with no alternative solution, my assuredness in mathematics is to be equated to a prayer? Oh dear, I think you have clutched at you last straw now.
I have given you plenty of opportunities to offer an argument to best demonstrate my error and you have failed everytime. You have absolutely no comprehension of the subject at hand and are just trolling. I block trolls.
mungbeanman 6 months ago
Boring and stupid, sorry.
grozde 7 months ago
@grozde
Then leave quietly and that way you wouldn't have to leave a fatuous and insincere apology.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
. . . and might I add that theism is an add on. Atheism is idle. Much like asociality is not against society like someone whose anti-social. I guess those that preach "atheism" are really anti-theists or borderline anti-theists. I dunno. To say that one cannot simply lack a belief is to say, infact, that there are no atheists at all. The world may never know.
Me? I'm not sure. Sometimes I think I'm an agnostic or a patheist. Maybe an atheist. It's all very confusing.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"I guess those that preach "atheism" are really anti-theists"
Believing there is no god has no bearing on whether or not you are opposed to theism. Stating that atheism is a belief is not preaching any more than a maths teacher preaches maths.
"To say that one cannot simply lack a belief..."
I never say any such thing myself. In fact I offer the set theoretical term of non-theist to cover this.
"It's all very confusing."
It shouldn't have to be. Logic clears it all up.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman I see there's a narrow track here.
First thing. Yes, I goofed there. They are opposed to belief itself.
"Stating that atheism is a belief is not preaching any more than a maths teacher preaches maths"
No, ya see. It's a non-belief.
I guess the next thing I said sounded like a strawman. Like you were saying that the lack of a belief doesn't exist and therefore.
Lastly, I see what you're doing. Quoting me outta context. I meant confused over my own beliefs. Fin.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"They are opposed to belief itself."
They are opposed to theism. Being opposed to belief is futile as we hold beliefs about allsorts of things.
"No, ya see. It's a non-belief."
So you have only stated what it is not. How about stating what it is? It would be like me asking your name and you saying 'not Mary'. Tells me nothing.
"I meant confused over my own beliefs."
My mistake. I thought you were confused about the terms.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman Oh, and that whole math teacher comparison. Not so sure it works that way. I quoted atheism as well as mentioned it as something to being preached as a supposition. It was the strawman I got caught on, right? So, I fucked up. Regardless, it's not the same as teaching math (numbers). It's proclaiming a definition.
Furthermore, it's a negative. Without God. I never believed that God was non-existent. I just didn't believe. This is what I call wordplay. Ol' Signifyin' Monkey.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"Regardless, it's not the same as teaching math (numbers). It's proclaiming a definition."
Not quite the comparison I was trying to draw. Claiming that atheism is a belief can be supported by formal logic just as claiming 1+1=2 can be supported by mathematics. I find the comparison to be ideal as logic and mathematics overlap.
"Without God. I never believed that God was non-existent."
Well I know that. Atheism is dependent on understanding the god concept.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
I get the point of this video but it is a little dense. Regardless of how you think atheists all define themselves, atheism still literally means the lack of a belief in any god, regardless of any community. For instance, when you were a baby you didn't believe in anything. In fact, for quite a while afterwards you don't. That would make you an atheist. Not hearing or thinking about an all powerful creator makes it impossible to be a theist. So there. Perhaps I'm protesting against a collective.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"atheism still literally means the lack of a belief in any god"
I have only ever seen this offered as a definition by those who have little or no undersatnding of formal logic or who have not even bothered to check a dictionary. Hardly grounds to say that it literally means that.
"That would make you an atheist."
You have only said what I am not or what I don't do. How could you conclude what I am or what I do from that information?
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman Well, that's what a non - belief sounds like to me.
That would make you an atheist. Notice what I said before that. I meant when you were a baby. That is all.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"I meant when you were a baby."
Babies lack a belief in god, rocks lack a belief in god, I lacked a belief in god 1,000,000 years before I was a baby yet none of these things can be considered atheists.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman A rock is not alive. Neither were you when you were not alive. Duh. In (any) god you lacked a belief in when you were a baby. A baby is alive.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"Duh."
If it's that obvious to you perhaps you could show me where the qualifier is within 'a lack of belief in god' that states that atheism only applies to things that are alive. This implies that you would say that not only babies are atheists but also non-human animals, plants and even bacteria are atheists.
Read through a few comments here and my other videos where people realise there is no such qualifier and apply atheism to inanimate (and even non-existent) objects.
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman You apply it to humans because, as far as we know, they are the only ones capable of belief. Now an older infant can do that. I think. Not so sure. It was an example. Possibly not a good one.
However, now that you mention it. It's possible to put the word "atheism" on anything that doesn't believe in a god. Possible.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
@NeverAloneForever
"You apply it to humans because, as far as we know, they are the only ones capable of belief."
That's a different qualifier (alive) from your previous comment so I shall rephrase my question to suit - where in the definition 'a lack of belief in god' is the qualifier that only allows atheism to be applied to humans capable of belief? You have to appreciate that the definition I argue for does this explicitly.
"Possible."
Is it possible to apply it to non-existent entities?
mungbeanman 7 months ago
@mungbeanman Well, I guess, now that I think of it, I guess you can apply it to anything that possesses the ability to believe.
"Is it possible to apply it to non-existent entities?"
Sorry, I looped that with a serious argument. That was my Hassan-ib-Sabbah-esque way of describing things. The old quote "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". I don't know why I was thinking of that sort of thing at that moment. It's possible I had a William Burroughs moment.
NeverAloneForever 7 months ago
watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=related
Excellent video that refutes everyone of your claims. Are you shilling for christianity?
uniteordie1 8 months ago
@uniteordie1
"Are you shilling for christianity?"
How in the hell is promoting atheism through a formal logic approach where zygotes and rocks aren't atheists because to be an atheist you require intelligence a shill for Christianity?
Moron.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
@uniteordie1
Oh yeah, I've seen that video before. It is a piece of crap built solely on one person's biased opinion and not on any facts. If people like it is because they have not studied any formal logic or philosophy and like a version of atheism that devalues us all to the intelligence level of rocks. The video can easily be refuted can be refuted by even long dead philosophers. Bertrand Russell killed qualiasoup 106 years ago.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
A theist is a person who has a belief in a deity, thats it no doctrine. A person with no belief in a deity is an a-theist. a -"without" + theos "a god" A person would not be called an a-christian because without christian doesn't make sense. You sound like you are treading on the etymology fallacy. The etymology of atheism is the only logically defensible position. You seem to not have a good foundation for your arguments.
uniteordie1 8 months ago
@uniteordie1
"a-theist"
Atheist isn't constructed by prefixing the word 'theist' as 'atheist' appears in language before 'theist' and you can't prefix a word that doesn't exist yet without violating cause and effect.
I refuse to be "corrected" or accused of fallacies by someone who doesn't possess the facts. Go away, do some research and stop making it up as you go along.
"You seem to not have a good foundation for your arguments."
The only foundation for your argument is a falsehood.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
Why change atheism's definition into the definition of a word we already have? You may be looking for anti-theism.
For real though, if you try to change the definition of atheism (theism: belief in a god, a - without... without a belief in god) then I wouldn't know how to describe myself :p
chucatawaful 9 months ago
@chucatawaful
"Why change atheism's definition into the definition of a word we already have? You may be looking for anti-theism."
I'm not changing anything into anything. I'm pointing out that some people are describing atheism in a logically inconsequential way. There are numerous problems created by trying to define something by what it is not or what it is the lack of. Besides, when atheism was first described it was described as a belief.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@chucatawaful
Anti-theism is an opposition to theism. It is the position against theism in the same way an anti-fascist is opposed to fascism and not that they believe fascism doesn't exist.
"(theism: belief in a god, a - without... without a belief in god)"
Atheism is not created by prefixing theism. The word atheism predates the word theism. You can't prefix a term that does not exist yet without violating cause and effect. Maybe this is where your misconception about atheism springs from?
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman
You spelled it out for yourself right there. You said anti-fascist is opposed to fascism. Well here's the deal, anti-theism is opposed to theism, i.e. belief there is no god. Atheism is not anti-theism.
I do not know whether or not the term atheism predated the term theism. If you could offer proof I would reply to that in full.
Question: if atheism is not defined as one without belief in God, then what term is used to describe those people?
chucatawaful 9 months ago
@chucatawaful
"You said anti-fascist is opposed to fascism."
I said AN anti-fascist is opposed to fascism. An opposition to something means you are against it, that you actively oppose it, not that you just hold the opposite position. Someone who believes there is no god doesn't have to be against theism. What term do you use to describe someone who is against theism?
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@chucatawaful
"If you could offer proof I would reply to that in full."
From the OED -
Atheist - c. 1566 - 1577
Atheism - c. 1587
Theist - c. 1662
Theism c. 1678
Though don't take my word for it - the proof is out there for yourself to discover.
"what term is used to describe those people?"
I refer you back to the video for that one.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman
Well, here's the long story short. Recently, homosexual people have changed the way people address them, you may have heard the term before, it's called 'gay.' This was not some random movement, this was a purposeful conscious act of the homosexual community.
Through the same routes, atheist, in the way I have defined before, have taken the same measures. I would say at least the plurality and all celebrity atheist agree. I believe people should be able to define themselves.
chucatawaful 9 months ago
I see your point, but I think it is somewhat unnecessary. Atheism is generally accepted by atheists to mean, in a broad sense, lack of belief in a deity. Whether or not the prefix a- is correctly used isn't very important to me, as words are just a tool for getting across meaning, and this is the most commonly accepted meaning by people who use it. If atheism and theism define what you believe, and gnosticism and agnosticism define what you know, the default position is agnostic atheist.
w35m4n 9 months ago
I don't BELIEVE there are no gods. I DO NOT believe there are any gods.
I see a direct difference here, don't you?
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"I see a direct difference here, don't you?"
Erm, yes. One states that you don't believe there is a god, and one states that you don't believe that there are no gods. It's odd when you look at it like this -
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
There is no situation where these propositions can be both be true or both be false. If 1. is true then 2. is false and vice versa so it seems strange that you have no belief one way or the other.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman My position is a rejection of both claims, until evidence is proven either way. However my rejection of claim 1 immeidately makes me an atheist.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"my rejection of claim 1 immeidately makes me an atheist."
Indeed it does. Now though, try to appreciate that there is a difference between not believing a proposition and rejecting it. Babies do not believe that there is no god but they also have not rejected the proposition of god. To reject something takes a cognitive process, intelligence, and the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to reject 1. Rejecting both makes you in the excluded middle though, not an atheist.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman No, there is no 'middle' between atheism and theism. By sheer definition, the act of not being a theist makes you an atheist. You're proposing that atheism can only be prevelant AFTER theistic claims have been presented to you, but that's not necessarily true. Atheism - 'without god'. Do babies believe in god? Because if they don't, they're not theists, and if they're not theists...what are they? Atheists.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"the act of not being a theist makes you an atheist."
Not being a theist is not an act, it is not a thing at all. Besides, did we not just discuss rejection of theism as being what makes an atheist? Again, babies are not theists but have rejected nothing.
"You're proposing that atheism can only be prevelant AFTER theistic claims have been presented to you"
Which is also what YOU propose. How do you reject something that you have not been presented with?
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman I never said atheism is ONLY a rejection of theistic claims. You can reject them, disbelieve them, not believe them, whatever. Not being a theist makes you an atheist.
To be honest, the label 'atheist' itself SHOULDN'T have meaning. It's the same as being A-Loch Ness Monster or A-Unicornist or A-Flying Spaghetti Monster. But atheism is the only way to identify those who don't believe in something most people take more seriously than I feel they should.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"Not being a theist makes you an atheist."
Are babies atheists? Are rocks? Were you an atheist one million years ago? What about the present King of France who does not exist?
"To be honest, the label 'atheist' itself SHOULDN'T have meaning."
You really might want to check up on the emergence of the term before you go on. Everything you say just sounds like you've guessed it rather than actually reasearched it. And guessed wrongly at that.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman Yes. Babies are atheists. Anything capable of thought or belief that isn't a theist is an atheist.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"Anything capable of thought or belief that isn't a theist is an atheist."
Oh, suddenly a new qualifier has crept in! Moving the goalposts fallacy! Animals can think, are animals atheists too then?
You do now realise that by saying this you have negated your claim that theism and atheism are a dichotomy?
What you are arguing is that atheism "existed" before theism. Atheism came into existence the moment the first thought did to. Odd, don't you think?
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman Oh jesus "Moving the goalposts fallacy!" Bullshit, you're definately reaching now. Don't insult my intelligence by claiming I'm doing anything so silly, because I'm not. When we're talking about a concept of belief or nonbelief, we can safely assume the axiom that we're talking with respect of those things capable of such thoughts.
And no, I don't find it odd. Because you're operating off of the idea that you already think atheism is believing actively that there are no gods.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"you're definately reaching now."
First you say that atheism is not believing, then you say that what makes you an atheist is rejecting the proposition that there is a god and then you add a qualifier out of nowhere that means you have to have thoughts in order to be an atheist. The goalposts are all over the pitch! Please, define atheism once for me now and then stick to it so at least I know what I am arguing against. It's only fair, right?
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@mungbeanman You have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on what an axiom is. You even demonstrate you don't know how to have an intelligent conversation, since all you can do is pick apart little sentences of mine, take them out of context, and even make shit up about what I'm arguing.
For someone who wants debate, you really suck at it, you don't convince anybody with these tactics, you only serve to piss them off, and that's why I'm not addressing you anymore you arrogant douche.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"You have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on what an axiom is."
An axiom is a self evident truth. It is not self evidently true that talking about non-belief only includes entities capable of thought. Booyah!
"For someone who wants debate, you really suck at it"
Hey, at least I never moved any goalposts, lie or contradict myself!
"you only serve to piss them off"
What can I say? People don't like to be shown how stupid they are.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"that's why I'm not addressing you anymore you arrogant douche."
Ignorance is bliss! Good luck in your, smirk, "studies". See ya later.
mungbeanman 9 months ago
@BigLundi
"And no, I don't find it odd."
You don't find it odd that in one argument you are relying on the term theism to exist to create the term atheism and then