if you posses knowledge about something, then you are CETRAIN IT IS TRUE, if your level of confidence is low then you DO NOT KNOW in the first place IF ITS TRUE AND YOU POSSES NO KNOWLEDGE
If you possess knowledge of something, then what you possess is true information; your level of confidence in that information IS IRRELEVANT. All that matters is that it's true and that you possess awareness of it; that's all knowledge is.
"All that matters is that it's true and that you possess awareness of it"
Alright so if you posses awareness of some idea that is true 100% but you are 20% certain in it, how is this idea different from idea about god which is 0% true in which you are 21% confident?
yeah and beside that gnostic means a member of an early christian sect
"Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices common to early Christianity"
@niinja2 Yes, well, I'm talking about telling the difference between someone who does believe in god versus someone who doesn't, and someone who possesses knowledge of a god's existence and someone who doesn't; "gnostic" refers to the latter possibilities, the having or not-having of god-knowledge.
If you're talking about anything else when you say gnostic, you're off-topic, at least with regard to this video, this discussion.
when people say they are agnostic , it does not mean they are anti members of an early christian sect, it means they have no belief ether way, it has nothing to do with knowledge. If you say this is not true, then you are reinterpreting a meaning that the rest of the world has assigned to this word just as to the word gnostic...
Agnostic , among other things is a person which has no belief either way.
""Fuck you" is slang; "agnostic" is a TECHNICAL term."
we often use words that have different meaning then the one we ascribe to them, and they have more then one. that is my point. you cant use a deffinition of a word and say , it means this and only this , especially when the people are already using it and have ascribed meaning to it.
@niinja2 No, actually, you CAN do exactly that, at least within the context of a certain subject or topic. What you CAN'T do is decide to switch meanings of a term in the middle of a discussion, or know that someone means one thing when they use a term but insist on interpreting it YOUR way to change their meaning.
The point is to actually AID COMMUNICATION, so the topic can be discussed reasonably and rationally, which will NOT happen if everybody is defining words differently from each other.
"insist on interpreting it YOUR way to change their meaning."
well from my point your the one doing this. Changing the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic as we previously understood them. You understand words not from dictionaries, but from context we use them in, this is how children learn them.
"so the topic can be discussed reasonably and rationally"
The topic of this discussion is the definition of the words agnostic and atheist.
@niinja2 And those definitions ONLY make sense if we stick to etymology, especially when having what is, after all, a technical discussion about belief; insisting on colloquial definitions that are NOT etymologically correct will only cloud the issue and make it impossible to discuss.
There are two categories: knowledge and belief. "Gnosis" refers to knowledge, "theism" refers to belief. You either have knowledge/belief or you don't. This standing-aloof definition of "agnostic" is bullshit.
What does the words belief and knowledge mean for you?
For me knowlege is a belief with high degree of certainty. You can have weak belief, where its more of a wishful thinking, belief supported with some evidence , and strong belief which is supported by overwhelming evidence.
I say this because you cant be 100% certain into anything, but when you say you know you can say im certain as someone can be certain - i know.
@niinja2 Knowledge is belief backed by EVIDENCE. Knowledge is that which can be verified; what one can know does not require one's belief to be true, may well be true DESPITE one's belief, or one's desire.
Belief, on the other hand, can defy knowledge, can defy reality, can be bent by one's will. Belief--especially religious belief--is like a game of Make-Believe taken FAR too seriously...unless it is backed by mind-external FACTS, thus making it knowledge.
alright so what if you have some evidence , but your not completely sure about the result? Can you say then you believe something? This kind of belief would also be backed by evidence.
500 years ago people "knew" earth is at the center of the universe, was this belief or knowledge?
@niinja2 I already pointed out the difference between CLAIMED knowledge and ACTUAL knowledge. Please tell me you're not going to be one of those who insist I make the same clarification for each individual conflict, rather than being able to accurately apply the difference broadly yourself. *pointed look*
@niinja2 *rolls eyes* CLAIMING to know something and ACTUALLY knowing it are not the same thing.
What you say we "knew" we only THOUGHT we knew...so we NEVER ACTUALLY DID KNOW. Our belief that we know has zero bearing on whether or not we actually DO know; the facts are the facts, and are not changed by our perceptions, preferences, or conclusions.
if we do not change their meaning and if we all agree on what do they mean.
and btw there are dictionary definitions of atheism that define it as a belief that there are no gods.
insisting on etymologicall definitions which meaning is something else the the one in the public will only cloud the issue and make it impossible to discuss.
But again, the meaning of the words is a discussion right now.
@niinja2 When I say that these are the only definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" that actually make sense, I mean that they are the only ones that accurately describe reality. The other definitions are quite horribly biased, full of cultural baggage, and preclude the possibility of describing many positions that are held by people by usurping the necessary words to accurately do so.
I'm insisting on etymological definitions because it's the only way to remove bias from the discussion.
lumping people who are die hard "there is no god " atheists and " it might go both ways " atheist is misleading and not sufficiently informative. You should say every time whether you are a strong or weak atheist, to be exact.
@niinja2 It's biased because it narrows the criteria down to BELIEF ONLY, which is not the case, and because it insists that you're either with god, against god, or just haven't made up your mind...and there are more categories than that. Plus, by usurping the word which uses "gnosis" as its root, the KNOWLEDGE portion of the debate gets cut out entirely, focusing solely on belief...and belief may well be in opposition to reality/knowledge, and NEEDS to be addressed.
@niinja2 This is irrelevant; the question is about whether or not religion is true and god exists; these are empirical and objective claims, claims about the universe and its nature, and are thus matters for science. the comparison to trusting one's best friend is NOT equivalent.
@niinja2 No, I'm sorry, it's NOT relevant, and I am NOT gonna play along...especially not with the leading-question game. If you think it's relevant, EXPLAIN HOW instead of dicking around with leading questions.
"No, I'm sorry, it's NOT relevant, and I am NOT gonna play along...especially not with the leading-question game"
sorry missed this one
the "leading" question game is here to show how consistent are you in your answers, because if you say that actuall knowledge on something is different then some other percieved knowledge then you must show an example of it.
of if you say empiricims brings us to actuall knowledge , but cant prove this statement empirically...
@niinja2 In other words, you're attacking me instead of presenting your own side.
And, frankly, you don't even seem capable of discussing this issue on relevant terms, you keep conflating things which occupy different spheres. And there seems to be no way to point this out to you that results in your getting a clue.
In other words, this conversation is pointless; intentionally or not, you're making it all one-sided, and I won't play like that, kiddo. Your side has to be vulnerable TOO.
"In other words, you're attacking me instead of presenting your own side."
When i meet a person that answers most of arguments with "no its not like that" without arguing like you did when we talked about children, all i can do is ask questions to statements you made to show you that they are inconsistent with some other beliefs you have.
@niinja2 Except i'm not going to respond to that kind of argument. Either fucking well present your side straight up, or don't bother. Make your case and your points in a STRAIGHTFORWARD manner if you want to discuss things with me, instead of this condescending shit.
@niinja2 Also, if someone tells you, "It's not like that," maybe you should actually consider whether or not YOU'RE OFF-TOPIC. I don't see you considering THAT as a possibility...no, it's all on MY end.
Never mind that I'm the one who made the video and the points that you're responding to...maybe you really ARE addressing something other than the actual topic of the video. Have you even CONSIDERED that possibility? I see no evidence of your having considered it.
@niinja2 I gave you explanation after explanation...the fact that you don't seem to realize this JUST PROVES MY POINT ABOUT HOW YOU'RE CONDUCTING YOURSELF.
And "agnostic" will never address BELIEF. EVER. Get the fuck over it.
"And "agnostic" will never address BELIEF. EVER. Get the fuck over it."
KNOWLEDGE IS BELIEF
IF YOU DISAGREE EITHER ANSWER MY QUESTION AND IF YOU SAY SOMETHING WITHOUT AN REAL ARGUMENT TO THIS QUESTION I WILL BLOCK YOU IF YOU CARE ABOUT THAT ANYWAY!!!!!!
if you are exposed to ideas that are true in reality but you do not know are they really true then you posses no knowledge. Your just exposed to some ideas that are coincidentally .
They can be objectively true , but if you dont know that then they are not knowledge any more then ideas about god or the bible is knowledge.
@niinja2 Sorry, no. Wrong. It's knowledge if it is objectively true and you've been exposed to this information; having to know it's really true IS NOT A REQUIREMENT; your level of confidence IS IRRELEVANT.
And it's pretty clear you and I are not budging on these points.
Lets assume your sick, you go to doctor, doctor has 3 pills, he knows one will make you better , 2 will kill you. He is 20% certain in the one that will make you better and 40% certain in the ones that will kill you. Does he have the knowledge how to heal you?
@niinja2 Irrelevant; the question you're asking is not addressing the ACTUAL query, which is, "Does the doctor know which pill will achieve which result?" and the answer is "no".
See, you've done nothing but play word games this entire time; you're not addressing these questions head-on, directly, without bias or agenda...and that's PRECISELY what I've been eliminating this entire time: bias and agenda. That's what this video was made to do in the first place!
@niinja2 I'm sorry, but no...NOT agreed. Because, having conversed with you for FAR too fucking long as this point, I know that agreeing to "he does not possess the knowledge" is not something I'm willing to do, because "the knowledge" is far, far, far too general.
And anyway, your scenario is NOT equivalent to knowing whether or not something exists, which is what this video is addressing. You're once again off on a strawman topic, and I'll start talking to you again when you regain focus.
Hm so let me get this straight, you said a doctor does not know how to heal this person but you will not agree that he does not have the knowledge to do so.
@niinja2 No. What I'm telling you is that your hypothetical scenario does not match the scenario of the video, or of the topic. You are drawing false equivalencies and are REFUSING to be shifted from your off-topic premise, REFUSING to listen to even a SCRAP of criticism and consider it IN CONTEXT.
And, frankly, there is no more point trying to discuss it with you; it's obvious that you're unwilling to even CONSIDER the notion that you might need to shift perspective, so, truly, this is OVER.
@BionicDance "maybe you should actually consider whether or not YOU'RE OFF-TOPIC." MAYBE YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY ARGUE OR SAY YOU DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT I MEAN ALL YOU SAID IS "ITS NOT LIKE THAT" AND IT WAS ON TOPPIC WE WERE DISCUSSING IF ATHEISM WAS INTUITIVE TO THE CHILDREN NOW WE DISCUSS IF THERE IS ACTUALL KNOWLEDGE OR IS IT ALL DEGREES OF BELIEF JSUT ANSWER THE QUESTION
"It's biased because it narrows the criteria down to BELIEF ONLY, "
WE ONLY HAVE BELIEF, STAGES OF BELIEF, i tried to show you this by questions because i knew you were going to reject if i just stated it, so i was trying to show it to you. I mean what the fuck? Where is the damn problem.
we have no way of having ACTUAL knowledge, we have only degrees of belief. if you disagree answer my questions.
@niinja2 No, see, the problem here is what I've ALREADY POINTED OUT: knowing that you have the knowledge you have is correct WILL NOT CHANGE THAT IT IS CORRECT. We can possess completely, 100% factually-true knowledge AND BE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF HOW REAL AND CORRECT IT IS...which does not change that we possess it.
YOU are making KNOWING our knowledge is true FOR CERTAIN a criterion of it being knowledge at all...and you're wrong to do so. THAT is the point you keep avoiding; do please FACE IT.
@niinja2 Okay, I'm just done talking to you. *rolls eyes* If you don't understand that the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" ARE ADDRESSING THAT QUESTION, then you're just way the fuck off in Tangent-ville attacking strawmen, and I'm sick of playing your bullshit games. We're done. Good day. *rolls eyes*
@niinja2 And from where *I* sit, it looks like you're trolling. Quit pushing your luck, kiddo, unless you WANT to be blocked. I've already explained just how badly off-topic you are, I've already explained that you need to make points instead of asking questions to try to lead me to your position, and frankly, it seems like you've been basically ignoring MY points every time I make them. Talking to you is a waste of fucking time now, and I'm pretty much done. Back off while you still can.
@niinja2 No, I responded to your points, you just didn't fucking listen, and you ignored the crux of each of my arguments to focus on irrelevant side issues, or you tried to distract from my points in various ways.
Don't send me a PM, I'm not going to read it; talking to you is a complete waste of time because the discussion starts and stays one-sided, with you ignoring everything relevant that's said to you. Just go away.
"No, I responded to your points, you just didn't fucking listen"
no i listened and you did not understand
you did not answer to my questions
do you believe your friends
do we actually know how old is the universe
they are crucial to showing how do you use the word belief and what does it really mean for you the word actual knowledge , when we , in fact do not posses this absolute actual knowledge, we only have high degrees of certainty.
You say agnosticism pertains to knowledge. How does a gnostic theist know that there is a god? Or how does a gnostic atheist know there is no god? The words gnostic theist or atheist are simply not true. This means we are all agnostics since nobody really knows whether god exists, we all might be in a giant matrix. This makes the word agnostic redundant and unnecessary...
@niinja2 If someone CLAIMS to be gnostic, that's one thing; actually BEING gnostic is something else entirely.
To be a gnostic theist would require having evidence of god that goes beyond faith. To be a gnostic atheist would require having evidence that a god's existence is precluded.
We may well be fully gnostic and not REALIZE IT because we cannot verify that the knowledge we have is true and relevant...but that doesn't make us have it any less.
"We may well be fully gnostic and not REALIZE IT because we cannot verify that the knowledge we have is true and relevant"
if we are gnostic about something but we cannot verify it then we are not certain about this something and in fact we actually dont know, and we are not gnostic.
you are a gnostic if you have truth and you are certain by some method that it is true.
@niinja2 No, I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong on that score. You are gnostic if you have knowledge...FULL STOP.
Knowing for certain you have that knowledge and that it is true is a separate issue; you only have to HAVE knowledge to be gnostic It's much like how you can be an implicit or weak atheist by lacking god-belief, or a strong or hard atheist by having active disbelief.
Certainty that it is true is not required to POSSESS true knowledge, to be gnostic.
"You are gnostic if you have knowledge...FULL STOP"
wow your arguments are amazing, so im wrong and i cant argue about it anymore? and this is because ?
if you are aware of some idea that might be true, and in fact is true, but you dont know if it is true, then you are not gnostic, because you dont really know it. And there is a big difference between a person who knows kemotherapy is going to heal him and person who thinks kemotherapy might heal him. CONTUNUED.
@niinja2 *rolls eyes* You're not listening. I said you're gnostic if you have knowledge "full stop" to indicate that the definition IS NOT MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT, not as a way to shut you up.
The point is that having knowledge DOES NOT REQUIRE BEING AWARE THE KNOWLEDGE YOU POSSESS IS TRUE. If you possess knowledge of something but are uncertain about the certainty of its truth, your uncertainty WILL NOT CHANGE ITS TRUTH VALUE. You are still gnostic, DESPITE your uncertainty.
"your uncertainty WILL NOT CHANGE ITS TRUTH VALUE"
We are gnostic - we know things that we do not know we know them -it makes no sense.
yeah i get what you mean but this is not how we use the word gnostic. I mean this way every one of us is gnostic about something. The word is then redundant.
IT DOES NOT MATTER FOR US IF WE POSSES TRUTH ABOUT SOMETHING IF WE CANNOT DISCERN IT FROM FALSE CLAIMS...
Gnostic is someone who knows that some idea is true...
@niinja2 But you see, "knowing" an idea is true as YOU'RE describing it can be done by anybody with no respect for the facts...but ACTUALLY knowing something is 100% fact-dependent.
And, frankly, if we're not discussing this on a fact-having basis, there is no point having the discussion AT ALL; people are going to claim-as-true the things they WANT to be true, knowledge be damned, yet they'll still CALL it knowledge...thus totally clouding the issue. And, forgive me, but FUCK THAT. Pointless.
The one who is not sure if therapy is going to heal him will probably not use it and go use something else. So there is a difference. If you dont have a method by which you know how something is true,then you DONT KNOW
"you only have to HAVE knowledge to be gnostic"
if you are in possesion of some idea that is true but you dont know if its true, then in your mind its only one possible idea, its not truth or knowledge.
@niinja2 Knowledge does not require your permission or acknowledgement to BE knowledge. If I learn some bizarre fact about science, but I'm uncertain whether the fact is true, my uncertainty DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT'S TRUTH VALUE. I still have that bit of scientific knowledge, DESPITE my uncertainty.
Possessing knowledge does not require consciously knowing something is true, it only requires being aware of the information AT ALL. That's it.
"my uncertainty DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT'S TRUTH VALUE"
IF YOU CANNOT CONFIRM IT AS TRUE IT HAS NO TRUTH VALUE TO US EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
i mean the point of knowledge is to know something with certainty, so this knowledge can be useful. If you are informed about information that can be true, but you dont know if it is true, this information is not knowledge.
@niinja2 And some of us never WOULD get the idea of a god if nobody ever told us about it. Some of us would.
Just as I'm sure some of us would never have come with the idea for country music, or Irish drinking songs.
All it would take is for ONE chowderhead to come up with the idea of a god, and then for them to tell lots of other people and have it spread like a meme. Or maybe several people came up with it. But it's not like we'd ALL come up with god on our own, necessarily. Be realistic!
we would not have the idea for country music, but we would got the idea for music, just as people got ideas for different gods, karma, reincarnation , destiniy etc...
"and then for them to tell lots of other people and have it spread like a meme. "
people dont accept ideas if they are not already intuitive or plausable to them.
Children are natural born dualists. It is intuitive to them.
so yeah idea of a god is the default position, later on you stay or change.
@niinja2 No, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. You don't have to have some natural inclination to believe in a god to START believing in one; that's just silly.
People can be convinced in MANY ways, from being lied to, to peer pressure, and scores of other ways. The default position, however, is LACKING belief; you cannot believe in something you've never heard of or thought of. People may be INCLINED to god-belief, but they don't START OUT believing until they're introduced to the concept.
"is LACKING belief; you cannot believe in something you've never heard of or thought of"
babies lack a belief in god just as rocks do because not one of them thought about it, and if you say babies are atheists in this respect then rocks are atheists to.
But when babies start to percieve the world because of hyperactive agency detection they will start to think that things like thunder are caused by some agent. Its intuitive t them.
@niinja2 Anyone and anything that does not believe in a god is an atheist. A+theist = not a theist. That's what the word means.
And I don't care if it IS intuitive to babies to think an agent caused something; you don't automatically go from "agent" to "all-powerful, magical sky-daddy who handed down morality and had people murder his own son in order to appease his rage against humans for not following all of his commands regarding fruit consumption." *rolls eyes*
@niinja2 No, actually, a god is NOT intuitive. But even if it WERE, that doesn't make THEISM intuitive, nor does it mean that humans will just go with intuitive gut instinct and believe despite the evidence.
I'm sorry, but you've done nothing but over-simplify, generalize, and beg the question this entire time, and I'm getting quite weary of it. I'm thinkin' this conversation is over soon unless you start being just a smidge more realistic.
"But, again, that doesn't mean BELIEF is the default;"
i dont really see what is the big deal with all this default stuff? It does not give any more value to the theistic claims, its a testament to our psychology not gods existence. More still ideas that were intuitive to us have been shown wrong. Intuitive often means primitive or simply first, not correct.
And i do think we accept what we feel as truth until we learn that our intuitions can be wrong.
@niinja2 YOU'RE the one who first brought the default thing up, kiddo.
And I really DON'T think we accept what we feel as truth; I think we know from pretty damned early on that we can be mistaken, at AT MOST we might accept a few things tentatively AT MOST.
I'm sorry, but the fact is that god-belief has to be learned, it is not inherent, and without belief the only other option IS atheism, however implicit it may be (as opposed to explicit).
"People may be INCLINED to god-belief, but they don't START OUT believing until they're introduced to the concept."
all small children are inclined to god belief because of the way our brains work, hyperactive agency detection, we think (while small) that events that cause us great pain or pleasure are caused by persons.
This says nothing about existence of God, it says only about our psychology.
"You don't have to do research to figure out that 2+2=4."
The issue at hand doesn't have a clearly defined answer. Should babies be considered atheists? Some will say yes and some will say no, all for different reasons whether semantic or scientific ones.
For example, cognitive science tells us that babies do in fact possess mental content. Is it possible that mental content in some part pertains to belief in God? That's up for discussion.
i like your videos, but your voice sounds like a robot. maybe that was planned because its bionic? but either way its annoying. good facts though, and i enjoyed it.
I find the whole label thing problematic as there are in my mind four belief positions and two knowledge positions: atheist/theist/religionist/anti-religionist; and gnostic/agnostic.
For example, I'm a gnostic anti-religionist AND an agnostic atheist: I know for a fact all religions are false but can't know about characteristics of things outside the universe.
I'm sure I'm in agreement w/Bionicdance and many people here on the importance of maintaining a secular society free of religious dogma induced legislation. But I don't see how attacking agnostics helps the atheist cause. These definitions are ambiguous. Insisting only yours is RIGHT, and people are necessarily on your side because your RIGHT, is just childish and counter-productive. Your not going to "define" out of existence a group of people.
@owheydusoapsk "Define out of existence"...? *raised eyebrow* You've misunderstood ENTIRELY.
I'm after ACCURACY, not anything else. Agnostics tend to present themselves as aloof from the atheist/theist dichotomy; they are factually incorrect. They can be passive atheists if they like, but until and unless they begin to believe in a god, they will ALWAYS be atheists AND agnostics, as the two are not mutually exclusive.
Agnosticism doesn't negate atheism; non-belief in gods makes you an atheist.
Non-belief is the default logical and honest position in the face of extraordinary claims asserted without evidence. Whether god is real or not doesn't matter, he might as well be, but the truth remains that there is to this day no good reason to believe positively that there is a god, not even one! Theists fail to prove their case for the existence of (their particular) god, providing only arguments from ignorance and blatant assertions. Not guilty until proven guilty! Lack of belief default.
@viridismonasteriense so the question remains, if there is a god, why is he hiding? He, she or it would know exactly what would convince me of it's existence, yet does not even bother to try. From that we can deduce a few conclusions. This god's not like mainstream theism says it is, their holy books are wrong, god doesn't care, god wants people to go to hell or god doesn't exist.
And as strong atheism goes, we can predict based on evidence +the concept of a god logically contradicts itself.
Devils advocate. we have no way of knowing what babies are thinking. For all we know all babies think everything is a god of some type. Stating that Atheism is the default is not a fact, it is an opinion. Do you honestly know what a baby is thinking? Cause if you do, you should patent that and get money for your discovery.
I will neither believe nor not believe that one can either believe or not believe that gnosticism is neither knowing nor not knowing whether one believes or not. At least, I believe so I will believe so. Maybe I am mistaken to neither believe nor not believe that.
Hello BionicDance, I'm not sure how to pass on a mesage to you because I'm not "friended" to you, so to speak, on YouTube so I'll leave a comment here in hopes that you read it. I have the following suggestion for an outre. You can reword if for clarity/brevity if you want to use it:
What DID Jesus do? He never married, never had children and died at a young age. Is this what you want, theists?
And I've discovered that atheists really have no basis to say that "lack of belief" is the only or even primary meaning. It's not supported etymologically or in colloquial usage. They argue dictionaries are bias. Colloquial usage is influenced by theist persecution.Wha Wha Wha, Really their only argument is to insist fervently, (Yawn)
@owheydusoapsk - Yeah. Just like people who claim we have "faith" in science. You are aware you're going to BURN IN HELL, right? And it doesn't really matter what you believe. You will. It's a given.
"yeah, u never heard about it , ..." No, I deny the existence of Santa based on my experience and what I understand is the concept of Santa. It's not an "implied" denial. It is implicit.
"Anti-theism is active disbelief, not atheism." Not sure if anti-theism is necessarily a general disbelief in God. You could (and many theists are) anti-theistic toward the God's of others. Whereas "atheism" has a long history of being defined as an active disbelief in God(s), as well as other variations on that theme.
@owheydusoapsk "You could (and many theists are) anti-theistic toward the God's of others"
They are also atheistic toward other gods. ie. they don't believe in them. If you think that atheism isn't the word to describe a non-belief in god(s) then by all means inform us what is the correct word?
"They are also atheistic toward other gods." That's an absurd use of the word. If you want to argue that theists (everybody actually) is an atheist because there is some God they don't believe in, than I will say that is definitely an incorrect use of the word.
@owheydusoapsk I didn't say they are atheist, I said they are atheistic. You know perfectly well what I implied. Still waiting for your response for the second part of my argument. Or is this the moment when I'll hear the sound of crickets from your direction?
I think it depends on the context of the non-belief. I don't think babies, brain-dead people, people ignorant to the concept of God are appropriately labeled atheists. Just non-believers.
@owheydusoapsk The term non-believer doesn't tell anything what their non-belief is about. Is it non-belief in cars, or spoons? The term atheist does tell this, they are non-believers in god(s).
The original greek word atheos means "one without god". It can mean disbelief but it also means non-belief/lack of belief. Who better to be without a god than someone who doesn't believe in it to begin with?
@owheydusoapsk i consider myself an atheist because i don't believe. i don't actively disbelieve, i simply state that the evidence doesn't support the idea that a god is real. so what would you call me? i don't believe because i see no reason to believe. i think a god might exist, but that so far we don't have any evidence that a god exists and should just assume that it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. i know i am not the only person who thinks this way and calls themselves an atheist.
"i consider myself an atheist..." By all means call yourself an atheist if that's the label your comfortable with. Many that feel like you call themselves "agnostic". My point is that there is ambiguity in the definitions of these words. So insisting your particular definition is THE CORRECT definition is simply "hand-waving".
@owheydusoapsk the technical terms of atheist and agnostic don't even speak about the same thing. i would consider myself an agnostic as well as an atheist. an agnostic is a person who doesn't know if a god does or does not exist. the vast majority of the world would meet the definition of agnostic, theist and atheist alike meet the definition of this label. let's face it, unless you have witnessed a miracle than you are an agnostic. i am an agnostic atheist.
I don't know what you mean by "technical". I think people (atheists) often try to define these words very narrowly and call that "technical". I'm more interested in the common, colloquial usage and etymology of the words when it comes to this particular argument.
"don't even speak about the same thing." I think they really do. In the context of everyday speech and how people use the words "knowledge" and "belief" they are so dependent as to be synonymous. I understand that in an academic paper or scholarly debate you would parse the words differenty.
I'm an Apatheist personally.
AvousYelmurc 1 month ago
@BionicDance
if you posses knowledge about something, then you are CETRAIN IT IS TRUE, if your level of confidence is low then you DO NOT KNOW in the first place IF ITS TRUE AND YOU POSSES NO KNOWLEDGE
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Wrong.
If you possess knowledge of something, then what you possess is true information; your level of confidence in that information IS IRRELEVANT. All that matters is that it's true and that you possess awareness of it; that's all knowledge is.
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"All that matters is that it's true and that you possess awareness of it"
Alright so if you posses awareness of some idea that is true 100% but you are 20% certain in it, how is this idea different from idea about god which is 0% true in which you are 21% confident?
niinja2 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
oh and btw gnostic means a member of an early christian sect, so....
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, "gnostic" means "one who has knowledge".
gnostic, adj
-possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
[SOURCE: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012]
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
yeah and beside that gnostic means a member of an early christian sect
"Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices common to early Christianity"
you see words can have many different meaning
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Yes, well, I'm talking about telling the difference between someone who does believe in god versus someone who doesn't, and someone who possesses knowledge of a god's existence and someone who doesn't; "gnostic" refers to the latter possibilities, the having or not-having of god-knowledge.
If you're talking about anything else when you say gnostic, you're off-topic, at least with regard to this video, this discussion.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
when people say they are agnostic , it does not mean they are anti members of an early christian sect, it means they have no belief ether way, it has nothing to do with knowledge. If you say this is not true, then you are reinterpreting a meaning that the rest of the world has assigned to this word just as to the word gnostic...
Agnostic , among other things is a person which has no belief either way.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 If people mean that when they say they're "agnostic", then they're using the word incorrectly.
A+gnostic = without knowledge. It doesn't address BELIEF at all.
Gnosis = knowledge; that's what the word means, and the syllable "a-" negates it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"A+gnostic = without knowledge. It doesn't address BELIEF at all.
Gnosis = knowledge; that's what the word means, and the syllable "a-" negates it."
does that mean we are wrong if we say taht gnostics are a members of an early christian sect?
your problem is taht you are giving the word only ONE meaning, while in fact it has MANY
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Because IN THIS CONTEXT OF THIS VIDEO, "gnostic" actually DOES refer only to one thing.
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"Because IN THIS CONTEXT OF THIS VIDEO, "gnostic" actually DOES refer only to one thing."
irrelevant
are we wrong to say in general taht gnostics are a members of an early christian sect?
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
if you say fuck you to somebody do you really mean for him to go and find someone to fuck with or are you just trying to hurt and dismiss that person?
if i said that to you would you say im using the word incorrectly or would you know what i actually mean with it?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 "Fuck you" is slang; "agnostic" is a TECHNICAL term.
This is not an even comparison.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
""Fuck you" is slang; "agnostic" is a TECHNICAL term."
we often use words that have different meaning then the one we ascribe to them, and they have more then one. that is my point. you cant use a deffinition of a word and say , it means this and only this , especially when the people are already using it and have ascribed meaning to it.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, actually, you CAN do exactly that, at least within the context of a certain subject or topic. What you CAN'T do is decide to switch meanings of a term in the middle of a discussion, or know that someone means one thing when they use a term but insist on interpreting it YOUR way to change their meaning.
The point is to actually AID COMMUNICATION, so the topic can be discussed reasonably and rationally, which will NOT happen if everybody is defining words differently from each other.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"insist on interpreting it YOUR way to change their meaning."
well from my point your the one doing this. Changing the meaning of the words atheist and agnostic as we previously understood them. You understand words not from dictionaries, but from context we use them in, this is how children learn them.
"so the topic can be discussed reasonably and rationally"
The topic of this discussion is the definition of the words agnostic and atheist.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 And those definitions ONLY make sense if we stick to etymology, especially when having what is, after all, a technical discussion about belief; insisting on colloquial definitions that are NOT etymologically correct will only cloud the issue and make it impossible to discuss.
There are two categories: knowledge and belief. "Gnosis" refers to knowledge, "theism" refers to belief. You either have knowledge/belief or you don't. This standing-aloof definition of "agnostic" is bullshit.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
What does the words belief and knowledge mean for you?
For me knowlege is a belief with high degree of certainty. You can have weak belief, where its more of a wishful thinking, belief supported with some evidence , and strong belief which is supported by overwhelming evidence.
I say this because you cant be 100% certain into anything, but when you say you know you can say im certain as someone can be certain - i know.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Knowledge is belief backed by EVIDENCE. Knowledge is that which can be verified; what one can know does not require one's belief to be true, may well be true DESPITE one's belief, or one's desire.
Belief, on the other hand, can defy knowledge, can defy reality, can be bent by one's will. Belief--especially religious belief--is like a game of Make-Believe taken FAR too seriously...unless it is backed by mind-external FACTS, thus making it knowledge.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"Knowledge is belief backed by EVIDENCE. "
alright so what if you have some evidence , but your not completely sure about the result? Can you say then you believe something? This kind of belief would also be backed by evidence.
500 years ago people "knew" earth is at the center of the universe, was this belief or knowledge?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 I already pointed out the difference between CLAIMED knowledge and ACTUAL knowledge. Please tell me you're not going to be one of those who insist I make the same clarification for each individual conflict, rather than being able to accurately apply the difference broadly yourself. *pointed look*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"I already pointed out the difference between CLAIMED knowledge and ACTUAL knowledge"
erm, where did you do this? what is the exact difference?
you are aware that some things we thought we ACTUALLY knew have shown to be false? *quirious look*
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 *rolls eyes* CLAIMING to know something and ACTUALLY knowing it are not the same thing.
What you say we "knew" we only THOUGHT we knew...so we NEVER ACTUALLY DID KNOW. Our belief that we know has zero bearing on whether or not we actually DO know; the facts are the facts, and are not changed by our perceptions, preferences, or conclusions.
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"*rolls eyes* CLAIMING to know something and ACTUALLY knowing it are not the same thing."
roles eyes...
well of course you do
and how do we ACTUALLY know something?
let me guess, empiricism?
do we know how old is the universe or do we just think we know?
do we know that nothing can travel faster then light or do we just think we know?
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"And those definitions ONLY make sense"
if we do not change their meaning and if we all agree on what do they mean.
and btw there are dictionary definitions of atheism that define it as a belief that there are no gods.
insisting on etymologicall definitions which meaning is something else the the one in the public will only cloud the issue and make it impossible to discuss.
But again, the meaning of the words is a discussion right now.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 When I say that these are the only definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" that actually make sense, I mean that they are the only ones that accurately describe reality. The other definitions are quite horribly biased, full of cultural baggage, and preclude the possibility of describing many positions that are held by people by usurping the necessary words to accurately do so.
I'm insisting on etymological definitions because it's the only way to remove bias from the discussion.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"The other definitions are quite horribly biased"
i believe there is no god - atheist
i believe there is a god - theist
im not certain in any of the two ideas- agnostic
how is this biased?
lumping people who are die hard "there is no god " atheists and " it might go both ways " atheist is misleading and not sufficiently informative. You should say every time whether you are a strong or weak atheist, to be exact.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 It's biased because it narrows the criteria down to BELIEF ONLY, which is not the case, and because it insists that you're either with god, against god, or just haven't made up your mind...and there are more categories than that. Plus, by usurping the word which uses "gnosis" as its root, the KNOWLEDGE portion of the debate gets cut out entirely, focusing solely on belief...and belief may well be in opposition to reality/knowledge, and NEEDS to be addressed.
...among other reasons.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"It's biased because it narrows the criteria down to BELIEF ONLY, "
Do you agree that some beliefs are supported by evidence and that they are still just beliefs, not knowledge.
btw, do you trust and believe to your best friend, and why ?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 This is irrelevant; the question is about whether or not religion is true and god exists; these are empirical and objective claims, claims about the universe and its nature, and are thus matters for science. the comparison to trusting one's best friend is NOT equivalent.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"the comparison to trusting one's best friend is NOT equivalent."
i will show its relevance,can you please answer the question.
do you trust your friend?
and btw answer if we know how big universe is or is it possible to break the speed of light?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, I'm sorry, it's NOT relevant, and I am NOT gonna play along...especially not with the leading-question game. If you think it's relevant, EXPLAIN HOW instead of dicking around with leading questions.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"No, I'm sorry, it's NOT relevant, and I am NOT gonna play along...especially not with the leading-question game"
sorry missed this one
the "leading" question game is here to show how consistent are you in your answers, because if you say that actuall knowledge on something is different then some other percieved knowledge then you must show an example of it.
of if you say empiricims brings us to actuall knowledge , but cant prove this statement empirically...
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 In other words, you're attacking me instead of presenting your own side.
And, frankly, you don't even seem capable of discussing this issue on relevant terms, you keep conflating things which occupy different spheres. And there seems to be no way to point this out to you that results in your getting a clue.
In other words, this conversation is pointless; intentionally or not, you're making it all one-sided, and I won't play like that, kiddo. Your side has to be vulnerable TOO.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"In other words, you're attacking me instead of presenting your own side."
When i meet a person that answers most of arguments with "no its not like that" without arguing like you did when we talked about children, all i can do is ask questions to statements you made to show you that they are inconsistent with some other beliefs you have.
im the one who was patient
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Except i'm not going to respond to that kind of argument. Either fucking well present your side straight up, or don't bother. Make your case and your points in a STRAIGHTFORWARD manner if you want to discuss things with me, instead of this condescending shit.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@niinja2 Also, if someone tells you, "It's not like that," maybe you should actually consider whether or not YOU'RE OFF-TOPIC. I don't see you considering THAT as a possibility...no, it's all on MY end.
Never mind that I'm the one who made the video and the points that you're responding to...maybe you really ARE addressing something other than the actual topic of the video. Have you even CONSIDERED that possibility? I see no evidence of your having considered it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 I gave you explanation after explanation...the fact that you don't seem to realize this JUST PROVES MY POINT ABOUT HOW YOU'RE CONDUCTING YOURSELF.
And "agnostic" will never address BELIEF. EVER. Get the fuck over it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"And "agnostic" will never address BELIEF. EVER. Get the fuck over it."
KNOWLEDGE IS BELIEF
IF YOU DISAGREE EITHER ANSWER MY QUESTION AND IF YOU SAY SOMETHING WITHOUT AN REAL ARGUMENT TO THIS QUESTION I WILL BLOCK YOU IF YOU CARE ABOUT THAT ANYWAY!!!!!!
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
look lets just cut the crap and reset
if you are exposed to ideas that are true in reality but you do not know are they really true then you posses no knowledge. Your just exposed to some ideas that are coincidentally .
They can be objectively true , but if you dont know that then they are not knowledge any more then ideas about god or the bible is knowledge.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Sorry, no. Wrong. It's knowledge if it is objectively true and you've been exposed to this information; having to know it's really true IS NOT A REQUIREMENT; your level of confidence IS IRRELEVANT.
And it's pretty clear you and I are not budging on these points.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
Lets assume your sick, you go to doctor, doctor has 3 pills, he knows one will make you better , 2 will kill you. He is 20% certain in the one that will make you better and 40% certain in the ones that will kill you. Does he have the knowledge how to heal you?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Irrelevant; the question you're asking is not addressing the ACTUAL query, which is, "Does the doctor know which pill will achieve which result?" and the answer is "no".
See, you've done nothing but play word games this entire time; you're not addressing these questions head-on, directly, without bias or agenda...and that's PRECISELY what I've been eliminating this entire time: bias and agenda. That's what this video was made to do in the first place!
Are you ready to pay attention yet?
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"See, you've done n...."
a little less of bla bla bla please
the question is addresing the actual query
"Does the doctor know which pill will achieve which result?" and the answer is "no".
this is what i wanted all along.
ok, lets move on.
If he does not know, he obviously does not posses the knowledge.... agreed?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 I'm sorry, but no...NOT agreed. Because, having conversed with you for FAR too fucking long as this point, I know that agreeing to "he does not possess the knowledge" is not something I'm willing to do, because "the knowledge" is far, far, far too general.
And anyway, your scenario is NOT equivalent to knowing whether or not something exists, which is what this video is addressing. You're once again off on a strawman topic, and I'll start talking to you again when you regain focus.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
Hm so let me get this straight, you said a doctor does not know how to heal this person but you will not agree that he does not have the knowledge to do so.
goodbye.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No. What I'm telling you is that your hypothetical scenario does not match the scenario of the video, or of the topic. You are drawing false equivalencies and are REFUSING to be shifted from your off-topic premise, REFUSING to listen to even a SCRAP of criticism and consider it IN CONTEXT.
And, frankly, there is no more point trying to discuss it with you; it's obvious that you're unwilling to even CONSIDER the notion that you might need to shift perspective, so, truly, this is OVER.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"No. What I'm te..."
1 we are debating what does the word knowledge actually mean, this is the toppic.
2 you were shown a contradiction , which you were not ready to concede.
3 you went on a rant that did not deal with the contradiction you had.
4 you shifted the blame on me.
the doctor either knows or he does not, it has nothing to do with me or the video or god or whatever.
either deal with it or this IS over and im right.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 1 - We are discussing what the word knowledge means IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GOD DEBATE.
2 - I was shown a contradiction that did not conform to the parameters of the god debate
3 - I tried to explain this to you.
4 - You didn't fucking listen, and insisted on pursuing your strawman argument.
Go fuck yourself.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"We are discussing what the word knowledge means IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GOD DEBATE."
1 We did not discuss god, if we did show where. We discussed definitions of the word knowledge in general context
2 The meaning of the word knowledge does not change depending on the context, so even if we did discuss god it would not matter.
you made this up so you don't have to deal with your contradiction and you blocked me so i cant refute you anymore.
i hate dishonest people
ThePhysics1234 1 month ago
@ThePhysics1234 Surest sign of a troll: TWO accounts, so you can bitch when the first one is blocked.
Buh-bye.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance "maybe you should actually consider whether or not YOU'RE OFF-TOPIC." MAYBE YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY ARGUE OR SAY YOU DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT I MEAN ALL YOU SAID IS "ITS NOT LIKE THAT" AND IT WAS ON TOPPIC WE WERE DISCUSSING IF ATHEISM WAS INTUITIVE TO THE CHILDREN NOW WE DISCUSS IF THERE IS ACTUALL KNOWLEDGE OR IS IT ALL DEGREES OF BELIEF JSUT ANSWER THE QUESTION
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
And this is my point
"It's biased because it narrows the criteria down to BELIEF ONLY, "
WE ONLY HAVE BELIEF, STAGES OF BELIEF, i tried to show you this by questions because i knew you were going to reject if i just stated it, so i was trying to show it to you. I mean what the fuck? Where is the damn problem.
we have no way of having ACTUAL knowledge, we have only degrees of belief. if you disagree answer my questions.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, see, the problem here is what I've ALREADY POINTED OUT: knowing that you have the knowledge you have is correct WILL NOT CHANGE THAT IT IS CORRECT. We can possess completely, 100% factually-true knowledge AND BE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF HOW REAL AND CORRECT IT IS...which does not change that we possess it.
YOU are making KNOWING our knowledge is true FOR CERTAIN a criterion of it being knowledge at all...and you're wrong to do so. THAT is the point you keep avoiding; do please FACE IT.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"which does not change that we possess it."
DID I SAY IT DOES?
"and you're wrong to do so. THAT is the point you keep avoiding; do please FACE IT."
IM WRONG? REALLY?
OH WELL IF YOU SAY IT MUST BE TRUE
ARGUE FUCKING WHY IS IT SO!!!!!!!
AND BTW I AM RIGHT, HOW THE FUCKING FUCK DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING IF YOU DONT KNOW IF ITS TRUE!?!?!?!!?
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"the question is about whether or not religion is true and god exists"
no actually the question is about the definition of atheism and agnosticism
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Okay, I'm just done talking to you. *rolls eyes* If you don't understand that the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" ARE ADDRESSING THAT QUESTION, then you're just way the fuck off in Tangent-ville attacking strawmen, and I'm sick of playing your bullshit games. We're done. Good day. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"and I'm sick of playing your bullshit games."
well why then dont you just answer my questions?
im not sure but it appears to me that you are evading them.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 And from where *I* sit, it looks like you're trolling. Quit pushing your luck, kiddo, unless you WANT to be blocked. I've already explained just how badly off-topic you are, I've already explained that you need to make points instead of asking questions to try to lead me to your position, and frankly, it seems like you've been basically ignoring MY points every time I make them. Talking to you is a waste of fucking time now, and I'm pretty much done. Back off while you still can.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"it seems like you've been basically ignoring MY points every time I make them."
sorry but i answered to every one of your points , while on some of mine you just said "no its not true " without any argumentation
il send you a pm, this 500 limit is anoying
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, I responded to your points, you just didn't fucking listen, and you ignored the crux of each of my arguments to focus on irrelevant side issues, or you tried to distract from my points in various ways.
Don't send me a PM, I'm not going to read it; talking to you is a complete waste of time because the discussion starts and stays one-sided, with you ignoring everything relevant that's said to you. Just go away.
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"No, I responded to your points, you just didn't fucking listen"
no i listened and you did not understand
you did not answer to my questions
do you believe your friends
do we actually know how old is the universe
they are crucial to showing how do you use the word belief and what does it really mean for you the word actual knowledge , when we , in fact do not posses this absolute actual knowledge, we only have high degrees of certainty.
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
Ok let me try something else
You say agnosticism pertains to knowledge. How does a gnostic theist know that there is a god? Or how does a gnostic atheist know there is no god? The words gnostic theist or atheist are simply not true. This means we are all agnostics since nobody really knows whether god exists, we all might be in a giant matrix. This makes the word agnostic redundant and unnecessary...
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 If someone CLAIMS to be gnostic, that's one thing; actually BEING gnostic is something else entirely.
To be a gnostic theist would require having evidence of god that goes beyond faith. To be a gnostic atheist would require having evidence that a god's existence is precluded.
We may well be fully gnostic and not REALIZE IT because we cannot verify that the knowledge we have is true and relevant...but that doesn't make us have it any less.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"We may well be fully gnostic and not REALIZE IT because we cannot verify that the knowledge we have is true and relevant"
if we are gnostic about something but we cannot verify it then we are not certain about this something and in fact we actually dont know, and we are not gnostic.
you are a gnostic if you have truth and you are certain by some method that it is true.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong on that score. You are gnostic if you have knowledge...FULL STOP.
Knowing for certain you have that knowledge and that it is true is a separate issue; you only have to HAVE knowledge to be gnostic It's much like how you can be an implicit or weak atheist by lacking god-belief, or a strong or hard atheist by having active disbelief.
Certainty that it is true is not required to POSSESS true knowledge, to be gnostic.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09
type this into you tube, start at 15 mins 40 seconds, scientist explains why children are natural born dualists, btw he is an atheist.
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"You are gnostic if you have knowledge...FULL STOP"
wow your arguments are amazing, so im wrong and i cant argue about it anymore? and this is because ?
if you are aware of some idea that might be true, and in fact is true, but you dont know if it is true, then you are not gnostic, because you dont really know it. And there is a big difference between a person who knows kemotherapy is going to heal him and person who thinks kemotherapy might heal him. CONTUNUED.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 *rolls eyes* You're not listening. I said you're gnostic if you have knowledge "full stop" to indicate that the definition IS NOT MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT, not as a way to shut you up.
The point is that having knowledge DOES NOT REQUIRE BEING AWARE THE KNOWLEDGE YOU POSSESS IS TRUE. If you possess knowledge of something but are uncertain about the certainty of its truth, your uncertainty WILL NOT CHANGE ITS TRUTH VALUE. You are still gnostic, DESPITE your uncertainty.
Get it yet?
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"your uncertainty WILL NOT CHANGE ITS TRUTH VALUE"
We are gnostic - we know things that we do not know we know them -it makes no sense.
yeah i get what you mean but this is not how we use the word gnostic. I mean this way every one of us is gnostic about something. The word is then redundant.
IT DOES NOT MATTER FOR US IF WE POSSES TRUTH ABOUT SOMETHING IF WE CANNOT DISCERN IT FROM FALSE CLAIMS...
Gnostic is someone who knows that some idea is true...
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 But you see, "knowing" an idea is true as YOU'RE describing it can be done by anybody with no respect for the facts...but ACTUALLY knowing something is 100% fact-dependent.
And, frankly, if we're not discussing this on a fact-having basis, there is no point having the discussion AT ALL; people are going to claim-as-true the things they WANT to be true, knowledge be damned, yet they'll still CALL it knowledge...thus totally clouding the issue. And, forgive me, but FUCK THAT. Pointless.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
""knowing" an idea is true as YOU'RE describing it can be done by anybody with no respect for the facts"
im not saying this is knowledge, there is a mismatch somewhere.
i would rather if you could please answer this rather then assume
Do you agree that some beliefs are supported by evidence and that they are still just beliefs, not knowledge.
do we know how big is the universe?
do we know faster then light speed is impossible?
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
The one who is not sure if therapy is going to heal him will probably not use it and go use something else. So there is a difference. If you dont have a method by which you know how something is true,then you DONT KNOW
"you only have to HAVE knowledge to be gnostic"
if you are in possesion of some idea that is true but you dont know if its true, then in your mind its only one possible idea, its not truth or knowledge.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Knowledge does not require your permission or acknowledgement to BE knowledge. If I learn some bizarre fact about science, but I'm uncertain whether the fact is true, my uncertainty DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT'S TRUTH VALUE. I still have that bit of scientific knowledge, DESPITE my uncertainty.
Possessing knowledge does not require consciously knowing something is true, it only requires being aware of the information AT ALL. That's it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"my uncertainty DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT'S TRUTH VALUE"
IF YOU CANNOT CONFIRM IT AS TRUE IT HAS NO TRUTH VALUE TO US EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
i mean the point of knowledge is to know something with certainty, so this knowledge can be useful. If you are informed about information that can be true, but you dont know if it is true, this information is not knowledge.
niinja2 1 month ago
so if homo sapiens were atheists, who taught them about gods?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Who taught us about elves, goblins, trolls, and dragons?
It's called "imagination", dude! We taught OURSELVES...and then took it WAY too seriously.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"We taught OURSELVES"
so we are the ones who got the idea of a god?
i thought people would have no idea of a god if someone didnt talk about it to us?
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 And some of us never WOULD get the idea of a god if nobody ever told us about it. Some of us would.
Just as I'm sure some of us would never have come with the idea for country music, or Irish drinking songs.
All it would take is for ONE chowderhead to come up with the idea of a god, and then for them to tell lots of other people and have it spread like a meme. Or maybe several people came up with it. But it's not like we'd ALL come up with god on our own, necessarily. Be realistic!
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
we would not have the idea for country music, but we would got the idea for music, just as people got ideas for different gods, karma, reincarnation , destiniy etc...
"and then for them to tell lots of other people and have it spread like a meme. "
people dont accept ideas if they are not already intuitive or plausable to them.
Children are natural born dualists. It is intuitive to them.
so yeah idea of a god is the default position, later on you stay or change.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. You don't have to have some natural inclination to believe in a god to START believing in one; that's just silly.
People can be convinced in MANY ways, from being lied to, to peer pressure, and scores of other ways. The default position, however, is LACKING belief; you cannot believe in something you've never heard of or thought of. People may be INCLINED to god-belief, but they don't START OUT believing until they're introduced to the concept.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"is LACKING belief; you cannot believe in something you've never heard of or thought of"
babies lack a belief in god just as rocks do because not one of them thought about it, and if you say babies are atheists in this respect then rocks are atheists to.
But when babies start to percieve the world because of hyperactive agency detection they will start to think that things like thunder are caused by some agent. Its intuitive t them.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Anyone and anything that does not believe in a god is an atheist. A+theist = not a theist. That's what the word means.
And I don't care if it IS intuitive to babies to think an agent caused something; you don't automatically go from "agent" to "all-powerful, magical sky-daddy who handed down morality and had people murder his own son in order to appease his rage against humans for not following all of his commands regarding fruit consumption." *rolls eyes*
Theism is NOT the default.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"you don't automatically go from "agent" to "all-powerful, magical sky-daddy "
correct, you need several thousand years of cultural evolution
early people thought grass, rain, animals , even earth are all some form of gods, something like people but slightly stronger.
idea of Yahweh is not intuitive , but idea of some kid of god (and that is theism) is intuitive, depending where you live you for a picture of god
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 No, actually, a god is NOT intuitive. But even if it WERE, that doesn't make THEISM intuitive, nor does it mean that humans will just go with intuitive gut instinct and believe despite the evidence.
I'm sorry, but you've done nothing but over-simplify, generalize, and beg the question this entire time, and I'm getting quite weary of it. I'm thinkin' this conversation is over soon unless you start being just a smidge more realistic.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"nor does it mean that humans will just go with intuitive gut instinct and believe despite the evidence."
actually often we will, we will often pick truths that resonate emotionally ( intuitively ) within us. Ever heard the phrase follow your heart.
we will believe in things we expect to be true even if there is no hard evidence for them
Maybe not theism, but dualism is intuitive, or some kind of supernatural belief.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 But, again, that doesn't mean BELIEF is the default; getting a FEELING might be intuitive, but that's doesn't mean accepting it as truth is.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"But, again, that doesn't mean BELIEF is the default;"
i dont really see what is the big deal with all this default stuff? It does not give any more value to the theistic claims, its a testament to our psychology not gods existence. More still ideas that were intuitive to us have been shown wrong. Intuitive often means primitive or simply first, not correct.
And i do think we accept what we feel as truth until we learn that our intuitions can be wrong.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 YOU'RE the one who first brought the default thing up, kiddo.
And I really DON'T think we accept what we feel as truth; I think we know from pretty damned early on that we can be mistaken, at AT MOST we might accept a few things tentatively AT MOST.
I'm sorry, but the fact is that god-belief has to be learned, it is not inherent, and without belief the only other option IS atheism, however implicit it may be (as opposed to explicit).
BionicDance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance
"YOU'RE the one who first brought the default thing up, kiddo."
erm its in your video, so no
"I think we know from pretty damned early on that we can be mistaken"
i think we know that OTHERS can be mistaken :D much more then we can be.
"but the fact is that god-belief has to be learned"
can you somehow prove this "fact" ? and explain how in the hell did we came up with 14000 different gods if this was not intuitive to us?
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"I'm thinkin' this conversation is over soon unless you start being just a smidge more realistic."
and by realistic you mean saying what you think is true, so conversation is over because i disagree with you.
and btw you did not argue with my points with nothing except saying "NO" and dismissing them
"This does not negate my point."
what were you exactly reffering to
niinja2 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"Theism is NOT the default."
theism is not equal to christianity
christianity is one offset of theism
muslims and hindus are also theists
hindus are poly theists to be exact.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 This does not negate my point.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
"People may be INCLINED to god-belief, but they don't START OUT believing until they're introduced to the concept."
all small children are inclined to god belief because of the way our brains work, hyperactive agency detection, we think (while small) that events that cause us great pain or pleasure are caused by persons.
This says nothing about existence of God, it says only about our psychology.
niinja2 1 month ago
Hot.
anvita99 3 months ago
looking yellowish
cjeffers101 7 months ago
I rather prefered Brian1962's video on the subject. I am also reminded of your video "vulnerable to reason", which, ironically I agree with.
NoFaithNoPain 7 months ago
You don't put much research into your video material, do you?
Ephemerance 7 months ago
@Ephemerance You don't have to do research to figure out that 2+2=4.
tctheunbeliever 7 months ago
@tctheunbeliever
"You don't have to do research to figure out that 2+2=4."
The issue at hand doesn't have a clearly defined answer. Should babies be considered atheists? Some will say yes and some will say no, all for different reasons whether semantic or scientific ones.
For example, cognitive science tells us that babies do in fact possess mental content. Is it possible that mental content in some part pertains to belief in God? That's up for discussion.
Ephemerance 7 months ago
@Ephemerance Yep, yep, yep, and it's irrelevant. You missed the point of the video, and I fear you misunderstood my analogy.
tctheunbeliever 7 months ago
@tctheunbeliever
By all means, good sir, clarify your analogy and help unpack the intended message of the video.
Ephemerance 7 months ago
Toddlers are pantheists.
cecinestpasunename 7 months ago
i like your videos, but your voice sounds like a robot. maybe that was planned because its bionic? but either way its annoying. good facts though, and i enjoyed it.
Mindlessfroot 7 months ago
So was this the start of Babygate?
I find the whole label thing problematic as there are in my mind four belief positions and two knowledge positions: atheist/theist/religionist/anti-religionist; and gnostic/agnostic.
For example, I'm a gnostic anti-religionist AND an agnostic atheist: I know for a fact all religions are false but can't know about characteristics of things outside the universe.
Try getting a T shirt for that!
Aaron1975melbourne 7 months ago
@Aaron1975melbourne "So was this the start of Babygate?"
Yes, this was when the music died.
Koss42 7 months ago
I'm sure I'm in agreement w/Bionicdance and many people here on the importance of maintaining a secular society free of religious dogma induced legislation. But I don't see how attacking agnostics helps the atheist cause. These definitions are ambiguous. Insisting only yours is RIGHT, and people are necessarily on your side because your RIGHT, is just childish and counter-productive. Your not going to "define" out of existence a group of people.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk "Define out of existence"...? *raised eyebrow* You've misunderstood ENTIRELY.
I'm after ACCURACY, not anything else. Agnostics tend to present themselves as aloof from the atheist/theist dichotomy; they are factually incorrect. They can be passive atheists if they like, but until and unless they begin to believe in a god, they will ALWAYS be atheists AND agnostics, as the two are not mutually exclusive.
Agnosticism doesn't negate atheism; non-belief in gods makes you an atheist.
BionicDance 7 months ago 2
@BionicDance
Well, no need to go round and round and get in a pissing match. I've stated my case and I thank you for the forum.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
Non-belief is the default logical and honest position in the face of extraordinary claims asserted without evidence. Whether god is real or not doesn't matter, he might as well be, but the truth remains that there is to this day no good reason to believe positively that there is a god, not even one! Theists fail to prove their case for the existence of (their particular) god, providing only arguments from ignorance and blatant assertions. Not guilty until proven guilty! Lack of belief default.
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
@viridismonasteriense so the question remains, if there is a god, why is he hiding? He, she or it would know exactly what would convince me of it's existence, yet does not even bother to try. From that we can deduce a few conclusions. This god's not like mainstream theism says it is, their holy books are wrong, god doesn't care, god wants people to go to hell or god doesn't exist.
And as strong atheism goes, we can predict based on evidence +the concept of a god logically contradicts itself.
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
Devils advocate. we have no way of knowing what babies are thinking. For all we know all babies think everything is a god of some type. Stating that Atheism is the default is not a fact, it is an opinion. Do you honestly know what a baby is thinking? Cause if you do, you should patent that and get money for your discovery.
Nightw0lf414 7 months ago
ok this vid is so fuckin clear!! what is up with these retarded arguements AGAINST it =_=
doggygenesis 7 months ago
@doggygenesis No shit.
Koss42 7 months ago
A rock, a virus, a baby, a dog, etc. are all atheists as well. It doesn't matter. it's a non-argument.
Anghellik9 7 months ago
Good video. This is guaranteed to piss off some theists.
AtheistCanada 7 months ago
I will neither believe nor not believe that one can either believe or not believe that gnosticism is neither knowing nor not knowing whether one believes or not. At least, I believe so I will believe so. Maybe I am mistaken to neither believe nor not believe that.
lazyperfectionist1 7 months ago
Comment removed
AgentOfDoubt 7 months ago
Hello BionicDance, I'm not sure how to pass on a mesage to you because I'm not "friended" to you, so to speak, on YouTube so I'll leave a comment here in hopes that you read it. I have the following suggestion for an outre. You can reword if for clarity/brevity if you want to use it:
What DID Jesus do? He never married, never had children and died at a young age. Is this what you want, theists?
B0rn0nly0nce 7 months ago
Sorry sweety. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of deity. Not babies, the brain dead and dead popes.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk Nope. Denial is not necessary, only lack of belief.
Theist = belief.
Atheist = no belief.
That's it.
BionicDance 7 months ago 10
@BionicDance
Nope. Denial is what distinguishes atheists from theists.
Theist= belief
Atheist= an active disbelief , a position on the question
That's it, not even arguable imo.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk Well, you're wrong. Atheism is NOT denial. Get over it.
BionicDance 7 months ago 2
@BionicDance
No, I'm right, your wrong. You get over it.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk Troll.
BionicDance 7 months ago 17
@BionicDance
Hardly, I've probably done 6 videos on this exact topic.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@BionicDance
And I've discovered that atheists really have no basis to say that "lack of belief" is the only or even primary meaning. It's not supported etymologically or in colloquial usage. They argue dictionaries are bias. Colloquial usage is influenced by theist persecution.Wha Wha Wha, Really their only argument is to insist fervently, (Yawn)
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk - Yeah. Just like people who claim we have "faith" in science. You are aware you're going to BURN IN HELL, right? And it doesn't really matter what you believe. You will. It's a given.
LeksServices 7 months ago
@LeksServices
"eah. Just like people who claim we have "faith" in science." Sorry, no idea what your talking about.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk -of course you're a denialist of the existence of Santa Claus, nope ???
HiFiCentaur 7 months ago
@HiFiCentaur
Yes, I deny the existence of Santa.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk - and you deny the sacred existence of the Saci Perere, 2, yep ?
:¬D
@BionicDance, look @ me: i m feeding it!!! it's not recomendable, but it's funny!
HiFiCentaur 7 months ago
@HiFiCentaur
Never heard of Saci Perere. Come on now, show-off to Bionicdance. Show her how sharp you are really pin me here w/your logic.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk - yeah, u never heard about it , so that implies that you deny it. That´s your "logical" parameter.
A deity can be known? How can I deny something that I even couldn't know ? I just don't believe it. Just like you against Santa.
HiFiCentaur 7 months ago
@HiFiCentaur
"yeah, u never heard about it , ..." No, I deny the existence of Santa based on my experience and what I understand is the concept of Santa. It's not an "implied" denial. It is implicit.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk Dont be in denial of us not being in denial.
MrJaysChannel 7 months ago
@MrJaysChannel
I'm just addressing what the word "atheist" means. Not what the people who latch onto that label actual believe.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk no your wrong. ITS NOT EVEN ARGUABLE.
MrJaysChannel 7 months ago
@MrJaysChannel
"no your wrong. ITS NOT EVEN ARGUABLE. " That's about the extent (and tenor) of the atheist argument on this.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk if a baby doesn`t deny or is capable of believing what do you call them? I love how you theists have to have a lable for everyone.
cruisemissle2012 7 months ago
@cruisemissle2012 "if a baby doesn`t deny..." I call them a baby. What makes you think I'm a theist?
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk Anti-theism is active disbelief, not atheism.
byteresistor 7 months ago
@byteresistor
"Anti-theism is active disbelief, not atheism." Not sure if anti-theism is necessarily a general disbelief in God. You could (and many theists are) anti-theistic toward the God's of others. Whereas "atheism" has a long history of being defined as an active disbelief in God(s), as well as other variations on that theme.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk "You could (and many theists are) anti-theistic toward the God's of others"
They are also atheistic toward other gods. ie. they don't believe in them. If you think that atheism isn't the word to describe a non-belief in god(s) then by all means inform us what is the correct word?
byteresistor 7 months ago
@byteresistor
"They are also atheistic toward other gods." That's an absurd use of the word. If you want to argue that theists (everybody actually) is an atheist because there is some God they don't believe in, than I will say that is definitely an incorrect use of the word.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk I didn't say they are atheist, I said they are atheistic. You know perfectly well what I implied. Still waiting for your response for the second part of my argument. Or is this the moment when I'll hear the sound of crickets from your direction?
byteresistor 7 months ago
@byteresistor
I think it depends on the context of the non-belief. I don't think babies, brain-dead people, people ignorant to the concept of God are appropriately labeled atheists. Just non-believers.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk The term non-believer doesn't tell anything what their non-belief is about. Is it non-belief in cars, or spoons? The term atheist does tell this, they are non-believers in god(s).
The original greek word atheos means "one without god". It can mean disbelief but it also means non-belief/lack of belief. Who better to be without a god than someone who doesn't believe in it to begin with?
byteresistor 7 months ago
@byteresistor
"The term non-believer doesn't tell ..." I guess I'm starting to lose your point.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk i consider myself an atheist because i don't believe. i don't actively disbelieve, i simply state that the evidence doesn't support the idea that a god is real. so what would you call me? i don't believe because i see no reason to believe. i think a god might exist, but that so far we don't have any evidence that a god exists and should just assume that it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. i know i am not the only person who thinks this way and calls themselves an atheist.
greycloud24 7 months ago
@greycloud24
"i consider myself an atheist..." By all means call yourself an atheist if that's the label your comfortable with. Many that feel like you call themselves "agnostic". My point is that there is ambiguity in the definitions of these words. So insisting your particular definition is THE CORRECT definition is simply "hand-waving".
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk the technical terms of atheist and agnostic don't even speak about the same thing. i would consider myself an agnostic as well as an atheist. an agnostic is a person who doesn't know if a god does or does not exist. the vast majority of the world would meet the definition of agnostic, theist and atheist alike meet the definition of this label. let's face it, unless you have witnessed a miracle than you are an agnostic. i am an agnostic atheist.
greycloud24 7 months ago
@greycloud24
I don't know what you mean by "technical". I think people (atheists) often try to define these words very narrowly and call that "technical". I'm more interested in the common, colloquial usage and etymology of the words when it comes to this particular argument.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@greycloud24
"don't even speak about the same thing." I think they really do. In the context of everyday speech and how people use the words "knowledge" and "belief" they are so dependent as to be synonymous. I understand that in an academic paper or scholarly debate you would parse the words differenty.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago