I think, it's wrong to say Atheism would always answer "I don't believe in God" when asking him, if he would believe in God. The correct anser would be: "I don't know"
@bigtitsmgee my "belief" as you call it, is based on evidence. Science is adaptable to the evidence provided. Faith/religion is not. Faith is belief without proof. I never at any time said I speak for all atheists. But I did venture my opinion on a topic I feel strongly about. However, you seem to think you have the right to tell me to "stfu" as my opinion differs from yours. Good luck with that! You sound like a theist/deist to me.
do you actually know what you are talking about? you are a cretin. obviously there is a vacuum between your ears. Atheists believe in truth, not faith. Facts, not fiction.
There is a fine line between fact and fiction; however, if one considers things like love to be reducible down to nothing more then a bunch of cells and hormones, then they are the ones who would rather believe in fiction rather then being open-minded towards the truth, much less facts.
@DougCartwright1 all belief is based on faith you moron the only certainty is that there is no certainty athiest can believe whatever they want i am an athiest but i believe it on faith because me just like everyone else does not understand the universe or how it came to be no matter how close science gets there is no fact so your belief just like every other religion is based on faith so stfu and quit speaking for all athiests out there speak for yourself and no one esle
Its not possible to believe in atheism. it is not correct to refer to non belief such as atheist as an ism. just because we don't believe in god it doesn't mean we have no beliefs or values. Ok I believe you are not really capable of understanding what you are talking about and you shouldn't be talking about a subject you don't understand so good luck!
Atheism doesn't have a story, and it came from the absence of a belief in god, and later a rejection of the belief in one, but the belief in god had to come first before the term was useful, since everyone would have been an atheist before that. I mean this is pretty simple. Now when it comes to reasons to be an atheist, that's a completely different question, also atheism isn't a belief again it's the absence of one.
...I'm quite certain an American Atheist would disagree with you on that point, spell; they actually believe that only the Christian God doesn't exist.
"Widely considered to be the cradle of civilization, Bronze Age Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires. In the Iron Age, it was controlled by the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires. The indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC)..."
@jfritzyb Is it "an accepted fact in the archaeological community" to consider that "humans" appeared with civilization?
Religions appeared very soon, humans or modern humans ancestors were afraid of everything they didn't understood.
They were afraid the sun didn't came back in the morning (they really soon consider the universe from their point of view, they were of course the center of this universe).
@jfritzyb I'm not sure where Iron's going, but I'm pretty sure that neither of you understood what Angie said. She wasn't talking about whether religion or atheism came first, she merely meant what she said: A child knows no god until it learns of one.
If you're a Christian you should rejoice, since the Christian god has always needed mediators to spread his word to the masses, thus it's obvious that a child wouldn't know of him. If you believe in some other god, I have nothing to say :<
@jfritzyb [continuted[ as for the vacuuming trick: it was cool, but nonsensical. Atheism indeed doesn't "give me anything in return". Why should it? Why do I need to believe in a god as the basis for my morality? This argument isn't about whether (non)believe makes you a better person. Atheism vs theism is concerned only with the TRUTH! If a god proved their existence to me, I'd believe. Simple. A god can be loving or cruel; it doesn't matter! All that matters is the proof of existence!
Ok; I think I've said this before but just in case, I will say it again. The atheists that I have encountered have always come across as people who have varying degrees of narcissism and/or nihilism. Hence, I used the term monsters to describe those kinds of atheists; the kind of atheists who are so full of themselves that they think anyone who doesn't believe the way that they do is an ignoramus kid with a dunce cap that needs to go back to kindergarten--and also the kind who think that life...
...has no meaning or purpose whatsoever. That's all I'm saying when I use the term monsters; now, I know lots of folks, when they think of monsters, they think of evil despots like Hitler. It can mean that but that's not what I meant here; to me, a monster is someone who has a very distorted view of life, the evidence of which is in how they view and treat other people (and, I might add, especially those who don't believe the way that they do); and narcisism and nihlism promote chaos not peace.
(cont)... between theism and atheism, actually. Atheism can occur in a complete... ahem... vacuum. You'll never see someone suddenly believing in Jehova, Allah, Krishna, the Greek Pantheon, or any other god without input from some carrier of the meme. Further I find that your assertion that “Atheism sucks” laughable and your accusation that Atheists are monsters incapable of love quite insulting and a blatant lie.
I've been an atheist since I was born. Since a lack of belief is the default position, it is justified until evidence is given to otherwise refute it. I've never been given evidence strong enough to convince me that any gods or supernatural things in general exist; therefore, I still hold the default position. I'm not a "follower of atheism." I didn't even know there WERE other people who didn't believe in gods until a few years ago. That in itself clearly demonstrates the difference... (cont)
Atheists should have a good reason for rejecting religious claims once they are heard. If they haven't heard any religious claims, they don't need a reason for rejecting some claims they have never heard. Does that make sense?
Just because atheists don't have an imaginary friend doesn't mean we are monsters.
You accept the character of atheists as a measure of atheism but you don't accept the character of Christians other than yourself as the measure of Christianity.
If you want an example of institutions that take without giving you may want to examine many religious ones. Start with the religious broadcasters.
@tiggster13 "But when you start to question the rationality of a decision you're no longer talking about the accuracy of the decision but the ability of the person making that decision to apply reason"
Here is the fatal flaw I am having with your refutation. This is a very well written refutation because it is actually comprehensable. When you say "accuracy of the decision" it implies that decisions have a true value or objective aim. I submit that the aim of a decision is its rationality.
@tiggster13 "First you said that a rational decision required all available facts..."
True... when regarding individual beliefs of philosophy, as I have already mentioned. This is an example of you taking things out of context and refuting a strawman.
"now you're saying you don't need all available facts to make a rational decision."
True, when regarding decisions of action that depend upon time and circumstance. This is another example of a strawman. This does not apply to beliefs.
@tiggster13 "You know I've nailed you so you're ditching your argument and going off on a tangent."
I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying that I disagree with the statement or that I think you are being disingenuous. I literally don't know what you are talking about. You supply zero context for this statement. What are you refering to? I believe, as I have expressed in past comments, that you purposefully leave out context so I can't make a refutation.
@tiggster13 "so decisions about beliefs are different than any other type of decision."
I didn't say that. I said decisions about beliefs are different from decisions about action. This is not special pleading because there is a relavent basis for making such a destinction. Decisions about action are circumstancially dependent. Decisions must be made before the circumstance changes with time. On the other hand, decisions about beliefs do not depend upon circumstance.
@tiggster13 "Again, you're refuting your own argumant"
You are purposefully leaving out all context to your comments so that I can't make refutations. I have no idea what you are talking about specifically. What did I say specifically, that I haven't already addressed, that you think is a failed argument? So far I have addressed all the issues you have brought up regarding my assertions yet you have not once submitted a counter argument to any of the refutations I have made.
@tiggster13 "First you said that a rational decision required all available facts."
You are eliminating the context of the discussion. We were talking about beliefs, specifically in God, and not about all decisions in general. You are the liar. You have CONSISTENTLY made strawman arguments to refute durring this entire discussion. You KNOW that we were talking about beliefs when I said that and you KNOW that I made a descrepency between decisions about beliefs and decisions about action
@tiggster13 "Remember when I accused you of switching arguments when you are losing."
No... because you never did that. You simply misinterpreted the info on my account profile. Come to mention it, you misinterpret a lot of things. Nobody misinterprets that much on accident which means you're purposefully misinterpreting what I say and refuting false arguments... that's called a strawman (if you didn't know) and is fallacious.
@tiggster13 "You didn't make the case that they were invalid either."
Not in the comment you quoted but in another comment I did. I made a refutation under the assumed premise that those statistics were valid... then I demonstrated it was a moot point by showing that those statistics AREN'T valid, in a later comment.
"This is not an argument against prison statistics."
@tiggster13 "But, technically all the facts are available if you're willing to look long enough and hard enough to find them."
Not true... because it is irrational to abandon prudence and efficiency on your quest for knowledge. For instance, when making decisions regarding war, a general would be irrational to hesitate to find every fact that exists before making a decision. However, when it comes to deciding upon a philosophical or political belief, this may not be as applicable.
@tiggster13 "But you're saying that the decision to feed [the dog] is irrational."
I don't recall ever talking about a dog... but ok!
Actually... in this example it is rational to feed her... if the dog is dieing of hunger or something...This is due to an assessment of possible outcomes. however if you can make the assessment that the dog is not dieing of hunger, it would be rational not to feed it and simply call animal controle so they can assess allergies and who the dog belongs to.
@tiggster13 "now explain how the facts that you say I needed before I could make a rational decision were obtainable or accessible and ready for use before I made that decision?"
The facts are obtainable on the internet, in books, or at public universities around the country. Why am I answering these questions?
"Isn't it possible there are available facts out there that you don't have?"
Yeah... you seem to be lacking a lot of available facts.
@tiggster13 "I've already explained this to you once."
And I've already explained to you that if you don't add context to your statements, I won't know what you're talking about and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to figure it out... I have productive things to do.
@tiggster13 "Lie. You grouped atheists and non-theists together as tho they were the same and compared them to theists."
I was refuting someone elses argument under the assumption that comparing theists to atheists was valid. I never claimed it to be valid however. Why is comprehension so hard for you? I swear I have explained this MULTIPLE times already.
@tiggster13 "So you evidence for objective correctness and objective morality is god"
The evidence for God is objective correctness and objective morality... as well as many other things that would follow suet. Atheists often fail to realise that the mere premise of the nonexistence of God has many implications. If God doesn't exist, A, B, C, and D must also not exist. If you can't come to turms with A, B, C, and D not existing, then God must exist.
@tiggster13 "So, why were you expecting me to make a decision based onf acts I don't have?"
If you fail to add context to your questions, how am I supposed to know what you are talking about? As far as I know, I wasn't expecting you to make decisions based on facts you don't know... however, I expect you to use the resources available to you to gain knowledge before making decisions, so you know the facts.
@tiggster13 "The problem is, its YOUR logical fallacy because this is the argument that you were making."
No it isn't. Your completely inept.
"Available as in every fact known to mankind, or as in every fact that you happen to be aware of."
Neither. Often times every fact known to man kind is not possible to achieve. People often lack the resources or mental faculties to know every fact. It is again an unachievable idea, or a goal... That is why I use the language "most rational".
@tiggster13 "I never would have been stupid enough to say right on my You Tube account that as soon as I start to lose I change my initial argument like you have."
That's not what I said and again you impress me with your inability to comprehend simple language. That statement is a statement of humility saying that I know I am often incorrect, for I am a human... and when PROVEN incorrect, I will not hold on to disproven beliefs. That's called rational thinking.
@tiggster13 "making fallacious arguments (too many to cite - but I will if you'd like)"
I dare you to try. I challenge you to point out SPECIFICALLY, as I have you, the logical fallacies I have made (there are none).
The prison statistics were not a lie. They demonstrated the absurdity of the claim that theists were more likely to go to prison than non-theists, which we both agree is invalid.
Am I confusing you? Tell me where you are getting confused, as I have you, and i will clarify.
@tiggster13 "If morals aren't facts then what are they?"
I will explain the difference. When we are discussing something that is factually correct, it means it can be proven with empirical (testable) evidence. When we are talking about what is morally correct, we are talking about an unachievable idea. We will never be able to prove, empirically, something to be morally correct. That is the difference.
@tiggster13 "You don't understand the context of my statement about making decisions based on facts we don't have?"
Of course I don't because that statement made no sense. How can you possibly make decisions based on facts that you don't have access to? That's like saying you are going to make a decision based on what you decide to be true but hasn't been proven to be true... oh wait... you did say that already didn't you?
@tiggster13 "You've already established that objective correctness and objective morality don't exist"
False AGAIN sir. I established that without preconditions, objective morality and objective correctness CAN NOT exist. However, I believe that they do exist because I witness their existence every day. I am trying to show you that you don't need to see or hear God in order to prove God. All you need is to see traces of him. God exists because objective morality and correctness exist.
@tiggster13 "obviously somebody needs to tell you what the difference between 'citing a source' and 'appealing to authority'"
No... you see... I educate MYSELF and I don't rely upon others to "tell me" what things are. I actually READ LITERATURE before I get into philosophical debates. I actually INVEST in my knowledge by going to the University of Michigan and taking multiple philosophy classes in order to be able to make these arguments using logic and reason. Can you say the same?
No I'm not. Firstly, I was never comparing theists to nontheists. In fact, I was attempting to refute the an argument that was. So thank you for the additional support for my original argument.
"You're a liar and an idiot."
That's funny because, as I did cut that quote, I did so to save room as the entire quote is unnecessary to prove the point I made. Who is the idiot now? You fail once again at reading comprehension and understanding basic concepts.
"Can you define exactly what that non belief is in a way that would be valid for everyone who doesn't believe in Zeus?"
(By you asking this question, you desire me to give an answer to you that would be accepted by everybody who doesn't believe in Zeus--this is illogical and most importantly, would be quite presumptive if I dared to do such a thing for many people don't believe in Zeus for many reasons).
You don't believe this to be true of atheism, do you?
Facts can only point to faith; they do NOT EQUAL FAITH!
Having said that, I have a question for you; what would a non-belief in Zeus mean for ALL ATHEISTS without exception? Before you answer, I remind you of the American Atheists organization; for they do not believe, like many atheists, that the notion of gods is absurd.
They merely disbelieve in the Christian God Jehovah; please listen to the debate Ray Comfort had with them as well as read their website.
@tiggster13 The BEST study was based upon BEHAVIOR and not mere speculatory questionares. The fact is, " non-practicing (functionally nonreligious) people are highly over-represented among prisoners" This came straight from that source. This is because atheist/agnostic/none are all non-religious people.
"A person's philosophical position about the existence of God is distinct from that person's ethical behavior" which is the point I was trying to make.
@tiggster13 "It [veil of ignorance] doesn't remove their bias"
That's right. It is a clever trick that can be used to attempt to fabricate the mind set required to ensure moral decisions are made. This is what moral philosophy is all about. Every moral philosopher uses a specific trick, whether it be a catagorical imperative (Kant) or a moral algorithm (Nicomachean Ethics), to escape our innate bias and fallability.
@tiggster13 "I didn't accuse you of not citing sources" OK... so only statements that you think I should cite, I should cite... and any other time I use evidence from other people, I shouldn't cite it unless you tell me to. Ok... I understand now. You are my master and I will do as I am told. Thank you forgiving master of all things.
"asking for a source doesn't mean you are free to make fallacies of induction."
@tiggster13 "So how would we make moral decisions if morality didn't exist?"
We wouldn't. In order for you to make moral decisions, God must exist. This is proven through metaphysics and logic. It is illogical to believe that a supernatural law called morality exists without a supernatural law giver.
"Morlity is a subjective social construct that does not need to be enforced."
@tiggster13 "Hold on here! Are you suggesting that we make decisions based on facts that we don't have?"
Since there is no context to this question, it will go unanswered."
"without evidence a rational decision can be just as wrong as an irrational one?"
No... the most rational decision is always correct. This is a word play. This is exposing your inability to define and express what you think. Factual correctness and moral correctness are two seperate things.
@tiggster13 the point I'm trying to make is that just because a decision is rational that doesn't make it correct?"
Your inability to clearly define and express what you are talking about is so apparent. What does correct mean? Don't you understand that in a moral dilemma there is no "correct" decision other than the one that adheres to the specific moral code you chose to follow, and in that sense, there is no objective "correct". You fail at making logical conclusions.
@tiggster13 "I said that if you'd like to make a specific assertion, you'd have to prove it"
Straw-man argument. This is not what happened at all. Your inability to make logical arguments matches your reading comprehension skills. Fail more.
"Anyway, asserting that theism is more rational than atheism without evidence proves nothing."
That's ok, because you haven't proved anything so I feel confident in my own judgement based solely on what I have proved and what you lack, education.
@tiggster13 "and if you'd like to assert that this decision isn't rational then you're going to have to prove that there's no rational reason to not believe in god."
False statement. I merely need to prove that it is more rational to believe in the God of the Christian Bible than not to. This is actually very easy to do if you simply have all the facts available. There is no way I can do this in a comment on youtube.
@tiggster13 "I didn't assert god's non-existence, I made a rational decision which, according to you, must be the most correct decision."
Firstly, I assumed that when you said, "I have decided that your god does not exist" you mis-typed what you meant. Secondly, If you honestly believe that you can will something to exist or not exist based upon what you "decide" it should be, then you're dumber than I thought. There is no need to respond to such an absurd statement.
@tiggster13 "these traits are not necessary in order to make moral decisions."
I never claimed them to be. I claimed that in order for morality to exist, an infallible, omnipotent being must exist in order to preordain what is moral and what isn't. Without the existence of such a being, morality can be summed up to a mere social construct. Without an objective truth giver, what makes anyone's opinion on what is moral more correct than another? What gives you the authority to enforce it?
@tiggster13 "Appealing to authority now, huh?" You complain that I'm not citing sources and then when I do cite sources you call it appealing to authority? You're probably the most ignorant person I have ever met on youtube. Say something intellectual, showing you've done some research... then talk to me.
veill of ignorance - "method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following principle..." ~wikipedia... look it up moron.
@tiggster13 "did you read those sources or just think by tellingme what to google I'd not look for myself"
No... I wanted you to look for yourself. Unfortunately you have no idea how to judge a source based on its credability nor do you take into concideration the posible flaws of the study. Not many criminals are deep philosophical thinkers. Atheist/agnostic/none are grouped together for a reason... because most criminals wouldn't even know what the term "atheist" even means. Try again.
@tiggster13 "I have decided that your god does not exist. Prove me wrong."
This is precisely why I drew the discrepancy between agnostics and atheists. Atheists have made a decision on the existence of God which means they are just as irrational as a theist. If you make an assertion (God does not exist) the burden of proof IS ON YOU. Atheists tend to claim that the burden of proof is not on them because they are simply "lacking a belief" which is simply not true. Fail more.
@tiggster13 "In order for a guiedeline to be moral all it has o do address the question of what one ought to do in a given situation."
Yes... and in order to adequately address that question, one must see things through a "veil of ignorance" as John Rawls pointed out in "A Theory Of Justice". I suggest you educate yourself before pointing the figure and claiming my assertions are baseless. In order to view the world free of bias, one must be infallable and omnipotent. Try again!
@tiggster13 "Please site your source or admit that this is a bold faced lie."
Do a simple google search. The evidence is right there. it's so easy to find. Type, "prison statistics religion". Several different sources show the percentage of prisoners who are atheist/agnostic/none to be at 20%. Then type, "America religion statistics" and it shows atheist/agnostic/none ot be at 15-16%.
Research it yourself. I can't post links on youtube.
@tiggster13 "A rational decision is not necessarily a correct decision."
The most rational decision is always the most correct decision based upon a set of moral guidlines that I adhere to. I challenge you to make a case for not making the most rational decision for any given dilemma. Yes the most rational decision may not lead to the most desirable outcome, however that doesn't mean the subject was in the wrong for making said decision.
@tiggster13 "Agnosticism deal with knowledge, not belief, so the definition 'a lack of theistic beliefe' would not define agnosticism." Yes it would, based on what you JUST SAID. No belief due to no knowledge... duh.
"Dom was using the definition of atheism as a premise in his argument - so you obviously don't know what you're talking about."
If you premise is false, then your conclusions are also false. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
@tiggster13 "moral guidelines that enhance stability and progress in society can be imposed without religion."
False. Guidelines can be imposed as a means to an end, such as stability and progress. However, they can only be concidered "moral" if an unbiased judge deems them so. Humanity is innately bias and thus can not be an adequate moral judge. Only an infallable, omnipotent being can.
If God doesn't exist, then morality follows suit and is merely a social construct.
ok, so you're compairing atheism to a vaccum? You know what might make you reconsider this parallel? Most noble prize winners, geniuses, and scientists are atheist. If they dont get anything from being atheist then....how do we know about planets? Calculus? medical advances? we went to the moon....
I have found that many people assume that b/c I compare atheism to a vacuum, that I'm implying that atheists don't make any accomplishments at all. Rather, what I was trying to say is at the gut, personal level, atheism has nothing to offer.
When Angie originally used that same analogy, one of the reasons she usedit was b/c she seemed to think that atheism was...always around (which is why I asked her if she really thought atheism was self-existant).
@jfritzyb ok, i understand your response to my comment. But I will say that for at least myself, When I was looking into atheism and eventually became and atheist, I felt that I had been somewhat lied to about religion. I was brought up christain and no other religion was around me. So I naturally only knew that one belief. When I investigated other religions it made me re-evaluate my own. When there was just as much proof that chritianity could be false as with any other religion, I felt liedto
Atheism is not a religion, it is simply a term used to discribe a person that rejects all religion. ANYONE that thinks or sayes it is a religion, needs to get a fucking clue.
@jfritzyb contradiction´s i every single "holy book" and/or text. If you or any one else reads the bible and only sees a compatinate and kind god, and this helps you in you´r life, well keep reading and keep believing. I dont believe, i think all gods are false, this is my right. But i still stand by my first post.
Atheism is not a lesson that's taught, it is the act of not believing in the stories that religious people hold as true convictions and actual accounts despite overwhelming evidence that they are stupid in the head.
Atheism is not a THING! it's a lack of a belief! It is just saying, "I don't believe in those things." It is wrong to say it has "followers" cause there is nothing to follow!
It, in itself, is not an idea. Just a rejection of other ideas. Again: IT IS NOT A BELIEF. It just means you do not accept other's beliefs.
Your statements about atheists believing in a vacuum or a nothingness is wrong. Atheism says nothing about what one believes, just what one does not believe.
@ jfritzyb - OMG ( so to speak) I think you are grasping for the 'contingent' vs 'necessary' entity argument. I suggest you search the Bertrand Russell and Fr Coplestone SJ debate on YT to see (a) how to actually make the argument you are trying to make (Coplestone), and (b) why that argument is completely fallacious(Russell).
This is a very easy question... obviously it isn't.
You can look at it from a theist and atheist side and come to the same conclusion.
Atheist world view: In order for there to be an atheism, there must be a theism. I believe that theism is not self existent, thus atheism must not be self existent either.
Theist world view: Theism is the null, as God created all things and atheism is the rejection of God and his moral laws of us.
"Atheist world view: In order for there to be an atheism, there must be a theism. I believe that theism is not self existent, thus atheism must not be self existent either."
Wrong.
Atheism literally means a lack of a theistic belief.
So if you have never heard of any religions or tales of gods or goddesses. You would, in fact, be an atheist!
This means: Children are atheists until they are taught about a religion.
"Wrong. Atheism literally means a lack of theistic belief."
Definitions are premises, not arguments. I reject your premise based on the fact that we already have a word which bears that definition, "agnostic".
Atheism actually means the rejection of theistic belief. This is different from previously stated because as agnosticism lacks a theistic belief, it does not reject it. Atheism does reject the belief in a God or gods and thus this definition is more accurate and logical.
Really? Have you seen some of the YouTube atheists' videos on the topic? Some of them do make an argument out of its definition (in faCT, there's one atheist I responded to who did just that)...
Which brings us back to square 1; and it's the simple fact that atheists create their own definitions for atheism. Your atheism (or lack thereof) isn't the same as the next guy's.
That's the main point of the matter; take it or leave it.
Also, the vacuum sucks dirt away, therefore making a cleaner environment. As does Atheism. It sucks what dirty, changed, altered, untrue, or corrupt beliefs we see out of our heads so we don't get stuck in the same position.
But everyone has their own opinion, so nothing can be determined for sure.
Also talking about school vs reasoning, not everything is structured the same way. A person does not have to give you a reason why they think something.
@Criticalt3 Some people don't know why they believe certain ways, others do, you will get a different response from everyone.
I'm not even here to judge or argue, I'm just describing what I choose to think and I'm not bashing on you or your religion or ideas.
I believe that certain things are different from how you believe certain things are, it's just how the human works, and has worked since the dawn of our existence. Opinions are opinions.
Human opinions have shown to be, and are proven to be, based on rational decision making processes. This has been shown through many psychological studies and, as a side note, our entire economic system is based upon one assumption that human decision is rational.
If we can accept this premise, then we must conclude that opinions are NOT just opinions but, in fact, calculated responses based on specific stimuli that can be reproduced with negligible deviance.
Our morals are NOT received from religion. This is why the U.S. abolished slavery, why we don't stone adulterers, homosexuals, or disobedient kids anymore, why we don't go on witch hunts and burn supposed "witches" anymore.
Our laws are based on what WORKS for a thriving society. If our laws permitted killing and theft, etc.. our society would not live long. Common sense.
Look at the prison population. Compare theist to atheist and tell me religion still works to keep the peace.
Atheism did not come from one source, but rather a large group of people spread all around the world at different times. This is because it is one's own idea, aka not something written down in a book and taught to others for generations. Some people may have tried to teach it, but it's not something defined by another, it's one's own view on religion and life, there is no certain way to look at it.
How do you define atheism without defining it? If, from your perspective, it has no rules, why did you tell me to look up atheism's definition in the dictionary?
By your own admission, a person cannot define atheism--because in your worldview, everyone believes what they want to believe. I mean, if atheism is undefinable, then it could mean one thing for you but not for me. Listen man; I live life how I see fit, ok? If your atheism has rules, great....
Please don't be like some folks and judge me, k? See, cause my atheism doesn't have really any rules or definition--I am just living for the moment, dude, k?
It's my life--let me live it how I please. Got enough trouble with other Christians defining atheism without having another atheist cook up some lam-o definition of it.
By my own admission? I said you CAN define atheism, I never admitted you can't, that's your position. Atheism does not have rules, just like being a non astronomer has no rules, or bald is a hair style. It's ONLY the lack of a belief in any gods.
Does anyone call you a non astronomer? Because I am taking a wild guess here and I take it your not an astronomer right? So are you referred to as a non astronomer?
Great channel on YT, called "Non Stamp Collector", check him out. :-) Peace!
"Atheism is the lack of a belief. Period. It has no rules, it is the lack of a belief. That's it, look it up in the dictionary."
You said nothing about how I COULD define atheism--rather, YOU defined atheism by using a dictionary's definition (in accordance with your own statement above) and then told me that it couldn't be defined.
Everyone is an atheist from birth up until either someone tells them there is a god or they create one of their own. The very first time god or gods were suggested, someone said "I don't believe it" and hence atheist was born.
Thousands of gods have been believed in throughout history. If you do not believe in any of those gods then you are an atheist to those gods. I'm an atheist to all gods. If you currently believe in one god then I simply believe in one less than you do.
"It's not self-existent because it doesn't exist...it is just a label we made up to describe the lack of a thing."
A. Atheism doesn't exist
B. Therefore, it follows that it doesn't exist.
The lack of something=nothing
nothing=lack of something
That's all you're telling me in your statement--but that statement is a belief because you believe it (otherwise, you would have never tried to defend atheism). If it is a belief then that belief exists and if it exists...
No atheism didn't come from anywhere, just like dark doesn't come from anywhere and cold doesn't come from anywhere. The absence of something is not a thing, it has no source. You were born atheist, you lacked a belief in any and all gods, nobody told you to be an atheist, you have to be told be a theist.
"The absence of something is not a thing, it has no source."
So...atheism came from nothing at all and was self-existent from the beginning of time?
Yes, my mom told me about God but the reason I believed in His existence was b/c I detected His Presence following me (and this was before I got saved).
I didn't accept Christ b/c my mommy told me so--I did it b/c I know that God existed and wanted a relationship with me. Did it when I was ten and knew NOTHING of theology OR atheism.
No try reading it again, even if your god was real (which it isn't and you are deluded) that still doesn't change the fact that atheism isn't a thing. It's not self-existent because it doesn't exist, like cold and dark it is just a label we made up to describe the lack of a thing. It's a concept, not a thing. If you actually bothered reading what you quoted you'd have figured that out already.
I think, it's wrong to say Atheism would always answer "I don't believe in God" when asking him, if he would believe in God. The correct anser would be: "I don't know"
SIsForSteppi 2 days ago
@bigtitsmgee my "belief" as you call it, is based on evidence. Science is adaptable to the evidence provided. Faith/religion is not. Faith is belief without proof. I never at any time said I speak for all atheists. But I did venture my opinion on a topic I feel strongly about. However, you seem to think you have the right to tell me to "stfu" as my opinion differs from yours. Good luck with that! You sound like a theist/deist to me.
DougCartwright1 1 month ago
do you actually know what you are talking about? you are a cretin. obviously there is a vacuum between your ears. Atheists believe in truth, not faith. Facts, not fiction.
DougCartwright1 4 months ago
There is a fine line between fact and fiction; however, if one considers things like love to be reducible down to nothing more then a bunch of cells and hormones, then they are the ones who would rather believe in fiction rather then being open-minded towards the truth, much less facts.
jfritzyb 4 months ago
@DougCartwright1 all belief is based on faith you moron the only certainty is that there is no certainty athiest can believe whatever they want i am an athiest but i believe it on faith because me just like everyone else does not understand the universe or how it came to be no matter how close science gets there is no fact so your belief just like every other religion is based on faith so stfu and quit speaking for all athiests out there speak for yourself and no one esle
bigtitsmgee1 1 month ago
Its not possible to believe in atheism. it is not correct to refer to non belief such as atheist as an ism. just because we don't believe in god it doesn't mean we have no beliefs or values. Ok I believe you are not really capable of understanding what you are talking about and you shouldn't be talking about a subject you don't understand so good luck!
Crazy80563 8 months ago
Wait a minute...
If it isn't possible to believe in atheism, then why do you believe it to be true?
jfritzyb 2 months ago
Atheism doesn't have a story, and it came from the absence of a belief in god, and later a rejection of the belief in one, but the belief in god had to come first before the term was useful, since everyone would have been an atheist before that. I mean this is pretty simple. Now when it comes to reasons to be an atheist, that's a completely different question, also atheism isn't a belief again it's the absence of one.
helllspell 8 months ago
...I'm quite certain an American Atheist would disagree with you on that point, spell; they actually believe that only the Christian God doesn't exist.
jfritzyb 2 months ago
@jfritzyb lol
helllspell 2 months ago
Atheism doesn't come from anywhere, if you want to know what atheism mean: look in a dictionary, not on the web.
Atheist is just a word to define people that does not believe in any gods or religions.
So atheism was the normal state of every human until someone came with an idea of god.
IronFreee 9 months ago 2
That's not what the historical records show:
"Widely considered to be the cradle of civilization, Bronze Age Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires. In the Iron Age, it was controlled by the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires. The indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC)..."
(All VERY religious people groups I might add)
jfritzyb 9 months ago
@jfritzyb
What are you talking about?
What is the source of your "historical records"?
IronFreee 9 months ago
As far as I know, what I just told you is an accepted fact in the archaeological community
jfritzyb 9 months ago
@jfritzyb Is it "an accepted fact in the archaeological community" to consider that "humans" appeared with civilization?
Religions appeared very soon, humans or modern humans ancestors were afraid of everything they didn't understood.
They were afraid the sun didn't came back in the morning (they really soon consider the universe from their point of view, they were of course the center of this universe).
Irrational beliefs were reassuring them...
IronFreee 9 months ago
That's a bait and switch maneuver, Iron.
...And I don't appreciate it.
jfritzyb 8 months ago
@jfritzyb I'm not sure where Iron's going, but I'm pretty sure that neither of you understood what Angie said. She wasn't talking about whether religion or atheism came first, she merely meant what she said: A child knows no god until it learns of one.
If you're a Christian you should rejoice, since the Christian god has always needed mediators to spread his word to the masses, thus it's obvious that a child wouldn't know of him. If you believe in some other god, I have nothing to say :<
NaxNax96 6 months ago
@jfritzyb [continuted[ as for the vacuuming trick: it was cool, but nonsensical. Atheism indeed doesn't "give me anything in return". Why should it? Why do I need to believe in a god as the basis for my morality? This argument isn't about whether (non)believe makes you a better person. Atheism vs theism is concerned only with the TRUTH! If a god proved their existence to me, I'd believe. Simple. A god can be loving or cruel; it doesn't matter! All that matters is the proof of existence!
NaxNax96 6 months ago
Ok; I think I've said this before but just in case, I will say it again. The atheists that I have encountered have always come across as people who have varying degrees of narcissism and/or nihilism. Hence, I used the term monsters to describe those kinds of atheists; the kind of atheists who are so full of themselves that they think anyone who doesn't believe the way that they do is an ignoramus kid with a dunce cap that needs to go back to kindergarten--and also the kind who think that life...
jfritzyb 9 months ago
...has no meaning or purpose whatsoever. That's all I'm saying when I use the term monsters; now, I know lots of folks, when they think of monsters, they think of evil despots like Hitler. It can mean that but that's not what I meant here; to me, a monster is someone who has a very distorted view of life, the evidence of which is in how they view and treat other people (and, I might add, especially those who don't believe the way that they do); and narcisism and nihlism promote chaos not peace.
jfritzyb 9 months ago
(cont)... between theism and atheism, actually. Atheism can occur in a complete... ahem... vacuum. You'll never see someone suddenly believing in Jehova, Allah, Krishna, the Greek Pantheon, or any other god without input from some carrier of the meme. Further I find that your assertion that “Atheism sucks” laughable and your accusation that Atheists are monsters incapable of love quite insulting and a blatant lie.
bicokun 9 months ago
I've been an atheist since I was born. Since a lack of belief is the default position, it is justified until evidence is given to otherwise refute it. I've never been given evidence strong enough to convince me that any gods or supernatural things in general exist; therefore, I still hold the default position. I'm not a "follower of atheism." I didn't even know there WERE other people who didn't believe in gods until a few years ago. That in itself clearly demonstrates the difference... (cont)
bicokun 9 months ago
Please do not spam; I gave reasons for why I believe the way that I did. If you'd like to debate my reasons, do a video response.
jfritzyb 1 year ago
Atheists should have a good reason for rejecting religious claims once they are heard. If they haven't heard any religious claims, they don't need a reason for rejecting some claims they have never heard. Does that make sense?
hugesinker 1 year ago
What's your reason for rejecting the religious claim that there is no God?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
Just because atheists don't have an imaginary friend doesn't mean we are monsters.
You accept the character of atheists as a measure of atheism but you don't accept the character of Christians other than yourself as the measure of Christianity.
If you want an example of institutions that take without giving you may want to examine many religious ones. Start with the religious broadcasters.
SamWiseGingy 1 year ago
Never admitted to anything yet; I'm still seeking clarification on the implications of your first comment (which you haven't answered yet).
I'm seeing a pattern here...
1. Before I answer, I seek clarification on your questions.
2. In return, I get "loaded questions" and evasive maneuvers.
Therefore, quite logically, I conclude that you have no desire to help me understand your own point of view and therefore, you are wasting my time...
...Consequently, you will be blocked...
jfritzyb 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "But when you start to question the rationality of a decision you're no longer talking about the accuracy of the decision but the ability of the person making that decision to apply reason"
Here is the fatal flaw I am having with your refutation. This is a very well written refutation because it is actually comprehensable. When you say "accuracy of the decision" it implies that decisions have a true value or objective aim. I submit that the aim of a decision is its rationality.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "First you said that a rational decision required all available facts..."
True... when regarding individual beliefs of philosophy, as I have already mentioned. This is an example of you taking things out of context and refuting a strawman.
"now you're saying you don't need all available facts to make a rational decision."
True, when regarding decisions of action that depend upon time and circumstance. This is another example of a strawman. This does not apply to beliefs.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You know I've nailed you so you're ditching your argument and going off on a tangent."
I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying that I disagree with the statement or that I think you are being disingenuous. I literally don't know what you are talking about. You supply zero context for this statement. What are you refering to? I believe, as I have expressed in past comments, that you purposefully leave out context so I can't make a refutation.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "so decisions about beliefs are different than any other type of decision."
I didn't say that. I said decisions about beliefs are different from decisions about action. This is not special pleading because there is a relavent basis for making such a destinction. Decisions about action are circumstancially dependent. Decisions must be made before the circumstance changes with time. On the other hand, decisions about beliefs do not depend upon circumstance.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Again, you're refuting your own argumant"
You are purposefully leaving out all context to your comments so that I can't make refutations. I have no idea what you are talking about specifically. What did I say specifically, that I haven't already addressed, that you think is a failed argument? So far I have addressed all the issues you have brought up regarding my assertions yet you have not once submitted a counter argument to any of the refutations I have made.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "First you said that a rational decision required all available facts."
You are eliminating the context of the discussion. We were talking about beliefs, specifically in God, and not about all decisions in general. You are the liar. You have CONSISTENTLY made strawman arguments to refute durring this entire discussion. You KNOW that we were talking about beliefs when I said that and you KNOW that I made a descrepency between decisions about beliefs and decisions about action
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Remember when I accused you of switching arguments when you are losing."
No... because you never did that. You simply misinterpreted the info on my account profile. Come to mention it, you misinterpret a lot of things. Nobody misinterprets that much on accident which means you're purposefully misinterpreting what I say and refuting false arguments... that's called a strawman (if you didn't know) and is fallacious.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You didn't make the case that they were invalid either."
Not in the comment you quoted but in another comment I did. I made a refutation under the assumed premise that those statistics were valid... then I demonstrated it was a moot point by showing that those statistics AREN'T valid, in a later comment.
"This is not an argument against prison statistics."
Correct... that argument came later.
"You can lie all you want."
I haven't lied once.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "But, technically all the facts are available if you're willing to look long enough and hard enough to find them."
Not true... because it is irrational to abandon prudence and efficiency on your quest for knowledge. For instance, when making decisions regarding war, a general would be irrational to hesitate to find every fact that exists before making a decision. However, when it comes to deciding upon a philosophical or political belief, this may not be as applicable.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "But you're saying that the decision to feed [the dog] is irrational."
I don't recall ever talking about a dog... but ok!
Actually... in this example it is rational to feed her... if the dog is dieing of hunger or something...This is due to an assessment of possible outcomes. however if you can make the assessment that the dog is not dieing of hunger, it would be rational not to feed it and simply call animal controle so they can assess allergies and who the dog belongs to.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Wouldn't that make your decision to believe in god irrational?"
If I believe in God based on faith alone, then it would be an irrational belief. Many people are ok with that.
"Could you ever gain enough facts to make this, or any decision rational?"
Yes. You can make a rational decision based on one fact. It is illegal to murder. I decide not to murder. That is a rational decision.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "now explain how the facts that you say I needed before I could make a rational decision were obtainable or accessible and ready for use before I made that decision?"
The facts are obtainable on the internet, in books, or at public universities around the country. Why am I answering these questions?
"Isn't it possible there are available facts out there that you don't have?"
Yeah... you seem to be lacking a lot of available facts.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You'll say what it isn't but won't define was it is. Because if you actually defined your terms you'd have to defend them"
Oh... you wanted to the definition of "available"? Really? You're joking right? AVAILABLE?
available - obtainable or accessible and ready for use or service... I used google. You're an idiot.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Because if you actually defined your terms you'd have to defend them."
Yeah... I have no idea what you're talking about because you provide zero context... this is getting old. You are boring me.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Speaks for itself (pointing out a grammer error)"
"You'll say what it isn't but won't define was it is."
See I can do it too. Let this be the end of the pointless douchebaggery because it's getting to the point of absolute absurdity.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I've already explained this to you once."
And I've already explained to you that if you don't add context to your statements, I won't know what you're talking about and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to figure it out... I have productive things to do.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Lie. You grouped atheists and non-theists together as tho they were the same and compared them to theists."
I was refuting someone elses argument under the assumption that comparing theists to atheists was valid. I never claimed it to be valid however. Why is comprehension so hard for you? I swear I have explained this MULTIPLE times already.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "So you evidence for objective correctness and objective morality is god"
The evidence for God is objective correctness and objective morality... as well as many other things that would follow suet. Atheists often fail to realise that the mere premise of the nonexistence of God has many implications. If God doesn't exist, A, B, C, and D must also not exist. If you can't come to turms with A, B, C, and D not existing, then God must exist.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "So, why were you expecting me to make a decision based onf acts I don't have?"
If you fail to add context to your questions, how am I supposed to know what you are talking about? As far as I know, I wasn't expecting you to make decisions based on facts you don't know... however, I expect you to use the resources available to you to gain knowledge before making decisions, so you know the facts.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "The problem is, its YOUR logical fallacy because this is the argument that you were making."
No it isn't. Your completely inept.
"Available as in every fact known to mankind, or as in every fact that you happen to be aware of."
Neither. Often times every fact known to man kind is not possible to achieve. People often lack the resources or mental faculties to know every fact. It is again an unachievable idea, or a goal... That is why I use the language "most rational".
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I never would have been stupid enough to say right on my You Tube account that as soon as I start to lose I change my initial argument like you have."
That's not what I said and again you impress me with your inability to comprehend simple language. That statement is a statement of humility saying that I know I am often incorrect, for I am a human... and when PROVEN incorrect, I will not hold on to disproven beliefs. That's called rational thinking.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "making fallacious arguments (too many to cite - but I will if you'd like)"
I dare you to try. I challenge you to point out SPECIFICALLY, as I have you, the logical fallacies I have made (there are none).
The prison statistics were not a lie. They demonstrated the absurdity of the claim that theists were more likely to go to prison than non-theists, which we both agree is invalid.
Am I confusing you? Tell me where you are getting confused, as I have you, and i will clarify.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "If morals aren't facts then what are they?"
I will explain the difference. When we are discussing something that is factually correct, it means it can be proven with empirical (testable) evidence. When we are talking about what is morally correct, we are talking about an unachievable idea. We will never be able to prove, empirically, something to be morally correct. That is the difference.
"you are a self pwning machine!"
Fail. Try again.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You've said that rational decisions are correct."
Right!
"You then said my decision was incorrect (and thus irrational) because I don't have all the facts."
Wrong! Logical Fallacy: Affirming the consequent - if you don't know what that is... look it up.
Also, I never said that in the first place. In order to make a rational decision, you need to have all of the facts AVAILABLE.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You don't understand the context of my statement about making decisions based on facts we don't have?"
Of course I don't because that statement made no sense. How can you possibly make decisions based on facts that you don't have access to? That's like saying you are going to make a decision based on what you decide to be true but hasn't been proven to be true... oh wait... you did say that already didn't you?
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You've already established that objective correctness and objective morality don't exist"
False AGAIN sir. I established that without preconditions, objective morality and objective correctness CAN NOT exist. However, I believe that they do exist because I witness their existence every day. I am trying to show you that you don't need to see or hear God in order to prove God. All you need is to see traces of him. God exists because objective morality and correctness exist.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "obviously somebody needs to tell you what the difference between 'citing a source' and 'appealing to authority'"
No... you see... I educate MYSELF and I don't rely upon others to "tell me" what things are. I actually READ LITERATURE before I get into philosophical debates. I actually INVEST in my knowledge by going to the University of Michigan and taking multiple philosophy classes in order to be able to make these arguments using logic and reason. Can you say the same?
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Now your quote mining!"
No I'm not. Firstly, I was never comparing theists to nontheists. In fact, I was attempting to refute the an argument that was. So thank you for the additional support for my original argument.
"You're a liar and an idiot."
That's funny because, as I did cut that quote, I did so to save room as the entire quote is unnecessary to prove the point I made. Who is the idiot now? You fail once again at reading comprehension and understanding basic concepts.
collins1188 1 year ago
"Can you define exactly what that non belief is in a way that would be valid for everyone who doesn't believe in Zeus?"
(By you asking this question, you desire me to give an answer to you that would be accepted by everybody who doesn't believe in Zeus--this is illogical and most importantly, would be quite presumptive if I dared to do such a thing for many people don't believe in Zeus for many reasons).
You don't believe this to be true of atheism, do you?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
Facts can only point to faith; they do NOT EQUAL FAITH!
Having said that, I have a question for you; what would a non-belief in Zeus mean for ALL ATHEISTS without exception? Before you answer, I remind you of the American Atheists organization; for they do not believe, like many atheists, that the notion of gods is absurd.
They merely disbelieve in the Christian God Jehovah; please listen to the debate Ray Comfort had with them as well as read their website.
jfritzyb 1 year ago
@tiggster13 The BEST study was based upon BEHAVIOR and not mere speculatory questionares. The fact is, " non-practicing (functionally nonreligious) people are highly over-represented among prisoners" This came straight from that source. This is because atheist/agnostic/none are all non-religious people.
"A person's philosophical position about the existence of God is distinct from that person's ethical behavior" which is the point I was trying to make.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "It [veil of ignorance] doesn't remove their bias"
That's right. It is a clever trick that can be used to attempt to fabricate the mind set required to ensure moral decisions are made. This is what moral philosophy is all about. Every moral philosopher uses a specific trick, whether it be a catagorical imperative (Kant) or a moral algorithm (Nicomachean Ethics), to escape our innate bias and fallability.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I didn't accuse you of not citing sources" OK... so only statements that you think I should cite, I should cite... and any other time I use evidence from other people, I shouldn't cite it unless you tell me to. Ok... I understand now. You are my master and I will do as I am told. Thank you forgiving master of all things.
"asking for a source doesn't mean you are free to make fallacies of induction."
Where is the fallacy?
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "So how would we make moral decisions if morality didn't exist?"
We wouldn't. In order for you to make moral decisions, God must exist. This is proven through metaphysics and logic. It is illogical to believe that a supernatural law called morality exists without a supernatural law giver.
"Morlity is a subjective social construct that does not need to be enforced."
So you concede then?
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Hold on here! Are you suggesting that we make decisions based on facts that we don't have?"
Since there is no context to this question, it will go unanswered."
"without evidence a rational decision can be just as wrong as an irrational one?"
No... the most rational decision is always correct. This is a word play. This is exposing your inability to define and express what you think. Factual correctness and moral correctness are two seperate things.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 the point I'm trying to make is that just because a decision is rational that doesn't make it correct?"
Your inability to clearly define and express what you are talking about is so apparent. What does correct mean? Don't you understand that in a moral dilemma there is no "correct" decision other than the one that adheres to the specific moral code you chose to follow, and in that sense, there is no objective "correct". You fail at making logical conclusions.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I said that if you'd like to make a specific assertion, you'd have to prove it"
Straw-man argument. This is not what happened at all. Your inability to make logical arguments matches your reading comprehension skills. Fail more.
"Anyway, asserting that theism is more rational than atheism without evidence proves nothing."
That's ok, because you haven't proved anything so I feel confident in my own judgement based solely on what I have proved and what you lack, education.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "and if you'd like to assert that this decision isn't rational then you're going to have to prove that there's no rational reason to not believe in god."
False statement. I merely need to prove that it is more rational to believe in the God of the Christian Bible than not to. This is actually very easy to do if you simply have all the facts available. There is no way I can do this in a comment on youtube.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I didn't assert god's non-existence, I made a rational decision which, according to you, must be the most correct decision."
Firstly, I assumed that when you said, "I have decided that your god does not exist" you mis-typed what you meant. Secondly, If you honestly believe that you can will something to exist or not exist based upon what you "decide" it should be, then you're dumber than I thought. There is no need to respond to such an absurd statement.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "these traits are not necessary in order to make moral decisions."
I never claimed them to be. I claimed that in order for morality to exist, an infallible, omnipotent being must exist in order to preordain what is moral and what isn't. Without the existence of such a being, morality can be summed up to a mere social construct. Without an objective truth giver, what makes anyone's opinion on what is moral more correct than another? What gives you the authority to enforce it?
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Appealing to authority now, huh?" You complain that I'm not citing sources and then when I do cite sources you call it appealing to authority? You're probably the most ignorant person I have ever met on youtube. Say something intellectual, showing you've done some research... then talk to me.
veill of ignorance - "method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following principle..." ~wikipedia... look it up moron.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "did you read those sources or just think by tellingme what to google I'd not look for myself"
No... I wanted you to look for yourself. Unfortunately you have no idea how to judge a source based on its credability nor do you take into concideration the posible flaws of the study. Not many criminals are deep philosophical thinkers. Atheist/agnostic/none are grouped together for a reason... because most criminals wouldn't even know what the term "atheist" even means. Try again.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I have decided that your god does not exist. Prove me wrong."
This is precisely why I drew the discrepancy between agnostics and atheists. Atheists have made a decision on the existence of God which means they are just as irrational as a theist. If you make an assertion (God does not exist) the burden of proof IS ON YOU. Atheists tend to claim that the burden of proof is not on them because they are simply "lacking a belief" which is simply not true. Fail more.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "In order for a guiedeline to be moral all it has o do address the question of what one ought to do in a given situation."
Yes... and in order to adequately address that question, one must see things through a "veil of ignorance" as John Rawls pointed out in "A Theory Of Justice". I suggest you educate yourself before pointing the figure and claiming my assertions are baseless. In order to view the world free of bias, one must be infallable and omnipotent. Try again!
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Please site your source or admit that this is a bold faced lie."
Do a simple google search. The evidence is right there. it's so easy to find. Type, "prison statistics religion". Several different sources show the percentage of prisoners who are atheist/agnostic/none to be at 20%. Then type, "America religion statistics" and it shows atheist/agnostic/none ot be at 15-16%.
Research it yourself. I can't post links on youtube.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "A rational decision is not necessarily a correct decision."
The most rational decision is always the most correct decision based upon a set of moral guidlines that I adhere to. I challenge you to make a case for not making the most rational decision for any given dilemma. Yes the most rational decision may not lead to the most desirable outcome, however that doesn't mean the subject was in the wrong for making said decision.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Agnosticism deal with knowledge, not belief, so the definition 'a lack of theistic beliefe' would not define agnosticism." Yes it would, based on what you JUST SAID. No belief due to no knowledge... duh.
"Dom was using the definition of atheism as a premise in his argument - so you obviously don't know what you're talking about."
If you premise is false, then your conclusions are also false. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
collins1188 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "moral guidelines that enhance stability and progress in society can be imposed without religion."
False. Guidelines can be imposed as a means to an end, such as stability and progress. However, they can only be concidered "moral" if an unbiased judge deems them so. Humanity is innately bias and thus can not be an adequate moral judge. Only an infallable, omnipotent being can.
If God doesn't exist, then morality follows suit and is merely a social construct.
collins1188 1 year ago
ok, so you're compairing atheism to a vaccum? You know what might make you reconsider this parallel? Most noble prize winners, geniuses, and scientists are atheist. If they dont get anything from being atheist then....how do we know about planets? Calculus? medical advances? we went to the moon....
LadyAlyss 1 year ago
I have found that many people assume that b/c I compare atheism to a vacuum, that I'm implying that atheists don't make any accomplishments at all. Rather, what I was trying to say is at the gut, personal level, atheism has nothing to offer.
When Angie originally used that same analogy, one of the reasons she usedit was b/c she seemed to think that atheism was...always around (which is why I asked her if she really thought atheism was self-existant).
I have yet to hear her response...
jfritzyb 1 year ago
@jfritzyb ok, i understand your response to my comment. But I will say that for at least myself, When I was looking into atheism and eventually became and atheist, I felt that I had been somewhat lied to about religion. I was brought up christain and no other religion was around me. So I naturally only knew that one belief. When I investigated other religions it made me re-evaluate my own. When there was just as much proof that chritianity could be false as with any other religion, I felt liedto
LadyAlyss 1 year ago
Atheism is not a religion, it is simply a term used to discribe a person that rejects all religion. ANYONE that thinks or sayes it is a religion, needs to get a fucking clue.
DocKillRoy 1 year ago
To you, then, what is religion?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
@jfritzyb beliving in a false god
DocKillRoy 1 year ago
What makes you think all gods are false?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
@jfritzyb contradiction´s i every single "holy book" and/or text. If you or any one else reads the bible and only sees a compatinate and kind god, and this helps you in you´r life, well keep reading and keep believing. I dont believe, i think all gods are false, this is my right. But i still stand by my first post.
DocKillRoy 1 year ago
What's a false god?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
You're confusing atheism as a teaching.
Atheism is not a lesson that's taught, it is the act of not believing in the stories that religious people hold as true convictions and actual accounts despite overwhelming evidence that they are stupid in the head.
TheSirBoyKing 1 year ago
"IT IS NOT A BELIEF. It just means you do not accept other's beliefs."
The fact that you do not agree with someone else's beliefs--well, what do you call that?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
Atheism is not a THING! it's a lack of a belief! It is just saying, "I don't believe in those things." It is wrong to say it has "followers" cause there is nothing to follow!
It, in itself, is not an idea. Just a rejection of other ideas. Again: IT IS NOT A BELIEF. It just means you do not accept other's beliefs.
Your statements about atheists believing in a vacuum or a nothingness is wrong. Atheism says nothing about what one believes, just what one does not believe.
Domidoolalala 2 years ago
@ jfritzyb - OMG ( so to speak) I think you are grasping for the 'contingent' vs 'necessary' entity argument. I suggest you search the Bertrand Russell and Fr Coplestone SJ debate on YT to see (a) how to actually make the argument you are trying to make (Coplestone), and (b) why that argument is completely fallacious(Russell).
dpnz63 2 years ago
"I think you are grasping for the 'contingent' vs 'necessary' entity argument".
So...does that make you an agnostic?
jfritzyb 1 year ago
Atheism cam about by the overload of bullshit that the Curch started feeding everyone.
tinman111587 2 years ago
i think the big bang was a little bit more complicated than 'poof there it is'
dbkeay 2 years ago
Is atheism self existent?
This is a very easy question... obviously it isn't.
You can look at it from a theist and atheist side and come to the same conclusion.
Atheist world view: In order for there to be an atheism, there must be a theism. I believe that theism is not self existent, thus atheism must not be self existent either.
Theist world view: Theism is the null, as God created all things and atheism is the rejection of God and his moral laws of us.
There ya go!
collins1188 2 years ago
@ collins1188
"Atheist world view: In order for there to be an atheism, there must be a theism. I believe that theism is not self existent, thus atheism must not be self existent either."
Wrong.
Atheism literally means a lack of a theistic belief.
So if you have never heard of any religions or tales of gods or goddesses. You would, in fact, be an atheist!
This means: Children are atheists until they are taught about a religion.
Domidoolalala 2 years ago
"Wrong. Atheism literally means a lack of theistic belief."
Definitions are premises, not arguments. I reject your premise based on the fact that we already have a word which bears that definition, "agnostic".
Atheism actually means the rejection of theistic belief. This is different from previously stated because as agnosticism lacks a theistic belief, it does not reject it. Atheism does reject the belief in a God or gods and thus this definition is more accurate and logical.
collins1188 1 year ago
"Definitions are premises, not arguments."
Really? Have you seen some of the YouTube atheists' videos on the topic? Some of them do make an argument out of its definition (in faCT, there's one atheist I responded to who did just that)...
Which brings us back to square 1; and it's the simple fact that atheists create their own definitions for atheism. Your atheism (or lack thereof) isn't the same as the next guy's.
That's the main point of the matter; take it or leave it.
jfritzyb 1 year ago
Also, the vacuum sucks dirt away, therefore making a cleaner environment. As does Atheism. It sucks what dirty, changed, altered, untrue, or corrupt beliefs we see out of our heads so we don't get stuck in the same position.
But everyone has their own opinion, so nothing can be determined for sure.
Also talking about school vs reasoning, not everything is structured the same way. A person does not have to give you a reason why they think something.
Criticalt3 2 years ago
@Criticalt3 Some people don't know why they believe certain ways, others do, you will get a different response from everyone.
I'm not even here to judge or argue, I'm just describing what I choose to think and I'm not bashing on you or your religion or ideas.
I believe that certain things are different from how you believe certain things are, it's just how the human works, and has worked since the dawn of our existence. Opinions are opinions.
Criticalt3 2 years ago
"Opinions are opinions."
Human opinions have shown to be, and are proven to be, based on rational decision making processes. This has been shown through many psychological studies and, as a side note, our entire economic system is based upon one assumption that human decision is rational.
If we can accept this premise, then we must conclude that opinions are NOT just opinions but, in fact, calculated responses based on specific stimuli that can be reproduced with negligible deviance.
collins1188 2 years ago
"Atheism sucks what dirty, changed, altered, untrue, or corrupt beliefs we see out of our heads"
False premise that the ideas that are in our heads are untrue or corrupt.
The belief in God is neither irrational nor illogical. Religion imposes moral guidelines that enhance stability and progress in society.
False premise that no ideas in our heads are better than untrue ideas.
Untrue Ideas can prove useful to society. A calculated lie can help keep peace among members of communities.
collins1188 2 years ago
@collins1188
Our morals are NOT received from religion. This is why the U.S. abolished slavery, why we don't stone adulterers, homosexuals, or disobedient kids anymore, why we don't go on witch hunts and burn supposed "witches" anymore.
Our laws are based on what WORKS for a thriving society. If our laws permitted killing and theft, etc.. our society would not live long. Common sense.
Look at the prison population. Compare theist to atheist and tell me religion still works to keep the peace.
Domidoolalala 2 years ago
"Our morals are NOT recieved from relgion"
There is zero empirical evidence to support this assertion thus I need not refute it.
"Our laws are based on what WORKS for a thriving society."
True and based in evidence however irrelevent to discussion. A country's laws and the source of morality in humans are completely unrelated.
"Look at the prison population. Compare theist to atheist."
The percentage of prisoners that are atheists exceed the percentage in the overall population.
collins1188 1 year ago
Atheism did not come from one source, but rather a large group of people spread all around the world at different times. This is because it is one's own idea, aka not something written down in a book and taught to others for generations. Some people may have tried to teach it, but it's not something defined by another, it's one's own view on religion and life, there is no certain way to look at it.
Criticalt3 2 years ago
@Criticalt3 And because of this, it didn't come from one place, it's just an opinion, and like all opinions, they come from the mind.
So I guess the answer to your question is yes, it came from the human brain. As did religion.
Criticalt3 2 years ago
I started typing an answer to your questions, but I stopped because your analogies show how easily you will misconstrue anything I say.
toastytofu 2 years ago
Atheism is the lack of a belief. Period. It has no rules, it is the lack of a belief. That's it, look it up in the dictionary.
wireless4me 2 years ago
How do you define atheism without defining it? If, from your perspective, it has no rules, why did you tell me to look up atheism's definition in the dictionary?
By your own admission, a person cannot define atheism--because in your worldview, everyone believes what they want to believe. I mean, if atheism is undefinable, then it could mean one thing for you but not for me. Listen man; I live life how I see fit, ok? If your atheism has rules, great....
jfritzyb 2 years ago
Please don't be like some folks and judge me, k? See, cause my atheism doesn't have really any rules or definition--I am just living for the moment, dude, k?
It's my life--let me live it how I please. Got enough trouble with other Christians defining atheism without having another atheist cook up some lam-o definition of it.
Live, man--and let live. That's my motto--k?
jfritzyb 2 years ago
By my own admission? I said you CAN define atheism, I never admitted you can't, that's your position. Atheism does not have rules, just like being a non astronomer has no rules, or bald is a hair style. It's ONLY the lack of a belief in any gods.
Does anyone call you a non astronomer? Because I am taking a wild guess here and I take it your not an astronomer right? So are you referred to as a non astronomer?
Great channel on YT, called "Non Stamp Collector", check him out. :-) Peace!
wireless4me 2 years ago
"Atheism is the lack of a belief. Period. It has no rules, it is the lack of a belief. That's it, look it up in the dictionary."
You said nothing about how I COULD define atheism--rather, YOU defined atheism by using a dictionary's definition (in accordance with your own statement above) and then told me that it couldn't be defined.
...I rest my case...
jfritzyb 2 years ago
Thank you for posting the video response, Angie!
Appreciate it.
jfritzyb 2 years ago
Everyone is an atheist from birth up until either someone tells them there is a god or they create one of their own. The very first time god or gods were suggested, someone said "I don't believe it" and hence atheist was born.
Thousands of gods have been believed in throughout history. If you do not believe in any of those gods then you are an atheist to those gods. I'm an atheist to all gods. If you currently believe in one god then I simply believe in one less than you do.
markio44 2 years ago
"It's not self-existent because it doesn't exist...it is just a label we made up to describe the lack of a thing."
A. Atheism doesn't exist
B. Therefore, it follows that it doesn't exist.
The lack of something=nothing
nothing=lack of something
That's all you're telling me in your statement--but that statement is a belief because you believe it (otherwise, you would have never tried to defend atheism). If it is a belief then that belief exists and if it exists...
...it exists.
jfritzyb 2 years ago
Isn't that circular reasoning?
jfritzyb 2 years ago
No atheism didn't come from anywhere, just like dark doesn't come from anywhere and cold doesn't come from anywhere. The absence of something is not a thing, it has no source. You were born atheist, you lacked a belief in any and all gods, nobody told you to be an atheist, you have to be told be a theist.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
"The absence of something is not a thing, it has no source."
So...atheism came from nothing at all and was self-existent from the beginning of time?
Yes, my mom told me about God but the reason I believed in His existence was b/c I detected His Presence following me (and this was before I got saved).
I didn't accept Christ b/c my mommy told me so--I did it b/c I know that God existed and wanted a relationship with me. Did it when I was ten and knew NOTHING of theology OR atheism.
jfritzyb 2 years ago
No try reading it again, even if your god was real (which it isn't and you are deluded) that still doesn't change the fact that atheism isn't a thing. It's not self-existent because it doesn't exist, like cold and dark it is just a label we made up to describe the lack of a thing. It's a concept, not a thing. If you actually bothered reading what you quoted you'd have figured that out already.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago