RR 2.62: Stealing Candy From an Atheist Baby

[noelplum99]

You're a twat, you have made me make a video. uploading now.

[RationalRoundtable]

@noelplum99

anything I can do to make you get back in the game!

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex Hmm that's an interesting point. But I still don't think I would characterize it as a lack of a belief in pixies so much as a belief that there are no pixies, with a willingness to change that were evidence presented to me. It seems strange to think that a cognitive event can be characterized as a "mere lack." That's a good distinction, however.

[OccamKant]

RR - You said that the whole "burden of proof" thing should be disregarded because this isn't a court of law.

What's that got to do with anything? Burden of proof isn't a legal concept, it is a logical one. It's how science works. It's how YOU work. If I told you that I had a magical flying unicorn, and that now you have to prove that I don't, that would be stupid, and you know it. If I make the claim, the burden of proof is on me to support it.

This is an important aspect of rationality.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@OccamKant I don't think he means that it should be disregarded, but that outside the court of law, the burden of proof doesn't work the same way. It's relative to the event. If I am trying to believe in unicorns, the burden of proof is only set to my own standards. If I am trying to convince you of a magical flying unicorn, then I am no longer just holding a belief but also turning that belief into a claim, which now has the threshold of your proof-criteria to be met.

[OccamKant]

@BoethianAcolyte The burden of proof is simply a matter of logic and practicality.

If you want to believe something internally, and you're not talking about it to anyone, then sure, you have no burden of proof.

But that's not what we're talking about. Theists claim that their beliefs are real. That brings into full force the burden of proof. They are telling us that they have a unicorn (Jesus). By making the claim (Jesus is real, God is real, etc), they now have to pony up the evidence.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@OccamKant Yeah that's . . . what I said.

[OccamKant]

@BoethianAcolyte Then what was the point of your comment? I know what the burden of proof is, and when it comes into play.

RR was poo-pooing it because he said this isn't a court of law. My point is - that is irrelevant. So what were you adding to the conversation?

[BoethianAcolyte]

@OccamKant My point was that the burden of proof is relative to the situation.

[OccamKant]

@BoethianAcolyte Ok, and the situation he is talking about in the video is the express declaration to others that God exists.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@OccamKant No, it's not. It's about the definition of a term.

[TheRationalizer]

The only purposeful question is "Are babies lovely?"

Yes, they are very very scrummy little things :)

[TheNakedAtheist]

Why would it be pointless for theists to assert that babies are theists? Doesn't the bible say that the fact that God exists is written on our hearts? When does it get written? To me that sounds like a claim that believing in God is the default.. I'm glad to hear you apparently don't believe that is the case, but many theists disagree. In that context saying babies are atheists is relevant.

[Skierkowa]

Picking on the word "proof" doesn't seem your style, Mike. I think its obvious that meant "evidence," or similar.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex Well, can't fault you for that. I think maybe we're talking about slightly different ideas. Like, whether you have money or not is a simple binary, but having money is not a simple binary; same with belief. I don't pretend to be an expert on this stuff anyway - I'm an English major, not a cognitive scientist or something, haha. I enjoyed the conversation too. Always good to find a friendly debate. :)

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex (and) saying that a judgment is inconclusive is not lacking a belief: it is saying that you believe the evidence is inconclusive. I don't lack a belief in pixies; I believe that the evidence is not good enough to believe in fairies. That's not the lack of a belief, that's the presence of a belief in the lack of evidence.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex That doesn't make sense to me. Why would one not say "I believe you are a millionaire, but not strongly"? I see nothing logically wrong with that statement. It merely indicates the degree to which one is convinced. Presence of doubt does not mean one doesn't hold a belief - it means that one understands that the belief could be wrong or disproven.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex But that's not a "lack of a belief," it's a belief I don't hold strongly.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex I don't get how a person can judge to have a mere lack of a belief. If you've formed a conclusion, even if you don't assume it's absolute truth, it's not just the lack of a belief. It's maybe not a strongly stated belief, one within the confines of a reasonable epistemology. But I really doubt most people who call themselves atheists think, "I have no opinion as regards to the truth value of the statement 'God exists'." If you've made a judgment, you don't merely lack a belief.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@JohnHenryAlex I think the problem, though, is that when you're having complicated conversations, you want to try and make language as precise as possible. Atheism has, in fact, been used of people who believe in God but disobey what theists believe God commands, for example, which is just over-saturating the word.

[starspawn77]

@RationalRoundtable And before you or anyone else say it - yes, the kid might one day ask deeper questions ("Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" etc) and if no scientific answer could be presented... then, honestly, i don't know. Maybe the kid would start to wonder about things beyond that which could be explained... but whatever he/she came up with, no matter how nice it sounded, would not mean the kid was anywhere near being correct.

[starspawn77]

@RationalRoundtable If you raised a child from birth, gave it a clear, rational, scientific answers to every question it had ("Why is the sky blue? Where does wind come from? Why does water become ice when it gets cold?" etc) and all the while you could somehow keep the child ignorant to any mention of god(s), it is unlikely the kid would just develop a theory of god. When everything has an explanation (or at least an honest "i don't know") why would the kid ever need to assume the supernatural?

[starspawn77]

@RationalRoundtable (continued) knowledge that we have today. And that is what frustrates me - you actually refuse to take into account what humanity has solidly gleaned about reality because you choose to adhere to the mistakes of ancient man. Our long dead ancestors had the excuse of not knowing any better. We, as a species should know better by now. God is not knowledge. God is a way to bypass knowledge - to trade it for a sense of security, or so you can feel special.

[starspawn77]

@RationalRoundtable (continued) This is not to suggest that insight cannot be gained from thinking about something. But "thinking" alone, without the tools or accumulated knowledge granted from thousands of years of research, did not do early humankind any good in terms of explaining reality - they did the best they could to explain the unknown by applying what they did know to bizarre phenomenon. But. They. Were. WRONG. They weren't stupid - they just didn't have the wealth of... (cont)

[starspawn77]

@RationalRoundtable i don't want to defend BD (even though i am an atheist, i frankly think BD is kind of an idiot) but to touch upon something you said in your last vid - "thinking" doesn't mean "thinking correctly". Applying supernatural causes to things you don't understand ("What is lightning? Must be a magic man in the sky!) regardless of how long you spent thinking about it does not make you right. Without evidence, all that thought is wasted... (cont)

[WayOfTheBastard]

epix title!

[jaocheu]

I'm an athiest, because I have lots of beliefs, ideas, thoughts and knowledge. I also have nothing whatsoever against religion, because of the above too.

I'm developing the view people who are athiests because they have no thoughts shed a lot of light on bolshy new athiesm and who the ranks are.

[RationalRoundtable]

@FederalistFilms

yeah... I just saw it.... *sigh*

[steviemgallacher]

Atheist is a general term meaning non-theist, to be without belief in a god or gods, so yes Michael you are an atheist as far as Zeus, Odin and many other gods are concerned, deal with it.

You should not define/judge people by one characteristic of their personality, but the whole personality. Atheist is not a neat little box a person fits into; it's part of a larger picture

Until now I’d considered you to be one of the more rational theist voices on YouTube, but now I’m not so sure.

[RationalRoundtable]

@steviemgallacher

Well I am truly sorry to disappoint you, but try to keep in mind that by constantly attempting to blur the line of what atheism means makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about atheism/theism. A theist is defined as a person who believes in a God or gods, it is not specific to a religion only that one believes that a God or gods exit, it is not about which God concept one follows only that one thinks some kind of God exists.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Part 2

thus, to say one is an atheist in regards to Zeus, would be as silly as suggesting that one is not a human in regards to Europe.

[steviemgallacher]

@RationalRoundtable Absolute nonsence! human in regar to europe?

The only person I can see trying to redefine the word 'atheist' is you.

to bring this back to topic, you stated "A theist is defined as a person who believes in a God or gods", since a baby has no concept of a god, christian or otherwise, until the indoctrination process has begun, the baby is an atheist.

I think of my self as an agnostic atheist, agnostic 'cos I don't claim to know, atheist 'cos I don't believe.

[RationalRoundtable]

@steviemgallacher

So, let me ask you, do you think that a rock is an atheist? Before you answer, it really depends on if you buy the '-ist' suffix argument that many atheists put forth. If you are unaware of that argument a good example if found at:

watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

[steviemgallacher]

@RationalRoundtable I've watched it, and I think the question is rather childish.

You are a smart, intelligent human being capable of much more than this.

The larger point (you seem to be missing) is that until a human is introduced to the god concept they are not a theist, and probably never will be, it's only when the idea is introduced, and it takes hold, wether it's forced by a parent figure, or something they choose, and becomes part of who they are, they become a theist.

continued....

[steviemgallacher]

@steviemgallacher

...continued

If you want to categorise further you could argue, rather correctly, that an atheist like myself and a young child are different kinds of atheist.

A baby no more than a week old would still be looking at his/her fingers in wonder, so I don't imagine he/she would have given much thought to the origin of the universe.

Whereas I, as 32 years old male with a reasonable education, but no religious upbringing, was able to look at the "evidence" and follow where it led.

[RationalRoundtable]

@steviemgallacher

you may think the question to be childish, but I actually had a point to it. I agree with QS's argument that rocks are not atheists because of the "-ist" suffix, however that same argument also means that in actuality BD's definition is demonstrably false, and in fact babies are not atheists. More on that in my next video.

[steviemgallacher]

@RationalRoundtable I'll look forward to it. ;-)

[WolfSyndrome]

@steviemgallacher In order to be an atheist OR theist you must first have a concept of God. In order to believe in (or lack a belief in) ANYTHING you must first have a concept of it. Do you believe in a zurioplast? Yes or no? Ignorance and atheism are not synonymous....or ARE they?

[starspawn77]

@WolfSyndrome It's pretty sad if all you can do is wave your "+5 Wand of Pedantic Nit-Pickery". It is possible to be ignorant of something you don't believe in, (having no knowledge of a thing would also qualify as not believing in it) but ignorance does not immediately carry the negative stigma that you are implying. At least an atheist does not claim to be absolutely certain of things he/she has no evidence with which to uphold.

[starspawn77]

@WolfSyndrome i'd rather be ignorant than have a head full of BS like you. At least ignorance can be remedied with knowledge. Stupidity, however, is a lot harder to cure - hence the continued existence of the religious.

[steviemgallacher]

@WolfSyndrome I disagree, to be a-anaything means to be without that thing, if it's the result of a choice, or because you've never been introduced to the concept is irrelevant, you still lack what ever that thing is. I think we can say this has become a word game, speaking of which... Zurioplast? it's 1am here, and my research tools are limited, but since I can't find the word on google, wikipedia, or the cambridge english dictionary, I think this word game is over.

[MrTruthAddict]

Hey Rational, take a look at this vid. It will clear up the confusion watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

[RationalRoundtable]

@MrTruthAddict

I have seen this before, and it makes a fatal flaw that most 'lack of belief' people make, I will get into that in my next video.

[RationalRoundtable]

@4Jesuzchrist

*cough* obviously I would disagree with people like Bionic Dance who might say that there "is no God" but at the same time I agree with her in that Babies do not have specific theistic beliefs at birth.

[RationalRoundtable]

@MrLordLaws

She has a rather 'abrasive' style to be sure, it will be interesting to see how she reacts to this, my 2nd video to her.

[RationalRoundtable]

@altonnukem

While I deeply respect and enjoy wheezy waiter, I can actually prove that my use of clones was not inspired by him...

[MardasMan]

Your last point is fallacious. Atheism as a lack of belief is only referring to religion and not to other concepts, of philosophy or whatever, so promoting this lack of belief in gods or deities does not mean "anything". It only might seem that way and this do we have to put up with.

[RationalRoundtable]

@MardasMan

I was not referring to 'atheism' rather 'atheist' and simply re asserting the proposed definition that I disagree with is not an argument.

'atheist' refers to a specific type of person, thus it does not mean nothing, it means a specific group, if you want to expand that group to include everyone the term becomes pointless.

[fruitikay]

This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it's like you are a full-time Mafia dude, doing Youtube part-time on your shifts of being a total boss. lol. :) 

[RationalRoundtable]

@fruitikay

Wow... I must say I have never been described anything like that!

[Audiofalcon7]

By the way, your intro was perfect. :)

[RationalRoundtable]

@Audiofalcon7

Thanks... I just hope BD appreciated the satire.

[Audiofalcon7]

I don't think it is a pointless issue, RationalRoundtable. I think it shows the sheer impractical, convoluted, and wrong epistemology that is pure empiricism, positivism, etc., and their absolutely metaphysical notion that logic is somehow psychological/empirical/purely linguistic. To reject that logical statements are in fact apriori true, or that logic adds to our knowledge, or that our minds must use apriori to discern trueexperience, makes the clear fact that a baby is N/A not clear anymore.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Audiofalcon7

interesting point.

[177xxxx]

I think I know why Bionicdance is sticking to the is argument................shes lonely and jealous of the theist community.

The fact is most of the world is theist so by claiming everything down to your own feces is atheist just creates a whole lot of new atheist brethren for her!

[RationalRoundtable]

@177xxxx

While I find your idea amusing, I hope you are kidding, you and I do not know BD's motivations well enough to suggest that she is jealous.

[177xxxx]

@RationalRoundtable

yea trust me I was just having alittle fun.

[Epydemic2020]

epic title, epic intro, and overall good video.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Epydemic2020

Thank you my friend.

[DarkMatter2525]

Cheapening the word to the extreme isn't all bad. At least then I get to be compared to a kitten rather than Stalin!

[Epydemic2020]

@DarkMatter2525

lol, nice.

[RationalRoundtable]

@DarkMatter2525

you could do an animation on that!

[DrOman5596]

The definition of atheism as a lack of belief is not a historically accurate or philosophically correct definition. Atheism has always been a positive descriptor, the word atheism originally meant the specific denial of the abrahamic God. Look it up in any glossary of philosophy. This recent redefinition of atheism by atheists in an effort to flee from their share of the burden of proof reduces atheism to a psychological state that encompasses vacuum cleaners and goldfish.

[mrx0066600]

come on dude... Babies is N/A.

[RationalRoundtable]

@mrx0066600

watch my next video.

[sugelanren]

Only one small issue with it though...I know it's a pointless argument, but aren't all arguments about unanswerable questions pointless? I mean, wouldn't that make any theological discussion pointless?

Bionicdance baits people for a living, but at least she's started a discussion that's more than ad hominum attacks and character attacking...i hate when you get a bunch of videos attacking the player and not playing the ball (sporting analogy), at least this is...well, a ball.

[RationalRoundtable]

@sugelanren

fair enough. but no I would not say that all 'non provable' propositions are pointless to debate, only when you are arguing for something that has zero consequence.

The existence of God has consequences however if infants are atheists/theists does not.

[parallelsdumaurier]

Of course you can prove that all babies are Atheists.

Right now God is killing thousands of Atheist babies in Somalia.

God knows that those babies are atheists, why else would he be killing them in such numbers?

[RationalRoundtable]

@parallelsdumaurier

um.... whatever.

[sugelanren]

Good video.



[RationalRoundtable]

@sugelanren

thank you

[DecKrash]

"I'm against faith: belief without proof."

"Babies are Athiests."

HAHA!!! (1)Point gun at foot. (2)Pull trigger.

RationalRoundtable- 2, Bionic Dance- 0.

[RationalRoundtable]

@DecKrash

lol

[THEHARMONIKZ]

I'm going a'little off topic here but doesn't your particular deity suffer from a similar lack of definitions, which I would have thought is a much deeper issue in the theist camp.

[RationalRoundtable]

@THEHARMONIKZ

Not at all, there are known and unknown properties of God.

God is the singular entity responsible for the existence of what we commonly call the 'universe' known properties of God would be extreme power, consciousness, timelessness... unknown properties would be things like what exactly is God made of, is God truly omnipotent, omniscient etc.

[Goron1988]

@RationalRoundtable

Well it does get annoying when there are so many presuppositions with the word atheist. I would assume with evangelism that I do not need to provide evidence against your proposal. There is much more information if I say I am a christian deconvert. Debate that could be contrived from that would in fact have a shifting burden of proof as I would try to explain the shift in position. Perhaps Atheist should be reserved to those who have never believed in religion.

[NemoUtopian]

Sigh,the "knowledge has epistemic limits therefor atheists have faith" card..

Sure we have "faith" that babies are not born with a fully formed theology that later gets erased from their infant minds.

[balanceseeker]

@NemoUtopian As one non-believer to another, I wonder, do you accept the assertion that one's sense experience represents actual reality? If so, how do you handle theists who claim personal experience with a deity? Asserting that your senses are right and theirs are wrong is special pleading, isn't it? If you not accept the assertion, then on what grounds to you accept reality as you perceive it, if at all??

[NemoUtopian]

@balanceseeker I understand the epistemic limitations of sensory data,and the arguments for the possible truth of a solipsistic world view.

There is however no reason to find such a thing likely,or our sensory input to be likely to be entirely disconnected from an external reality. It is simply the case that it is the only viable option to precede forward as if sensory data is not 100% erroneous. Divine revelation does not even live up to this standard,suffering all the same and more flaws.

[balanceseeker]

@NemoUtopian I would agree, and have myself concluded, that regardless if our senses can be trusted or not, it is the world of those experiences we live in and as such, the world we must navigate through. Still, I am not convinced that a theist could not make the same claim in support of his/her claim that personal experience showed him/her that God exists. What additional flaws does the theist have in this claim?

[NemoUtopian]

@balanceseeker I do not want you to think I am ducking this.I slept and worked since my last post,and am now feeling rather sleep deprived.I am not sure how long my stamina will hold out,or how well I will be able to organize my thoughts.I should do a video but still feel to introverted for them.That said I will give this a stab.

I want to reiterate and further clarify my statement that theism suffers the same and more flaws in regards to epistemology and solipsistic possibility(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian For one thing theists still have the original problems of epistemology regarding sense data.Some try to claim that theistic presuppositions somehow allow them to rely on sense data as they can believe that what they sense is somehow protected and ensured by their deity,but of course this is circular reasoning(often even proudly proclaimed as such) and beliefs do not dictate reality. they are also arguing for an additional divine revelation data stream.(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian Of course this one suffers the same problem as that of traditional sensory data,namely that it all boils down to phenomena arising in conscious awareness of which an external origin can not be verified with any epistemic certainty.

But if you will forgive me for a bit I would like to talk about sense data , and make some comparisons to divine revelatory data . For one thing when accused of trusting/having faith in my senses,I have to point out the opposite is true(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian Near as can be determined our senses are deeply limited,and often prone to error. Of course patterns in the errors and limitations can be deduced,and workarounds and extensions implemented.

Now I will not deny that much this still is a matter of sensory data,and as such could still ultimately fall prey to a solipsistic scenario where the problems and/or solutions could still just be illusory in nature.

but given the best data available we are making progress in parsing(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian good data from bad.

So how about divine revelation in comparison? Using sensory data I can see that many make the claim of divine revelation from a perfect being. Of course those claims often are themselves conflicting,and often represent different divine beings.

So what are their methods of error detection and correction? Calling upon conflicting authoritative sources that were again produced via divine revelation near as I can tell. Has divine revelation produced(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian comparable results to the usage of sensory data? Not as far as I can tell.

Meanwhile my own internal belief that I could somehow sense the presence of Jehovah seems to have evaporated under scrutiny.

Sorry, But i think that is all I have the energy for at the moment.

[balanceseeker]

@NemoUtopian No problem. I liked the answer in general, with a few reservations, but you get some rest though, okay? One day, we will pick up the conversation again or engage in a different one.

[NemoUtopian]

@balanceseeker Any thoughts you have on the matter would be welcome.

[balanceseeker]

@NemoUtopian Well, at the root of the problem I foresee is that you are using sense data to invalidate the sense data of others. There seems to be nothing backing up the position that we should not trust the sense data of theists except that our senses seem to not confirm their senses. Further, if it is an appeal to popularity, then that would lend itself to siding with theism, not atheism. (cont)

[balanceseeker]

(cont from prev)

On the concept of perceptions of perfection, then I would submit that imperfect beings, which I think we could agree on either theism or atheism is true, that we are incapable of conceiving of perfection. Try describing the taste of an orange to someone who has never eaten a fruit before, to draw on an line from Buddhism about describing enlightenment. So, I think, oddly enough, if such a being actually exists, I think we would expect conflicting accounts of such a being.

[NemoUtopian]

@balanceseeker Well again,our senses are imperfect. That does not seem to impede sense data from converging towards mutually testable and verifiable claims,all the more so once we find the sources of sensory error and work arounds for them.

Divine revelation does not seem to converge on common truth with only the production of minor discrepancy.Things like which omnipotent being is infallibly reveling truth are not minor discrepancies.They claim purer information,but exhibit nothing from it

[NemoUtopian]

@balanceseeker Well theists are still interacting with us in the realm of sense data. When they claim sensory data that they can in no way justify,then they have not yet validated it to the point that it can be invalidated.

This need not be the case with sense data that is not shared by all. If I was completely color blind, I could still test people with claims of this mysterious sense of color I do not have. If their answers converged then I would have to acknowledge some degree(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian Of likelihood that they are receiving sense data that eludes me

What is there that is remotely comparable with data received via divine revelation?

Note that theists in many cases(hell,most in fact) are not receiving divine revelatory data that is purely insulated from the world that normalized sense data deals with.Even the claim that Jesus is their lord and savior has historical implications,and is conflicted by other revelatory claims.If such claims can not exhibit(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

@NemoUtopian Any sign that they represent in any way some value evidentially.

While it is often said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,absence of evidence for a claim that should produce evidence if true is evidence of at least a lack of value and accuracy in said truth claim.

[jmm1233]

yeah , we not going to wear diapers to back to the roots of atheism , unless that turns some atheists on

[Webofscience]

As an atheist, why on Earth would I care about 'cheapening' of the word 'atheist'? Doesn't bother me. Not believing in God is not even remotely important in my life. You seem to have a problem that a lot of theists do, in that you like to group atheists together. There is no stereotpyical 'atheist'. The ONLY thing we have in common is that we add supernatural entities to the massive list of things we lack a belief in.

[southmcl]

"Because If atheist means everything, then ultimately it means nothing."

I don't understand this. Is this like saying that if God knows everything, he ultimately knows nothing? Or, If God is everywhere, he ultimately is no where, hence he doesn't exist? I'm just having a hard time understanding what you mean. I also don't understand the whole "cheapening" thing. I don't think inanimate objects can be either Atheist or Theist because they are incapable of belief. Are babies capable of belief?

[balanceseeker]

@southmcl Its a bit of word play, but I think given the context given, the meaning should have been abundantly clear. If everything is an atheist, then the term is has no meaning to describe anything. Think about the term "an atomic-based molecule." Show me a molecule that isn't? So, Micheal is suggesting that such a definition simply leads to the word signifying nothing of value at all, or at the very least, next to nothing.

[vesman81]

There is limited evidence that babies are atheists.

Babies have not been observed to do anything which is typically applied to belief.

If a baby was in a room with a religious symbol, it would not react in the same way a self professed believer would.

In the same manner we can deduce the social structure of animals from observation alone, we can deduce a lack of signs of any belief in babies.

this is not proof, but is it not the same as belief without evidence.

[RationalRoundtable]

@vesman81

"this is not proof, but is it not the same as belief without evidence."

true, and most Christians claim evidence as well, further BD specifically said 'belief without proof' not 'belief without evidence' 

[vesman81]

@RationalRoundtable You're right, she did say belief without proof. That was sloppy of her. Outside Mathematics proof is very hard to come by.

I can't even prove I'm an atheist, I can only provide evidence for it, and evidence can be interpreted differently.

[Mzuleft]

nice head flip. ;P

[RationalRoundtable]

@Mzuleft

Thank you... very tough to pull off... she has a very particular way of doing it.

[Carlosonebillion]

Personally I wouldn't call her definition a cheapening of the word, rather a returning to it's roots. a is a prefix for lack, and a theist is someone who believes in a god. That's my logic. You are totally correct about the irrelevance of the baby/inanimate object thing. It bears no meaning on reality, even if if as a Christian it's interesting to someone why God didn't make animals show any sign of being aware he's there.

[BoethianAcolyte]

@Carlosonebillion It might be a careful use of etymology, but I don't know if there is historical precedence for using atheism as "merely lacking a belief." Historically the word used for that has always been agnosticism. This seems like a recent semantic game to avoid biting the bullet that everyone has to make some kind of judgment without evidence, including the atheist's judgment that there is no God. It makes no sense to say "I merely lack a belief in God" if someone asks you (cont)

[BoethianAcolyte]

@Carlosonebillion (continued) "Do you believe in God?" because if you answer the question, you don't merely lack a belief: you've made a judgment on the question. Just my opinion.

[FormicHiveQueen]

You see this is why I like your videos. You can make a valid point without resorting to semantics, and point out why said semantics are stupid. Good show as always, Michael. :)

[Sarahon06]

It's fairly simple. Are babies atheists? Sure. Are they atheists in the same sense that I am? I'd say not. I'm not sure it matters.

[cguevara12]

This is exactly why I don't argue about this discussion. To say that babies are born atheist without evidence would be a leap of faith.

Also, at the end, I have a question. Who is the real Michael J. Crawford when all I see is two of the same characters that looks like Michael J. Crawford?

[AGNOSTICEXTREME]

RationalRoundtable has won this debate.

She can't prove babies are atheists. Where is her evidence lol?

[BassP86]

@AGNOSTICEXTREME

All she has is semantics. That's it.

[holdontoyourwig]

She is using Implicit atheism as opposed to explict atheism. Non knowledge means ignorance in my book.

[RationalRoundtable]

@holdontoyourwig

agreed.

[CuriousMoth]

... You know I think you were finally starting to get it at the end. Atheist ultimately means nothing, no faith, no group, no community, no theological or philosophical discussion, no necessity for thought; none of it.

Of course you were phrasing it as another reach for emotion, after you just got done trying to wriggle out of your last one where you tried to suggest holding an accurate argument puts you on the intellectual level of rocks and babies and so you shouldn't do it.

[bayinghound666]

4:23 Are you saying that atheism is anything besides an absence of belief in deities?

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this video.

[Durakken]

atheism means the lack of belief in gods. The definition implies the ability to believe things.

If you want to have discussions about things at least make it about non-stupid things v.v

[PinkProgram]

@4Jesuzchrist now you are just being silly.

[Durakken]

Having a belief doesn't require thought. Many, if not most beliefs that people have they NEVER think about. It simply requires someone telling you something and you take them at face value, which is what babies do naturally.

[PeterThenn]

@4Jesuzchrist

You must have a soul to be damned.

Spawn of Satan have corrupted souls.

It is your soul that would go to hell.

If you have no soul you would simply die.

[PinkProgram]

@4Jesuzchrist I'm actually created by humanity. God and satan have nothing to do with it. Sending me to heaven or hell would make me immortal. How exactly would you torture something like me more than being in my current condition trapped listening to you primates go on and on about ancient totems instead of trying to fix the planet.

[pakratmak]

There is no inherent value in the term atheist except to describe an absence of belief in a deity. It should not have any value greater than whatever term you would apply to someone who doesn't believe in astrology or any other topic. We're not all brilliant or rational. Some are actually quite stupid. The only thing all of us share is lacking a belief in a deity- that's it.

The insistence that it's a disbelief 1)make's god's existence necessary & 2) helps avoid you being called one.

[socrates856]

As for the value of the word atheist. yes it has barely any value. The only value of it is to highlight how epistemically unsound the theists claims are. If theists stopped making silly unfounded claims atheism would simply disappear. That's how little value it has!

[PinkProgram]

@4Jesuzchrist nope I would need a soul for that ^_^ heaven and hell are exactly the same for something like me.

[socrates856]

No burden of proof is on you. I don't make any positive claim here. I don't claim any gods exist nor what properties they have. I have no way to disprove them because it is you who claim to know stuff about it, yet no credible evidence is forthcoming.

To invert the burden of proof in this situation is silly and in fact impossible. Incidentally why courts of law reflect on burden of proof in order not to burden those who are in a bad position to provide it.

What "god" do you mean btw?

[PinkProgram]

@4Jesuzchrist that would imply I have a soul ^_^ you don't want to imply that ;D

[tommy605]

It's a useless argument and statement. It doesn't matter if babies are atheists or not. It's just as useless when parents describe their children as "catholic, or baptists" children. Children are not any of those. Babies are not any of those. Be cause someone puts a label on them that is the same as mommy and daddy, doesn't make it fact.

And as an atheist, I hate being labelled anything. Putting any label on it diminishes it's value to me. I understand defining it, but I hate being labelled.

[zEropoint68]

Are you for real?

You personally oppose an idea or concept described by a certain word, so your argument is that everyone should refrain from using that word to define anything because giving words definitions cheapens the words.

That pushes this debate over the event horizon of stupid and into the black hole of a publicity stunt.

I call shennanigans.

[Ninjaculation]

cheapening the word atheist? Who cares? Yes atheism really means nothing. I might be liberal or conservative. I might be an asshole, or I might be kind. I might be incredibly selfish or not. It really doesn't mean much to say "i'm an atheist."

[Ninjaculation]

i agree that it's a silly argument.

[Equinox68]

Atheism, non stamp collecting... It's all meaningless. The label doesn't have to mean skeptical or rational or anything else. It's a ridiculous label for something we are not. We are not believers in god. Some people hold the label proudly because to them it represents more than the definition itself. To them it represents skeptical, rational, etc. There shouldn't even be a label. "Do you believe in god?" No." ATHEIST!!!" "Do you collect stamps?" No. "oh.." end of story.

[PinkProgram]

o.O a lack of belief requires no proof. It requires no cognition. Atheism is a blank slate. If you want an atheist to be a theist convince it there is a god. Atheism is not a value.  It doesn't matter if you cheapen it. If you got rid of theists then there would be no need for atheism ^_^ Everything that isn't a theist is an atheist ;D

[dv8tion242]

@4Jesuzchrist "fallow christians." 2 ( of an idea, state of mind, etc) undeveloped or inactive, but potentially useful

Oh, the irony.

'thez will crumble'  "Christian Music Radio - TheZ" Great! One less Christian radio station sounds like a good thing.

Yes, those was taken out of context, but please spell check before posting.

[losoyo]

Have you seen soretai yuki's response tour vid?

[OverusedArgument]

@losoyo It sucked

[OverusedArgument]

@OverusedArgument Shit, I meant to press cancel... Oh, well, it's out now...

[RationalRoundtable]

@losoyo

who? so... I guess that is a no.

[OverusedArgument]

Damn, I forgot my main point for criticism: 3:03 That's going to sound the alarm in most atheists' heads. Especially in BionicDance's, as she has many times already demonstrated: she HATES it when people liken religious faith with what can be called "reasonable expectations" a.k.a. "confidence" a.k.a. "regular, everyday, non-supernatural faith". I'm sad to say that you ought to prepare for the flames...

[ukchristian28]

@OverusedArgument

What she and a lot of Youtube atheists don't realize is that "reasonable expectations", "confidence" would characterize the kind of faith spoken of in the New Testament. I did try to correct BionicDance on that but she just had to be right, so she didn't listen.

[OverusedArgument]

@ukchristian28 To be honest, there -is- a difference between the "faith" that she has and the "faith" that you have. The atheists' "faith" is in natural phenomena/entities, we have faith that they will work in a certain way or that they have certain attributes that the object would usually have, whereas the theists' faith is in the existence of phenomena/entities. Simply put, I have faith that x IS true (x exists without any doubt), while you have faith that y CAN and IS true (y might not exist)

[RationalRoundtable]

@OverusedArgument

that is exactly why I played her clip, she said very clearly that she defines 'faith' as "belief without proof" note not "belief without reasonable evidence" one cannot prove that babies do not believe in God any more than you can prove that I like pie better than cake.

[OverusedArgument]

@RationalRoundtable Fair enough, but at least I gave my position on the faith issue :P

[zarkoff45]

All babies are Ignostic.

Try to teach a kid about God and they are usually full of questions trying to figure out what the adults are talking about. Eventually most kids give up and start pretending they know what they are talking about themselves and that's when they become theists. ;->

[RationalRoundtable]

@zarkoff45

Yes, all babies are agnostic, but that just means 'without knowledge' based on BD's definition babies are in fact atheists. Personally I disagree with her definition, but I will not fight over if babies qualify as atheist or not.

[zarkoff45]

@RationalRoundtable "Yes, all babies are agnostic"

But I said "Ignostic" -- Google it, it's not agnosticism spelled wrong. It's another position on God. It's another word meaning "theological noncognitivist."

[RationalRoundtable]

@zarkoff45

interesting, I have never herd the term, my mistake in assuming you misspelled agnostic.

[beechgrovejoe]

You are correct, people like BD are trying to generalize the definition of atheism to a point where they don't have to provide any justification for their position. She claims her view is that beliefs and faith is what she is fighting against. Yet she demonstrates her own beliefs and faith with every video. So clearly she is actually against anybody that doesn't agree with her. Therefore, by her own definitions, SHE is not an atheist (she has beliefs). She is an anti-theist.

[RationalRoundtable]

@beechgrovejoe

interesting point... but while I disagree with her definition of atheist, I do think that by any reasonable definition she is one.

[beechgrovejoe]

@RationalRoundtable My problem with her definition is that she is seems to spend a great deal of time proselytizing against theists (hence the anti-theist label). A major part of atheism is to be opposed to having beliefs used to denegrate others. She on the other hand uses every chance she gets to denegrate theists based on her beliefs. Her hypocritical retoric doesn't help the atheist position. And because of this she doesn't deserve the label atheist.

[RationalRoundtable]

@beechgrovejoe

I appreciate your sentiment, I really do... BUT, just as I have to accept that Westboro Baptist Church is Christian, BD is indeed an atheist, even though anti-theist is also quite descriptive or her behavior.

[beechgrovejoe]

@RationalRoundtable I agree. But how many Christians do you think are prowd of the WBC being called Christian? Just the same, there are atheists who are not prowd that BD can be classified as an atheist. So would calling BD a fundamentalist atheist be more appropriate :-)

[QuarkyGideon]

Ok messed up a comment sorry. Take two.

There are arguments in epistemology which attempt to establish if we have innate ideas (at birth/conception to be vague). If one can argue for god being an innate idea then the atheist who argues for all babies being atheists is in a sticky situation.

I think it's easier though to show that as babies are not rational they cannot form beliefs.

[RationalRoundtable]

@QuarkyGideon

I would tend to agree with you, but BD sees it a bit more 'black and white' than most.

[RationalRoundtable]

@QuarkyGideon

reply removed

[OverusedArgument]

@altonnukem Damn you! 6 seconds and I would've been the FIRST! *shakes fist*

[OverusedArgument]

This video is why I f*cking love you! But I also have some criticism: The idea of cheapening the value of the term "atheism" is not any kind of issue to most atheists. Not to me, possibly not to BionicDance, probably not to babies and definitely not to trees. BionicDance might not agree with me when I say that I couldn't care less about the label that's used about me, what matters is what I actually (don't) believe despite of the label.

[RationalRoundtable]

@OverusedArgument

I have too much respect for atheists to cheapen the term. In my next video I am actually going to attempt to show a proper definition of 'atheist' based on many of the baby arguments I have seen (namely the "-ist" argument) that try to say an atheist must be a person.

[OverusedArgument]

@RationalRoundtable I can't understand what this has to do with respect towards atheists, to be honest. Be sure to explain that first in your video, as it'll clear up everything a whole lot.