2) It's a little bit like the left- right approach in politics (the FDP in Germany for instance is liberal on society issues but also on economy eg less regulation,lower taxes etc; so the question whether they were left or right leads to no logical answer).
@Elune137 I'd disagree, mainly because the equation only looks that way. In truth, all it is is "Red + Car = Red + Car" But we view it as "Red Car." The difference is the attribute of being red, and of being a car are two seperate instances, not reliant on each other for classification. If we were talking multiplication, it'd be a merged word, RedCar, or a new vocabulary pertaining to that specific instance. ex: Bone Skeleton*Fish = Osteichthyes vs. Bone Skeleton + Fish = A fish and a skeleton.
@Elune137 This implies that Red + Car means a car and the colour red. But as red must have an object to which it is ascribed, and the only other object we know to exist from the equation is the car, we ascribe the colour of red to the car, but technically we are viewing two different concepts. The colour red, and a car.
This is one of the most retarded videos I have ever seen. Not only do you not understand atheism, theism, or logic; but your math sucks too.
1) A negative statement about a phenomenon is still a positive claim concerning that phenomenon. A non-positive claim would be a statement such that it admits no proof is possible for or against (eg "It cannot be known if x is true or false" is a non-positive claim).
2) Atheism and Theism asserts a positive claim, only Agnosticism is non-positive.
3) asserting the nonexistence of a particular god or pantheon of gods is as much a positive claim as asserting the existence of a particular god or pantheon of gods. Therefore to state that any god exists qualifies a person as theist and disqualifies them as a non-theist, because the two categories are mutually exclusive.
4) A non-theist could be atheistic or agnostic. The only place where your mathematical model even remotely makes sense is distinguishing the two.
5) It would be possible to be atheist towards certain gods but be agnostic in terms of the question of the possibility of a generic god, but to posit you can be both theist and atheist is completely ridiculous because the statement is inherently contradictory. A non-theist by definition either asserts the nonexistence of a god(s) or does not assert a positive claim concerning a god(s) or both. Once you assert that any god exists you are no longer non-theistic.
So far, so good, but what would you suggest, is logically applicable about these gradual steps, described by Dawkins (Dawkins scale, 1= there's definitely a god, 7= there is definitely no god; the numbers between assumptions of probability / the degree a person thinks it is reasonable; 4= existence / non- existence equally probable / reasonable). Do these assumptions already disqualify a person for the category "non- theist"? I know, the use of this debate is limited, just curious.
@Elune137 A non-theist would be someone who doesn't take a position on the subject. Theoretically it can exist, but your mind automatically assesses any statement you're exposed to. If I say there's a pink unicorn behind you right now, you probably think there isn't. You don't know either or, but without intending to, you take a stance. Same with god. For someone to truly be a non-theist, you would have to have never been exposed to the idea of god. My own little concept ;)
I disagree... 1) you have described an agnostic which is but one type of non-theist. Atheism is another type of non-theism.
2) It is possible not to come to an automatic judgment and even if one initially judges they may withdraw judgment after a period of inquiry. This is the case with many people who either always took the agnostic stance or arrived at it. After all, it is as logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of God(s) as it is to prove an unverifiable hypothesis.
@jjaggers 1. You wouldn't use the term non-theist to describe an atheist. Simple as that, there's a better term. And an agnostic does not simply meet the requirements I previously mentioned, but they also propose to take a side is equally illogical. What I mean to say by my definition of non-theist is someone who simply doesn't give a damn.
2. Impossible. Even if it's subconscious, our analytical minds and hardwired to assess situations as soon as they're presented one. We can change after tho.
1. Non-theism simply means belief which is not theistic, as such it covers a whole category of (non)belief. Atheism would be out and out disbelief concerning god, whereas agnosticism is the belief that proof is impossible both for and against as per god. Nihilism is the belief not only that there is no god but that everything is false. All three seem to not be theistic and are thus non-theistic.
@jjaggers You confuse disbelieving in something with believing the opposite.
If I don't believe in a god. It doesn't mean I take the stance that that god doesn't exist. It puts me in a middle ground between whether it does or doesn't. That is what it is to be atheistic towards a god. An agnostic would take the stance that to put yourself in that middle ground is illogical because you can't know whether either side of the spectrum is correct, and thus should be open to the entire spectrum. cont.
Firstly, as regards Dawkins' scale, I believe it to be a disastrous oversimplification (for example, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are not shades of an underlying philosophical stance)that may only be useful in the broadest sense. I would not take it seriously in defining one's world view. A non-theist would be either an atheist or an agnostic, in my opinion and since (4) makes no positive claim then it would be the stance of an agnostic (the key phrase being "equally probable".
@Elune137 the problem is that atheism and non-theism are mutually exclusive. Setting it up as a scale leads to the sort of confusion that inspired this video.
(cont) You will then be undoubtedly asking: "if mine and Dawkins' system both do not work then what would you propose?" The best way to do this is with Venn diagrams:
1) Draw large box labeled Z and in it draw separately two large circles A and B.
A = theism, B= non-theism.
2) In circle A draw three interlocking circles each labeled m, n, & p (for monotheism, animism, and polytheism respectively. In circle B draw two interlocking circles each labeled a & g, for atheism & agnosticism.
Conclusions, first we must see that in this model that Theism and Non-theism are disjunct having no common variables. Therefore we have |: ~(A&B) which follows from the law of non-contradiction. Incidentally we can have |: (~A&~B) which could be most accurately described as nihilism. Within the circles the overlaps are not scales of belief, but combinations of belief- another way this model is superior. I will not go into the logistics of the subsections unless you really want it.
I'm tired of this bullshit word play that is apparently the current trend to make a false argument against christians. Atheism is: "the doctrine or belief that there is no god" (according to dictionary (dot) com) christians are not atheists. Deal with it.
@fakeham We're protesting it because the dictionary has it wrong. Words are defined by their constructs. The prefix "a" does not mean to be against, or to oppose. It means not, or without. So atheism is simply without theism. It's not against theism, or opposing theism.
There's a false dichotomy in place, and it needs to be corrected.
Again, no issue except atheism can be either the lack of belief in god(s) a null position, or the positive assertion that no god(s) exist. Either accepting the null or positive assertion, you are an A.
You either have a lawn gnome, or you don't. It doesn't matter if you are apathetic or flat out reject lawn gnomes, you're still without a gnome.
You can try, like others to repurpose the word, it's just the basis for a weak semantic argument that thiests are skeptical of other theists.
There is no broad sense use of rejection of theistic claims beyond God. Being skeptical toward Zeus building the world is no more complex than not believing Zeus is real, and anything attributed to Zeus is nullified from the get go. However one can still still hypothetical accept astrology, being disaster literally as "bad star", and still be an atheist. You just can't believe in Zeus, or at least Zeus as a god.
Further, you can be an atheist and accept a philosophy or religion as well, just so long as you don't believe in god(s). You can accept any amount of bullshit, mysticism, shamanism, or any superstition, just so long as you don't accept a god.
(A)theism no mater what is nothing more than an a philosophical position, belief in god(s) or lack of belief. Anything beyond that would be another philosophical position such as your stance on RELIGIOUS or claims.
@MegaVelvetElvis I fundamentally disagree. As atheism disbelieve claims regarding theistic gods. So to claim a theistic god does not exist, is still making a claim regarding a theistic god. It's a similar position to common agnostic atheism, or de-facto atheism, but on a completely different level. My final video in this series, which i am uploading now, addresses this semantic problem.
"I fundamentally disagree. As atheism disbelieve claims regarding theistic gods"
Of course they are going to disbelieve the claims of gods, they don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is, someone who doesn't believe in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
"a theistic god does not exist"
Here's the rub, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s), and might even believe no god(s) exist(s). However if you say that god doesn't exist, but this one does, you're a theist.
Do you believe any god, or gods exist? You're a theist
[You've got a garden gnome]
Do you not believe in any god, or gods? You're an atheist
[you have no gnomes]
Have, or have not (a) god(s), and your stance on that philosophical question. That's all, nothing more. Any claim beyond god isn't theism, that isn't part of the natural world, is superstition, which is what you're talking about.
The problem with redefining atheism to be abstitious is religions exist with the precept of atheism. See Jainism and some sects of Buddhism. One can not have a god and still be religious. Thus atheism was, and is, is no more than a philosophical position.
@MegaVelvetElvis I actually do think I agree with you on this. But I would still find it useful to label the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as a sub-claim that builds up the claim that Jesus is God. Because, though logically speaking they aren't related, whenever the claim Jesus is god is brought up, part of that claim is that Jesus rose from the dead. The claims work hand-in-hand.
But I do agree with you that rejecting the claim Jesus rose from the dead, on it's own, isn't being atheistic.
"But I would still find it useful to label the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as a sub-claim that builds up the claim that Jesus is God."
Again, this is superstition, a RELIGIOUS claim, a point of RELIGIOUS dogma, which is NOT universally accepted even among Trinitarian Christians, mainly the freaking Catholics who follow the Apostle's creed which doesn't state explicitly Jesus is Lord or God.
Good video. It's nice to have visuals on these concepts. Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to convince the "atheism is a religion" crowd too much, but maybe someone will finally get it.
now I know how to troll nerd christians
h4xww 5 months ago
This video is full of logical fallacies.
lluttrelltv 1 year ago 2
2) It's a little bit like the left- right approach in politics (the FDP in Germany for instance is liberal on society issues but also on economy eg less regulation,lower taxes etc; so the question whether they were left or right leads to no logical answer).
Elune137 1 year ago
Better say Red * Car = Red Car; you can not sum up different things.
Elune137 1 year ago
@Elune137 I'd disagree, mainly because the equation only looks that way. In truth, all it is is "Red + Car = Red + Car" But we view it as "Red Car." The difference is the attribute of being red, and of being a car are two seperate instances, not reliant on each other for classification. If we were talking multiplication, it'd be a merged word, RedCar, or a new vocabulary pertaining to that specific instance. ex: Bone Skeleton*Fish = Osteichthyes vs. Bone Skeleton + Fish = A fish and a skeleton.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@Elune137 This implies that Red + Car means a car and the colour red. But as red must have an object to which it is ascribed, and the only other object we know to exist from the equation is the car, we ascribe the colour of red to the car, but technically we are viewing two different concepts. The colour red, and a car.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
LOL !
worst videos this week!
so many fallacies and snobbery that I can write book on this video!
VyckRo 1 year ago
This is one of the most retarded videos I have ever seen. Not only do you not understand atheism, theism, or logic; but your math sucks too.
1) A negative statement about a phenomenon is still a positive claim concerning that phenomenon. A non-positive claim would be a statement such that it admits no proof is possible for or against (eg "It cannot be known if x is true or false" is a non-positive claim).
2) Atheism and Theism asserts a positive claim, only Agnosticism is non-positive.
jjaggers 1 year ago
(cont.)
3) asserting the nonexistence of a particular god or pantheon of gods is as much a positive claim as asserting the existence of a particular god or pantheon of gods. Therefore to state that any god exists qualifies a person as theist and disqualifies them as a non-theist, because the two categories are mutually exclusive.
4) A non-theist could be atheistic or agnostic. The only place where your mathematical model even remotely makes sense is distinguishing the two.
jjaggers 1 year ago
(cont)
5) It would be possible to be atheist towards certain gods but be agnostic in terms of the question of the possibility of a generic god, but to posit you can be both theist and atheist is completely ridiculous because the statement is inherently contradictory. A non-theist by definition either asserts the nonexistence of a god(s) or does not assert a positive claim concerning a god(s) or both. Once you assert that any god exists you are no longer non-theistic.
jjaggers 1 year ago
@jjaggers
So far, so good, but what would you suggest, is logically applicable about these gradual steps, described by Dawkins (Dawkins scale, 1= there's definitely a god, 7= there is definitely no god; the numbers between assumptions of probability / the degree a person thinks it is reasonable; 4= existence / non- existence equally probable / reasonable). Do these assumptions already disqualify a person for the category "non- theist"? I know, the use of this debate is limited, just curious.
Elune137 1 year ago
@Elune137 A non-theist would be someone who doesn't take a position on the subject. Theoretically it can exist, but your mind automatically assesses any statement you're exposed to. If I say there's a pink unicorn behind you right now, you probably think there isn't. You don't know either or, but without intending to, you take a stance. Same with god. For someone to truly be a non-theist, you would have to have never been exposed to the idea of god. My own little concept ;)
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t
I disagree... 1) you have described an agnostic which is but one type of non-theist. Atheism is another type of non-theism.
2) It is possible not to come to an automatic judgment and even if one initially judges they may withdraw judgment after a period of inquiry. This is the case with many people who either always took the agnostic stance or arrived at it. After all, it is as logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of God(s) as it is to prove an unverifiable hypothesis.
jjaggers 1 year ago
@jjaggers 1. You wouldn't use the term non-theist to describe an atheist. Simple as that, there's a better term. And an agnostic does not simply meet the requirements I previously mentioned, but they also propose to take a side is equally illogical. What I mean to say by my definition of non-theist is someone who simply doesn't give a damn.
2. Impossible. Even if it's subconscious, our analytical minds and hardwired to assess situations as soon as they're presented one. We can change after tho.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t
1. Non-theism simply means belief which is not theistic, as such it covers a whole category of (non)belief. Atheism would be out and out disbelief concerning god, whereas agnosticism is the belief that proof is impossible both for and against as per god. Nihilism is the belief not only that there is no god but that everything is false. All three seem to not be theistic and are thus non-theistic.
2. Then what, pray tell, is a dilemma?
jjaggers 1 year ago
@jjaggers You confuse disbelieving in something with believing the opposite.
If I don't believe in a god. It doesn't mean I take the stance that that god doesn't exist. It puts me in a middle ground between whether it does or doesn't. That is what it is to be atheistic towards a god. An agnostic would take the stance that to put yourself in that middle ground is illogical because you can't know whether either side of the spectrum is correct, and thus should be open to the entire spectrum. cont.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@jjaggers Whereas by staying in just the middle ground (atheist) you simply don't believe a claim.
And yes, they're all non-theistic.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@Elune137
Firstly, as regards Dawkins' scale, I believe it to be a disastrous oversimplification (for example, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are not shades of an underlying philosophical stance)that may only be useful in the broadest sense. I would not take it seriously in defining one's world view. A non-theist would be either an atheist or an agnostic, in my opinion and since (4) makes no positive claim then it would be the stance of an agnostic (the key phrase being "equally probable".
jjaggers 1 year ago
@jjaggers
1) I would say, the Dawkins scale is some kind of model describing positions.
The risk is always that a model oversimplifies things (e.g. by only allowing one degree of freedom like the Dawkins model).
Despite being oversimplified indeed, I think in some cases it might be able to roughly describe a person's position.
Elune137 1 year ago
Comment removed
jjaggers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elune137 the problem is that atheism and non-theism are mutually exclusive. Setting it up as a scale leads to the sort of confusion that inspired this video.
jjaggers 1 year ago
(cont) You will then be undoubtedly asking: "if mine and Dawkins' system both do not work then what would you propose?" The best way to do this is with Venn diagrams:
1) Draw large box labeled Z and in it draw separately two large circles A and B.
A = theism, B= non-theism.
2) In circle A draw three interlocking circles each labeled m, n, & p (for monotheism, animism, and polytheism respectively. In circle B draw two interlocking circles each labeled a & g, for atheism & agnosticism.
jjaggers 1 year ago
(cont)
Conclusions, first we must see that in this model that Theism and Non-theism are disjunct having no common variables. Therefore we have |: ~(A&B) which follows from the law of non-contradiction. Incidentally we can have |: (~A&~B) which could be most accurately described as nihilism. Within the circles the overlaps are not scales of belief, but combinations of belief- another way this model is superior. I will not go into the logistics of the subsections unless you really want it.
jjaggers 1 year ago
Then in your definition, (in a very well presented format) I am an atheist. Even though I am open to what we don't know.
Then quite simply, I do not believe that a god or any kind of a god can exist within that context of "The Unknown"
CheshireShade 1 year ago
I'm tired of this bullshit word play that is apparently the current trend to make a false argument against christians. Atheism is: "the doctrine or belief that there is no god" (according to dictionary (dot) com) christians are not atheists. Deal with it.
fakeham 1 year ago
@fakeham We're protesting it because the dictionary has it wrong. Words are defined by their constructs. The prefix "a" does not mean to be against, or to oppose. It means not, or without. So atheism is simply without theism. It's not against theism, or opposing theism.
There's a false dichotomy in place, and it needs to be corrected.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThinkAbout1t
"The prefix "a" does not mean to be against, or to oppose. It means not, or without."
Agreed. So don't say that if theism is +1, then atheism is -1. It's ZERO.
indignant99 1 year ago
Again, no issue except atheism can be either the lack of belief in god(s) a null position, or the positive assertion that no god(s) exist. Either accepting the null or positive assertion, you are an A.
You either have a lawn gnome, or you don't. It doesn't matter if you are apathetic or flat out reject lawn gnomes, you're still without a gnome.
You can try, like others to repurpose the word, it's just the basis for a weak semantic argument that thiests are skeptical of other theists.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
There is no broad sense use of rejection of theistic claims beyond God. Being skeptical toward Zeus building the world is no more complex than not believing Zeus is real, and anything attributed to Zeus is nullified from the get go. However one can still still hypothetical accept astrology, being disaster literally as "bad star", and still be an atheist. You just can't believe in Zeus, or at least Zeus as a god.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
Further, you can be an atheist and accept a philosophy or religion as well, just so long as you don't believe in god(s). You can accept any amount of bullshit, mysticism, shamanism, or any superstition, just so long as you don't accept a god.
(A)theism no mater what is nothing more than an a philosophical position, belief in god(s) or lack of belief. Anything beyond that would be another philosophical position such as your stance on RELIGIOUS or claims.
Thiesm does not equal religion.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
@MegaVelvetElvis I fundamentally disagree. As atheism disbelieve claims regarding theistic gods. So to claim a theistic god does not exist, is still making a claim regarding a theistic god. It's a similar position to common agnostic atheism, or de-facto atheism, but on a completely different level. My final video in this series, which i am uploading now, addresses this semantic problem.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t
"I fundamentally disagree. As atheism disbelieve claims regarding theistic gods"
Of course they are going to disbelieve the claims of gods, they don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is, someone who doesn't believe in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
"a theistic god does not exist"
Here's the rub, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s), and might even believe no god(s) exist(s). However if you say that god doesn't exist, but this one does, you're a theist.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
@ThinkAbout1t
"this semantic problem."
There is no problem.
Do you believe any god, or gods exist? You're a theist
[You've got a garden gnome]
Do you not believe in any god, or gods? You're an atheist
[you have no gnomes]
Have, or have not (a) god(s), and your stance on that philosophical question. That's all, nothing more. Any claim beyond god isn't theism, that isn't part of the natural world, is superstition, which is what you're talking about.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
To put yet another way.
Q: Do you believe in the Christian god?
A: No, I'm an atheist
Q: Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?
A: No, I'm not superstitious.
The problem with redefining atheism to be abstitious is religions exist with the precept of atheism. See Jainism and some sects of Buddhism. One can not have a god and still be religious. Thus atheism was, and is, is no more than a philosophical position.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
@MegaVelvetElvis I actually do think I agree with you on this. But I would still find it useful to label the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as a sub-claim that builds up the claim that Jesus is God. Because, though logically speaking they aren't related, whenever the claim Jesus is god is brought up, part of that claim is that Jesus rose from the dead. The claims work hand-in-hand.
But I do agree with you that rejecting the claim Jesus rose from the dead, on it's own, isn't being atheistic.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThinkAbout1t
"But I would still find it useful to label the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as a sub-claim that builds up the claim that Jesus is God."
Again, this is superstition, a RELIGIOUS claim, a point of RELIGIOUS dogma, which is NOT universally accepted even among Trinitarian Christians, mainly the freaking Catholics who follow the Apostle's creed which doesn't state explicitly Jesus is Lord or God.
MegaVelvetElvis 1 year ago
Good video. It's nice to have visuals on these concepts. Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to convince the "atheism is a religion" crowd too much, but maybe someone will finally get it.
FloppyFormatFrenzy 1 year ago