Atheism - the lack of belief in a god? Not quite... (part 1)

This is a video specifically for my fellow atheists. Rather than get a debate going with theists let's debate each other because we know that we should be able to continue a civil and intelligent discourse amongst ourselves.

Looking back I realise that there is a lot more I could have said in this video but I think that could be a good thing as I don't want to play my entire hand in one go or there would be little left to debate and I need to same some ammo for myself (wow, mix any more metaphors into that statement, anyone?)

There is one more reason why someone might have a lack of belief in a god. I will discuss this and some other arguments in a follow up video but you get bonus points if you can work out what that reason is before it gets posted.

gklr's channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/gklr

He puts it a lot better than I do.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Atheism
• atheist
• theism
• theist
• belief
• knowledge
• gnosticism
• debate

[truckcompany]

This video makes the word atheism confusing for people and should be taken down. QualiSoup has done a MUCH better video on atheism titled "Lack of belief in gods"

[mungbeanman]

@truckcompany

But I could argue that qualiasoup's video is equally confusing. Especially as he makes just so many errors. His most fundamental being that the word 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing 'theism' with 'a~'. Simply not the case because the word atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism. How can you prefix a word taht does not yet exist. His video violates the law of cause and effect and should be taken down!

[truckcompany]

@mungbeanman

"atheism appears in language BEFORE the word theism"

Why does this matter? What matters is how most people use the word NOW, after all, words are for communication.

[mungbeanman]

@truckcompany

Because he says that 'atheism' means 'a lack if theism' because of the way that the word is constructed, i.e. 'a~' + 'theism', which is wrong. And anyway, the meaning of a word is irrelevant when discussing the entity that it is applied to. Take the word 'submarine' for example. The word means 'below the sea' but I bet you pictured a vessel capable of submersive travel, didn't you?

What atheism is and what the word atheism means are two quite different matters.

[truckcompany]

@mungbeanman

"Because he says that 'atheism' means 'a lack if theism' because of the way that the word is constructed"

I've never heard him or any other atheist say this, could you backup your statement?

From all the atheists I've listen to (which is many), they use the word atheist to mean they reject all the theistic claims they have ever heard. Or, they lack the belief in all the theistic claims they have ever heard.

[mungbeanman]

@truckcompany

It was a typo. I meant to say that he says that atheism means 'a lack of theism' because of the way the word is constructed.

[mungbeanman]

@mungbeanman

Correction - 'a lack OF theism'

[mungbeanman]

@urcorrect

"And once again, that has not been the case."

This has been going on for years in many, many cases. The second people say that atheism is a lack of belief in god they have tried to say what atheism is by only saying what it isn't.

[mungbeanman]

@urcorrect

"Etymology isn't quite as simple as that."

Nothing, not even etymology, can violate cause and effect. Do you even know what cause and effect is by the way? Someone who does probably wouldn't have ventured that statement.

[mungbeanman]

@urcorrect

"I demonstrated my ability to discern noun from referent when I stated an 'atheist' denotes a person"

Now try it on 'atheism' and see how far you get.

"So why do you reject definitions for atheist which utilize negation?"

Because it only says what atheism is not. No good.

"Doesn't that violate the same pseudo-principle you're suggesting?"

Non-theist is the negated set of theists. If you have a problem with this then it lies with set theory not me.