 Hey everybody, today we are debating the definition of atheism and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as today we have good ol' Tom Jump back on as well as Blake Speed who's been a guest in the past as well, two experienced debaters hashing out the definition of atheism and if it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up that we are very excited about so for example you'll see at the bottom right there is a thumbnail for an up and coming debate that's actually going to be tomorrow between Dr. Jeff Zwierink and Skydive Phil so that's going to be a lot of fun and then on Tuesday Kent Hovind and Mark Drisdale have their end game debate. By end game we mean it's the last one we're hosting of these guys, it's the third of their they've got a trilogy of debates after this one and that's when we're like hey, on other channels go for it but now we're saying no more of you two. Alright so it's going to be a lot of fun folks, really excited and also though want to let you know today's format if you have any questions during it feel free to shoot your question into the live chat as we try to make it as interactive as possible so we if you just tag me with an at modern day debate in your question I will see that more easily pull those questions into a list and then you also have the option to do a super chat if you'd like in which case it'll push your question to the top of the list for Q&A and it'll also allow you to make a comment during the question and answer but we as always would give the debate or a chance to respond to your comment and ask that you be your usual friendly selves in all of your questions and comments so with that it's going to be a flexible 8 to 10 minute opening from each speaker followed by open conversation I think that's what people most enjoy so it's going to be a lot of fun we are going to get the ball rolling Tom jump if you are willing to go first I should mention too by the way everybody for the borders and this is if forgive me if Blake if you prefer to go first if you guys decided that that's totally okay oh do you prefer to go first perfect that works perfect for me thanks so much appreciate it and want to let you know folks each of the gentlemen have an atheism plus or I should say negative atheism or positive atheism next to their name that only means basically positive atheism meaning that you think atheism would be defined as making the assertion that there is no God negative atheism saying you don't go that far you just lack a belief and so that's Tom's position namely that atheism is lacking a belief and with that Blake thanks so much the floor is all yours I've got the timer set for 10 minutes all right so thanks again James for having me on and Tom for agreeing to have this discussion today so the way I want to frame today's question is what should the definition of atheism be so in order to answer that question I want to kind of prime us with a helpful concept or metaphor or what it is is the concept of a language game and so when we're thinking about the definitions of words we can understand the meanings of words or phrases by examining the examining the concept of a language game words have their meaning as a result of the rules of the game being played where these are metaphors for our forms of language and the actions into which they are woven so if we're thinking about definitions as rules to a game we're thinking about how some game some sets of rules can be better than others and within a game we have some sort of aim what are we trying to achieve within that game and so I think that for the game the language game that we're going to be examining for the theist and atheist dichotomy is one in which we're trying to answer the question does God exist or we're trying to answer the question are there any gods so these are two different ways two distinctions it's a distinction that we can draw so we can say that atheism in the wide sense is the belief that there aren't any gods and that atheism in the narrow sense is the belief that the God of Western monotheism the God of the capital G omnipotent omniscient omnibu beloved God doesn't exist and so what we want our game to do is try to get at the truth for its own sake via a discussion so the rules of our game should help us better achieve that goal the dialectic method is a language game aiming to use discourse between two opposing views to establish the truth of a reasoned argument you know through reasoned argument so I'm contrasting this with something like a debate method where the the method that would be like a dialectic method but instead you would also have things like rhetoric and appeals to emotion I want to put those aside and actually try to answer the question for its own sake this is also opposed to something like an eristic method which is one where two saw two opposing sides try to defeat the other one and the aim isn't really to get at the truth so you would find this in like a court of law so you have a prosecution and a defense and so the defense's aim is to defend its client and the prosecution's job is to try to convict the defendant the search for truth for its own sake has has taken place beforehand this is also contrasted with something like a didactic method where the truth is already presumed and we're trying to teach it to someone through some sort of systematic methodology so we can ask ourselves two questions here what sort of thing is a atheism and what do we want what should the eighth the term atheism do so let's start with the first question what sort of thing is atheism and so I want to say tonight that atheism is a belief to be reached through a process of rational inquiry and liberation and so the intuitions that I'm trying to preserve in my language game are that atheists are closer to the truth than theists that's the first intuition the second intuition I want to maintain is atheism is more rational than theism and the third intuition I want to maintain is atheism is logically prior to theism so if we didn't have something like a concept of theism the concept of atheism would be unnecessary and so our second question was what should the term atheism do well we want the we want our term atheism and the concept that it expresses to be able to be capable of consisting in a systematic philosophy so something like secular humanism or metaphysical naturalism or even political groups like the American atheists or just for categorizing people like religiously unaffiliated voters we want our definition to be able to capture all these different sorts of things so that if we're like can you list examples of atheists or forms of life that have this atheist belief as a part of them we can then list those sorts of things off so the framework that I'm proposing tonight is that we can have the two questions which are are there any gods or does God does God exist so that's two different ways of conceiving of God a very broad way and a very narrow way of conceiving of God and so theism the definition of theism would just be yes there is at least one God and atheism is no there are not any gods agnosticism is the view that the question is indeterminate that we cannot the scales don't tip in favor of any other either view so you're there neither theists nor the atheists and then we have the term non-theist and so non-theist actually refers to the mental states of some person so that this person does not believe theism is true and so but this might be because they don't have it they've never even considered the question maybe it's an infant or it's an isolated non-theist and so then there's two distinctions that we've already drawn tonight in addition that fit within my language game that's negative atheism and positive atheism so positive atheism is just the view that there's no reason to believe that there are any gods or that God exists and negative or I'm sorry I'm sorry I have that wrong positive atheism is the belief belief that there's reason to believe the answer is no that there aren't any gods or that God doesn't exist and negative atheism is the view that there's no reason to believe that there are any gods or that a god exists. So that's my framework in a nutshell and I think that the framework is one that we should use in the sense of answering our question which one should it use because it's clear. It stays in line with historical precedence and common language use. So people are familiar with this language game. I think it's stronger because it answers the whole question we can clearly distinguish between atheists, theists, agnostics and non-theists. It's more concise because I have fewer concepts to express and distinctions to draw and I believe that it doesn't beg any questions against any certain views. So for example, if our view is that there are no reasons to believe there are any gods, the fideistic view, the view that faith is more important than reason or is somehow more important than reason, we would be begging the question against that view and so those people would technically be considered atheists and so that's kind of an implausible implication to my mind. So I think these are some of the positive advantages of my view. So I'll go ahead and end right there and let Tom... You bet. Thanks so much Blake and we will switch it over to Tom. Forgot to mention up front folks. If you actually if as you're listening you're like, I can't get enough of this guy. Well, I put both of their links in the description so that if you want to hear more, you can hear more of these gentlemen. So thanks so much Tom. The floor is yours. All right. So what definition of atheism is better to use? Well, it's whichever one the atheist use. This is essentially how it works. It doesn't matter what you actually think about how the word should be used or if it's logical, consistent or not. It makes no difference at all. All that matters is what do atheists who identify with the label use the word to mean? And the majority of the most popular atheists and the people who happen to follow them use it in a lack theist sense that there is no reason to believe because they consider God to be like Santo or Leprechauns or any other imagined thing as essentially imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. And so you don't actually need to take up the burden to say, well, I can disprove that God's exist nor really cares about that. When they say the atheist label, what they mean is that all the stuff that the religious people believe is just nonsense. So the burden they're adopting when they take the label of atheists is to say that every claim the theist makes is a ridiculous claim. It has nothing to do with whether or not there's a God. They don't really care about that because in the classical atheist worldview of how most atheists use the term, it's not about whether or not there's a God. It's about is there a reason to believe that a God is. Are these claims that the theists are making? Are they supported or unsupported? And when they claim they're an atheist, they're not saying there is no God, they don't care. They're saying all the stuff you're saying is ridiculous. And so what they want to address isn't the truth of the ontology of whether or not God exists because again, they just don't care. It's not really an important thing to most people's everyday lives. It's what are the things that theists saying true or credible or reasonable. And so the the burden they're adopting is to say no, those things you're saying are not reasonable. That's what they mean when they use the term atheists. And since it's the majority usage in the common parlance, then that's the definition we should use because it's what most accurately represents their position. Anything else just doesn't matter. As Dr. Graham Opie said, usage wins out and that is the usage. It's always what we should reuse. Any types of alternative usages of the meaning would just be a straw man. The terms change meaning all the time. And like the word gay used to just mean happy and then it got adopted by the LGBT community. It doesn't matter what the past history of the word was. It doesn't matter what you think the appropriate usage is. It has totally irrelevant that demographic of people use that label to as an adaptation to represent their ideology. And so that is the correct definition because that's how they use it. Atheism works the same way. Anything else is irrelevant. Gotcha. Thanks very much. We'll now open it up to open discussion. So thanks so much. The floor is all yours, gentlemen. Oh, I think you might be muted. You're muted. Thank you, Tom. I appreciate that. I would have just kept talking. So I first want to clarify some things about what you're saying just so that we're clear enough. So it seems to me that you are starting off with a substantive assumption about reason in the sense that any gods are imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. Is that a correct assumption? I'm not making assumptions about reason at all. I'm just making assumptions about what usually the standard position of most atheists are, which is that the God hypothesis is the same as leprechauns or unicorns or fairies or anything. It's just imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. So it's not an assumption about reason. It's an assumption about the general parlance of most atheists who adopt the term. So, but it is a substantive assumption about what those people should believe. So that's what I'm using. It has nothing to do with should. Should is irrelevant here. This is what they believe. Why should irrelevant? It's part of our question. Our question is what should the definition of... It's just a representation of what most atheists do believe, whether they should or not, is irrelevant. So most people would not the term. So what we should do is we should use the definition of the term which most accurately represents the people who use it. So the language. So the rules to the language. Stop, stop, stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop for a second. So we should use the label, the definition that most accurately represents what the people who use the label mean it as. What to so accurately represent their position. Their position, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. Their position is that the God hypothesis is imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. Whether or not they should believe this is irrelevant. The question on the debate is what definition should we use? We should use the ones that the people who adopt the label use. And so my position is no, that it should be the one that uses the language game that best helps us answer the question, does God exist? So I'm doing the truth for its own sake. So it seems like you're playing a different game. You're playing the, like what you would find in the court of law where all you're trying to do is defeat the theist. And so it's just a different game. You're right, you can play that different game, but... No, there's no game here. It's just the way words work. Language game, yes. There's no game here. That's the metaphor. No, no, no. I know. I know the metaphor. I don't care. So again, the correct way to use word is to accurately represent the people who adopt the label. That's it. Who play the language game. That's what a language game. What do you think a language game? No, no. It doesn't matter. None of that matters. None of the context matters. It's only just the correct way to use words is to make it... Yeah, the actions in which our language is woven. Again, again, not important. So again, it is important. It's very important. I've framed the whole question of it and it couldn't be more important actually. I don't care. So again, the correct way to use language is to accurately represent the people who adopt the label. That's it. That is the correct... But you don't accurately represent the people who adopt the label. Yes, I do. You accurately represent a small subset of people. The majority and the most prevalent and the biggest organization. No, not the most prevalent. The most prevalent. Yes, correct. No, most prevalent would be every day people who use the term normally like I'm using it. Those would be the most prevalent. Most people don't use the term. We're talking about usage wins out. All the people who understand it my way, which is the majority of people, they went out. No, most people don't even know what the word atheist means in general. The most of people who do understand the term atheist are usually people who have adopted the label and actually looked into what it means. And they use it in the lackliest kind of a way. Most philosophers are in the minority and don't really, don't really... Philosophers don't use it that way. The only ones I know that really use it are new atheist types and like political types like American atheists that are trying to include as many people as possible. Yeah, and they do take up the majority of people who do understand what the term atheist means. So you're saying understand what it means. We've already said that they're expressing what they're using it as, but then you're saying they understand it as what it means. So it sounds like to me that there's some sort of common concept which they can all understand and which everyone else's understanding is somehow lacking because they haven't come to it. That common understanding is what I'm saying. That's just the language game. And so you're playing a different language game. You're trying to defeat atheists instead of trying to answer the question, does God exist? So what are the Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. So the only thing... Wait, stop, stop, stop for a minute. No, no, straw man, irrelevant, irrelevant. Defeat the theist is not a part here and don't care about defeating the theist. It's irrelevant. Just to be sure that it's hard for me to keep track of both the live chat and also, by the way, folks, feel free to shoot your questions in there and also the conversation just to see who was last talking. Maybe we'll give like a minute or two each and then we'll kind of just rotate and go from there. So let's see. I think Tom maliciously interrupted Blake. So we can go back to Blake and then we come back to you, Tom, I promise. So let me just lay out some objections. So I think there are four very crucial objections to the language game that Tom is proposing here. First it's that it just it departs from the ordinary and historical senses of the term atheist. So it introduces the risk of introducing confusion in the discussion. So think of, again, we're using the language game as our metaphor here. Think of a game in which you're trying to play where only one side is playing defense. That's it. They say that they're going to show up and play the game. But all they do is play defense. Now when the offense says, okay, that's fine. You've beaten me every time. But now let's switch roles and see how it goes. If you then say, no, I'm only here to play defense. You're just playing a different game. You weren't actually playing the language game that everyone thought you were doing. The second objection that I would put out there is this only answers part of the question. This allows new atheists and people like Tom to play the role of a pure skeptic. So they can play hide the ball with their burdens of justification, the claims that they make. They just don't have to offend them because they're saying, no, my position is entirely negative. And they don't put anything positive forward, thus avoiding any sort of burdens of justification. I think that's just dishonest. I think it's straightforwardly counts against that usage. Okay, well, that's just bullshit because none of that has anything to do with it. Interrupting. So hush. It is redundant. We already have a redundant distinction between positive and negative atheism. So positive atheism, on my view, can just be atheism and negative atheism can just be agnosticism, just not having it. So we already don't need this distinction. But the fact that we have it, and then you're trying to take it a step further makes it doubly redundant. And then of course, you beg the question against fetism, the view that thinks that faith is more than reason. You're begging the question against them. Nope. Because those people come to the question. So the question is, are there any gods? You're saying there any good reason to believe there are any gods, the theist accepts that claim. So the theist by your definition is already considered an atheist, which is just absurd. Nope. So those are four straightforward objections right off the top of the bat. Okay, none of those have anything to do with my position. So okay, all of them have to do with your position in the language. Your delusion. You're putting forward. So you backing off and denying that? We'll jump back over to Tom to give you a chance, and then I promise we'll come right back to you. So everything you just said was complete bullshit because none of it has to do with anything related to the definition of atheism. It's not adopted to address, like to counter theism in that sense, like no, that's just what they actually believe. It's as simple as that. Does the word accurately represent what most atheists use the word to mean? Yes, that's it. There's no other further considerations. It doesn't make a difference. Nothing he said matters. We're done there. Like so, what is the position? I can just pull up quotes from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and the general dictionary is Google it. You can find the definitions right there. Atheism is a lack of belief in the gods. Okay, we're done. That's just what they mean. Like if you go to the big conferences and you talk to the atheists and you go to atheism meetings, they don't say, I believe there are no gods. They say, I just don't believe in any of the stuff that you say. That's just what they believe. Tactical reasoning is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it supplies to a debate. That's just generally what they believe. And so when they say the word atheist, that's just to accurately represent what they believe. You just have to use that definition. If you don't, you're straw maddening and you're an idiot. That's simple as that. That's what they mean by the term. That's the definition you have to use. Simple as that. Game over. All yours Blake. Okay, so you're telling me psychological facts about a small group of people, people that have to, that do not keep in line with the ordinary use or the historical use. Well, ordinary use and historical use is irrelevant. That doesn't help us answer the question. What should the definition of atheism be? So I already answered that question. Question tonight is what should the atheism definition of atheism be tonight and you've given no relevant answer. I answered the question specifically. And you've given no reasons to believe that your view. Were you not listening? Are you just deaf or dumb? Like the answer is the correct definition of the word atheist is the one that most accurately represents what the people who adopt the label mean. But you don't, but it doesn't. It just departs from the historical and ordinary. The historical part is irrelevant. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. Feel the history. No, it's not. Goodbye, fallacy, dumb, dumb shit. Like you can make the same argument and say, well, the word gay historically did just meant happy. The LGBT people do not care. We can still use it in those senses. So if I say that I had a gay old time, I'm saying that I'm having a happy time. You can still use those senses. That's great. I don't disagree with that. You can still use atheists to mean I believe gods don't exist, that you can do that. I'm not saying you can't, but the correct definition to use is the one used by the majority of atheists who adopt the label, which is lack of belief. Why is that the correct definition? Because the correct definition is the one that the people who adopt the label want it to mean. So why should we prefer that over a historical sense and an ordinary sense? Because that's how language works. No, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Not according to a language game. No, it is not. You can't just show up to a game and play whatever rules you want to play. I just disproved that. That's what the word gay is. You can't show up to a game and just say, I'm going to adopt whatever rules I want to in order to answer this question. No, you can't. Yes, you can. That's how language works. No, you can't. That's one example that just proves everything you said bullshit. It enters into a discussion. I've already disproven that. The word gay is a proof that that is wrong. How? Because they come in and they change the definition to mean something that it doesn't mean by usage. Yes, but that doesn't negate the old usage. I never said it did. Nowhere in my family would I ever say that. So what you're describing is how gay became the usage now. Yes, exactly. Stop. I never said it negated the old definition. Nowhere in my argument did I say that. It became the ordinary sense. So the ordinary sense of the word changed. But you don't have the ordinary sense of the term. I have the ordinary sense of the term. No. Let's look it up in the dictionary like you just suggested. Yes, okay. Let's do that. In Oxford dictionary. No, I'm going to go with Google. Definition, atheism, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God. Disbelief or lack. Oh, which is better. That's the question I brought us here to discuss and you haven't given us an answer. I did in the very first thing. You must have your head up. You gave us psychological facts about a small group of people that are completely irrelevant to answering our question. That's what you... No, again, the correct definition is the one that most accurately represents the people who adopt the label. That is the end of the statement. Why? Why? What reason? That's how language works. That's not how language works. That is exactly how language works. You have your head up correct. That is exactly how language works. You have your head up correct. My concept of I already deflated everything you said. I already just crushed everything you said just by using the word gay as an example. That defeats all of the bull crap you said because it's the exact... It's exactly analogous. The day can be adopted by a small minority to represent their psychological whatever and then it becomes the standard definition. That's exactly what happened with atheism. Done. No, it didn't. Yes, it did. No, it didn't. Yes, it did. There is a small group of people. Small minority. Stop, stop, stop. It doesn't make a difference what you think of a small minority people. You use the term in this way that we already have that... Why do we have this distinction, positive atheism and negative atheism? Why does it even exist? Again, again, so a small minority used the term gay differently and now it's accepted. So there's no problem. They use it in a historical sense and now the ordinary sense has changed. The ordinary sense of atheism has not changed. Yes, it has. No, it hasn't. Yes, it has. I just... We just saw this that the ordinary sense has in it the disbelief that God exists. That's how it is. Right. And if I Google the term gay, happy is also one of the ordinary senses. It doesn't change that. Exactly. It doesn't help your argument. So it's an ordinary sense. So then you have to say which one is better for the language game in which we're playing. If our language game does God exist, mine is better. No one cares what your language game is. The only meaning for... Okay, so you're playing a different language game. That's fine. No, no, I don't give a shit about your language game crap. I'm not even going to address that because it's irrelevant. Because you have nothing to say against it. What do atheists who use the word mean by the word? No, what do you mean when you use the word? You're the minority. You're not... No, you're the majority. I don't care your opinion on this. I'm just... No, false. So people who adopt the term, the majority of them, the biggest speakers, the people who would are all the conferences, the labels of all the big corporate... No, of all the big. Who are all the big? American atheists, the humanists. American atheists. So none of those have to do with an academic journal. None of those have to do with something within the academy. Academic journals are the small niche of people who just don't matter to the definition. The definitions are divided by the majority and the academic journals don't make a difference. Yeah, please go away because academic definitions are irrelevant to any common parlance definitions. It just don't matter. There's lots of different academic definitions that have nothing to do with these. We have two different aims. His aim is to defeat theists. My... No, again, this has nothing to do with defeating theists, straw man. It's got to exist. Again, it says nothing to do with defeating theism. This is just what do people who use the term atheists mean by the term? They're accurately representing their belief that all the stuff theists say don't make a difference. I'm resting my case. Please do. You were done like a long time ago. Nothing you said is relevant. So again, the correct definition to use is the one that's used by the most atheists who adopt the term atheism, which is lack of belief. The term accurately represents their belief that all the things that theists say is bullcrap. That's just what they believe. That's the important... They're supporting it. Counter example, a negative theist. There is a God unless there is reason to doubt. Don't care. Again, there's no reason to doubt a God. Don't care. You don't care. Don't care. Do not... So that's a stalemate. So that's another way with my view is better than yours. Because nothing you said is relevant. Like, it doesn't matter. The only point of the term is to accurately represent the people who adopt the definition of atheism. None of your counter examples matter. None of the philosophy matters. Doesn't make a difference at all. The only correct definition is what accurately represents the definition being used by the people who adopt the term. That's it. No other considerations are relevant. So atheists like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or American atheists or any of the people who actually go to those conferences and adopt the label atheists, you can just ask them, what do you mean when you say you're an atheist? And they're going to say I don't... I think all the stuff that theists says are nonsense. Do you believe... You're claiming that there's absolute... So they're not theists. No, they're claiming that all the stuff that theists say are nonsense. They're expressing their position. So you're including more people, agnostics and non-theists. No, no. I'm only including people who adopt the term atheists. People who adopt the term atheists. When you ask them, what do you mean by the term atheists? They say, I mean, I believe all the stuff theists say are nonsense. It's that simple. I don't care about anybody else. No one else matters. Agnostics don't matter. Other theists don't matter. Fideists don't matter. The only people who matter are people who adopt the label atheists. What do you mean by the word A be atheists? You're atheists. Not the ordinary sense in it because... No, the ordinary atheists. Like any ordinary atheists, if you just... If you poll all atheists, all people who adopt... All atheists, they would be on my side. No, they'd be on my side. Yeah. No, absolutely not. I win. That is an empirical fact. You just be... Yes, it would. Yes, it is. So look at that. Correct. Yes. Look it up. Go ahead. All people who identify as the term atheists would be on my side. No, you're... No, you're just empirically wrong. I don't care. Great. You can go bother somebody else with that nonsense. So again, the correct usage of the term atheists is, well, what do atheists mean by the term? And what they mean is that theists say... What the theists say is nonsense. Oh, that's the correct usage of the term. That's simple. We... I'm seeing right here that Wikipedia disagrees with you, that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy disagrees with you, that the Oxford... What disagrees with me on what? You're not saying anything. That Marion Webster disagrees with you. You haven't said anything. And the New York Times disagrees with you. Yeah, you said nothing. You said disagrees about what? That BBC disagrees with you. Most people understand the term... You said nothing. You've said nothing. ...and being the belief that God doesn't exist. Where? What do you mean you said nothing? If you're going to defend something like secular humanism, why are you doing that? Because you take it as true that there aren't any gods, or that God doesn't exist. If you put something forward... You said nothing. ...metaphysical naturalism, you've said all of these places disagree with me. Stop, stop, stop. You said... You just want to avoid your burden of justification. No, this has nothing to do with Michael's know. It's my turn to talk. I'm asking for clarification here. I'm asking for clarification here. You need to actually clear up what you've said. One second. Please, dude. Shut the fuck up, please. Hold on, hold on. He just listed a bunch of these places. You're trying to become more family friendly. I promise I'll give you a chance, Tom. We are moving to the mainstream, but we will give Tom a chance to respond. So we heard in a list of different sources that Blake says disagree with you, Tom. And we'll give you a chance to respond. Yeah, but he never said on what. He's like, they disagree with me on... Or is he claiming that the majority of them... The ordinary sense of the term. No one gives a damn. What I was trying to do is... My only reason for saying that wasn't to push you, Tom. It was only to say... No, no, I understand that. So we'll give you a chance to respond to Blake's list. So again, he gave a list that disagree with me. He never said what they disagree on. Are they disagreeing with the fact that the majority of people who identify as atheists use the term to mean a lack of belief? No, they agree with me on that. He's saying they disagree with me on the common usage of the word in the philosophical sense. No one cares. Again, that wasn't my point. It's irrelevant. I mean, I agree that most philosophers use it in the more technical sense. It just doesn't make a difference. It's irrelevant. I don't care. It's not important to the definition. Do all those places agree with me that the majority of people who identify with the term atheists mean a lack of belief? Yes, they do agree with me on that. Because that's what when polled most people at most atheist conferences and who identify as an atheist use the term to mean. They have adopted that label because most famous atheists and famous atheist organizations have adopted that label. And they go with it because they like it because it most accurately represents their beliefs. That is the correct usage of the term. It's that simple. No one else cares. No one cares what the philosophers think. You can make up all kinds of technical definitions in philosophy that are not used in common parlance or used differently. Like the word literally is used figuratively in common parlance and not in philosophical papers. No one really cares. It doesn't make a difference how philosophers use the term in common parlance. All right, switching over to Blake. Thanks for your patience, Blake. People do care. People care a lot because secular humanism, people care about that. People care about things like the implications of the answer to the question, does God exist? This is so, no, it's just false that the people who identify as atheists somehow get this monopoly on what the term, the correct usage of the term means. No, the correct usage of the term is the one that's going to help us better answer the question, does God exist? Because that's the question that matters. And so if you're not trying to answer that question, you're playing some other game. You're playing some other language game. You're doing something different. There's nothing objectionable about doing that if you set that out at the front. But don't act like you're the correct definition because what determines the correct definition and the ordinary sense of terms is going to be how everyone uses it, not just limited to the people who identify it because most people might identify that label for political reasons. And that's fine, but again, different language game. They aren't trying to answer the question that matters. And if you disagree with that, that's fine, you just aren't seeking truth for its own sake. So if you aren't seeking truth for its own sake, that's what nothing else you say matters. All the other psychological facts that you like to try to appeal to, they just don't matter for helping us get at the truth. They don't help with that dialectical method that we're aiming for in order to discover truth by reasoned arguments. It's just not trying to do that. And so I've given at least four reasons why my view is better and his is not for answering that question. Why is the better language game to adopt? Part of that case involves historical uses and the ordinary senses of those terms. Those matter. And if you disagree, I guess you just don't understand language. Yeah, so I mean everything he just said is total bullshit. You could make the same exact arguments. Everything, everything I just said is total bullshit. Everything. So you could say exactly verbatim everything he said for the correct usage of the word gay. Oh, it's only used by a majority of people. Oh, it's just not taking in the historical context of the term. No one gives a shit. Like that's not how language works. You just don't understand language at all. You have your head up your ass. Language just works in the way it's arbitrary. You can make up whatever definitions we want. Then we can make up contradictions. We make up rules to games however we want. Yes, we can. That's because they're arbitrary. Oh, really? So can some some some rules be better than other games? Yes, they can be. Yeah, they're the ones that we adopt better than others. So again, you have my definition is better than yours because it's the ones we adopt. And the term gay is better used as an LGBT representation of their community because it's the one we adopt. The better is the one we adopt. There isn't an objectively better. There's no like objective standard here. No one cares about the consistency of usage in that sense. All the matter is. I just said that there are better senses of. Yes, better as in the only measure of better is how do people use it? How they use it? That's the better one. It doesn't matter if they're right. The rules to gay are only better than how people play them. That's correct. The better rules are just how people play them. It doesn't matter if you have a better system of chess. No one cares. They're going to keep using the system they use because that's the one they like and that's what makes it better. Because it's arbitrary. It's just the language. Meaning definitions or usages. They don't actually have any objectively correct definition. It's just how people use them. And corrects. So reason can't tell us anything about how to get what we want. What the aim of a game. Something can be better or worse in the achieving the aim of the game. You're saying that it's arbitrary that the rules of that game can be whatever. They just be whatever. So you're saying the implication of that is is that reason cannot help us get what we want. That has nothing to do with anything you're saying. No, just bull crap. Like there's no. Yeah, great response. Good job. Yes, it actually was. Because what you just said is complete crap. Like saying that games are arbitrary and you can make up new rules. Yes, yes you can. So I'm saying are there better or worse ways for achieving aims within a game? Are there certain sets of rules that are better than others? Because they achieve certain aims better than others. You're messaging with them. No, I'm just another level. You completely misunderstood. You have your head up your ass. So the game is the language. That's the plane. We're playing what language is better. That's the game. And the game to win the game. No, the game is where we're trying to get a question there. So I played out four legs. One where we try to find the truth for its own sake. Wrong. One where we try to oppose each opposing team. One where we assume. This is the problem. Let's give one where we assume. At one point we have to give Blake a chance for a response. No. And one in which we have rhetoric at it. No, I still part of my response here. So he's interrupting my response. So he's made up this bull crap goal My opportunity to talk. No, no, no, no. I just started talking a minute ago. Shh. Shh. No, no, no. You should. No. Because I'm still in the middle of my freedom. Oh, here he is. You guys are like, I love it. You guys are like brothers. I like to. Well, hold on one second. In the middle of my argument. One second. One second. I want to be able to finish my argument. Just one second. Well, let me ask the audience really quick. Who is currently in their speech? And then I'll give people a quick reminder that we are happy to get your questions. If you fire them into the old live chat. And then also one dimension, if you had not noticed, we have both of these gentlemen linked so that if you are hearing this and you're like, I can't, I want more of that. Well, you definitely can and. And you're just going to end with the end. Well, I'm looking at the live chat to see if somebody's saying who was actually in their speech before it got interrupted. Because to be honest, I lost track. BD says no idea. So it was definitely me because he said that there were these rules that were playing a game. The only person that said so was Neat Bucks. Thinks it's Tom. So thanks Neat Bucks for that feedback and then an Archaeopteryx act. So we'll go over to Tom and then I promise we'll come right back to you Blake. So he said we're playing a game and there are different rules to achieve the end of the game. The problem is that what is the game and what is the end? He has presumed that the game and the end of the game is about logic and reason about answering the question. The way atheists define the term has nothing to do with that. He's just strawmaning their position. This is irrelevant to the game. It's just this is what our position is. That's it. There's no game here. There's no defeat theist. This is just what do we believe and that's it. That is the game. The game to correctly define languages is what accurately represents their position. It has nothing to do with theists. It has nothing to do with defeating them. It's irrelevant. That isn't the game. The game isn't truth. The game isn't to accurately represent reality, try to discover the ontology of normative ethics doesn't matter. Only part of the game. The rules of the game are what most accurately represents their belief system. The people who use the term atheist to adopt the label what definition most accurately represents what they believe that's the game. Truth doesn't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter. Theists don't matter. Irrelevant. That's it. We will. That's the game. That's the rules. We'll now kick it over to Blake for a chance. Thanks for that, Tom. And Blake, the floor is yours. The language game isn't about truth. Truth doesn't matter. Theists don't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter. I'll rest my case. No argument I could possibly present would be stronger against them than that one. That's how language works. It has nothing to do with truth. It's just about what the usage means, how people use it. Truth is irrelevant. So we can jump into the good old questions if you guys are ready for it. Sounds good to me. Gotcha. All good on your front, Blake? I'm good. You betcha. So thanks so much for your super chat tonight. Michael Dresden, trollish as usual, says atheists say Christians disagree and yet this debate, lol. So if you both want to... Yeah, I get really frustrated with this type of debate because of people like Tom. I think they really hurt our movement. I think they really count against us. And I think Christians are right to point that out. Gotcha. Yes. People like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins they really hurt the movement. Like, oh my god. Like, well, this is such a terrible job for atheists. In certain ways they do. They very much do. No, I'm just, I'm so sad. I'm so sad to be in a group with such terrible feelings. I don't really care how you feel. Those are psychological things. Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure. I don't care how you feel. I'm happy with the support of, you know, logic and reasoning. Gotcha. Next up. Appreciate your, you guys are a fun duo. Josiah Hansen, thanks for your super chat who said boo lack theist crap. Tom, how do you like them apples? I mean, I'd tell you to hold the position there are no gods, but this is just the correct definition. Yeah, he just doesn't want to accept the burden of justification. No, no, I accept the burden. Like, if you've ever watched any of my videos, I accept the burden and I'm happy to take on the position. If you did, then you wouldn't have any problem switching over to this definition. No, no, again, I don't. Trying to find the trigger for its own sake. I've said, no, no, no. I've already said both definitions are fine. You can definitely use both. I've said that too. So then we've resolved that disagreement. But you had your head up your ass and you said that I was claiming that it was wrong and I didn't. I never said that it's wrong to use atheists in that definition. You assumed that. You said correct. You said the correct definition and find that there is a wrong definition. Do you? No, I'm saying correct is in what most accurately represents the people who use her atheism. Doesn't mean it's wrong to use the other definitions. It's just you should be using this one because that's what most atheists use. You can still use it. You should be using this one. I thought it wasn't about should. Right. So like the term gay, just like the term gay, which was the entire premise of my argument. Are you still talking? Wrong to use it as happy. It's not wrong to use it as happy. I never said that. You have your head up your ass. It's totally fine, but we should use it to mean the LGBT community. That is the correct way to use it. Does it make it wrong to use it as happy? No. Did I ever say I did? No, you just have your head up your ass. So atheism is the same thing. It's just the correct way to use it is just the way that the most atheists tend to use it, which is to represent their position, which is they don't, they believe that what theists say is crap. That's it. That's just what it means. Next up, we do appreciate your super chat. Let's see. Opposer of religion says, Blake making T-jump look like a beta boy. Okay. Okay. So if you want to respond to you, Ken, Tom, you don't have to that's fine. These guys are, oh my gosh, the flat fellow who I'm guessing is a, maybe a flat earther. Maybe they remember one of your past flat earth debates. These guys are just grilling you, Tom. They say the flat fellow says, if you keep featuring T-j debating, I won't subscribe. Geez. Flat. I mean, Tom has been a huge, he's been with us since the beginning pretty much. You know, I can't just say. Let's see. Michael Dresden, thanks for your super chat says, T-jump said atheists at conferences agree with him. That's only true for internet atheists with neckbeards. At scholarly conferences, atheists agree with Blake. Atheist conferences, atheists agree with me. So that's kind of what matters. Who identifies with the term and what do they use it to mean? No one cares what the philosophers think. It's like no one cares about the technical usages of certain language. It just doesn't matter to common society. Gotcha. Next up, if you want to respond, Blake, you can. You don't have to. You know, the audience is doing a perfect job for me. Sexy Kelzone. Thanks for your, let's see, your super chat who says, I need a diuretic due to all the salt in the chat. Oh, snap. A lot of salt out there. It's even Steve McCrae. People are like throwing, throwing their poop at Steve McCrae. But, uh, Frank's 92. Thanks for your super chat who says, what's the correct definition of gay, Blake? So they're asking. Like multiple senses. And so I think that the ordinary sense right now is probably understood to be people that are homosexual. Gotcha. Oh, my God. That was my whole point. I win. Thank you. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate Philip. Let's see. Oh, I'm sorry. First 100th monkey says, no one gives a shit. Okay. Geez. Come on. I'm sitting right here. Okay. Next up, uncivil skeptic. Oh, thank you. I appreciate. They say love this channel's content. Click like people. That's very kind of you, uncivil skeptic. Appreciate that. Philip. I like how his name was uncivil skeptic, but he gave a very civil comment. Yeah, that's true. Don't think that irony went unappreciated. That's true. The sweet skeptic, civil skeptic. Philip, glad to have your super chat. They say question for Blake. Are you saying that we should aim to definitively answer the question, does God exist? Yes, I think that we should try to see how reason can come to bear on the question, does God exist or are there any gods? I think that is an incredibly important metaphysical question that we should all take very seriously. Gotcha. And we did have a question as well from, they said what if the question is not answerable though? Then we're agnostics and that's perfect. And so that's a view and it has its merits. I am not an agnostic myself because I think that reason can give us, I think the word used earlier was definitive. I would probably use the word decisive considerations which count against theism and count in favor of atheism. Gotcha. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Cy Gart. Glad to see you Dr. Gart who says, Tom, why do atheist organizations exist? As a gathering point and focal point for people who adopt the position of atheism as a lack of belief to gather around and to have a social network and connection and represent their ideologies and to many of them try to get like religion out of politics, many of them just do humanitarian aid, many of them are just like churches, social gathering points for many atheists that do no political activism at all, all kinds of reasons. It's just a social interaction for people who adopt the label. Gotcha. You got it. Thanks so much. Next up, let's see, we have another, so we have a super chat. Thanks, stupid whore energy as she likes to call herself. She says usages are not correct or incorrect. There is only colloquial or technical. Yep, pretty much. Blake, if you want to respond, you may. Oh, so what I'm saying is, is what language game helps us better answer the question. So that there is a correct or incorrect way of doing it. So one usage is going to be better than another for achieving some aim. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, we do have other standard questions. Kilodoggy won. Thanks for your question. They said, are you 100% confident that only material things exist, aka a materialist? I think they're, okay, for Blake, they're asking. So I would, am I 100% confident? No, but thankfully I do not believe that confidence is part of knowledge. So I'm what's called a metaphysical naturalist. So I believe that the universe is a causally closed system, though I am not a naturalist in the sense that I believe all properties in the universe can be reduced to the stuff of physics and chemistry and biology. So I think things like logic and mathematics and ethics are not the sorts of properties that would be investigated by the natural sciences. So I'm not one of a naive materialist in the sense of believing there's atoms in the void, but I am a metaphysical naturalist in the sense of being something like a neutral modism, something in the vein of John Searle's biological naturalism where there are certain physical properties and then there are non-physical properties, and these are just two different ways of describing the same reality. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, Mitchell, if you're out there, I just realized I did not read this question from last night. I think this must have come in just as we like went off air. Mitchell asked, question for James, are you really 33 years old? Yes. Okay, so 34. You're 34, I'm 33, and Tom is, I think you're like 24, right Tom? What? 24? Yeah, I'm gonna go 24, sure. Gotcha, we like that. He's coming along. He's a little guy, but... Yeah, just like Steve McRae is my dad, I'm 24. That's right. Steve McRae and Tom Jump, that's the debate everybody wants to see. We will be, as you can, as you've maybe heard, will be in Los Angeles next month, March 17th. Destiny and Vosh will be debating in person, and if Steve agrees to it, we could have a discussion on the definition of atheism. With Tom Jump and his father, Steve. That would be an epic one. Steve, think about it, I know you're listening out there. And by the way, we saw Shannon Q in the chat, big day for her. I heard that she got hung up on, on atheist experience today, during their afternoon show. She was, I guess she was farting on the phone so much. They were like, what is going on? And they just hung up on her. Very embarrassing. So, but she tried, that's, you know... To fart on the phone? Well, she tried to not fart, but it was involuntary, so you gotta take it easy. Looks so, appreciate that. General Balsack, thanks for your super chat. They said, just throwing some bucks your way, keep this channel, quote unquote, family friendly. Thanks so much, General Balsack. We appreciate that. And yes, stupid horror energy, it would come to blows if we had, whoa, Ocean says, whoa, Steve says, yes, okay. So, Steve says yes to this discussion with Tom Jump, which would be in person. He said he was gonna be in LA with me, I think. I don't know, like what? I will be in LA with P-Jump. Like, when are we going to LA? Well, listen, we can find a way. We might be able to do this. This would be awesome. In LA? And it would be awesome. Yes. So, that could be like, leading up to Destiny and Vosh, which are, a lot of people don't know, those are also Steve's sons. So, a lot of kids. But, very excited, really fun stuff. We will definitely, like, consider that. So, Shannon, are you out there? Did she leave? I was kidding about, she didn't really, it's not really why she got hung up on. Where is she? So, well, hope you're, hope you're well, Shannon. And, stupid horror energy says, G-Man wins. So, just so you know, if you didn't realize that tonight, G-Man won. Thanks so much for being here, everybody. Is, I guess, well, we do have, we have more, we'll go through a couple more questions. So, let's see. Stupid horror energy, just fired a super chat in. I will be writing erotic, threesome fan fiction, involving James, Steve and Tom. Nasty woman. So, Tioga says, Vosh is my dad. Wait, wait, do I, do I get like some, some money from this? Or do we get proceeds? Is that part of the thing? From the threesome that you do is Steve. That's all your own private, you know, what you do on your time is your time. Old boy, let's see, says, what are Destiny and Vosh debating? That's a great question. I don't know for sure. Let's see. I, I know that they had like a teaser debate where for 20 minutes, I think it got pretty heated. And I think that's on Vosh's and Destiny's channels. So, you might, that might give you a teaser, but I haven't gotten to watch all of it because I've honestly been dying lately. Like it's just been crazy busy. But, 20 faces, thanks for your question. We, we've got more questions. I'm sorry, this is just too fun to stop. We've got 20 faces. Thanks. They said people, to Tom, people can have a lack of belief for at least two reasons because you're unsure of the proposition or because you actively reject it. Surely the latter reflect agnosticism and question mark. Again, the word 80 is just what do people who adopt the word mean by the word? And what they mean by the word is they don't believe the stuff you say. That's, that's how you use the definition. So if people don't actually adopt the term atheism, then you wouldn't call them atheists because they wouldn't adopt the term atheism. You'd call them whatever they adopt and whatever they define that as. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up. Most pedophiles don't identify as pedophiles, but we would still correctly be able to call certain people pedophiles. That's a crime. So we have a label that has an objective definition based off the legal system. Atheism doesn't. It's just a term. Like if you identify it, you get to use it. It's not a crime, thankfully. Used to be. Not anymore. So the fact of it being a crime has to do with anything. Because we're saying, we're saying the definition property of being an atheist or some of it. It's the fact that it has a legal definition with a legal crime makes that definition take precedent. The fact that there's a legal punishment for the definition of pedophile means that has a definition. We're going to use based off of the legal punishment. So you don't just get to make up a new one because there's a legal punishment. There isn't like a legal definition of atheism. Like the government doesn't care how you identify yourself as, because there isn't one legal definition or legal punishment for it. Luckily, it's just like the term gay. There isn't a legal definition of the word gay. You could use it however you want. If you adopt that community, you can use it. And if you don't, then you don't use it. So what if someone didn't identify as gay? What if someone hadn't? And you'd call them what they identify as. If you ask what do you identify as, they can say I identify as blah, blah, blah. We're trying to communicate meetings about properties that people have. If someone is engaging in a homeless school. No, no, no. You call them what they want to be called. You call them what they want to be called. Even if they don't identify. You call them what they want to be called. Is that simple? If they adopt a label, you call them whatever label they want to be called. Is that simple? That is the correct term. You call them what they want to be called. I understand that. But we're talking about communicating meaning. We're not talking about being respectful to what people, what labels people want to be called. We're talking about communicating meaning. These are, these are different things. One is political, the other is linguistic. And the meaning is whatever they want the term to mean. So if an atheist adopts the term atheist and they want it to mean lack of belief, then that is the correct definition. Got you, let's see here. Next up, thanks so much for your question from our dear friend Logos Theos who said, for Tom, why do most atheist philosophers of religion disagree with you about the definition of atheism? Because they're using the philosophical definition not the definition adopted by the larger culture. They are using it, but no. The question was why do they disagree with you? And the answer is not because they use a different definition. There are reasons why they disagree with you. No, they just use a different definition. To quote Graham Hoppe, usage wins out. And right now the major usage is just a lack of belief. So that's totally fine. Gotcha. Let's see here. Appreciate it. Next up, appreciate your question from Clyde Booker who says, can these debaters answer some or none of the questions? Oh, I think they meant to each other. Very feisty. Justin T, thanks for your question. They said, isn't the best strategy, strategy? Oh, we got those actually similar. Thanks so much. Pine Creek, glad to see you again, old friend. It's been a long time with Pine Creek too. We got to chat back and forth. He says, for Blake, do you feel sorry for Theus that they always have to take the burden of proof? Is your passion on this topic out of compassion? No, but I think that's kind of an interesting way of thinking. I never thought about it that way. So I'm a philosopher of religion. And so I just think that both sides are going to have a burden of justification because necessarily the dialectical method, that's what it attempts to do. It tries to use reason discourse to get at the truth. So both sides are going to have burdens of justification. And we're going to try to persuade each other and see what claims can be conceded between the two of them and how disagreements can be resolved and that all parties can, in the end, arrive at the truth. Gotcha. So I don't think it's a compassion for Theism. It's a camaraderie with Theism in trying to answer this important question. Thanks so much. Next up, let's see here. I want to make sure. Josiah Hansen, thanks for your super chat. They said, gay does have a legal definition for discrimination. That is true. It does now also after the term was adopted by the LGBT community. I have to keep going with that. I don't think that the legality of the term has any bearing on the meaning we're trying to communicate with the term. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Onus, thanks for your question. But I am not seeing it. Onus, you're probably going to murder me for this. Please don't. I can't find your question. So I'm sorry about that. So we will ask in the meantime. I do have Kimo Maki. Thanks for your question. Who asks? Please ask Tom. What empirical studies support his contention that the majority of people adhere to his definition? Just going to Atheist conferences and asking them. Like that's pretty much what you do. I mean, we could do the studies if you want. We could go take polls. I think there haven't been actually polls of Atheist conferences and people who identify as atheists in the majority, like Western countries. I don't know about the other ones. So we have those. I can Google them for you if you want. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Mind, Anya, and thanks for your question. They said question for Blake. How can Plato call the belief that gods can be influenced by prayer and atheistic opinion in Book 10 of the Laws if this is the historic philosophical definition? Did Plato use the term atheist? In the original Greek, I don't know. That's an interesting question. I don't think I fully grasp the question that they're asking. Yes, he did, because Socrates was convicted of Atheist and sentenced to death. So yes, Plato did use the term Atheist. Because the term Atheist was used to describe people that did not accept the gods locally. Like they used it to describe Christians. I thought the term was much later, came about much later after Plato. I don't know. The only thing is I don't know. I mean, I'm trying to understand this question. I'm not sure if it would. Are there any other ways? So what they're saying is how can Plato call the belief that gods can be influenced by prayer and atheistic one? He's saying like, hey, this idea that gods can be influenced by prayer, that's like an atheistic idea. And he's trying to push Blake with that. They're thinking that prayer, the gods, that they accepted at the time to think that you could influence their decisions by praying is to be something other than what those local gods were. And that that's why it was atheistic, is because it didn't. Like the gods of the local area were ones that you couldn't influence by prayer. So if someone thought that you could influence God by prayer, there they have some sort of atheistic philosophy in their sense of the term, something not of... So that's the etymological argument, right? So that's the root word for atheism is athios. And so that's how the Greek term athios was used back then. Gotcha. Thank you very much. And Onis, thanks for your question. They said my question was if they understand and can explain the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism. My can't. I don't think that's a real thing. Like in the sense of being useful in any way of just like, I don't need to use, combine different labels to express some sort of unique concept. So there is, I don't even need the term gnostic. Don't even need it. Gotcha. So I mean agnostic atheists would be... Atheists who doesn't know God exists, but believes God doesn't exist. And agnostic atheists would be an atheist who believes God definitely doesn't exist. Knowledge implies belief. Okay. What do you mean? So someone believes you. So again, belief doesn't make a difference. All that matters is what do they mean by the term. The correct usage is what do they mean by the term? Who cares about the philosophy? No one. No one does. So we don't care about the epistemology that they're using. So we're trying to draw a distinction between knowledge and belief. Is that a shirt? What do people mean by the term? That's what they mean by the term. That's it. That's how language works. Nothing else matters. Gotcha. Next up. I want to say thanks so much for being here, folks. And it's been a true pleasure. So we really appreciate it. Always fun. Thanks so much to our speakers who have come on and spent their time with us tonight. It's been truly fun. And so yes, thank you guys so much for being here. Thank you so much for having me. Absolutely. Same as always. Thanks for having us on. Now just for sick pleasure, because the debate is over, that question from Mind Onion on Plato. Well, I wasn't going to say it, because I was like, well, am I impartial if I say this? So he says, hey, didn't Plato say that it's an atheistic belief to say that the gods could be influenced by prayer? And he said, so take that, Blake. It seems to me that this objection would be just as much of a problem for Tom. Because it seems to be saying that Plato thought that atheists in some way meant you believe in some gods, or at least one, because you believe that they could be influenced by prayer. So I'm not sure how this is more damning for Blake than it is for Tom. The original uses of the term atheists didn't specify whether or not it was a positive belief that gods did not exist, or it was just not tithing to the local gods. And so the original uses in Plato's sense, and what Socrates was convicted of the crime of atheists, it just meant not paying homage to the gods of the Romans. And so it didn't actually specify if you did, in fact, believe in a god or not. So the original usage of the term atheists, which is what atheists is derived from, didn't distinguish between lackthious or disbelief, which is kind of the point is that the current usage, like in the dictionary, there's Google dictionary, of a disbelief or lack of belief is actually the correct historical definition. It didn't actually specify a positive rejection of a god until later. And so that's why Plato's uses can use it in that more general sense as a lackthious kind of a definition or a lack of the Roman theist position. Gotcha. Disagreements, Blake. I didn't know. I had heard. I don't know. It's an etymological and historical question that I just don't know. Gotcha. The only reason I bring it up is I love like getting to like think about these like new things or hear these new things. And that's fascinating because I think I had heard from Steve, Tom's dad, that atheist or he had, I thought he had said that it was first coined, but maybe he wasn't saying it was first coined, but maybe just like had a very early usage in which I know that I've heard this from like historical studies of like the early Christians and the Romans, that Christians were sometimes called atheists because they didn't believe in. So that's just interesting. I'm not trying to take sides or anything. It's just that I'm like kind of piecing it together myself. And I have not heard the other side namely like what Steve would say about that because I highly doubt Steve is persuaded by that because Steve agrees with Blake. Steve's an idiot, so. So it's good. We are, it's going to be a huge one if this one happens in Los Angeles folks in which Tom Jump and Steve may sit across from each other and debate and then eventually embrace each other, reuniting as family. So that would be a really fun debate. And so what were you saying, Blake? I didn't hear you. So sorry. When we say Steve, are we talking about the agnostic Pope guy? Yes. Yeah. I don't know very well, but I didn't want to comment on someone I didn't know. You got it. Blake or I'm sorry, Nick L. Olson. Thanks for your super chat just flew in. They said Blake is agnosticism dishonest too. No, I don't think so at all. I think some people genuinely have not think that the question is indeterminate that they do not believe that reason can come to get there any fruitful answer to this question. I just disagree with them. So it's just one of those things where I think the question is determinant and they believe it's indeterminate. So it's just another interesting way in which two non-theists can have an interesting discussion. Gotcha. Thanks so much. We also had a question last one from Pine Creek because I just I love Pine Creek. I love you, Doug. He says question for Blake. You said that what determines the correct definition is how everyone uses it. If 99% of atheists used Tom's definition, would you be okay with it? How about 51% so yeah that so I would then concede that that would be the ordinary sense of the term. So I would still then say that for my art for in my language game for trying to get at the truth for its own sake that my view is better. So nothing on my argument actually hinges on the ordinary sense of the term atheist. So the reason that I it's even brought up is because one of the disadvantages that I think that Tom's view has is that he has this opportunity to introduce confusion into a discussion whereas my view just doesn't run that risk. And so that's why it's important. Gosh yeah thanks so much. With that folks I want to say say goodbye again. Thanks so much for being here. I honestly just say I hate saying goodbye because it's just so much fun. Really appreciate it. It's been a ton of fun tonight. I hope everybody has a great rest of your night and one last final thanks to Tom and Blake for being with us. Thanks again for having me. Take care.