Atheism - the lack of belief in a god? Not quite... (part 3)

[GodsArePeopleToo]

to answer your question 'what is the shop selling?'

'nothing, the shop lacks any merchandise'

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

I want you to really think about what you have said there. If I tell you that there is a shop that doesn't sell dishwashers can you really conclude that the shop sells nothing based on that?

Ever been to a bookshop?

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - since i'm the shopkeeper, i absolutely can

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

I wish you luck in your bid to run a shop that sells nothing.

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - i don't need luck in a business where i don't care to make a profit selling defunct merchandise.

so, more luck to you selling your imaginary solution to your imaginary problem from your imaginary friend

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

I'm stunned. You actually think that you can deduce what something is by only having the information about what it isn't? Really? So if I'm in a shop and I tell you that this shop does not sell dishwashers you can deduce that the shop must not sell anything despite the fact that I can see that the shop is doing a roaring trade in all things that are not dishwashers? The problem clearly isn't imaginary otherwise you'd be able to tell me what X is.

Who's my imaginary friend?

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - and i'm amazed that in reading three posts from me, you think you can deduce a lifetime of knowledge about me

and when it's MY shop, i can state emphatically whether or not it sells ANYthing. your shop is yours to keep. guess that pretty much means your analogy isn't working, since you can't state who's got what in their own individual shops, but your own

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

You think that from these posts I have managed to deduce a lifetime of knowledge about you? Which statement did I make that even remotely gets anywhere near that being true?

You are really missing the point here. It's not about YOUR shop, it is about A shop. There is A shop that does not sell dishwashers. What does it sell? X is not Y. What is X?

The analogy works just fine. Were you to understand what I am saying you would see that.

And again, who's my imaginary friend?

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - Which statement did I make that even remotely gets anywhere near that being true?

this one

You actually think that you can deduce what something is by only having the information about what it isn't?

you have no clue what information anyone else in the world has. you are only aware of what YOU know, what YOU learn, what YOU think, what YOU believe. unless you are told by someone what THEY know, learn, think and believe

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

With each post you stray further and further from logic and reality and waste more and more of my time. Fact is, NO ONE can deduce what something is when provided only with information as to what it is not. This isn't imaginary, this is axiomatic. If the problem isn't imiginary then you should have no difficulty telling me what the shop sells or what X is.

And for the third time - WHO IS MY IMAGINARY FRIEND?

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - i can see by your other conversations how much you like to have the last word, so have at it :-)

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

I'm amazed to think that you ever even had a first word being as you managed to say absolutely nothing of consequence (besides, that's just loser talk for "you're smarter than me, I give up", ha).

Anyway, my video, my last words. And those last words will be: pathetic troll.

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - having the last word, and ten whine whine whine because i didn't answer a question

your imaginary friend is the shopkeeper of the shop you propose in the ambiguous analogy you postulate

[mungbeanman]

@GodsArePeopleToo

Imaginary shopkeeper?! What the actual fuck are you talking about? Who mentioned any shopkeeper? You're the one who is imagining things! Anyway, you do realise I could be thinking of a very real shop with a very real shopkeeper, don't you?

So, tell me, if X is not Y, what is X? And could you please tell me what role the shopkeeper has in this completely unambiguous and formal equation?

[GodsArePeopleToo]

@mungbeanman - (cont)

and i've been in that shop. it sells nothing worth having, wherein the previous statement of 'imaginary solution to an imaginary problem' is quite suitable

[TheInimitableKaka]

Why on earth should we be constrained to pretermit etymology from our responses? It is as if I told you to write a mathematical proof without recourse to arithmetic! Fine then, ignoring etymology: is "atheism" the only negative word in our language? What, then, is unbelief? What does that shop sell? What is invisibility? What does "inaudible" mean? What does "impossible" mean? What does "untrue" mean? It's as if you didn't speak English.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

I probably should have been clearer on this point but basically I'm trying to explain what atheism is rather than what the word atheism means. For example if asked to describe a specific rock do you describe that rock or do you explain what the word rock means?

What does the shop sell based only on the information that it doesn't sell dishwashers? My point exactly. There is no way of knowing even that shop is open for business at all and could possibly sell nothing.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman Which is, of course, why the term ought only to be used in the context of superstition, e.g. "Why aren't you praying?"--"Because I'm an atheist." In such a case it is perfectly expressive, just as it would be valid for me to reply that, when swimming, I surface for air because I lack gills. That lack, while nowise an ontologically defining characteristic, is still sufficiently explanatory to be merited in such a case.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

A lack of gills is not a thing, not an entity. A lack of gills does not exist. By saying that atheism is a lack of belief in god we are basically saying that atheism does not exist.

Rocks do not pray, rocks lack a belief in god, but is it reasonable to apply atheism to them and say that they are atheists too?

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman Again, your command of intrinsic linguistic properties seems to be hazy. I suggest you avail yourself of the many readily available online dictionaries and look up "thing," and then "lack." If you had your way, the word "lack" would be stricken from our vocabulary.

I'm not sure why you're arguing against the English language. The definition of atheism is what it is. I can dispute that "dirt" is brown stuff on the ground, but it wouldn't really override the evolution of our language

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

And again, I am not arguing about language or what the word atheism means (although while you're on the subject, my OED says that aheism is the belief or theory that there is no god), I am trying to demonstrate that an entity cannot exist solely as the absence of another entity or saying what something isn't doesn't say what it is. Until you can understand that I'm afraid we can proceed no further.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman Who ever said "solely"? The misunderstanding is all yours. No one argues that an atheist is an atheist and nothing else.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

Who ever said solely? Countless times I have heard misinformed people claim that atheism is a lack of belief in god and nothing else. There is no misunderstanding whatsoever on my part. In fact, based on your last sentence, the misunderstanding is all yours. Never once did I ever even remotely say anything like that. You are way off.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman And an atheist is, by definition, either someone who believes there are no gods, or lacks belief in gods. One word need not describe EVERY SINGLE FACET of a man's existence. My last sentence was meant to indicate that when one labels another as an atheist, he will never mean that that one word gives anyone sufficient information to make a sweeping analysis of his character.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

A person who believes there is no god lacks a belief in god but not all people who lack a belief in god believe there is no god.

I'm intrigued. At what point did you think I was making the claim that I was trying to use one term to describe every single facet of a person's existence? Besides, the video is really about what atheism is, not what an atheist is. Once we realise what atheism is rather than what it isn't atheist will define itself.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman so what you're saying is that H.G. Wells doesn't speak English, and that The Invisible Man is really nonsensical, since "invisible" denotes no positive attribute?

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

"so what you're saying is that H.G. Wells doesn't speak English"

I wasn't saying that at all but being as H.G. Wells is dead how could there be any other conclusion drawn?

"and that The Invisible Man is really nonsensical, since "invisible" denotes no positive attribute?"

What, aside from the fact that the Invisible Man is a work of unadulterated fantasy? But I never said that invisible denotes no positive attribute, you assumed I did.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman You would do well to look into traditional English usage of the present tense for historical personages. If you insist on nitpicking for form, you should at least do so accurately. I'm just dying to find out what positive attribute "invisible" denotes. Awaiting your eclaircissement.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

"You would do well to look into traditional English usage of the present tense for historical personages."

Couldn't care less. The phrase "H.G. Wells does not speak English" as it is, at face value, when analysed LOGICALLY, is true.

"I'm just dying to find out what positive attribute "invisible" denotes."

Why should I? If I do you'll no doubt list allsorts of things you then want me to define for you. I don't see why I should jump through your hoops.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman to think that logic is independent of language is infinitely puerile. And since you refuse to help your case, I shall have to consider this debate finished, as you have changed your status to nonparticipatory.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

I hardly think you would even be considered participatory from the beginning being as you barely managed to follow on consistently from even one of the comments I replied to you. So be it. Logic is only for those willing to put in the effort themselves anyway.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman Yeah, well you're a stupid head, too.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

Well if that is your attitude I'm glad you pulled the plug before I wasted too much more time on you. I don't suffer fools or brats kindly. Now, if you're truly finished perhaps you wouldn't mind running along.

[TheInimitableKaka]

@mungbeanman Penis.

[mungbeanman]

@TheInimitableKaka

I see. Well it seems that you are one of those peculiar individuals who for some reason has to have the last word despite the debate being long over. Time for me to be the bigger man here then and let you have it. I'm giving you a free ticket to say whatever the hell you want and I will rise above it and ignore it thus proving to be the more mature and balanced of us both.

Have at me!

[razhorblahd]

I guess i'll define it. An illiterate person is one who is unable to read and write. Does this tell us what an illiterate person is able to do? No. So that would make it an invalid definition in your view.

There are a lot of definitions based on what something can't do, does not have etc. but there are no definitions saying what something is not because they wouldn't be definitions. Defining atheism as a state of lack of believe in god(s) is valid.

[mungbeanman]

@razhorblahd

Is it fair to say that babies are illiterate? I would say not yet a baby is a person who is unable to read and write.

Illiteracy is not as black or white as not being able to read or write. Some people who are considered illiterate can read or write to some degree but not to the level deemed average for their age. It is a spectrum. Also, I cannot read or write Japanese but I am not illiterate. Do you see my points?

[razhorblahd]

@mungbeanman Not being able to read or write Japanese does not include you in the category of people who aren't able to read or write... because you are able to do that in at least English.

[razhorblahd]

Could you please define "illiterate" for me? (this is not sarcasm or anything, i'm serious, thanks)

[mungbeanman]

@razhorblahd

Not that I am in the business of defining the properties of things but just to reiterate from my previous point illiteracy is possessing below than average (probably far below, I'm no expert) reading and writing capablities based on what would be considered normal for one's age. This is a positive predicate rather than the negative of just saying "not able to read or write" which applies to babies and even rocks.

[razhorblahd]

@mungbeanman This is just twisting words. Saying "possessing below than average" and "not having at least average" is the same thing. You can apply both to a rock and it would be correct, but it would be a personification in both cases.

Also, words usually have more meanings so unable to read and write is as valid as your definition. I think I don't really have to address the baby example as it's the same as the rock one.

[Skindoggiedog]

Atheism as it's used today just means 'doesn't believe in any god' just as your shop could be called 'We Don't Sell Dishwashers'. It doesn't tell you a lot about the person/shop, but it does tell you what you won't get there.

Defining atheism as a 'lack of belief in god' is insufficient, but definitely does not 'defy logic' as you seem to want to claim. It's just a poor way of describing someone.

[mungbeanman]

@Skindoggiedog

"but definitely does not 'defy logic'"

Atheism is an entity, it can be demonstrated to exist whereas a lack of belief is not. It is the absence of an entity and has no value. When someone says "atheism is a lack of belief in god" they are saying the entity that is atheism has no value. This is the equivalent of saying that 1 is equal to zero. This is where I see a defiance of accepted logic.

[Skindoggiedog]

@mungbeanman - You're mixing concepts with entities. It doesn't work that way.

You can make a perfect, complete list of everything a human being is right at this very second on planet Earth.

For every thing on that list we can put a 1 or a 0 in the box beside it. 1 being 'this is an attribute this person has'. 0 being 'this is an attribute this person doesn't have'.

Atheism is simply putting a zero in that 'Belief in a god?' box.

[mungbeanman]

@Skindoggiedog

"You're mixing concepts with entities."

A concept is an entity. Something doesn't have to physically exist in order to exist.

"Atheism is simply putting a zero in that 'Belief in a god?' box."

Or, more logically, atheism is putting a 1 in the 'belief in no god' box. But it does raise the question: if someone does put a 1 in the 'belief in no god' box what do you call it?

[Skindoggiedog]

@mungbeanman - "Or, more logically, atheism is putting a 1 in the 'belief in no god' box."

Sorry Mung, but I find this quite insulting. Not only have you summarily disregarded everything I just put forward, but you're also deigning to tell me what I believe with this statement. I have no 'get out of being offended' card, but a response of "I read what you wrote but I'll just twist it with assertions until I'm right" isn't something I consider constructive dialogue.

[CrimsonDragonStar]

ok, this seems like a waste of a point...if i say "the pen isnt blue"...then ofcourse im talking about the pen!!!...its basic english!...pen is the subject of the phrase...it is the thing i am refering to...so saying "an atheist doesnt believe in god" is obviously, in a shorthand manner, defining what an atheist is...btw, i AM an atheist

[mungbeanman]

@CrimsonDragonStar

"The pen isn't blue" is a phrase about what the pen is not. Where you might be talking about the pen you have said nothing about what it is. In fact, if all you know about the pen is that it is not blue then the pen need not even exist as all non-existent things are also not blue. If you say that the pen is not blue how can you determine what colour the pen is based on what it is not? You can't. 'Not-blue' is not a thing, not a property of the pen.

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@mungbeanman but isnt that an assumption you are making on the phrase?...saying "the pen isnt blue" may be enough of a definition for the situation in which the phrase was given...in the case of "an atheist doesnt believe in god" in most cases defines the subject just as much as saying "christians believe in god"...both statements are true, though very simplified...its a quick description...it may seem like idiocy...defining something with a negative...

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@mungbeanman but in this case i believe...lmao...that it is the negative that defines

[ooglebydoogleby]

its all good love the argument

[mungbeanman]

Haha, thanks.

[stumpbust]

logically speaking, I think you're quite right. As a consequence, if we take atheism to mean belief in the nonexistence of a deity, rather than the nonexistence of belief in a deity, to my mind that constitutes a positive claim about the supernatural, subject to the same criticisms we make about claims to the existence of a god... As I'm reluctant to make such a claim, I'd be forced to abandon the label. I wasn't that attached to it anyways, but isn't this the direction you're heading?

[mungbeanman]

Belief shouldn't be subject to criticism, belief is simply thinking that something is true. While most beliefs are systemic it should be appreciated that they are usually as a reaction to something presented to you based on your personality. It would be like criticising someone for thinking that peanut butter is vile. If you are referring to the burden of proof then that is only applied to someone actually cliaming a 100% truth which is not what belief is.

[stumpbust]

I'll happily concede the point that believing, say, in the existence of unicorns is a very different thing from claiming to have seen one in my back yard. I respectfully disagree about criticism, though. There are certain sorts of beliefs that can and should be criticized.  Inasmuch as a belief can be demonstrably false, for instance. Belief in the tastiness or vileness of peanut butter depend on a purely subjective value judgement, and though it can be criticized, it's fruitless to do so.

[stumpbust]

I'd just like to add, thanks for your speedy reply. It's nice to find someone who not only takes the time to flesh out an argument, but argues well.

[mungbeanman]

Thanks, same to you.

[mungbeanman]

But that's the great thing about belief: if the subject of the belief is proved false then hopefully the believer should be sensible enough to say oh well, guess I was wrong, nevermind. I believe there is no god but if proved wrong then that's the attitude I'll adopt. Belief isn't a solid conclusion that I am commited to. What really should be criticised is mistaking that belief for absolute truth or the terrible things that belief can make some people do.

[ProudToBLoud]

thanks mung

[ProudToBLoud]

what would you say if someone says you can describe things by what they are not with these examples, a black object, black is an abscence of colour thus you are describing it from what it lacks, also if you call someone cowardly, irreverent, blind , these are all descriptions of somebody on what they do not have.

[mungbeanman]

If black is an absence of colour then air is black. Black has its own properties that can be defined by what it is.

Same goes for cowardly, irreverent, blind etc. because otherwise air would be all of these things. You just need to think about the properties that these things have to possess. Blindness is a visual impairment, for example, which therefore only applies to things that can see. A blind person does have a visual impairment.

[mungbeanman]

One thing you have to remember is that blind people lack the ability to see but not all things that lack the ability to see should be considerd blind. This is where a lot of people make the mistake by putting it the wrong way round. An oak is a tree but a tree is not necessarily an oak is an axiom I like to apply in these situations.

[4N]

ARE U RASTA?

[nogogma]

Hey I agree. The "lack of belief" definition for atheism is insufficient. Not only that but it is a very bad and misleading definition and cannot even be found in any reputable dictionary. I like Ann Rand's definition of atheism. If there were ever a commandment for atheists it would be just one word: THINK.

[mungbeanman]

Thank you very much. Nice to know someone can wrap their head around the logic unlike some of these other, rather dogmatic and illogical, 'atheists'. My dictionary also does not say that it is the lack of belief in a god but judging by what a lot of the comments I get it appears that some people have some rather dodgy dictionaries out there.

[slaskio]

Ok.

[mungbeanman]

Ok then.

[slaskio]

The definition of Atheism.

[mungbeanman]

Erm, yep.

[slaskio]

Does it matter?

[mungbeanman]

Does what matter, sorry?

[irationalwavesurfer]

your position is entirly logically consistent on its own terms. in practice it can be showen that the claims for god like qualities are undermined by the evidence for those gods which is uncohesive and internally inconsistent. take the case of gods of newly invented or unknowen provenance. we can not hold a belief either way on gods of no aquaintance. you would by deafault lack a beleif. i sugest gods are either falsifiable on their own terms or we lack a beleif in them.

[mungbeanman]

In which case we would be non-theist as a default position for those gods we have not heard of just as no new born baby has ever heard of the god of the Bible and therefore cannot have an atheistic position in this regard.

[irationalwavesurfer]

whats the opposite of a nontheist? "absence the non existence or a lack of" oxford english dictionary.  my definition of Atheist the absence of a beleif in god. there are of course many other words which can only be defined adequately by there quality of what they lack or deficiency. i dont dispute your syllogism within its own terms logically i do however consider atheism as a special case. The definition has been constructed with a presumption of the idea of god being the natural default.

[mungbeanman]

The opposite of non-theist? Set theory does not talk about opposites. Everything that exists or does not exist is either a theist or a non-theist.

It's not about the definition of words, it's about what things are and what they are not. If I described to you a particular rock, I am not describing the word 'rock' and that is what I am doing with atheism.

I would love to hear why you think atheism should be a special case and allowed to ignore formal logic when nothing else does.

[irationalwavesurfer]

if x is a thing then the lack of x is the lack of a thing. if god is x and can not be showen to be present then god is manifestly absent. it is not a beleif to recognise absense. in set theory can a thing be absent and present at the same time and in the same place? presumably if god is not manifestly present in set theory then he is absent so his absense is not a beleif at all but a fact. can you show in set theory how a thing can be present and absent at the same time?

[mungbeanman]

Also, "constucted with a presumption that God is the natural default"? You're gonna have to explain that one further.

[irationalwavesurfer]

when ive got time i will

[ooglebydoogleby]

Clearly it is unnecessary to, not believe in what can not be shown to exist. This is my problem with your definition. You could say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but I would respond that evidence of absence is evidence. If the universally accepted qualities of god the three om's or other can be shown to be absent or contradicted in areas where the presence of god is asserted this is evidence of absence.

observably objective evidence.

[mungbeanman]

I don't believe there is a god for the simple reason that I believe there is no god. Lacking a belief in a god is simply the inevitable result of believing that the non-existence of a god is teue.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a commonly held logical statement. 100 years ago there was no evidence that Pluto existed but it did. Evidence of absence? Is there such a thing? I can't think of how that can be possible.

[mungbeanman]

*is TRUE not teue. Idiot.

[ooglebydoogleby]

ile give you an example then. if god is a good god how can his creation of evil be explained. this contradicts an atribute of god. it is evidence of his absense in the world. if scripture contradicts quallities of god it is evidence of the absence of god in scripture. the author god. it is not proof but it is evidence of absense. where true absence of evidence does occur is in the asertion of the existence of a god. observation of where a thing is claimed to be not being there.

[mungbeanman]

It's not evidence of absence at all I'm afraid. You are referring to a very specific attribute of a very specific god. If this indeed were evidence itself then it merely suggets the fact that that specific god lacked that specific attribute.

For the statement you make where you say that god isn't where he is supposed to be when you look for him this is just an absence of evidence. I refer you to Bertrand Russel's teapot.

[ooglebydoogleby]

i disagrea. i am clearly making that statement in relation to very specific claims. as for it only being one atribute of god i have only given one or two general piece,s of evidence. the evidence is imense that claims for gods are false and to describe them as beleif as akin to a beleif in god is a missrepresentation of thier respective merits. do all things have the same qualities? what is a thing?

[mungbeanman]

Specific claims to specific gods are pretty much irrelevent in this case. Even if you could disprove the god of the Bible who's not say that another god did it? Even if we were to disprove all conceived gods so far there is always the chance that some unconceived god did it. That's the problem with the supernatural; we only have processes in place to test the natural.

[ooglebydoogleby]

if someone could show that 100 years ago observations of where pluto should be were made and pluto was not there we would have to conclude with enough evidence that it was not there at that time. if prayer can be showen by observation, not to work then we must conclude the absense of god in responce, in particular. we can establish a patern of evidence that shows a trend this is not proof it is evidence however. evolution is evidence of an absence of god in the speciation of life.

[mungbeanman]

Showing that Pluto was not where you happened to be looking at that time proves only that. It could be elswhere at that time. The same applies for god; particularly as theists have a habit of moving the conceptual goalposts.

If evolution just shows that Genesis is a load of crap is still not evidence that god was not somehow behind it in some supernatural way. Hell, he could have created the universe two seconds ago and we'd be none the wiser.

[ooglebydoogleby]

your missrepresenting what i said and at the same time proving it. i clearly stated the condition "observations of where pluto should be" and you said in responce "It could be elswhere at that time" so absent then. theists changing the goal posts is evidence of absence. i would asert that no thing can be showen to exist that contradicts its existence. so is god a thing?

[mungbeanman]

I'm not trying to misrepresent what you are saying but try to make sense of it. I am having a great deal of difficulty trying to understand what you are trying to say.

"so absent then". Absent from that place at that time but not necessarily absent from another place.

Theists moving the goalposts is only evidence that their concept of their specific god is weak.

"so is god a thing?" Without evidence to prove or disprove it I have chosen the rational stance to believe god is not a thing.

[ooglebydoogleby]

your syllogism suposes god to be a thing otherwise thier is no requirement to hold a beleif for or against in relation to nothing. "so absent then". Absent from that place at that time but not necessarily absent from another place." Corect. but i sugest the evidence for absense overall is stronger than the evidence for presence. i am not sugesting ultimate proof just evidence suficient to undermine a requirement for beleif such as acseptance of a scientific principle might require.

[mungbeanman]

"your syllogism suposes god to be a thing otherwise thier is no requirement to hold a beleif for or against in relation to nothing." - Not quite. I think that god is non-existent. Without knowledge this constitutes belief.

And again I make the claim that there will never be the same type of evidence that we can use to prove that something does exist to prove that something does not exist. If I made the claim that an invisible, intangible, silent unicorn was in your sitting room...(cont)

[mungbeanman]

...how would you go about disproving that claim? What evidence could you find to prove that it didn't exist?

You see, I believe that god does not exist because there is no evidence to say that he does. However, because there is no evidence to say that god does not exist I cannot say for certain that he doesn't. That's belief, simple as that.

[ooglebydoogleby]

i do not acsept that there is no evidence to say that god does not exist. on the contrary there are ample examples enough to establish a rule. atributes of god are universally contradictory. i lack any beleif in your pink unicorn. it is unnecesary to hold a beleif in relation to somethings existence which can not be established. however gods do not exist in a vacume what atributes and actions has your unicorn enacted on the material universe that would make it eligable to be a god?

[mungbeanman]

The attributes of one specific god (i.e. the Abrahamic one) are indeed often contradictory but this does not constitute evidence that there is no god at all. Maybe the FSM did it all instead.

You lack belief that my unicorn exists because you believe it's non-existence to be true. You have no evidence to say that it does not exist so you have to take the position of belief. I never said my unicorn was a god, I was merely giving an example of something that cannot be proved to not exist.

[gklr]

" on the contrary there are ample examples enough to establish a rule. atributes of god are universally contradictory."

This applies to some gods, not all gods. Some gods we can prove do not exist, no belief required. Allah or the christian god can be proven to not exist. To prove something does not exist we only need to show that thing as the subject of P in P and not P at the same time, a logical contradiction.

[ooglebydoogleby]

Im not sure what your coment aplies to are you talking to me or mungbeanman?

[mungbeanman]

To you by the looks of things.

[mungbeanman]

Greg, I need to ask you about this as I'm having a little trouble with it myself.

By attaching a truth to something we have demonstrated that something to exist. If take the statement 'god does not exist' we need god to exist for the statement to be true. How is this not P and not P? Or is it only statements about what that something is rather than what it is not that demonstrate existence? Or is it something else that I am missing altogether? Thanks.

[gklr]

This is in part why saying atheism is not believing in god is false... in that it isn't talking about atheism at all. The subject of the sentence, as we know, is what atheism is not, not what atheism is. Likewise for "god does not exist", which states what god is not, not what god is. So the subject is not god, in "god does not exist", and is not a truth about god, if true.

Greg is not mungbeanman is true, but not about Greg. It is true about what Greg is not.

[mungbeanman]

Okay, I'll mull over that and most likely get back to you at some point if you don't mind. Thanks again.

[gklr]

I never mind hearing from you. :)

It is not a truth about god to say "god does not exist", even if proven true. It is a truth about "what god is not (existent)".

It is not a truth about atheists to say "atheists do not believe in a god", although it is true. It is true about what atheists are not.

I am not you is true, but not about me. The statement talks about what I am not, not about me.

Atheists do not believe in god is true, but it isn't talking about atheists.

[ooglebydoogleby]

i do not dispute the logic of your syllogism.

just the use of the word "beleif" as a natural outcome of its logic. i would preffer to identify atheism as a rejection of the claim for the existence of gods. i dont see many words that exist to describe those who reject other irational notions. i think the use of the word beleif puts the two propositions on an equall footing and claims for the supernatural where testable almost universally mitigate against. this is evidence not absense of.

[mungbeanman]

The two positions are on an equal footing. It really does not make a difference as to how you arrive at your position but that is exactly what it is. I might think that a theist is irrational for thinking what they do but they often think the same of me and my position. It really is a matter of opinion.

[ooglebydoogleby]

in terms of your syllogism i agrea but the asertion of the existence of a god has a body of beleif atached to it in some form. claims do not exist in a void. conversly the claim that this position is false does not nesesarilly, but has evidence of the contradictions of the positive claim. you are sugesting all claims have equall merit regardless of thier obvouse corespondence to the facts or internal coherence.

[mungbeanman]

If I make the claim that god created man in his own image and then you present me the evidence of evolution this only proves one thing; that evolution is true. This does not prove that there is no god just that the god of the Bible did not create life as laid out in Genesis.

I am not suggesting that the claims have equal merit at all. If a claim is made with no evidence to support it then that claim is not equal to a claim made that does have evidence i.e. creation vs. evolution...(cont.)

[mungbeanman]

You see, being an avolutionist does not automatically make you an atheist and being an atheist does not automatically make you an evolutionist. However, as the position of theist and atheist are ones of belief and belief really is a matter of opinion I am saying that the position is equal.

[NoAbusiveChristians]

What I hate about religious people is their total arrogance and the way they think they have all the answers life's mysteries (none of us know these things). The problem is that "some" atheists are just as bad as the religious nuts. Some are closed-minded, they will state facts about how "there's no god", "no afterlife", "this life is it and when you're dead you're dead" (they don't know these things and stating them as fact is just as arrogant as any religious nut). Great videos......

[NoAbusiveChristians]

I love your videos, the way you explain things and how you are open-minded (also love your hair, that's cool). As a logical person I have looked at the bible's version of god and I don't believe it. I am open to the idea that something created life, that we're all here for a reason and that we move onto an afterlife (open to that idea, but not stating it as fact because I have no way of knowing). I don't want to say that non-belief is a belief (oxymoron), but here's something I've noticed.....

[mungbeanman]

Absolutely. Gnostic atheists are just as illogical and irrational as gnostic theists (possibly even worse as the atheist will still claim logic and rationality to be on their side). I don't there isn't a god any more than any theists know there is a god. Thanks for the nice comments.

[mungbeanman]

That penultimate sentence should read 'I don't KNOW there isn't a god any more than any theists know there is a god.'

[Beletjevos]

"There's no god" and "no afterlife" are both facts, because there is zero evidence for them. Thus, making god(s) and the afterlife highly improbable to exist with the same certainty as the theory of gravity being one day overturned. This is not to say they are impossible, but they stand as facts until new evidence can disregard them as correct.

They are "fact" because there is no scientific evidence for them. Until there IS evidence, the will remain facts as much as gravity is a fact.

[NoAbusiveChristians]

You have no scientific evidence to prove that I'm not a 20 year old billionaire male model, so it must be FACT that I am (Hmmm, think you've just proved the point I was making about arrogance). Not knowing something does NOT make that thing a FACT. Wait until you're older and your parents/loved ones are dead. You will then learn to look at these things with an "open mind" and accept that no one has the all the answers or all the facts.

[mungbeanman]

A lack of evidence absolutely, positvely cannot be used as proof of ANYTHING. Why would you in one sentence say that god's non-existence is fact and in the next say that it is highly improbable. Either one of those statements is correct and the other is wrong (or they are both wrong) but both cannot be correct.

"They are "fact" because there is no scientific evidence for them." Wrong. There was no scientific evidence for Pluto before 1930 but it still existed.

[Clutchology]

I think I've found the ultimate difference between us. I could explain it, but it's going to take up a lot of space, and I feel uncomfortable flooding your video with comments without consent for the same reasons I hate having it done on mine.

Would you like me to message you, or don't you have any problems with this going down in the comments?

[mungbeanman]

Yeah, best off putting it in a message then. Although it sounds very ominous to me. Please go easy on me, I'm still new to all this!

[jacksteinhoff]

I wish the shop sold burritos,I've got the munchies.

Great vid.

[mungbeanman]

Haha, thanks.

[cozmikzen]

they sell bibles

[mungbeanman]

Brilliant, good answer! Personally I was hoping that any shop that didn't sell dishwashers must therefore automatically sell hardcore pornography but there's plenty of illegal sex to be found the Bible so it's almost as good.

[Stephen5000]

Alternatively, one could define the complement of the set of theists, as "non-theists". We could then define "atheists" to be non-theists who actively choose not to be a theist. This would then require the person to have a knowledge of theism (and possibly some sort of free will).

I wonder then what we could call the theists who do not actively choose to be theists?

[Stephen5000]

When I think about this issue, I think of sets. We can designate the subset of people who believe in a god, of the set of all people, to be "theists". Then the complement of that subset could be designated "atheists".

With this definition atheism only says what a person is not, not what a person is, as you say. In a way this issue is one of the things that plagues the atheist "community", as the only thing that brings them together is something that they are not.

[mungbeanman]

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. I am very happy that it brought sets to your mind as I discuss sets in the first two videos. Without actually mentioning it I was basically discussing Set Theory.

[mungbeanman]

The whole non-theist/non-atheist point was covered in the first two videos and yes that would be correct just as someone or something lacks a belief would be a non-theist but not necessarily an atheist. If no information is given about what the person actually is then that is the conclusion you would arrive at.

[Censeo]

Disable - A lack of normal ability in a human of same age and gender. Is it not?

Do you play the piano? Reply: No

This gives the information that he/she is a nonpianist... or as you put it, it gives no information at all about the person.

[mungbeanman]

As far as your point about disability goes I would say it simply is restricted ability. If you wanted to define it that much you would have to go further and be specific about a particular disability such as blindness.

[Censeo]

You are right about rocks not being atheists, but they are not called illiterate either. There is more implied in both those words than the lack of X, but an adult human who does not believe in God is an atheist weather or not he knows about Gods. And Tarzan was an illiterate even though he never seen a written word.

[mungbeanman]

I disagree. I think that only an atheist can declare themselves to be atheist, it can not be thrust upon anyone. Besides, how can you have atheism without the concept of theism? If you say that illiteracy is the lack of literacy you still haven't said what attributes it does possess only what it doesn't. I would say that Tarzan and the rock are non-literate simply meaning that they are not literate.

[Censeo]

What about asexual. It is up to people to label themselves as that?

[AnirtakNillum]

I don't really see much point in trying to find a term that is an exception to the rule as we could be here all year. If you do want me to better define asexuality however, then you are going to offer your definition as I only really know the term to be a biological term for an organism that has the ability to reproduce without needing sex.

[Censeo]

There are adult people who do not find anyone or anything sexually attractive. Google "asexual"

[mungbeanman]

Sorry, I used my GF's account to respond by mistake.

If they lack sexual feelings then technically they would be known as non-sexual. It sounds to me as if they have jsut latched onto an already existing word and changed it's meaning to suit. This is how mistakes like this are made.

Anyway, can we get off asexuality and back onto atheism?

[Censeo]

a is an ancient greek prefix, non is latin prefix for without or not. Both mean same thing. English uses both. Usually non is used with believer and a in relation with theism.

[mungbeanman]

No. There is a distinct difference between the two prefixes. We do not say aflammable when we use mean non-flammable for example. Or if you are not a Christian you are a non-Christian not an achristian for example. But like I say we do not need to distinguish the two for this simple logic argument.

[Censeo]

you don't say aflammable at all because it isn't a word. If it was a word it would be synonymous with nonflammable because the prefixes means the same. apianist isn't a word and neither is nonpianist. If they were they would both mean the same... or at least, the prefix means the same. "a" and "non" are not English prefixes originally. They have origin from different languages, they mean the same thing in their language and both prefixes has been adopted to English.

[mungbeanman]

Ok, so let's get back to the logic. If I say that my car is not red am I in fact saying my car is a not red car? No, and this is what happens when you try to describe something by what it is not. Not red is not a thing and therefore can not be used as way of describing my car. This is what happens when people try to describe atheism as a lack of belief.

[Censeo]

"If I say that my car is not red am I in fact saying my car is a not red car?"

Yes you are, are you tired?

[mungbeanman]

But 'not red' is not a thing. If you actually believe I am describing my car as a 'not red' car then you should be able to tell me what a 'not red' car looks like. The way I see it would be like trying to actually describe the colour red to someone who has been blind from birth.

[Censeo]

red is not a thing either. Not a rock, not red, not sexual, not believing. The descriptive connotation in "not" is more clear in context and weather or not the thing it says not to is very common or not. The more common something is, the more descriptive it is to call something having or being not that thing. That is why we don't have words for not being a pianist while not being sexually attracted has a word.

[mungbeanman]

Red is a thing, a dishwasher is a thing and belief is a thing. Not red, not a dishwasher and lack of belief are all not things and all cannot be used as a way of describing another thing. 'Not' isn't descriptive in itself but merely negates any description following it. A negated description is practically useless as a description.

[Censeo]

Ok, see my replies to the thought provoking video you mailed me. Thank you for that btw. A negative to a common thing I think is not useless. However, not red car is pretty useless as it can have many colors.

[mungbeanman]

"not red car is pretty useless as it can have many colors." Exactly my point and you are almost there. Not a belief is also pretty useless way to describe atheism just as not red cannot be used to describe a car's colour. Although I can see where you might be having a problem because a negative description and a negated description are not the same thing.

[Censeo]

A car can not be without a color, but it can be lacking a belief in God. It can also have a belief in God. Also, my belief in whatever MUST lack color at all times. There are different realms of reality, some of them contain color, and some don't. We can deconstruct all our knowledge if we want to nitpick everything. But I don't want that so I protect fairly common use for words. As you seem to acknowledge a nonbeliever but not an atheist, there seem to be some connotations I've missed.

[mrbluesky323]

Consider that we're looking at 2 cars. One has a convertible top, and one doesn't. If i said, i'll take the one that's NOT a convertible, you'd know which one i meant. When there's only two options, the lack of a unique quality is as descriptive as a unique quality.

[mungbeanman]

Yep, so you might say I will take the non-convertible. That scenario doesn't defy set theory in the slightest. However if you were to describe a car by only describing the features it doesn't have you wouldn't say anything about the features it does have. For example - I could say that my car doesn't have 6 doors doesn't say how many doors my car does have. The same is true for anything that doesn't have 6 doors, rocks etc.

Sorry for the late reply but I have been inundated lately.

[mrbluesky323]

But see, in this situation, there are only two options. Either you believe in god(s)or you don't. It's a means of categorization. Vertebrate and non-Vertebrate, for example. It's not like saying "not 6 doors" because there's only two possibilities here. It's a boolean variable. True or false. There's nothing wrong with this system of categorization of ideas. It's not meant to be a complete definition of a person's beliefs. It's one tier in a series of tiers of categorization.

[mungbeanman]

"But see, in this situation, there are only two options. Either you believe in god(s)or you don't."

Agreed, your are either a theist or a non-theist. Everything that exists or doesn't exist is a theist or non-theist. Non-theist is not the same as atheist. Your example of vertebrate or non-vertebrate and the terminology you use is perfect in that respect. Everything has a backbone or doesn't.

[Censeo]

a is a prefix for non. If atheist doesn't mean non-theist, then there is a deviation from the semantical meaning.

[mungbeanman]

Actually non is the prefix for non. As I said in the video I don't want to get into the meanings of words just the logic of describing something by what it is not. If you still disagree with this logic and think it is fine to describe something by what it is not or what it lacks then you should be able to tell me what the shop sells.