You seem to be doing a lot of circular thinking... how is not believing in something a belief? Atheism is a view, yes, but not a belief. The things that ARE beliefs that you mention in your video are not related to Atheism (here's an example of my own: there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution). As a side note, there are more beliefs than you list about the universe; the one I'd like to point out is "The universe popped into existence, but we don't know how YET."
Anti-theism is an assertion. Agnosticism is an indecisive position by which one is open-mined to the degree of accepting illogical (highly improbable) concepts or notions considering the evidence (or 'someone actively choosing not to accept both illogical AND logical assumptions' - this being the most apt description). Atheism is the default position by which assertions (for which there is no evidence) that conflict with evidence on which a more compatible theory is formed are not considered.
Er... what about 4. The Universe is one within a Multiverse whose constituents were neither created nor came into existence spontaneously but came into existence through some other event which relies not on the physics of the dimensions of our Universe like causality as we know it does (relative to our laws of space-time), but transpired according to other laws for a verse by which causality adopts a different definition.
Matt Dillahunty is the man. Nothing gets by him... and that's not easy to do when put on the spot like in a live show without the luxury of having a few minutes to think first.
One of the worst bits of his thing was the whole attempt to rephrase theism. There are theists who easily fall into the other camps. There were theists who accepted steady state, and there are theists who accept the big bang cosmology proper. And "popped into existence" @ #2, is somewhat sketchy as the universe is typically what we mean BY existence.
@deepashtray It's not about providing evidence for the existence of God. It's about distorting the atheist position. They have no evidence, never have, and never will, so they resort to dishonest tactics such as these.
@CompleteRationality I'm getting the impression that because their belief lacks rationality and is so completely dependent on emotions, somehow manipulating the emotions of other people will demonstrate God's existence. Evidence? Isn't feeling good enough?
No1 i dont know, im not a physicist but from the scientists that give results that are usable (i.e. proof it works) i go with what they say which not even they always agree on.
No2 see No1
No3 better chance of survival in a enviroment thats not suited for early human spicies
This video is loaded with false dilemmas. I guess when you're trying to ease the burden of proof on the theist's side, you're willing to do anything though. It's okay theists. Keep trying think there's equal validity to either side, but objectively sound logic will always prove that atheism is the logical stance and theism in face of lacking evidence is not.
For some reason, those people don't seem to realize that they're trying to reclaim the default position they never had with a double negative and unlike what my middle school English teachers tried to tell us: in English, two negatives Do make a positive, but they also add unnecessary complication to the wording which obscures the point. If you say, "I don't believe there is no god," then you're still saying, "There is a god." Thus, you're still making a positive claim.
His argument only works if you accept the assumption that the three mutually exclusive explanations he gives as being the only three options. Then an acceptance of one can be categorised as a rejection of the others. In reality there are an infinite number of options including the "I don't know" or "I have insufficient data to draw a conclusion" option.
Answer #4. No one is sufficiently informed to answer this question without conjecture. Though some conjecture is more well informed than others. Absolutist claims about the unknown, are more probable to be poorly informed claims.
Like the claim that atheist have to have a dogma, because theocrats have a need to argue against something, so they can feel justified in forcing their opinions onto everyone.
Don't mistake this man for a theist, he is a theocrat.
regarding the 3 possible reasons for the universe.
You actually had me there for a few seconds. which is more than most theist arguments. well done there.
Think of it this way. All 3 of your possibilities are placed on a table. the table has 2 circles on it. 1: This is True. 2: This is Not True. Theists place #1 in circle 1, and the others in circle 2.
Atheists place #1 in Circle 2, and leave #2 and #3 where they are, not in any circles. basically in a "I Don't know, one way or another" pile.
What synergy in the universe, it's great when you are looking at newtonian physics but soon as you look at Quantum Mechanics the whole idea of order goes out the window it simply becomes a matter of probability. Who says the universe spontaneously popped out of nothing, no physicist claims that. It's even possible this isn't the first or only universe.
as an atheist, i think the claim by so many atheists that atheism is just a lack of belief and the burden of proof is not on them IS IDIOTIC. the burden is on everyone *. and i think the atheist experience show sucks.
* e.g. if i say to you i have a brother, but offer no proof, you'd be stupid to assume that i do not have a brother. you'd be smart to say like there is a 50% chance or so that i do have a brother, even though i offered no proof. i doubt you'd give the same chances to "god".
@ExUnoPlures That's just ridiculous. I have a pet dragon in my garage. You believe me right? Based on your logic, you would be "stupid to assume that I do not have a pet dragon."
@CompleteRationality i have REASONS to believe that you have a pet "dragon" is less likely than that you have a brother. and i have the BURDEN of making sure my beliefs on this matter are justifiable. you seem to think you should find it just as likely that i have a pet dragon as that i have a brother and that you have no beliefs on the matters whatsoever.
@ExUnoPlures Your last statement makes no sense and doesn't reflect anything I have said. When you learn better grammar and how to properly punctuate a sentence so people can understand what you are trying to say, I will respond.
@ExUnoPlures Why would the burden of proof be on the person that doesn't claim that something exists? Is there a 50% chance that I have fairies under my sofa?
Huh? I know that. I never ignored that at all. Please demonstrate where I said that or be accused of creating a strawman fallacy so you can hold a personal vigil of pwnage 8)
If you say it is because you know they do not exist - that is a claim of certainty & you have a burden of proof.
If you claim it is because you lack knowledge of any - that is called 'ignorance' & you have no burden of proof.
This is the area of what we call an assertion. If you make no cl;aims what so ever, you can only claim ignorance. Anything outside of that, you need to demonstrate WHY.
@SecularEvil if atheism is simply "the lack of a belief" as you say how is a rock not atheist? how about a brain-dead person in a coma? are they atheist? and please, don't discount me as stupid, i assure you, my views on atheism and theism are quite advanced. please just try to think through what i am saying.
@SecularEvil so atheism is the state of being a "thinking" person that lacks a belief in "god"? so a mentally handicapped person with an iq of 30 and only rudimentary language skills whose let's say never even heard of "god" is an atheist? how about a smart person born on an island who never heard of or thought about a "god"? atheist? afterall, these people seem to fit your definition of an atheist.
@SecularEvil p.s. if you define atheism as "lacking a belief in 'god'" then a rock clearly does fit your definition. you should call yourself stupid for failing to provide a sufficent definition to capture what you actually think atheism is.
There is no such thing as a 'Lack of Belief' & that is NOT in the definition. Would you shut the fuck up & use a dictionary. They hold definitions & handy when you make claims of definitions.
Atheism is roughly a belief that gods do not exist. I explained all this to you. You cannot prove to me that it means a 'lack of belief' but for your tiny, little circle of people that believe your tripe & that is a fallacy ad populum.
No. But a word that has been churned through linguistics & affix's added to them, only has 1 definition & that is the root word, the stems & derivatives are made from. Change the definition of that root word & you change the definitions of all the stems & derivatives.
@MilitantPeaceist Lets play your linguist game shall we? Dis- can mean reversal, removal or apart. So that would mean that disbelief could both mean the reverse of belief (believing that a claim is not true) or "removal" of belief i.e. a lack of belief in a claim. Savy?
@SecularEvil It's not a game, these are hard facts, hun. Linguistics is a science 8)
No. There is only 1 definition to disbelief & that is not only holding the proposition within cognition, but also holding that, that proposition or premise is untrue.
Here you need to understand what cognition is ~ >
> Cognition is the scientific term for mental processes. These processes include attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions. Cognition is studied in various disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science.
.
I have also demonstrated to you what 'Lack of Justified Belief' is defined as - 'Ignorance' as the term 'justified belief' is the definition of knowledge as per Plato (epistemology).
The reversal of belief would be deemed 'aBelief'. & no, there is no such belief as aBelief 8) That is logically ridiculous. Belief is a one way street. It is also an abstract concept. A belief can either be true or untrue & beliefs are held through a justification (epistemology) using evidence, reason or logic which requires cognition (the ability to think)
@MilitantPeaceist You don’t know how to separate belief from knowledge so therefore you’re making up a version of atheism that can’t exist. No one can know anything about god so that would make all atheists that fits your definition of atheism into liars and idiots. You’re making atheism into a completely useless word.
I have separated it. I explicitly have stated to you that one must have knowledge of the proposition 1st before they can form a belief. Stop being disingenuous.
Knowledge is defined as a 'justified true belief' as well, in epistemology. I have repeated that to you as well.
@MilitantPeaceist You're the liar, you just reversed the definition to fit you're own view. I agree that knowledge is justified belief that is also true, but you can't reverse it, belief is not knowledge, it doesn't have any requirement for knowledge. I already explained to you why you don't need knowledge to believe or not believe something.
I never reversed it. I demonstrated it. You have demonstrated nothing at all. You even asserted that 'theism' is an affix. That is stupid. You simply do not know what constitutes linguistics (a science). You have made error after error & I have pointed them ALL out to you.
Official definition of belief ~ Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
How can you have a belief without knowing the proposition, brainchild?
So that is why I keep saying to you that the phrase 'Lack of Belief' does not exist. Belief is a propositional attitude & they are either true or false.
To lack the belief would mean you do not hold the proposition to be valid in the 1st place.
That is the exact definition of theological noncognitivism or ignosticism (the assertion or position) & Ignostic (if you are referring to a person that holds that assertion).
If you want to verify that beliefs require (a) cognition & (b) a true or false outcome, look up the term 'Propositional Attitude"
A propositional attitude is a relational mental state connecting a person to a proposition. They are often assumed to be the simplest components of thought and can express meanings or content that can be true or false.
Definition ~ A derivative is a stem that is formed by combining a root with an affix that adds a component of meaning that is more than just inflectional. The meaning of a derivative is determined by its context, not its parts.
So the root word 'Bat' can mean either an creature, a wooden implement used in sports, a club for hitting things, a computer term. etc etc etc
If you then add affix;s to the word bat, you need to clarify which bat you are talking about to give the stems a meaning that is more that inflectional or else the word 'Batism' would mean many things but it is obviously specific.
Therefore you need to ascertain the context before you can ascertain the meaning of the derivative.
@SecularEvil Now if you try to raise the negative from the subordinate clause (lesser) to a higher clause (main), I will call you out on a grammatical term called Raising. The English language is one of the very few languages that use Raising in speech. It follows a strict path especially when referring to ~ suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like
> "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.
"I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.
> "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.
"I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.
.
So that is how we derive what you mean when you apply raising in the English Language. Proven!
Now if you assert that you do not hold any beliefs in deities - the question is still asked why. Only until we get to the end of ALL open ended questions to arrive at a closed ended question & a specific answer, can we determine what you are asserting.
If you claim it is because you have knowledge they do not exist - you have a burden of proof
If you claim it is because you have no knowledge of them existing - that is called ignorance & requires no burden of proof.
If you 'disbelieve' something. You are holding the proposition as untrue - that is an assertion & atheism is holding the proposition as not only valid, but also in a state of disbelief of that proposition (meaning holding the proposition as untrue)
If you do not accept the proposition as valid, you are in a state of noncognitivism (forced ignorance - no cognition - the proposition is unthinkable) & that is the definition of Theological Noncognitivism.
@MilitantPeaceist You don’t need knowledge to believe something or not. If I’ve never heard about houses then I don’t believe in them. How can I believe in something that I’ve never heard of or seen?
Or, a friend tells me about houses and he sounds so believable that I start to believe that houses exist. Now what if houses don’t exist? Did he tell me knowledge? No! because knowledge has to be true! that’s one of it’s requirements! So I didn’t have to have any knowledge but still had a belief.
Bullshit. You need to know what it is you have an opinion of or you are simply ignorant.
A proposition is abstract - you don;t need physical evidence to accept a proposition. Like the proposition of maths. Maths & numbers are abstract as there is no physical representation of a number, just groups of items that can be counted requiring cognition.
Seriously, you need to have an idea of what it is that you believe to be true or false - this is called a 'propositional attitude'
@MilitantPeaceist You don't have an opinion before you don't know about it that's why you don't believe that the thing or claim is true before you know about it. It's just ridiculous to say that you would believe in something before you heard anything about it.
If you don't need evidence to believe in something that you just shown that you do not require knowledge to believe something! People all around the world believe in things that they don't even know what they are!
A propositional attitude does not work that way. A propositional attitude is either true or false & requires knowledge & cognition (understanding) of that proposition before the belief of either true or false is considered.
You are still talking about 'ignorance' which is the state of 'no knowledge' & therefore not a fucking belief.
This is science. You are arguing against science. You are NOT citing any sources, I am. Everything I have stated can be verified.
@MilitantPeaceist If a proposition is false then it's not knowledge. Knowledge is only knowledge if you 1. believe in it 2. have good reasons to believe in it and 3. that it is true. So if it's not true then it can't be knowledge. And I assume that you see, if you're not dyslexic, that belief has to be assumed before knowledge is established and can't come together with knowledge.
YOU NEED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSITION - IF YOU DO NOT KNOW (HAVE KNOWLEDGE) ABOUT THE PROPOSITION - YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PROPOSITION - YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE PROPOSITION - IF YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSITION, YOU CANNOT FORM A BELIEF.
A PROPOSITION CAN BE ABSTRACT - eg NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (eg numbers)
You are the fucking fool here - I have demonstrated this via science, all of this to you.
A PROPOSITION DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE YOU FUCKTARD.
I have been repeating this to you. A proposition requires KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSITION.
A proposition can either be true or false. When a proposition is put through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD & inadequate evidence or logic is supplied, IT BECOMES A NULL HYPOTHESIS.
You are using no intelligence here at all. I am citing to you scientific facts & all you are citing is your opinion. When in the face of facts, you act just like a creationist as it is the label you want, not what label suits.
I have explained this through psychology (cognition) yet you still seem to think that one does not have to know about a proposition before a belief is formed. This is against science.
You're mistaking the beliefs of some atheists for the beliefs of all atheists. An atheist doesn't have to believe any of your three reasons for the existence of the universe. It can be left unknown.
The big problem that godlowdown has, is that he limited the cause of the universe to 3 specific scenarios where in fact there are potentially countless extra causes.
A major one is "an unintelligent and non premeditated event caused the universe".
The most vital omission is the one that BionicDance pointed out i.e. "We do not know".
option 4, the universe was created by the collision of 11 dimensional membranes in a greater metaverse. Morality comes from primate tribal dynamics and social animal survival traits in humans. There is absolutely no reason to think a god had anything to do with it and even less reason to think any humans would be able to discover the nature of such an entity. All human versions of a god would be pathetic shadows of the truth. Like calling an amoeba a human :3
I'll even say it this way. Matt keeps saying that 'Atheism; is the rejection of the claim.
One must have knowledge of the claim 1st to reject it. Atheism is therefore NOT the default position, a 'Lack of Knowledge' (Ignorance) is the default position.
He also god on to state the default is 'Innocent until proven guilty' then claims that a verdict is only 'Not Guily' & therefore by that default, 'Innocent'.
@MilitantPeaceist He is talking about atheism in the weak sense. Yes, one must have knowledge of the claim to reject it. Its not really a big deal though, but I get what you are saying.
@CompleteRationality That's the point. There is no such thing as weak atheism. It is an attempt to redefine something that is already in existence & is why people are confused as to what people mean when they claim they are an atheist.
If a person rejects the proposition of god, they hold a 'Theological Noncognitivist' position on the claim. This has been established for nearly a century. It is the same as a 'null hypothesis'.
Atheism is NOT any default position is what I am saying. It is either ignorance or a null hypothesis (forced ignorance) as per the definition of what knowledge is (justified belief). Atheism is a term used to describe doctrines that are based on 'No God' like Gnostic Christians, Scientologists, Jainism etc etc.
I point out the error Matt uses when he says "Innocent until proven guilty' & then claims that 'Not Guilyy' =/= Innocent which does not follow his own logic.
@MilitantPeaceist When you've never heard about a god yet do you believe in a god or do you not believe in a god? What's the default position for a person that's never heard of a god? I rest my case.
And what are the doctrines of atheism? I've never heard of such a thing, the only requirement of atheism is to not have a belief in a god. Do I need to pray everyday and go to the church of atheism ones a week to not believe in a god? Do people that don't believe in bigfoot have to do the same?
@SecularEvil I know what 'a' means. That does not mean you are right.
Look up what a 'linguistic derivative' is & know that you cannot determine a derivative from it parts, only it's context.
Also look up what Linguistic Raising is & learn how to use grammar to form a sentence. Then you will understand what Atheism actually means, not what it means to you.
@MilitantPeaceist And I have demonstrated via linguistics that it does mean what we commonly say that it means even though linguistics does not matter because when we speak in the real world we use words despite how the word is built and despite it's historical use!
No, you in fact got the linguistics wrong. You still have not gone to the source I provided for you to see the proof that what you asserted - 'a' / 'theism' is highly incorrect. The derivative 'atheism' needs to be stripped of ALL it affix's 1st & the root seen by itself.
If you do not trust this, go see a professor of Linguistics. They will say the exact same thing.
So to follow linguistics when root words have affix's added to them. You have to separate ALL affix's 1st & look at the root 1st. This is how our entire language is formed. This is the English language. Not your language.
@MilitantPeaceist So you're sticking to your fallacy that the history of the word has anything to do with the modern usage just because you want to win this argument when you lost several comments ago.
@MilitantPeaceist None belief is always the default position when evidence hasn't been presented and none has been presented when it comes to the god claim. Therefore atheism is the default position.
No, ignorance of the claim is the default position. A belief requires knowledge 1st. That is the cognitive process of the human mind. You cannot escape that boundary.
Ignorance in theological terms is called 'Theological Noncognitivism' & that has been established for nearly a century. Please read what I typed before as I am repeating myself.
If you have a problem with any facts I presented, then go for it. But to have to repeat myself is boring.
No, sorry. Your usage is not common & ois why there is much confusion over it. I have demonstrated that 'a' - 'theism' is incorrect. You just have not gone to the source yet to see the proof. Ignorance in this case cannot be claimed. I have provided proof.
@MilitantPeaceist So anaemic does not mean someone that lacks blood? Atypical is not someone that's not typical? Amoral is not someone that's not moral? An analphabet is not someone that can't read?
@MilitantPeaceist Ofc I'm serious theos is nowhere to be seen in the word atheism, it's only the a- and theism. But this doesn't matter, like I said: we do not use words based on how they are built, do we use the word fuck just to mean having sex? No we don't! I rest my case.
@MilitantPeaceist And I think that you need to go out in the real world and see how people actually use words without thinking of how they are built or their historical usage!
As I said, you can call an orange, an apple in your common tongue but when you are speaking English, you follow the structure that is English & that is linguistics.
Linguistics creates the very English you speak & grammar is the way in which you phrase sentences using those words. This is elementary. You are well within your right to create a new language, just don;t expect people to understand you.
@MilitantPeaceist Then tell me because I seem to be completely ignorant of this, what the hell are the doctrines of atheism? I practice no doctrines but I'm still a a strong agnostic atheist.
And people that don't convert to a doctrine have a doctrine? What?? And as someone that claims to know about history of the word atheist you don't seem to know that atheism came long after the word atheos.
They do not. They believe there is no god & that Jesus was a normal human being. There are schools of Gnosticism as well & one of them is inspired by 'Thomas' the doubter, one of Jesus' disciples.
Even if you have a problem with that, I still supplied Jainism, Scientology.
You are trying to prove me wrong by 1 section which means & says nothing about all the rest. I seem to have rattled your 'belief' & you are reacting just like a creationist, it seems.
@MilitantPeaceist I agree that there are doctrines that are godless, I never said anything else. But atheism is not a doctrine and you haven't shown anything that suggest that it is. You're just going to hide in a corner and cry now?
@SecularEvil I even supplied the definition from Merrium Webter.
Sorry, you are a butthurt cunt that is now trolling me because you don't want to give up your assertion of atheism. I have demonstrated this over & over to you but now you piss me off with this 'cry' business when all the time you are crying foul because I am interrupting your precious little fantasy.
Atheist lack a belief in a god until there is evidence for a god. End of story.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
You seem to be doing a lot of circular thinking... how is not believing in something a belief? Atheism is a view, yes, but not a belief. The things that ARE beliefs that you mention in your video are not related to Atheism (here's an example of my own: there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution). As a side note, there are more beliefs than you list about the universe; the one I'd like to point out is "The universe popped into existence, but we don't know how YET."
Piece0fDust 1 month ago
@Piece0fDust You do realize that this video was a response to GodLowDown's video right?
CompleteRationality 1 month ago
Atheists believe God doesn't exist. End of story.
mrtadreamer 1 month ago
Sorry. That meant to say agnostics actively choose to 'accept' both logical and illogical assumptions.
Hoganply 2 months ago
Anti-theism is an assertion. Agnosticism is an indecisive position by which one is open-mined to the degree of accepting illogical (highly improbable) concepts or notions considering the evidence (or 'someone actively choosing not to accept both illogical AND logical assumptions' - this being the most apt description). Atheism is the default position by which assertions (for which there is no evidence) that conflict with evidence on which a more compatible theory is formed are not considered.
Hoganply 2 months ago
Er... what about 4. The Universe is one within a Multiverse whose constituents were neither created nor came into existence spontaneously but came into existence through some other event which relies not on the physics of the dimensions of our Universe like causality as we know it does (relative to our laws of space-time), but transpired according to other laws for a verse by which causality adopts a different definition.
Hoganply 2 months ago
ur a fool
laapache1 5 months ago
1:40 wrong, Atheism is lack of belief that's it. only requirement to join the club.
cberns223 5 months ago
Is The Atheist Experience being referred to as a lecture? Perhaps I misinterpreted this.
violentlygraceful 5 months ago
@violentlygraceful Yes, it is. Lol
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
"Theism is not belief, it is a non belief in an uncaused or eternal universe."
That is fucking retarded.
If you can't comprehend how stupid that assertion is, you are retarded.
Don't quit your day job. Not even BillO would stand behind that bullshit.
MrDylaneric 5 months ago
@MrDylaneric
Hummm, I'm not so sure about that. After all, tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.
djalessandromagno 5 months ago
Matt Dillahunty is the man. Nothing gets by him... and that's not easy to do when put on the spot like in a live show without the luxury of having a few minutes to think first.
Octoschizare 5 months ago
maybe godlowdown should play more on his bass guitars instead of arguing xD
Lutzifer31337 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just posted a new video that might help clear things up for you. Enjoy!
GodLowDown 5 months ago
One of the worst bits of his thing was the whole attempt to rephrase theism. There are theists who easily fall into the other camps. There were theists who accepted steady state, and there are theists who accept the big bang cosmology proper. And "popped into existence" @ #2, is somewhat sketchy as the universe is typically what we mean BY existence.
Tatarize 5 months ago
Stop tryin- all yer doin is lyin...and failing.
mucephi1 5 months ago
This GodLowDown clown is just playing word games.
deepashtray 5 months ago
@deepashtray He is playing every possible word game there is to play.
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality What stumps me is how this can be confused for evidence of the existence of anything.
deepashtray 5 months ago
@deepashtray It's not about providing evidence for the existence of God. It's about distorting the atheist position. They have no evidence, never have, and never will, so they resort to dishonest tactics such as these.
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality I'm getting the impression that because their belief lacks rationality and is so completely dependent on emotions, somehow manipulating the emotions of other people will demonstrate God's existence. Evidence? Isn't feeling good enough?
deepashtray 5 months ago
@deepashtray Apparently so. Lol
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@deepashtray You have nailed it.
emikochan13 5 months ago in playlist More videos from CompleteRationality
@CompleteRationality
What are you talking about?
It is about God and the non belief in any of them.
Atheism is NOT a world view.
Atheism is not to believe God.
Why are you talking about atheist position, evidence and the Big Bang?
MoveOrder 5 months ago
The atheist experience people (Matt, Jen, Tracie)answered all this guys points decisively.
Excellent juxtaposition!
richo61 5 months ago
No1 i dont know, im not a physicist but from the scientists that give results that are usable (i.e. proof it works) i go with what they say which not even they always agree on.
No2 see No1
No3 better chance of survival in a enviroment thats not suited for early human spicies
braunblender 5 months ago
This video is loaded with false dilemmas. I guess when you're trying to ease the burden of proof on the theist's side, you're willing to do anything though. It's okay theists. Keep trying think there's equal validity to either side, but objectively sound logic will always prove that atheism is the logical stance and theism in face of lacking evidence is not.
bb1televator 5 months ago
For some reason, those people don't seem to realize that they're trying to reclaim the default position they never had with a double negative and unlike what my middle school English teachers tried to tell us: in English, two negatives Do make a positive, but they also add unnecessary complication to the wording which obscures the point. If you say, "I don't believe there is no god," then you're still saying, "There is a god." Thus, you're still making a positive claim.
MultiPaulinator 5 months ago
His argument only works if you accept the assumption that the three mutually exclusive explanations he gives as being the only three options. Then an acceptance of one can be categorised as a rejection of the others. In reality there are an infinite number of options including the "I don't know" or "I have insufficient data to draw a conclusion" option.
antonc81 5 months ago
"How did the universe come into being?"
Answer #4. No one is sufficiently informed to answer this question without conjecture. Though some conjecture is more well informed than others. Absolutist claims about the unknown, are more probable to be poorly informed claims.
Like the claim that atheist have to have a dogma, because theocrats have a need to argue against something, so they can feel justified in forcing their opinions onto everyone.
Don't mistake this man for a theist, he is a theocrat.
DonQuixotedeKaw 5 months ago
regarding the 3 possible reasons for the universe.
You actually had me there for a few seconds. which is more than most theist arguments. well done there.
Think of it this way. All 3 of your possibilities are placed on a table. the table has 2 circles on it. 1: This is True. 2: This is Not True. Theists place #1 in circle 1, and the others in circle 2.
Atheists place #1 in Circle 2, and leave #2 and #3 where they are, not in any circles. basically in a "I Don't know, one way or another" pile.
XanthIllion 5 months ago
@XanthIllion You do realize that this isn't the original video right?
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@XanthIllion to clarify, the #s stand for your listed possibilities.
And any other positive claims about if #2 or #3 are true, is seperate to Atheism, yet not mutually exclusive.
As long as you don't place #1 in circle 1, you are atheist.
XanthIllion 5 months ago
What synergy in the universe, it's great when you are looking at newtonian physics but soon as you look at Quantum Mechanics the whole idea of order goes out the window it simply becomes a matter of probability. Who says the universe spontaneously popped out of nothing, no physicist claims that. It's even possible this isn't the first or only universe.
JamesThWilliams 5 months ago
@JamesThWilliams Lol, you should go to his video and comment on it.
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality
It was a comment on the video you have here not on your opinions. Besides if I say that on his video he'll simply block me and erase my response.
JamesThWilliams 5 months ago
as an atheist, i think the claim by so many atheists that atheism is just a lack of belief and the burden of proof is not on them IS IDIOTIC. the burden is on everyone *. and i think the atheist experience show sucks.
* e.g. if i say to you i have a brother, but offer no proof, you'd be stupid to assume that i do not have a brother. you'd be smart to say like there is a 50% chance or so that i do have a brother, even though i offered no proof. i doubt you'd give the same chances to "god".
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@ExUnoPlures That's just ridiculous. I have a pet dragon in my garage. You believe me right? Based on your logic, you would be "stupid to assume that I do not have a pet dragon."
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality i have REASONS to believe that you have a pet "dragon" is less likely than that you have a brother. and i have the BURDEN of making sure my beliefs on this matter are justifiable. you seem to think you should find it just as likely that i have a pet dragon as that i have a brother and that you have no beliefs on the matters whatsoever.
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@ExUnoPlures Your last statement makes no sense and doesn't reflect anything I have said. When you learn better grammar and how to properly punctuate a sentence so people can understand what you are trying to say, I will respond.
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality ok, fuck you very much.
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@ExUnoPlures Why would the burden of proof be on the person that doesn't claim that something exists? Is there a 50% chance that I have fairies under my sofa?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
If you do not claim something, how can you assert you are an atheist then? That is an assertion.
You can be ignorant & that holds no burden of proof. But if you assert anything at all, you have a burden of proof.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist I only assert that I do not have a belief in a god, how do I get the burden of proof on me when I'm only saying that?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
I know that. This leads to the question 'why'. This is how we determine definitions. A definition is concise.
So why do you not have any beliefs in deities?
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Why? Because of the lack of evidence for any version of god or gods that have been presented to me.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
That is called a null hypothesis. IS a null hypothesis the assertion that the proposition is untrue or that truth cannot be ascertained?
If it is an assertion of untrue - then it is disbelief & atheism is the definition
It is the assertion that the conclusion is left pending - then it is called Non Cognitivism or when referring to god, Theological Noncognitivism.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist
It's been readily explained why not to assume a belief in a god or gods. The fact you choose to ignore that line of reasoning is beyond me.
JamesThWilliams 5 months ago
@JamesThWilliams
Huh? I know that. I never ignored that at all. Please demonstrate where I said that or be accused of creating a strawman fallacy so you can hold a personal vigil of pwnage 8)
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SecularEvil
Now this is the tricky bit.
If you say it is because you know they do not exist - that is a claim of certainty & you have a burden of proof.
If you claim it is because you lack knowledge of any - that is called 'ignorance' & you have no burden of proof.
This is the area of what we call an assertion. If you make no cl;aims what so ever, you can only claim ignorance. Anything outside of that, you need to demonstrate WHY.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil ok secular evil, what do you think are the chances that "god exists" is true? now the burden is squarely on you.
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
Atheism is not a belief. babies are born atheist. If they lack the metacognition to recognize gods they cannot have a belief system.
mmmmmarcus 5 months ago
@mmmmmarcus are rocks atheist?
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@ExUnoPlures What a stupid comment, ofc it has to be a person that's an atheist.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil if atheism is simply "the lack of a belief" as you say how is a rock not atheist? how about a brain-dead person in a coma? are they atheist? and please, don't discount me as stupid, i assure you, my views on atheism and theism are quite advanced. please just try to think through what i am saying.
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@ExUnoPlures I answered you, atheism is a word used to describe people, thinking people, a rock is not a person so therefore it is not an atheist.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil so atheism is the state of being a "thinking" person that lacks a belief in "god"? so a mentally handicapped person with an iq of 30 and only rudimentary language skills whose let's say never even heard of "god" is an atheist? how about a smart person born on an island who never heard of or thought about a "god"? atheist? afterall, these people seem to fit your definition of an atheist.
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@SecularEvil What do you define as an acceptable level of thinking? In psychology, it is called 'Cognition'.
1: the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts
2a : opinion, judgement (I'd like to know your thinking on this)
Do babies therefore think?? Can they be said to have cognition?
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil p.s. if you define atheism as "lacking a belief in 'god'" then a rock clearly does fit your definition. you should call yourself stupid for failing to provide a sufficent definition to capture what you actually think atheism is.
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@ExUnoPlures Yes.
mmmmmarcus 5 months ago
BELIEF
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Atheism is belief by definition.
The axiom of positivism is belief by definition.
VoxNeruda 5 months ago
@VoxNeruda Atheism is lack of belief by definition. It doesn't have any tenets or convictions, it lacks the conviction that a god exists.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
There is no such thing as a 'Lack of Belief' & that is NOT in the definition. Would you shut the fuck up & use a dictionary. They hold definitions & handy when you make claims of definitions.
Atheism is roughly a belief that gods do not exist. I explained all this to you. You cannot prove to me that it means a 'lack of belief' but for your tiny, little circle of people that believe your tripe & that is a fallacy ad populum.
I also explained what an 'Ism' is as well.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Since you seem to like merriam websters dictionary:
Atheism
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity (disbelief = lack of belief)
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil Thank You
DEFINITION OF DISBELIEF: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Dis belief is not a 'Lack of belief' you lying little fucktard!
It is the mental rejection of a proposition as being UNTRUE.
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW OF THE PROPOSITION, HOW CAN YOU HOLD A BELIEF OR DISBELIEF IN IT OR OF IT?
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Are you one of those r-tards that think that a word can only have one definition? Maybe you should go back to school after all.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No. But a word that has been churned through linguistics & affix's added to them, only has 1 definition & that is the root word, the stems & derivatives are made from. Change the definition of that root word & you change the definitions of all the stems & derivatives.
Again, my source is thus ~
sil. org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsADerivative. htm
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Lets play your linguist game shall we? Dis- can mean reversal, removal or apart. So that would mean that disbelief could both mean the reverse of belief (believing that a claim is not true) or "removal" of belief i.e. a lack of belief in a claim. Savy?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil It's not a game, these are hard facts, hun. Linguistics is a science 8)
No. There is only 1 definition to disbelief & that is not only holding the proposition within cognition, but also holding that, that proposition or premise is untrue.
Here you need to understand what cognition is ~ >
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
> Cognition is the scientific term for mental processes. These processes include attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions. Cognition is studied in various disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science.
.
I have also demonstrated to you what 'Lack of Justified Belief' is defined as - 'Ignorance' as the term 'justified belief' is the definition of knowledge as per Plato (epistemology).
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
The reversal of belief would be deemed 'aBelief'. & no, there is no such belief as aBelief 8) That is logically ridiculous. Belief is a one way street. It is also an abstract concept. A belief can either be true or untrue & beliefs are held through a justification (epistemology) using evidence, reason or logic which requires cognition (the ability to think)
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist You conveniently keep ignoring that an other way to describe ignorance could be lack of belief.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SecularEvil
No, I never ignored it. I in fact said that Lack of belief IS ignorance.
I demonstrated this by showing you that the term 'belief' in epistemology (the study of knowledge) ir defined as 'justified belief' (as per Plato)
So the phrase 'Lack of belief' actually mean 'Lack of knowledge (justified belief) which is the exact definition of ignorance.
I have state this repeatedly to you. To claim I ignored it is untrue.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist You don’t know how to separate belief from knowledge so therefore you’re making up a version of atheism that can’t exist. No one can know anything about god so that would make all atheists that fits your definition of atheism into liars and idiots. You’re making atheism into a completely useless word.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
I have separated it. I explicitly have stated to you that one must have knowledge of the proposition 1st before they can form a belief. Stop being disingenuous.
Knowledge is defined as a 'justified true belief' as well, in epistemology. I have repeated that to you as well.
You are now a liar.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist You're the liar, you just reversed the definition to fit you're own view. I agree that knowledge is justified belief that is also true, but you can't reverse it, belief is not knowledge, it doesn't have any requirement for knowledge. I already explained to you why you don't need knowledge to believe or not believe something.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
I never reversed it. I demonstrated it. You have demonstrated nothing at all. You even asserted that 'theism' is an affix. That is stupid. You simply do not know what constitutes linguistics (a science). You have made error after error & I have pointed them ALL out to you.
Official definition of belief ~ Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
How can you have a belief without knowing the proposition, brainchild?
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
So that is why I keep saying to you that the phrase 'Lack of Belief' does not exist. Belief is a propositional attitude & they are either true or false.
To lack the belief would mean you do not hold the proposition to be valid in the 1st place.
That is the exact definition of theological noncognitivism or ignosticism (the assertion or position) & Ignostic (if you are referring to a person that holds that assertion).
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SecularEvil
If you want to verify that beliefs require (a) cognition & (b) a true or false outcome, look up the term 'Propositional Attitude"
A propositional attitude is a relational mental state connecting a person to a proposition. They are often assumed to be the simplest components of thought and can express meanings or content that can be true or false.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
That source reads as follows ~
Definition ~ A derivative is a stem that is formed by combining a root with an affix that adds a component of meaning that is more than just inflectional. The meaning of a derivative is determined by its context, not its parts.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
So the root word 'Bat' can mean either an creature, a wooden implement used in sports, a club for hitting things, a computer term. etc etc etc
If you then add affix;s to the word bat, you need to clarify which bat you are talking about to give the stems a meaning that is more that inflectional or else the word 'Batism' would mean many things but it is obviously specific.
Therefore you need to ascertain the context before you can ascertain the meaning of the derivative.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
So who is it that needs to go back to school, missy?
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil Now if you try to raise the negative from the subordinate clause (lesser) to a higher clause (main), I will call you out on a grammatical term called Raising. The English language is one of the very few languages that use Raising in speech. It follows a strict path especially when referring to ~ suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like
Raising is demonstrated as follows ~
>
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
> "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.
"I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.
>
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
> "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.
"I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.
.
So that is how we derive what you mean when you apply raising in the English Language. Proven!
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Now if you assert that you do not hold any beliefs in deities - the question is still asked why. Only until we get to the end of ALL open ended questions to arrive at a closed ended question & a specific answer, can we determine what you are asserting.
If you claim it is because you have knowledge they do not exist - you have a burden of proof
If you claim it is because you have no knowledge of them existing - that is called ignorance & requires no burden of proof.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
If you 'disbelieve' something. You are holding the proposition as untrue - that is an assertion & atheism is holding the proposition as not only valid, but also in a state of disbelief of that proposition (meaning holding the proposition as untrue)
If you do not accept the proposition as valid, you are in a state of noncognitivism (forced ignorance - no cognition - the proposition is unthinkable) & that is the definition of Theological Noncognitivism.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist You don’t need knowledge to believe something or not. If I’ve never heard about houses then I don’t believe in them. How can I believe in something that I’ve never heard of or seen?
Or, a friend tells me about houses and he sounds so believable that I start to believe that houses exist. Now what if houses don’t exist? Did he tell me knowledge? No! because knowledge has to be true! that’s one of it’s requirements! So I didn’t have to have any knowledge but still had a belief.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Bullshit. You need to know what it is you have an opinion of or you are simply ignorant.
A proposition is abstract - you don;t need physical evidence to accept a proposition. Like the proposition of maths. Maths & numbers are abstract as there is no physical representation of a number, just groups of items that can be counted requiring cognition.
Seriously, you need to have an idea of what it is that you believe to be true or false - this is called a 'propositional attitude'
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist You don't have an opinion before you don't know about it that's why you don't believe that the thing or claim is true before you know about it. It's just ridiculous to say that you would believe in something before you heard anything about it.
If you don't need evidence to believe in something that you just shown that you do not require knowledge to believe something! People all around the world believe in things that they don't even know what they are!
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
A propositional attitude does not work that way. A propositional attitude is either true or false & requires knowledge & cognition (understanding) of that proposition before the belief of either true or false is considered.
You are still talking about 'ignorance' which is the state of 'no knowledge' & therefore not a fucking belief.
This is science. You are arguing against science. You are NOT citing any sources, I am. Everything I have stated can be verified.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist If a proposition is false then it's not knowledge. Knowledge is only knowledge if you 1. believe in it 2. have good reasons to believe in it and 3. that it is true. So if it's not true then it can't be knowledge. And I assume that you see, if you're not dyslexic, that belief has to be assumed before knowledge is established and can't come together with knowledge.
Please stop making a fool of yourself.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
YOU NEED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSITION - IF YOU DO NOT KNOW (HAVE KNOWLEDGE) ABOUT THE PROPOSITION - YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PROPOSITION - YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE PROPOSITION - IF YOU LACK KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSITION, YOU CANNOT FORM A BELIEF.
A PROPOSITION CAN BE ABSTRACT - eg NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (eg numbers)
You are the fucking fool here - I have demonstrated this via science, all of this to you.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
A PROPOSITION DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE YOU FUCKTARD.
I have been repeating this to you. A proposition requires KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSITION.
A proposition can either be true or false. When a proposition is put through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD & inadequate evidence or logic is supplied, IT BECOMES A NULL HYPOTHESIS.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
You are using no intelligence here at all. I am citing to you scientific facts & all you are citing is your opinion. When in the face of facts, you act just like a creationist as it is the label you want, not what label suits.
I have explained this through psychology (cognition) yet you still seem to think that one does not have to know about a proposition before a belief is formed. This is against science.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil are rocks atheist?
ExUnoPlures 5 months ago
@SecularEvil He haven't read or understood the definition.
VoxNeruda 5 months ago
@VoxNeruda
Um what definition & I am a she, btw 8)
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@VoxNeruda The definition of what?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
To a primitive tribesman's knowledge, there are two ways a volcano can erupt:
(1) Angry mountain god
(2) Mountain just exploded for no reason
Since things don't just happen for no reason, that's proof of an angry mountain god. Better toss in your daughter to save the village.
Chuck1863 5 months ago 3
You're mistaking the beliefs of some atheists for the beliefs of all atheists. An atheist doesn't have to believe any of your three reasons for the existence of the universe. It can be left unknown.
Chuck1863 5 months ago
Godlowdown logic: "to NOT collect stamps is a hobby."
FrozenPetrolPie 5 months ago
The big problem that godlowdown has, is that he limited the cause of the universe to 3 specific scenarios where in fact there are potentially countless extra causes.
A major one is "an unintelligent and non premeditated event caused the universe".
The most vital omission is the one that BionicDance pointed out i.e. "We do not know".
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater "We don't know" is definitely the only supported position. Lol
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
option 4, the universe was created by the collision of 11 dimensional membranes in a greater metaverse. Morality comes from primate tribal dynamics and social animal survival traits in humans. There is absolutely no reason to think a god had anything to do with it and even less reason to think any humans would be able to discover the nature of such an entity. All human versions of a god would be pathetic shadows of the truth. Like calling an amoeba a human :3
PinkProgram 5 months ago
I'll even say it this way. Matt keeps saying that 'Atheism; is the rejection of the claim.
One must have knowledge of the claim 1st to reject it. Atheism is therefore NOT the default position, a 'Lack of Knowledge' (Ignorance) is the default position.
He also god on to state the default is 'Innocent until proven guilty' then claims that a verdict is only 'Not Guily' & therefore by that default, 'Innocent'.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist ** He also got on to state ** ( should really be - He went on to state ...)
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist He is talking about atheism in the weak sense. Yes, one must have knowledge of the claim to reject it. Its not really a big deal though, but I get what you are saying.
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality That's the point. There is no such thing as weak atheism. It is an attempt to redefine something that is already in existence & is why people are confused as to what people mean when they claim they are an atheist.
If a person rejects the proposition of god, they hold a 'Theological Noncognitivist' position on the claim. This has been established for nearly a century. It is the same as a 'null hypothesis'.
Atheism is NOT the default position.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Are you saying that it becomes the default position once the person acquires knowledge of the claim?
CompleteRationality 5 months ago
@CompleteRationality
Atheism is NOT any default position is what I am saying. It is either ignorance or a null hypothesis (forced ignorance) as per the definition of what knowledge is (justified belief). Atheism is a term used to describe doctrines that are based on 'No God' like Gnostic Christians, Scientologists, Jainism etc etc.
I point out the error Matt uses when he says "Innocent until proven guilty' & then claims that 'Not Guilyy' =/= Innocent which does not follow his own logic.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist When you've never heard about a god yet do you believe in a god or do you not believe in a god? What's the default position for a person that's never heard of a god? I rest my case.
And what are the doctrines of atheism? I've never heard of such a thing, the only requirement of atheism is to not have a belief in a god. Do I need to pray everyday and go to the church of atheism ones a week to not believe in a god? Do people that don't believe in bigfoot have to do the same?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Ignorance - I said that before & I rest my case.
Look up what an 'ism' is please.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Look up what "a-" means.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil I know what 'a' means. That does not mean you are right.
Look up what a 'linguistic derivative' is & know that you cannot determine a derivative from it parts, only it's context.
Also look up what Linguistic Raising is & learn how to use grammar to form a sentence. Then you will understand what Atheism actually means, not what it means to you.
a - theo - ism =/= a - theism
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist A- = non or without, theism = the beliefe in a god, atheism = without the belief in a god. savy?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Again. 'a' & 'ism' are affixs. You cannot determine the meaning of a derivative my the parts attached, only by the context of the root word.
sil. org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsADerivative. htm
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist You're making the fallacy that the historical word has anything to do with it's modern use.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No. I have demonstrated via linguistics what the word does not mean.
Your entire argument is fallacious - Reductio ad absurdum. By your logic, words are not what they made to be but by what they mean to you.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist And I have demonstrated via linguistics that it does mean what we commonly say that it means even though linguistics does not matter because when we speak in the real world we use words despite how the word is built and despite it's historical use!
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No, you in fact got the linguistics wrong. You still have not gone to the source I provided for you to see the proof that what you asserted - 'a' / 'theism' is highly incorrect. The derivative 'atheism' needs to be stripped of ALL it affix's 1st & the root seen by itself.
If you do not trust this, go see a professor of Linguistics. They will say the exact same thing.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
So to follow linguistics when root words have affix's added to them. You have to separate ALL affix's 1st & look at the root 1st. This is how our entire language is formed. This is the English language. Not your language.
Theos means 'God'
'a' means 'without/not'
'ism' is a doctrine of
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist So you're sticking to your fallacy that the history of the word has anything to do with the modern usage just because you want to win this argument when you lost several comments ago.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No, I am sticking to Linguistics & the order in which the English language uses affix's.
You are now obtuse.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist None belief is always the default position when evidence hasn't been presented and none has been presented when it comes to the god claim. Therefore atheism is the default position.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No, ignorance of the claim is the default position. A belief requires knowledge 1st. That is the cognitive process of the human mind. You cannot escape that boundary.
A lack of knowledge is called 'Ignorance'.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist And we call that ignorance atheism when it comes to the claim whether a god exists, hence it's the default position.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
LMAO, um. No.
Ignorance in theological terms is called 'Theological Noncognitivism' & that has been established for nearly a century. Please read what I typed before as I am repeating myself.
If you have a problem with any facts I presented, then go for it. But to have to repeat myself is boring.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Just because we are using an other word to describe ourselves it doesn't mean it's not the same thing dude.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Well you are welcome to call an orange, an apple but when it comes to the real world, we define things by common usage, not your usage 8)
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Good cause my usage is the common usage.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No, sorry. Your usage is not common & ois why there is much confusion over it. I have demonstrated that 'a' - 'theism' is incorrect. You just have not gone to the source yet to see the proof. Ignorance in this case cannot be claimed. I have provided proof.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist So anaemic does not mean someone that lacks blood? Atypical is not someone that's not typical? Amoral is not someone that's not moral? An analphabet is not someone that can't read?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Blood is a physical property & has only 1 affix.
'a' & 'nemic'
Does this word follow the same path as a anemicism? Amoralism?
I can read. Your arrogance will just get the same in return.
Go to the source I gave you, you stupid fucker!
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist "Theism" is just one affix.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
No it is not.
'ism is the affix. Theos is the root.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Haha wow now you're seeing things that aren't there. Why am surprised?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil What things? How am I not surprised you give no information.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist There is no "theos" in atheism, where do you see that???
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Are you really trying this on me or are you ignorant (not a put down. I lack knowledge in many things, just not linguistics).
'a' (without/no/ the negative of ~) - 'the' (is abbreviated Thoes (god) to allow for ~) - 'ism (a doctrine of)
Are you serious? o.0
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Ofc I'm serious theos is nowhere to be seen in the word atheism, it's only the a- and theism. But this doesn't matter, like I said: we do not use words based on how they are built, do we use the word fuck just to mean having sex? No we don't! I rest my case.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Okay o_0
Fuck has no affix's added to it. I rest my case.
If you do not know what Theos means & how that is integral to Atheos (the actual meaning of no god or godless), Go back to school, please.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist And I think that you need to go out in the real world and see how people actually use words without thinking of how they are built or their historical usage!
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Linguistics is still used today to form words with affix's. Stop being arrogant within your ignorance please. You will only piss me off.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist But not among common people, are you really this ignorant?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
As I said, you can call an orange, an apple in your common tongue but when you are speaking English, you follow the structure that is English & that is linguistics.
Linguistics creates the very English you speak & grammar is the way in which you phrase sentences using those words. This is elementary. You are well within your right to create a new language, just don;t expect people to understand you.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Correction - THEOS.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil THEOS MEANING DIETY./GOD/SUPREME BEING
in early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".
'-ism' a : doctrine : theory : religion Buddhism b : adherence to a system or a class of principles stoicism
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Then tell me because I seem to be completely ignorant of this, what the hell are the doctrines of atheism? I practice no doctrines but I'm still a a strong agnostic atheist.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
Gnostic Christianity, Jainism, Scientology etc etc etc etc etc etc. These are all godless doctrines.
I have already gone over this previously & is why I asked you nicely, to go back & read it.
It was also used to as a slur as well. To anyone that did not convert 'Atheos". & those that did not convert due to atheism (a doctrine), 'atheist'
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Christianity is a godless doctrine? Hm?
And people that don't convert to a doctrine have a doctrine? What?? And as someone that claims to know about history of the word atheist you don't seem to know that atheism came long after the word atheos.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil GNOSTIC CHRISTIANITY.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Well then you're still wrong, the gnostics did believe in a supreme being they just didn't believe that Jesus was god.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
They do not. They believe there is no god & that Jesus was a normal human being. There are schools of Gnosticism as well & one of them is inspired by 'Thomas' the doubter, one of Jesus' disciples.
Even if you have a problem with that, I still supplied Jainism, Scientology.
You are trying to prove me wrong by 1 section which means & says nothing about all the rest. I seem to have rattled your 'belief' & you are reacting just like a creationist, it seems.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist I agree that there are doctrines that are godless, I never said anything else. But atheism is not a doctrine and you haven't shown anything that suggest that it is. You're just going to hide in a corner and cry now?
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
'ISM' means doctrine you obtuse person - look the fucker up!
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Atheism is not a an ism moron... Show me one single thing that makes atheism into an ism.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
So "ISM" does not exist in the word atheISM then?
Are you that fucking stupid?
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@SecularEvil I even supplied the definition from Merrium Webter.
Sorry, you are a butthurt cunt that is now trolling me because you don't want to give up your assertion of atheism. I have demonstrated this over & over to you but now you piss me off with this 'cry' business when all the time you are crying foul because I am interrupting your precious little fantasy.
MilitantPeaceist 5 months ago
@MilitantPeaceist Merriam Webster does not say what the doctrines of atheism is.
SecularEvil 5 months ago
@SecularEvil
You obtuse person.
Atheism IS the doctrine. That is what the ISM means in the word atheISM