The first part of this video is an absolute fail. It's simple, just reverse the question. Do you BELIEVE there is NO God? If you answer yes, then you are an atheist, if you answer no or you don't know, you are a theist because you reject the belief which means that you are not currently believing in that position, which is enough to qualify you for the other position. It doesn't work like that.
@Sickopath333@Sickopath333 Did you even read the annotations? What you’re saying makes no sense. Why the hell would you reverse the question when the question addresses a positive belief, not a negation. The reverse question would actually be do you NOT believe there is a god. Your form of the question only addresses what we refer to as strong atheism,and if you answer yes to it, you would still be rejecting (not accepting) the claim ‘god exists’. You would be without theism. You
@Marc167 What you are trying to say is that the person who answers the question with I don't know is automatically rejecting the belief and affirming its opposite. What I am trying to demonstrate to you is that this is dishonest because if you take the question and reverse sides you can make what you would call atheists theists because they now reject your belief. People who don't know do not reject either side or affirm either side, and to try and push them into one is bs.
@Marc167 It makes perfect sense. If you reverse the question you're asking to, do you believe there is no god(s) and answer yes, you are affirming that there is indeed no god(s). When you reject a claim you affirm its opposite. Do you believe there is a Santa Claus? No. Then you believe there is no Santa Claus? Yes. One cannot just reject a claim and then try to hide away or deny the opposite affirmation, you have already confirmed it. You can't be both X and not X, remember?
@Sickopath333 Congratulations, you just presented the same false dichotomy that many, many other people posted. I addressed this hundreds of times already in the comments section, and ironically I even did so in the annotations. You are just one of the several people who does not understand logical axioms. I’m not going to take the lengthy time to respond when I’ve already addressed this fallacy in the video, comments, and in my new video awaiting completion.
@Marc167 Oh, so you say you've bumped into this several times before? That people keep telling you that in order to reject a claim you have to affirm its opposite (because you have to)? That the reason denying the burden of proof fails is because I can do this with this video (I deny it being right, I disbelief its truth, but all the burden rests on you and not me, yay!)? The reasoning you keep hearing isn't a fallacy, this 2 part video you made is. You are no expert in logic.
@Sickopath333 “The reasoning you keep hearing isn't a fallacy, this 2 part video you made is. “
Nope. I wasn’t even going to take the time to respond but you asked for it. I don’t want people to read your comment and be misled by somehow thinking that due to my lack of response, that you actually made some kind of valid or relative point. I don’t censor or delete comments so because of this and my former statement, I feel compelled to respond. The reason it’s brought up so much is
because people are ignorant, it’s a very common misunderstanding and it’s not simple for many people to understand what are actually pretty basic principles. Most people are demonstrably stupider than I am, and that’s easy because most people are undereducated, poor and lack nutrition. You obviously do not understand what a false dichotomy is and you know nothing about logic or philosophy. There would be no doubt to any student of logic that I am highly more knowledgeable on the subject
than you are. I will try to explain how your reasoning is flawed as simply as possible because people like you seem to have a lot of trouble grasping this simple concept.
1: the Multiverse exists. (X)
2: The Multiverse does not exist. (NOT X)
As a truth claim, one of these is objectively true. They cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect (law of non contradiction). If one is true (doesn’t matter which) then the other has to be false). If one is false, the other must be
True. There are 2 positions you can take to either of these claims, and one is mandatory. You must NOT believe at least one.
You’re being very sneaky here with this ‘reject’ word and it’s allowing you to be ambiguous, and doing so could make you appear as if there may be some kind of validity to your nonsensical statements, but it is in fact equivocation. Regardless of which definition is used, there would be objective differences that should be noted. The way I’m using it is simply the
absence of accepting as true, which would be NOT accepting as true; rejecting. Not “rejecting” as in turning down something with contempt or refusing to accept a gift, but lacking the belief ‘the multiverse exists. The mutually exclusive alternative to accept is not accept (reject). The only way you can neither accept or reject a claim is if you’ve never heard the claim. I’m NOT using it as a denial of a claim (believing a claim is false). If you are, then you are being intellectually
or 2 (not x) is true, but when you add belief if gets more complicated. You can be in a position where you can lack convincing that either is true, and you’re either convinced that something is true, or you’re not. Not being convinced that something is true does not even tell us whether a person believes it’s
Look at the similarities here in these statements.
1: I believe there IS a Multiverse.
2: I believe there is NO Multiverse. Both of these statements are beliefs. These propositions are contradictory ONLY IF simultaneously held, and you are not required by the laws of logic to believe in either. You can lack belief in both. Being both simultaneously would violate the law of noncontradiction but there is NOTan excluded middle here.
This would be like saying, "People are either gay or
Straight”, when they can be neither. They can be A-sexual, Bisexual pansexual, etc.
Look at the differences in these statements:
1: I believe there IS a Multilverse.
2: I DON’T believe there IS a multiverse.
These statements are a case where the law of excluded middle forces you to make a choice. It doesn’t make any sense to say I believe number 2, since it isn’t a belief, but a lack of one. In order to not be misleading, we must say you either ARE 1, or you ARE 2. If you’re not 2,
you have to be 1. If you’re not 1 you have to be 2. It’s like saying "you’re either Gay or you’re NOT Gay". One MUST BE TRUE. There are no middle grounds (law of excluded middle).
Do you understand the difference between hot and cold? It’s like saying I believe there is a god and I believe there isn’t a god. It can be neither hot or cold (like warm; room temperature) and you lack both beliefs. Saying It’s either hot or NOT hot excludes any middle, like
saying I believe there is a god, and I DON’T believe there is a god. Learn the difference please. This is why your comments were self refuting and nonsensical.
this means you don't have to be an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist to answer the question, because an Agnostic already answers it with a position of DOUBT, which refers to the system of Belief. I'm Agnostic to the knowledge of God and so i'm doubtful to the belief in God. The idea that there's only 2 positions to the question: Yes (Theist) or No (Atheist) is a False Dilemma.
When you say you "I don't know, but i believe" your still a Theist. When you say "I don't know, but i disbelief" you're still an Atheist. When you say "I don't know, and so i'm uncertain about the existence of God" you're an Agnostic. Do you see how different they are and how they can't be mixed? 3 Positions: Belief, Refusal to Belief and Doubt.
Also you cant be an Agnostic and a Atheist at the same time as you claim. It's impossible because you cant make claims of belief and be an Agnostic. An Agnostic don't make claims of belief, which means they are doubters. An Atheist will always be someone who refuses the existence of God and this position is contradictory with a position of doubt (Agnostic). You cant doubt and refuse at the same time
Bah you ruined in this second part. Claiming there are only 2 position to the question Do you believe there is a God, is a False Dilemma. There is indeed a third position that is DOUBT. An Agnostic is a doubter, so to the question an Agnostic would answer "I doubt It's existence", which means an Agnostic will leave the possibility of the existence open, while an Atheist does not.
@tacv You’re using false dilemma incorrectly. I never said you either believe there is a god or you believe there are no gods. Both of these can be false because they’re both beliefs and there are still more options That would be a false dilemma and that’s the common theist/”agnostic”fallacy.
'If you are not with us, you are against'
I CAN be neither with you or against you.
'I you do NOT believe there is a god then you BELIEVE there are no gods' - both of these are beliefs and I can
simultaneously lack the belief ‘god does exist’ and ‘god doesn’t exist’. These are dichotomies that are false, which is why I prefer the name ‘false dichotomy’. If I present you with 2 contradictory claims, one where you’re X and the other where you’re not X, then one of them must be true.; it’s a logical fact. You cannot be X and NOTbe X at the same time. And you cannot be neither (X) nor (Not X). If you’re one of them, you’re the other, regardless of which one you are. If you’re NOT one of
them, then you ARE the other. You should study the laws of logic a bit.
Now pay attention. I wasn’t asking you if there ‘IS’ a god. I was asking you if you BELIEVE there is a god; If you’ve been convinced that the statement ‘god exists’ is true. It is not a question of certainty or plausibility. It is an existential believe-in question. There are believe-ins and believe-that’s. My question specifically attempts to solicit a response to whether you’re X or not X, and you have to be one or the
other. It’s not a false dichotomy because it’s a specific question dealing with what you personally have been convinced or NOT convinced is true about a specific concept and the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle explicitly demonstrate this. Had I SAID you either believe in a god, or you believe there are no gods, then would it be a false dichotomy. Had I said you either believe there is a god or you DON’T believe there is a god, this would be a logical fact since you cannot have a
belief and not have one. I did not necessarily even do that. It is a question, not a statement. Do you have this belief ‘god exists’, because you either have it, or you don’t. I didn’t tell you that you either have it or you don’t and there is no other information that can be drawn from this, like whether you think god is likely or unlikely, or whether you’re certain or uncertain. And regardless of this, you’d still either be X or NOT X.
“Claiming there are only 2 position to the question”.
Wrong, there are 2 contradictory positions you hold in response to the QUESTION, one which you HAVE TO be. You are strawmanning me.
“Do you believe there is a God, is a False Dilemma.” That is a nonsensical statement. How can (1) positive QUESTION be a false dilemma? If it was a statement that said you have to be one or the other and both of them could be false, or there in fact were more options where it did not have to be either, then it
would be so. I made no form or subcategory of the logical fallacy. In my QUESTION there actually are no middle grounds (law of excluded middle). You either believe there is a god, or you don’t. Even if you believe there are no gods (which isn’t part of the question,) you still do not believe there are gods.
“An Agnostic don't make claims of belief, which means they are doubters.”
Really, because claiming the existence of god is unknown, unknowable, or that it cannot be proven or disproven is
“An Atheist will always be someone who refuses the existence of God and this position is contradictory with a position of doubt (Agnostic).”
The word refuse here makes no sense and is a misnomer. I didn’t refuse to believe the claim god exists the same way I refused to eat my vegetables as a child. My cognitive faculties simply have not allowed me to be convinced that the statement ‘god exists’ is true, so I lack belief in it.
Another misnomer. Do you mean, you can doubt and deny (believe a claim is false) simultaneously. You can also doubt and BELIEVE a claim simultaneously which would put someone in a state of cognitive dissonance. But regardless, you either think something is true, or you don’t. I do not deny the existence of a creator, I just don’t believe one exists (haven’t been convinced) depending on the way ‘god’ is defined.
“When you say you "I don't know, but i believe" your still a Theist.”
Ok..
"I don't know, but i disbelief" you're still an Atheist.”
Still agree if by disbelief you mean NOT believe ‘god exists’, and not deny (believe it’s false)
"When you say "I don't know, and so i'm uncertain about the existence of God" you're an Agnostic." Regardless of whether you’re uncertain about a god existing, you still either believe one does, or you don’t and agnosticism does not answer that question in 99% of the
“this means you don't have to be an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist to answer the question, because an Agnostic already answers it with a position of DOUBT”
Another nonsensical statement. You think the word doubt makes it possible for a person to be neither X nor NOT X? “I'm Agnostic to the knowledge of God”
I’m agnostic to lots of things but there’s a difference between being ‘agnostic’ and ‘AN Agnostic’. One is a noun Person place of thing) explicitly
addressing a person who has a belief regarding the existence of a god and the other an adjective (descriptive word describing your doubt, skepticism or non-commitment to any other thing. Do not equivocate.
P.S. Since the ascension/descension of my comments is fucked it, it's best to 'view all comments' then ctrl F to find them in order.
@Marc167 When you say things like "you either think something is true or you don't" is a clear False Dilemma. There is a huge grey area in the middle and its called Doubt or Agnosticism if you will. That's the same as to state that you're either Gay or Straight. And again, you cannot state you're a believer when you doubt or that you're a disbeliever (refuse to accept) and a doubter (uncertain of, possible existence).
Your problem is that you are probably going to wikipedia and quickly glancing at it when it's obviously not lucid enough. To be a false dilemma there must be a possibility for both to be false (to be neither). It's not a false dilemma by definition. I study Logic.
@Marc167 This website explains how I'm right from a professional logician.
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the
@tacv "we are talking of belief and not of truth. "
Yes, and somebody either thinks that 'god exists is true', or they don't. Truth is independent of what people think. A belief is to think something is true. Somebody either has the belief 'god exists', or they don't have it. Not a False Dilemma. Anyone who studies logic would tell you are 100% wrong.
@Marc167 You didn't understood me. i didn't said both are false and such it's a false dilemma. What i said is that accepting only two possible answers to the question of belief is a false dilemma. It's truth that either God exist or He doesn't, but it's not true that you can only answer yes or no to the question "do you believe in God". Get it? it's a logical fallacy to accept that you can only answer one or the other, but it's not a logic fallacy that either God exist or he doesn't.
@tacv That is wrong. A logical fallacy is an error in thinking. It's where the conclusion has a possibility to be wrong based on the premises. A False dilemma HAS to leave the possibility for both to be wrong. In this case, there is no middle ground (law of excluded middle). You're either X or not X. You're either dead or alive. You are demonstrably wrong. You don't even know what a false dilemma is.
@Marc167 No. Let's take what you said. "somebody either thinks that god exists is true or they don't". This is wrong. It's true that God or exist or he doesn't, but its not true that you or either believe he does or you don't. Truth - Or you're dead or you're alive. Belief - Do you believe Marc is alive? - Yes, No or I doubt it (don't know). Get it? It's a fallacy to assume you can only answer yes or no to a question of belief.
@Marc167 KNOWLEDGE: Or you know or you don't know, God exist or He doesn't. BELIEF; or you 'accept' God or you don't 'accept' God or you're simply uncertain about the existence of God. 3 possibilities in belief. Stating it's only possible 2 positions is a fallacy. I think this is very clear. You didn't demonstrate anything that disproof this argument. Instead of that you've call me ignorant ...
@tacv You said that 'thinking something is true' and 'not thinking something is true' is like saying you’re either gay or straight. That’s demonstrably wrong. Believing something & NOT believing something is X or NOT X. Being gay or being straight is X or Y. To NOT be a false dilemma you must say 'you're either Gay or NOT gay', which is a true statement ¬ a false dilemma. NOT being gay allows for other options like being Asexual, bisexual or pansexual, but you are still either gay or NOT gay
@Marc167 But it is a false dilemma. Atheism isn't 'not believe' but not accept as truth. That's why a position of either Atheism or Theism is a fallacy because there is a middle ground. I'm not an Atheist nor a Theism because i'm a doubter. It's a false dilemma to say i can only be one or the other. You insinuate that you can only be one of the 2 in belief because you only accept Yes or No as answers. This is wrong.
@tacv Demonstrate that it is. All you are doing is throwing around assertions that are both in unsound and invalid form. Put your argument in a syllogism. You are demonstrably wrong in so many ways. You keep asserting that X -X can be a false dilemma when it is impossible, yet then you make examples with X,Y.
@Marc167 i'm starting to think you're not even bother to try to understand what i'm saying. You say that a person or either answers Yes or No to the question "do you believe in God" and i say that's not correct because when you answer No (i don't believe) you're not saying your uncertain (have doubt), you're claiming you don't take a position of belief. A doubter doesn't refuse a position of belief and that's what i mean when i say your claim is wrong.
@tacv "When you answer No (i don't believe) you're not saying your uncertain (have doubt), you're claiming you don't take a position of belief"
Absolutely wrong. You have taken a position of disbelief (not believing). This is not the same thing as denying (believing the claim is false). Denying is a subset and is not a mandatory position. One can believe a claim and still be uncertain (have doubt). This is why the terms agnostic atheism/theism exist.
@tacv If you're going to continue to put forward your contention, I ask you to put it into a syllogism. This is going nowhere because of your inability to understand the laws of logic and axioms.
@Marc167 Your so great knowledge on the issue is completely wrong when you say things like i can believe and doubt at the same time or disbelieve and doubt at the same time. Someone that disbelieves is refusing it's opposite while doubting is not refusing. When i don't believe i'm not doubting i'm saying i don't take a position of believing. when i doubt i do not take a side of not believing, i simply am uncertain about the issue. I cannot say i don't believe when i'm just uncertain about it.
@Marc167 I don't believe in Ghosts means i don't agree with a position where ghosts are a possibility. I can say i don't know if ghost exist or not, but if i also say i don't believe in them, it means i'm not doubtful i'm just against the idea they exist even though i don't know if they do or not.
@tacv Redo your argument. But this time, define the word doubt/doubtful and don't use the word refuse/refusing because it's incorrect to use in the context. This is the main reason that you're able to get away with these fallacies.
@Marc167 Are you for real?! Well i guess the discussion will lead us no where ... you will always think i'm just ignorant and incapable of understanding your so 'great knowledge", and i will always think you're just not making the effort to even understand me. Let's leave it at that. You maintain your position and i maintain mine, which means neither of us had the skill to clearly show how wrong the other was.
@tacv No I had the skill, you just take a lot longer to comprehend things and it's not easy when you don't know what a false dilemma is (and then claim that I'm making it by telling me I'm saying either X or Y when I'm actually saying X or NOT X) you do not define your terms, you commit equivocation over and over. No offense, but It seems as if English may not be your primary or first language.
Learn the difference between Hot or NOT and HOT or COLD. If I say it's either hot or cold, it is a false dilemma and can be neither. it can be warm or room temperature. If I Say it's either Hot or it's NOT hot is not a false dilemma and one of them has to be true.
@Marc167 The problem with your statement is that you keep answering questions of truth, of knowledge. When you say "water is either Hot or not Hot" that correct. But when you answer a question of belief "Do you believe the water is Hot?" the answers are not limited to Yes the water is hot or No the water is not hot. You can say I doubt (i'm uncertain) the water is hot. And this is not the same as to say the water is not hot, but rather i'm just uncertain about it and cannot believe either.
@tacv Your problem is that you fail to comprehend that regardless of being (uncertain) if the claim 'god exists', you still either believe it or you don't believe it. I would still either have the belief or NOT have it. You keep trying to violate the law of noncontradiction and excluded middle. If you say you're uncertain the water is hot, you still either have been convinced it is hot (believe) or you haven't been convinced (don't believe).
Congratulations, that's the same stance I hold towards gods and is the essence of my atheism. Agnosticism only addresses the certainty/uncertainty, not the belief/disbelief.
@Marc167 Let me say that you had a very snob attitude in this discussion mate. This is now turning into a eternal discussion where i'm repeating myself over and over again, and you the same. I made my points very clear and you made yours, we still don't agree with each other. We will never do. The discussion is over to me. hugs
@tacv My attitude is not at all snobbish. As a matter of fact, I'm trying as hard as a can to not sound like a dick but I can't deny that I'm irritated. It's like I keep showing someone that the sky is blue, and they simply reply, "no it's red", without any sound reasoning behind it at all.
@tacv "don't believe in Ghosts means i don't agree with a position where ghosts are a possibility." And this statement is wrong. the word possibility is nowhere the dictionaries for belief/disbelief. Believing is just anything you hold is true. Disbelieving (not believing) is anything you don't think is true. Denying is anything that you thing is false. it doesn't matter whether you don't believe but still think it's possible/impossible, plausible/implausible.
@tacv I did not just call you ignorant. I've logically demonstrated that you are very wrong and lack education regarding this topic. You may be very intelligent and knowledgeable on many things, but this is not one of them and it's just a case where you have been proven wrong.
@tacv I'd expect such a response from someone who makes the fallacious statements you make. If I demonstrate to someone that things fall and accelerate at 9.8 m/s2, and my argument is both in valid and sound form, and they keep telling me that I'm wrong and haven't proven anything because they don't understand it, I've still proven them wrong. Your inability to comprehend doesn't make my argument unproven.
@tacv "No. I've not been proven wrong. because i still don't agree with you when you state there is only 2 positions in belief" What are you defining as positions. I never said there wasn't a possibility to be other things at the same time, merely that you must be one, and if you're not one you are the other because if you don't have this belief 'god exists', then you just told me that you don't believe it, and you neither believe it or NOT believe it.
@Marc167 I didn't said the question you made about belief in God is a False Dilemma. What i said was that accepting that there is only 2 possible answers is a False Dilemma. Also an Atheist is someone that do not leave the possibility of God to exist. An Atheist is someone that refuse the existence of God, is someone that hold as truth that He doesn't exist. You seem to defend that Atheism allows doubt (possibility of the existence) which is incorrect. Atheism doesn't leave the door open.
Hmm lol, as I responded to someone on Part 1, I'm still not entirely sure why anyone would have any use for a belief when they have knowledge of something (Gnostic Theism)
Otherwise, this was very educative and I thank you for your effort :)
@WhiteWolf1088 “doesn't knowing something 100% sure, remove ANY need for belief?”
No, that’s actually a nonsensical statement and I’ve responded to it countless times. A belief is broadly nothing more than to think a proposition is true. ‘My car is outside right now’, ‘god exists’, ‘the earth revolves around the sun’, 'Marc is correct in what he’s saying’; these are all beliefs. If you think one of these is true, it’s a belief, if you don’t think it’s true, you haven’t been
convinced that it is true and it’s not a belief because (for example) ‘god exists’ is a belief you don’t have; you lack that belief. If you deny a proposition (claim it’s false) and you believe that claim, that’s a negative believe in response to a positive claim and not mandatory, yet still atheism.
Proposition: Marc can fly
You1 : “I don’t believe you” (lack of belief in a positive claim)
You2 : “I don’t believe you; and I BELIEVE you CANNOT fly (lack of belief; and a negative BELIEF
in response to a positive claim. Knowledge can be either a belief that something is true with certainty (which may or not be true or justified) or an acquaintance with facts or truths (which still necessitates a belief). Since a belief is just to think something is true, the statement ‘I know it but I don’t believe it makes no sense at all and is actually impossible. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you know, you believe. But, not everything you believe, you necessarily know.
It’s kind of like saying all cake is food, but not all food is cake. It’s not logically possible to know something (have a belief that is certain or in accordance with facts or truths) and not have it be a belief simultaneously. You have this misconception that belief is just an unjustified, uncertain mental state, when in reality, if you knew about epistemology, there are all kinds of species of beliefs, and what you’re speaking about is called faith, not just belief. I believe the sun
exists (think the proposition ‘the sun exists’ is true), and I know it exists simultaneously. You cannot remove belief from knowledge, it’s impossible.
@HeayyArt Sorry about that. I assumed that if I added pauses just before the annotations, people would actually read them and find it more helpful by not having to try and pause at the right time themselves. Unpausing it seemed easier to me since everyone reads at difference speeds and they are clicking the screen only half the times they normally would have to pause/unpause. This is one of the many reasons I'm redoing the video making it both more comprehensive and easier to navigate.
@HeayyArt@Marc167 I appreciate the pauses. If you are not going to read the text, then I like to be afforded the time to be sure I properly understand the point the text makes. A problem I’ve noticed with some videos is that people talk right over text. This makes it hard to know whether or not one even should pause the video. It is much more of a pain to have the text disappear from the screen necessitating pausing AND backing up the video.
I agree with most of what you say, yet doubt whether these classifications make sense. There is too much overlap between belief and knowledge to be able to define the positions. And when dealing with something as intangible as gods, something that can be defined however the individual desires, the distinction between knowledge and belief, and so the distinction between strong and weak, becomes meaningless. In fact, I doubt “god” is even the core issue between theism and atheism.
Thank you so much for this clarification. I couldn't understand before how atheism could be used as a disbelief and a denial of gods existence but this video helps. Also how are you not already embarrassed to be a homosapien? Humans are hardly better than animals! Most of the time worse.
Thank you so much for this clarification. I couldn't understand before how atheism could be used as a disbelief and a denial of gods existance but this video helps. Also how are you not already embarrassed to be a homosapien? Humans are hardly better than animals! Most of the time worse.
@molenini Knowledge and belief are 2 separate things that are not mutually exclusive (You can have both at the same time). Everything you know, you simultaneously believe since knowledge is a subset of belief, which is why the statement "I know it, but I don't believe it” makes no sense and is impossible. A belief is just to think something is true. Knowledge is either certainty it is true, or justification that it's actually demonstrably true and consistent with reality as it actually is.
Just because you can have both at the same time, doesn’t mean it's correct to assert that knowledge and belief cannot be divided. There's a difference between something being epistemically "divided", and being mutually exclusive (unable to be combined or have/be both at simultaneously), and I think you meant it cannot be mutually exclusive. There is an empirical difference between belief and knowledge, so they can and must be divided by something, and they are. You can believe something and not
know it, but you cannot know something and not believe it. Everything you know you simultaneously believe. Your fallacy here (by the way I'm assuming you're using the word) 'divided' can be demonstrated like this: All cake is food, therefore all food is cake. Clearly all food is not cake. Cake and food can be divided, and so can belief and knowledge. Whether or not they're mutually exclusive is a different thing altogether. Subscribe to be notified when my newer version is uploaded.
@Marc167 i mean knowledge of our knowledge is a belief. we can't prove that knowledge really exists. it can be an illusion of our mind or we may be living in a virtual world. the only imported thing is tea. tea is most imported thing... i think i'm insane now. damn nietzsche :P
@molenini It may be if and only if we're using the word 'knowledge' as absolute inerrant reality, and I would never use the word knowledge this way, nor would I ever claim absolute knowledge of anything. We may be living in some kind of matrix. Absolute knowledge is useless to think about, and even more useless to discuss. I know many people have thought about the 'do we really know for sure if we know' thing, but all i have is my reasoning brain, logic and what science can discover and verify.
If there's no way to know if my senses, and perceptions of reality 'really are', then discussing them is useless - although pondering them is completely rational. If a person has a belief they are certain about, and they can scientifically and logically demonstrate it is true and consistent with the laws of the universe (simulated or real), it is knowledge to me, and even if it were to be discovered that this life, that this world doesn't actually exist, I still would have had knowledge of the
@Marc167 we are always in the present time. your aquired knowledge at past may been didn't existed ever. our knowledge of past time is a belief too. sorry, tea time :)
A guy could worship pleasure, the sensation, as a god. What is that to the purpose? These labels are just that and meaningless. It is like being given the title of a song and its labeled genre and being asked if I like it before hearing it. How do I know what someone means by being "Agnostic Theist". Nothing. Indeed, the most religious people who go by FAITH alone to the most skeptical people can fall into this category.
The theist claim is that god exists. Not that they “believe” god exists. The atheist is anyone that rejects the theist claim 100% and the agnostic doesn't have enough or doesn't believe there is enough knowledge to reject the theist claim 100%. Belief and atheist should never be used in the same sentence. Atheist and agnostic are both based on knowledge. There is no strong/weak atheist. I am an atheist. I know there is no god.
@residentatheist The theists 'claim' is that a god exists, that's obvious. Nobody is defining a theist by what they claim, but epistomologically by what they believe. Just about every definition for theism entails belief, not an assertion of a claim. Defining it as 'just a claim being made by theists' runs into huge problems since by your definition, I, an atheist can even be a theist. I can make a claim and not believe it, since you added nothing about belief in your definition. So yes, a
theist is necessarily a person who believes a god exists, due to semantics and epistemology issues. What do you even mean by rejects 100%? You weren't clear about that, nor what definition of 'rejects' you're using. There's 2: nonacceptance of a claim, i.e. not believing a claim & and the rare one 'believing a claim is false/ mental rejection of a claim'. This second definition is more commonly referred to as denial of a claim. You are supposed to define your terms first when you are discussing
these matters, because it's very easy to violate the laws of logic or commit equivocation fallacies. How did you come up with these levels of certainty and percentages anyway? You must have read Richard Dawkins demonstrably flawed writings on these issues. He's a great Evolutionary biologist but a horrible logician and philosopher. Both Atheist and agnostic terms are NOT 'both' based on knowledge and can only be so if you're using an extremely broad definition of knowledge. One that might be
these matters, because it's very easy to violate the laws of logic or commit equivocation fallacies. How did you come up with these levels of certainty and percentages anyway? You must have read Richard Dawkins demonstrably flawed writings on these issues. He's a great Evolutionary biologist but a horrible logician and philosopher. Both Atheist and agnostic terms are NOT 'both' based on knowledge and can only be so if you're using an extremely broad definition of knowledge. One that might be
useful when speaking of practical knowledge, but completely useless and confusing in this type of discussion where these types of things are important to distinguish. Tell me what you mean by 'know', when you say you 'know' there is no god. And it's hard to take you seriously in these types of discussions when you're using the singular form of the word god. Based on your definition of 'knowing', which you're using in this context, I might know there are no gods as well, but a rose is still a
rose by any other name. I might know my finger is a god if someone is defining my finger as a god, but being right is about being able to demonstrate that you're right regardless of what you call something. Defining it is more important than the words you use, and I'm sure I have done this. You have not. The weak and strong atheist positions are fundamental differences and important to distinguish, as is belief and knowledge.
@Marc167 First of all I didn't think I used any words that were so uncommon that they required definitions. Apparently you like to play word games or something. Ok, I will play along. It's your blog. Let's start with know: When I say I know god doesn't exist it means I am positive, not uncertain, no doubt, absolutely sure. Next - god: The supernatural creature(s) that created the natural universe. Next - rejects: To discard as defective or useless. Next - 100%: Not partial. I didn't
@residentatheist With all due respect, there's just way too much wrong here for me to take the time to respond when I've already covered just about every bit of demonstrably flawed reasoning in my script for my next video. You did not cover nor acknowledge all the empirical differences nor all of the possible combinations of epistemological positions one can take regarding the 2 contradictory propositions I assessed. Sub to me and I'll do the same so you'll be notified when it's up.
@Marc167 add anything about belief in my post because my post had nothing to do with belief. Clearly the theist claim is based on belief because there is nothing to support their claim but I am only discussing the actual claim, not what they believe. Individual theists have different beliefs, even about the same god(s). I did not read Richard Dawkins. I have seen some YouTube videos. I agree with him on most things but his scale of 1-7 is not one of them. My definitions of
atheist and agnostic are based on the level of knowledge a person has about god(s). The atheist has enough knowledge to know that god(s) do not exist and the agnostic either doesn't have enough knowledge to be 100% sure or doesn't believe there is enough knowledge to be 100% sure. You claim to be an atheist? What knowledge/information did you use to make that decision? Do you know god(s) don’t exist or do you just believe they don’t
exist. We can believe anything. There are no limits to beliefs and therefore they serve no purpose. An agnostic might use belief as a reason for their position but not an atheist. If I didn’t know god(s) don’t exist I wouldn’t claim to be an atheist. I would take the agnostic position or I would just say “I don’t know”. There are thee possible positions. Theist: god exists, atheist: god does not exist and agnostic: I don’t know if god exist or not. You can’t just
throw out the third position just because it don’t appeal to you. If your not going to call the third position agnostic as it has been traditionally referred to than what are you going to call it? The idea that theist and atheist are the only two options is absurd. That this somehow exhausts all the options is just wrong. It may exhaust all options when it come to belief but as pointed out earlier beliefs serve no purpose.
Not to nitpick (because I essentially agree with all you're saying) -- if I ask someone if they believe in a god and they answer, "I don't know" -- I'd have to respond, "Hey, friend, you haven't answered the question. You're telling me about what you know, and I asked you what you believe."
The guy who doesn't know may not know and believe in a god or may not know and not believe -- or he may not know and *neither* believe nor disbelieve.
@prodprod Your third option violated the law of non-contradiction. As a matter of fact, it violates all 3 laws of logic. The definition for disbelieve I used meant 'not belief; not have a belief'. If you say you disbelieve, you just said you don't believe. You can't believe a proposition and not believe it at the same time. It's logically impossible. That's just basic logic 101. The only way you can neither believe or disbelieve (not believe) a proposition is if you've never been presented it.
@prodprod Your third option violated the law of non-contradiction. As a matter of fact, it violates all 3 laws of logic. The definition for disbelieve I used meant 'not belief; not have a belief'. If you say you disbelieve, you just said you don't believe. You can't believe a proposition and not believe it at the same time. It's logically impossible. That's just basic logic 101. The only way you can neither believe or disbelieve (not believe) a proposition is if you've never been presented it.
@Marc167 I'm afraid we're simply proceeding from different definitions of the term, or at any rate from a different understanding of it's meaning in this context. I would have used the term to mean "to believe" in the sense of "to conclude that a proposition is correct" and to disbelieve is to conclude that a proposition is incorrect.
In that sense of the term, I think, one can not only not "know" but also neither believe nor disbelieve a stated proposition.
(cont'd) (2) But as you are using the term -- "disbelief" meaning neither to accept nor reject the correctness of a proposition, but to "lack" belief altogether, you would obviously be correct.
@prodprod In that sense, I guess you can, but the more proper term to use is denial. Denial when referring to belief in propositions is commonly defined as : 'The action of declaring something to be untrue'. Disbelief is most commonly used as 'not accepting as true' (this is also referred to as rejection 'of' belief'). Not the way you would reject a prom date, but as you would be unable to accept something as true, and by default be rejecting (not accepting) a belief. Ergo you would lack the
belief 'god exists'. Your use of the word is extremely rare, informal and rarely used at all. Using it would be like me calling you gay in todays society, which in turn in a very sincere manner you respond with, "Why are you saying I'm happy?" If you haven't been convinced this proposition is true 'god exists', it means you don't think it's true. If you don't think it's true you don't have that belief, you've rejected it (not accepted). It's one of the mandatory mutually exclusive positions.
There is no middle ground there since you cannot have a belief and not have a belief simultaneously. A belief you mentally reject, i.e. cannot accept as true, i.e. do not have, is one which you disbelieve. This is according to 99% of dictionaries and is the most common usage when pertaining to beliefs in propositions. If you misunderstood me, you might not have read all the annotations or had them glitch on you. I clearly laid out the way I was using it by defining and explaining denial and
emphasizing the difference between disbelief. They do glitch sometimes so perhaps you didn't see them all. Let's use the definition you're using in a sentence replacing your own words.
Original: "he may not know and *neither* believe nor disbelieve."
New: he may not know and *neither* have the belief 'god exists' nor believe 'god exists' is false/incorrect.
So if he believes the proposition 'god exists' is false, it logically follows that he must believe it's exact opposite statement 'god
doesn't exist' is true. So you're saying somebody can simultaneously NOT have either of these beliefs :
1: god exists
2: god doesn't exist
Having neither of these is referred to as a weak atheist or negative atheist. I did explain this in the annotations of my video a few times. Since you use the word deny as disbelieve, what word do you use when you don't believe someone? Fill in the blanks for me:
I (a word for don't believe) you.
You can't say "I reject you" and "don't believe" seems silly
when theres a shorter word for it already. And I wasn't using the word as a lack of belief, but a rejection/nonacceptance of a presented proposition. Not having having a belief (lacking one) is just a necessary emergent property of this. And the difference here is with beliefs you lack, these can be infinite. disbelief only deals with finite, limited propositions we as finite human beings can be confronted with, and so kindly have the ability to accept or reject. Hopefully I didn't come off as
@Marc167 No, I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed response and, as I indicated originally, I found your initial post to be exceptionally well constructed -- except that the annotations were a bit difficult to navigate, so maybe that was simply the basis of the misunderstanding.
Proposition: 'There's an immaterial invisible unicorn in my anus named bob'. See, up until I told you about this, you didn't have the option of rejecting (not accepting as true), or accepting (believing) my proposition. But now that you've heard of bob, your mind took a position. Another possible option is to both disbelieve (not believe;reject) and deny (assert or believe a claim is false). But even if you deny a claim, you still disbelieve it. Get it?
@pectopunch A god is a concept. All anyone has is a concept of what a god is or could be, whether or not one actually exists. Because of this is, it is far more appropriate to use the term 'gods' in the plural rather than the singular, since everyone has a different concept of a god. There must be a minimum qualification for what a god is though, or else my finger could be a god. In my next video I'm going to define what that qualification is. Remember, nonbelievers aren't coming up with the
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but there
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but there
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but there
needs to be that minimum 'what qualifies as a god' thing addressed for terms of communication. I don't believe in anything anyone refers to as a god (unless it's something we already have a word for and can demonstrate exists - like saying god is love). To me it's the same thing as saying love is love. They haven't added anything new to the table. A God should at least be a conscious supernatural creator of the observable Universe.
@Aanthanur Read a book called Atheism: the case against god. This might give you a better understanding of a common misconception.The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869. "Most of my colleagues were '-ists' of one sort or the other." Huxley, lacking a name for his uncertainty, was "without a rag of a label to cover himself with." So he gave himself an 'ists' by assigning the term "agnostic" to himself. He selected the early religious sect known as "Gnostics" as a prime example...
@Aanthanur ...of men who claimed knowledge of the supernatural without justification; and he distinguished himself as an "agnostic" by stipulating that the supernatural, even if it exists, lies beyond the scope of human knowledge. He felt if we cannot say if it does or does not exsist, we must suspend judgment.Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human...
@Aanthanur ...mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge. Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the IMPOSSIBILIY OF KNOWING with regard to a god or supernatural being.
@Aanthanur The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic. The agnostic THEIST believe in the existence of god, but maintains that the NATURE of god is unknowable. So "I don't know" DOES NOT MEAN AGNOSTIC, despite how people throw around the word. So atheist CAN "NOT KNOW" because ATHEISM is simply the LACK OF BELIEF in a god or gods. This doesn't mean atheists BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD, though some do.
alright, you've convinced me... I used to call myself agnostic, but in reality, I am an agnostic atheist. I'm still not sure if I am a weak or strong atheist though.
@danomanno747 Let's see if I can help you with that. A weak atheist would be someone who says, "Well, I don't accept either claim that god does, or does not exist."
A strong atheist is someone who accepts the claim, believes(not necessarily claims to know) that god does not exist.
Tere ARE reasons for either claim, and this has to do with your position on, "Evidence of absence" being "evidence of absence." Strong atheists tend to believe we SHOULD have evidence of god, if he's there, see?
@BigLundi well, I accept the claim that the traditional Christian biblical God does not exist (based on logical flaws in the arguments supporting the Biblical idea of God). Of course, *I cannot claim to know this as a certainty*. However, I am not sure if there must be evidence of a God for humans to detect - perhaps this "God" set things up so "it" is undetectable to us? Anyway, I am pretty sure I am an agnostic athiest, and (probably) a strong athiest.
@danomanno747 Well, I would say you're a strong atheist "with respect to certain gods". That's not to say every god, anywhere in all of possible existence is believed to be nonexistent, but the ones presented to you have no evidence, and are usually logically impossible to begin with.
@darkilustrisimus you are mistaken , "strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist " , "weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism" (from wiki).But regarding the christian and the muslim god ...and other monotheistic religion i am a strong atheist.So i should edit my post ....weak agnostic atheist :) that is more acurate
@Ranulf0Bytzu In his definition he said to be strong atheist you must believe at least ONE god do not exist
Since muslim and christian god can't both exist simultaneously, one of them must be false, therefore everyone should believe at least one of them do not exist, therefore everyone is strong atheist.
@darkilustrisimus You are wrong. I said you must disbelieve in all the claims that assert "god exists", and believe that at least one god (that you accept as a qualified definition as a god since I wouldn't call a cup a god) does not exist. So you must not be convinced that any propositions that say "X god exists" are true (atheist), and you must deny at least one of those claims (strong atheist).
Atheist = doesn't believe in any gods
Strong atheist = doesn't believe in any gods and denies 1
@Marc167 So i should rethink my position . I am a weak agnostic because i don't have the knowledge necessary to know if god exists but i think that in the future it is possible to know the answer.I am a strong atheist because i deny the existence of any monotheistic , omnipotent , all-knowing , omnipresent god . I like your videos , they can bring clarification if one looks carefully at them , thank you Marc (sorry for my bad english, not my first language).
The first part of this video is an absolute fail. It's simple, just reverse the question. Do you BELIEVE there is NO God? If you answer yes, then you are an atheist, if you answer no or you don't know, you are a theist because you reject the belief which means that you are not currently believing in that position, which is enough to qualify you for the other position. It doesn't work like that.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 @Sickopath333 Did you even read the annotations? What you’re saying makes no sense. Why the hell would you reverse the question when the question addresses a positive belief, not a negation. The reverse question would actually be do you NOT believe there is a god. Your form of the question only addresses what we refer to as strong atheism,and if you answer yes to it, you would still be rejecting (not accepting) the claim ‘god exists’. You would be without theism. You
Marc167 1 month ago
would be without the belief in a god. Even if you believe the claim ‘there are no gods’ you would still not have the belief ‘there is a god’.
Marc167 1 month ago
@Marc167 What you are trying to say is that the person who answers the question with I don't know is automatically rejecting the belief and affirming its opposite. What I am trying to demonstrate to you is that this is dishonest because if you take the question and reverse sides you can make what you would call atheists theists because they now reject your belief. People who don't know do not reject either side or affirm either side, and to try and push them into one is bs.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Marc167 It makes perfect sense. If you reverse the question you're asking to, do you believe there is no god(s) and answer yes, you are affirming that there is indeed no god(s). When you reject a claim you affirm its opposite. Do you believe there is a Santa Claus? No. Then you believe there is no Santa Claus? Yes. One cannot just reject a claim and then try to hide away or deny the opposite affirmation, you have already confirmed it. You can't be both X and not X, remember?
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Congratulations, you just presented the same false dichotomy that many, many other people posted. I addressed this hundreds of times already in the comments section, and ironically I even did so in the annotations. You are just one of the several people who does not understand logical axioms. I’m not going to take the lengthy time to respond when I’ve already addressed this fallacy in the video, comments, and in my new video awaiting completion.
Marc167 1 month ago
@Marc167 Oh, so you say you've bumped into this several times before? That people keep telling you that in order to reject a claim you have to affirm its opposite (because you have to)? That the reason denying the burden of proof fails is because I can do this with this video (I deny it being right, I disbelief its truth, but all the burden rests on you and not me, yay!)? The reasoning you keep hearing isn't a fallacy, this 2 part video you made is. You are no expert in logic.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 “The reasoning you keep hearing isn't a fallacy, this 2 part video you made is. “
Nope. I wasn’t even going to take the time to respond but you asked for it. I don’t want people to read your comment and be misled by somehow thinking that due to my lack of response, that you actually made some kind of valid or relative point. I don’t censor or delete comments so because of this and my former statement, I feel compelled to respond. The reason it’s brought up so much is
Marc167 1 month ago
because people are ignorant, it’s a very common misunderstanding and it’s not simple for many people to understand what are actually pretty basic principles. Most people are demonstrably stupider than I am, and that’s easy because most people are undereducated, poor and lack nutrition. You obviously do not understand what a false dichotomy is and you know nothing about logic or philosophy. There would be no doubt to any student of logic that I am highly more knowledgeable on the subject
Marc167 1 month ago
than you are. I will try to explain how your reasoning is flawed as simply as possible because people like you seem to have a lot of trouble grasping this simple concept.
1: the Multiverse exists. (X)
2: The Multiverse does not exist. (NOT X)
As a truth claim, one of these is objectively true. They cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect (law of non contradiction). If one is true (doesn’t matter which) then the other has to be false). If one is false, the other must be
Marc167 1 month ago
True. There are 2 positions you can take to either of these claims, and one is mandatory. You must NOT believe at least one.
You’re being very sneaky here with this ‘reject’ word and it’s allowing you to be ambiguous, and doing so could make you appear as if there may be some kind of validity to your nonsensical statements, but it is in fact equivocation. Regardless of which definition is used, there would be objective differences that should be noted. The way I’m using it is simply the
Marc167 1 month ago
absence of accepting as true, which would be NOT accepting as true; rejecting. Not “rejecting” as in turning down something with contempt or refusing to accept a gift, but lacking the belief ‘the multiverse exists. The mutually exclusive alternative to accept is not accept (reject). The only way you can neither accept or reject a claim is if you’ve never heard the claim. I’m NOT using it as a denial of a claim (believing a claim is false). If you are, then you are being intellectually
Marc167 1 month ago
dishonest because I illustrated which definition I was using in my video.
If I believe claim number one, I CANNOT believe number 2. Therefore it would look like this:
1: the Multiverse exists. (Belief).
2: The Multiverse does not exist. (Lack of Belief).
If I believe claim number 2, I CANNOT simultaneously believe claim number 1, therefore it would look like this:
1: the Multiverse exists (Lack of Belief).
2: The Multiverse does not exist (Belief).
It is true that either 1 (x) is true,
Marc167 1 month ago
or 2 (not x) is true, but when you add belief if gets more complicated. You can be in a position where you can lack convincing that either is true, and you’re either convinced that something is true, or you’re not. Not being convinced that something is true does not even tell us whether a person believes it’s
Marc167 1 month ago
false.
I can lack convincing that 1 and 2 is true simultaneously:
1: the Multiverse exists (Lack of Belief). [not yet convinced]
2: The Multiverse does not exist (Lack of Belief). [not yet convinced]
I can not only lack belief in claim number 1, but also deny claim number 1 like strong atheists do:
1: the Multiverse exists (Lack of Belief + Denial; Believe it’s false).
2: The Multiverse does not exist (Belief).
Marc167 1 month ago
Look at the similarities here in these statements.
1: I believe there IS a Multiverse.
2: I believe there is NO Multiverse. Both of these statements are beliefs. These propositions are contradictory ONLY IF simultaneously held, and you are not required by the laws of logic to believe in either. You can lack belief in both. Being both simultaneously would violate the law of noncontradiction but there is NOTan excluded middle here.
This would be like saying, "People are either gay or
Marc167 1 month ago
Straight”, when they can be neither. They can be A-sexual, Bisexual pansexual, etc.
Look at the differences in these statements:
1: I believe there IS a Multilverse.
2: I DON’T believe there IS a multiverse.
These statements are a case where the law of excluded middle forces you to make a choice. It doesn’t make any sense to say I believe number 2, since it isn’t a belief, but a lack of one. In order to not be misleading, we must say you either ARE 1, or you ARE 2. If you’re not 2,
Marc167 1 month ago
you have to be 1. If you’re not 1 you have to be 2. It’s like saying "you’re either Gay or you’re NOT Gay". One MUST BE TRUE. There are no middle grounds (law of excluded middle).
Do you understand the difference between hot and cold? It’s like saying I believe there is a god and I believe there isn’t a god. It can be neither hot or cold (like warm; room temperature) and you lack both beliefs. Saying It’s either hot or NOT hot excludes any middle, like
Marc167 1 month ago
saying I believe there is a god, and I DON’T believe there is a god. Learn the difference please. This is why your comments were self refuting and nonsensical.
Marc167 1 month ago
Great video man!
remm55 1 month ago
Nice set of videos. It was a little confusing with all the annotations and what not, but it all made sense in the end.
someonenobodycares 2 months ago
this means you don't have to be an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist to answer the question, because an Agnostic already answers it with a position of DOUBT, which refers to the system of Belief. I'm Agnostic to the knowledge of God and so i'm doubtful to the belief in God. The idea that there's only 2 positions to the question: Yes (Theist) or No (Atheist) is a False Dilemma.
tacv 2 months ago
When you say you "I don't know, but i believe" your still a Theist. When you say "I don't know, but i disbelief" you're still an Atheist. When you say "I don't know, and so i'm uncertain about the existence of God" you're an Agnostic. Do you see how different they are and how they can't be mixed? 3 Positions: Belief, Refusal to Belief and Doubt.
tacv 2 months ago
Also you cant be an Agnostic and a Atheist at the same time as you claim. It's impossible because you cant make claims of belief and be an Agnostic. An Agnostic don't make claims of belief, which means they are doubters. An Atheist will always be someone who refuses the existence of God and this position is contradictory with a position of doubt (Agnostic). You cant doubt and refuse at the same time
tacv 2 months ago
Bah you ruined in this second part. Claiming there are only 2 position to the question Do you believe there is a God, is a False Dilemma. There is indeed a third position that is DOUBT. An Agnostic is a doubter, so to the question an Agnostic would answer "I doubt It's existence", which means an Agnostic will leave the possibility of the existence open, while an Atheist does not.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv You’re using false dilemma incorrectly. I never said you either believe there is a god or you believe there are no gods. Both of these can be false because they’re both beliefs and there are still more options That would be a false dilemma and that’s the common theist/”agnostic”fallacy.
'If you are not with us, you are against'
I CAN be neither with you or against you.
'I you do NOT believe there is a god then you BELIEVE there are no gods' - both of these are beliefs and I can
Marc167 2 months ago
simultaneously lack the belief ‘god does exist’ and ‘god doesn’t exist’. These are dichotomies that are false, which is why I prefer the name ‘false dichotomy’. If I present you with 2 contradictory claims, one where you’re X and the other where you’re not X, then one of them must be true.; it’s a logical fact. You cannot be X and NOTbe X at the same time. And you cannot be neither (X) nor (Not X). If you’re one of them, you’re the other, regardless of which one you are. If you’re NOT one of
Marc167 2 months ago
them, then you ARE the other. You should study the laws of logic a bit.
Now pay attention. I wasn’t asking you if there ‘IS’ a god. I was asking you if you BELIEVE there is a god; If you’ve been convinced that the statement ‘god exists’ is true. It is not a question of certainty or plausibility. It is an existential believe-in question. There are believe-ins and believe-that’s. My question specifically attempts to solicit a response to whether you’re X or not X, and you have to be one or the
Marc167 2 months ago
other. It’s not a false dichotomy because it’s a specific question dealing with what you personally have been convinced or NOT convinced is true about a specific concept and the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle explicitly demonstrate this. Had I SAID you either believe in a god, or you believe there are no gods, then would it be a false dichotomy. Had I said you either believe there is a god or you DON’T believe there is a god, this would be a logical fact since you cannot have a
Marc167 2 months ago
belief and not have one. I did not necessarily even do that. It is a question, not a statement. Do you have this belief ‘god exists’, because you either have it, or you don’t. I didn’t tell you that you either have it or you don’t and there is no other information that can be drawn from this, like whether you think god is likely or unlikely, or whether you’re certain or uncertain. And regardless of this, you’d still either be X or NOT X.
Marc167 2 months ago
“Claiming there are only 2 position to the question”.
Wrong, there are 2 contradictory positions you hold in response to the QUESTION, one which you HAVE TO be. You are strawmanning me.
“Do you believe there is a God, is a False Dilemma.” That is a nonsensical statement. How can (1) positive QUESTION be a false dilemma? If it was a statement that said you have to be one or the other and both of them could be false, or there in fact were more options where it did not have to be either, then it
Marc167 2 months ago
would be so. I made no form or subcategory of the logical fallacy. In my QUESTION there actually are no middle grounds (law of excluded middle). You either believe there is a god, or you don’t. Even if you believe there are no gods (which isn’t part of the question,) you still do not believe there are gods.
“An Agnostic don't make claims of belief, which means they are doubters.”
Really, because claiming the existence of god is unknown, unknowable, or that it cannot be proven or disproven is
Marc167 2 months ago
both a CLAIM and a BELIEF.
“An Atheist will always be someone who refuses the existence of God and this position is contradictory with a position of doubt (Agnostic).”
The word refuse here makes no sense and is a misnomer. I didn’t refuse to believe the claim god exists the same way I refused to eat my vegetables as a child. My cognitive faculties simply have not allowed me to be convinced that the statement ‘god exists’ is true, so I lack belief in it.
Marc167 2 months ago
“You cant doubt and refuse at the same time”
Another misnomer. Do you mean, you can doubt and deny (believe a claim is false) simultaneously. You can also doubt and BELIEVE a claim simultaneously which would put someone in a state of cognitive dissonance. But regardless, you either think something is true, or you don’t. I do not deny the existence of a creator, I just don’t believe one exists (haven’t been convinced) depending on the way ‘god’ is defined.
Marc167 2 months ago
“When you say you "I don't know, but i believe" your still a Theist.”
Ok..
"I don't know, but i disbelief" you're still an Atheist.”
Still agree if by disbelief you mean NOT believe ‘god exists’, and not deny (believe it’s false)
"When you say "I don't know, and so i'm uncertain about the existence of God" you're an Agnostic." Regardless of whether you’re uncertain about a god existing, you still either believe one does, or you don’t and agnosticism does not answer that question in 99% of the
Marc167 2 months ago
dictionaries in existence.
“this means you don't have to be an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist to answer the question, because an Agnostic already answers it with a position of DOUBT”
Another nonsensical statement. You think the word doubt makes it possible for a person to be neither X nor NOT X? “I'm Agnostic to the knowledge of God”
I’m agnostic to lots of things but there’s a difference between being ‘agnostic’ and ‘AN Agnostic’. One is a noun Person place of thing) explicitly
Marc167 2 months ago
addressing a person who has a belief regarding the existence of a god and the other an adjective (descriptive word describing your doubt, skepticism or non-commitment to any other thing. Do not equivocate.
P.S. Since the ascension/descension of my comments is fucked it, it's best to 'view all comments' then ctrl F to find them in order.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 When you say things like "you either think something is true or you don't" is a clear False Dilemma. There is a huge grey area in the middle and its called Doubt or Agnosticism if you will. That's the same as to state that you're either Gay or Straight. And again, you cannot state you're a believer when you doubt or that you're a disbeliever (refuse to accept) and a doubter (uncertain of, possible existence).
tacv 2 months ago
Your problem is that you are probably going to wikipedia and quickly glancing at it when it's obviously not lucid enough. To be a false dilemma there must be a possibility for both to be false (to be neither). It's not a false dilemma by definition. I study Logic.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 This website explains how I'm right from a professional logician.
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the
Marc167 2 months ago
following example:
1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 we are talking of belief and not of truth.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv "we are talking of belief and not of truth. "
Yes, and somebody either thinks that 'god exists is true', or they don't. Truth is independent of what people think. A belief is to think something is true. Somebody either has the belief 'god exists', or they don't have it. Not a False Dilemma. Anyone who studies logic would tell you are 100% wrong.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 You didn't understood me. i didn't said both are false and such it's a false dilemma. What i said is that accepting only two possible answers to the question of belief is a false dilemma. It's truth that either God exist or He doesn't, but it's not true that you can only answer yes or no to the question "do you believe in God". Get it? it's a logical fallacy to accept that you can only answer one or the other, but it's not a logic fallacy that either God exist or he doesn't.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv That is wrong. A logical fallacy is an error in thinking. It's where the conclusion has a possibility to be wrong based on the premises. A False dilemma HAS to leave the possibility for both to be wrong. In this case, there is no middle ground (law of excluded middle). You're either X or not X. You're either dead or alive. You are demonstrably wrong. You don't even know what a false dilemma is.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 No. Let's take what you said. "somebody either thinks that god exists is true or they don't". This is wrong. It's true that God or exist or he doesn't, but its not true that you or either believe he does or you don't. Truth - Or you're dead or you're alive. Belief - Do you believe Marc is alive? - Yes, No or I doubt it (don't know). Get it? It's a fallacy to assume you can only answer yes or no to a question of belief.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv This statement demonstrates you have NO IDEA whatsoever what you're talking about.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 KNOWLEDGE: Or you know or you don't know, God exist or He doesn't. BELIEF; or you 'accept' God or you don't 'accept' God or you're simply uncertain about the existence of God. 3 possibilities in belief. Stating it's only possible 2 positions is a fallacy. I think this is very clear. You didn't demonstrate anything that disproof this argument. Instead of that you've call me ignorant ...
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv You said that 'thinking something is true' and 'not thinking something is true' is like saying you’re either gay or straight. That’s demonstrably wrong. Believing something & NOT believing something is X or NOT X. Being gay or being straight is X or Y. To NOT be a false dilemma you must say 'you're either Gay or NOT gay', which is a true statement ¬ a false dilemma. NOT being gay allows for other options like being Asexual, bisexual or pansexual, but you are still either gay or NOT gay
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 But it is a false dilemma. Atheism isn't 'not believe' but not accept as truth. That's why a position of either Atheism or Theism is a fallacy because there is a middle ground. I'm not an Atheist nor a Theism because i'm a doubter. It's a false dilemma to say i can only be one or the other. You insinuate that you can only be one of the 2 in belief because you only accept Yes or No as answers. This is wrong.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv Demonstrate that it is. All you are doing is throwing around assertions that are both in unsound and invalid form. Put your argument in a syllogism. You are demonstrably wrong in so many ways. You keep asserting that X -X can be a false dilemma when it is impossible, yet then you make examples with X,Y.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 i'm starting to think you're not even bother to try to understand what i'm saying. You say that a person or either answers Yes or No to the question "do you believe in God" and i say that's not correct because when you answer No (i don't believe) you're not saying your uncertain (have doubt), you're claiming you don't take a position of belief. A doubter doesn't refuse a position of belief and that's what i mean when i say your claim is wrong.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv "When you answer No (i don't believe) you're not saying your uncertain (have doubt), you're claiming you don't take a position of belief"
Absolutely wrong. You have taken a position of disbelief (not believing). This is not the same thing as denying (believing the claim is false). Denying is a subset and is not a mandatory position. One can believe a claim and still be uncertain (have doubt). This is why the terms agnostic atheism/theism exist.
Marc167 2 months ago
@tacv If you're going to continue to put forward your contention, I ask you to put it into a syllogism. This is going nowhere because of your inability to understand the laws of logic and axioms.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 Your so great knowledge on the issue is completely wrong when you say things like i can believe and doubt at the same time or disbelieve and doubt at the same time. Someone that disbelieves is refusing it's opposite while doubting is not refusing. When i don't believe i'm not doubting i'm saying i don't take a position of believing. when i doubt i do not take a side of not believing, i simply am uncertain about the issue. I cannot say i don't believe when i'm just uncertain about it.
tacv 2 months ago
@Marc167 I don't believe in Ghosts means i don't agree with a position where ghosts are a possibility. I can say i don't know if ghost exist or not, but if i also say i don't believe in them, it means i'm not doubtful i'm just against the idea they exist even though i don't know if they do or not.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv Redo your argument. But this time, define the word doubt/doubtful and don't use the word refuse/refusing because it's incorrect to use in the context. This is the main reason that you're able to get away with these fallacies.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 Are you for real?! Well i guess the discussion will lead us no where ... you will always think i'm just ignorant and incapable of understanding your so 'great knowledge", and i will always think you're just not making the effort to even understand me. Let's leave it at that. You maintain your position and i maintain mine, which means neither of us had the skill to clearly show how wrong the other was.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv No I had the skill, you just take a lot longer to comprehend things and it's not easy when you don't know what a false dilemma is (and then claim that I'm making it by telling me I'm saying either X or Y when I'm actually saying X or NOT X) you do not define your terms, you commit equivocation over and over. No offense, but It seems as if English may not be your primary or first language.
Marc167 2 months ago
Learn the difference between Hot or NOT and HOT or COLD. If I say it's either hot or cold, it is a false dilemma and can be neither. it can be warm or room temperature. If I Say it's either Hot or it's NOT hot is not a false dilemma and one of them has to be true.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 The problem with your statement is that you keep answering questions of truth, of knowledge. When you say "water is either Hot or not Hot" that correct. But when you answer a question of belief "Do you believe the water is Hot?" the answers are not limited to Yes the water is hot or No the water is not hot. You can say I doubt (i'm uncertain) the water is hot. And this is not the same as to say the water is not hot, but rather i'm just uncertain about it and cannot believe either.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv Your problem is that you fail to comprehend that regardless of being (uncertain) if the claim 'god exists', you still either believe it or you don't believe it. I would still either have the belief or NOT have it. You keep trying to violate the law of noncontradiction and excluded middle. If you say you're uncertain the water is hot, you still either have been convinced it is hot (believe) or you haven't been convinced (don't believe).
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 "but rather i'm just uncertain about it and cannot believe either."
You said cannot believe, so that means, you don't believe it. You would lack the belief "the water is hot".
Marc167 2 months ago
Congratulations, that's the same stance I hold towards gods and is the essence of my atheism. Agnosticism only addresses the certainty/uncertainty, not the belief/disbelief.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 Let me say that you had a very snob attitude in this discussion mate. This is now turning into a eternal discussion where i'm repeating myself over and over again, and you the same. I made my points very clear and you made yours, we still don't agree with each other. We will never do. The discussion is over to me. hugs
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv My attitude is not at all snobbish. As a matter of fact, I'm trying as hard as a can to not sound like a dick but I can't deny that I'm irritated. It's like I keep showing someone that the sky is blue, and they simply reply, "no it's red", without any sound reasoning behind it at all.
Marc167 2 months ago
@tacv "don't believe in Ghosts means i don't agree with a position where ghosts are a possibility." And this statement is wrong. the word possibility is nowhere the dictionaries for belief/disbelief. Believing is just anything you hold is true. Disbelieving (not believing) is anything you don't think is true. Denying is anything that you thing is false. it doesn't matter whether you don't believe but still think it's possible/impossible, plausible/implausible.
Marc167 2 months ago
@tacv I did not just call you ignorant. I've logically demonstrated that you are very wrong and lack education regarding this topic. You may be very intelligent and knowledgeable on many things, but this is not one of them and it's just a case where you have been proven wrong.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 No. I've not been proven wrong. because i still don't agree with you when you state there is only 2 positions in belief.
tacv 2 months ago
@tacv I'd expect such a response from someone who makes the fallacious statements you make. If I demonstrate to someone that things fall and accelerate at 9.8 m/s2, and my argument is both in valid and sound form, and they keep telling me that I'm wrong and haven't proven anything because they don't understand it, I've still proven them wrong. Your inability to comprehend doesn't make my argument unproven.
Marc167 2 months ago
@tacv "No. I've not been proven wrong. because i still don't agree with you when you state there is only 2 positions in belief" What are you defining as positions. I never said there wasn't a possibility to be other things at the same time, merely that you must be one, and if you're not one you are the other because if you don't have this belief 'god exists', then you just told me that you don't believe it, and you neither believe it or NOT believe it.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 OOPS. "and you [CANNOT] neither believe it or NOT believe it."
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 I didn't said the question you made about belief in God is a False Dilemma. What i said was that accepting that there is only 2 possible answers is a False Dilemma. Also an Atheist is someone that do not leave the possibility of God to exist. An Atheist is someone that refuse the existence of God, is someone that hold as truth that He doesn't exist. You seem to defend that Atheism allows doubt (possibility of the existence) which is incorrect. Atheism doesn't leave the door open.
tacv 2 months ago
Hmm lol, as I responded to someone on Part 1, I'm still not entirely sure why anyone would have any use for a belief when they have knowledge of something (Gnostic Theism)
Otherwise, this was very educative and I thank you for your effort :)
WhiteWolf1088 2 months ago
@WhiteWolf1088 “doesn't knowing something 100% sure, remove ANY need for belief?”
No, that’s actually a nonsensical statement and I’ve responded to it countless times. A belief is broadly nothing more than to think a proposition is true. ‘My car is outside right now’, ‘god exists’, ‘the earth revolves around the sun’, 'Marc is correct in what he’s saying’; these are all beliefs. If you think one of these is true, it’s a belief, if you don’t think it’s true, you haven’t been
Marc167 2 months ago
convinced that it is true and it’s not a belief because (for example) ‘god exists’ is a belief you don’t have; you lack that belief. If you deny a proposition (claim it’s false) and you believe that claim, that’s a negative believe in response to a positive claim and not mandatory, yet still atheism.
Proposition: Marc can fly
You1 : “I don’t believe you” (lack of belief in a positive claim)
You2 : “I don’t believe you; and I BELIEVE you CANNOT fly (lack of belief; and a negative BELIEF
Marc167 2 months ago
in response to a positive claim. Knowledge can be either a belief that something is true with certainty (which may or not be true or justified) or an acquaintance with facts or truths (which still necessitates a belief). Since a belief is just to think something is true, the statement ‘I know it but I don’t believe it makes no sense at all and is actually impossible. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you know, you believe. But, not everything you believe, you necessarily know.
Marc167 2 months ago
It’s kind of like saying all cake is food, but not all food is cake. It’s not logically possible to know something (have a belief that is certain or in accordance with facts or truths) and not have it be a belief simultaneously. You have this misconception that belief is just an unjustified, uncertain mental state, when in reality, if you knew about epistemology, there are all kinds of species of beliefs, and what you’re speaking about is called faith, not just belief. I believe the sun
Marc167 2 months ago
exists (think the proposition ‘the sun exists’ is true), and I know it exists simultaneously. You cannot remove belief from knowledge, it’s impossible.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 Wow, thanks for taking the time to explain! :)
I appreciate it.
WhiteWolf1088 2 months ago
@Marc167 Or maybe, all you did is open a .txt or .doc file and copy/paste :P
Thanks at any rate :)
WhiteWolf1088 2 months ago
The pause in the video is a PAIN.
HeayyArt 3 months ago
@HeayyArt Sorry about that. I assumed that if I added pauses just before the annotations, people would actually read them and find it more helpful by not having to try and pause at the right time themselves. Unpausing it seemed easier to me since everyone reads at difference speeds and they are clicking the screen only half the times they normally would have to pause/unpause. This is one of the many reasons I'm redoing the video making it both more comprehensive and easier to navigate.
Marc167 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Marc167 yea but the pause feature already on the video, so if someone wants to pause would simply press the II button, thanks for the video.
HeayyArt 3 months ago
@HeayyArt @Marc167 I appreciate the pauses. If you are not going to read the text, then I like to be afforded the time to be sure I properly understand the point the text makes. A problem I’ve noticed with some videos is that people talk right over text. This makes it hard to know whether or not one even should pause the video. It is much more of a pain to have the text disappear from the screen necessitating pausing AND backing up the video.
Blackmark52 3 months ago
I agree with most of what you say, yet doubt whether these classifications make sense. There is too much overlap between belief and knowledge to be able to define the positions. And when dealing with something as intangible as gods, something that can be defined however the individual desires, the distinction between knowledge and belief, and so the distinction between strong and weak, becomes meaningless. In fact, I doubt “god” is even the core issue between theism and atheism.
Blackmark52 3 months ago
Thanks
utubekula 3 months ago
@utubekula You're welcome. Subscribe if you want to be notified when I upload my newer, more comprehensive version of this 2 part video.
Marc167 3 months ago
Thank you so much for this clarification. I couldn't understand before how atheism could be used as a disbelief and a denial of gods existence but this video helps. Also how are you not already embarrassed to be a homosapien? Humans are hardly better than animals! Most of the time worse.
MrBain19 3 months ago
Thank you so much for this clarification. I couldn't understand before how atheism could be used as a disbelief and a denial of gods existance but this video helps. Also how are you not already embarrassed to be a homosapien? Humans are hardly better than animals! Most of the time worse.
MrBain19 3 months ago
@MrBain19 You're welcome. :) Don't forget to subscribe.
Marc167 3 months ago
beg your pardon but you can't divide knowledge and belief.
molenini 4 months ago
@molenini Knowledge and belief are 2 separate things that are not mutually exclusive (You can have both at the same time). Everything you know, you simultaneously believe since knowledge is a subset of belief, which is why the statement "I know it, but I don't believe it” makes no sense and is impossible. A belief is just to think something is true. Knowledge is either certainty it is true, or justification that it's actually demonstrably true and consistent with reality as it actually is.
Marc167 3 months ago
Just because you can have both at the same time, doesn’t mean it's correct to assert that knowledge and belief cannot be divided. There's a difference between something being epistemically "divided", and being mutually exclusive (unable to be combined or have/be both at simultaneously), and I think you meant it cannot be mutually exclusive. There is an empirical difference between belief and knowledge, so they can and must be divided by something, and they are. You can believe something and not
Marc167 3 months ago
know it, but you cannot know something and not believe it. Everything you know you simultaneously believe. Your fallacy here (by the way I'm assuming you're using the word) 'divided' can be demonstrated like this: All cake is food, therefore all food is cake. Clearly all food is not cake. Cake and food can be divided, and so can belief and knowledge. Whether or not they're mutually exclusive is a different thing altogether. Subscribe to be notified when my newer version is uploaded.
Marc167 3 months ago
@Marc167 i mean knowledge of our knowledge is a belief. we can't prove that knowledge really exists. it can be an illusion of our mind or we may be living in a virtual world. the only imported thing is tea. tea is most imported thing... i think i'm insane now. damn nietzsche :P
molenini 3 months ago
@molenini It may be if and only if we're using the word 'knowledge' as absolute inerrant reality, and I would never use the word knowledge this way, nor would I ever claim absolute knowledge of anything. We may be living in some kind of matrix. Absolute knowledge is useless to think about, and even more useless to discuss. I know many people have thought about the 'do we really know for sure if we know' thing, but all i have is my reasoning brain, logic and what science can discover and verify.
Marc167 3 months ago
If there's no way to know if my senses, and perceptions of reality 'really are', then discussing them is useless - although pondering them is completely rational. If a person has a belief they are certain about, and they can scientifically and logically demonstrate it is true and consistent with the laws of the universe (simulated or real), it is knowledge to me, and even if it were to be discovered that this life, that this world doesn't actually exist, I still would have had knowledge of the
Marc167 3 months ago
things I did in that simulated reality (according to the way 'knowledge' is generally and practically used).
Marc167 3 months ago
@Marc167 we are always in the present time. your aquired knowledge at past may been didn't existed ever. our knowledge of past time is a belief too. sorry, tea time :)
molenini 3 months ago
A guy could worship pleasure, the sensation, as a god. What is that to the purpose? These labels are just that and meaningless. It is like being given the title of a song and its labeled genre and being asked if I like it before hearing it. How do I know what someone means by being "Agnostic Theist". Nothing. Indeed, the most religious people who go by FAITH alone to the most skeptical people can fall into this category.
mrgerbeck 4 months ago
Loved the content but the auto-pausing is annoying.
Next time just put up the annotations for a few seconds and let the people pause
(if you haven't adopted that practice already).
Thanks!
ninanotturna 5 months ago
The theist claim is that god exists. Not that they “believe” god exists. The atheist is anyone that rejects the theist claim 100% and the agnostic doesn't have enough or doesn't believe there is enough knowledge to reject the theist claim 100%. Belief and atheist should never be used in the same sentence. Atheist and agnostic are both based on knowledge. There is no strong/weak atheist. I am an atheist. I know there is no god.
residentatheist 5 months ago
@residentatheist The theists 'claim' is that a god exists, that's obvious. Nobody is defining a theist by what they claim, but epistomologically by what they believe. Just about every definition for theism entails belief, not an assertion of a claim. Defining it as 'just a claim being made by theists' runs into huge problems since by your definition, I, an atheist can even be a theist. I can make a claim and not believe it, since you added nothing about belief in your definition. So yes, a
Marc167 5 months ago
theist is necessarily a person who believes a god exists, due to semantics and epistemology issues. What do you even mean by rejects 100%? You weren't clear about that, nor what definition of 'rejects' you're using. There's 2: nonacceptance of a claim, i.e. not believing a claim & and the rare one 'believing a claim is false/ mental rejection of a claim'. This second definition is more commonly referred to as denial of a claim. You are supposed to define your terms first when you are discussing
Marc167 5 months ago
these matters, because it's very easy to violate the laws of logic or commit equivocation fallacies. How did you come up with these levels of certainty and percentages anyway? You must have read Richard Dawkins demonstrably flawed writings on these issues. He's a great Evolutionary biologist but a horrible logician and philosopher. Both Atheist and agnostic terms are NOT 'both' based on knowledge and can only be so if you're using an extremely broad definition of knowledge. One that might be
Marc167 5 months ago
these matters, because it's very easy to violate the laws of logic or commit equivocation fallacies. How did you come up with these levels of certainty and percentages anyway? You must have read Richard Dawkins demonstrably flawed writings on these issues. He's a great Evolutionary biologist but a horrible logician and philosopher. Both Atheist and agnostic terms are NOT 'both' based on knowledge and can only be so if you're using an extremely broad definition of knowledge. One that might be
Marc167 5 months ago
useful when speaking of practical knowledge, but completely useless and confusing in this type of discussion where these types of things are important to distinguish. Tell me what you mean by 'know', when you say you 'know' there is no god. And it's hard to take you seriously in these types of discussions when you're using the singular form of the word god. Based on your definition of 'knowing', which you're using in this context, I might know there are no gods as well, but a rose is still a
Marc167 5 months ago
rose by any other name. I might know my finger is a god if someone is defining my finger as a god, but being right is about being able to demonstrate that you're right regardless of what you call something. Defining it is more important than the words you use, and I'm sure I have done this. You have not. The weak and strong atheist positions are fundamental differences and important to distinguish, as is belief and knowledge.
Marc167 5 months ago
@Marc167 First of all I didn't think I used any words that were so uncommon that they required definitions. Apparently you like to play word games or something. Ok, I will play along. It's your blog. Let's start with know: When I say I know god doesn't exist it means I am positive, not uncertain, no doubt, absolutely sure. Next - god: The supernatural creature(s) that created the natural universe. Next - rejects: To discard as defective or useless. Next - 100%: Not partial. I didn't
residentatheist 5 months ago
@residentatheist With all due respect, there's just way too much wrong here for me to take the time to respond when I've already covered just about every bit of demonstrably flawed reasoning in my script for my next video. You did not cover nor acknowledge all the empirical differences nor all of the possible combinations of epistemological positions one can take regarding the 2 contradictory propositions I assessed. Sub to me and I'll do the same so you'll be notified when it's up.
Marc167 5 months ago
@Marc167 add anything about belief in my post because my post had nothing to do with belief. Clearly the theist claim is based on belief because there is nothing to support their claim but I am only discussing the actual claim, not what they believe. Individual theists have different beliefs, even about the same god(s). I did not read Richard Dawkins. I have seen some YouTube videos. I agree with him on most things but his scale of 1-7 is not one of them. My definitions of
residentatheist 5 months ago
atheist and agnostic are based on the level of knowledge a person has about god(s). The atheist has enough knowledge to know that god(s) do not exist and the agnostic either doesn't have enough knowledge to be 100% sure or doesn't believe there is enough knowledge to be 100% sure. You claim to be an atheist? What knowledge/information did you use to make that decision? Do you know god(s) don’t exist or do you just believe they don’t
residentatheist 5 months ago
exist. We can believe anything. There are no limits to beliefs and therefore they serve no purpose. An agnostic might use belief as a reason for their position but not an atheist. If I didn’t know god(s) don’t exist I wouldn’t claim to be an atheist. I would take the agnostic position or I would just say “I don’t know”. There are thee possible positions. Theist: god exists, atheist: god does not exist and agnostic: I don’t know if god exist or not. You can’t just
residentatheist 5 months ago
throw out the third position just because it don’t appeal to you. If your not going to call the third position agnostic as it has been traditionally referred to than what are you going to call it? The idea that theist and atheist are the only two options is absurd. That this somehow exhausts all the options is just wrong. It may exhaust all options when it come to belief but as pointed out earlier beliefs serve no purpose.
residentatheist 5 months ago
Not to nitpick (because I essentially agree with all you're saying) -- if I ask someone if they believe in a god and they answer, "I don't know" -- I'd have to respond, "Hey, friend, you haven't answered the question. You're telling me about what you know, and I asked you what you believe."
The guy who doesn't know may not know and believe in a god or may not know and not believe -- or he may not know and *neither* believe nor disbelieve.
In the *latter* two cases, he'd be an atheist.
prodprod 5 months ago
@prodprod Your third option violated the law of non-contradiction. As a matter of fact, it violates all 3 laws of logic. The definition for disbelieve I used meant 'not belief; not have a belief'. If you say you disbelieve, you just said you don't believe. You can't believe a proposition and not believe it at the same time. It's logically impossible. That's just basic logic 101. The only way you can neither believe or disbelieve (not believe) a proposition is if you've never been presented it.
Marc167 5 months ago
@prodprod Your third option violated the law of non-contradiction. As a matter of fact, it violates all 3 laws of logic. The definition for disbelieve I used meant 'not belief; not have a belief'. If you say you disbelieve, you just said you don't believe. You can't believe a proposition and not believe it at the same time. It's logically impossible. That's just basic logic 101. The only way you can neither believe or disbelieve (not believe) a proposition is if you've never been presented it.
Marc167 5 months ago
@Marc167 I'm afraid we're simply proceeding from different definitions of the term, or at any rate from a different understanding of it's meaning in this context. I would have used the term to mean "to believe" in the sense of "to conclude that a proposition is correct" and to disbelieve is to conclude that a proposition is incorrect.
In that sense of the term, I think, one can not only not "know" but also neither believe nor disbelieve a stated proposition.
prodprod 5 months ago
(cont'd) (2) But as you are using the term -- "disbelief" meaning neither to accept nor reject the correctness of a proposition, but to "lack" belief altogether, you would obviously be correct.
prodprod 5 months ago
@prodprod In that sense, I guess you can, but the more proper term to use is denial. Denial when referring to belief in propositions is commonly defined as : 'The action of declaring something to be untrue'. Disbelief is most commonly used as 'not accepting as true' (this is also referred to as rejection 'of' belief'). Not the way you would reject a prom date, but as you would be unable to accept something as true, and by default be rejecting (not accepting) a belief. Ergo you would lack the
Marc167 5 months ago
belief 'god exists'. Your use of the word is extremely rare, informal and rarely used at all. Using it would be like me calling you gay in todays society, which in turn in a very sincere manner you respond with, "Why are you saying I'm happy?" If you haven't been convinced this proposition is true 'god exists', it means you don't think it's true. If you don't think it's true you don't have that belief, you've rejected it (not accepted). It's one of the mandatory mutually exclusive positions.
Marc167 5 months ago
There is no middle ground there since you cannot have a belief and not have a belief simultaneously. A belief you mentally reject, i.e. cannot accept as true, i.e. do not have, is one which you disbelieve. This is according to 99% of dictionaries and is the most common usage when pertaining to beliefs in propositions. If you misunderstood me, you might not have read all the annotations or had them glitch on you. I clearly laid out the way I was using it by defining and explaining denial and
Marc167 5 months ago
emphasizing the difference between disbelief. They do glitch sometimes so perhaps you didn't see them all. Let's use the definition you're using in a sentence replacing your own words.
Original: "he may not know and *neither* believe nor disbelieve."
New: he may not know and *neither* have the belief 'god exists' nor believe 'god exists' is false/incorrect.
So if he believes the proposition 'god exists' is false, it logically follows that he must believe it's exact opposite statement 'god
Marc167 5 months ago
doesn't exist' is true. So you're saying somebody can simultaneously NOT have either of these beliefs :
1: god exists
2: god doesn't exist
Having neither of these is referred to as a weak atheist or negative atheist. I did explain this in the annotations of my video a few times. Since you use the word deny as disbelieve, what word do you use when you don't believe someone? Fill in the blanks for me:
I (a word for don't believe) you.
You can't say "I reject you" and "don't believe" seems silly
Marc167 5 months ago
when theres a shorter word for it already. And I wasn't using the word as a lack of belief, but a rejection/nonacceptance of a presented proposition. Not having having a belief (lacking one) is just a necessary emergent property of this. And the difference here is with beliefs you lack, these can be infinite. disbelief only deals with finite, limited propositions we as finite human beings can be confronted with, and so kindly have the ability to accept or reject. Hopefully I didn't come off as
Marc167 5 months ago
a dick. I usually do. It's very difficult to convey tone in text. Oh well.
Regards,
Marc :)
Marc167 5 months ago
@Marc167 No, I appreciate the thoughtful and detailed response and, as I indicated originally, I found your initial post to be exceptionally well constructed -- except that the annotations were a bit difficult to navigate, so maybe that was simply the basis of the misunderstanding.
Many thanks for the clarification.
NMS
prodprod 5 months ago
Proposition: 'There's an immaterial invisible unicorn in my anus named bob'. See, up until I told you about this, you didn't have the option of rejecting (not accepting as true), or accepting (believing) my proposition. But now that you've heard of bob, your mind took a position. Another possible option is to both disbelieve (not believe;reject) and deny (assert or believe a claim is false). But even if you deny a claim, you still disbelieve it. Get it?
Marc167 5 months ago
Can you please qualify the term "GOD" here?
pectopunch 5 months ago
@pectopunch A god is a concept. All anyone has is a concept of what a god is or could be, whether or not one actually exists. Because of this is, it is far more appropriate to use the term 'gods' in the plural rather than the singular, since everyone has a different concept of a god. There must be a minimum qualification for what a god is though, or else my finger could be a god. In my next video I'm going to define what that qualification is. Remember, nonbelievers aren't coming up with the
Marc167 5 months ago
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but there
Marc167 5 months ago
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but there
Marc167 5 months ago
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but
Marc167 5 months ago
proposition 'X god exists'. Theists are defining it, proposing it and believing it, or at least believing the proposition other theists proposed exists. Atheists just don't accept it as a true proposition; they haven't been convinced that it's true. It's not my job to define what a god is or must be, since some theists definitions of what a god has to be contradict other theists beliefs of what a god just has to be. It would be silly to define my own concept of god than not believe it, but there
Marc167 5 months ago
needs to be that minimum 'what qualifies as a god' thing addressed for terms of communication. I don't believe in anything anyone refers to as a god (unless it's something we already have a word for and can demonstrate exists - like saying god is love). To me it's the same thing as saying love is love. They haven't added anything new to the table. A God should at least be a conscious supernatural creator of the observable Universe.
Marc167 5 months ago
Spread the theists- deists - agnostic - weak atheist - strong atheist.
From left to right it describes their knowledge about the world they live in.
The more you know about science, moves you to the strong atheist side.
The less you know the more you lean to the theist side.
Strong atheist has nothing to do with belief it has to do with knowledge.
The one zillion categories where invented by theists most likely to separate us
Im happy with anyone being a deist + personally.
tilemacro 5 months ago
Outstanding. Thank you for putting this out there.
adzida11 6 months ago
i dont know? that is not atheist, that is agnostic.
Aanthanur 6 months ago
@Aanthanur Read a book called Atheism: the case against god. This might give you a better understanding of a common misconception.The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869. "Most of my colleagues were '-ists' of one sort or the other." Huxley, lacking a name for his uncertainty, was "without a rag of a label to cover himself with." So he gave himself an 'ists' by assigning the term "agnostic" to himself. He selected the early religious sect known as "Gnostics" as a prime example...
JoseATurner 6 months ago
@Aanthanur ...of men who claimed knowledge of the supernatural without justification; and he distinguished himself as an "agnostic" by stipulating that the supernatural, even if it exists, lies beyond the scope of human knowledge. He felt if we cannot say if it does or does not exsist, we must suspend judgment.Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human...
JoseATurner 6 months ago
@Aanthanur ...mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge. Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the IMPOSSIBILIY OF KNOWING with regard to a god or supernatural being.
JoseATurner 6 months ago
@Aanthanur The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic. The agnostic THEIST believe in the existence of god, but maintains that the NATURE of god is unknowable. So "I don't know" DOES NOT MEAN AGNOSTIC, despite how people throw around the word. So atheist CAN "NOT KNOW" because ATHEISM is simply the LACK OF BELIEF in a god or gods. This doesn't mean atheists BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD, though some do.
JoseATurner 6 months ago
Well yeah but ther is no reason to lie to your self like that.
agentD99 6 months ago
This is a little silly...I can take whatever position I want to!
imperial3232 6 months ago
Your atheist is evolving! Your atheist ---- evolved ---- into an agnostic atheist!
U C What I did thare?
Jakob1029 7 months ago
alright, you've convinced me... I used to call myself agnostic, but in reality, I am an agnostic atheist. I'm still not sure if I am a weak or strong atheist though.
danomanno747 7 months ago
@danomanno747 Let's see if I can help you with that. A weak atheist would be someone who says, "Well, I don't accept either claim that god does, or does not exist."
A strong atheist is someone who accepts the claim, believes(not necessarily claims to know) that god does not exist.
Tere ARE reasons for either claim, and this has to do with your position on, "Evidence of absence" being "evidence of absence." Strong atheists tend to believe we SHOULD have evidence of god, if he's there, see?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi well, I accept the claim that the traditional Christian biblical God does not exist (based on logical flaws in the arguments supporting the Biblical idea of God). Of course, *I cannot claim to know this as a certainty*. However, I am not sure if there must be evidence of a God for humans to detect - perhaps this "God" set things up so "it" is undetectable to us? Anyway, I am pretty sure I am an agnostic athiest, and (probably) a strong athiest.
danomanno747 7 months ago
@danomanno747 Well, I would say you're a strong atheist "with respect to certain gods". That's not to say every god, anywhere in all of possible existence is believed to be nonexistent, but the ones presented to you have no evidence, and are usually logically impossible to begin with.
BigLundi 7 months ago
alright, you've convinced me... I used to call myself agnostic, but in reality, I am an agnostic atheist. I'm still not sure
danomanno747 7 months ago
stupid em i can turn the annotation off *facepalm*
Insomnium2188 8 months ago
weak agnostic weak atheist , thank you for the info.
Ranulf0Bytzu 10 months ago
@Ranulf0Bytzu But you can't really be weak atheist
Strong atheism means you believe there is no at least one God.
Well, christian God is by definition the only God, and same can be said for muslim God.
So it is logical fact that everyone in the world is strong atheist, as you must believe there is no Alah or Jahve.
darkilustrisimus 10 months ago
@darkilustrisimus you are mistaken , "strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist " , "weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism" (from wiki).But regarding the christian and the muslim god ...and other monotheistic religion i am a strong atheist.So i should edit my post ....weak agnostic atheist :) that is more acurate
Ranulf0Bytzu 10 months ago
@Ranulf0Bytzu In his definition he said to be strong atheist you must believe at least ONE god do not exist
Since muslim and christian god can't both exist simultaneously, one of them must be false, therefore everyone should believe at least one of them do not exist, therefore everyone is strong atheist.
I am probably mistaken, I just don't see where...
darkilustrisimus 10 months ago
@darkilustrisimus You are wrong. I said you must disbelieve in all the claims that assert "god exists", and believe that at least one god (that you accept as a qualified definition as a god since I wouldn't call a cup a god) does not exist. So you must not be convinced that any propositions that say "X god exists" are true (atheist), and you must deny at least one of those claims (strong atheist).
Atheist = doesn't believe in any gods
Strong atheist = doesn't believe in any gods and denies 1
Marc167 10 months ago
I don't accept either of those religions definitions for god as valid. The concepts are inherently, logically self contradictory.
Marc167 10 months ago
@Marc167 So i should rethink my position . I am a weak agnostic because i don't have the knowledge necessary to know if god exists but i think that in the future it is possible to know the answer.I am a strong atheist because i deny the existence of any monotheistic , omnipotent , all-knowing , omnipresent god . I like your videos , they can bring clarification if one looks carefully at them , thank you Marc (sorry for my bad english, not my first language).
Ranulf0Bytzu 10 months ago