That's just pure relativism. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, there is one meaning that it has. You claim to have left evangelicalism and you claim to have investigated the Bible, but you still retain the same evangelical interpretation of the Bible, which is why I doubt you've done depth study. As I've investigated the Bible, I've significantly changed my views. You also just begged the question about "true Christianity." Just because there are multiple opinions...
There you go, that's what I was looking for. You've just explained, in a simple manner, the evangelical doctrine of penal substitution, which is a lie. The Bible does not teach that God the Father acquired a large amount of wrath which He expended on Jesus so that He did not have to expend it on us.
Do you? You may have a good understanding about what evangelical "Christianity" teaches, but I seriously doubt you have an understanding about what the Scripture teaches. For example, in what way, according to the New Testament, does Jesus save humanity from sin?
Oh, I agree with that. I only dispute that you actually meet those criteria. I don't intend this to be insulting. For the vast majority of my Christian life, I didn't understand it either. And it doesn't surprise me that you used to be religious, but you were a Western Christian, right? I believe that Western Christianity has very little to do with biblical, ancient Christianity.
You may or may not become an Orthodox Christian, but you will assuredly gain a much better understanding of the biblical text and most likely, a much greater respect for the Christian faith, whether you come to believe in it personally or not. Every atheist who I have met who has done this has gained a much greater respect for the Bible and for Christianity.
Dude, reading the Bible straight through isn't "doing your homework" unless you are an Ancient Near Eastern Jew fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Without an understanding of the culture and languages of the Bible, you will never understand the Bible. Never. Remember that it was an agnostic that wrote the words I read in this video.
No one is "playing games" with definitions. Words are a part of language which is a tool that arises from experience. As experience changes and we accumlate knowledge, language and by association, words change in meaning and value. Getting upset because the use of a term has evolved is as childish as being upset that various cultures have different languages.
//But when he says you must argue before you assume metaphysical naturalism? That's a strawman. Everyone assumes metaphysical naturalism in some area in life other than religion but doesn't give an argument for it. The question is there reason to believe in the supernatural.//
Proving that other people are just as illogical as you are in some areas doesn't justify your position. Your presupposition is still just a presupposition
Conclusion of Necessary Being argument: "So if the universe is contingent, then it must require something that is not contingent for its existence. It must require some kind of necessary being that must exist by its very nature. This necessary being is God."
Sounds like other Theological arguments, where, after some obfuscation and needless complexity, an ingredient is arbitrarily and emphatically declared a divine being, rather than a process, matter, energy, or just nothing.
In order to intelligently disagree with something, you would have to understand it first - Noone is going to take anyone seriously who misrepresent what they believe and that goes both ways. How can I take channels like SoG, Neph and "creationistswon" seriously when they so openly lie and misrepresent the "other" side? I cant. And I cant take people who say things like "christianity is belief in a jewish zombie" seriously either. Understanding has to come first - and that goes for everybody.
How do you define atheism? Most that call themselfs atheists would say there are only two possibilites, either theism or atheism. Theism is the belief in god/gods, atheism is the rejection or lack of belief in gods.
Gnosticism doesnt come in between but pertains to knowledge, or what you "think" you know, rather than what you believe. The atheist-experience(dot)com defines it as such in their FAQ and it is in this definition it makes the most sense to me as well.
This video makes me cringe. Not because I'm a skeptic, but because this "agnostic" has bought into all the Christian lines. I happen to agree with him about a lot of problems with atheists especially on you tube. But when he says you must argue before you assume metaphysical naturalism? That's a strawman. Everyone assumes metaphysical naturalism in some area in life other than religion but doesn't give an argument for it. The question is there reason to believe in the supernatural.
"You atheists think you know everything but you don't. People who think that they are right and everybody else is wrong are arrogant and stupid. I don't have all the answers yet but I'm going to pretty soon and unless you agree with me you will never have the truth because I am right and everybody else is wrong."
'You can never know anything for sure' and hence one can be and remain an agnostic. This is based on the philosophical statement that you know nothing outside of your own experience and therefore you cannot know for sure if anything is real. One could read all of these sources and never be sure! Agnostic.
Christianity then asks one to place their faith, not their rational intuition in God. One chooses to have faith in this or not, but one can never fully comprehend. I choose not to have faith.
@babb9520 It is one branch of Philosophy that argues that our senses are not reliable and hence truth cannot be determined. But if nothing is real, who are you arguing with, and why are you trying to convince a figment of your imagination? You assume the existence of yourself and the efficacy of your mind and senses, and of your readers, by writing this post; you assume that which you argue against.
@Valelacerte This is interesting, and thanks for the reply. My argument though is not that "nothing is real" and is not from a branch of philosophy that argues that our senses are not reliable, rather, I'm merely saying that you cannot know what is real and you cannot know that our senses are reliable. We choose to make this assumption (and many others) in order to survive and communicate (just like I was doing by posting). For some reason we choose to live... why? That is a type of faith...
@babb9520 If one wanted to determine whether a rock was real, one could touch it, smell it, look at it, ask others if their perception is the same, fire waves and particles at it. If all these test positive, is it not reasonable to conclude that the rock is indeed real? That text appears on your screen, that others can also see, that responds to your post, is one piece of evidence that YouTube is not a dellusion.
You can't think of one reason why someone might choose life over death?
Urgh, Kabane, you make errors even 15 seconds into the video. You cannot be 'Agnostic' (as in: JUST agnostic) and EVERYONE is a 'former atheist'. You have to be atheist before Theist, just like you have to 'not play football' before you 'play football'.
The greatest motivation to believe that a personal god does not exist is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the species homo sapians have been around for maybe a million years. Also we are just one species on one planet in more than a septillion solar systems. I would say that indicates that we are not the reason the universe is here.
You are correct in saying that we are not the reason the universe is here. God is. And the age of the universe seems befitting of a God whose nature is eternal; a God who, unlike the magician who pulls things suddenly out of a hat, is a patient God of Love and Faithfulness...qualities reflected in Nature through the interplay of Chance and Necessity.
As a wordsmith, I can tell you the basic definition is incomplete as all that is provided is a simplified definition in most dictionaries. Looked at historically, an Atheist "Doe not believe in a God, gods or other supernatural authority." To "Deny god" presupposes a belief in god and that is the definition of an Apostate. To claim an Atheist "Lacks a belief in God..." is logically correct as that is what is meant by "Denies the existance of God...". Semantics matters.
So answer his questions, have you actually read complete works by these men?
He is spending years buying books from both sides, reading them side by side. He is far more than a critical thinker than you could ever hope to be. He also teaches college math.
One of the more important aspects of intelligence and critical thinking especially is knowing how to separate useful information from the noise. Apologetics are all noise and after, lets call it 9 books of apologetics ( hugh ross, strobel, craig, cs lewis, dinesh) I was impressed exactly zero times. You hit me with an argument I can't readily answer and I will gladly do some critical thinking.
Also I don't give a hoot if he's smashing atoms in his basement, appeal. to authority!
Do you know what an appeal to authority is? You insulted his intelligence, I pointed out that he was very intelligent. Instead of memorizing fallacies and trying to make yourself look smart by pointing them out, try to actually learn what they mean.
I really could care less if you weren't impressed. Why don't you PM him and see if he really is as dumb as you think. darrinrasberry.
Hey Kabane, I think if you listen to what he said closely, you will see that all he said was everyone is wrong but him because he is "on the right track". That letter couldn't have had less substance if it were a blank sheet of paper.
Does all this mean that your friend didn't even know what he disagreed with? That's ridiculous. I thought such atheists were a myth. I'm glad he's finally looking.
I was a christian when I read Strobel's first book. It was so poorly written that it encouraged me to become an atheist. I agree that anyone that is swayed by him was not a very good skeptic.
If you want to discuss immaterial then log onto the CERN site and look at he LHC, this machine will bring us closer to understanding immaterial existence than any religion ever could...religion offers no answers, only obidience.
This wasn't a letter to skeptics, this was a letter to fundies. This fellow claims that so many of the atheists are fundies, that we don't care about the truth in the face of what's right? I've scarcely met an atheist that doesn't believe that being right and having true beliefs are the same thing. And now most religious people who read this is going to think that atheists are just as fundamental as themselves.
Notes like this can be addressed to fundies of both sides. There are brilliant atheists, and there are dumb atheists, and there are brilliant theists, and dumb theists.
of course. I have no problem with that. The problem is that he makes it seem like there is a remarkable number of atheists who would use a lie to win an argument, even though it would make them incorrect. I've known very few who do this.
Rants like this are seriously lame, especially when someone pretends to be talking to and about a large group of people when they are actually referring to almost no one.
I think the main point I want to stress is that there is a difference between belief and acting on a belief. Holding diametrically opposing beliefs isn't impossible, despite the fact that acting on opposing beliefs at the same time is
You can be sceptical of both propositions: "god exists," and "god does not exist" (which would make you an atheist). Or you can choose to believe both propositions are true in some sense, limboing on the precipice of discovering which better describes how you act.
I think you're using the terms a little bit differently here.
belief - Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Ex: I believe X is true. I believe X is false. I believe that X is both true and false.
This is obviously a contradiction. Now, it could be that within the elements of X there exists something I find to be true and some other element I find to be false, but I cannot say X is both true and false in and of itself.
This sounds like a last-ditch desperate attempt of forestalling the inevitable and growing popularity of atheism by a well-read Christian apologist and not a skeptical agnostic. The author of this letter cries that "many of you (other Christians) did not grow up with apologetics (like I did)" but then tries to disassociate from the hidden embedded apologetics within by claiming to have once been an atheist. Throughout, the author defends theism and specifically Christian Theology.
Um, yeah he defends theism throughout, because he believes that it may be true. That's what agnostic means. He doesn't know. But he thinks a lot of our arguments have more merit than you guys think.
i would also like to note that time and time again in was the scholarly concencus that the names on the gospels were written by those people. i have not found this to be the case and was very upset you would be misleading. i even have a video of tom wright saying the gospel writers are not known if you would like to see that.
well that was well put and i hope you treat this the same way kabane. it seems you put beliefs first and are willing to defend them at all costs instead of starting from the middle ground. i came to youtube after throwing religion away for 15 years and i almost knew nothing about the bible during that time, but the premise of christianity is void of logic. i have found nothing but things that confirm my view of atheism. i really can't believe there is an adult who believes this stuff.
theists have traditionally been defined in academia as denial of the existence of God, not a mere "lack of belief"
Nope, but that won't stop you from being unable to see the difference between what asserting a claim (which is what you do) and not believing it without evidence (which is what I do)
"Nope, but that won't stop you from being unable to see the difference between what asserting a claim (which is what you do) and not believing it without evidence (which is what I do)"
Sure, you're a skeptic of his claims. But you haven't actually addressed how you feel toward the proposition of gods' existence.
Specifically, would you say you believe that gods do not exist, or do you reserve judgment on the matter?
God has been redefined many times throughout history, simply defining God to escape the burden of proof isn't rational. It's a cheap trick that proves nothing.
I cannot use logic to justify the existence of chaos, but that doesn't mean it can't possibly exist.
The point is that you can't demonstrate that logic is necessarily always present, nor that it is possible for the universe to exist without matter. It's speculation.
You seem like a fairly bright young lad. This isn't exactly strictly theistic literature, but I would definitely recommend taking a look through in Edgar Allen Poe's "Mesmeric Revelation."
It's fiction, yes, but it brings forth some interesting ideas of what 'immateriality' might really refer. You'd probably find it interesting.
"simply defining God to escape the burden of proof isn't rational."
The moment someone proposes an idea of what god is. The burden of proof is on both parties to establish whether it exists or doesn't exist. It isn't automatically considered non-existent.
"Existence = objective material presence or the measurable effects of material presence, i.e gravity."
But even the bible depicts God manipulating the physical world.
Riddle me this good sir, is consciousness a material object? Is it something I can hold in my hand and measure it's physical properties? Or is it more prudent to say that consciousness is an abstract manifestation of physical structures we cannot immediately measure?
Logic is for keeping consistency in what we consider true. Logic in its self has nothing to do with what is truth (or so it would seem).
Consciousness (to borrow from materialism) is an epiphenomena of matter. It in its self is not material (as it lacks definite mass and volume). God could easily be an epiphenomenon of the physical universe as a whole, in the same way that we are to our brains.
Speculations maybe, but possible nonetheless (or so it would seem). It would be equally speculative to say that the universe cannot possibly harbour such a being.
We can swing one way or the other, but in the end, I still feel that there is a lack of a clear answer on the subject.
"Existence = objective material presence or the measurable effects of material presence, i.e gravity."
What justifies this definition for existence? It seems like you just decided to define it this way so therefore that is what existence must be; anyone who disagrees would be in disagreement of your definition not necessarily what the term actually means. So what justifies this definition? Is love material? Does it exist? What about mathematics? Does it exist?
Nothing to offer but fallacious philosophical arguments to defend MILITANT atheism. Theists want this to be the NEW definition of atheism because they can't deal with the ACCURATE definition - the negative/weak position, which has the greatest historical precedence etymology, and is the most practical.
LMAO! Yes, of course you'd like to toss the word "atheism" since the correct definition proves the militant atheists & theists pushing this new revision of "atheist" wrong.
Words have specific definitions "precise meaning or significance" same as its historical context & etymology - all are on the side of the weak/negative position.
I see through the fallacious philosophizing & it's not impressive.
"all are on the side of the weak/negative position."
Herc, you don't seem to understand. The two definitions that Ephemerance presented are equal in connotation. There is no such thing as a weak/negative position. They are both negated propositions because the negation applying to the verb and not the object's adjective in the first sentence is the same as the negation applying to the object's adjective and not the verb in the second sentence.
Ex: I *read* NO books. → I *don't read* ANY books.
The verb is not negated in the first sentence but is negated in the second. The adjective modifying the object "books" is the negated from the first sentence to the second.
In other words, there is no 'correct definition' being pushed forward as the 'new revision of "atheist"' since they connote the same exact thing. They are equivalent propositions.
|What you are trying to argue is that atheism represents both "rejection of proposition" and "reserving judgment." |
If asked, "Would you like to play a game of chess?" we'll use your three options for response: 1) The affirmative "I do" 2) The negative "I don't" 3) Reserving Judgment "...."
For one to engadge in the action of playing chess, one must affirm to play chess. Similarly, for one to engadge in the action of believing in God, one must affirm that belief.
If one does not respond, option 3, then the person asking the question will strongly assume that the person does not in fact want to play chess. Now, it could be the case that the person wants to play chess or it could be the case that the person does not want to play chess, however since there is no affirmation of playing chess the assumption of not wanting to play is based on the lack of response.
Just as in the court of law, one has three options of plea; guilty, not guilty, and no contest (nolo contendere). One is an affirmation, one a negation, and one is treated as a negation, although not technically one.
So, if the affirmation is 'theism' and the negation 'atheism', the assumption is that those who reserve judgment are atheists and not theists.
That's an interesting perspective. I haven't heard of the no contest plea before, but surely it is pivoted on the common judicial philosophy of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
It could be perceived as the idea that the courts will not resolve a definitive belief of what happened and therefore will not engage in any disproportional action (like putting someone in jail or declaring someone's non-guilt). Like apathy towards what has happened, regardless of what they believe is true.
"it could be the case that the person wants to play chess or it could be the case that the person does not want to play chess"
It could also be the case that the person both wants to play chess, and also does not want to play chess. Imagine someone's right-brain wants to paint a picture, and the left-brain does not, how would you describe what the person wants? Would we say that they lack the desire to paint a picture? Or would it be more prudent to say that he has mixed feelings on the matter?
"no affirmation of playing chess the assumption is ..."
But it isn't necessarily a correct assumption, and it isn't necessarily the same assumption that everyone is going to make.
Someone may read hesitation as a sign that he does not want to play, but equally, person B could look and understand that the hesitation is based on mixed interest rather than a lack of interest.
There's a difference between believing something, and acting on that belief.
You may not want to play a game of chess, and still decide to play, and inversely, you could want and not act.
And by not answering the question, you aren't saying that you don't want to play chess (ten minutes down the road you could very well resolve the question with "yes! I'd love to play"). You would be in a state of limbo, superimposed over both answers.
" In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
- "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463)
I don't need to BELIEVE gremlins, unicorns & invisible elephants don't exist. There's simply no reason for me to BELIEVE they do.
Another thing. This "lack of belief" would be akin to lacking a belief that string-theory is true without saying that it is necessarily wrong. You would have to give it equal consideration to everything else.
In that light, you're not "without string-theory," string theory would just be something that you do not consider exclusively true in your search for understanding.
On the other hand, if you believe that string-theory holds no merit, that in its self is a belief.
Yea, right, just like -2*3=-6 is the negative position of 2*-3=-6.Just because the words "lack of belief" are in the statement doesn't make it negative. Look at the entire statement. And in this sense, both statements make the same exact proposition.
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic . php?f=5&t=2827&start=0
Claiming "atheist" has anything to do with "denial" or "belief" is utterly false. Xian's like this straw man argument though.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
You can have different forms of theism, which each belief in a different identity of the godhead. There's a major difference between an atheist and a theist (whether polytheistic or monotheistic).
Thus, we see how atheists treat other agnostics who actually are digging through mountains of books trying to actually find the truth. Secular humanism is a cult, and people like you are proof of this.
Calm down Kabane.....Youtube does present you with an accessible and wide spectrum of opinions within its audience....you'll get that every day....ignore the Fundamentalists on both sides....like this video points out the "Fundies"
Ignoring the irrelevant "grow up" you threw in there... yes, well even in the 20th century Atheism wasn't exactly common-place, even today it clearly isn't, which is astounding, but regardless, my point is this: That's not the common definition of today, and I fail to see what point your trying to prove anyway.
Yes, But parties must be able to agree on the definition of the terms being discussed before communication can proceed. Pardon me if you have already defined the terms atheism and agnosticism, but how would you define the words. It would be interesting to me to know how you defined the words Christian and theist as well.
If anyone is fooling around with definitions, its you Christians. Check your lexicon and dictionary. Atheism has always been defined as lack of belief, not "the denial of the existence of god".
"There are unfortunately quite some dictionaries with weird definitions of atheism. I would not be surprised if 'denial' is in several of them."
Most of the heavy hitting dictionaries apparently. It's never listed as "denial" (in the more reliable dictionaries anyway). There are typically two definitions for atheism: "a lack of belief in gods" and "the belief that gods do not exist"
It all depends on the connotation you use the word in. I personally think there should be two words, but hey.
Do you mind providing me "actual" references? Because all I hear is base assertions...
I've done a search in google and wikipedia, None list your definition of atheism as "the denial of belief in god". In fact, they define it as "the absence of belief in deities."
Yes, you can have an absence of belief, and that would be atheism (in regards of how the term is 'modernly' used). But atheism can also refer to a belief that God doesn't exist. The term has two meanings, depending on the connotation.
Atheists are not the ones with the "belief", its YOU! Quit trotting around claiming that we "deny the existence of god". We don't! We are simply WITHOUT belief. End of Story.
You know God exists. Every human who has ever lived has been infused with this knowledge. But you have been indoctrinated by lies to believe that atheism is a real pholosophy and that it is possible to not believe in God. You already know He lives. You just lie to yourself and live a life of rebellion and delusion.
If we allow atheism to mean "not a theist." It would be like someone asking me for my opinion of God, and I answered "I'm not an anti-theist"
It isn't really describing how you feel about the subject. It's just being needlessly myopic to one component of the topic, while avoiding describing how you actually feel.
And if you believe in evolution, keep it to yourself. Don't bring it online. Don't try to give the false impresion that evolution and Christianity are compatible. You are only supporting the atheist excuse to remain in their darkness and delusion.
I'm genuinely shocked and appalled at how many people A) don't read the description, B) don't watch the entire video C) don't read any of the prior comments on the video... and still feel compelled to voice an opinion.
hahah really? That's just pitiful dude. You guys are so unwilling to accept criticism that if a former member of your secular humanist cult steps up and kicks your butts, you immediately accuse him of lying. Sad. Just sad. And you can't even spell agnostic.
No, it wasn't the "best I've got". That was my last sentence. The rest of it was me laughing at your delusion that the guy who wrote this note was a Christian posing as an atheist.
Either way, you're both liars. You said I belong to a humanist "cult." Cult means worship. As an agnostic, I'm too intelligent to worship a non existant God.
Kabane, do you realize that theistic evolution makes God the author of death and seriously damages the doctrine of God? Like all false belief systems, it creates a strong dualist tendency in God. Orthodoxy teaches the devil is the author of death. Theistic evolutionists have the wrong God. Theistic Evolution is not compatible with Orthodox Christianity. Although Freemasons and infiltrators like Lazare Puhalo want you to believe differenty.
Kabane - When discussing the existence of an Argoshagorock, you know the things that come out of your eyes at night, I bet you LACKED a belief in them before I told you about them, but NOW I bet you DON"T believe in them.
Further it really is important to respect scholarship and not just read argument for or refutations of. I can't claim to be an expert on theology but I have been around it all my life and take a serious look at several major arguments, Telos, Tag, Design, Pascals Wager, Prime mover, logic of perfection, message in DNA, moral argument, etc... None of these seemed sound, and frankly I am getting bored with the repeated stupidity in them. When do you stop digging through manure to find a gem.
I think that the sentiments expressed in this letter are generally good. Fanaticism can appear anywhere though i do not think it can take hold in science very long because of empiricism and some social conventions such as competitive peer review, open disclosure of evidence, consensuality and strict definition of terms.
Atheism, not being science is more susceptible to dogmatism depending on the version of atheist you are talking about. I am not so much an atheist as a sick of BSist.
hahah NephilimFree is a moron and a heretic who has at times denied the deity of Jesus and at other times denied the multiplicity of persons in the Trinity. I have no respect for him whatsoever.
Several philosophers have taken up the task of demonstrating God's existence. Have you read them?
Though I agree with you about NephilimFree, I am intrigued at your use of the word heretic. Doesn't using that word imply that there is something intrinsically wrong with people that don't adhere to an orthodox view? Isn't the very concept of heresy anathema to the unfettered pursuit of truth?
Yes, what is intrinsically wrong is that he adheres to a false doctrine of God, and I have demonstrated that from the Scriptures and from Tradition, which are the "data" for Christian doctrine.
Hmmmm.... It sounds like you feel you have the authority to pronounce someone doctrinal or not. You may have strong opinions on scripture and have done a lot of study, but be careful. Certainty of this sort has led to many of the worlds greatest evils. Its Ok to say that a person is wrong or even full of it.
I think you need to go somewhere with smart people so you understand what it is like to be faced with people who present real challanges. Have you considered Harvard Divinity School?
I have no authority to pronounce heresy, but the Church does. Remember I'm not Protestant. I have not considered where I am going beyond getting a Masters in Divinity. I'm going to get that so I can eventually enter the priesthood, and after that for higher degrees, I will enter a secular seminary.
Can something be true and be heresy? Even if you accept the idea that there is a scriptural basis for the authority of one church or another has any major church ever been free of pronouncements of heresy about things that later turned out to be true or for which the church later changed its position? I think think that the whole notion of heresy is an atavism from a barbaric age and it is a dangerous one.
No, a heresy is a false doctrine. The Orthodox Church has never changed its position on a heresy. You have the Religious Wars between Catholics and Protestants burned into your mind, but that kind of violence is extremely rare (the Orthodox Church wasn't even involved there) and heresies are typically settled with a council of some sort. It's not dangerous.
Stop pretending to be Orthodox when you don't believe in the patristic teaching regarding the age of the universe. You are young and don't know anything about the occultic roots of evolution. And you have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe people like me are nutts.
No it doesn't. It's always been the same. You're a good apologist, but you know nothing about Orthodoxy. You still have too much western and secular baggage.
No, they have not been "disproven". There have been refutations written. And there have been refutations of the refutations. How much, really, have you read on each of these arguments to make a firm verdict on each? I will break down in tears if you just read Dawkins' poor excuse for a refutation of Aquinas' Five Ways.
Dude, there are refutations that exist, but philosophers DISAGREE on whether these are valid. They have written rebuttals to these refutations. Yes, I have read the refutations dude. Okay, lots of atheists do actually just read Dawkins on the Five Ways and think that it's the end of the discussion.
Which is one of the reasons why philosphical arguments about the existance of something are a waste of time. A scientist will go out and do a series of experiemnets that will be checked by other people and the question is usually settled. I have yet to see 1 thing proven or disproven by philosphy in a way that everyone can agree. Philosophy is not a waste of time but this aspect of it is especially when people want to believe one thing or another.
Scientists disagree too on certain things, and will throw experiments back and forth at each other. I'm not saying science is useless, it's a useful tool, but philosophy is also useful and relevant. My issue is simply when atheists say "oh that's been refuted for ages". I have issue with a Christian saying "oh the cosmological argument has been proven for ages". No to both of those. There is still disputes.
I agree with everything you have to say here, but my essential point is that disputes in science can be settled because it is empirical. The fact the same arguments keep being recycled for millenia indicates to me that there is something deeply misguided in this whole form of reasoning. Indeed most of the problems that I see with these classic arguments is that they rest on assumptions that science has found to be wrong. The presumption rest on common sense that only applies to common experience
Okay, perhaps you are unaware, but the debate is actually quite alive and vibrant. You'd realize that if you realized that science is not the only informer of truth. Questions such as theism are not part of science, they are part of PHILOSOPHY, and that is precisely where the debate is taking place.
@atheistman09
...does not mean that they both are wrong. It means that one is wrong.
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
That's just pure relativism. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, there is one meaning that it has. You claim to have left evangelicalism and you claim to have investigated the Bible, but you still retain the same evangelical interpretation of the Bible, which is why I doubt you've done depth study. As I've investigated the Bible, I've significantly changed my views. You also just begged the question about "true Christianity." Just because there are multiple opinions...
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
There you go, that's what I was looking for. You've just explained, in a simple manner, the evangelical doctrine of penal substitution, which is a lie. The Bible does not teach that God the Father acquired a large amount of wrath which He expended on Jesus so that He did not have to expend it on us.
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
Well yes, but I asked you how that is accomplished. How does Jesus cleanse us from sin through the Cross?
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
Do you? You may have a good understanding about what evangelical "Christianity" teaches, but I seriously doubt you have an understanding about what the Scripture teaches. For example, in what way, according to the New Testament, does Jesus save humanity from sin?
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
Oh, I agree with that. I only dispute that you actually meet those criteria. I don't intend this to be insulting. For the vast majority of my Christian life, I didn't understand it either. And it doesn't surprise me that you used to be religious, but you were a Western Christian, right? I believe that Western Christianity has very little to do with biblical, ancient Christianity.
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
You may or may not become an Orthodox Christian, but you will assuredly gain a much better understanding of the biblical text and most likely, a much greater respect for the Christian faith, whether you come to believe in it personally or not. Every atheist who I have met who has done this has gained a much greater respect for the Bible and for Christianity.
What is "well enough?" How do you determine that?
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
@atheistman09
Dude, reading the Bible straight through isn't "doing your homework" unless you are an Ancient Near Eastern Jew fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Without an understanding of the culture and languages of the Bible, you will never understand the Bible. Never. Remember that it was an agnostic that wrote the words I read in this video.
KabaneTheChristian 6 months ago
No one is "playing games" with definitions. Words are a part of language which is a tool that arises from experience. As experience changes and we accumlate knowledge, language and by association, words change in meaning and value. Getting upset because the use of a term has evolved is as childish as being upset that various cultures have different languages.
Nucleosynthesisftw1 10 months ago
I really enjoyed this. Thanks for posting it.
BicycleBuiltFor2 11 months ago
//But when he says you must argue before you assume metaphysical naturalism? That's a strawman. Everyone assumes metaphysical naturalism in some area in life other than religion but doesn't give an argument for it. The question is there reason to believe in the supernatural.//
Proving that other people are just as illogical as you are in some areas doesn't justify your position. Your presupposition is still just a presupposition
chriswnorris7 1 year ago
Conclusion of Necessary Being argument: "So if the universe is contingent, then it must require something that is not contingent for its existence. It must require some kind of necessary being that must exist by its very nature. This necessary being is God."
Sounds like other Theological arguments, where, after some obfuscation and needless complexity, an ingredient is arbitrarily and emphatically declared a divine being, rather than a process, matter, energy, or just nothing.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
In order to intelligently disagree with something, you would have to understand it first - Noone is going to take anyone seriously who misrepresent what they believe and that goes both ways. How can I take channels like SoG, Neph and "creationistswon" seriously when they so openly lie and misrepresent the "other" side? I cant. And I cant take people who say things like "christianity is belief in a jewish zombie" seriously either. Understanding has to come first - and that goes for everybody.
Korkzor 1 year ago
How do you define atheism? Most that call themselfs atheists would say there are only two possibilites, either theism or atheism. Theism is the belief in god/gods, atheism is the rejection or lack of belief in gods.
Gnosticism doesnt come in between but pertains to knowledge, or what you "think" you know, rather than what you believe. The atheist-experience(dot)com defines it as such in their FAQ and it is in this definition it makes the most sense to me as well.
Otherwise, good video.
Korkzor 1 year ago
This video makes me cringe. Not because I'm a skeptic, but because this "agnostic" has bought into all the Christian lines. I happen to agree with him about a lot of problems with atheists especially on you tube. But when he says you must argue before you assume metaphysical naturalism? That's a strawman. Everyone assumes metaphysical naturalism in some area in life other than religion but doesn't give an argument for it. The question is there reason to believe in the supernatural.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Let me summarize this guy's letter:
"You atheists think you know everything but you don't. People who think that they are right and everybody else is wrong are arrogant and stupid. I don't have all the answers yet but I'm going to pretty soon and unless you agree with me you will never have the truth because I am right and everybody else is wrong."
jimbrown257 1 year ago
'You can never know anything for sure' and hence one can be and remain an agnostic. This is based on the philosophical statement that you know nothing outside of your own experience and therefore you cannot know for sure if anything is real. One could read all of these sources and never be sure! Agnostic.
Christianity then asks one to place their faith, not their rational intuition in God. One chooses to have faith in this or not, but one can never fully comprehend. I choose not to have faith.
babb9520 1 year ago
@babb9520 It is one branch of Philosophy that argues that our senses are not reliable and hence truth cannot be determined. But if nothing is real, who are you arguing with, and why are you trying to convince a figment of your imagination? You assume the existence of yourself and the efficacy of your mind and senses, and of your readers, by writing this post; you assume that which you argue against.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte This is interesting, and thanks for the reply. My argument though is not that "nothing is real" and is not from a branch of philosophy that argues that our senses are not reliable, rather, I'm merely saying that you cannot know what is real and you cannot know that our senses are reliable. We choose to make this assumption (and many others) in order to survive and communicate (just like I was doing by posting). For some reason we choose to live... why? That is a type of faith...
babb9520 1 year ago
@babb9520 If one wanted to determine whether a rock was real, one could touch it, smell it, look at it, ask others if their perception is the same, fire waves and particles at it. If all these test positive, is it not reasonable to conclude that the rock is indeed real? That text appears on your screen, that others can also see, that responds to your post, is one piece of evidence that YouTube is not a dellusion.
You can't think of one reason why someone might choose life over death?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
Comment removed
babb9520 1 year ago
Urgh, Kabane, you make errors even 15 seconds into the video. You cannot be 'Agnostic' (as in: JUST agnostic) and EVERYONE is a 'former atheist'. You have to be atheist before Theist, just like you have to 'not play football' before you 'play football'.
FaerieStories 1 year ago
great video
iToyRobot 1 year ago
What is the greatest motivation for the belief that God does not exist?
Chiangmai007 1 year ago
@Chiangmai007
The greatest motivation to believe that a personal god does not exist is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the species homo sapians have been around for maybe a million years. Also we are just one species on one planet in more than a septillion solar systems. I would say that indicates that we are not the reason the universe is here.
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@jimbrown257
You are correct in saying that we are not the reason the universe is here. God is. And the age of the universe seems befitting of a God whose nature is eternal; a God who, unlike the magician who pulls things suddenly out of a hat, is a patient God of Love and Faithfulness...qualities reflected in Nature through the interplay of Chance and Necessity.
Chiangmai007 1 year ago
Comment removed
leephawk 2 years ago
As a wordsmith, I can tell you the basic definition is incomplete as all that is provided is a simplified definition in most dictionaries. Looked at historically, an Atheist "Doe not believe in a God, gods or other supernatural authority." To "Deny god" presupposes a belief in god and that is the definition of an Apostate. To claim an Atheist "Lacks a belief in God..." is logically correct as that is what is meant by "Denies the existance of God...". Semantics matters.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Wow your friend is a really shitty skeptic if he actually says that strobel or WLC are worth listening to.
Sadness.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
So answer his questions, have you actually read complete works by these men?
He is spending years buying books from both sides, reading them side by side. He is far more than a critical thinker than you could ever hope to be. He also teaches college math.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
One of the more important aspects of intelligence and critical thinking especially is knowing how to separate useful information from the noise. Apologetics are all noise and after, lets call it 9 books of apologetics ( hugh ross, strobel, craig, cs lewis, dinesh) I was impressed exactly zero times. You hit me with an argument I can't readily answer and I will gladly do some critical thinking.
Also I don't give a hoot if he's smashing atoms in his basement, appeal. to authority!
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Do you know what an appeal to authority is? You insulted his intelligence, I pointed out that he was very intelligent. Instead of memorizing fallacies and trying to make yourself look smart by pointing them out, try to actually learn what they mean.
I really could care less if you weren't impressed. Why don't you PM him and see if he really is as dumb as you think. darrinrasberry.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I believe I will send him a PM.
And you pointed out that he is 'far more of a critical thinker' than i could ever hope to be ergo I should put his opinion above my own.
I agree that it's worth checking things out for yourself, thats how I approached christianity and that's exactly how I found it lacking.
So perhaps I spoke out of turn, you know how comments can bring out the impulsive side in you.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
I understand. Apologies are due from me for any undue harshness that came out from my comments as well.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@KabaneTheChristian
Hey Kabane, I think if you listen to what he said closely, you will see that all he said was everyone is wrong but him because he is "on the right track". That letter couldn't have had less substance if it were a blank sheet of paper.
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian I've read Strobel. He helped me become atheist.
Does all this mean that your friend didn't even know what he disagreed with? That's ridiculous. I thought such atheists were a myth. I'm glad he's finally looking.
Have you read Strobel?
dankuck 1 year ago
@dankuck
Yes I've read Strobel.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
I was a christian when I read Strobel's first book. It was so poorly written that it encouraged me to become an atheist. I agree that anyone that is swayed by him was not a very good skeptic.
choupick 1 year ago
Great article!
OmegaisNearV2 2 years ago
If you want to discuss immaterial then log onto the CERN site and look at he LHC, this machine will bring us closer to understanding immaterial existence than any religion ever could...religion offers no answers, only obidience.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 2 years ago
What a disingenuous video.
This wasn't a letter to skeptics, this was a letter to fundies. This fellow claims that so many of the atheists are fundies, that we don't care about the truth in the face of what's right? I've scarcely met an atheist that doesn't believe that being right and having true beliefs are the same thing. And now most religious people who read this is going to think that atheists are just as fundamental as themselves.
I'd go so far as to call this message dishonest.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
Notes like this can be addressed to fundies of both sides. There are brilliant atheists, and there are dumb atheists, and there are brilliant theists, and dumb theists.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
of course. I have no problem with that. The problem is that he makes it seem like there is a remarkable number of atheists who would use a lie to win an argument, even though it would make them incorrect. I've known very few who do this.
BornInAsphodelMeadow 2 years ago
Rants like this are seriously lame, especially when someone pretends to be talking to and about a large group of people when they are actually referring to almost no one.
Nextstopearth 2 years ago
I think the main point I want to stress is that there is a difference between belief and acting on a belief. Holding diametrically opposing beliefs isn't impossible, despite the fact that acting on opposing beliefs at the same time is
You can be sceptical of both propositions: "god exists," and "god does not exist" (which would make you an atheist). Or you can choose to believe both propositions are true in some sense, limboing on the precipice of discovering which better describes how you act.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
I think you're using the terms a little bit differently here.
belief - Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Ex: I believe X is true. I believe X is false. I believe that X is both true and false.
This is obviously a contradiction. Now, it could be that within the elements of X there exists something I find to be true and some other element I find to be false, but I cannot say X is both true and false in and of itself.
(cont'd)
stealspell 2 years ago
Ephemerance, I am going to have to PM you the rest of what I wrote because it's rather quite large.
stealspell 2 years ago
This sounds like a last-ditch desperate attempt of forestalling the inevitable and growing popularity of atheism by a well-read Christian apologist and not a skeptical agnostic. The author of this letter cries that "many of you (other Christians) did not grow up with apologetics (like I did)" but then tries to disassociate from the hidden embedded apologetics within by claiming to have once been an atheist. Throughout, the author defends theism and specifically Christian Theology.
Nice try !
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Um, yeah he defends theism throughout, because he believes that it may be true. That's what agnostic means. He doesn't know. But he thinks a lot of our arguments have more merit than you guys think.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
concensus*
missed that one pretty badly.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
i would also like to note that time and time again in was the scholarly concencus that the names on the gospels were written by those people. i have not found this to be the case and was very upset you would be misleading. i even have a video of tom wright saying the gospel writers are not known if you would like to see that.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
well that was well put and i hope you treat this the same way kabane. it seems you put beliefs first and are willing to defend them at all costs instead of starting from the middle ground. i came to youtube after throwing religion away for 15 years and i almost knew nothing about the bible during that time, but the premise of christianity is void of logic. i have found nothing but things that confirm my view of atheism. i really can't believe there is an adult who believes this stuff.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
theists have traditionally been defined in academia as denial of the existence of God, not a mere "lack of belief"
Nope, but that won't stop you from being unable to see the difference between what asserting a claim (which is what you do) and not believing it without evidence (which is what I do)
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
"Nope, but that won't stop you from being unable to see the difference between what asserting a claim (which is what you do) and not believing it without evidence (which is what I do)"
Sure, you're a skeptic of his claims. But you haven't actually addressed how you feel toward the proposition of gods' existence.
Specifically, would you say you believe that gods do not exist, or do you reserve judgment on the matter?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"God exists" is a contradictory statement.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
I beg to differ; but for argument's sake, why do you consider it a contradictory statement?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
God (Christian God at least) by definition is immaterial.
Existence = objective material presence or the measurable effects of material presence, i.e gravity.
I realise that some will say "God exists outside the universe" however the universe is, by definition, "everything that *exists* anywhere".
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
This is just a fallacy of equivocation. Simply defining existence to exclude God isn't rational. It's a cheap trick that proves nothing.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Is my definition wrong?
God has been redefined many times throughout history, simply defining God to escape the burden of proof isn't rational. It's a cheap trick that proves nothing.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
Yes, your definition is wrong. Logic is not made of matter or energy. Does logic exist? Guess not. Try again.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Logic would fall into the latter category as a measurable effect of material presence.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
Logic is not an effect of material. A=A even if there is no matter.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
"A=A even if there is no matter"
That's open speculation, there's no way to prove that.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
So logical contradictions are possible without matter?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I cannot use logic to justify the existence of chaos, but that doesn't mean it can't possibly exist.
The point is that you can't demonstrate that logic is necessarily always present, nor that it is possible for the universe to exist without matter. It's speculation.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
I don't think you're grasping the concept of "without matter" quite hard enough.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
You seem like a fairly bright young lad. This isn't exactly strictly theistic literature, but I would definitely recommend taking a look through in Edgar Allen Poe's "Mesmeric Revelation."
It's fiction, yes, but it brings forth some interesting ideas of what 'immateriality' might really refer. You'd probably find it interesting.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
@KabaneTheChristian
How can you claim this to be true? Tell me what you think rather than what you don't think.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
"simply defining God to escape the burden of proof isn't rational."
The moment someone proposes an idea of what god is. The burden of proof is on both parties to establish whether it exists or doesn't exist. It isn't automatically considered non-existent.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
No, you're making a positive claim about something that there is no real evidence for so the burden of proof is on you.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
Sure, if I wanted to establish that God exists, it would be in my ballpark to prove my claim.
However, if you wish for anyone to consider God to be non-existent, the burden of proof is on you to prove your case.
You proposed that God does not (and cannot) exist, and therefore the weight falls upon you.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Why would I claim something didn't exist unless someone else had claimed that it did exist?
Your observation may be semantically correct but only within the context of this conversation.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
"Why would I claim something didn't exist unless someone else had claimed that it did exist?"
But why say it doesn't exist in the first place? What makes you jump to an answer so readily?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Existence = objective material presence or the measurable effects of material presence, i.e gravity."
But even the bible depicts God manipulating the physical world.
Riddle me this good sir, is consciousness a material object? Is it something I can hold in my hand and measure it's physical properties? Or is it more prudent to say that consciousness is an abstract manifestation of physical structures we cannot immediately measure?
How would God be any different?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Not everything you read in books is true, logic is for establishing truth.
God is defined as immaterial, all your definitions of consciousness use the word "physical"...
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
Logic is for keeping consistency in what we consider true. Logic in its self has nothing to do with what is truth (or so it would seem).
Consciousness (to borrow from materialism) is an epiphenomena of matter. It in its self is not material (as it lacks definite mass and volume). God could easily be an epiphenomenon of the physical universe as a whole, in the same way that we are to our brains.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
That's a pretty massive speculation.
captainyoinksac 2 years ago
Speculations maybe, but possible nonetheless (or so it would seem). It would be equally speculative to say that the universe cannot possibly harbour such a being.
We can swing one way or the other, but in the end, I still feel that there is a lack of a clear answer on the subject.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Existence = objective material presence or the measurable effects of material presence, i.e gravity."
What justifies this definition for existence? It seems like you just decided to define it this way so therefore that is what existence must be; anyone who disagrees would be in disagreement of your definition not necessarily what the term actually means. So what justifies this definition? Is love material? Does it exist? What about mathematics? Does it exist?
stealspell 2 years ago
Nothing to offer but fallacious philosophical arguments to defend MILITANT atheism. Theists want this to be the NEW definition of atheism because they can't deal with the ACCURATE definition - the negative/weak position, which has the greatest historical precedence etymology, and is the most practical.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
Let's throw away the word 'atheism' entirely. Will you agree that regardless of what you call them, there are three positions to any proposition.
1. accepting the proposition
2. rejecting the proposition
3. refraining from judgment
So if I pitch the proposition: "God exists"
You could respond with:
1. "I accept that as true"
2. "I accept that as false"
3. "I'll get back to you on that one"
If you want to branch 2 and 3 under "not true," that's fine, but it doesn't explain your position.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
LMAO! Yes, of course you'd like to toss the word "atheism" since the correct definition proves the militant atheists & theists pushing this new revision of "atheist" wrong.
Words have specific definitions "precise meaning or significance" same as its historical context & etymology - all are on the side of the weak/negative position.
I see through the fallacious philosophizing & it's not impressive.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
"all are on the side of the weak/negative position."
Herc, you don't seem to understand. The two definitions that Ephemerance presented are equal in connotation. There is no such thing as a weak/negative position. They are both negated propositions because the negation applying to the verb and not the object's adjective in the first sentence is the same as the negation applying to the object's adjective and not the verb in the second sentence.
(cont'd)
stealspell 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Ex: I *read* NO books. → I *don't read* ANY books.
The verb is not negated in the first sentence but is negated in the second. The adjective modifying the object "books" is the negated from the first sentence to the second.
In other words, there is no 'correct definition' being pushed forward as the 'new revision of "atheist"' since they connote the same exact thing. They are equivalent propositions.
stealspell 2 years ago
Herc, you're missing the point.
I'm saying for the moment (for the sake of discussion), if we throw away the word 'atheism,' what is the idea that someone might be trying to convey?
There are two definitions in the dictionary for atheism because different people feel inclined to use the word differently.
What you are trying to argue is that atheism represents both "rejection of proposition" and "reserving judgment."
I'm asking you, which of those two best describes your specific position?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
|What you are trying to argue is that atheism represents both "rejection of proposition" and "reserving judgment." |
If asked, "Would you like to play a game of chess?" we'll use your three options for response: 1) The affirmative "I do" 2) The negative "I don't" 3) Reserving Judgment "...."
For one to engadge in the action of playing chess, one must affirm to play chess. Similarly, for one to engadge in the action of believing in God, one must affirm that belief.
(cont'd)
stealspell 2 years ago
(cont'd)
If one does not respond, option 3, then the person asking the question will strongly assume that the person does not in fact want to play chess. Now, it could be the case that the person wants to play chess or it could be the case that the person does not want to play chess, however since there is no affirmation of playing chess the assumption of not wanting to play is based on the lack of response.
(cont'd)
stealspell 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Just as in the court of law, one has three options of plea; guilty, not guilty, and no contest (nolo contendere). One is an affirmation, one a negation, and one is treated as a negation, although not technically one.
So, if the affirmation is 'theism' and the negation 'atheism', the assumption is that those who reserve judgment are atheists and not theists.
stealspell 2 years ago
That's an interesting perspective. I haven't heard of the no contest plea before, but surely it is pivoted on the common judicial philosophy of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
It could be perceived as the idea that the courts will not resolve a definitive belief of what happened and therefore will not engage in any disproportional action (like putting someone in jail or declaring someone's non-guilt). Like apathy towards what has happened, regardless of what they believe is true.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"it could be the case that the person wants to play chess or it could be the case that the person does not want to play chess"
It could also be the case that the person both wants to play chess, and also does not want to play chess. Imagine someone's right-brain wants to paint a picture, and the left-brain does not, how would you describe what the person wants? Would we say that they lack the desire to paint a picture? Or would it be more prudent to say that he has mixed feelings on the matter?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"no affirmation of playing chess the assumption is ..."
But it isn't necessarily a correct assumption, and it isn't necessarily the same assumption that everyone is going to make.
Someone may read hesitation as a sign that he does not want to play, but equally, person B could look and understand that the hesitation is based on mixed interest rather than a lack of interest.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"Would you like to play a game of chess?"
There's a difference between believing something, and acting on that belief.
You may not want to play a game of chess, and still decide to play, and inversely, you could want and not act.
And by not answering the question, you aren't saying that you don't want to play chess (ten minutes down the road you could very well resolve the question with "yes! I'd love to play"). You would be in a state of limbo, superimposed over both answers.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
" In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
- "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463)
I don't need to BELIEVE gremlins, unicorns & invisible elephants don't exist. There's simply no reason for me to BELIEVE they do.
Hercules2345 2 years ago
Greek and English don't translate into each other in an exact manner.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Another thing. This "lack of belief" would be akin to lacking a belief that string-theory is true without saying that it is necessarily wrong. You would have to give it equal consideration to everything else.
In that light, you're not "without string-theory," string theory would just be something that you do not consider exclusively true in your search for understanding.
On the other hand, if you believe that string-theory holds no merit, that in its self is a belief.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Ephemerance's two definitions of atheism written below are syntactically equivalent.
'I don't read any books' is equivalent to 'I read no books'
'I don't believe in any gremlins...' to 'I do believe in no gremlins...'
'I disbelieve in the existence of any gods' to 'I believe in the existence of no gods'
'Without a belief in any God' to 'With a belief in no God'
'someone who believes that God does not exist' to 'someone who lacks belief that God does exist'
(cont'd)
stealspell 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Yea, right, just like -2*3=-6 is the negative position of 2*-3=-6.Just because the words "lack of belief" are in the statement doesn't make it negative. Look at the entire statement. And in this sense, both statements make the same exact proposition.
stealspell 2 years ago
(cont'd 1/2)
"According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in? God."
**This is the quote I was responding to in the second comment.
stealspell 2 years ago
The Proper Definition & Meaning of "Atheist"
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic . php?f=5&t=2827&start=0
Claiming "atheist" has anything to do with "denial" or "belief" is utterly false. Xian's like this straw man argument though.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Historian Stephen Roberts 1901-71
Hercules2345 2 years ago
Interesting, but that's not correct. There are two definitions for atheism which depend on connotation.
It can mean either:
1. An absence of belief in the existence of gods; or
2. A belief that gods do not exist
atheism. about. com /od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard_5 . htm
Ephemerance 2 years ago
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
You can have different forms of theism, which each belief in a different identity of the godhead. There's a major difference between an atheist and a theist (whether polytheistic or monotheistic).
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Former atheist? Now agnostic? Said all this? Sounds like a nihilist if you ask me.
stealspell 2 years ago
skeptic my ass
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 years ago
Thus, we see how atheists treat other agnostics who actually are digging through mountains of books trying to actually find the truth. Secular humanism is a cult, and people like you are proof of this.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Calm down Kabane.....Youtube does present you with an accessible and wide spectrum of opinions within its audience....you'll get that every day....ignore the Fundamentalists on both sides....like this video points out the "Fundies"
MajNorberg 2 years ago
Mizz Facet,
When you've found one, tell me ^_^
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
"Atheists have traditionally been defined in academia as denial of the existence of God."
Perhaps that's because it was a term created back when people who were (rofl) "in denial" of God were killed..?
Zeldarulah 2 years ago
I'm talking about 20th century academia, grow up.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Ignoring the irrelevant "grow up" you threw in there... yes, well even in the 20th century Atheism wasn't exactly common-place, even today it clearly isn't, which is astounding, but regardless, my point is this: That's not the common definition of today, and I fail to see what point your trying to prove anyway.
Zeldarulah 2 years ago
It certainly was in philosophy departments. Since the theistic revolution theism is resurging in philosophy departments though.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Source of "theistic revolution resurging"
Also: You still never explained what your point is.
Zeldarulah 2 years ago
I think you're gay and in denial. Though Now, you're hiding behind being asexual, just to try and reconcile your Christian beliefs...
Am I right? Or am I right? No one can escape my gaydar. Not even my friends. You're gay and almost everyone here recognises it...
Sorry, but you've been outed.
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
ROFL
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Somebody give that skeptic a Klondike bar!
mikeellerbeck 2 years ago
It was better when you showed yourself on camera like on your other videos. Now, its just boring.
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
Very well written.
ncs901 2 years ago
"Atheists have traditionally been defined in academia as denial of the existence of God"
Isn't this an Appeal to Tradition and Authority?
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
Of course it is, because language is not objective. Language is arbitrary, and atheists fooling around with definitions here is quite irritating.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Yes, But parties must be able to agree on the definition of the terms being discussed before communication can proceed. Pardon me if you have already defined the terms atheism and agnosticism, but how would you define the words. It would be interesting to me to know how you defined the words Christian and theist as well.
MichaelSJLH 2 years ago
If anyone is fooling around with definitions, its you Christians. Check your lexicon and dictionary. Atheism has always been defined as lack of belief, not "the denial of the existence of god".
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
"Atheism has always been defined as lack of belief, not "the denial of the existence of god". "
There are unfortunately quite some dictionaries with weird definitions of atheism. I would not be surprised if 'denial' is in several of them.
MrFacet 2 years ago
"There are unfortunately quite some dictionaries with weird definitions of atheism. I would not be surprised if 'denial' is in several of them."
Most of the heavy hitting dictionaries apparently. It's never listed as "denial" (in the more reliable dictionaries anyway). There are typically two definitions for atheism: "a lack of belief in gods" and "the belief that gods do not exist"
It all depends on the connotation you use the word in. I personally think there should be two words, but hey.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Do you mind providing me "actual" references? Because all I hear is base assertions...
I've done a search in google and wikipedia, None list your definition of atheism as "the denial of belief in god". In fact, they define it as "the absence of belief in deities."
So much for your google and wikipedia search...
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
There are two definitions for atheism. "lack of belief" is sometimes listed before "belief that gods do not exist"
You actually have to take the time to read past the very first sentence on your search results. Try again.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Another base assertion. I've read all the definitions listed. None of yours are listed.
These are the two definitions for atheism:
"the absence of belief in God"
"a lack of belief in the existence of God "
Not your "denial of gods existence" crap. I don't believe in your god. Simple.
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
Jamie, try this site:
wiktionary . org / wiki / atheist
Or try googling " define:atheism "
Yes, you can have an absence of belief, and that would be atheism (in regards of how the term is 'modernly' used). But atheism can also refer to a belief that God doesn't exist. The term has two meanings, depending on the connotation.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Comment removed
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
"I don't believe in god. Simple."
Would you go so far to say that gods do not exist?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Atheists are not the ones with the "belief", its YOU! Quit trotting around claiming that we "deny the existence of god". We don't! We are simply WITHOUT belief. End of Story.
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
You know God exists. Every human who has ever lived has been infused with this knowledge. But you have been indoctrinated by lies to believe that atheism is a real pholosophy and that it is possible to not believe in God. You already know He lives. You just lie to yourself and live a life of rebellion and delusion.
Apologist117 2 years ago
Whatever. You can believe in god, I don't.
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
Apologist117, you speak as a gnostic theist.
How would you propose to convince a gnostic atheist of your case?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
If we allow atheism to mean "not a theist." It would be like someone asking me for my opinion of God, and I answered "I'm not an anti-theist"
It isn't really describing how you feel about the subject. It's just being needlessly myopic to one component of the topic, while avoiding describing how you actually feel.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
And if you believe in evolution, keep it to yourself. Don't bring it online. Don't try to give the false impresion that evolution and Christianity are compatible. You are only supporting the atheist excuse to remain in their darkness and delusion.
Apologist117 2 years ago
Nice try,... You're a christian posing as an agnostic..... Trying to bring us down from the inside.
Won't work.
dave4248 2 years ago
wut. I didn't claim to have written this. This is written by an agnostic named Darrin.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I'm genuinely shocked and appalled at how many people A) don't read the description, B) don't watch the entire video C) don't read any of the prior comments on the video... and still feel compelled to voice an opinion.
Is humanity really this dimly lit?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
Fine, then HE'S the one who's a christian....,posing as an agonostic. You're just the "chicken shit" who hides behind the work of others.
dave4248 2 years ago
hahah really? That's just pitiful dude. You guys are so unwilling to accept criticism that if a former member of your secular humanist cult steps up and kicks your butts, you immediately accuse him of lying. Sad. Just sad. And you can't even spell agnostic.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Therefore, your definition of atheism is not true, but false.
I am an atheist. I lack belief in YOUR god. Simple.
MizzJamieHumphreys 2 years ago
Describe your 'lack of belief', would you go so far to say it is your opinion that a godhead does not exist?
Ephemerance 2 years ago
//////can't even spell agnostic.////////
That's the best you got? Correcting typos?
And I didn't notice your pal kicking anyone's butt.
dave4248 2 years ago
No, it wasn't the "best I've got". That was my last sentence. The rest of it was me laughing at your delusion that the guy who wrote this note was a Christian posing as an atheist.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Either way, you're both liars. You said I belong to a humanist "cult." Cult means worship. As an agnostic, I'm too intelligent to worship a non existant God.
dave4248 2 years ago
hahaha you're such a great example of what this letter is talking about.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Kabane, do you realize that theistic evolution makes God the author of death and seriously damages the doctrine of God? Like all false belief systems, it creates a strong dualist tendency in God. Orthodoxy teaches the devil is the author of death. Theistic evolutionists have the wrong God. Theistic Evolution is not compatible with Orthodox Christianity. Although Freemasons and infiltrators like Lazare Puhalo want you to believe differenty.
Apologist117 2 years ago
So Kabane - Stop with the TWISTING of our logical premise, in efforts to promote your own agenda!
drpsholder 2 years ago
Kabane - When discussing the existence of an Argoshagorock, you know the things that come out of your eyes at night, I bet you LACKED a belief in them before I told you about them, but NOW I bet you DON"T believe in them.
SEE the difference???????????????
drpsholder 2 years ago
A gem that you have no evidence exists?
Please just tell me what argument(s) you think is the strongest and who you think best explains it succinctly and I will take a look.
michalchik 2 years ago
Further it really is important to respect scholarship and not just read argument for or refutations of. I can't claim to be an expert on theology but I have been around it all my life and take a serious look at several major arguments, Telos, Tag, Design, Pascals Wager, Prime mover, logic of perfection, message in DNA, moral argument, etc... None of these seemed sound, and frankly I am getting bored with the repeated stupidity in them. When do you stop digging through manure to find a gem.
michalchik 2 years ago
I think that the sentiments expressed in this letter are generally good. Fanaticism can appear anywhere though i do not think it can take hold in science very long because of empiricism and some social conventions such as competitive peer review, open disclosure of evidence, consensuality and strict definition of terms.
Atheism, not being science is more susceptible to dogmatism depending on the version of atheist you are talking about. I am not so much an atheist as a sick of BSist.
michalchik 2 years ago
I am very well aware, do not believe otherwise.
'Questions such as theism are not part of science'
Tell that to NephilimFree.
All debates are not philosophical in nature but the problem remains however, to prove God's existence.
MoveOrder 2 years ago
hahah NephilimFree is a moron and a heretic who has at times denied the deity of Jesus and at other times denied the multiplicity of persons in the Trinity. I have no respect for him whatsoever.
Several philosophers have taken up the task of demonstrating God's existence. Have you read them?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Though I agree with you about NephilimFree, I am intrigued at your use of the word heretic. Doesn't using that word imply that there is something intrinsically wrong with people that don't adhere to an orthodox view? Isn't the very concept of heresy anathema to the unfettered pursuit of truth?
michalchik 2 years ago
Yes, what is intrinsically wrong is that he adheres to a false doctrine of God, and I have demonstrated that from the Scriptures and from Tradition, which are the "data" for Christian doctrine.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Hmmmm.... It sounds like you feel you have the authority to pronounce someone doctrinal or not. You may have strong opinions on scripture and have done a lot of study, but be careful. Certainty of this sort has led to many of the worlds greatest evils. Its Ok to say that a person is wrong or even full of it.
I think you need to go somewhere with smart people so you understand what it is like to be faced with people who present real challanges. Have you considered Harvard Divinity School?
michalchik 2 years ago
I have no authority to pronounce heresy, but the Church does. Remember I'm not Protestant. I have not considered where I am going beyond getting a Masters in Divinity. I'm going to get that so I can eventually enter the priesthood, and after that for higher degrees, I will enter a secular seminary.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Can something be true and be heresy? Even if you accept the idea that there is a scriptural basis for the authority of one church or another has any major church ever been free of pronouncements of heresy about things that later turned out to be true or for which the church later changed its position? I think think that the whole notion of heresy is an atavism from a barbaric age and it is a dangerous one.
michalchik 2 years ago
No, a heresy is a false doctrine. The Orthodox Church has never changed its position on a heresy. You have the Religious Wars between Catholics and Protestants burned into your mind, but that kind of violence is extremely rare (the Orthodox Church wasn't even involved there) and heresies are typically settled with a council of some sort. It's not dangerous.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Stop pretending to be Orthodox when you don't believe in the patristic teaching regarding the age of the universe. You are young and don't know anything about the occultic roots of evolution. And you have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe people like me are nutts.
Apologist117 2 years ago
Your opinion of me changes every five minutes Apologist.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
No it doesn't. It's always been the same. You're a good apologist, but you know nothing about Orthodoxy. You still have too much western and secular baggage.
Apologist117 2 years ago
@ KabaneTheChristian
I know the most popular attempts at philosophical proof of God.
The cosmological, ontological, teleological and the moral argument.
None of them impresses me, and all of them have been dis proven.
However, I agree with you about NephilimFree.
MoveOrder 2 years ago
No, they have not been "disproven". There have been refutations written. And there have been refutations of the refutations. How much, really, have you read on each of these arguments to make a firm verdict on each? I will break down in tears if you just read Dawkins' poor excuse for a refutation of Aquinas' Five Ways.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
@ KabaneTheChristian
The philosophical arguments have been refuted.
If you have internet access, there is no excuse for ignorance.
I have not only read Dawkins books. Who do you think I am?
Who are you, who seem to be in possession of all the sciences?
Have you read the evidence against the theological arguments?
MoveOrder 2 years ago
Dude, there are refutations that exist, but philosophers DISAGREE on whether these are valid. They have written rebuttals to these refutations. Yes, I have read the refutations dude. Okay, lots of atheists do actually just read Dawkins on the Five Ways and think that it's the end of the discussion.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Which is one of the reasons why philosphical arguments about the existance of something are a waste of time. A scientist will go out and do a series of experiemnets that will be checked by other people and the question is usually settled. I have yet to see 1 thing proven or disproven by philosphy in a way that everyone can agree. Philosophy is not a waste of time but this aspect of it is especially when people want to believe one thing or another.
michalchik 2 years ago
Scientists disagree too on certain things, and will throw experiments back and forth at each other. I'm not saying science is useless, it's a useful tool, but philosophy is also useful and relevant. My issue is simply when atheists say "oh that's been refuted for ages". I have issue with a Christian saying "oh the cosmological argument has been proven for ages". No to both of those. There is still disputes.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I agree with everything you have to say here, but my essential point is that disputes in science can be settled because it is empirical. The fact the same arguments keep being recycled for millenia indicates to me that there is something deeply misguided in this whole form of reasoning. Indeed most of the problems that I see with these classic arguments is that they rest on assumptions that science has found to be wrong. The presumption rest on common sense that only applies to common experience
michalchik 2 years ago
What makes you believe that you can discern the truth?
rollsthepaul 2 years ago
Good luck with the finding of evidence for the existence of God.
MoveOrder 2 years ago
Okay, perhaps you are unaware, but the debate is actually quite alive and vibrant. You'd realize that if you realized that science is not the only informer of truth. Questions such as theism are not part of science, they are part of PHILOSOPHY, and that is precisely where the debate is taking place.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago