You're a closet theist aren't you? As a matter of fact I'm very comfortable in saying you're full of shit and the only so called self professed atheist who asks the silly strawman question of creation as in"What was the cause of the "big bang " itself"? or whatever this question is. The evidence of life on other worlds in the universe is simple and everywhere...."We and millions of other examples of life, complex life, are here"...."One does't protesteth too much"
what happened before the big bang is a serious question to those who take the big bang seriously and I never have. The BB is christian dogma painted as science and is creationists way of saying that is when god created the universe.
That is why theoretical science came up with multiverses, something I also reject.
Try thinking... for once. So far I have never seen you do that.
"Atheism is the belief there is no God and no more," omits much from the definition. This would describe a gnostic atheist. Many are agnostic atheists, in that they lack a belief in the existence of a god, not meaning they have a belief in the nonexistence of a god (which would infer they "know" that a god doesn't exist). They simply haven't seen enough evidence to substantiate the existence of such a being & therefore withhold belief. Theists happily jump on the distinction between the two.
@gklr Atheism simply means not believing in a god. It can apply to both a belief in the nonexistence of a god or lacking a belief in the existence. It doesn't deviate from the fact that atheism applies to belief - in this case, a lack of belief is applicable. I included agnosticism and gnosticism because these modify which definition of atheism is being used - belief or lack of belief.
Saying atheists lack belief says they don't believe in a god.
@gklr If an atheist doesn't know if there is a god, then they cannot ascertain a belief in its nonexistence without taking a position that is irrational. It is rational to withhold belief in that which has yet to be substantiated to exist, rather than to believe in its nonexistence.
For example, nobody can rationally believe in the nonexistence of unicorns. Rather, a person simply doesn't believe in the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are discovered, then disbelief in them turns to belief.
'''A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009'' is a very good explanation of the beginning of the universe.. also i do appreciate the videos but your attitude towards me was terrible. but seeing that we have a common gound, if you haven't watched that video yet you may find it very interesting.
Good I hope so. When you ignore what someone has to say to falsely portray them repeatedly as a theist then expect it. First time speaking to a freethinker?
I don't take kindly to assholes who don't have a hope of an argument doing nothing else but replying with insulting bullshit to what was a well thought out reply. Either learn your topic or get the fuck lost. Just insulting people who try to explain things is not an argument.
mainly my problem with evolution is it teaches macroevolution
i usually have a problem when it comes to believing in any theory i guess since i have a problem with evolution i must be a fundamentalist chrisitan?haha
who cares what the hell a pope sitting in a gold throne believes in? you also said you believe that mass, space, and time always existed but what was before mass, space, and time? you put that argument against God but not against your little theory? yes you got me im a believer
@gklr you support evolution?? i mean microevolution is completely acceptable i have seen it with some animals. But macro is just taking a huge leap of faith.... that one is just too hard swallow when has anyone seen this happen or claim to have seen this happen there is simply no evidence of it, would rather put my faith in cosmology, physics, biology , and genetics.
I have no problem with either micro or macro evolution and again I see the whole question of evolution as uninteresting and unrelated nonsense. No part of my arguments rely on evolution and evolution is maintained by more theists than atheists so it has nothing to do with atheism.
The belief there is no god is not affected in any way by evolution. Theists simply say about evolution, that "god did it". I do not care about evolution one bit, it is a strawman created by creationists.
Atheism is not a science. Science has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is a logical consideration. It is a belief in that we cannot prove there is no god. We do prove certain gods do not exist, like allah from the koran or the god of the bible. Those are dismissed without atheism required.
Evolution simply has no business in the equation. All of science is irrelevent to atheism. Nothing about atheism is validated by any part of science.
"who cares what the hell a pope sitting in a gold throne believes in?"
It shows and my point in raising it is, that evolution has nothing to do with atheism as it is held by more theists than atheists and was even held by the Pope. Who cares? How about those "atheists" running around calling evolution "our proof"? It is a ridiculous and twisted strawman created by fundies and it simply is irrelevent to atheism in any way shape or form.
"you also said you believe that mass, space, and time always existed but what was before mass, space, and time? "
Did you really think about this question? If it always existed, then there never was a time when it didn't exist. How does "always" escape you? What time exists outside of "always"?
@gklr as far as i know time could be an illusion? please prove to me that time exists ?? all this is just theoretical and nothing more. how could anyone know about God when the origins of life itself is still a mystery?
Time isn't an illusion, it is an assumption we need to make, much like the axioms of logic. Without this assumption nothing makes sense or can. We prove something exists by having a truth about it and in the case of time it is time=distance/speed. Measurable and reproducable, time, speed and distance all require assumption to be real. A truth about an object is only valid now, not for 1 second into the future or past of which neither exist. We need to assume all truths for 1 sec ago
@gklr only the present exist. so tomorrow and even yesterday dont exist. how can something that doesnt exist be real? not saying it is but if time isn't real then it would be considered an illusion, since by definition an illusion would be something that misleads the perception of reality. "Without this assumption nothing makes sense or can" thats just your opinion.
Correct and why we have no truths about the future or past.
"so tomorrow and even yesterday dont exist. how can something that doesnt exist be real?"
It isn't.
"not saying it is but if time isn't real then it would be considered an illusion, since by definition an illusion would be something that misleads the perception of reality."
Notwithstanding that logic is not percieved but concieved, time is required to say anything changes.
"Without this assumption nothing makes sense or can" thats just your opinion"
No it is a logical necessity. All truths are time dependant. When there were no minds, no truths are possible. There is no such thing or possible thing that exists independant of time. Existence requires time. Time is one of those assumed axioms of logic.
"how could anyone know about God when the origins of life itself is still a mystery?"
What if there is nothing to know? You can't know about god if there is no god to know anything about. If you did know anything at all about a god, then that god must exist. That all people know nothing about a god does not show that a god does not exist.
You assume origins. Why? And btw, origins are only possible if time is real. Time cannot begin still. Events that happen when time doesn't exist?
@gklr "You assume origins. Why?" i assume origins just like you assume that theirs no God. "And btw, origins are only possible if time is real. Time cannot begin still. " not sure i sure if i understood you correctly on this one but according to you time doesnt even have a beginning because it always existed and so it has no start?? the whole concept of time is complex .and forces many scientist such as steven hawkings and peter lynds unfortunately to just make up theories
There cannot be an origin. To do so requires time does not exist, and WHILE (a time) time does not exist there were events. It is clearly impossible. Time must always have existed and if time exists then so too does mass and energy. This is what e=mc2 says. c2 is a time.
If time exists, then mass and energy exist. Time always exists, since it cannot begin.... it requires a time WHEN events occur to start time.... a contradiction with or without a god.
You could not say so prior to language existing or prior to mind existing. At that time "an inch" is utterly meaningless. Truths apply to propositions only, an inch is never true or false, statements about the inch are true or false. Nothing can be said to exist in lieu of minds or language, the term existence did not exist until someone considered it.
I fail to see how any problems these people have with time reflects on this argument. I consistently see from scientists and I am not a scientist or even care about science... is that energy cannot be destroyed or created. Makes sense if it always existed. I consider Hawking a complete nutjob and haven't noticed a thing he has said in over 30 years. I just do not care what these people have to say, it means nothing to my arguments or concerns.
@gklr yes true and this is called the law of conservation of energy. but time is not energy. u said "Makes sense if it always existed"true it does makes sense but cant i then just say that God always existed?
Yes of course and I didn't mean to imply it was. I was saying that without time you cannot have energy. Time is included in what energy is. e=mc2. c2 is a time. The speed of light is only measured via time.
"cant i then just say that God always existed?"
Sure, but then god did not create time, energy or mass. If those things always existed, why invoke a god?
"I consider Hawking a complete nutjob and haven't noticed a thing he has said in over 30 years."
Correction. It was after "A Brief History" that I lost interest in anything Hawking had to say. Published in 1988, so it has not been 30 years. I read that bit of mental mush and saw an idiot who could be bettered by any 12 year old on LSD. It was his description of the big crunch in reverse that he lost my interest. Comical nonsense but still nonsense. Even his retraction of it didn't help.
Notters see not red as a colour, not 1 as a number and not existing as something. To see not believing as anything at all is just further bad reasoning they provide.
If these are the brights then they are a laughing stock to be sure.
Not playing tennis is not anything. Not X is not anything, no matter what X is. That is just 1 reason that "not believing" cannot be atheism. There are more reasons.
I have to side with Marowak1337 on this one. In modern usage, Atheism by itself is a lack of belief in gods. It's a default property that can be attributed to anything incapable of holding a belief in anything. (Even rocks!) However justifications that support this default position, or go against the belief in a god or gods ARE beliefs. Many beliefs like this are named as different degrees of atheism, (ie: strong/weak/implicit/explicit atheism) but are independent from the basic atheistic state.
Other, better-named beliefs that are used to supplement the atheistic state with an actual stance include agnosticism, nontheism, antitheism, deism, pragmatism/apatheism and iconoclasm, etc. Summarizing, we are all born atheists. It takes the introduction of the concept of god(s) to invoke the need to form an actual belief either in support, rejection, or indifference to atheism.
In the light of the fact that, as we are born nontheist and nonatheist, do you think we could then say we were born as weak agnostics, considering that a weak agnostic, by definition, is one who doesn't know, but is still opened to believe one way or the other? I've tried many times to have this conversation with people here on BooTube, but couldn't get to any point under the shitload of insults.
Saying we are nontheist or nonatheist says 2 things.... 1 about us (we exist) and 1 not about us (we don't believe something), so it only says we exist about us. The definition you use for "weak agnostic" is a notterism.... it uses the same logical form as "not believing is what atheism is". You said "a weak agnostic, by definition, is one who doesn't know".... which is the same logical form as saying "not believing is what atheism is". If you disagree with 1....
No-one knows if a god exists or not. Agnosticism is not that anyway, it is the position that "no-one knows" which is held by most people, theists included. Agnosticism asks a totally seperate question than atheism or theism attempt to answer. Agnosticism asks what mankind can know and not what each individual knows.
I could direct you to a video explaining this matter. It bears the same name as this one.. ie."Misrepresenting Atheism" uploaded by "FFreeThinker" or "Define Atheist" by "patricianatheist".
I just saw FFreeThinkers video called Misrepesenting Atheism and basically laughed at it since there are many videos up already that shoot down what he says.
gklr - I do have an issue with this point, atheism means without theism, it is simply a lack of belief. An atheist does not beleive in a god or gods and does not need to propose that there are none. This is the whole idea of constructs like the FSM to demonstrate that god's cannot be disproven this would be futile, it is however the believers responsibility to demonstrate the validity of thier claim for the existence of thier god and its magical powers.
Lacking belief is not anything at all, so it certainly is not atheism. It is true that an atheist lacks belief in a god, about what an atheist is not, not about what an atheist is.
We do prove certain gods do not exist, often. Surely you have heard of the argument against an omnipotent god who cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Not all gods can be proven to not exist and why atheism is thus a belief.
Actually, one who lacks belief would be one who doesn't have a position on a subject. If somebody were to ask me my position on mechanic, since I don't know anything about mechanic at all, then I'd refrain from having an opinion on the matter. That is the position of the pragmatic agnosticism, which considers that since there is no access to any kind of evidence for or against the premise, then doesn't take position one way or the other.
No atheism does not mean "without theism". Without theism isn't something that exists. You did not believe in a god 3 million years ago. Are you the eternal atheist?
I like your argument about time, and I don't really have much faith in the patch-work that is Big Bang theory. Firstly it's only based on the observable universe, so it's making some assumptions about the size of the universe. The expansion we see could just be localized due to a massive cosmic explosion. Also the darwinism thing, I dislike the term darwinism and noticed you never used it, good stuff.
There is no reason to believe in any supernatural. Supernatural is any so-called thing or so-called entity that is beyond the study of what is natural. No, supernatural is not natural! Evolution is without any doubt the best explanation of our existence. Evolution does not include speculations of supernatural. Atheism is self defense from consequences of dogma, and the promotion of evolution, science and everything that is real.
Would you agree time cannot begin based on the reasoning I provided here? If so, either the universe or God are eternal. However would you also not agree that e=mc2 requires time as part of the equation? If so, then mass and energy always existed. Agreed? If so, no God.
I agree with most of what you have said. However, everything that I have read about current big bang theory, suggests that time and space was also created with the big bang as such. This is not my idea, but merely what is out there. But there are a lot of people, including myself that don't think that the Big Bang is unique. I feel that it is as common as grains of sand on the beach, if you want my true opinion on the subject.
You're a closet theist aren't you? As a matter of fact I'm very comfortable in saying you're full of shit and the only so called self professed atheist who asks the silly strawman question of creation as in"What was the cause of the "big bang " itself"? or whatever this question is. The evidence of life on other worlds in the universe is simple and everywhere...."We and millions of other examples of life, complex life, are here"...."One does't protesteth too much"
JstNEarthling 2 months ago
@JstNEarthling,
lol.... you take ignorance to a whole new level.
what happened before the big bang is a serious question to those who take the big bang seriously and I never have. The BB is christian dogma painted as science and is creationists way of saying that is when god created the universe.
That is why theoretical science came up with multiverses, something I also reject.
Try thinking... for once. So far I have never seen you do that.
gklr 2 months ago
"Atheism is the belief there is no God and no more," omits much from the definition. This would describe a gnostic atheist. Many are agnostic atheists, in that they lack a belief in the existence of a god, not meaning they have a belief in the nonexistence of a god (which would infer they "know" that a god doesn't exist). They simply haven't seen enough evidence to substantiate the existence of such a being & therefore withhold belief. Theists happily jump on the distinction between the two.
razredge07 7 months ago
@razredge07,
Saying Jim lacks belief, says nothing about Jim. Saying atheists lack belief, says nothing about atheists.
Jim lacked belief when Jim didn't exist.
Agnosticism is unrelated to atheism as it asks what man can know. Atheists don't know there is no god, we believe there is no god.
If you do not believe there is no god, you are not an atheist.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr Atheism simply means not believing in a god. It can apply to both a belief in the nonexistence of a god or lacking a belief in the existence. It doesn't deviate from the fact that atheism applies to belief - in this case, a lack of belief is applicable. I included agnosticism and gnosticism because these modify which definition of atheism is being used - belief or lack of belief.
Saying atheists lack belief says they don't believe in a god.
razredge07 7 months ago
@gklr If an atheist doesn't know if there is a god, then they cannot ascertain a belief in its nonexistence without taking a position that is irrational. It is rational to withhold belief in that which has yet to be substantiated to exist, rather than to believe in its nonexistence.
For example, nobody can rationally believe in the nonexistence of unicorns. Rather, a person simply doesn't believe in the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are discovered, then disbelief in them turns to belief.
razredge07 7 months ago
'''A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009'' is a very good explanation of the beginning of the universe.. also i do appreciate the videos but your attitude towards me was terrible. but seeing that we have a common gound, if you haven't watched that video yet you may find it very interesting.
leekucia 1 year ago
@leekucia,
" but your attitude towards me was terrible"
Good I hope so. When you ignore what someone has to say to falsely portray them repeatedly as a theist then expect it. First time speaking to a freethinker?
I don't take kindly to assholes who don't have a hope of an argument doing nothing else but replying with insulting bullshit to what was a well thought out reply. Either learn your topic or get the fuck lost. Just insulting people who try to explain things is not an argument.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr no hugs then?
leekucia 1 year ago
@leekucia,
No hugs.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr :(
leekucia 1 year ago
mainly my problem with evolution is it teaches macroevolution
i usually have a problem when it comes to believing in any theory i guess since i have a problem with evolution i must be a fundamentalist chrisitan?haha
who cares what the hell a pope sitting in a gold throne believes in? you also said you believe that mass, space, and time always existed but what was before mass, space, and time? you put that argument against God but not against your little theory? yes you got me im a believer
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"i guess since i have a problem with evolution i must be a fundamentalist chrisitan?haha"
Fundie christian, muslim or jew. It is only these mistaken dogmas that oppose evolution and only in their extreme form.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr you support evolution?? i mean microevolution is completely acceptable i have seen it with some animals. But macro is just taking a huge leap of faith.... that one is just too hard swallow when has anyone seen this happen or claim to have seen this happen there is simply no evidence of it, would rather put my faith in cosmology, physics, biology , and genetics.
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt
I have no problem with either micro or macro evolution and again I see the whole question of evolution as uninteresting and unrelated nonsense. No part of my arguments rely on evolution and evolution is maintained by more theists than atheists so it has nothing to do with atheism.
The belief there is no god is not affected in any way by evolution. Theists simply say about evolution, that "god did it". I do not care about evolution one bit, it is a strawman created by creationists.
gklr 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
Atheism is not a science. Science has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is a logical consideration. It is a belief in that we cannot prove there is no god. We do prove certain gods do not exist, like allah from the koran or the god of the bible. Those are dismissed without atheism required.
Evolution simply has no business in the equation. All of science is irrelevent to atheism. Nothing about atheism is validated by any part of science.
gklr 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"who cares what the hell a pope sitting in a gold throne believes in?"
It shows and my point in raising it is, that evolution has nothing to do with atheism as it is held by more theists than atheists and was even held by the Pope. Who cares? How about those "atheists" running around calling evolution "our proof"? It is a ridiculous and twisted strawman created by fundies and it simply is irrelevent to atheism in any way shape or form.
gklr 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"you also said you believe that mass, space, and time always existed but what was before mass, space, and time? "
Did you really think about this question? If it always existed, then there never was a time when it didn't exist. How does "always" escape you? What time exists outside of "always"?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr as far as i know time could be an illusion? please prove to me that time exists ?? all this is just theoretical and nothing more. how could anyone know about God when the origins of life itself is still a mystery?
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt
Time isn't an illusion, it is an assumption we need to make, much like the axioms of logic. Without this assumption nothing makes sense or can. We prove something exists by having a truth about it and in the case of time it is time=distance/speed. Measurable and reproducable, time, speed and distance all require assumption to be real. A truth about an object is only valid now, not for 1 second into the future or past of which neither exist. We need to assume all truths for 1 sec ago
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr only the present exist. so tomorrow and even yesterday dont exist. how can something that doesnt exist be real? not saying it is but if time isn't real then it would be considered an illusion, since by definition an illusion would be something that misleads the perception of reality. "Without this assumption nothing makes sense or can" thats just your opinion.
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"only the present exist"
Correct and why we have no truths about the future or past.
"so tomorrow and even yesterday dont exist. how can something that doesnt exist be real?"
It isn't.
"not saying it is but if time isn't real then it would be considered an illusion, since by definition an illusion would be something that misleads the perception of reality."
Notwithstanding that logic is not percieved but concieved, time is required to say anything changes.
gklr 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"Without this assumption nothing makes sense or can" thats just your opinion"
No it is a logical necessity. All truths are time dependant. When there were no minds, no truths are possible. There is no such thing or possible thing that exists independant of time. Existence requires time. Time is one of those assumed axioms of logic.
gklr 1 year ago
@red
"how could anyone know about God when the origins of life itself is still a mystery?"
What if there is nothing to know? You can't know about god if there is no god to know anything about. If you did know anything at all about a god, then that god must exist. That all people know nothing about a god does not show that a god does not exist.
You assume origins. Why? And btw, origins are only possible if time is real. Time cannot begin still. Events that happen when time doesn't exist?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr "You assume origins. Why?" i assume origins just like you assume that theirs no God. "And btw, origins are only possible if time is real. Time cannot begin still. " not sure i sure if i understood you correctly on this one but according to you time doesnt even have a beginning because it always existed and so it has no start?? the whole concept of time is complex .and forces many scientist such as steven hawkings and peter lynds unfortunately to just make up theories
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
There cannot be an origin. To do so requires time does not exist, and WHILE (a time) time does not exist there were events. It is clearly impossible. Time must always have existed and if time exists then so too does mass and energy. This is what e=mc2 says. c2 is a time.
If time exists, then mass and energy exist. Time always exists, since it cannot begin.... it requires a time WHEN events occur to start time.... a contradiction with or without a god.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr in my opinion time is just a type of measurement. i could say an inch always existed and although technically true it is also untrue.
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"time is just a type of measurement. "
If so, then time exists.
"i could say an inch always existed"
You could not say so prior to language existing or prior to mind existing. At that time "an inch" is utterly meaningless. Truths apply to propositions only, an inch is never true or false, statements about the inch are true or false. Nothing can be said to exist in lieu of minds or language, the term existence did not exist until someone considered it.
gklr 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
I fail to see how any problems these people have with time reflects on this argument. I consistently see from scientists and I am not a scientist or even care about science... is that energy cannot be destroyed or created. Makes sense if it always existed. I consider Hawking a complete nutjob and haven't noticed a thing he has said in over 30 years. I just do not care what these people have to say, it means nothing to my arguments or concerns.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr yes true and this is called the law of conservation of energy. but time is not energy. u said "Makes sense if it always existed"true it does makes sense but cant i then just say that God always existed?
redhunt077 1 year ago
@redhunt077,
"but time is not energy"
Yes of course and I didn't mean to imply it was. I was saying that without time you cannot have energy. Time is included in what energy is. e=mc2. c2 is a time. The speed of light is only measured via time.
"cant i then just say that God always existed?"
Sure, but then god did not create time, energy or mass. If those things always existed, why invoke a god?
gklr 1 year ago
"I consider Hawking a complete nutjob and haven't noticed a thing he has said in over 30 years."
Correction. It was after "A Brief History" that I lost interest in anything Hawking had to say. Published in 1988, so it has not been 30 years. I read that bit of mental mush and saw an idiot who could be bettered by any 12 year old on LSD. It was his description of the big crunch in reverse that he lost my interest. Comical nonsense but still nonsense. Even his retraction of it didn't help.
gklr 1 year ago
According to the logic of these idiotic "youtube atheists",
lacking tennis is a sport
lacking alcohol is a beverage
lacking symmetry is a shape
lacking hair is bald
lacking belief is atheism
and so on..
They have a really nice religious dogma going on in youtube land.
paros011 2 years ago
@paros011,
Exactly. You should see the bullshit I get on this. Cueballs are bald. Cars are anorexic. It's stunning.
gklr 1 year ago
according to your logic .. Not playing tennis is a sport
journeyman66 2 years ago 2
Notters see not red as a colour, not 1 as a number and not existing as something. To see not believing as anything at all is just further bad reasoning they provide.
If these are the brights then they are a laughing stock to be sure.
gklr 2 years ago
@journeyman66,
Not playing tennis is not anything. Not X is not anything, no matter what X is. That is just 1 reason that "not believing" cannot be atheism. There are more reasons.
gklr 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you're fucking stupid and you don't know shit. and you're also fucking ugly
lolhowdoishotweblol 2 years ago
Gee, an angry notter. yawn.
gklr 2 years ago
not really
Atheism is a LACK of belief in any gods.
not "a belief that there are no gods"
marowak1337 2 years ago
A lack of belief in god is not anything at all, so it is not atheism.
Atheism is the proposition that there is no god, a belief.
gklr 2 years ago
I have to side with Marowak1337 on this one. In modern usage, Atheism by itself is a lack of belief in gods. It's a default property that can be attributed to anything incapable of holding a belief in anything. (Even rocks!) However justifications that support this default position, or go against the belief in a god or gods ARE beliefs. Many beliefs like this are named as different degrees of atheism, (ie: strong/weak/implicit/explicit atheism) but are independent from the basic atheistic state.
codbug 2 years ago
Other, better-named beliefs that are used to supplement the atheistic state with an actual stance include agnosticism, nontheism, antitheism, deism, pragmatism/apatheism and iconoclasm, etc. Summarizing, we are all born atheists. It takes the introduction of the concept of god(s) to invoke the need to form an actual belief either in support, rejection, or indifference to atheism.
codbug 2 years ago
We are not born atheists at all, we are born nontheists and nonatheists as we do not believe there is a god and do not believe there is no god.
gklr 2 years ago
In the light of the fact that, as we are born nontheist and nonatheist, do you think we could then say we were born as weak agnostics, considering that a weak agnostic, by definition, is one who doesn't know, but is still opened to believe one way or the other? I've tried many times to have this conversation with people here on BooTube, but couldn't get to any point under the shitload of insults.
By the way, I'm a pragmatic agnostic.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
@montrealpsycho,
Saying we are nontheist or nonatheist says 2 things.... 1 about us (we exist) and 1 not about us (we don't believe something), so it only says we exist about us. The definition you use for "weak agnostic" is a notterism.... it uses the same logical form as "not believing is what atheism is". You said "a weak agnostic, by definition, is one who doesn't know".... which is the same logical form as saying "not believing is what atheism is". If you disagree with 1....
gklr 1 year ago
@montrealpsycho,
No-one knows if a god exists or not. Agnosticism is not that anyway, it is the position that "no-one knows" which is held by most people, theists included. Agnosticism asks a totally seperate question than atheism or theism attempt to answer. Agnosticism asks what mankind can know and not what each individual knows.
gklr 1 year ago
err, wrong again.
I could direct you to a video explaining this matter. It bears the same name as this one.. ie."Misrepresenting Atheism" uploaded by "FFreeThinker" or "Define Atheist" by "patricianatheist".
marowak1337 2 years ago
You base your reply here to what I assume to be an illogical argument. Lacking belief is not anything at all, let alone atheism. No dice.
gklr 2 years ago
I just saw FFreeThinkers video called Misrepesenting Atheism and basically laughed at it since there are many videos up already that shoot down what he says.
His videos are misinformed nonsense.
gklr 2 years ago
riiiight
marowak1337 2 years ago
Right.
gklr 2 years ago
Left.
inb4 commie
tehrater 2 years ago
Ironically, this viewpoint of yours about the meaning of the word "atheism" or "atheist" makes YOU the one misrepresenting atheists, doesn't it :)
tehrater 2 years ago
Nope, quite the opposite.
gklr 2 years ago
gklr - I do have an issue with this point, atheism means without theism, it is simply a lack of belief. An atheist does not beleive in a god or gods and does not need to propose that there are none. This is the whole idea of constructs like the FSM to demonstrate that god's cannot be disproven this would be futile, it is however the believers responsibility to demonstrate the validity of thier claim for the existence of thier god and its magical powers.
RabidLarmer 2 years ago
RabidLarmer,
Lacking belief is not anything at all, so it certainly is not atheism. It is true that an atheist lacks belief in a god, about what an atheist is not, not about what an atheist is.
We do prove certain gods do not exist, often. Surely you have heard of the argument against an omnipotent god who cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Not all gods can be proven to not exist and why atheism is thus a belief.
gklr 2 years ago
Actually, one who lacks belief would be one who doesn't have a position on a subject. If somebody were to ask me my position on mechanic, since I don't know anything about mechanic at all, then I'd refrain from having an opinion on the matter. That is the position of the pragmatic agnosticism, which considers that since there is no access to any kind of evidence for or against the premise, then doesn't take position one way or the other.
montrealpsycho 2 years ago
@montrealpsycho,
"Actually, one who lacks belief would be one who doesn't have a position on a subject"
Correct. It also does not say anything about X or Y to say "X lacks Y" or "X is not Y". Each is true when X does not exist.
gklr 1 year ago
No atheism does not mean "without theism". Without theism isn't something that exists. You did not believe in a god 3 million years ago. Are you the eternal atheist?
gklr 2 years ago
I like your argument about time, and I don't really have much faith in the patch-work that is Big Bang theory. Firstly it's only based on the observable universe, so it's making some assumptions about the size of the universe. The expansion we see could just be localized due to a massive cosmic explosion. Also the darwinism thing, I dislike the term darwinism and noticed you never used it, good stuff.
Rybot9000 4 years ago
There is no reason to believe in any supernatural. Supernatural is any so-called thing or so-called entity that is beyond the study of what is natural. No, supernatural is not natural! Evolution is without any doubt the best explanation of our existence. Evolution does not include speculations of supernatural. Atheism is self defense from consequences of dogma, and the promotion of evolution, science and everything that is real.
JohnHasSeriousQ 5 years ago 2
Would you agree time cannot begin based on the reasoning I provided here? If so, either the universe or God are eternal. However would you also not agree that e=mc2 requires time as part of the equation? If so, then mass and energy always existed. Agreed? If so, no God.
gklr 5 years ago
I agree with most of what you have said. However, everything that I have read about current big bang theory, suggests that time and space was also created with the big bang as such. This is not my idea, but merely what is out there. But there are a lot of people, including myself that don't think that the Big Bang is unique. I feel that it is as common as grains of sand on the beach, if you want my true opinion on the subject.
dexarouskies 5 years ago