"a-" meaning "without", "theos" meaning "god". Agnosticism states that one cannot know whether there is a god, and an agnostic can be theist or atheist. Deism states that there is a god but this god is not involved with the universe and does not request worship. There are no deistic atheists.
@Nulono An agnostic cannot be a theist or atheist, one cannot say, "I know God exists/I know God does not exists", and also claim "yet, I don't know if God does or doesn't exist."
@Nulono Sure, one may argue this position, but it will not produce anything on any philosophical ground. This is why I think atheism is pretty much dead today, as it cannot convince anyone, or even hold to the notion, that God does not exist.
@Nulono Again, New Atheism blurring the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. if one "lacks belief", he/she is not an atheist but is an agnostic. If one is 'lacking belief' they are lacking the information, yet maintain it is possible for God to exist, atheism on the other hand says no, it is impossible, for God to exist. This is how New Atheism uses the popular 'Shifting the Burden Of Proof'.
@Nulono That's a longer discussion than can be had in YouTube comments, I would suggest you read Singer's work on the subject. I just wanted to point out that he wasn't giving an opinion on whether the law should/shouldn't do something, just that it doesn't necessarily need to reflect person-hood.
Peter Singer, atheist, one of the worst of the worst, this villain openly defends the practice of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, even bestiality and cannibalism. A truly sick individual.
@Nulono Yes, because it is the atheist worldview which sees morality as a subjective notion, just a matter of opinion. Under atheism there is no Good and Evil.
@Nulono Of course atheism is a worldview.Atheism by definition is the belief that God does not exist, and maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions.
@PMEWhite The only thing any two atheists share is that they lack a belief in a deity or deities. Not all are strong atheists (believe that there is no deity or deities), and not all are materialists. Definitely not all believe that truth and logic are relative; in fact I would hazard to say very few believe that.
@Nulono Yes, the whole 'New Atheism' movement, which is really just a blurring of actual atheism along with other belief systems such as agnosticism and deism.
@PMEWhite "[T]he atheist worldview [...]sees morality as a subjective notion[...]"
Atheist only says that there is no evidence that gods exist. No more, no less.
But even if you're a theist, how can you say morality isn't subjective? Lying is usually wrong, but if you're in Poland in 1943 and a man in a nice-looking uniform knocks on your door and says, "Good morning. Sunny day, isn't it? By the way, any Jews around here?" not only would lying be OK, but it would be immoral not to.
@kissfan7 Again, the atheist worldview is the total rejection of God, no matter what the evidence says.
You bring up a very good point, If you believe morality is subjective, than how can you claim the Nazis to be evil? They're simply going by their own morality, which would equal to yours. As for lying, yes, it is a sin, but it must also be made into the right context. Is the lying done for selfish reasons?, or for a selfless purpose? Do you believe in a Just and Righteous God?
@PMEWhite "You bring up a very good point, If you believe morality is subjective, than how can you claim the Nazis to be evil?"
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that wasn't my point. Some evils, like lying, are not always evil. The decision must be based on reason and evidence, not pre-scientific books.
Where does Scripture say selfless lying is OK? I vaguely remember reading some author who argued that lying is OK if it wins converts, but I forgot what verses s/he cited. Thanks.
Also, should "OK" be capitalized? Now that I typed it twice in a row it looks like I'm yelling randomly. This is clearly the most important question of all.
What was I saying? Oh yeah...
My moral judgements are based on one sentence: "Suffering is bad and should be avoided." National socialism causes much unnecessary suffering, and thus is immoral.
I do not believe in gods, but if they do exist and are all-powerful and all-knowing, they are either careless or cruel, not just.
This person sounds like a nut job. He obviously has no idea who God is
blanderm1 2 months ago
@blanderm1 He absolutely does understand. God is imaginary, and he knows it.
dan46and2 1 month ago
Uh, no.
"a-" meaning "without", "theos" meaning "god". Agnosticism states that one cannot know whether there is a god, and an agnostic can be theist or atheist. Deism states that there is a god but this god is not involved with the universe and does not request worship. There are no deistic atheists.
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono An agnostic cannot be a theist or atheist, one cannot say, "I know God exists/I know God does not exists", and also claim "yet, I don't know if God does or doesn't exist."
PMEWhite 2 months ago
@PMEWhite It's totally possible. You can believe in something while still maintaining it's impossible to know it for certain.
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono Sure, one may argue this position, but it will not produce anything on any philosophical ground. This is why I think atheism is pretty much dead today, as it cannot convince anyone, or even hold to the notion, that God does not exist.
PMEWhite 2 months ago
@PMEWhite What you are referring to is strong atheism, believing that there is no God. Atheism per se only requires a lack of a belief in God.
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono Again, New Atheism blurring the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. if one "lacks belief", he/she is not an atheist but is an agnostic. If one is 'lacking belief' they are lacking the information, yet maintain it is possible for God to exist, atheism on the other hand says no, it is impossible, for God to exist. This is how New Atheism uses the popular 'Shifting the Burden Of Proof'.
PMEWhite 2 months ago
So why can the law protect born "nonperson", but not unborn ones?
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono He didn't say the law should do anything, he just said that the law doesn't necessarily have to be 100% lock-step with person-hood.
dan46and2 1 month ago
@dan46and2 Then why not have it protect the unborn?
Nulono 1 month ago
@Nulono That's a longer discussion than can be had in YouTube comments, I would suggest you read Singer's work on the subject. I just wanted to point out that he wasn't giving an opinion on whether the law should/shouldn't do something, just that it doesn't necessarily need to reflect person-hood.
dan46and2 1 month ago
@dan46and2 *anything;
Nulono 1 month ago
Peter Singer, atheist, one of the worst of the worst, this villain openly defends the practice of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, even bestiality and cannibalism. A truly sick individual.
PMEWhite 2 months ago
@PMEWhite Does him being an atheist really matter?
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono Yes, because it is the atheist worldview which sees morality as a subjective notion, just a matter of opinion. Under atheism there is no Good and Evil.
PMEWhite 2 months ago
@PMEWhite That is false. Atheism is not a worldview at all, and atheists believe all sorts of things.
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono Of course atheism is a worldview.Atheism by definition is the belief that God does not exist, and maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions.
PMEWhite 2 months ago
@PMEWhite The only thing any two atheists share is that they lack a belief in a deity or deities. Not all are strong atheists (believe that there is no deity or deities), and not all are materialists. Definitely not all believe that truth and logic are relative; in fact I would hazard to say very few believe that.
Nulono 2 months ago
@Nulono Yes, the whole 'New Atheism' movement, which is really just a blurring of actual atheism along with other belief systems such as agnosticism and deism.
PMEWhite 2 months ago
@PMEWhite "[T]he atheist worldview [...]sees morality as a subjective notion[...]"
Atheist only says that there is no evidence that gods exist. No more, no less.
But even if you're a theist, how can you say morality isn't subjective? Lying is usually wrong, but if you're in Poland in 1943 and a man in a nice-looking uniform knocks on your door and says, "Good morning. Sunny day, isn't it? By the way, any Jews around here?" not only would lying be OK, but it would be immoral not to.
kissfan7 1 month ago
@kissfan7 Again, the atheist worldview is the total rejection of God, no matter what the evidence says.
You bring up a very good point, If you believe morality is subjective, than how can you claim the Nazis to be evil? They're simply going by their own morality, which would equal to yours. As for lying, yes, it is a sin, but it must also be made into the right context. Is the lying done for selfish reasons?, or for a selfless purpose? Do you believe in a Just and Righteous God?
PMEWhite 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PMEWhite "You bring up a very good point, If you believe morality is subjective, than how can you claim the Nazis to be evil?"
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that wasn't my point. Some evils, like lying, are not always evil. The decision must be based on reason and evidence, not pre-scientific books.
Where does Scripture say selfless lying is OK? I vaguely remember reading some author who argued that lying is OK if it wins converts, but I forgot what verses s/he cited. Thanks.
kissfan7 1 month ago
Also, should "OK" be capitalized? Now that I typed it twice in a row it looks like I'm yelling randomly. This is clearly the most important question of all.
What was I saying? Oh yeah...
My moral judgements are based on one sentence: "Suffering is bad and should be avoided." National socialism causes much unnecessary suffering, and thus is immoral.
I do not believe in gods, but if they do exist and are all-powerful and all-knowing, they are either careless or cruel, not just.
kissfan7 1 month ago