Your cat is not an atheist. An atheist is someone who rejects the theist claim for any reason. You can not be an atheist without understanding the theist claim and rejecting it. Either partially like the agnostic or completely like the atheist. Cats, trees and new born babies are not atheists. They do not have the ability to understand theism therefore they can not reject it.
Neither atheist or agnostic positions have anything to do with belief. The agnostic just claims they don't have or there is not enough knowledge to reject the theist claim 100%. The atheist knows there is. I am atheist. I reject the theist claim 100% because I know their god is a cartoon character created by man just like Roger Rabbit and Donald Duck. Science has nothing to do with it because there is nothing scientific about it. Scientific evidence does not apply to cartoons.
I'm an agnostic theist. I don't know a God exists, but I have some evidence (personal religious experience which I don't want anyone else, even Christians, to accept as evidence for themselves), so I believe in a God, but am not sure of his existence, so that makes me an agnostic theist.
My mom is Catholic, but in rebellion against the church tried to avoid teaching me any of it growing up, so I got to just explore and pick my own religion. It was great!
That was useful information, thanks. I have listened to "atheist" and "theist" having this conversation for some time now and I notice that they never define what God is or what constitutes evidence of a God. I wonder how a person can make a decision about a belief in something for which he has no definition. For me this is like walking in on the middle of a conversation which actually started in the middle of the conversation. Even I did enjou this video. Cheers!
You lacked belief in a God in the year 1200. Rocks lack belief in a God, are they atheists? So does piss. So does death. So does anger and hatred. They all lack belief in a God. All atheists?
This is why placing the negation on the atheist is pure garbage and is not atheism, it is a misrepresentation of atheism, which is the belief there is no God. Note the negation is on God and not the atheist. It's true every atheist does not believe in a God, but that isn't what they are.
It's a lack of theistic belief. Some people think that you must first have the ability to believe, and then reject the notion of god, but either way, it's still LACK OF THEISM.
So yeah, my cats are atheistic. So's my piss. You were an atheist when you were born; you had to be taught theism.
Again you mistake atheism. Atheism DOES NOT say that "God does not exist". Atheists simply do not have a belief in a god. It's a lack of theistic belief (read my first comment)!
"Atheism DOES NOT say that "God does not exist". Atheists simply do not have a belief in a god. It's a lack of theistic belief (read my first comment"
"If I say my car is not red, is that what my car is? Not red?"
If the vast majority of cars in your locale were red, then calling your car "not-red" might carry some pertinence. Similarly, "atheist" only means much because of theists. If theists were a rarity, calling oneself "atheist" (however it's defined) would seem pointless.
My point here is in saying that "not red" is not a property of my car or any car. "Not red" is not an object, not a fact about anything.
"Similarly, "atheist" only means much because of theists. If theists were a rarity, calling oneself "atheist" (however it's defined) would seem pointless."
Yes, agreed. However the issue of defining atheist or atheism remains divided between atheists being the negated set of theists, or a new set with it's own negation.
"Yes, agreed. However the issue of defining atheist or atheism remains divided between atheists being the negated set of theists, or a new set with it's own negation."
"You were an atheist when you were born; you had to be taught theism"
False, I was not atheist when I was born and I was not theist either. I was nontheist, nonatheist at birth and so is everyone. Piss is nontheist and nonatheist too. Same for cats.
Atheism is the belief there is no God, and that belief is not held by piss, babies or cats. None of which are atheists.
It's true you did not believe in a God before you existed, say in the year 1200. Were you an atheist then too? Eternally?
I am not whining, I am correcting. I asked you questions, and you didn't answer them.
It is true you did not believe in God when you did not exist. It is true that the present King of France, who does not exist, does not believe in a God. Is the present King of France an atheist? Where you eternally an atheist? You did not believe in a God in the year 1200. In the year 1200 were you an atheist? It certainly fits your definition.
You repeat what has been shown false, in the face of proof.
Then you're equating a lack of a belief to a specific belief in something. So please, prove that there is no God. You're an atheist, right? You're making the claim that there is no God, right? So show me.
"Then you're equating a lack of a belief to a specific belief in something. So please, prove that there is no God. You're an atheist, right? You're making the claim that there is no God, right? So show me."
Belief is never provable. Truth must be proven and has the burden of proof. Beliefs do not have the burden of proof. Atheism is not the truth that there is no God, it is the belief there is no God. A belief is any proposition that is not proven true. If proven, it is not a belief.
Then we differ greatly in our terms of "belief" and "atheism". While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims must be true (that god exists or that it does not), there is no such restriction in the case of *belief*. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite.
And how can you say we can't "believe" in something that's proven?! I can't believe in a heliocentric solar system? Piss off.
"Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite."
I sometimes use the deBroglie hypothesis as an example between unbelief and disbelief. Very few people know about this hypothesis, so there are few "deBroglie-ists". Most people have unbelief in the hypothesis: the don't believe in it, because they know nothing of it. They're agnostic "a-deBrolgie-ists". A scant few people have disbelief in the hypothesis, they're strong "a-deBrolgie-ists".
"Then we differ greatly in our terms of "belief" and "atheism"."
Belief applies to any proposition that is not proven true. It is true I am a male. It can be proven. You can't prove it, so you must believe I am a male... or not male. Beliefs and truths/falsehoods apply to propositions, they are a propositional type. All beliefs and truths are statements that propose something is the case.
"Belief applies to any proposition that is not proven true."
Some people elect to believe something contrary to reality, despite ample proof, for personal/emotional reasons. Thus, their knowledge and their belief are at odds. Sometimes, this is called being "in denial".
But, if you mean "proof" in the "absolute certainty" sense, then only pure mathematics can be so proven; thus everything else would be "just a belief" by your definition. But, I don't think you meant "proof" in that sense.
"Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite."
Exactly right. A baby doesn't believe in a god and doesn't believe there is no god. No baby is an atheist and no baby is a theist. Rocks do not believe in a god and also do not believe there is no god. And saying X doesn't believe Y doesn't use X as the subject anyway, it isn't even talking about what X is, it is about what X is not. If I list all those things I am not, I would have a very long list
Look, I told you I'd concede your point to further the conversation.
So, further the conversation! You keep claiming that no one can have a belief over something that's true, and I'm telling you you're full of shit. Anyone can believe ANYTHING about ANYTHING.
And how can you claim "Exactly right" when the statement contradicts your claim that not having a belief in god means that you believe there is no god?
"And how can you claim "Exactly right" when the statement contradicts your claim that not having a belief in god means that you believe there is no god?"
Except I didn't and don't say that. I say "not having belief" applies to non-existant objects, rocks, and they do not believe in a God and yet they do not believe there is no God. It's not me confused.
As a video response, I've linked you to a video I'd already made, which describes my strong atheism.
I don't claim that my knowledge that there is no god amounts to a rock-solid, robust, philosophically & logically sound argument. Rather it amounts to a personal knowledge which definitely won't convince everyone.
"Good, because saying God doesn't exist is a belief."
My stance is not based on whether the would-be gods actually exist, but rather on whether any of these supposed beings morally OUGHT to be regarded as "god".
If my moral stance on what it takes to be a god is accepted, then so must my conclusion that nothing is god. But people are free to define "god" as they see fit, which is why my knowledge is "personal". By MY standards we can KNOW nothing is god; by criteria of others, not so much.
"supposed beings morally OUGHT to be regarded as "god"."
I see many people walk away from the whole debate in asking "what is god?". Since it can't be clearly defined, they ask "so what is it you are talking about?" and essentially leave it there. I disagree with that approach, and yours. Any proposed god can be defined quite differently, Zeus is not Allah, Odin is not the God of the bible. A god may exist inside the sun, how would we know? A god may have been born on Venus 10 seconds ago...
"A god may have been born on Venus 10 seconds ago..."
For a while, I accepted this very concept as plausible. But, since "god" is just a word that is used for all sorts of things, we do have to say what we mean by "god".
Let us say this Venusian "god" had just been born. It is whatever it is no matter what we think of it, but why call it a god instead of a superhero or something else? You have to say, it is a god because of (insert reason). That's all I'm doing, but in reverse.
Great video! However, I do disagree with some of the semantics. I am a true agnostic. Consequently, I'm not an atheist. I've linked you with one of my many videos on agnosticism. I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed watching yours!
There is no such thing as a true (atheist, agnostic, christian etc...). The only things true or false, or believed, are propositions. Propositions are a type of statement that claims something to be the case.
True (atheist, christian, agnostic) is a form of logical error that starts in the church. There is no such thing.
As well, agnosticism is not a middle point between atheism and theism, as it asks an unrelated question about what man can prove.
I think "athiest" maybe too stigmatized a word to salvage. I fit your definition of an A/A but I don't want to have to deal w/the preconceptions. I think agnostic also carries colloquial misdefinitions.
What's wrong with piss (why do you seem to be fascinated by the stuff? You keep using it in your arguments, and even in the videos you make) lacking theism? Is that bad? Do you want your piss to know Jesus?
I know it can get pretty ridiculous, so if you want, we can refer to atheism as only being the outcome of a cognitive mind that understands theism and has decided not to accept it. That better?
Regardless, don't get snooty and claim "victory". You came to MY video and started a fuss. I said that for the sake of dealing *with you* that I'll refer to atheism as such.
I have niether claimed victory, as I have nothing to win... nor been snooty, nor started a "fuss". When you put up videos taking a position, others will contest that and if you don't want to be opposed, reconsider allowing comments or posting videos.
"I said that for the sake of dealing *with you* that I'll refer to atheism as such."
The issue is the definition. Not me. Every dictionary I know of says what I do.
Your cat is not an atheist. An atheist is someone who rejects the theist claim for any reason. You can not be an atheist without understanding the theist claim and rejecting it. Either partially like the agnostic or completely like the atheist. Cats, trees and new born babies are not atheists. They do not have the ability to understand theism therefore they can not reject it.
residentatheist 5 months ago
Neither atheist or agnostic positions have anything to do with belief. The agnostic just claims they don't have or there is not enough knowledge to reject the theist claim 100%. The atheist knows there is. I am atheist. I reject the theist claim 100% because I know their god is a cartoon character created by man just like Roger Rabbit and Donald Duck. Science has nothing to do with it because there is nothing scientific about it. Scientific evidence does not apply to cartoons.
residentatheist 5 months ago
Agnostisism is the belief that there is no knowledge for or against the existence of God and/or that His existance or non-existance cannot be known.
Atheism is the belief that there is no diety.(Mirram Webster).
Belief without knowledge is faith.
Believing that there is any difference whatsoever between "not believing"
something and "believing" something is not true
Is pathological.
And your video cleary demonstrates that you are.
cooIbreeze 2 years ago
Pretty good video.
JezuzDiedLOL 2 years ago
I'm an agnostic theist. I don't know a God exists, but I have some evidence (personal religious experience which I don't want anyone else, even Christians, to accept as evidence for themselves), so I believe in a God, but am not sure of his existence, so that makes me an agnostic theist.
zoysite 3 years ago
i respect your belief... i was just wondering what were you raised to believe?
yasminth1981 3 years ago
My mom is Catholic, but in rebellion against the church tried to avoid teaching me any of it growing up, so I got to just explore and pick my own religion. It was great!
zoysite 3 years ago
That was useful information, thanks. I have listened to "atheist" and "theist" having this conversation for some time now and I notice that they never define what God is or what constitutes evidence of a God. I wonder how a person can make a decision about a belief in something for which he has no definition. For me this is like walking in on the middle of a conversation which actually started in the middle of the conversation. Even I did enjou this video. Cheers!
NLPNVC 3 years ago
Anarchy is a lack of religion and atheism is a lack of government... wait.
TheReasonWhyGuy 3 years ago
I believe you have misunderstood the terms,
Theist: a person who does believe that 'God exists', is true.
Non-theist: a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is true.
Atheist: a person who does believe that 'God exists', is false.
Non-atheist: a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is false.
Agnostic: a person who does believe that 'God exists' is neither true nor false.
Non-agnostic: a person who does not believe that 'God exist' is neither true nor false.
cgo11 3 years ago
In view of these definitions, there is no sense to the terms: agnostic theist, agnostic atheist.
Only non-theists and non-atheists can also be agnostic.
Everyone is included in the set of {theists or non-theists}.
Not everyone is included in the set {theists or atheists}. (agnostics are excluded)
cgo11 3 years ago
You lacked belief in a God in the year 1200. Rocks lack belief in a God, are they atheists? So does piss. So does death. So does anger and hatred. They all lack belief in a God. All atheists?
This is why placing the negation on the atheist is pure garbage and is not atheism, it is a misrepresentation of atheism, which is the belief there is no God. Note the negation is on God and not the atheist. It's true every atheist does not believe in a God, but that isn't what they are.
gklr 3 years ago
It's a lack of theistic belief. Some people think that you must first have the ability to believe, and then reject the notion of god, but either way, it's still LACK OF THEISM.
So yeah, my cats are atheistic. So's my piss. You were an atheist when you were born; you had to be taught theism.
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
smalltown,
Ok, so when we ask theists to examine atheism and learn about it, they can look at their piss. Gotcha.
If I say my car is not red, is that what my car is? Not red?
gklr 3 years ago
If you say your car is not red, then your car is not red. Anything else you wanna say about your car?
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
It says what the car is not, not what the car is. The statement is not about the car is.
If your logic held, it would be about God to say "God does not exist" and if true, then it would be a truth statement about God, proving God exists.
gklr 3 years ago
Again you mistake atheism. Atheism DOES NOT say that "God does not exist". Atheists simply do not have a belief in a god. It's a lack of theistic belief (read my first comment)!
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
"Atheism DOES NOT say that "God does not exist". Atheists simply do not have a belief in a god. It's a lack of theistic belief (read my first comment"
Wrong and I've shown why.
gklr 3 years ago
"If I say my car is not red, is that what my car is? Not red?"
If the vast majority of cars in your locale were red, then calling your car "not-red" might carry some pertinence. Similarly, "atheist" only means much because of theists. If theists were a rarity, calling oneself "atheist" (however it's defined) would seem pointless.
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
SK,
My point here is in saying that "not red" is not a property of my car or any car. "Not red" is not an object, not a fact about anything.
"Similarly, "atheist" only means much because of theists. If theists were a rarity, calling oneself "atheist" (however it's defined) would seem pointless."
Yes, agreed. However the issue of defining atheist or atheism remains divided between atheists being the negated set of theists, or a new set with it's own negation.
gklr 3 years ago
"Yes, agreed. However the issue of defining atheist or atheism remains divided between atheists being the negated set of theists, or a new set with it's own negation."
Of that, there can be no argument.
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
"You were an atheist when you were born; you had to be taught theism"
False, I was not atheist when I was born and I was not theist either. I was nontheist, nonatheist at birth and so is everyone. Piss is nontheist and nonatheist too. Same for cats.
Atheism is the belief there is no God, and that belief is not held by piss, babies or cats. None of which are atheists.
It's true you did not believe in a God before you existed, say in the year 1200. Were you an atheist then too? Eternally?
gklr 3 years ago
You may wish to equate the two terms, but I do not. However, I don't see your point with making the kind of comments you are making.
Is there something you'd like to ask, or do you just want to whine?
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
I am not whining, I am correcting. I asked you questions, and you didn't answer them.
It is true you did not believe in God when you did not exist. It is true that the present King of France, who does not exist, does not believe in a God. Is the present King of France an atheist? Where you eternally an atheist? You did not believe in a God in the year 1200. In the year 1200 were you an atheist? It certainly fits your definition.
You repeat what has been shown false, in the face of proof.
gklr 3 years ago
Then you're equating a lack of a belief to a specific belief in something. So please, prove that there is no God. You're an atheist, right? You're making the claim that there is no God, right? So show me.
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
"Then you're equating a lack of a belief to a specific belief in something. So please, prove that there is no God. You're an atheist, right? You're making the claim that there is no God, right? So show me."
Belief is never provable. Truth must be proven and has the burden of proof. Beliefs do not have the burden of proof. Atheism is not the truth that there is no God, it is the belief there is no God. A belief is any proposition that is not proven true. If proven, it is not a belief.
gklr 3 years ago
Then we differ greatly in our terms of "belief" and "atheism". While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims must be true (that god exists or that it does not), there is no such restriction in the case of *belief*. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite.
And how can you say we can't "believe" in something that's proven?! I can't believe in a heliocentric solar system? Piss off.
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
"Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite."
I sometimes use the deBroglie hypothesis as an example between unbelief and disbelief. Very few people know about this hypothesis, so there are few "deBroglie-ists". Most people have unbelief in the hypothesis: the don't believe in it, because they know nothing of it. They're agnostic "a-deBrolgie-ists". A scant few people have disbelief in the hypothesis, they're strong "a-deBrolgie-ists".
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
"Then we differ greatly in our terms of "belief" and "atheism"."
Belief applies to any proposition that is not proven true. It is true I am a male. It can be proven. You can't prove it, so you must believe I am a male... or not male. Beliefs and truths/falsehoods apply to propositions, they are a propositional type. All beliefs and truths are statements that propose something is the case.
gklr 3 years ago
"Belief applies to any proposition that is not proven true."
Some people elect to believe something contrary to reality, despite ample proof, for personal/emotional reasons. Thus, their knowledge and their belief are at odds. Sometimes, this is called being "in denial".
But, if you mean "proof" in the "absolute certainty" sense, then only pure mathematics can be so proven; thus everything else would be "just a belief" by your definition. But, I don't think you meant "proof" in that sense.
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
"Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite."
Exactly right. A baby doesn't believe in a god and doesn't believe there is no god. No baby is an atheist and no baby is a theist. Rocks do not believe in a god and also do not believe there is no god. And saying X doesn't believe Y doesn't use X as the subject anyway, it isn't even talking about what X is, it is about what X is not. If I list all those things I am not, I would have a very long list
gklr 3 years ago
Look, I told you I'd concede your point to further the conversation.
So, further the conversation! You keep claiming that no one can have a belief over something that's true, and I'm telling you you're full of shit. Anyone can believe ANYTHING about ANYTHING.
And how can you claim "Exactly right" when the statement contradicts your claim that not having a belief in god means that you believe there is no god?
I believe you are confused.
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
"And how can you claim "Exactly right" when the statement contradicts your claim that not having a belief in god means that you believe there is no god?"
Except I didn't and don't say that. I say "not having belief" applies to non-existant objects, rocks, and they do not believe in a God and yet they do not believe there is no God. It's not me confused.
gklr 3 years ago
And, by the way, positive claims bear the burden of proof. You claim that there is no god is a positive claim.
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
As a video response, I've linked you to a video I'd already made, which describes my strong atheism.
I don't claim that my knowledge that there is no god amounts to a rock-solid, robust, philosophically & logically sound argument. Rather it amounts to a personal knowledge which definitely won't convince everyone.
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
"I don't claim that my knowledge that there is no god amounts to a rock-solid, robust, philosophically & logically sound argument."
Good, because saying God doesn't exist is a belief, not proven true. We don't know there is no God anymore than a theist knows there is one.
gklr 3 years ago
"Good, because saying God doesn't exist is a belief."
My stance is not based on whether the would-be gods actually exist, but rather on whether any of these supposed beings morally OUGHT to be regarded as "god".
If my moral stance on what it takes to be a god is accepted, then so must my conclusion that nothing is god. But people are free to define "god" as they see fit, which is why my knowledge is "personal". By MY standards we can KNOW nothing is god; by criteria of others, not so much.
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
"supposed beings morally OUGHT to be regarded as "god"."
I see many people walk away from the whole debate in asking "what is god?". Since it can't be clearly defined, they ask "so what is it you are talking about?" and essentially leave it there. I disagree with that approach, and yours. Any proposed god can be defined quite differently, Zeus is not Allah, Odin is not the God of the bible. A god may exist inside the sun, how would we know? A god may have been born on Venus 10 seconds ago...
gklr 3 years ago
"A god may have been born on Venus 10 seconds ago..."
For a while, I accepted this very concept as plausible. But, since "god" is just a word that is used for all sorts of things, we do have to say what we mean by "god".
Let us say this Venusian "god" had just been born. It is whatever it is no matter what we think of it, but why call it a god instead of a superhero or something else? You have to say, it is a god because of (insert reason). That's all I'm doing, but in reverse.
ScientistKeith 3 years ago
Exactly.
philip0460 3 years ago
Great video! However, I do disagree with some of the semantics. I am a true agnostic. Consequently, I'm not an atheist. I've linked you with one of my many videos on agnosticism. I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed watching yours!
philip0460 3 years ago
Thanks for the video! I've made a response to your video, addressing the difference between "belief" and "knowledge".
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
philip0460,
There is no such thing as a true (atheist, agnostic, christian etc...). The only things true or false, or believed, are propositions. Propositions are a type of statement that claims something to be the case.
True (atheist, christian, agnostic) is a form of logical error that starts in the church. There is no such thing.
As well, agnosticism is not a middle point between atheism and theism, as it asks an unrelated question about what man can prove.
gklr 3 years ago
Good video!
TheFuckingAdam 3 years ago
When you say agnostic atheist many people hear: Hi, I'm an agnostic immoral Christian hater that wants to tax then shut down your church.
owheydusoapsk 4 years ago
I think "athiest" maybe too stigmatized a word to salvage. I fit your definition of an A/A but I don't want to have to deal w/the preconceptions. I think agnostic also carries colloquial misdefinitions.
owheydusoapsk 4 years ago
And that's exactly why I made this video. I'm tired of the stigma of the word, and I want to show others that atheists are just people!
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
"And that's exactly why I made this video. I'm tired of the stigma of the word, and I want to show others that atheists are just people!"
But you just said piss is an atheist. By your definition so is hate, so is anger, so is disease. You just pissed on atheism in my opinion.
gklr 3 years ago
What's wrong with piss (why do you seem to be fascinated by the stuff? You keep using it in your arguments, and even in the videos you make) lacking theism? Is that bad? Do you want your piss to know Jesus?
I know it can get pretty ridiculous, so if you want, we can refer to atheism as only being the outcome of a cognitive mind that understands theism and has decided not to accept it. That better?
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
I don't think I mention piss once in any video I have made. I have nothing against piss, I just don't think piss is an atheist.
"atheism as only being the outcome of a cognitive mind that understands theism and has decided not to accept it. That better?"
Much better, but it's a reversal on your part. Now it is something we think about, conclude... wheras as a lack of belief it isn't.
gklr 3 years ago
Well, you did.
Regardless, don't get snooty and claim "victory". You came to MY video and started a fuss. I said that for the sake of dealing *with you* that I'll refer to atheism as such.
smalltownatheist 3 years ago
I have niether claimed victory, as I have nothing to win... nor been snooty, nor started a "fuss". When you put up videos taking a position, others will contest that and if you don't want to be opposed, reconsider allowing comments or posting videos.
"I said that for the sake of dealing *with you* that I'll refer to atheism as such."
The issue is the definition. Not me. Every dictionary I know of says what I do.
gklr 3 years ago
Nice vid.
I hope you know what you're getting yourself in when you offer to "debate". Anyways, welcome!
~Angel XIII~
anangel13 4 years ago