I get really annoyed when people try to tell me what I do and don't believe and that I cannot be certain there is no god. You can go on with your uncertainty as to the possible existence of masturbating shoulder trolls but I am as certain about their non-existance as I am about any and all gods.
Here are a couple of rules to follow with the game. 1: Pick a clique. High school? Why stop there? 2: Behave like clique and follow clique rules. 3: Ignore all combinations you possess. 4: Repeat to yourself that you are fitting in with "your kind".
youre a moron n demeaning n you basically say knowledge is always changing ("they knew the earth was flat"). If you are going to correct someone through education it is best not to use "kiddo" because that is ignorant and idiotic since you are this enlightened dictionary. Nonetheless, shut up and focus your energies elsewhere people like you divide and well bring upon pointless bullshit besides the downfalls of bad dye jobs. But you should look into bureaucracy your bullshit would work there.
I am a unique type of Atheist. I don't know if a god outside human understanding exists or not. God(s) could exist, but gods that have influence on daily lives and have attributes that contradict reality are imaginary. There is no evidence that the gods conjured up by human imagination are real and no reason to believe in it for me. A god separate from religious dogma, are undefined. I am an Agnostic Atheist in this case.
@roboticsynapse Agnostic atheism isn't nearly as unique as you suggest. I'm also an atheist. My beliefs are very similar to what you have written here, but I don't find it necessary to add the word agnostic as it's pretty much a given for everyone. Very few people claim to be gnostic about anything. I've never met an atheist who claims to be a gnostic atheist or to be absolutely certain of anything, although I'm sure they exist. Agnostic atheists are easily the most common.
Wow... Gorgeous and intelligent. I asked my hubby if I could have you and he said, "Yes can I watch?" Sorry to be so candid but sometimes I can't help it. Please, don't ever stop being you. This video is full of sheer awesome. Oh, and I am an agnostic atheist. I have a strong disbelief in Jesus; as well as other deities; but I can't prove that god exists or doesn't because I just don't have enough facts.
@BionicDance And yet, if it wasn't for Huxley, you wouldn't be even using the word "agnostic" at all now would you? Like-wise, if it wasn't for the "gnostics", Huxley would of never coined the word "agnostic" into English usage as anti-thesis to the word "gnostic". Now kindly show me an example of Huxley mentioning "agnostic-atheism" and I'll concede. If you can't, I shall continue self IDing as "agnostic", and encourage all other self ID'd agnostics to do the same.
@incomprehensible14 Actually, I probably WOULD be using "agnostic"; it's common enough knowledge that 'gnosis' means 'knowledge', and the word would surely have been coined at some other time.
And anyway, I don't NEED Huxley to be using the term that way; Huxley was WRONG, he coined the term badly, and it should be revised.
@BionicDance well, it kind of is because of Huxley that we use that term. i don't disagree with you that it would have come about somewhere, somehow if he didn't coin it, but he did, so it is currently because of him we use it. you are right, as i've implied, that you don't need huxley to be able to use the term. however, to say that he coined the term badly, he was wrong, and the definition should be revised just to prove a point don't make you right about your definition of agnostic.
@LTheDetective3 Except that the term Huxley used is etymologically incorrect; the syllables he put together in that order do not mean what he intended. "a + gnostic" means "without knowledge"; like it or lump it, that's what those word particles MEAN...and that is NOT what Huxley meant when he coined the term. So he did, in fact, get it rather badly wrong.
And I'm not the only one who thinks so, either; large numbers of atheists use the term as I do. Huxley's term is dying as a result.
@BionicDance ok, i get that he didn't use the words right, and that it means something entirely different then what he put them togeather to mean. his term may very well be dying as a result of athiests using the term properly, but that doesn't change how the term is understood now. it's like, if i were drinking out of a coffee mug, and i asked you to give me the cup, you would in theory give me the mug, because that's what i've used. by definintion, it's not the same thing...
@LTheDetective3 ...but it's how we understand it to be between ourselves. so even though it's wrong, it's clear what we mean. huxley threw it togeat/her to make it easier for someone who claims to be agnositc could more easily identify/differentiate themselves from the other groups at that time. anyway, i see you point very clearly, and i'm more inclined to say you're right, but i'm not there yet.
@LTheDetective3 No, that's different; "cup" and "mug" at least refer to the same basic thing.
But Huxley's use of "agnostic" does not refer to LACKING knowledge; it's actually a statement of un-knowability. You cannot equate the two; the former implies that knowledge is at least POSSIBLE.
@BionicDance i used a poor example, sorry. i was drinking coffee, so that came to mind quickest. anyway, if you perminately lack some kind of knowledge on a subject, such as the existance of a god, then you would never know. now, from the incorrectly defined agnostic point of view, you wouldn't know if there was a god until you were dead. you also wouldn't know if there wasn't when you died, because you'd never have a conscious mind again. so, with that understanding, agnostic as unknowing
@LTheDetective3 But you see, "a+gnostic" means "WITHOUT knowledge"; it does NOT mean that knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE, which is what Huxley was trying to say.
And I certainly do NOT agree with Huxley that the knowledge IS impossible; if this god is as all-powerful as people say, then he, she, it, or they COULD just show up.
So, I'm sorry, but the term is NOT accurate and needs to be revised.
@BionicDance you're right, god could just show up if he wanted to if he is all powerful, fact is agnostics don't know. they lack that knowledge. now being that we lack that knowledge, and that it could come about at anytime if there is an all powerful god, then we ourselves may never know. i agree that he didn't get the words right, but i also think that in a sense he was right, that if you lack a puzzle piece you don't have a full puzzle even if there's a whole picture. believe me, i know what
@BionicDance most definately. but my point is that you can still make what he was saying true if you take into account the philosophy behind the word's actual definition.
and you don't need to caps lock words to point them out. i understand what you're telling me.
@LTheDetective3 I'll stop using Caps when YouTube gives me the ability to use italics. :P
And I don't care if you can make what Huxley says TRUE; I care about what you CALL it. Communication is VERY important...and next to impossible if your language does not accurately reflect reality.
@BionicDance haha, true indeed. but you don't need to italicize it either, i catch what you're saying. communitcation is more than important, it's vital. you really can't live without it, and although that particular word doesn't accurately refelct the reality of what he is saying, when you use it the way he intended for it to be used it will make sense. just to be clear, if you hear the word and say "that's not what it means" but it's how it is interpreted, then i'd give it a pass because
@LTheDetective3 Well, I DON'T give it a pass, especially if the proper, etymologically-correct definition of the word is one I need to use!
"Atheist" is a prime example. The original coining was for "atheos+ist" and not "a+theist"; the former meant, basically, "anti-theist" while the latter means, well..."atheist". We're talking god-denier vs non-believer, here, disbelief vs lacking belief.
Well, the latter is more accurate, frankly, and I'm not backing down from that use!
@BionicDance and you don't have to. i never wanted you to. fact is that if you can understand eachother than you can communitcate effectively, and today if i say i'm agnostic then the majority would understand that i'm unsure if there's a god, and that i lack knowledege on that fact as oppossed to never being able to know for sure. so really, the actual definition of the word would become irrelivant unless you get nitpicky, because we have an understanding of one another.
@BionicDance incomprehensible did, i just built off of what he meant. to be honest, i never thought we were arguing, either, just discussing how the word is used vs what it is interpreted to be. fact is, there are plenty of words like agnostic in the english language that mean one thing but are used in a totally different way to mean something separate. and i brought up huxley because he coined the term that you said you didn't need him to coin to use. i think i'm gonna throw up now. my head is
@LTheDetective3 you're saying. entymologically speaking, he was wrong. but applying the understading of what he meant and how the word can relate to the philosophy is the key to making it work. and just so you know, i understand that that makes me wrong; however, i'm not debating wether or not he or i am wrong about that, but i'm trying to paint a picture of how it could work.
@BionicDance ROFLROLERCOASTERRIOT:D And Mark Walberg would of beat up the terrorists if he'd gotten on the plane that day:D (*sarcasm*). Why you lying? You're starting to sound fanatical LOL:D No offense but that's just sad:) You know damn well you wouldn't just be randomly tossing around Greek words in English if it wasn't for Huxley and the gnostics:D LOL:D Thanks for the laugh though! I wish you could see me! Typing "LOL" just doesn't do justice to how hard I'm laughing:D
@BionicDance Look honey, Thomas Henry Huxley and the gnostics before him were under no obligation to coin the words agnostic and gnostic the way it was literally used in ancient Greek. Besides, you already have like six words to describe the same exact thing as "agnostic-atheism" and "gnostic-atheism". Why is it so important to you people to rip-off the words "agnostic" and "gnostic"?
@BionicDance And further more, wouldn't ZOM be more of what you people would call a "gnostic-atheist"? And even if for the sake of argument, the whole world adopts the "lack of belief" definition of atheism, wouldn't a "strong/positive/hard/gnostic/knowledgeable-atheist" simply be a "strong/positive/hard/gnostic/knowledgeable-lack of believer"? How does putting any of those words in front of "atheist" suddenly change it from "lack of belief" to "belief there's no gods"?
@BionicDance I agree with you. Unless I walk a mile in your shoes, I really have no idea what I'm talking about.
When I tell people I live in California, they say they are jealous, but they have no concept that California is a huge, diverse state. I live in the "bible belt" of the state, which includes places like Orange County and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. It's tough here, all by myself, with a religiously insane community and family. My stories would terrify the sane.
@steverock85 You can't know there's a god, so the first part of that claim would be made by someone who strongly believes there is a god, but they go on to contradict that by saying they also disbelieve what they've already asserted. It's almost as stupid is someone who says "I don't believe there is a god, but I also believe there is." Saying that is exactly the same as saying, "I don't disbelieve in god, but I don't believe in god either."
@steverock85 Now your just adding synonyms to replace the word claim. You're attempting to confuse the issue but you aren't saying anything new. No, belief claims are not all gnostic or agnostic in nature, even if you call them propositions.
I (and several others, including the videos you ignore) have said this to you before as well: Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. When someone asks "Do you believe there is a god?" "I don't know" is not an answer. No one asked if you knew, we know you don't know. The question was if you believe. We know the knowledge or certainty isn't available. If you don't say "yes," than you default to "no," which is atheism. The question isn't "can you believe?" the question is "do you believe?"
burden of proof? How does this apply to what we're talking about?
Unfair because they're making the first claim? The claim, theism, is the only claim we're talking about. Atheists are everyone who doesn't also believe that claim.
Are you asking "how is it an agnostic and atheists have the same view?" Because they aren't mutually exclusive. How many times do I have to explain that? I said agnosticism is lack of knowledge. That's it.
@steverock85 Yes, I am well aware of what agnosticism means. Why do you still pretend I'm not agnostic? I've said many times over, "we're all agnostic." We don't know if gods exist or not. I've never said anything to the contrary. My point the whole time is that just because you don't know, doesn't mean you don't still fall into one of these two categories: those who believe gods exist, and those who don't.
"I don't believe the answer about gods is unknowable, but currently unknown."
It seems to me that if you think the answer is unknowable, you can not be (a)theist. Why would you think they should be in the theist or atheist category?
Why do you think belief has nothting to do with knowledge? (I assume you don't because of your answers below, correct me if I am wrong)
@steverock85 I can't be atheist because of your warped definition of atheist. That's I've been telling you and why I've repeatedly clarified what I meant.
Belief can (and usually is) based on knowledge. If we don't have knowledge, we may believe something anyway, like agnostic theists do. That's why the god question pertains to belief, and not knowledge. That's why an answer about knowledge doesn't suffice as an answer to the question. It's not asking why you (dis)believe, but "if"
"I can't be atheist because of your warped definition of atheist. That's I've been telling you and why I've repeatedly clarified what I meant."
Why? Because you don't want it to be a choice? What if I don't want to choose or can?
'It's not asking why you (dis)believe, but "if" '
I have told you what I think, now I am asking what I am from your definition. If I am atheist, then do I not think it is more likely than not that god/s don't exist?
@steverock85 Again, this whole thing stems from your refusal to accept that atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief. Maybe we should use a different word, like non-theist, or "untheist." What do you prefer to call a person who doesn't hold belief theistic claims?
I think most are not agnostic atheist but rather implicit atheist which is different.
implicit atheist would simply say:
"I will postpone my belief until proven."
This is where agnostic atheist and implicit atheist differs. Part of agnosticsim nature tend to
think it is rather useless to talk about proofs(unknowable). If you are agnostic atheist you admit the answer is unknown or unknowable but still choose to disbelieve.
wrong agnostic means unknowing for example you cant be 100% sure if god exist or not without any evidence
atheistism based on commen knowledge he makes a a assumption that the existens of a god is so little that you can take it for sure he doesent exist
iam a agnostic for 10% and 90% atheist why because the assumption that a god exist is very little, specially the god from the known religions but yet you can be 100% sure until you can proof it
@lacossanostra Hey, you're wasting your time with Steverock. They don't watch the videos or use the same definitions as everybody else, just posts ideas on their own warped definitions based on the titles. They've been completely pwned repeatedly but just move to other videos and starts over with denial and circular reasoning to reaffirm their own fear of being wrong. It's as futile as discussing the burden of proof with a hardcore "fingers-in-ears-style" gnostic creationist.
You actually don't understand what is being said to you. I will make a video about this in the summertime when I am not working and studying at the same time. I include intro into logic and what the general idea is. Then I will show how to apply what we know.
There is no way to explain this to someone who has no understanding of general terms and how apply them. I will accept this burden of proof.
@steverock85 "There is no way to explain this to someone who has no understanding of general terms and how apply them."
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head with that sentiment. Do you notice every time you post your definition of agnostic you get corrected by different people on the same mistakes you are making? Do you think that it's because we all got together and made something up? Maybe you should consider that you might be wrong, and you can't just use your own definitions.
@steverock85 I, and several others, have walked you through, step-by-step, exactly what we mean by atheist, agnostic, and how those terms are not mutually exclusive. You keep incorrectly telling me what I think, what I believe, and what the words I'm saying mean. If you watch the above video, BionicDance points that problem out. If you use your own alternate definitions of words, we might as well not even be talking. Pretending I (and others) haven't made an argument, doesn't work.
@steverock85 "There is a god but I disbelieve there is a god" doesn't make sense because it is the same as saying "I believe there is a god, and I don't believe there is a god," which is the same as saying "I neither believe there is a god, nor do I believe there is a god." The latter, is what you're saying you believe right? You're saying agnosticism is the claim "I neither believe there is a god, nor do I disbelieve there is a god." Which isn't agnosticism or logically possible.
@steverock85 No it doesn't go both ways. Find a single example of me telling you what you believe.
All claims are not "gnostic in nature" who said they were?
Agnosticism describes knowledge, and very few people even believe certainty is possible. Theistic claims are about belief, not certainty. You either believe, or you don't.
@steverock85 As for pretending I attack you and don't make arguments, I'll repeat for the 30th time or so: No one knows for certain there is or is not a god. Some people claim to be certain, but we know they can't be, as there is still zero evidence about any gods. Thus belief claims function completely independent of knowledge or factual accuracy as they are made without certainty. I believe a theistic claim = theist. I don't believe a theistic claim = atheist. atheist = not theist
Trust me, I know what you say when you talk about 90% vs 10% certainty. How can anyone feel it is 50 vs 50? I have been atheist. This is something atheist can not understand. Once they will however, they will not be atheist anymore...
When you are agnostic it is not really 50/50 but rather you give every idea what can be in the after realm an equal chance.
This is why we say it is unknown or unknowable rather than "I don't know" or "I am not sure".
@halcyondaze82 It isn't. If nothing else, people certainly CLAIM to be gnostic, CLAIM to have knowledge that a god exists, and that, at least, distinguishes them from others. The designation may be impossible to confirm, but that does not make it an irrelevant one.
@halcyondaze82 Well, talking religion and atheism is part and parcel with talking about agnosticism. They kinna go hand in hand; you can't just talk about ONE subject when they're so interrelated.
@BionicDance So if agnostic means without knowledge, then when referring to atheism/theism doesn't the term become worthless? If we can all agree that there is no proof for or against the existence of god or gods, then isn't every theist and every atheist agnostic? If so then it's a word we don't need to use at all in this context.
@badsaj1 No, it isn't useless; this presumes that knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE (which is not necessarily the case; if there IS a god, he, she, it, or they COULD reveal themselves instead of demanding faith), or that no people ever CLAIM to be gnostic (whether they truly are or not).
@BionicDance I promise, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I've been a closet atheist for most of my life, and I've only recently been turned on to the you tube atheist community. I'm just trying to understand.
Early in the video you allow that there are gnostic theists and atheists, yet by the definition of gnostic/agnostic: knowlege/lack of knowledge then how is this possible? Is there truly someone out there with knowledge on the existence or lack thereof? If not, then aren't they really agnostic?
@badsaj1 Irrelevant. If you're objecting to the word's utility, what the people ACTUALLY are versus what they CLAIM they are is an irrelevant distinction. The word "gnostic" still has utility for the reasons I've already described.
@BionicDance I guess it's the "unknown and unknowable" part that's throwing me. If I don't know of the existence, and don't allow that anyone will ever know of the existence of god, and I don't believe in god, then I'm an agnostic atheist. If I allow that it is possible to prove, one way or the other, then I'm not agnostic. Am I getting close?
First of all, DEFINITELY get rid of the "unknown and unknowable" part; that's bullshit. Sure, maybe we don't know, so the "unknown" part might be valid, but the unknowable...that's just something religious people say to get out of having to prove what they're saying.
An agnostic is someone who is without knowledge, a gnostic is someone WITH knowledge. Some people CLAIM to be gnostic, CLAIM to know god does or doesn't exist; others claim to be agnostic, to not know.
@BionicDance Thanks. Keep up the good work. I Live in Puyallup, work in Tacoma, so I know how the weather can be a drag. Fortunately I've never had to deal with SAD, but keep your head up and know that there are people out here who appreciate the time you've spent waving the flag for rational thinking!
@halcyondaze82 No, I CAN'T confirm that I'm gnostic about something.
My ability to confirm that is irrelevant to the facts, however; if I know something, I know it, even if I'm not aware of that fact.
If you're going to insist that terminology reflect perspective rather than reality, we cannot have this discussion. "Gnosticism" refers to having knowledge, not KNOWING you have knowledge.
BionicDance, do you believe the batter of waterloo happened? Is this a strong belief or has this transfrormed magically in to your two dimentional map?
@halcyondaze82 Speaking PURELY pedantically, I don't know for certain that the Battle of Waterloo happened. The evidence is rather overwhelming, and my confidence is high, so I'd say I believe it...but I don't know for certain, and am willing to change my position pending new data.
...which I'm going to guess is NOT the answer you were looking for.
@halcyondaze82 Yes, but only if I'm uber-pedantic. I'm EFFECTIVELY gnostic, I just acknowledge the possibility that the information I have is wrong.
See, I see a distinction between whether you know all the relevant details, and whether you're AWARE you know all the relevant details. For all I know, I AM gnostic about Waterloo, I may know true facts about that battle...but I cannot CONFIRM that I'm gnostic, that I have the relevant facts.
When you go back to your definition of agnostic meaning "without knowing", I take it you're referring to Absolute knowledge. Which is impossible for a human to have. Agnostic in genernal parlance as well as in dictionaries means uncomitted to a certain idea. It doesn't mean you're 50 50, it means that you feel you don't have enough info to make a judgement. Rank up to atheism and you think you do.
@halcyondaze82 Knowledge is fact-based; belief does not need to be (but may be so anyway). And even having knowledge may make no dent in belief at all; consider that creationists have all the facts at their command, yet persist in their belief anyway, denying the facts.
@BionicDance I refer you back to ZOMG's sliding scale. I'm not saying that really realy weally believing in something makes it true; more like our imperfect primate brains can't but traverse the grey area between belief and knowledge.
@halcyondaze82 ZOMGit's scale ONLY MEASURE'S BELIEF. It does not measure knowledge.
Nor does it allow for those who have knowledge, yet continue to believe in opposition to that knowledge. Her scale ONLY measures people with integrity, whose amount of knowledge affects their belief...and that does not describe everybody. At all. Her scale is flawed.
@BionicDance You said her scale only measures people with integrity. Isn't that the only scale you should be judging it by? Otherwise this whole discussion is nonsense.
@halcyondaze82 No, it isn't. Because this discussion is about EVERYBODY, not just those with a clue. The scale I propose measures peoples' level or lack of belief and peoples' level and lack of knowledge, giving us an accurate picture of what a person's worldview is; if we ONLY measure those with integrity, we're leaving out a VERY large part of the world.
(cont) Now my belief is more justfied given the evidence. Now say the folk at SETI train their telescopes at Kepler 22b and discover a radio message beamed isometerically that locates the known pulsars within 500 light years as well as a message containing the first 2000 digits of pi. I'd subsequently be on the way to having knowledge that something is going on over there that is not related to natural phenonmia.
Agreed. I'm going by Stephen J Gould's defintion of a fact here. Indulge me:
I happen to believe that it's likely that non intelligent life exists on another planet. Usual reasons billions of stars, galaxies etc. I'm not going to greatly affirm this due to the obvious lack of evidence, but I believe slightly none the same. Say the forthcoming James Webb space telescope did a spectral analysis of Kepler 22b's atmosphere and found that certain key markers of life as we know it are there.
and i used to espouse it. ZOMC explained it very well - there is no definition that you speak of regarding equating 'with knowledge' in the way you define it with gnosticism in any historical context. It's just something that's been made up in the past five years or so, presumably to avoid a burden of proof of sorts.
Do you think human thought can differentiate knowledge and belief as a matter of kind and not of degree?
@halcyondaze82 Speaking from a purely etymological standpoint, that's PRECISELY was "agnostic" means, and I think you'll find that a very large part of the atheist community uses it to mean "without knowledge".
And given that there is no OTHER word one can use the way we might use "gnostic" and "agnostic", I think you might wanna get on board, since I think the zeitgeist is changing on this one.
And I think knowledge and belief are separate variables entirely. Degree is irrelevant here.
Belief is not seperate from knowledge; it's only a sliding scale due to our imperfect reasoning faculties. I was taking issue with your assertion that they are somehow at right angles to each other when they are in fact lines on a continuum as ZOMG took pains to try to explain.
@halcyondaze82 Belief is not separate from knowledge? Are you fucking serious? *raised eyebrow*
Let me ask you, can someone believe in something when they have no knowledge if it beyond the concept? Of course they can.
Can someone deny the truth of something for which they have all the proof in the world? Of course they can.
Belief and knowledge are COMPLETELY separate. Sure, with logical, rational people they are the same thing, but NEWS FLASH: not everybody is logical and rational!
When did I ever say that believing something means that person saying it has knowledge of the subject in question?
In lieu of this, do you believe that the human mind takes a walk upwards and is boosted up to a 'knowledge' once a certain step is reached or do you believe that the both are on the same scale rather than being upgraded in an ethereal way?
@halcyondaze82 ...what? I'm sorry, but none of what you just said made a lick of sense.
I think that knowledge requires having facts; belief does not...though having knowledge may well bring about belief. It's that simple. I don't know what the hell you're going on about, but belief is thinking something is true, knowledge is KNOWING something is true. And you know by having facts, you believe by having wishes...or by having knowledge that shapes your beliefs.
@BionicDance I'm just trying to get across the idea that the agnostic/athiest terminology is not two dimonisional but one dimentional. As it has been for... like hundreds of years. Huxley didn't have it in mind and neither did the gnostic christians. It's tomfollery on your and others part to suggest that it does.
Stop with this 'lacking believe' nonsense. You lack a believe that a god created the cosmos? So does the chair I'm sitting on. If you lack a belief then you are declaring you don't know (deism wise) and so you are agnostic. Stop the avodidance of burden of proof.
"there is no such thing as a "true agnostic", they do not exist, CAN NOT exist. It's impossible."
Do you believe that extraterrestrial organisms exist on planets other than earth? Do you believe there is gold on the dwarf planet eris? What happens inside the event horizon of the black hole
? Is there an incredibly weird 'disembodied mind' behind the universe?
I've heard of the east-west, north-south argument of 'agnostics' and 'gnostics' for about 3 years now
And by that reasoning, I am an Gnostic Atheist. I don't have to prove my side either because it would be trying to prove to someone that a magical flying monkey fingers my butthole every night just because some crazy person in a mental hospital says so.
The universe has never gave any shred of evidence that a deity or dieties exists. No one can even prove if a god exists or not because it isn't detectable by the natural world at all. And just because a god may exist or not, doesn't mean you have to be agnostic. For all we know god can be defined as an alien rendering the word "god" useless. I know a god doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven to exist and it can't be detected by the natural world in any form what so ever.
Gnostic can be defined as: of, relating to, or possessing knowledge, esp esoteric spiritual knowledge. They are both terms used to describe theistic and atheistic beliefs or non-beliefs including whether or not they know about or don't know about something. You can't just label someone an agnostic just because they don't know if a god exists or not. People can know whether a god exists or not if they have seen proof to convince them if one exists or not.
Your claim of being agnostic is wrong. The example you gave about santa clause not being real just because your parents told you so doesn't prove them right or wrong, it just proves that your parents lied to you about santa clause. There are different ways to define agnostic but the most common one is: a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
Pardon the rest of the English speaking world, but regardless of your demand that certain words MUST be specifically construed, you are jousting at windmills. Like it or not, common use is THE most important consideration in determining what a person means in their language.
@trythinkingnow But determining what a person means in their language is NOT the concern here; this is not a casual, common-use discussion, but rather a technical, borderline scientific discussion.
The point is you said we must use technical definitions, so stop skewing these things. I gave the definition of gnostic, the translation from is Greek derivative. As well as the definition as given in any dictionary...albeit paraphrased, I in no way changed the definition. The prefix 'A' in the English language, means without. We all know this. The only difference is in the way we see things. No matter what you say I will see agnostic atheist as an illogical term, by technical definitions.
9cont) of course that does not mean you make definite claims to the contrary, i.e. "God absolutely does not exist" but that you have knowledge leading to you be without belief. This is an atheist. An agnostic is basically claiming they don not have a belief one way or another. They do not believe or disbelieve in the existence of a deity. They are without knowledge....agnostic. Why is that hard to understand?
Gnostic is basically Greek for learned. So we will say that is with knowledge of something. Agnostic is obviously then without knowledge. Theism is a belief of a God or deity. Atheism is then obviously not beliving in such. Without belief. It's retarded to say you're an agnostic atheist because if you are atheist, without belief, obviously you do not have knowledge to the contrary so the agnostic label is redundant and unnecessary. Without belief, to me means that you believe the contrary.
Number one, although it's a bit irrelavent to the topic at hand Dexter IS available through Netflix streaming. The only important thing about this is I think you're being disingenuous in implying you've looked for it and not found it so you assume it's not there. I guarantee, as I just did so myself to double check, if you search 'Dexter' on Netflix via the Xbox 360 streaming it DOES come up. So, seriously, don't start a video with a line of BS. I am already doubting what you have to say
Also have to say how kind you were about her confusion. It's not her fault she is confused. Let's hope she can really impress everyone and admit her honest mistake. :)
I get really annoyed when people try to tell me what I do and don't believe and that I cannot be certain there is no god. You can go on with your uncertainty as to the possible existence of masturbating shoulder trolls but I am as certain about their non-existance as I am about any and all gods.
DreddDwarf 2 days ago
Here are a couple of rules to follow with the game. 1: Pick a clique. High school? Why stop there? 2: Behave like clique and follow clique rules. 3: Ignore all combinations you possess. 4: Repeat to yourself that you are fitting in with "your kind".
Amashkitotamoes 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Amashkitotamoes 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Amashkitotamoes 4 weeks ago
I have to say that you are my Muse =) Love your channel! Plz take a look at my video at the subject
TheAgnosticFreak 1 month ago
You are right, but I've got to admit, ZOMGitsCriss is extremely intelligent, and she completely destroyed Kirk Cameron's bullshit in a video.
MEareCAT 1 month ago
youre a moron n demeaning n you basically say knowledge is always changing ("they knew the earth was flat"). If you are going to correct someone through education it is best not to use "kiddo" because that is ignorant and idiotic since you are this enlightened dictionary. Nonetheless, shut up and focus your energies elsewhere people like you divide and well bring upon pointless bullshit besides the downfalls of bad dye jobs. But you should look into bureaucracy your bullshit would work there.
colinismyidol23 1 month ago
I am a unique type of Atheist. I don't know if a god outside human understanding exists or not. God(s) could exist, but gods that have influence on daily lives and have attributes that contradict reality are imaginary. There is no evidence that the gods conjured up by human imagination are real and no reason to believe in it for me. A god separate from religious dogma, are undefined. I am an Agnostic Atheist in this case.
roboticsynapse 1 month ago
@roboticsynapse wouldn't that make you a deist?
DarnOhWow 1 month ago
@roboticsynapse Agnostic atheism isn't nearly as unique as you suggest. I'm also an atheist. My beliefs are very similar to what you have written here, but I don't find it necessary to add the word agnostic as it's pretty much a given for everyone. Very few people claim to be gnostic about anything. I've never met an atheist who claims to be a gnostic atheist or to be absolutely certain of anything, although I'm sure they exist. Agnostic atheists are easily the most common.
LickTheFreezer 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
YOU ARE SO AWESOME!
UNFORGIVABLExGAMING 1 month ago
Wow... Gorgeous and intelligent. I asked my hubby if I could have you and he said, "Yes can I watch?" Sorry to be so candid but sometimes I can't help it. Please, don't ever stop being you. This video is full of sheer awesome. Oh, and I am an agnostic atheist. I have a strong disbelief in Jesus; as well as other deities; but I can't prove that god exists or doesn't because I just don't have enough facts.
curleyphotos 1 month ago
@curleyphotos Dear, get off my laptop! Ug... Now, I have to sign into my own account...
curleyphotos 1 month ago
Nope. When did Huxley ever mention "agnostic-atheism"?
incomprehensible14 1 month ago
@incomprehensible14 Huxley was full of crap; his definition of 'agnostic' was not etymologically sound.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance And yet, if it wasn't for Huxley, you wouldn't be even using the word "agnostic" at all now would you? Like-wise, if it wasn't for the "gnostics", Huxley would of never coined the word "agnostic" into English usage as anti-thesis to the word "gnostic". Now kindly show me an example of Huxley mentioning "agnostic-atheism" and I'll concede. If you can't, I shall continue self IDing as "agnostic", and encourage all other self ID'd agnostics to do the same.
incomprehensible14 1 month ago
@incomprehensible14 Actually, I probably WOULD be using "agnostic"; it's common enough knowledge that 'gnosis' means 'knowledge', and the word would surely have been coined at some other time.
And anyway, I don't NEED Huxley to be using the term that way; Huxley was WRONG, he coined the term badly, and it should be revised.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance well, it kind of is because of Huxley that we use that term. i don't disagree with you that it would have come about somewhere, somehow if he didn't coin it, but he did, so it is currently because of him we use it. you are right, as i've implied, that you don't need huxley to be able to use the term. however, to say that he coined the term badly, he was wrong, and the definition should be revised just to prove a point don't make you right about your definition of agnostic.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 Except that the term Huxley used is etymologically incorrect; the syllables he put together in that order do not mean what he intended. "a + gnostic" means "without knowledge"; like it or lump it, that's what those word particles MEAN...and that is NOT what Huxley meant when he coined the term. So he did, in fact, get it rather badly wrong.
And I'm not the only one who thinks so, either; large numbers of atheists use the term as I do. Huxley's term is dying as a result.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance ok, i get that he didn't use the words right, and that it means something entirely different then what he put them togeather to mean. his term may very well be dying as a result of athiests using the term properly, but that doesn't change how the term is understood now. it's like, if i were drinking out of a coffee mug, and i asked you to give me the cup, you would in theory give me the mug, because that's what i've used. by definintion, it's not the same thing...
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 ...but it's how we understand it to be between ourselves. so even though it's wrong, it's clear what we mean. huxley threw it togeat/her to make it easier for someone who claims to be agnositc could more easily identify/differentiate themselves from the other groups at that time. anyway, i see you point very clearly, and i'm more inclined to say you're right, but i'm not there yet.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 No, that's different; "cup" and "mug" at least refer to the same basic thing.
But Huxley's use of "agnostic" does not refer to LACKING knowledge; it's actually a statement of un-knowability. You cannot equate the two; the former implies that knowledge is at least POSSIBLE.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance i used a poor example, sorry. i was drinking coffee, so that came to mind quickest. anyway, if you perminately lack some kind of knowledge on a subject, such as the existance of a god, then you would never know. now, from the incorrectly defined agnostic point of view, you wouldn't know if there was a god until you were dead. you also wouldn't know if there wasn't when you died, because you'd never have a conscious mind again. so, with that understanding, agnostic as unknowing
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 would make sense, because by lacking one aspect of knowledge, you'd never know.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 But you see, "a+gnostic" means "WITHOUT knowledge"; it does NOT mean that knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE, which is what Huxley was trying to say.
And I certainly do NOT agree with Huxley that the knowledge IS impossible; if this god is as all-powerful as people say, then he, she, it, or they COULD just show up.
So, I'm sorry, but the term is NOT accurate and needs to be revised.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance you're right, god could just show up if he wanted to if he is all powerful, fact is agnostics don't know. they lack that knowledge. now being that we lack that knowledge, and that it could come about at anytime if there is an all powerful god, then we ourselves may never know. i agree that he didn't get the words right, but i also think that in a sense he was right, that if you lack a puzzle piece you don't have a full puzzle even if there's a whole picture. believe me, i know what
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 Then you know that Huxley's definition of "agnostic" is wrong, because he said that knowledge was IMPOSSIBLE.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance most definately. but my point is that you can still make what he was saying true if you take into account the philosophy behind the word's actual definition.
and you don't need to caps lock words to point them out. i understand what you're telling me.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 I'll stop using Caps when YouTube gives me the ability to use italics. :P
And I don't care if you can make what Huxley says TRUE; I care about what you CALL it. Communication is VERY important...and next to impossible if your language does not accurately reflect reality.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance haha, true indeed. but you don't need to italicize it either, i catch what you're saying. communitcation is more than important, it's vital. you really can't live without it, and although that particular word doesn't accurately refelct the reality of what he is saying, when you use it the way he intended for it to be used it will make sense. just to be clear, if you hear the word and say "that's not what it means" but it's how it is interpreted, then i'd give it a pass because
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 i get it.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 Well, I DON'T give it a pass, especially if the proper, etymologically-correct definition of the word is one I need to use!
"Atheist" is a prime example. The original coining was for "atheos+ist" and not "a+theist"; the former meant, basically, "anti-theist" while the latter means, well..."atheist". We're talking god-denier vs non-believer, here, disbelief vs lacking belief.
Well, the latter is more accurate, frankly, and I'm not backing down from that use!
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance and you don't have to. i never wanted you to. fact is that if you can understand eachother than you can communitcate effectively, and today if i say i'm agnostic then the majority would understand that i'm unsure if there's a god, and that i lack knowledege on that fact as oppossed to never being able to know for sure. so really, the actual definition of the word would become irrelivant unless you get nitpicky, because we have an understanding of one another.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 Then what are we arguing about? *raised eyebrow* Why'd you even bring up Huxley in the first place? *boggle*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance incomprehensible did, i just built off of what he meant. to be honest, i never thought we were arguing, either, just discussing how the word is used vs what it is interpreted to be. fact is, there are plenty of words like agnostic in the english language that mean one thing but are used in a totally different way to mean something separate. and i brought up huxley because he coined the term that you said you didn't need him to coin to use. i think i'm gonna throw up now. my head is
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 spinning.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@LTheDetective3 you're saying. entymologically speaking, he was wrong. but applying the understading of what he meant and how the word can relate to the philosophy is the key to making it work. and just so you know, i understand that that makes me wrong; however, i'm not debating wether or not he or i am wrong about that, but i'm trying to paint a picture of how it could work.
LTheDetective3 1 month ago
@BionicDance ROFLROLERCOASTERRIOT:D And Mark Walberg would of beat up the terrorists if he'd gotten on the plane that day:D (*sarcasm*). Why you lying? You're starting to sound fanatical LOL:D No offense but that's just sad:) You know damn well you wouldn't just be randomly tossing around Greek words in English if it wasn't for Huxley and the gnostics:D LOL:D Thanks for the laugh though! I wish you could see me! Typing "LOL" just doesn't do justice to how hard I'm laughing:D
incomprehensible14 1 month ago
@BionicDance Look honey, Thomas Henry Huxley and the gnostics before him were under no obligation to coin the words agnostic and gnostic the way it was literally used in ancient Greek. Besides, you already have like six words to describe the same exact thing as "agnostic-atheism" and "gnostic-atheism". Why is it so important to you people to rip-off the words "agnostic" and "gnostic"?
incomprehensible14 1 month ago
@BionicDance And further more, wouldn't ZOM be more of what you people would call a "gnostic-atheist"? And even if for the sake of argument, the whole world adopts the "lack of belief" definition of atheism, wouldn't a "strong/positive/hard/gnostic/knowledgeable-atheist" simply be a "strong/positive/hard/gnostic/knowledgeable-lack of believer"? How does putting any of those words in front of "atheist" suddenly change it from "lack of belief" to "belief there's no gods"?
incomprehensible14 1 month ago
Wow! So many dislikes! I'm surprised. Yours are the definitions I've used for over a decade.
AtheistinFundyLand 1 month ago
@AtheistinFundyLand It's probably haters; I AM opposing ZOMGits, after all.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I think I like you better. Maybe it's the fellow geek thing. ;)
AtheistinFundyLand 1 month ago
@AtheistinFundyLand Aww, shucks. :)
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance You reminded me to start using my SAD light. 1. Geek: Check 2. SAD light: check 3. Atheist: check.
Alas! I'm not a Lesbian, dammit!
Sometimes I wish I COULD choose. I think being a Lesbian would be easier than being straight. Maybe.
AtheistinFundyLand 1 month ago
@AtheistinFundyLand Easier in what respect? Cuz...there are ways it's easier, ways it's more difficult, like all things.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I agree with you. Unless I walk a mile in your shoes, I really have no idea what I'm talking about.
When I tell people I live in California, they say they are jealous, but they have no concept that California is a huge, diverse state. I live in the "bible belt" of the state, which includes places like Orange County and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. It's tough here, all by myself, with a religiously insane community and family. My stories would terrify the sane.
AtheistinFundyLand 1 month ago
"atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief."
Then it is not disbleif?
I thought you could not say "I know there is a god but I disblieve there is a god"?
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 You can't know there's a god, so the first part of that claim would be made by someone who strongly believes there is a god, but they go on to contradict that by saying they also disbelieve what they've already asserted. It's almost as stupid is someone who says "I don't believe there is a god, but I also believe there is." Saying that is exactly the same as saying, "I don't disbelieve in god, but I don't believe in god either."
mercury1321 2 months ago
"All claims are not "gnostic in nature" who said they were?"
You are right.
Agnostic claims are not gnostic in any way. I should have said "all proposition are (a)gnostic in nature."
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Now your just adding synonyms to replace the word claim. You're attempting to confuse the issue but you aren't saying anything new. No, belief claims are not all gnostic or agnostic in nature, even if you call them propositions.
mercury1321 2 months ago
I (and several others, including the videos you ignore) have said this to you before as well: Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. When someone asks "Do you believe there is a god?" "I don't know" is not an answer. No one asked if you knew, we know you don't know. The question was if you believe. We know the knowledge or certainty isn't available. If you don't say "yes," than you default to "no," which is atheism. The question isn't "can you believe?" the question is "do you believe?"
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321
There are so many views on this topic.
But to every atheist claim about burden of proof, theist will be able counter.
Maybe it is unfair because they are making the "first" claim, but valid nonetheless.
This is where agnosticism can stay out.
How are (a)theist with same views as someone who has neither?
If I am saying atheist is anything, then I am saying it is not as same as (a)theism.
It is your claim that agnosticism is something it does not have to be.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Wow you are all kinds of wrong here.
burden of proof? How does this apply to what we're talking about?
Unfair because they're making the first claim? The claim, theism, is the only claim we're talking about. Atheists are everyone who doesn't also believe that claim.
Are you asking "how is it an agnostic and atheists have the same view?" Because they aren't mutually exclusive. How many times do I have to explain that? I said agnosticism is lack of knowledge. That's it.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321
"agnosticism is lack of knowledge"
It is also used as a claim or a proposition that any claims(Mostly about the existence or non-existence of any deity) are unknown or unknowable.
If you want to use it as "lack of knowledge" as a prefix then that is fine by me.
But I don't think it is because I lack knowledge that I think I am agnostic.
"All i know is that i know nothing"
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Yes, I am well aware of what agnosticism means. Why do you still pretend I'm not agnostic? I've said many times over, "we're all agnostic." We don't know if gods exist or not. I've never said anything to the contrary. My point the whole time is that just because you don't know, doesn't mean you don't still fall into one of these two categories: those who believe gods exist, and those who don't.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321
"Yes, I am well aware of what agnosticism means. Why do you still pretend I'm not agnostic?"
Do you believe the answer about god/s is unknowable?
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 I don't believe the answer about gods is unknowable, but currently unknown.
mercury1321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercury1321
"I don't believe the answer about gods is unknowable, but currently unknown."
It seems to me that if you think the answer is unknowable, you can not be (a)theist. Why would you think they should be in the theist or atheist category?
Why do you think belief has nothting to do with knowledge? (I assume you don't because of your answers below, correct me if I am wrong)
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 I can't be atheist because of your warped definition of atheist. That's I've been telling you and why I've repeatedly clarified what I meant.
Belief can (and usually is) based on knowledge. If we don't have knowledge, we may believe something anyway, like agnostic theists do. That's why the god question pertains to belief, and not knowledge. That's why an answer about knowledge doesn't suffice as an answer to the question. It's not asking why you (dis)believe, but "if"
mercury1321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercury1321
"I can't be atheist because of your warped definition of atheist. That's I've been telling you and why I've repeatedly clarified what I meant."
Why? Because you don't want it to be a choice? What if I don't want to choose or can?
'It's not asking why you (dis)believe, but "if" '
I have told you what I think, now I am asking what I am from your definition. If I am atheist, then do I not think it is more likely than not that god/s don't exist?
steverock85 2 months ago
@mercury1321
Don't we believe all the time based on what we know?
Does believe not imply that you think something is more likely?
What if you don't think either of two positions has more probability?
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Don't we believe all the time based on what we know?
No. Who says we do?
Does believe not imply that you think something is more likely?
It does.
What if you don't think either of two positions has more probability?
Than you don't fit in a group called "people who believe the claim is true" and thus fit in the group called "people who don't."
mercury1321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercury1321
'Than you don't fit in a group called "people who believe the claim is true" and thus fit in the group called "people who don't." '
Then
"I think god exist and I think does not exist"?
How am I able to understand this?
"Don't we believe all the time based on what we know?
No. Who says we do?
"
But does belief not imply we think something is more likely?
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 Again, this whole thing stems from your refusal to accept that atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief. Maybe we should use a different word, like non-theist, or "untheist." What do you prefer to call a person who doesn't hold belief theistic claims?
mercury1321 2 months ago
5.
Now when we see this is all about *our assertions* I would like to ask: Can you be agnostic implicit atheist?
I for one see no reason to dismiss this possibility and it would be a wise choice.
steverock85 2 months ago
4)
I think most are not agnostic atheist but rather implicit atheist which is different.
implicit atheist would simply say:
"I will postpone my belief until proven."
This is where agnostic atheist and implicit atheist differs. Part of agnosticsim nature tend to
think it is rather useless to talk about proofs(unknowable). If you are agnostic atheist you admit the answer is unknown or unknowable but still choose to disbelieve.
steverock85 2 months ago
3)
Agnostic atheist: continute.
((It is unkown(false) OR It is unknowable(true)) and there is no god/s(true)= true
((It is unkown(false) OR It is unknowable(true)) and there is no god/s(false) = false
((It is unkown(false) OR It is unknowable(false)) and there is no god/s(true)= false
((It is unkown(false) OR It is unknowable(false)) and there is no god/s(false)= false
You should now ask yourself if child can be agnostic, theist or atheist if
the can not make any proposition.
steverock85 2 months ago
2)
Agnostic atheist:
((It is unkown(true) OR It is unknowable(true)) and there is no god/s(true) = true
((It is unkown(true) OR It is unknowable(true)) and there is no god/s(false) = false
((It is unkown(true) OR It is unknowable(false)) and there is no god/s(true) = true
((It is unkown(true) OR It is unknowable(false)) and there is no god(false) = false
(Ofcourse we don't know the truth is so we don't have the truthvale of what it really is.)
To be continued.
steverock85 2 months ago
1)
I guess I should give this a little more try.
We know it is a proposition if we can construct a meaningful truthtable.
I am going to construct a few truth tables.
Agnostic:
It is unkown(true) OR It is unknowable(true) = true
It is unkown(true) OR It is unknowable(false) = true
It is unkown(false) OR It is unknowable(true) = true
It is unkown(false) OR It is unknowable(false) = false
steverock85 2 months ago
kiddo count - 15
wisecrackerr 2 months ago
If you study logic you can actually construct the correct truth table and see how this really goes.
You will not mix up that one is about knowledge and the other about belief. That does not matter at all.
Study how to make those truth tables and what propositions are. Then make video and prove this in correct way.
Maybe I will make a video of this laiter if I see this very clarification is needed. But this is rather easy and unambigous.
Agnostic is older alone word(optional).
steverock85 2 months ago
Agnostic atheist are two claims. The answer is unknown and what you believe.
It is ture that (a)theist has to do with believe but it is false to think Angostic is not about belief.
First lets clear that believe =NOT= religion. Religion is when you have organized system of beliefs.
Next, when you claim the answer is unknown or unknowable, then how do you know it is such?
Not false dilemma:
He is either dead or alive.
False dilemma:
You have to believe he is either dead or alive.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85
wrong agnostic means unknowing for example you cant be 100% sure if god exist or not without any evidence
atheistism based on commen knowledge he makes a a assumption that the existens of a god is so little that you can take it for sure he doesent exist
iam a agnostic for 10% and 90% atheist why because the assumption that a god exist is very little, specially the god from the known religions but yet you can be 100% sure until you can proof it
lacossanostra 2 months ago
@lacossanostra Hey, you're wasting your time with Steverock. They don't watch the videos or use the same definitions as everybody else, just posts ideas on their own warped definitions based on the titles. They've been completely pwned repeatedly but just move to other videos and starts over with denial and circular reasoning to reaffirm their own fear of being wrong. It's as futile as discussing the burden of proof with a hardcore "fingers-in-ears-style" gnostic creationist.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321
You actually don't understand what is being said to you. I will make a video about this in the summertime when I am not working and studying at the same time. I include intro into logic and what the general idea is. Then I will show how to apply what we know.
There is no way to explain this to someone who has no understanding of general terms and how apply them. I will accept this burden of proof.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 "There is no way to explain this to someone who has no understanding of general terms and how apply them."
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head with that sentiment. Do you notice every time you post your definition of agnostic you get corrected by different people on the same mistakes you are making? Do you think that it's because we all got together and made something up? Maybe you should consider that you might be wrong, and you can't just use your own definitions.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321
Maybe instead of attacking me all the time you should try to make an argument.
You think "no belief" or "disbelief" is something other than it really is.
If it was so ambigious or implies lack of, or tend to believe, then the following sentance should not result in paradox.
"There is a god but I disblieve there is a god".
I am not going to talk to you anymore if you can not make any arguments other than arrogant statements.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 I, and several others, have walked you through, step-by-step, exactly what we mean by atheist, agnostic, and how those terms are not mutually exclusive. You keep incorrectly telling me what I think, what I believe, and what the words I'm saying mean. If you watch the above video, BionicDance points that problem out. If you use your own alternate definitions of words, we might as well not even be talking. Pretending I (and others) haven't made an argument, doesn't work.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@steverock85 "There is a god but I disbelieve there is a god" doesn't make sense because it is the same as saying "I believe there is a god, and I don't believe there is a god," which is the same as saying "I neither believe there is a god, nor do I believe there is a god." The latter, is what you're saying you believe right? You're saying agnosticism is the claim "I neither believe there is a god, nor do I disbelieve there is a god." Which isn't agnosticism or logically possible.
mercury1321 2 months ago
"I neither believe there is a god, nor do I believe there is a god." The latter, is what you're saying you believe right?"
Well, well. That is a valid argument. Yes you can argue it is a double negation.
I did not explain well that I don't make any proposition if god exist or not.
"You keep incorrectly telling me what I think"
Goes both ways.
Agnosticism does not have to be a prefix if all claims are gnostic in nature.
steverock85 2 months ago
@steverock85 No it doesn't go both ways. Find a single example of me telling you what you believe.
All claims are not "gnostic in nature" who said they were?
Agnosticism describes knowledge, and very few people even believe certainty is possible. Theistic claims are about belief, not certainty. You either believe, or you don't.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@steverock85 As for pretending I attack you and don't make arguments, I'll repeat for the 30th time or so: No one knows for certain there is or is not a god. Some people claim to be certain, but we know they can't be, as there is still zero evidence about any gods. Thus belief claims function completely independent of knowledge or factual accuracy as they are made without certainty. I believe a theistic claim = theist. I don't believe a theistic claim = atheist. atheist = not theist
mercury1321 2 months ago
@lacossanostra
I have been:
Theist, agnostic atheist, atheist, agnostic atheist(again), agnostic theist, then back again to agnostic atheist and now I am only agnostic.
The way I see this is there is no way to be sure of what afterlife relam is. Is it nothing, or is it something (god/s or something else)?
Afterlife relam is like the schrodinger's cat to me. It can be everything until we die and see (or not) what it really is.
It is just wall of paradoxes...
steverock85 2 months ago
@lacossanostra
Trust me, I know what you say when you talk about 90% vs 10% certainty. How can anyone feel it is 50 vs 50? I have been atheist. This is something atheist can not understand. Once they will however, they will not be atheist anymore...
When you are agnostic it is not really 50/50 but rather you give every idea what can be in the after realm an equal chance.
This is why we say it is unknown or unknowable rather than "I don't know" or "I am not sure".
steverock85 2 months ago
Understood. My contention therefore is that your own definition of agnostic is completely irrelevant.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 It isn't. If nothing else, people certainly CLAIM to be gnostic, CLAIM to have knowledge that a god exists, and that, at least, distinguishes them from others. The designation may be impossible to confirm, but that does not make it an irrelevant one.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
If you're taliing talking about creationists then sure. But I don't think I even brought them up?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 they're part and parcel of talking religion vs atheism.
BionicDance 2 months ago
What has this got to do with our discussion though?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Hey, YOU'RE the one who brought up the definition of "agnostic".
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance No shit babe. This is what this whole discussion was largely about.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Well, talking religion and atheism is part and parcel with talking about agnosticism. They kinna go hand in hand; you can't just talk about ONE subject when they're so interrelated.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance So if agnostic means without knowledge, then when referring to atheism/theism doesn't the term become worthless? If we can all agree that there is no proof for or against the existence of god or gods, then isn't every theist and every atheist agnostic? If so then it's a word we don't need to use at all in this context.
badsaj1 1 month ago
@badsaj1 No, it isn't useless; this presumes that knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE (which is not necessarily the case; if there IS a god, he, she, it, or they COULD reveal themselves instead of demanding faith), or that no people ever CLAIM to be gnostic (whether they truly are or not).
The term clearly still has utility.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I promise, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I've been a closet atheist for most of my life, and I've only recently been turned on to the you tube atheist community. I'm just trying to understand.
Early in the video you allow that there are gnostic theists and atheists, yet by the definition of gnostic/agnostic: knowlege/lack of knowledge then how is this possible? Is there truly someone out there with knowledge on the existence or lack thereof? If not, then aren't they really agnostic?
badsaj1 1 month ago
@badsaj1 Irrelevant. If you're objecting to the word's utility, what the people ACTUALLY are versus what they CLAIM they are is an irrelevant distinction. The word "gnostic" still has utility for the reasons I've already described.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I guess it's the "unknown and unknowable" part that's throwing me. If I don't know of the existence, and don't allow that anyone will ever know of the existence of god, and I don't believe in god, then I'm an agnostic atheist. If I allow that it is possible to prove, one way or the other, then I'm not agnostic. Am I getting close?
badsaj1 1 month ago
@badsaj1 Not really, no.
First of all, DEFINITELY get rid of the "unknown and unknowable" part; that's bullshit. Sure, maybe we don't know, so the "unknown" part might be valid, but the unknowable...that's just something religious people say to get out of having to prove what they're saying.
An agnostic is someone who is without knowledge, a gnostic is someone WITH knowledge. Some people CLAIM to be gnostic, CLAIM to know god does or doesn't exist; others claim to be agnostic, to not know.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Thanks. Keep up the good work. I Live in Puyallup, work in Tacoma, so I know how the weather can be a drag. Fortunately I've never had to deal with SAD, but keep your head up and know that there are people out here who appreciate the time you've spent waving the flag for rational thinking!
badsaj1 1 month ago
@badsaj1 No worries; thanks. :)
BionicDance 1 month ago
can you confirm that you're "gnostic" about anything? can you see the cartesian absudity in this?
Do you "know" what happened five minutes ago?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 No, I CAN'T confirm that I'm gnostic about something.
My ability to confirm that is irrelevant to the facts, however; if I know something, I know it, even if I'm not aware of that fact.
If you're going to insist that terminology reflect perspective rather than reality, we cannot have this discussion. "Gnosticism" refers to having knowledge, not KNOWING you have knowledge.
BionicDance 2 months ago
There's a difference on being agnostic on postive claims and the same on negative claims btw
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
The defintions don't change just because someone isn't educated enough to understand them.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
BionicDance, do you believe the batter of waterloo happened? Is this a strong belief or has this transfrormed magically in to your two dimentional map?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Speaking PURELY pedantically, I don't know for certain that the Battle of Waterloo happened. The evidence is rather overwhelming, and my confidence is high, so I'd say I believe it...but I don't know for certain, and am willing to change my position pending new data.
...which I'm going to guess is NOT the answer you were looking for.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance so you're agnostic on waterloo it seems.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Yes, but only if I'm uber-pedantic. I'm EFFECTIVELY gnostic, I just acknowledge the possibility that the information I have is wrong.
See, I see a distinction between whether you know all the relevant details, and whether you're AWARE you know all the relevant details. For all I know, I AM gnostic about Waterloo, I may know true facts about that battle...but I cannot CONFIRM that I'm gnostic, that I have the relevant facts.
Do you see the difference?
BionicDance 2 months ago
When you go back to your definition of agnostic meaning "without knowing", I take it you're referring to Absolute knowledge. Which is impossible for a human to have. Agnostic in genernal parlance as well as in dictionaries means uncomitted to a certain idea. It doesn't mean you're 50 50, it means that you feel you don't have enough info to make a judgement. Rank up to atheism and you think you do.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Start over; I DON'T mean "absolute knowledge". So your entire premise is faulty from the beginning. Try again.
BionicDance 2 months ago
So my question is, why do you consider knowledge to be seperate from belief rather than simply (very) justified belief?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Knowledge is fact-based; belief does not need to be (but may be so anyway). And even having knowledge may make no dent in belief at all; consider that creationists have all the facts at their command, yet persist in their belief anyway, denying the facts.
Knowledge is SEPARATE from belief.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I refer you back to ZOMG's sliding scale. I'm not saying that really realy weally believing in something makes it true; more like our imperfect primate brains can't but traverse the grey area between belief and knowledge.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 ZOMGit's scale ONLY MEASURE'S BELIEF. It does not measure knowledge.
Nor does it allow for those who have knowledge, yet continue to believe in opposition to that knowledge. Her scale ONLY measures people with integrity, whose amount of knowledge affects their belief...and that does not describe everybody. At all. Her scale is flawed.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance You said her scale only measures people with integrity. Isn't that the only scale you should be judging it by? Otherwise this whole discussion is nonsense.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 No, it isn't. Because this discussion is about EVERYBODY, not just those with a clue. The scale I propose measures peoples' level or lack of belief and peoples' level and lack of knowledge, giving us an accurate picture of what a person's worldview is; if we ONLY measure those with integrity, we're leaving out a VERY large part of the world.
BionicDance 2 months ago
(cont) Now my belief is more justfied given the evidence. Now say the folk at SETI train their telescopes at Kepler 22b and discover a radio message beamed isometerically that locates the known pulsars within 500 light years as well as a message containing the first 2000 digits of pi. I'd subsequently be on the way to having knowledge that something is going on over there that is not related to natural phenonmia.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
Agreed. I'm going by Stephen J Gould's defintion of a fact here. Indulge me:
I happen to believe that it's likely that non intelligent life exists on another planet. Usual reasons billions of stars, galaxies etc. I'm not going to greatly affirm this due to the obvious lack of evidence, but I believe slightly none the same. Say the forthcoming James Webb space telescope did a spectral analysis of Kepler 22b's atmosphere and found that certain key markers of life as we know it are there.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
I was arguing about your epistemology not your sincerity.
God darn it I dislike philosophy too
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
and i used to espouse it. ZOMC explained it very well - there is no definition that you speak of regarding equating 'with knowledge' in the way you define it with gnosticism in any historical context. It's just something that's been made up in the past five years or so, presumably to avoid a burden of proof of sorts.
Do you think human thought can differentiate knowledge and belief as a matter of kind and not of degree?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Speaking from a purely etymological standpoint, that's PRECISELY was "agnostic" means, and I think you'll find that a very large part of the atheist community uses it to mean "without knowledge".
And given that there is no OTHER word one can use the way we might use "gnostic" and "agnostic", I think you might wanna get on board, since I think the zeitgeist is changing on this one.
And I think knowledge and belief are separate variables entirely. Degree is irrelevant here.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
Belief is not seperate from knowledge; it's only a sliding scale due to our imperfect reasoning faculties. I was taking issue with your assertion that they are somehow at right angles to each other when they are in fact lines on a continuum as ZOMG took pains to try to explain.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Belief is not separate from knowledge? Are you fucking serious? *raised eyebrow*
Let me ask you, can someone believe in something when they have no knowledge if it beyond the concept? Of course they can.
Can someone deny the truth of something for which they have all the proof in the world? Of course they can.
Belief and knowledge are COMPLETELY separate. Sure, with logical, rational people they are the same thing, but NEWS FLASH: not everybody is logical and rational!
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
When did I ever say that believing something means that person saying it has knowledge of the subject in question?
In lieu of this, do you believe that the human mind takes a walk upwards and is boosted up to a 'knowledge' once a certain step is reached or do you believe that the both are on the same scale rather than being upgraded in an ethereal way?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 ...what? I'm sorry, but none of what you just said made a lick of sense.
I think that knowledge requires having facts; belief does not...though having knowledge may well bring about belief. It's that simple. I don't know what the hell you're going on about, but belief is thinking something is true, knowledge is KNOWING something is true. And you know by having facts, you believe by having wishes...or by having knowledge that shapes your beliefs.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I'm just trying to get across the idea that the agnostic/athiest terminology is not two dimonisional but one dimentional. As it has been for... like hundreds of years. Huxley didn't have it in mind and neither did the gnostic christians. It's tomfollery on your and others part to suggest that it does.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 But what you're describing does not fit reality, does not fit the facts. What I'm describing DOES.
Which one do you really think should change? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
Stop with this 'lacking believe' nonsense. You lack a believe that a god created the cosmos? So does the chair I'm sitting on. If you lack a belief then you are declaring you don't know (deism wise) and so you are agnostic. Stop the avodidance of burden of proof.
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 I AM agnostic. I'm ALSO an atheist. I am one without knowledge who is not a theist, that makes me an agnostic atheist.
Agnostic and atheist are NOT mutually exclusive designations.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I very well know that. Do you honestly think that I haven't looked this up? : P
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 I can't TELL you know it from the comments you're leaving.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
Do you "believe" that a belief one holds can possibly turn in to knowledge at some later date?
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 Knowledge can only come from facts, not belief.
Beliefs CAN turn into knowledge, but ONLY by finding facts which confirm them.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
that's awesome
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
"there is no such thing as a "true agnostic", they do not exist, CAN NOT exist. It's impossible."
Do you believe that extraterrestrial organisms exist on planets other than earth? Do you believe there is gold on the dwarf planet eris? What happens inside the event horizon of the black hole
? Is there an incredibly weird 'disembodied mind' behind the universe?
I've heard of the east-west, north-south argument of 'agnostics' and 'gnostics' for about 3 years now
halcyondaze82 2 months ago
@halcyondaze82 I don't know. Now ask me if I BELIEVE.
Cuz saying I don't know doesn't get me out of having beliefs, for or against. "True agnostics" seem to think it does.
BionicDance 2 months ago
omg stfu
Platinumd9017 2 months ago
@Platinumd9017 No.
BionicDance 2 months ago
Comment removed
russellprophet 2 months ago
Zomg labels herself the same way Richard Dawkins labels herself. "De facto" atheism. And it's not agnostic atheism.
AHughman08 2 months ago
And by that reasoning, I am an Gnostic Atheist. I don't have to prove my side either because it would be trying to prove to someone that a magical flying monkey fingers my butthole every night just because some crazy person in a mental hospital says so.
Gadgett701 2 months ago
The universe has never gave any shred of evidence that a deity or dieties exists. No one can even prove if a god exists or not because it isn't detectable by the natural world at all. And just because a god may exist or not, doesn't mean you have to be agnostic. For all we know god can be defined as an alien rendering the word "god" useless. I know a god doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven to exist and it can't be detected by the natural world in any form what so ever.
Gadgett701 2 months ago
Gnostic can be defined as: of, relating to, or possessing knowledge, esp esoteric spiritual knowledge. They are both terms used to describe theistic and atheistic beliefs or non-beliefs including whether or not they know about or don't know about something. You can't just label someone an agnostic just because they don't know if a god exists or not. People can know whether a god exists or not if they have seen proof to convince them if one exists or not.
Gadgett701 2 months ago
Your claim of being agnostic is wrong. The example you gave about santa clause not being real just because your parents told you so doesn't prove them right or wrong, it just proves that your parents lied to you about santa clause. There are different ways to define agnostic but the most common one is: a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
Gadgett701 2 months ago
You are not very intelligent, and putting space as your background doesn't make you seem any smarter.
CamBlack92 2 months ago
@CamBlack92 Is all you've got insults that are backed by nothing? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance called parody, same thing as what poetry is. "he doesn't have to prove a negative that is your forcefully! justified excuse for a brain"
VOEnantiomerXe 2 months ago
Pardon the rest of the English speaking world, but regardless of your demand that certain words MUST be specifically construed, you are jousting at windmills. Like it or not, common use is THE most important consideration in determining what a person means in their language.
trythinkingnow 2 months ago
@trythinkingnow But determining what a person means in their language is NOT the concern here; this is not a casual, common-use discussion, but rather a technical, borderline scientific discussion.
BionicDance 2 months ago
Your 'prove it' at 11:46 is very contradictory to your agnostic aSanta-ist. Can you prove there is no Santa?
TheFallenBeard 2 months ago
You looked like you were having so much fin making this :D
Good to see different perspectives and ideas about the same topics
BETAmosquito 2 months ago
Isn't ZombitsCriss like 20 something and married? Lol..
Daalchii 2 months ago
Prove there is no god?
Are you f***ing serious?!?
Rettequetette 2 months ago 2
The point is you said we must use technical definitions, so stop skewing these things. I gave the definition of gnostic, the translation from is Greek derivative. As well as the definition as given in any dictionary...albeit paraphrased, I in no way changed the definition. The prefix 'A' in the English language, means without. We all know this. The only difference is in the way we see things. No matter what you say I will see agnostic atheist as an illogical term, by technical definitions.
TheBananamanAssassin 2 months ago
9cont) of course that does not mean you make definite claims to the contrary, i.e. "God absolutely does not exist" but that you have knowledge leading to you be without belief. This is an atheist. An agnostic is basically claiming they don not have a belief one way or another. They do not believe or disbelieve in the existence of a deity. They are without knowledge....agnostic. Why is that hard to understand?
TheBananamanAssassin 2 months ago
Gnostic is basically Greek for learned. So we will say that is with knowledge of something. Agnostic is obviously then without knowledge. Theism is a belief of a God or deity. Atheism is then obviously not beliving in such. Without belief. It's retarded to say you're an agnostic atheist because if you are atheist, without belief, obviously you do not have knowledge to the contrary so the agnostic label is redundant and unnecessary. Without belief, to me means that you believe the contrary.
TheBananamanAssassin 2 months ago
Number one, although it's a bit irrelavent to the topic at hand Dexter IS available through Netflix streaming. The only important thing about this is I think you're being disingenuous in implying you've looked for it and not found it so you assume it's not there. I guarantee, as I just did so myself to double check, if you search 'Dexter' on Netflix via the Xbox 360 streaming it DOES come up. So, seriously, don't start a video with a line of BS. I am already doubting what you have to say
TheBananamanAssassin 2 months ago
Also have to say how kind you were about her confusion. It's not her fault she is confused. Let's hope she can really impress everyone and admit her honest mistake. :)
zerofence 2 months ago
Iron-clad argument. Case closed.
zerofence 2 months ago
immature & idiotic , confident
yagneshraviteja 2 months ago
Why do some people have to throw insults all around?
kleb100 2 months ago