I am agnostic and just like you hate people telling you your not an atheist, I hate people telling me I'm not an agnostic. I feel that I'm agnostic because I sit on the fence between Deism and Atheism but I tend to lean more toward the Deism. Since I lean toward deism some people tend to classify me that way but since I am uncertain as to whether or not a Supreme Being exist I think Agnostic fits me better. T.H. Huxley coined the term agnostic since he was neither theist nor atheist.
Spot on, man. Great rant. It's astonishing to me the number of people that don't understand the meaning of atheist and agnostic. I've never met an atheist that isn't agnostic and vice versa, but I have met believers who insist they have direct knowledge that a god exists. Non-believers who claim to be agnostic as if it's a separate distinct position drive me up a wall.
@ChipMidnight If 'atheist' = 'nontheist,' and 'agnostic' = 'not knowing-as-distinct-from-believing that god exists' I'm an atheist. But my form of atheism (a god might exist) IS distinct from 'god's nonexistent,' right? What's wrong with using 'agnostic' to refer to that position? Mightn't the 'astonishing' multitudes (including most dictionaries & old books) who define atheists as 'those who think god's nonexistent' and agnostics as 'those who think god may or may not exist' have a point?
@drunkagnostic Everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. It's literally what the word means. The word agnostic was inventedl the late 1800s by Thomas Henry Huxley. Even though his position was no different from that of the vast majority of atheists since time immemorial, he thought he was such a precious and special snowflake that he needed his own word. Since virtually every atheist on the planet is agnostic it's like bragging about being bipedal. It's obnoxious.
@ChipMidnight If atheist = nontheist, why don't most dictionaries & old books reflect that? The derivation of 'atheism' (which predates 'theism') is atheos + ism (godless + belief). Is Richard Fucking Dawkins, who writes of the 'poverty of agnosticism' and criticizes Huxley and argues for god's nonexistence, really outside the vast majority of atheists, or agnostic in the same sense as Huxley?
@drunkagnostic Even Dawkins doesn't claim to know there is no god. That would be nonsensical since it would require both omniscience and omnipresence. His position is still agnostic. There is simply insufficient evidence to justify belief. Since the majority of people on the planet are theists the dictionary reflects their biases. It is not infallible. You are perpetuating a stereotype that is both inaccurate and insulting against people who are the same as you are. You are an atheist.
I will tell you right now, that I believe in every word you said, because this happens to me all the time. I told my parents that I was an atheist, and at their next Christmas party, when we sat down for the prayer, everyone was looking at me like I was some kind of disgrace. You should do a video on Dr. Terry Jone's opinion!
I accept your word-use; you insist mine's dishonest. So MY side's unreasonable?
OJ/Santa did it or not. But I CAN be undecided on the issue. Lack of belief in A is not belief in A, sure. But it isn't belief that A's false. If it were, you'd be a STRONG atheist!
WHAT question does maybe avoid? 'Do you have or lack belief?' Maybe means you LACK belief; NO question has been avoided!
Atheist, by contrast, avoids 'do you think MAYBE god exists or god DOESN'T.'
@drunkagnostic You're undecided on Santa . . . . really? I'm not, the concept is absurd. And the Hebrew God Yahwei? The one that mad Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden? No, that's absurd and I don't believe in him either. What god are you unsure about? I doubt it's the god of the bible. Did you make one up? Your own imaginary friend to be unsure about, yes I call that dishonest.
@kalin666 I'm undecided on whether there's a consciousness of some kind that underlies or explains the universe, an idea invented by countless religions & discussed in the abstract by countless philosophers long before I was born.
Had I invented it, it still wouldn't be dishonest for me to be undecided, any more than for Goldbach to be undecided on Goldbach's Conjecture.
What god are you undecided about, 'weak' atheist, if it's dishonest to be undecided on any of them?
@drunkagnostic there is not a god from any religion that I am undecided about. If you think that all of the religions of the world have independently stumbled upon the same god concept then you are ignorant of the details of these world religions. The musings of a philosopher are also insufficient to conclude that a creature like a god exists. It's not like it's beyond the power of an almighty universe creating deity to make it's presence known without doubt.
@kalin666 If there's no god you're undecided about, you're a strong atheist & should be calling weak atheists dishonest too.
Don't many religions & philosophies include the idea of a consciousness that underlies or explains the universe? Do you honestly think I invented that? Could I copyright it? God-musings are inconclusive, but they're not my invention.
Saying 'my' idea's not god is like saying 'your song's not a song, because it isn't exactly like any other song. '
@drunkagnostic I don't know for certain, and I'm perfectly willing to change my mind given an appropriate amount of evidence ie a god appearing and making its presence known. And your idea is not god, it's an idea. The belief that a consciousness underlies or explains the universe falls squarely under the category of religion, philosophy (love of knowledge) has nothing to do with spiritual mumbo jumbo.
@kalin666 So one only believes there's no god if he 'knows for certain' ? You don't know for certain there's no Santa, but you surely believe there's no Santa & no god (strong atheism).
How is my idea religion but 'not god' ? Does my idea match up to some other religious idea distinct from god? No. By calling my idea religion, you reveal that you recognize it as a god concept--a brand new one, never before discussed by philosophers, according to you.
@drunkagnostic My beliefs about Santa and God are roughly the same, though Santa is a far more plausible creature. I've yet to see a definition of some entity I would be inclined to call a god that even roughly makes sense. As chaotic and messy as the universe appears to be, I don't think anyone in their right mind would attribute the creation of such a thing to the concept of God they have in their head. I'm aware of Aquinas's god and Pascal's god . . . they were christians. Are there more?
@kalin666 Most philosophers have discussed god generally, as you must know. I'll list a few in a separate comment. Anyway, the point's moot:
again, by calling my idea religion, don't you admit that refusing to call it god is dishonest, not vice versa? If I believed it, wouldn't I be a theist? At the least, shouldn't you admit I might honestly define god more generally than you do & honestly be a maybe?
and again, If you still think maybe's dishonest, aren't weak atheists dishonest?
Plus anyone who ever discussed (pro OR con) traditional god arguments--1st Cause, Design, etc. If sound, these arguments would prove only a general concept.
Plus books like The God Delusion, which gives an abstract definition. Should it be called The Dawkins's Dishonest Idea Delusion?
if you define atheist as nontheist--in defiance of etymology & dictionaries--you're an atheist, and I'll call you one.
Do you extend a similar courtesy to me? To me, 'atheist' implies 'strong atheist'--in accordance with dictionaries, etymology, & strong-atheist arguments 'weak atheists' often make. I use 'agnostic' in the spirit in which Huxley coined it: unlike theists & strong atheists, I don't KNOW anything that convinces me god does or doesn't exist. Don't tell ME I'm not an agnostic.
@drunkagnostic We're all agnostic, but only some of us know how little we know ;) In this case I'm more concerned with what you believe, not what you know.
@drunkagnostic Whether or not OJ did it is a factual claim with a real answer. In my opinion, the evidence pointed to his guilt but i wasn't on the jury. You lacking beliefs A & B is not the question. The question is about A and NOT A. Lack of belief in A results in NOT A. You either believe in the Easter Bunny or you don't, Santa Claus or not, Yahwei or not. Claiming "Maybe" is merely avoiding the question. You either believe or you don't, pretending otherwise is dishonest
I just linked from your other video on what the American accent sounds like. The reason there are lots of aitheist english posters on youtube vids is because about 60% of the englsh population say they don't have any faith. If you haven't already, check out Richard Dawkins' programmes - the latest one (faith school, menace?) was great. Also the brits have a good humanist society that represents the irreligious. Unsuprisingly I am an unashamed aithiest too.
awwww "hi mr. kitty" lol...that was cute...yeah agnostic is a pretty useless word on it's own.haha, looks like you've had a lot of problems with this XD.good vid, very logical.
Agnostic is a derived word. Obtaining its english meaning from its greek roots is retarded. THe word was invented by TH Huxley who gave a very specific defintion and elaborated on it. He used the word to describe people like him. AGnostics see the god question as unknowable. THey do not confirm or deny the idea of God.
If you believe there is no god, you are an atheist. No-one can tell you what you do or do not believe, it is up to you. My problem with you Kalin is your materialism, it is less sensible than theism. And if you do not believe there is no god, then there simply is no chance of you being an atheist.... whether you like hearing so or not.
"hahaha, you just said you can't believe there is no God"
Show me where I said that. If I did it was a typo. Since you also think this is based on 1200AD logic and you call atheism by something that does not exist, it does not suprise me you hallucinated that as well.
@gklr When did I call Atheism something that does not exist? I've said a thousand times, Atheism is the lack of belief in God. If you would stop listening to Bertrand Russell and use logic and reasoning, you'd have understood that long ago. But you follow this guy like he is some intellectual guru. He's no one special. I've proven that he doesn't know what he's talking about a few times now. You just worship the guy to much to see clearly. He Doesn't know what he is talking about.
Legit, that's the Dawkins way of being an atheist, we who have a conception of the world based on what we see, but are not so arrogant to state in absolutes that which has no evidence.
a little more (jewish) orthodox thinking on your part would have spared you that stupid tatoo (if i am learned enough on orthodox docmatics, that is) religion is just fine (probably even Islam), if you ani't too... well, religious about it 2B religious about atheism tends to look kinda oXomoronic not to believe in the various spagettimonsters on the relgious market place (or THE Big Spagetti-Monster (Herself)) does not make you a respectable atheist there always is more to it not less
@2CatchTheEmeraldWave we deduce from that, that what you Really are adverse of are the (firstly) False and (second) too many Answers given by the religous texts you know of . in other words, you are the better Mystic and hence the better God Seeker (than, say, your friendly neighbours!) . but you must be sympathetic: PEOPLE want answers (and Need them) - even on unanswerable questions - and even fabricated (and YET even Discernably fabricated) answers! (how else could they rally?!!!)
I agree that it's stupid to label yourself just as an agnostic. However lexical roots of the word do not define its meaning. It doesn't work that way. While etymology gives an interesting insight into the history of a word, you must accept that new words are created to accommodate for new meanings.
"Agnostic" was a term coined by Huxley to describe his particular worldview or philosophy, and it can't be summed up just by "without knowledge".
I can't say I know any atheists who wouldn't be open to the idea of a God if there was any reasonable evidence. Does that mean none of us are atheists? Agnostics claim to neutral, which I don't buy into (every agnostic I know, including myself, just used it as a buffer zone to prepare for the label of atheist). However, if a person says they don't believe in a God, they're an atheist. Period.
Hannity is such a clown. You might as well have posted a clip of your cat giving political rhetoric.
But, yeah, all this verbiage about atheism, agnosticism, whatever-ism is just a political football to kick around as the drunken masses cheer and jeer.
I want to coin my own word, but it'll just become another loaded word anyway. At least maybe I can make a name for myself: slacker-ism. I like the ring to it, it's like a perfect football perched up on a tee ready to be kicked.
@kalin666 yeah but im sure more than jews see your vids ...anyway i guess that was an assumption on my part - i mention that religion isnt for me and I usually hear something along those lines
In my experience, the arguement tends to go, they cannot doubt god, or what you don't know yet belive, or else they fear that without faith they will be "plauged" by doubt. As if douting the one thing unwraveled all of human knowledge. Ah, but then the problem with conflating "faith" and "belief" is that reasoned logic and evidence go right out the window.
@Mglosk I'm willing to be converted too. I don't think it would take anything less than a real god demonstrating to me that he was in fact real to do it, but still, I'm not going to be dogmatic about it and neither should you.
aheism, by logical necessity, allows the possibility of a god existing. Atheism is not what the FOX guy said "certainty there is no god" or the funnier comment "believe everything comes from nothing".
@gklr Wrong, Agnosticism, allows the possibility of a God existing. Atheism is the believe that there is no credible evidence that there is a God. That's it. Who told you that Atheism by logical necessity allows for the possibility of a God? Who told you that? That's ridiculous nonsense, and totally wrong. Sorry, you've been completely misinformed. Try again.
Agnosticism talks about what man can know, and is not incompatable with either theism or atheism. All beliefs are possibly true and possibly false by logical necessity. The belief there is no god is not a claim of truth that there is no god, it is believed, so it is possibly false. Beliefs are not truths, that is the error of the religious. Atheists do maintain there is no credible evidence as well, but that is not what atheism is. That is simply a claim atheists often make.
@gklr No, that is actually what Atheists think, and that is actually what Atheism is.
Have you watched any Atheist video? There is a few of Zjemptv and AronRa that completely explain what you seem to not understand about Atheism. Atheism is nothing more than not taking the word of the religious that a God which they can't produce, or prove exists. It means nothing more than that.
It is irrelevant to some atheists that theism has no credible evidence. Not all atheists are rational. I know of an atheist, she believes there is no god, due to being raped. A just god wouldn't allow it so she thinks there is no god, independant of any other reason. Some atheists think god created the universe and now does not exist, we call them deists and they do not believe in a god (nontheist) and believe there is no god (atheist).
I make videos on atheism for 1. For 2 I see many nonatheists who misrepresent atheism and themselves as atheists, who say atheism is a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not anything, there is no such thing. I see very poor logic in defence of that nonsense and fairly frequently. those who say they are what they are not, are "notters" which is derived from nutter. Notters do worse at logic than nutters do.
@gklr Except that using logic you can see that one can have a lack of something.
Use the dictionary. I have a lack of a belief in god, which means I have no belief in any God. How hard is that to understand? Are you really that closed minded and stupid that you cannot understand common basic comments? You've argued with people for years on this and you haven't learned anything at all.
Nonono, shut up, have you watched AronRa's last video? I bet not. You'd actually learn something, afraid?
"Except that using logic you can see that one can have a lack of something."
Only twighlihgt zone logic. You lack a 32nd head, no part of you is "lack a 32nd head". Lacking a 32nd head is not an object, it is not something that exists. Lacking belief works the same way.
Lack always uses the not operator, and refers to what something does not have. ie: you lacked existence in the year 1200. Lacking existence is not a thing, not an object, not something that exists. Pretend your whole school doesnt get it if you like and see if that changes the rules of logic enough to accomodate your errors.
"Well Agnostics say, they don't know if there is a God or not,"
Perhaps, but that is not what agnosticism is. Asgnosticism is the position that man cannot know if there is a god or not. Atheism is not the claim that we know there is no god. It is the belief, knowing we could be wrong, that there is no god. All beliefs work that way. They are all possibly false or they would not be a belief.
The biggest lie out there. A lack of belief, by logical necessity, does not and cannot exist. There is no such thing. You are saying atheism is (something that does not exist). A lack of belief is not anything at all.
@gklr Do you believe there is a talking teapot floating around the sun? If not, then you have a lack of a belief that there is a talking teapot floating around the sun.
You make little to no sense. You should by now have an understanding of this, I mean you aren't a kid.
saying I do not believe in a flying teapot, (Russells teapot works), is not talking about me. It is true in the year 1200 that I did not believe it. The subject of the statement is what I do not do, true when I do not exist.
@gklr Do you CURRENTLY believe that there is a talking flying tea pot? Not yesterday, not tomorrow, not in the year 1200 but right now? You knew that's what I meant. You must have read some moronic philosophers or some book which had word play and impressed you a lot. But honestly it's silliness. All Atheism is is the lack of a belief in a God. Nothing more. You can add things to it, you can make it into something that it isn't, but you know the truth currently.
when I answer "No, I don't" I am not talking about me, and it is true in the year 1200. Please read Bertrand Russells essay called On Denoting, where it is made clear why NOTX does not exist. A lack of belief is not anything at all. You seem to think it is, and would violate both formal logic and set theory to say so. Calling Russell A moronic philosopher, does not counter his arguments. Dare to educate yourself.
@gklr When he says stupid idiotic things like that I can totally rip him a new one.
I told you the true meaning of Atheism, the lack of a belief that god exists. You are reading into it something which is not there. You are the one being illogical, you are the one who isn't playing by the common rules of communication, and understanding.
Also, just because you read a book doesn't make you educated. Just because something is in a book doesn't make it right. I've already beating his "logic"
"I told you the true meaning of Atheism, the lack of a belief that god exists"
Ya your problem is there is no such thing as a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not an existent thing. There is a better chance of a god existing than what you call atheism.
Except you have not shown an error in logic I have made. I have shown you plenty you have made. Your logic says that what something is not, is what it is. Saying atheists lack belief in god is true about what atheists do not do, are not. That is not what atheists are, it is true about what they are not.
@gklr Because one can posses an idea. Also you are basing all this on 1200ad logic? I mean really? The problem is your axiom. The concept of no negative is not true. The concept of not owning an idea is an untruth, and once you base everything else off of an untruth everything else becomes untrue.
@gklr You and your primitive philosopher have been beaten. You haven't proven your side, I have. You made outragious claims, and you couldn't back them up.
I've proven that your philosopher needed an education and he over thinks fruitless points, twisting them until they have some sort of meaning. Over all, his words are ridiculous. I've ventured to learn about him the other night and I bet you never watched the last AronRa video. So sad that you accuse me of doing what you have just done.
It remains the case that a lack of belief does not exist. I watched AronRa for enough to notice an old hippy was cleaning his bike and saw no hope of anything even related to this topic. If you wish to direct me to a specific thing he said, I will reply to it.
@gklr See the problem is you're lack of understanding of the spirit of a statement.
The lack of understanding that what people mean by what they say and how they say it might not be compatible with how you wish to perceive it. You should be looking at what people mean, and not how to beat how they said something.
Communication is a two way street, both sides need to work within the rules of the road or there is a total mess. Like changing road signs.
I know what they mean, I have multiple videos on this topic and formal logic and welcome you to challenge any of them.
Notters don't even agree with each other. Notters are as much my opposition as are theists or like Kalin here, materialists. I come to youtube pretty much solely to argue with these people and watch music vids. I have no lack of understanding what is meant in this debate, I have argued these same points for over a dozen years.
@gklr And you've been beaten by me rather easily. You just close your ears and say nononononono CURRENTLY. You argue a nonsense point. You lack the understanding of common concepts. If you cannot grasp that not having something is the act of not actually having something CURRENTLY, then you are mentally insane.
1. people only who lack belief (this category includes subcategories)
2. add animals
3. add plants and bacteria
4. add rocks and concepts
5. add nonexistent things like the present King of France (magically they are atheists, as they do not believe in a god)
They all lack belief. Funny thing is, notters never realize they are not speaking of these objects to say they lack belief. It makes good for good humour.
"When he says stupid idiotic things like that I can totally rip him a new one"
Anger won't help you, this discussion deals with formal studies like propositional logic which defines NOT and set theory which defines NON, and you've only shown you would do well with an introduction to either.
True, just not true about me. True about what I am not. True when I did not exist. The logical problem being shown to you was introduced in 1905 by Bertrand Russell in an essay called On Denoting, which was very influential and it's contents are in Russells Theory of Descriptions, and either are available online for you to look into.
Nothing I said was theocratic, dogmatic, or within the limited confine of theistic labels. Logical necessity for the usage of NOT and set theory for NON, is what I have applied. To commit a fallacy by association, when there is no assocation to theology.... is my question to you. Why do you consider anything I have said as a "theistic label"? I find that baffling.
Why is it that you think I have not heard of the null set and what application of the null set do you think applies here? Let me explain the null set to you. A null set is like the set of months with 32 days, it is empty and contains no members. The set exists, but there are no members of the set. Where did you get this ability to detect what someone else knows and can you still get your money back?
Just that you mention the null set in this discussion tells me you do not know what it is. There is no application. So far you've misunderstood what theocratic dogma is, calling discussion that invokes logic and set theory as theistic. You've tried to read minds and looked silly in the process since you were wrong. And you've shown you apply the null set where it cannot be applied. Hint: I am not about to "get" what you clearly misunderstand.
Tell me what your misunderstanding leads you to believe theists win, and what do they win?
I have theists tell me they lack belief in a god. They know you see, god exists. I know that theism is a belief, and that beliefs don't believe anything. Theism lacks belief in a god. Theists believe, theism doesn't.
Do you also say that the number 1 is not the number 2, and interpet that to say what the number 1 is? Not 2 is what 1 is?
You are presenting false dichotomies and playing into theocractic assumptions. Once you can understand my previous points, you'll understand why faith has such a strong hold on people in this country.
I am sorry but I must have missed those points. When asked to clarify your position, you simply slide back into some weird idea that propositional logic and set theory are theocratic assumptions. Even without answering if not 1, is what 2 is... which is the logical error you are making. Failing to address the argument is not a counter argument.
Unless you are in Canada like I am, "this country" is rather meaningless to me. And this country is not burdened by faith in god, nor would I care if it was. It is none of my business what someone else believes. Just as I don't care what you do in bed either. Saving the world is not my concern.
Say, can you prove what someone else thinks? If not, then you can't prove anyone is a theist or atheist and you are taking theists and atheists by their word. You place faith in theists.
A false dichotomy is something you need to show, there isn't one here. I didn't give you any dichotomy at all, let alone a false one. Show the dichotomy I gave.
I generally find that those who try to argue that something is a fallacy are the worst at identifying a fallacy. In this case, no dichotomy was offered at all.
As well, fallacies don't show falsehoods, they show poor argument form. Saying "1+1=2 because my brother said so", is a fallacy, yet 1+1=2 is true.
As expected from someone who failed to show any dichotomy, let alone a false one. I ask myself why you even bother... it's obvious you have no clue at all what a dichotomy is, let alone atheism.
You failed to show any dichotomy, naturally since there wasn't one offered. A false dichotomy you see would at least have to be a dichotomy, but there was no dichotomy at all.... let alone a false one. When asked for what the dichotomy was, you fell silent and had none to show. You argue like a child with nothing to say.
I've reviewed yours and found many fallacies, and proof that you have no clue what a fallacy even is. You argue like a child, void of any substance at all.
You've been given every opportunity to show a fallacy, and all you have done is make them. I offered no theistic labels, I used logic and set theory to show what I say. You talk utter shit and think educated people don't notice that? Good fucking grief, try backing up a single bit of your bullshit.
You've been given several suggestions to review your posts. Do it and your fallacies will become clear. If you cease your immature belligerence, you might learn something.
The insults are warranted, you are completely lost when it comes to logic. There wasn't any dichotomy offered, let alone a false one. You troll with falsehoods, you don't offer an argument. Learn something from a shameless child who doesn't know what he is talking about? Ok dude, only in your fantasy. Reality beckons you.
You have repeatedly committed the same fallacy. You presented a dichotomy and it was a false one. Don't bother me again until you have found it. I won't waste my time with someone who can't read a comment box.
You hallucinate fallacies that were never made, while making fallacies yourself. It would be SO much easier for you to just show the fallacy, but you can't do that because it doesn't exist. So run around and pretend you know what a fallacy even is, but it is more than apparent you get off on just lying like a fucking retard. Reasoning? LOL, it sounds like you think it is built on fabrications and hallucinations. Total reject.
You have not corrected me, you wouldn't know where to begin. Fallacies must be shown, you haven't. You claim them without substantiation, from a completely ignorant perspective of what they even are. It's utterly laughable.
Oh really? You argued I did not understand the null set, and when I explained it to you it was obvious you had no idea what the null set was. The original statement was false, and a fallacious. Not only do I understand the null set, but raising it as a point of contention was a strawman.... it has no application to what I argued.
The null set, you ignorant buffoon, has no application to this argument. Raising it was utterly fallacious. Fools like you who constantly harp that this is a fallacy and that is a fallacy, MAKE THE MOST FALLACIES. Your posts are an utter joke.
Then show it. You needed the null set expained to you, because obviously you didn't know what it is. Which isn't exactly earth shattering news, you didn't know what atheism is either. So go ahead, show how the null set applies and I won't be holding my breath. It is a strawman 100%.
Your other fallacy was in saying my argument gave a win to theists. Say what? Oh ya, just an argument by association. You make more fallacies than most theists.
Nope. I said that because you were working within theocratic assumptions and accepting the false dichotomies as provided by religionists. Review your posts before you type. You might learn something.
Theocratic assumptions never entered my arguments. I used set theory and propositional logic only and proved what I had to say and you dreamed that I used a fallacy.... while you were using fallacies. You are a logical buffoon. Hallucinate much?
You were asked politely many times to show the fallacy, and you instead chose to simply bait me like the fool you are. So fucktard, show the fallacy or simly accept there wasn't one. But coming out with more baseless one liners that you cannot defend will just get you called the completely fucking ridiculous moron that you are intent on proving. I don't suffer fools long. Learn about your topic or shut the fuck up.
I give childish retards like yourself what they warrant in terms of a reply. Since you can't show a fallacy, and don't seem to have any clue how they work.... and come back with baseless accusations, you get called a complete clown on logic, a fucktard at reasoning. 100%. I stand by it as it is accurate.
"accepting the false dichotomies as provided by religionists"
What a clown. Nothing of course supports this assertion. And that is not what you argued at all, you argued I used a false dichotomy and when politely asked where I did so you couldn't show it. Laughable garbage.
An object must exist to be a member of a set. This is why the null set has no application. A complete strawman on your part. It has no application whatsoever to the question of what an atheist is. The present King of France does not exist, does not believe in a god and is not an atheist. There is the proof that not believing in god is not atheism, or the present King of France would be an atheist... but isn't, he does not exist. And you want to apply the null set? Laughable logic.
A Philospher in Training is your channel description and it is accurate. You blocked me after showing you how tautologous truth demonstrates objects that have no material properties. I am afraid you have a long way to go as a philosopher. Being unaware of most of philosophy and logic, misusing the term fallacy, being a complete coward in debate..... does not a philosopher make.
"A Philospher in Training" is your own description, and quite appropriate. You might begin with fallacies and start learning what they are and how they work. Obviously you have no clue right now.
I win when you show me something. You win when I show you something. I've asked and asked you to show me and you haven't. I have shown you, and you win because of it. I won nothing, I already knew that shit.
Hallucinating fallacies doesn't make them real. You were asked for days to show a fallacy and couldn't. One line lame excuses for having nothing to back up your garbage is not an excuse for being so stupid.
You haven't shown anything. And after being asked over and over again, you still have nothing to show. You are too idiotic for any reasonable discussion. Its that simple. Guys like you who cry fallacy everytime anyone says anything, know nothing of how fallacies work and make the most fallacies of anyone. Moreso, it seems complelete beyond your grasp to realize "1+1=2 because a book says so" is fallacious even though 1+1=2 is true. Empty rhetoric doesn't cut it shanoxilt.
No false dichotomy exists in anything I have said, as evident that you have none to show. Days on end you say this, yet no fallacy yet. Your errors on logic are easy to show. Saying X is not Y, or X lacks Y, is not talking about X. It is true when X does not exist, as shown via the present King of France who does not exist, is not a believer in god and is not an atheist. What you call atheism, does not exist.... there can not be any such thing. Atheism exists, what you say it is, doesn't.
I love finding fools like you who abuse logical terms to say the dumbest and most illogical things. An example is that anything is a lack of X, where X is anything. That is saying that what something is, is what it isn't..... and you think you spotted a fallacy? You make me laugh.
I am agnostic and just like you hate people telling you your not an atheist, I hate people telling me I'm not an agnostic. I feel that I'm agnostic because I sit on the fence between Deism and Atheism but I tend to lean more toward the Deism. Since I lean toward deism some people tend to classify me that way but since I am uncertain as to whether or not a Supreme Being exist I think Agnostic fits me better. T.H. Huxley coined the term agnostic since he was neither theist nor atheist.
Lilcity96 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
It is not just the majesty of creation that is beyond Hannity's comprehension, the definition of 'atheist' also seems to be beyond his comprehension.
djhalling 1 month ago
Spot on, man. Great rant. It's astonishing to me the number of people that don't understand the meaning of atheist and agnostic. I've never met an atheist that isn't agnostic and vice versa, but I have met believers who insist they have direct knowledge that a god exists. Non-believers who claim to be agnostic as if it's a separate distinct position drive me up a wall.
ChipMidnight 3 months ago
@ChipMidnight If 'atheist' = 'nontheist,' and 'agnostic' = 'not knowing-as-distinct-from-believing that god exists' I'm an atheist. But my form of atheism (a god might exist) IS distinct from 'god's nonexistent,' right? What's wrong with using 'agnostic' to refer to that position? Mightn't the 'astonishing' multitudes (including most dictionaries & old books) who define atheists as 'those who think god's nonexistent' and agnostics as 'those who think god may or may not exist' have a point?
drunkagnostic 3 months ago
@drunkagnostic Everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. It's literally what the word means. The word agnostic was inventedl the late 1800s by Thomas Henry Huxley. Even though his position was no different from that of the vast majority of atheists since time immemorial, he thought he was such a precious and special snowflake that he needed his own word. Since virtually every atheist on the planet is agnostic it's like bragging about being bipedal. It's obnoxious.
ChipMidnight 3 months ago
@ChipMidnight If atheist = nontheist, why don't most dictionaries & old books reflect that? The derivation of 'atheism' (which predates 'theism') is atheos + ism (godless + belief). Is Richard Fucking Dawkins, who writes of the 'poverty of agnosticism' and criticizes Huxley and argues for god's nonexistence, really outside the vast majority of atheists, or agnostic in the same sense as Huxley?
drunkagnostic 3 months ago
@drunkagnostic Even Dawkins doesn't claim to know there is no god. That would be nonsensical since it would require both omniscience and omnipresence. His position is still agnostic. There is simply insufficient evidence to justify belief. Since the majority of people on the planet are theists the dictionary reflects their biases. It is not infallible. You are perpetuating a stereotype that is both inaccurate and insulting against people who are the same as you are. You are an atheist.
ChipMidnight 3 months ago
I will tell you right now, that I believe in every word you said, because this happens to me all the time. I told my parents that I was an atheist, and at their next Christmas party, when we sat down for the prayer, everyone was looking at me like I was some kind of disgrace. You should do a video on Dr. Terry Jone's opinion!
FunnyPuup 1 year ago
I accept your word-use; you insist mine's dishonest. So MY side's unreasonable?
OJ/Santa did it or not. But I CAN be undecided on the issue. Lack of belief in A is not belief in A, sure. But it isn't belief that A's false. If it were, you'd be a STRONG atheist!
WHAT question does maybe avoid? 'Do you have or lack belief?' Maybe means you LACK belief; NO question has been avoided!
Atheist, by contrast, avoids 'do you think MAYBE god exists or god DOESN'T.'
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic You're undecided on Santa . . . . really? I'm not, the concept is absurd. And the Hebrew God Yahwei? The one that mad Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden? No, that's absurd and I don't believe in him either. What god are you unsure about? I doubt it's the god of the bible. Did you make one up? Your own imaginary friend to be unsure about, yes I call that dishonest.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 I'm undecided on whether there's a consciousness of some kind that underlies or explains the universe, an idea invented by countless religions & discussed in the abstract by countless philosophers long before I was born.
Had I invented it, it still wouldn't be dishonest for me to be undecided, any more than for Goldbach to be undecided on Goldbach's Conjecture.
What god are you undecided about, 'weak' atheist, if it's dishonest to be undecided on any of them?
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic there is not a god from any religion that I am undecided about. If you think that all of the religions of the world have independently stumbled upon the same god concept then you are ignorant of the details of these world religions. The musings of a philosopher are also insufficient to conclude that a creature like a god exists. It's not like it's beyond the power of an almighty universe creating deity to make it's presence known without doubt.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 If there's no god you're undecided about, you're a strong atheist & should be calling weak atheists dishonest too.
Don't many religions & philosophies include the idea of a consciousness that underlies or explains the universe? Do you honestly think I invented that? Could I copyright it? God-musings are inconclusive, but they're not my invention.
Saying 'my' idea's not god is like saying 'your song's not a song, because it isn't exactly like any other song. '
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic I don't know for certain, and I'm perfectly willing to change my mind given an appropriate amount of evidence ie a god appearing and making its presence known. And your idea is not god, it's an idea. The belief that a consciousness underlies or explains the universe falls squarely under the category of religion, philosophy (love of knowledge) has nothing to do with spiritual mumbo jumbo.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 So one only believes there's no god if he 'knows for certain' ? You don't know for certain there's no Santa, but you surely believe there's no Santa & no god (strong atheism).
How is my idea religion but 'not god' ? Does my idea match up to some other religious idea distinct from god? No. By calling my idea religion, you reveal that you recognize it as a god concept--a brand new one, never before discussed by philosophers, according to you.
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic My beliefs about Santa and God are roughly the same, though Santa is a far more plausible creature. I've yet to see a definition of some entity I would be inclined to call a god that even roughly makes sense. As chaotic and messy as the universe appears to be, I don't think anyone in their right mind would attribute the creation of such a thing to the concept of God they have in their head. I'm aware of Aquinas's god and Pascal's god . . . they were christians. Are there more?
kalin666 1 year ago
Comment removed
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@kalin666 Most philosophers have discussed god generally, as you must know. I'll list a few in a separate comment. Anyway, the point's moot:
again, by calling my idea religion, don't you admit that refusing to call it god is dishonest, not vice versa? If I believed it, wouldn't I be a theist? At the least, shouldn't you admit I might honestly define god more generally than you do & honestly be a maybe?
and again, If you still think maybe's dishonest, aren't weak atheists dishonest?
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@kalin666 More: Hume, Kant, Spinoza, James, Whitehead, Descartes, Russell, Berkeley, Voltaire, etc.
Plus all of Deism.
Plus Sagan, Hawking, Einstein, etc.
Plus other agnostics you've met.
Plus anyone who ever discussed (pro OR con) traditional god arguments--1st Cause, Design, etc. If sound, these arguments would prove only a general concept.
Plus books like The God Delusion, which gives an abstract definition. Should it be called The Dawkins's Dishonest Idea Delusion?
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
if you define atheist as nontheist--in defiance of etymology & dictionaries--you're an atheist, and I'll call you one.
Do you extend a similar courtesy to me? To me, 'atheist' implies 'strong atheist'--in accordance with dictionaries, etymology, & strong-atheist arguments 'weak atheists' often make. I use 'agnostic' in the spirit in which Huxley coined it: unlike theists & strong atheists, I don't KNOW anything that convinces me god does or doesn't exist. Don't tell ME I'm not an agnostic.
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic We're all agnostic, but only some of us know how little we know ;) In this case I'm more concerned with what you believe, not what you know.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 Belief's BASED on knowledge.
If I ask if you BELIEVE O.J. did it & you say 'I DUNNO', you clearly BELIEVE 'OJ did it' & 'OJ didn't' are unwarranted.
Agnostic / I Dunno thus clearly says 'I lack BELIEFS A & B' & avoids strong/weak ambiguity of atheist.
Thus agnostic conveys my BELIEFS better than atheist.
Although I use a different system, I accept your use of 'atheist' as 'nontheist'.
Again, do you extend a like courtesy & accept my use of 'agnostic' as 'maybeist'?
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic Whether or not OJ did it is a factual claim with a real answer. In my opinion, the evidence pointed to his guilt but i wasn't on the jury. You lacking beliefs A & B is not the question. The question is about A and NOT A. Lack of belief in A results in NOT A. You either believe in the Easter Bunny or you don't, Santa Claus or not, Yahwei or not. Claiming "Maybe" is merely avoiding the question. You either believe or you don't, pretending otherwise is dishonest
kalin666 1 year ago
Comment removed
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
Comment removed
o0face4radio0o 1 year ago
I just linked from your other video on what the American accent sounds like. The reason there are lots of aitheist english posters on youtube vids is because about 60% of the englsh population say they don't have any faith. If you haven't already, check out Richard Dawkins' programmes - the latest one (faith school, menace?) was great. Also the brits have a good humanist society that represents the irreligious. Unsuprisingly I am an unashamed aithiest too.
Purplchick 1 year ago
for me i don´t belive in god in the way how cristians,islam and others do
BUT that doesn´t mean i won´t believe in a higher might that created all universe and stuff and hold it together..does that still make me atheistic ?
i´d say myself i am more the agnostic type..
simple reason..i don´t care much for it
it doesn´t have lot influence in my life..it´s just that i have my own believe´s of a higher might or an own version of "god"..that´s all
MrTBSC 1 year ago
@MrTBSC no, you're not agnostic. You might want to call yourself a deist or a pantheist.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 ... hmmm ... in that case i think deist would fit a bit more
MrTBSC 1 year ago
awwww "hi mr. kitty" lol...that was cute...yeah agnostic is a pretty useless word on it's own.haha, looks like you've had a lot of problems with this XD.good vid, very logical.
culacula14 1 year ago
-agnostic---without knowledge
Agnostic is a derived word. Obtaining its english meaning from its greek roots is retarded. THe word was invented by TH Huxley who gave a very specific defintion and elaborated on it. He used the word to describe people like him. AGnostics see the god question as unknowable. THey do not confirm or deny the idea of God.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
If you believe there is no god, you are an atheist. No-one can tell you what you do or do not believe, it is up to you. My problem with you Kalin is your materialism, it is less sensible than theism. And if you do not believe there is no god, then there simply is no chance of you being an atheist.... whether you like hearing so or not.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr hahaha, you just said you can't believe there is no God, you've just contradiced yourself. Man shut up, you are a beaten fool.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"hahaha, you just said you can't believe there is no God"
Show me where I said that. If I did it was a typo. Since you also think this is based on 1200AD logic and you call atheism by something that does not exist, it does not suprise me you hallucinated that as well.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr When did I call Atheism something that does not exist? I've said a thousand times, Atheism is the lack of belief in God. If you would stop listening to Bertrand Russell and use logic and reasoning, you'd have understood that long ago. But you follow this guy like he is some intellectual guru. He's no one special. I've proven that he doesn't know what he's talking about a few times now. You just worship the guy to much to see clearly. He Doesn't know what he is talking about.
Mglosk 1 year ago
Legit, that's the Dawkins way of being an atheist, we who have a conception of the world based on what we see, but are not so arrogant to state in absolutes that which has no evidence.
Karozy 1 year ago
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
@2CatchTheEmeraldWave
(4 the religious purist
add that *h*)
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
@2CatchTheEmeraldWave that's my wedding ring, you've officially entered "Shut The Fuck Up" territory.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666
"you've officially entered "Shut The Fuck Up" territory"
Sayeth the Hun ;)
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
@kalin666
so yes, we won't stray any further into Hun-turf ;)
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
Aaaaaaw puleaze... inserting that clip was utter SADISM on your part. :-)
Pfwaaah, I'm so so sooooo happy to live in a country that does not have the Fox network.
betlamed 1 year ago
@betlamed sorry, painful I know
kalin666 1 year ago
mew mew =.=
blasphemite 1 year ago
it is fairly obvious that you have your own (probably reasonable) belief system(s)
(the amount of what one can positively Know being quite sparse!)
you also display a keen sense for the *transcendency*
of what the simpler fellow would simply call *reality*
.
so, you are neither a Nihilist
nor are you in denial of the quintessentially *mystical nature* of Our EXISTENCE
(why is there anything ATALL?)
.
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
@2CatchTheEmeraldWave
but don't be deluded:
the common trait (of the Abrahamitic) religious texts to Specify the T r a n s c e n d e n t
is rather Contradictory to the proclaimed end to elucidate about "GOD"...
.
what you are, is what one could call "Anti-DEITY-Istic"
and that's definitively not the same as atheistic ;)
2CatchTheEmeraldWave 1 year ago
I agree that it's stupid to label yourself just as an agnostic. However lexical roots of the word do not define its meaning. It doesn't work that way. While etymology gives an interesting insight into the history of a word, you must accept that new words are created to accommodate for new meanings.
"Agnostic" was a term coined by Huxley to describe his particular worldview or philosophy, and it can't be summed up just by "without knowledge".
Kuba022 1 year ago
@Kuba022 that's true, I'll just blame Huxley for making up a stupid term
kalin666 1 year ago
I can't say I know any atheists who wouldn't be open to the idea of a God if there was any reasonable evidence. Does that mean none of us are atheists? Agnostics claim to neutral, which I don't buy into (every agnostic I know, including myself, just used it as a buffer zone to prepare for the label of atheist). However, if a person says they don't believe in a God, they're an atheist. Period.
Nonoyawns 1 year ago
You're not REALLY an atheist because atheist worship the flying spaghetti monster!
I'm blocked now aren't I? lol
SamNoble89 1 year ago
@SamNoble89 I don't block :)
kalin666 1 year ago
Hannity is such a clown. You might as well have posted a clip of your cat giving political rhetoric.
But, yeah, all this verbiage about atheism, agnosticism, whatever-ism is just a political football to kick around as the drunken masses cheer and jeer.
I want to coin my own word, but it'll just become another loaded word anyway. At least maybe I can make a name for myself: slacker-ism. I like the ring to it, it's like a perfect football perched up on a tee ready to be kicked.
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
your going to burn ...just fkn with you - bet you get that all the time - nice video thanks for the upload
stillstandin4you 1 year ago
@stillstandin4you not really, there's no Hell in Judaism
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 yeah but im sure more than jews see your vids ...anyway i guess that was an assumption on my part - i mention that religion isnt for me and I usually hear something along those lines
stillstandin4you 1 year ago
Fox news not exactly critical thinkers.
In my experience, the arguement tends to go, they cannot doubt god, or what you don't know yet belive, or else they fear that without faith they will be "plauged" by doubt. As if douting the one thing unwraveled all of human knowledge. Ah, but then the problem with conflating "faith" and "belief" is that reasoned logic and evidence go right out the window.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
She is not an Atheist, she proves it every time she opens her mouth.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk I certainly disagree with her, but I'm willing to take her word on her lack of religious faith.
kalin666 1 year ago
@kalin666 She doesn't act like an Atheist. Her comment of "I'm willing to be converted" says it all doesn't it?
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk I'm willing to be converted too. I don't think it would take anything less than a real god demonstrating to me that he was in fact real to do it, but still, I'm not going to be dogmatic about it and neither should you.
kalin666 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
aheism, by logical necessity, allows the possibility of a god existing. Atheism is not what the FOX guy said "certainty there is no god" or the funnier comment "believe everything comes from nothing".
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Wrong, Agnosticism, allows the possibility of a God existing. Atheism is the believe that there is no credible evidence that there is a God. That's it. Who told you that Atheism by logical necessity allows for the possibility of a God? Who told you that? That's ridiculous nonsense, and totally wrong. Sorry, you've been completely misinformed. Try again.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
Agnosticism talks about what man can know, and is not incompatable with either theism or atheism. All beliefs are possibly true and possibly false by logical necessity. The belief there is no god is not a claim of truth that there is no god, it is believed, so it is possibly false. Beliefs are not truths, that is the error of the religious. Atheists do maintain there is no credible evidence as well, but that is not what atheism is. That is simply a claim atheists often make.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr No, that is actually what Atheists think, and that is actually what Atheism is.
Have you watched any Atheist video? There is a few of Zjemptv and AronRa that completely explain what you seem to not understand about Atheism. Atheism is nothing more than not taking the word of the religious that a God which they can't produce, or prove exists. It means nothing more than that.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
It is irrelevant to some atheists that theism has no credible evidence. Not all atheists are rational. I know of an atheist, she believes there is no god, due to being raped. A just god wouldn't allow it so she thinks there is no god, independant of any other reason. Some atheists think god created the universe and now does not exist, we call them deists and they do not believe in a god (nontheist) and believe there is no god (atheist).
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"Have you watched any Atheist video?"
I make videos on atheism for 1. For 2 I see many nonatheists who misrepresent atheism and themselves as atheists, who say atheism is a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not anything, there is no such thing. I see very poor logic in defence of that nonsense and fairly frequently. those who say they are what they are not, are "notters" which is derived from nutter. Notters do worse at logic than nutters do.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Except that using logic you can see that one can have a lack of something.
Use the dictionary. I have a lack of a belief in god, which means I have no belief in any God. How hard is that to understand? Are you really that closed minded and stupid that you cannot understand common basic comments? You've argued with people for years on this and you haven't learned anything at all.
Nonono, shut up, have you watched AronRa's last video? I bet not. You'd actually learn something, afraid?
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"Except that using logic you can see that one can have a lack of something."
Only twighlihgt zone logic. You lack a 32nd head, no part of you is "lack a 32nd head". Lacking a 32nd head is not an object, it is not something that exists. Lacking belief works the same way.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr No, it doesn't work that way at all. Do you know the meaning of the word LACK? Do you actually know the meaning of the word?
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
Lack always uses the not operator, and refers to what something does not have. ie: you lacked existence in the year 1200. Lacking existence is not a thing, not an object, not something that exists. Pretend your whole school doesnt get it if you like and see if that changes the rules of logic enough to accomodate your errors.
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"Use the dictionary"
An argument by authority, and you chose a very poor authority since they all say atheism is a belief. Comical.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Well Agnostics say, they don't know if there is a God or not, and they don't even know or believe they know anything about God.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in God.
You can be an Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Atheist, and Gnostic Theist.
You are reading into Atheism, and trying to make it into something that it is not.
It doesn't make room for a God any more than baking a cake makes room for a God. It doesn't talk about that at all.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"Well Agnostics say, they don't know if there is a God or not,"
Perhaps, but that is not what agnosticism is. Asgnosticism is the position that man cannot know if there is a god or not. Atheism is not the claim that we know there is no god. It is the belief, knowing we could be wrong, that there is no god. All beliefs work that way. They are all possibly false or they would not be a belief.
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"Atheism is the lack of a belief in God."
The biggest lie out there. A lack of belief, by logical necessity, does not and cannot exist. There is no such thing. You are saying atheism is (something that does not exist). A lack of belief is not anything at all.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Do you believe there is a talking teapot floating around the sun? If not, then you have a lack of a belief that there is a talking teapot floating around the sun.
You make little to no sense. You should by now have an understanding of this, I mean you aren't a kid.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
saying I do not believe in a flying teapot, (Russells teapot works), is not talking about me. It is true in the year 1200 that I did not believe it. The subject of the statement is what I do not do, true when I do not exist.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Do you CURRENTLY believe that there is a talking flying tea pot? Not yesterday, not tomorrow, not in the year 1200 but right now? You knew that's what I meant. You must have read some moronic philosophers or some book which had word play and impressed you a lot. But honestly it's silliness. All Atheism is is the lack of a belief in a God. Nothing more. You can add things to it, you can make it into something that it isn't, but you know the truth currently.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
when I answer "No, I don't" I am not talking about me, and it is true in the year 1200. Please read Bertrand Russells essay called On Denoting, where it is made clear why NOTX does not exist. A lack of belief is not anything at all. You seem to think it is, and would violate both formal logic and set theory to say so. Calling Russell A moronic philosopher, does not counter his arguments. Dare to educate yourself.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr When he says stupid idiotic things like that I can totally rip him a new one.
I told you the true meaning of Atheism, the lack of a belief that god exists. You are reading into it something which is not there. You are the one being illogical, you are the one who isn't playing by the common rules of communication, and understanding.
Also, just because you read a book doesn't make you educated. Just because something is in a book doesn't make it right. I've already beating his "logic"
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"I told you the true meaning of Atheism, the lack of a belief that god exists"
Ya your problem is there is no such thing as a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not an existent thing. There is a better chance of a god existing than what you call atheism.
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"You are reading into it something which is not there"
No that would be you, since a lack of belief is nonexistent.
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"are the one being illogical"
Except you have not shown an error in logic I have made. I have shown you plenty you have made. Your logic says that what something is not, is what it is. Saying atheists lack belief in god is true about what atheists do not do, are not. That is not what atheists are, it is true about what they are not.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Because one can posses an idea. Also you are basing all this on 1200ad logic? I mean really? The problem is your axiom. The concept of no negative is not true. The concept of not owning an idea is an untruth, and once you base everything else off of an untruth everything else becomes untrue.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
I am convinced you are experiencing toxic shock and all I can suggest is to change your brand of tampon.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr You and your primitive philosopher have been beaten. You haven't proven your side, I have. You made outragious claims, and you couldn't back them up.
I've proven that your philosopher needed an education and he over thinks fruitless points, twisting them until they have some sort of meaning. Over all, his words are ridiculous. I've ventured to learn about him the other night and I bet you never watched the last AronRa video. So sad that you accuse me of doing what you have just done.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
It remains the case that a lack of belief does not exist. I watched AronRa for enough to notice an old hippy was cleaning his bike and saw no hope of anything even related to this topic. If you wish to direct me to a specific thing he said, I will reply to it.
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"Because one can posses an idea. Also you are basing all this on 1200ad logic?"
what? No, I never said any such thing. You might try to see what is being said. I have confidence you have no idea what is being argued to you here.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr I know very well, I just don't subscribe to such nonsense.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"I've already beating his "logic" "
Huh? And you wish to lecture on communicating? Seriously?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr See the problem is you're lack of understanding of the spirit of a statement.
The lack of understanding that what people mean by what they say and how they say it might not be compatible with how you wish to perceive it. You should be looking at what people mean, and not how to beat how they said something.
Communication is a two way street, both sides need to work within the rules of the road or there is a total mess. Like changing road signs.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk Sorry that's, "your", not "you're" lack of understanding. Don't know why I didn't catch that.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
I know what they mean, I have multiple videos on this topic and formal logic and welcome you to challenge any of them.
Notters don't even agree with each other. Notters are as much my opposition as are theists or like Kalin here, materialists. I come to youtube pretty much solely to argue with these people and watch music vids. I have no lack of understanding what is meant in this debate, I have argued these same points for over a dozen years.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr And you've been beaten by me rather easily. You just close your ears and say nononononono CURRENTLY. You argue a nonsense point. You lack the understanding of common concepts. If you cannot grasp that not having something is the act of not actually having something CURRENTLY, then you are mentally insane.
Mglosk 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
Notters come in 5 Categories:
1. people only who lack belief (this category includes subcategories)
2. add animals
3. add plants and bacteria
4. add rocks and concepts
5. add nonexistent things like the present King of France (magically they are atheists, as they do not believe in a god)
They all lack belief. Funny thing is, notters never realize they are not speaking of these objects to say they lack belief. It makes good for good humour.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mglosk,
"When he says stupid idiotic things like that I can totally rip him a new one"
Anger won't help you, this discussion deals with formal studies like propositional logic which defines NOT and set theory which defines NON, and you've only shown you would do well with an introduction to either.
gklr 1 year ago
@Mglosk,
"you aren't a kid"
True, just not true about me. True about what I am not. True when I did not exist. The logical problem being shown to you was introduced in 1905 by Bertrand Russell in an essay called On Denoting, which was very influential and it's contents are in Russells Theory of Descriptions, and either are available online for you to look into.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Yawn.
Go perpetuate your theocentric dogma somewhere else.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
lol, I am an atheist. You might look that up.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Then why are you working within the narrow confines of theistic labels?
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Nothing I said was theocratic, dogmatic, or within the limited confine of theistic labels. Logical necessity for the usage of NOT and set theory for NON, is what I have applied. To commit a fallacy by association, when there is no assocation to theology.... is my question to you. Why do you consider anything I have said as a "theistic label"? I find that baffling.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
But that simply isn't true based on all your responses on this video. You clearly haven't heard of the null set.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Why is it that you think I have not heard of the null set and what application of the null set do you think applies here? Let me explain the null set to you. A null set is like the set of months with 32 days, it is empty and contains no members. The set exists, but there are no members of the set. Where did you get this ability to detect what someone else knows and can you still get your money back?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Just keep thinking about it. You may eventually get it.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Just that you mention the null set in this discussion tells me you do not know what it is. There is no application. So far you've misunderstood what theocratic dogma is, calling discussion that invokes logic and set theory as theistic. You've tried to read minds and looked silly in the process since you were wrong. And you've shown you apply the null set where it cannot be applied. Hint: I am not about to "get" what you clearly misunderstand.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Nope. Wrong again.
Contact me when you've dropped the theocractic mindset. You're letting the religionists win.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Tell me what your misunderstanding leads you to believe theists win, and what do they win?
I have theists tell me they lack belief in a god. They know you see, god exists. I know that theism is a belief, and that beliefs don't believe anything. Theism lacks belief in a god. Theists believe, theism doesn't.
Do you also say that the number 1 is not the number 2, and interpet that to say what the number 1 is? Not 2 is what 1 is?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
You are presenting false dichotomies and playing into theocractic assumptions. Once you can understand my previous points, you'll understand why faith has such a strong hold on people in this country.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
I am sorry but I must have missed those points. When asked to clarify your position, you simply slide back into some weird idea that propositional logic and set theory are theocratic assumptions. Even without answering if not 1, is what 2 is... which is the logical error you are making. Failing to address the argument is not a counter argument.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Unless you are in Canada like I am, "this country" is rather meaningless to me. And this country is not burdened by faith in god, nor would I care if it was. It is none of my business what someone else believes. Just as I don't care what you do in bed either. Saving the world is not my concern.
Say, can you prove what someone else thinks? If not, then you can't prove anyone is a theist or atheist and you are taking theists and atheists by their word. You place faith in theists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Thanks for presenting another false dichotomy. You are really good at that. Next, let's play Ayn Rand's Tautology game. XD
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
And you think you know what a tautology is? lol.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
I do. Yet, you clearly can not see your own fallacies.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Ya, and for good reason too. I didn't make one.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
You've made several.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Only if you hallucinate them.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Nope. Review your posts. If you are honest, you will see them.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
A false dichotomy is something you need to show, there isn't one here. I didn't give you any dichotomy at all, let alone a false one. Show the dichotomy I gave.
I generally find that those who try to argue that something is a fallacy are the worst at identifying a fallacy. In this case, no dichotomy was offered at all.
As well, fallacies don't show falsehoods, they show poor argument form. Saying "1+1=2 because my brother said so", is a fallacy, yet 1+1=2 is true.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Keep looking, you'll see it.
Further, you have both poor argument form and falsehoods in your posts.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
As expected from someone who failed to show any dichotomy, let alone a false one. I ask myself why you even bother... it's obvious you have no clue at all what a dichotomy is, let alone atheism.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Nope. Try again. Keep looking and your theocentric bias and false dichotomies will become evident.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
You failed to show any dichotomy, naturally since there wasn't one offered. A false dichotomy you see would at least have to be a dichotomy, but there was no dichotomy at all.... let alone a false one. When asked for what the dichotomy was, you fell silent and had none to show. You argue like a child with nothing to say.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr
Wrong again. Review your posts and you will see your error.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
I've reviewed yours and found many fallacies, and proof that you have no clue what a fallacy even is. You argue like a child, void of any substance at all.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
You've been given every opportunity to show a fallacy, and all you have done is make them. I offered no theistic labels, I used logic and set theory to show what I say. You talk utter shit and think educated people don't notice that? Good fucking grief, try backing up a single bit of your bullshit.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
You've been given several suggestions to review your posts. Do it and your fallacies will become clear. If you cease your immature belligerence, you might learn something.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
The insults are warranted, you are completely lost when it comes to logic. There wasn't any dichotomy offered, let alone a false one. You troll with falsehoods, you don't offer an argument. Learn something from a shameless child who doesn't know what he is talking about? Ok dude, only in your fantasy. Reality beckons you.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Check ALL your posts again.
You have repeatedly committed the same fallacy. You presented a dichotomy and it was a false one. Don't bother me again until you have found it. I won't waste my time with someone who can't read a comment box.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
You hallucinate fallacies that were never made, while making fallacies yourself. It would be SO much easier for you to just show the fallacy, but you can't do that because it doesn't exist. So run around and pretend you know what a fallacy even is, but it is more than apparent you get off on just lying like a fucking retard. Reasoning? LOL, it sounds like you think it is built on fabrications and hallucinations. Total reject.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
No fallacies were made by me. Try again.
Keep checking the posts. I've already corrected you. If you don't accept it, that is your issue.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
You have not corrected me, you wouldn't know where to begin. Fallacies must be shown, you haven't. You claim them without substantiation, from a completely ignorant perspective of what they even are. It's utterly laughable.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
"No fallacies were made by me."
Oh really? You argued I did not understand the null set, and when I explained it to you it was obvious you had no idea what the null set was. The original statement was false, and a fallacious. Not only do I understand the null set, but raising it as a point of contention was a strawman.... it has no application to what I argued.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Consider it an analogy. Keep thinking. You'll get it, if you are as smart as you pretend.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
The null set, you ignorant buffoon, has no application to this argument. Raising it was utterly fallacious. Fools like you who constantly harp that this is a fallacy and that is a fallacy, MAKE THE MOST FALLACIES. Your posts are an utter joke.
Come back in like 10 years when you are able.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
But it does.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanoxilt,
"But it does."
Then show it. You needed the null set expained to you, because obviously you didn't know what it is. Which isn't exactly earth shattering news, you didn't know what atheism is either. So go ahead, show how the null set applies and I won't be holding my breath. It is a strawman 100%.
Your other fallacy was in saying my argument gave a win to theists. Say what? Oh ya, just an argument by association. You make more fallacies than most theists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Nope. I said that because you were working within theocratic assumptions and accepting the false dichotomies as provided by religionists. Review your posts before you type. You might learn something.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Theocratic assumptions never entered my arguments. I used set theory and propositional logic only and proved what I had to say and you dreamed that I used a fallacy.... while you were using fallacies. You are a logical buffoon. Hallucinate much?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr,
You were asked politely many times to show the fallacy, and you instead chose to simply bait me like the fool you are. So fucktard, show the fallacy or simly accept there wasn't one. But coming out with more baseless one liners that you cannot defend will just get you called the completely fucking ridiculous moron that you are intent on proving. I don't suffer fools long. Learn about your topic or shut the fuck up.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr,
"You were asked politely many times..."
Was obviously meant for shanoxilt and not to myself. LOL.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
I know the topic. You've almost got the answer if you'll stop acting like a whiny bitch.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@gklr
Do you always reply with childish insults when you've been backed into a corner?
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
What fucking corner? The one in your imagination? Too inept to show this corner?
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
I give childish retards like yourself what they warrant in terms of a reply. Since you can't show a fallacy, and don't seem to have any clue how they work.... and come back with baseless accusations, you get called a complete clown on logic, a fucktard at reasoning. 100%. I stand by it as it is accurate.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
"accepting the false dichotomies as provided by religionists"
What a clown. Nothing of course supports this assertion. And that is not what you argued at all, you argued I used a false dichotomy and when politely asked where I did so you couldn't show it. Laughable garbage.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
I did show you. Read it again.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
"I did show you"
You hallucinate.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
An object must exist to be a member of a set. This is why the null set has no application. A complete strawman on your part. It has no application whatsoever to the question of what an atheist is. The present King of France does not exist, does not believe in a god and is not an atheist. There is the proof that not believing in god is not atheism, or the present King of France would be an atheist... but isn't, he does not exist. And you want to apply the null set? Laughable logic.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
A Philospher in Training is your channel description and it is accurate. You blocked me after showing you how tautologous truth demonstrates objects that have no material properties. I am afraid you have a long way to go as a philosopher. Being unaware of most of philosophy and logic, misusing the term fallacy, being a complete coward in debate..... does not a philosopher make.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Wrong on all accounts. Try again when you're not so fussy.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
"Wrong on all accounts"
"A Philospher in Training" is your own description, and quite appropriate. You might begin with fallacies and start learning what they are and how they work. Obviously you have no clue right now.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
I understand them well enough to know that you will continue to repeat the same ones over and over until you feel that you've "won" this discussion.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
I win when you show me something. You win when I show you something. I've asked and asked you to show me and you haven't. I have shown you, and you win because of it. I won nothing, I already knew that shit.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Just being an asshole, is not an argument.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Just being an aggressive fucktard is not a response to your fallacies.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
Hallucinating fallacies doesn't make them real. You were asked for days to show a fallacy and couldn't. One line lame excuses for having nothing to back up your garbage is not an excuse for being so stupid.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
I've shown you twice. If you can't pay attention, get some Ritalin.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
You haven't shown anything. And after being asked over and over again, you still have nothing to show. You are too idiotic for any reasonable discussion. Its that simple. Guys like you who cry fallacy everytime anyone says anything, know nothing of how fallacies work and make the most fallacies of anyone. Moreso, it seems complelete beyond your grasp to realize "1+1=2 because a book says so" is fallacious even though 1+1=2 is true. Empty rhetoric doesn't cut it shanoxilt.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
When you can act like an adult, I will respond to you like one. Until then, keep checking those posts. It's right in front of your face.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
When I act like an adult?? LOL! Good one. While you run around blocking people who show you to be a complete idiot on logic? Get a brain.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr
Says the man who loves false dichotomies.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
@s
No false dichotomy exists in anything I have said, as evident that you have none to show. Days on end you say this, yet no fallacy yet. Your errors on logic are easy to show. Saying X is not Y, or X lacks Y, is not talking about X. It is true when X does not exist, as shown via the present King of France who does not exist, is not a believer in god and is not an atheist. What you call atheism, does not exist.... there can not be any such thing. Atheism exists, what you say it is, doesn't.
gklr 1 year ago
@shanoxilt,
I love finding fools like you who abuse logical terms to say the dumbest and most illogical things. An example is that anything is a lack of X, where X is anything. That is saying that what something is, is what it isn't..... and you think you spotted a fallacy? You make me laugh.
gklr 1 year ago