Yes, that's why you define your terms in a conversation. There are plenty of terms that have colloquial and academic definitions: - "quantum theory" or "the germ theory of decease" Or - "my neighbor Bob has a theory about wiping your ass" They're both fine. Just make sure you define them if it would cause ambiguity otherwise.
In my informal uninformed opinion, if you’re engaged in a philosophical debate between philosophers then use these philosophical terms. If you’re engaged in a casual conversation with a friend or coworker then ask your interlocutor what they mean about being an atheist and just work with that. Trying to use formal philosophy on your casual friend can have a negative outcome on the relationship.
@@andres.e. Nope. We are talking about a label that is been put on people saying what the think and what their position is which they totally don't subscribe to. It's like telling every theist that he/she is a Muslim.
@Frances Snowflake You think this is a game.of.semantics but it's not. Yes theism is belief in a god. But in order to believe in a god you need to have a positive claim or accept someone's positive claim. As soon as you have a positive claim you ow have to substantiate.your claim. Or at least explain why in your opinion that believe is justified.
@@Carlos-fl6ch that's funny because "atheists" usually have a similar habit to that which you just described of telling every "theist" that they are Christian.
The only reason why "atheist" took up the "lacktheism" banner dropped by Anthony Flew (before Flew virtually accepted theism over his long held atheist position) is to avoid having to defend their "atheism". Claiming atheism is not a positive position but negative therefor requiring no defence or "BOP" ("Burden of Proof"). Great talk. God Bless.
To play devils advocate: if one is genuinely a believer of lacktheism then a redefinition is justified given that is what they believe. If this is true then it is not an epistemic tactical maneuver. I'm not sure the theist can impose their strong atheist definition on the atheist, if the atheist just dont believe in strong atheism.
Thats actually not true, claiming a positive negative does require a BOP. If I claim that the earth ISNT round, id have to support my claim with evidence
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices all of what you said is irrelevant. The existence of God has already been proven through deductive arguments with sound premises
Lacktheism isn't really sincere because the people who supposedly lack a belief are ardently involved in the conversation. I lack a belief on whether Python or Perl is a better programming language for certain applications. Because I'm not a programmer, I do not know about programming,, and I'm also not involved passionately within those conversations. That is an actual "lack of belief." Not lacktheism.
Asserting that atheism is a lack of belief is like saying it is a condition of some sort, beyond your personal control, rather than a purposeful intellectual ascent to a knowledge claim. It`s ridiculous and a terrible copout.
No, it's just describing what I think, rather than what some theist _wants_ me to think. I don't believe in a god or gods (because I've never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that any god is real). I don't claim that gods _can't_ exist, though. How could I possibly claim _that?_ I'm evidence-based. That means I try to apportion my beliefs to the evidence. (As you know, evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking.) And I can't even _imagine_ what kind of evidence there might be - even hypothetically - that an invisible, immaterial, magical being _can't_ exist, somewhere. So why would I _claim_ that I know that? Theists seem to try very hard to make their gods unfalsifiable. OK. That's fine with me, because I _still_ can't believe their claims, as long as they have _nothing_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing them up. But then, they want me to claim that their gods _don't_ exist, in order to shift the burden of proof. Sorry. Even though you really, really _want_ me to do that, I'm still evidence-based, not faith-based. I hold the position I hold for a reason. If you can argue against my position, then go right ahead and do so. I'm listening. But don't insist that I hold some _other_ position, just because you think it would be easier to argue against _that._
@@Bill_Garthright you haven't seen evidence that The Universe exists? The Universe is synonymous with The Pantheistic God. Since there is undeniable evidence for such a God, it follows logically that atheism is false.
@@Bill_Garthright The trouble is atheists don't know they're deluding themselves into calling evidence no evidence. Pattern and complexity alone is enough to infer an intelligent mind. The odds of life forming by mere chance is impossible. You don't have to be smart to know this. When are you going to stop deluding yourself?
@@extract8058 _The Universe is synonymous with The Pantheistic God._ *Evidence?* That's an easy claim to make, but it's _just_ a claim. The universe is evidence that the universe exists, that's all. Now, admittedly, you can call your _dog_ "God," if you want, and then claim that "atheism is false" since "God" exists. I don't know why you'd expect me to take that seriously, though. You can't define a god into existence. You can play games, certainly. But does anyone take your games seriously? If you've got more than games, let's hear it. Start by defining what you mean by "The Pantheistic God" and explaining why anyone should take that seriously.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 _Pattern and complexity alone is enough to infer an intelligent mind. The odds of life forming by mere chance is impossible. You don't have to be smart to know this._ No, I guess you just have to be smart to see how that is complete nonsense. Claims are easy. Do you have anything _but_ claims? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your claims are actually _true?_ Then why should I believe you?
I dont mind taking the "agnostic" label in a conversation with someone who understands terms this way and has done some homework in philosophy. However, in my day-to-day interactions with people, I find that saying I'm agnostic can imply to people that I'm just wishy-washy, and really not sure what I think, or just need one invite to church to settle things, or havent taken time to consider either way. And that's completely not true. I think about these things almost every day. I've watched many of the conversations hosted right here on this channel. And the journey continues, but I dont believe in God at all and havent for over two years. I agree that language is important, and needs to be very precise in formal debates and such. But when I want to communicate "I dont believe in any gods, and think the christian God in particular makes no sense to me." Agnostic doesnt communicate that message as well as "atheist" does in an everyday conversation. Should I perhaps use "agnostic atheist." Anyone else want to weigh in here?
Maybe the term you use should be determined by the context you're in. So if 'atheist' works in every day conversation and 'agnostic' does not, it would seem counterproductive to change that.
"I'm agnostic"=/="I'm AN agnostic". And someone saying they don't know about a very hard to nail down matter of fact isn't wishy washy. It's not sports. If one wishing to avoid wishy washyness by reputation over truth drives a social stigma in honesty vs tribalism. That's how you get European "christians" who don't even believe in God... and it's how you get lacktheism, genuine shallowness enshrouded in maximally defensible rhetoric while having all the support of the atheist tribe, while not actually having any real position.
@@prosperitynuggets I would be fine doing that! Not that I'll ever be asked to an formal debates. But in a deep conversation with someone who knows these philosophical definitions of positions, I'm willing to use agnostic to describe myself. It's just that those are rare, compared to the rest of the brief and more shallow interactions with others when talking about faith and beliefs.
@@ravissary79 I get that you dont hear the term "agnostic" and think "wishy-washy," but it's been my experience that people who are not familiar with philosophical terms get that impression. The conversations hosted on this channel ask, "Does God exist?" I'm agnostic on this, I dont know. But day to day, I'm being asked, "Do you believe in God?" And there, I dont want to imply that "I dont know" I want to imply "No.". But unless its phrased this exact way, I tend to say I'm an atheist over agnostic, because that seems to communicate my answer to the question that people asking more truthfully.
An atheist is someone that doesn’t believe in god. Here’s an example: hey do you believe in god? No. Then you are an atheist. Its not that complicated.
@@asgaiyawaya3973 I believed in God growing up, my whole family is catholic with no atheists I know of. Going into my teenage years I started having doubts and questions, I suppressed those thoughts for years and felt guilty for them. By about 18 or 19 confronted these doubts and questions, finally 2 or 3 years later I realized I didn’t have any GOOD reasons to believe in God, it was just what I was raised to believe. And thats where I’m at today, I just don’t see anything convincing - I don’t have a belief in God.
@@LosChongo I didn't ask for your biography neither am I interested in one. Why? Because I have heard 1000 different I use to be a christian stories each one more boring then the last one and they all typically have one of 4 different patterns 1. You confused God with some sort of Magic Genie and got a chip on your shoulder when you found out he wasn't. 2. You got on a moral high horse on the bible not realizing that a. attacking a religion's actions is not a truth argument and b. you never took motive into consideration when anyone with an inkling of legal authority knows you can't judge anything as evil or wrong without looking at the motive and atheists almost never do. 3. Mom, dad, paster, priest whatever gave you a bad experience that not even a percent of all Christians experience. 4. You bought into someone else's BS about religion without anything closely resembling a careful examination of the evidence. So spare me the BS stories and just bluntly state why you don't believe in God.
Holy heck! MoR literally explained so succinctly what I’ve been trying to explain to atheists for ever. I’m an agnostic, and every time I tell that to an atheist, they fire back with “agnosticism is only a statement of knowledge/certainty.” I hate this, because it pigeon-holes me into the atheist camp (via their definition) when I really don’t associate myself with that view at all. Theists don’t do this, by contrast-to their credit. Thank you, MoR.
That's nonsensical. There are many different definitions over the ages. Theists prefer the metaphysical definition because than they can indeed shift the burden of proof. This is BS because of different reasons..the first being that the god hypothesis is non falsifiable. Thus it's nonsensical to try and disprove. Atheist recently found that the epistemic psychological meaning better suits there position and thus this is the colloquial usage of the word. It's time that people begin to understand that a word is not important it's ideas that count. Ask people what they believe and what not and that's it. Just forcing your definition to people is condescending and smug.
@@Carlos-fl6ch I’m not forcing my definitions on anybody. If anything, my original charge was that atheists are forcing this new definition on everyone else. You yourself admit as much in the latter half of your comment. Also, I’d contend that words in fact *do* matter-very much so-precisely *because* they point to ideas/concepts. Words are not a thing to change willy-nilly to best suit your subjective worldview. That only works for subjectivism. But suppose I reject subjectivism (as I do)?-then words are all the more important because they point to things congruent with objective truth, in so far as it’s assumed to be the case. God is “non-falsifiable”, as you say (I prefer the term unaffirmable, myself-fewer negative connotations, you see). Regardless, if we both admit that the argument at hand is purely conjectural, given the aforementioned unfalsifiability of God, then whether one believes of not seems to be of little importance, at the very least because the metaphysical question at hand cannot be proven (at least empirically). Why, then, do atheists seem so hellbent on tearing down religion? Why!-for reasons *other* than the metaphysical proposition of God/gods. That is why I don’t want to side with the atheists, being that I see a lot of beauty and truth and good in religion, and frankly think the world is all the more beautiful for it. BUT, given that I “don’t know” whether God/gods exist, I cannot therefor claim to be a theist. Does this salient conviction alone make me an atheist? Not if your definition of atheism is a positive one, as MoR points out in this video.
@The Real Cat of 2020 Not according to many atheists. For many, agnosticism exists definitionally on a y-axis, as a statement of capable knowledge, whereas (a)theism exists on the x-axis, as a statement of belief. In their view, you can be an agnostic-theist (one that supposably holds the position that they don’t know if God exists, but believe so anyways). I think there are a number of problems with this view, not least the ones MoR pointed out in this clip.
@The Real Cat of 2020 that isn't correct. An agnostic theist can say, "I dont know with certainty that God exists, but I do believe that he best explains reality." Agnosticism is about what can be KNOWN. Theism and atheism are about BELIEF.
Any other questions that enter the discussion like: Do you think a God is possible? Do you know for a fact a God exists or not? Are separate questions with separate defined answers. I don't know why they have to make this so difficult and hide behind philosophy and definitions.
@@hldemi Why turn the question into an epistemic one when the ontological question is way more relevant? Solution: Does God exist? Yes-theist No-atheist I don't know-agnostic
@@vincentiormetti3048 The problem is that no one knows. You have people you claim a God does exist, and those who claim a God does not. The only justified position is "I don't know", so the question of whether or not you believe in a God is more relevant to people.
It is not the lack of _belief_ that determines an atheist. It is the solid rationale to remain in the default position of atheism because there is a lack of EVIDENCE.
Im an atheist and I totally agree here. If you are talking about what someone believes then talk about the phycological state and if you are talking about arguments without any psychological states involved then use atheist in a negation role.
@Excuse me but So theists are brave when they challenge the status quo of atheistic identity? Or are you saying its brave for lacktheists to change the definition of atheism from a propositon to a psychological state to avoid philosophical scrutiny?
@Frances Snowflake I'm not sure what you mean? I suppose the act of being a theist is psychological, but the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean if I misunderstood.
As an atheist, I share your frustration for the lack of appreciation for good philosophy and dealing with the best arguments on both sides. In general, I wish the basics of philosophy were taught earlier in school and were more required for much of education. It’s a big blind spot. On that note, I empathize with atheist frustration over Apologetics. It sometimes feels like a millennia old game of moving the goalposts, even if you don’t see it that way. There’s some underlying feeling that is hard to describe in language that if the arguments for gods existence were any good, they wouldn’t need to be constantly updated. Good philosophy can be exhausting to many.
You could say the same things for arguments against God, like the argument from evil. Philosophy, like any other academic field, is subject to refinement with new discoveries.
It's amazing to me the lengths atheists go to make their point seem relevant. It doesn't have to be this difficult to express your belief that something exists or doesn't. All belief, whether you think something is true or not, is anchored directly in you coming to a conclusion based off many different things that you've seen, heard, read, experienced and so forth. Really not that hard.
We know of four elementary forces in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. Do you believe there is a 5th elementary force? It's easy to decide according to you, right? Then just go and win the Nobel Prize.
@tkwtg asking atheists to disprove God is not really a respected or common technique among theists. The only time I can see it used is if they're a shitty presupper (not the same as a regular presupper). Atheists are far more likely to do a motte and bailey between "I merely lack belief" and "there is no God".
“By lack-theism what I mean is that most people define atheism as a lack of belief. But here’s what a philosopher says.” Me: *scrambles for multiple dictionaries* Dictionary Consensus: “lack of belief in a god or diety” Ah okay. Cool.
@North Korea Is Second Best Korea directly from Merriam-Webster: belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. Sounds to me like a claim that carries a burden of proof, or you don’t understand burden of proof.
Not to mention plenty of philosophers define atheism as an absence of belief and distinguish between negative and positive atheism with the latter being just one subset of atheism. To claim otherwise is a popular pastime for armchair philosophers on the internet, like these two in this video.
@@FrankWinchester correct. Beliefs themselves do not carry burden of proof. But if that belief then carries on to some claim about reality, like I believe the earth is flat, then i do have a burden of proof.
@@ivanvnucko3056 Easy. Santa is supposed to be a real person who is locked in time at a certain age and lives in Lapland the whole year and is all over the planet one night a year. Simply impossible. QED. Next.
Merriam-Webster: a) a lack of belief or strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods Unless Webster's is out of step with English speakers, I'd say, from definition (a), that lack-theists do not use the term "atheist" without warrant.
Merriam Webster is no longer objective with their definitions and word entries. They have a clear political bias and it shows with new entries into their dictionaries of silly media buzzwords such as "anti-vaxxer"
@@Thundawich And what distinguishes them from philosophy dictionaries such that philosophy dictionaries have no relevance? A dictionary of philosophy is merely a compendium of words frequently used in philosophical discussion and their meanings. When you engage in discussion about the existence or nonexistence of deities, then whether you like it or not, you're engaged in a philosophical discussion.
@Frances Snowflake "Atheists tend to insist we use common usage definitions." Yea because most people aren't deeps into philosophy. "The problem is, if we do that, theists don't incur a burden of proof." Incorrect, theists are the ones making the claim that I god exists therefore the burden of proof in on them.
Who cares about the label? The label isn't the important thing. And it's not as though it would take me more than a few seconds to describe my position. Arguing about the label seems to be a way that theists avoid arguing against what I actually _think._ It's just a way to stall, isn't it?
I discussed with someone who said an atheist (an ex-Mulsim) is a closet Christian because he (supposedly) only criticize Islam and real atheists have to criticize all religions. That atheist said in a video " I certainly do not believe in God, I'm convinced there is no God." I replied, saying atheists don't need to criticize religions, atheists can be religious, that atheist sometimes criticized Christianity, and he's an ex-Muslim who doesn't know much about Christianity as Islam. Another atheist interfered, saying that we're using the word "atheist", invoking the "original meaning", that the Greek meaning didn't change and atheist is not believing in theism: "Theist means believer (of gods/gods), atheist means non believer. It's Greek and it's written in stone, so to speak. Do not try to wash it out by being a simpleton/pseudo intellectual." He also said: "If you semi believe in a god or other fairytales, you're an agnostics." I cited an etymological dictionary, definitions, and how the word is used - namely between me and the other person. That guy said he wasn't reading my comments and accused me of being arrogant, pseudointellectual, etc. ... but refuses to explain his accusations and other claims. I'm not saying all atheists are like this (I'm an atheist) and I don't think "lack-theism" is the biggest mistake, but those aggressive comments about a definition and behaving like trolls are problems.
Cool, do I get to define what defines what a Christian is? In the first 5 minutes he's making a strawman. Typical apologist. Try this for a definition: An atheist is anyone who is aware of the deity conjecture and rejects it.
Also as an Agnostic or Atheist we don't have to make a case for the truth... It's just we don't believe or we believe in God just not the man made religions.
You don’t even have to redefine the definition of a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. An atheist can be a follower of Jesus without ever having to fall down and worship him as deity or a messianic figure head.
I use agnostic atheist. I define the terms as such: (Claims of belief) Theist- One who believes a god exists. Atheist- One who does not believe a god exists. (This is inclusive of those that have the active belief that a god does not exist) (Claims of knowledge) Gnostic- One who has knowledge about the existence of a god Agnostic- One who does not have knowledge about the existence of a god --- A gnostic theist, would be one who believes and knows (that is, claims to know) a god exists. An agnostic theist would be one who believes a god exists, but doesn’t know if a god exists. A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe a god exists and claims to know whether or not a god exists. An agnostic atheist is one who doesn’t believe or know if a god exists. --- The 50/50 or dichotomy wouldn’t be “does God exist?” in regards to belief. ‘I don’t know’ may be the most intellectually honest answer to give to a question of knowledge. The 50/50 would be “do you believe a god exists?” Yes or No covers all bases here.
Redefining a term in a nebulous manner is something akin to moving the goalpost - hide the ball so no one can play. It's not about philosophy, good or bad. It's about getting to keep your belief no matter how irrational or unsupported that belief is. In my experience most atheists debating or discussing theism or religion on the Internet are 'weak' atheists - they are not fully convinced of atheism but they really want to be. Losing a point means losing their 'faith' and they would rather argue incoherently than accept being wrong even on minor points. Basically, people dodge arguments when they are afraid of being wrong about a core or dearly held belief. Sure, you'll see the same lack of confidence in some Christians, but atheism seems to be trying to corner the market.
You could say I'm a 'weak' atheist, as its often described as not knowing if a god exists or not, but I always found that way of describing it to be pretty dumb as it gives the feeling that I'm unsure if I don't believe in a god or if I do. But I'm fully convinced that I don't have a believe in any gods, but nor am I claiming that no gods exist. I'm an agnostic atheist.
@@darrylelam256 While you are by no means obligated to assign full confidence to any particular theory, if you can't argue for a less-than-stellar confidence in theism, you have conceded the argument. In philosophy, all claims bear the burden of proof, but uncontested claims are just that, uncontested. As such, atheists, Christians, and agnostics all bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why their position is, in fact, rational.
@@jonathandoe1367 But I'm not making any claim on the existence of a god. I'm simply stating that I don't have a belief that one exists. Therefore no burden of proof.
The ordinary usage of "is some one who lacks belief in a god or gods" (as used by most atheists, not as defined in most philosophical dictionaries). So it's not a matter of us defining ourselves as we want (and as you don't want), but the ordinary usage, particularly among atheists. Can you not deal with that definition? Is that why theist attacks on atheism are generally strawman attacks. But I see many apologists do this, attack their idea of athiesm. Since zygotes and subatomic particles don't have the capacity to believe (as noted), and an athiest isn't something that believes, but someone, and since these two examples are known to be impossible, "S lacks a belief in a god or gods" is sufficient to establish that S is an atheist. This does not mean that S is a bad communicator, when that would fall to you for insisting that S define atheism to your satisfaction. You know what S believes sufficiently to move the conversation forward. And if you don't, you're in the wrong business. Because nothing reported in this video is conducive to creating dialog. Atheism is a matter of belief. A-theism: the absence of theistic belief that entails NO OTHER philosophical position. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. A-gnostic: one who lacks knowledge. And since all atheists lack knowledge of god, all atheists are also agnostic, but all agnostics are not atheist since in having no knowledge, the agnostic has no opinion about god. Yes, I would consider the 50/50 person to be an atheist. You are instead describing a skeptic. "the experts who define these terms" is an appeal to authority fallacy. Basically arguing the athiests must define themselves as you dictate. If someone tells you that they lack a belief in god, how does that impede you from moving forward with the conservation?
The biggest mistake atheists do is saying: "I don't have evidence for the existence of God" , by using I they r presupposing their own existence without any evidence.
the points he gives to show why definitions are important are really reasons why definitions are problematic. The meaning of a word often does not correspond to the definition shared by the greatest number of minds
This statements about the lack of education and non engaging with the best versions of arguments is frustrating. It's not the problem that non-theist do not know some modern version of kalam, it's just that it is only more convoluted, but the same archaic nonsense based on the thousands years old worldviews. It's like if you would still think that aether exists and in those years you would create complex theories about it's properties. These theories would maybe be complex and impressive but still have nothing to do with reality.
@@Sednoob Funny you should ask that. Spacetime, as we know it, is somewhat similar to the idea of aether (although mechanically quite different, of course). Matter itself is requires spacetime to exist, and spacetime is predicated on quantum fields, which are themselves just streams of mathematical data. So, in a way, it is true that light does require a medium, it's just not the Newtonian idea of a medium. I'm not sure if that qualifies as belief in the aether, but the intuition upon which this theory was grounded in was at least partially correct, though the specifics were quite a bit off (as one would expect for holding a Newtonian model of a non-Newtonian Universe).
The problem is that the original arguments were rock solid, and have been rephrased slightly for clarity, to keep up with recent developments in philosophy, or to incorporate new discoveries as part of the evidence. You can read Plato or Aquinas today, (in fact, I recently purchased a copy of the Republic) and it would be no different than when it was proposed. The thing about logic is that it, like the Prime Mover, must necessarily be timeless. I will say that some arguments do need reworking, such as Des Carte's Trademark Argument. If it were rephrased as an inductive argument with some better articulated premises, and incorporated contemporary evidence such as neuroscience or evo-psych, it would be a decent argument, but not the strongest.
@@jonathandoe1367 Aether is as "somewhat similar" to Spacetime as a car is somewhat similar to a road. Sure a car and a road are both medium for you to travel, but that's about it. Calling them "somewhat similar" is quite an interesting sketch, and it's even worse with Aether and Spacetime. Aether was supposed to be a material that fill everywere in the universe, while Spacetime is a propriety of the universe itself. It's a significant shift on how to think about the universe. For the first time, the universe was explain throught property that weren't reductible to what was inside the universe. The motivation behing my comment was to be found elsewere thought. Turn out that William Lane Craig do believe in the existance of aether, and reject Einstein Spacetime. And it's not at all a motivated reasoning of course.
Yes, and as an atheist I prefer epistemological definitions over metaphysical definitions. "I am not convinced by theistic claims" is not in and of itself "a belief" and it certainly is not an affirmative position, either for, or against the proposition of the existence of God. It is a rejection position of, "I am not convinced", which requires no burden of proof!
@@coffeetalk924 Thanks for your reply. As a Christian I am often not 100% sure about anything. I have searched for answers my whole life because of it. Anyway, my question is if someone is only 90% sure that God does not exist, is that person an atheist?
@@passthebaton7916 There is no such thing as 90% sure, or unsure. There is only 100% sure that God is the best explaination for reality, or not. Either you believe in X, or you do not believe in X. There is no grey area. Is a woman ever 90% pregnant? (Polite laugh). Either she is 100% pregnant, or she is 100% not pregnant. Agreed?
@@coffeetalk924 I don't really agree. After working in the OR for 20 years I have helped either deliver a baby or products of conception on several women who did not know or were not 100% sure that they were pregnant....don't get me wrong here. I know that they were 100% pregnant because the evidence showed me that they were. But yet they didn't know it. They only knew they were bleeding and something was wrong or just didn't feel right....and lets face it if "pregnancy starts with conception then every single women who is pregnant, is probably pregnant before she knows it 100%.
@@passthebaton7916 it's completely irrelevent whether they knew they were pregnant. You're missing the point. Either they are 100% pregnant, or they are 100% not pregnant. There is no 90% pregnant. And the analogy to God belief is exactly the same thing here! Either you believe in X, or you do not believe in X. There is no, "well, I sort of do and I sort of don't!" That would be nonsense!
Nowhere, I was just observing that the suffix and the prefix can be interpreted as being applied in two differenti orders, giving the meaning of "absence (a) of belief(ism) in dities(the)" or "belief in the absence of deities".
@@giovannironchi5332 The issue here is with the long history of adapting Greco-Latin word parts into English and similar languages. When a- or ana- is used, it is more typically used to negate the core reference of the word, and not the suffix indicating the form. On the other hand, non- is used for just such a purpose. So atheist would read as "agentive noun of not-god", whereas nontheist would read as "not agentive-noun-of-god". It's much clearer at getting the point across, and already exists as a word. It becomes pretty apparent in typical usage that the term is a motte-and-bailey for the traditional definition. Such "lacktheists" suppose that they aren't making a claim, and thus have no burden of proof, which therefore makes their position true by default. The issue with this this is pretty simple. If one claims only that he doesn't believe something, he only bears the burden to prove that he isn't lying or mistaken about his own beliefs (which, to be fair, people often can be, on some level). However, what you believe in has no direct bearing on the external world. Therefore, even if his claim is true, he isn't detracting from theism in any way. To oppose theism, he must suppose it false, which would require evidence. Also, many state that there "is no evidence", or that they haven't seen any evidence. Ironically, these are claims which too bear the burden of proof. If a theist supposing something amounts to evidence, the atheists must demonstrate how it does not function as evidence. This is all very well understood in academia, where "lacktheism" is not taken seriously by atheists. In an argument, if there is only one claim anyone is willing to argue for, it must be treated as the most likely claim. If atheists claim nothing, then theism, ironically, becomes true by default. That why every atheist scholar actually supposes evidence for atheism, and gives an argument of why it is more likely than theism.
For the 10,000th time, theism deals in belief, gnosticism deals in knowledge. So if I ask someone if they believe in God and they reply, "I don't know," they haven't answered my question. I didn't ask what you know. I asked what you believe.
@Frances Snowflake Yes but you BELIEVE that something exists, but you can't show that it exists yet you expect others to believe too then you do indeed have a burden of proof.
I've had this happen numerous times. "You don't know if you believe in god?" - "No. I don't know if god exists" "That's not what I asked. Do you believe in god?" - "I just told you: I don't know" Somehow, this is very difficult
@@tomwimmenhove4652 I think its likely to avoid getting the reply of 'Can you prove there is no god' because I often get that when I say I don't believe in any gods.
@Frances Snowflake "Theism is not defined as expecting anything of anyone." DUH, that's because theism isn't a F'ing person, theists on the other hand are people and do expect things of other people. "But if a theist expects you to believe God exist" Of course they do, hint its why I know your name so well because you can't seem to stop talking about god to others because you are not satisfied with just you believing but that you also want others to believe. "doesn't incur a burden of proof" YES IT DOES! If you are unable to provide evidence for your claim that a god exists then there is literally no reason to believe. You're hopelessly confused
@Frances Snowflake "Prove it" If you had the guts to answer the question in the other tread I could do so very easy. But despite me asking over and over again, not only have you refused to answer but you have repeatedly tried to lie about what I said.
....and once again a guy who doesn't understand Philosophy and just wrote an ignorant comment that is supposed to implicate a cheap "drop the mic" moment. Bro watch the video and understand what he is saying before commenting he makes some interesting points regarding the problems that comes up with the common usages of the word Atheist. Also this guy isn't an apologist! Bro why are there so many Atheists in the comment who think by challenging the term Atheism means they are affirming God belief? Even if we disprove the term Atheist and say the term makes no sense than that still doesn't prove God! Like why are they this insecure and emotional about a term!?
@@lobstered_blue-lobster.... Yeah. One of us two does seem rather emotional about this term Atheist or Atheism.. One of us. ;) But.. go ahead.. and I will continue answer the question.. "Do you think a God exist?" My answer will still be, No. Call that answer whatever you or any philosopher want to call it... it does change the fact that I do not believe a God exist. Keep up the good works.. you're helping people become atheists every day. ;)
@@lamaar8252 ok first of all I do apologize fir the off rant in my comment it was a bit unintentional I am sorry I just read so many of these comments who didn't even bother to watch the video and commented that just seeing the title. And sure terms doesn't matter to you, these terms merely exist to simplify beliefs if you decided to not employ them than sure but just be clear with your beliefs so we can communicate well. And also I am helping people become Atheist? That just proves how dumb you guys are really that you are persuaded by rhetoric and not the argument itself. Your kind off mindset just shows why weird beliefs like Flat Earth exists because they are perpetuated by intelligent conman who use strong rhetoric, if you become/became an Atheist because of how I phrased my argument that speaks a lot about your intellectuality and intelligence. I am fairly sure you didn't even go beyond the 5 minute mark but it's interesting just as I finished watching that i found your reply, (not saying it was by some God talking to me just a coincidence) in the video they talked about people like you use strong rhetoric to hide your weak beliefs which could easily be demolished with 30 seconds of critical thought. People like you don't want to know the truth but simply want to believe in what you want to believe in.
@@lamaar8252 "You are helping people becoming Atheists everyday" I know I already replied but I wanted to give more of my thoughts, I think it is sad that you and other people are being persuaded by rhetoric than argumentation as I said in my previous comment, it speaks volumes about why superstition or stupid beliefs survive because they are perpetuated by intelligent pollemicists and conman that people are so easily comvinced by because of the gotchas and sarcasm and other techniques they use. You did those same things as well to be persuasive and insult me never giving a critical thought about my argument. Your replies just embodies everything wrong with communication. It's just a sad sight to see tbh.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster "People like you don't want to know the truth but simply want to believe in what you want to believe." I would call this a good definition of PROJECTION! :) "And also I am helping people become Atheist? That just proves how dumb you guys are really that you are persuaded by rhetoric and not the argument itself." Arguments? Really? This what I mean by wasting time discussing what an atheist is to an apologist, or defender of faith.. or whatever you want to call yourself. I, myself, do not care about the arguments.. I care about evidence.. Tangible. Recordable. Measurable. Testable. Challengeable and Reliable EVIDENCE. Hell, One could "Argue" that this universe was farted into existence by a gargantuan fire breathing Unicorn.. But.. @CapturingChristianity would tell you... "arguments are not evidence." ;) That is why.. when one ask the question.. "Do you believe in God," My answer is No. Which makes me an.. Atheist. Am I willing to change my mind? Yes.. How? WITH EVIDENCE. I hope that helps. Cheers.
Everybody I know who are not atheists know exactly what I mean when I say atheist mean someone who doesn't believe in god's . I'll never understand why apologist go on and on about this it has no bearing on anything substantive
When I first heard the word 'atheist' is when I told someone that I didn't believe in a god. The believer is the one who called me an atheist when I told them I did not have a belief in a god. I however do understand the reason why apologist go on and on about it, they can't actual present anything that can show a god to be real, so instead they try to make others prove that it's impossible that there exists some kind of god. Its a shifting of the burden of proof, which is most commonly seen as 'well you can't prove that god doesn't exist' as if that somehow validates their baseless claim that one does.
@Jon Well atheism is a lack of belief. If you don't have a belief in something than you lack a belief in it. If you don't have a belief that a good exists than you lack the belief that a god exists.
@Jon I did. They are ignoring the common usage definition and claiming that only the philosophical definition is correct. But most people don't care much about philosophy. But the common usage of atheist is anyone who is not a theist. And if you're not a theist that means you do not have a belief in a god, if you do not have a belief in a god that means you lack a belief and a god. This is all very simple and common things that they are ignoring.
@Jon So what are we mssing everything @darryle Elam made sense to me. I did watch the video . You don't believe in Zeus I assume there for you lack a believe in Zeus. Are you saying you don't lack a believe in Zeus but still don't believe in Zeus
@Jon Atehsim disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods - Oxford dictionary a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods - merriam-webster Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. - wikipedia Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. - American atheists You aren't going to to fine a more common definition of atheism than a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Following a religion does not mean you are a theist. Acting as if you belief a God exist does not mean you believe a God exist. There is no problem where you claim there is a problem.
Yeah exactly! One who acts to believe in God does not actually believe in God and furthermore if he says we need to carve up space for the term Agnostic because it exists than why aren't we ought to do the same with term "Christian Atheist"? That term exists to and perfectly fits the definition of a Pascallian Theist.
Its stupid to call atheism a belief, "a" means "not", so its "not theism". If you're not a theist, then you don't believe in god(s). The dictionary definition tends to be a person that lacks belief in god(s). So that rules out atoms and cement mixers as being atheists. That seems a little dodgy to bungle in that extra condition, but I can see the practical value of it.
Yes, "I'm not convinced by theistic claims" is not in and of itself "a belief". If all the religions in the world were channels on a television, atheism would not be a channel on the list....it would be the OFF button!
@@coffeetalk924 I watched a bit more, 5:25, that makes sense, but then he says there's no room for agnostics on that picture, that makes no sense to me at all. 7:06, they should count as an atheist, since they don't believe in god. 7:56, the negation of theism is not the denial of anything, whoever said that should be shot. 8:53, if theism is just belief in god(s), then its not true or false, the same way atheism isn't. The thing being believed would be true or false though.
@@colinjava8447 *The thing being believed would be true or false though* He’s summarizing Paul Draper’s argument. Draper distinguishes between the psychological state of accepting a claim, and the content of the claim itself, defining theism as the latter. In other words, theism is not a _psychological state_ but the assertion _God exists._
@@colinjava8447 It's true that "A" is a negative, but "A" can just as easily mean "no", not "not". Theos means God Atheos means No God Ism means belief Therefore, atheism means "No God *belief".* No-God-Belief = A belief that states there is no God.
@@nathanaelculver5308 I thought theism was just belief in god(s)? Where does the assertion come in? I believe there are no gods, but I'm not asserting it.
"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." -Wikipedia It's almost as if words often have several applicable definitions depending on scope and context. Maybe just agree on definitions when debating somebody, and then get to the actual subject matter?
I actually agree with most of these points and have thought about some my self. I would have no problem describing myself as a non theist instead of atheist to describe my lack of belief. Great guest to have on the channel more regularly! 👍🏻
non theist makes about as much sense as atheist. Why not just call yourself "a person who lives as though God does not exist, selfish and unconcerned about others"?
@@lucaedwards3576 Did you not read the part about "living as though God does not exist"? Many consider themselves "fair and good people". Where do they get this concept of "fair and good" from? KKK members considered themselves doing mankind a favor (being fair and good) when they lynched African Americans. Atheists are generally pawns of the oppressors. Most of them have no idea who they serve, so I am not surprised at your response.
Theists should be glad 'lack-theists' are not pressing they have positive proof there is no such thing as deity. It should make the debate simpler, right? No complicated 'natural a-theology' to muddy the water. All we are asking the theist to do is define deity coherently, then provide verifiable evidence said deity is more than just a brain-state, and it may get a fair hearing among those of us who identify as 'lack-style' atheists. BTW, Draper's preference for treating atheism as purely propositional is simply an occupational hazard. He is a philosopher, so of course he debates propositions, not brain states. I get it. But at least he recognizes the distinction. Theism (or lack thereof) as a subjective brain-state is not the same thing as an objective proposition. When viewed as a brain state, it makes sense to treat the negation as the negation of a belief, a lack of belief. Despite your appeal to 'nontheist,' I'm confident most ordinary 'lack-theists' are approaching this as a question of belief, not a proposition problem, and 'atheist' vs 'nontheist' as interchangeable terms. That might drive rigorous philosophical types batty, but it also might be why so many people in this debate keep talking past each other, playing this annoying little game of shifting the burden of proof. And according to your citation from Huemer, one could view it as a totally valid expression of the linguistic model of that community. Which gets to a bigger issue. In your apologetics, pinning your argument on prescriptive definitions rooted in a propositional mindset may win you points with the theistic in-group. But for those of us just trying to live our lives as close to reality as we can, this attempt to lock us into your linguistic model so you can play 'shift the burden of proof' doesn't really gain you anything. For example, labelling people as 'bad communicators' because they don't use 'atheism' propositionally? Seriously? That's not the real issue. The real issue is that philosophical theism as a propositional science is a very weak tool for real life apologetics. In the grand scheme, theists are arguing that belief in God is necessary to well-being, that the deity is real, can answer prayer, can save something called a soul, can even render an eternal judgment, meaning it's demands must be addressed. But based on what? Some 'expert' named Draper says it's a proposition? In what universe do you think that has any relevance to most people wrestling with this question? Then you drop to ad hominem. People who use 'atheism' as descriptive of their subjective beliefs 'have a psychological thing?' We're 'rebels?' Well, lots of good people were rebels. Jesus was considered a rebel. So maybe it's not ad hominem after all? Still, kind of a mean dig there, Cam. I expected better of you. So here's my rebellion. People like me choose to not be afraid of pissing off invisible angry tribal war gods, but will go on with their lives, eating, sleeping, working, playing, loving, and dying, in accordance with reality as they honesty perceive it, as they believe it to be. You won't reach these people, you won't reach me, without evidence so robust it would change my beliefs. An arcane debate over specialist terminology isn't enough to build a life on.
@North Korea Is Second Best Korea No, I don't understand. So I'm trying to politely ignore you. If you have a cogent point to make, I will be glad to respond. I do not waste my time on nonsense. Peace. 🙂
I think the reason why philosophy is devalued by atheists because it rarely helps them. In my experience with arguing with atheists Philosophy in general tends to be a thorn in their sides because it forces them to question ideas they Don't want to question and accept propositions they Don't want to accept. Hence, the absurdity in their definitions because it's not held within this space that can be torn apart by philosophy even though it still is. Tolkien even remarks on this way of thinking because it really comes from materialism, which atheists themselves Don't realize failed as a Philosophy, he compared to locking one's self into a jail cell and pretending Nothing exists outside the cell not even the prison or jail if you prefer. Just the 4 walls, maybe a bench and the bars and that's it.
@@extract8058 Accusing athiest of being materialist is just an excuse apologist use for not having evidence. If Obi-Wan Kenobi real he could demonstrate the spiritual power known as the force on a daily basis.
@@AJ-sl7be thank you for admitting you don't know what a materialist is. It was an actual philosophy followed by Atheists starting in the late 1800s and failed following WW2. Materialism is of the belief that anything you can't see touch smell or feel doesn't exist. Like modern Atheists they believed this was backed by science until things like atomic physics, gasses, even radiation became part of scientific study did this philosophy collapse because what these showed was that there were things beyond the senses that existed the only reason we had no clue they were even there was because the means of studying them hadn't been invented yet. So nice job admitting how dumb and ignorant you are. You could have spared yourself a great deal of humiliation if you Googled the term first before writing. Lmao
@@asgaiyawaya3973 No Athiest believes that if you can't sense something it doesn't exist. Why would you create such an insane strawman? Show me one athiest who thinks this.
@@asgaiyawaya3973 also i said ACCUSING atheist of being materialist, you can't even follow the argument. There are plenty of atheist with spiritual beliefs so that debunks your argument as well.
The simplest way to spell out the lacktheist error: Yes, atheist means "the negation of god" but there's two kinds of negation, it doesn't mean "not god" it means "no god". They are equivocating between the two. If you want the more pinky up answer, it's a scope distinction. Also you have to see presup as a debate tactic granting the lacktheism definition.
@@aanon2550 I agree, the main ones being science, problems with the arguments, evolution of the religion from a multiple deity pantheon to a single one.
So less then 20 seconds into the video and the "BIGGEST' mistake that atheists make is to accurately define their position? I'm sorry but it is a fact that I lack(A) theism(a belief in god or gods). So no it is not a mistake when I correctly and accurately define my position on the belief in a god or gods. I don't have such a belief, I LACK that belief. 1:30 into the video the guy is talking about 'standard english usage' and 'ordinary usage' yet when you look at standard ordinary dictionaries you find the definition that most atheists use, and the only time you find the definitions that he like you only find the in philosophy dictionaries such as Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which are not commonly used by normal people. The first time I ever even heard the word atheist was was when I told a theist that I didn't believe in god after he asked if he could pray for my bad knee. I kindly told him 'No, you don't need to I don't believe in god' He called me an atheist and then he ran away, and yes he literally ran away, confused I looked up the definition when I got home and I got the common usage definition for atheist which I still use to this day.
Two questions for Joe Smith (that are not directly related to the video subject, but are related to definitions of "atheist"): 1) Can an atheist be religious? (For instance: is Raëlism an atheistic religion?) 2) Can an atheist be agnostic? For instance, is someone who believes God doesn't exist but also believes it's impossible to know if God exists (belief and knowledge are different), is that person an atheist and agnostic? (added) After sending the comment, I watched another video where Joe Smith says "agnosticism" is defined as a suspension of belief in Philosophy. But I know other definitions. I'm providing two I found (on the Web) to provide examples: - "Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition." (Philosophy Pages) - "(...) an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false (...) Call this the “psychological” sense of the term. (...) it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known (...)" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (edited) I replaced "Cameron Bertuzzi". I meant "Joe Smith" (Joe is the expert). Sorry, Cameron :P
I have always thought of Atheism vs Agnosticism as this: Atheism: the lack of belief that a God or gods exist. Agnosticism: the lack of belief that the existence of a God or gods can be known, whether they exist or not. Thus, an agnostic atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in God because they don't think they could know either way, and thus neither believe in or believe against that God. A gnostic atheist would be someone who believes against a God. A gnostic theist believes that God exists and that such information can be known, and an agnostic theist believes in God but doesn't "know" whether their God actually exists. These two words describe answers to two different unrelated questions, so there can be overlap where one is also the other. At least,this is my take on ot
Lack belief in God would imply one does not believe God can be known, because if God can be known, then a God exists who can be known. If one does not believe God exists, then it logically follows you cannot know something that doesn't exist, so if a person lacks belief that God exists, then he also lacks the belief that God can be known, and that would make atheism and agnosticism redundant. The issue is, this is not just a matter of "defining terms", this is about behavioral patterns and whether or not people's actions agree with what they claim their position is. If a person claims something and their lifestyle contradicts what they claim, then their true position is what they actually live out, not what they claim their position is. If a man and his wife are at a restaurant, and the wife leans over and whispers into the husband's ears that the man sitting alone a few tables away was on the news yesterday and it was reported that he was a murderer, if the husband responds and says "I'm not convinced" or "I don't believe you", and he continues eating his meal as though his wife didn't say anything, then he is treating the claim "he is a murderer" *as false.* It is not a neutral position. If the atheist does not perform spiritual practices because he's not convinced that God exists, then the very action to proceed to live life without conforming to the will of any G(g)od from any given faith, then he is treating the claim "God exists" *as false.* It is not neutral. Therefore kind the true position is not "lack of belief", the true position is "God does not exist", and this is why I'm not convinced that the position of lack of belief actually exists.
@@Bi0Dr01d I disagree with this. Let's say I have no clue if any God exists, like I might be 50 percent convinced on the kalam or whatever. But I'm 100 percent sure that Christianity isn't true, and the same for every other ritualistic religion. How can you judge anything about my stance on a God existing just because I don't perform the rituals associated with the obviously manmade religions. Like what spiritual practices should I engage in? This strikes me as a very strange take
Don't define things in terms of "lacks". Both of those definitions entail that rocks are atheists and agnostics, since they lack a belief in God or a belief that God can be known.
@@Bi0Dr01d also. You are not using the word "believe" correctly. Your first statement; that not believing in God implies that one believes that God cannot be known. It's flat out wrong. I hate to use this example again, but if you have a jar of gumballs, there is either an odd or an even number in the jar. Now with no knowledge do you believe that there is an odd number? - No you don't belive that. Does that mean that you believe that one can't know? No. ( Should we focus on those who claim to know? Yes. ) I mean it's so simple really. Not believing in God does not imply anything like what you are postulating.
@@esbensteen5412 You Said: _"Let's say I have no clue if any God exists, like I might be 50 percent convinced on the kalam or whatever."_ Reply: Saying "I have no clue" would be a cop-out. This is not a question of what a person knows, but belief, and a person's actions supports one conlusion above another which removes this 50/50% scenario. ---------------------- You Said: _"How can you judge anything about my stance on a God existing just because I don't perform the rituals associated with the obviously manmade religions."_ Reply: Easy. If evidence is not the reason a person lives as an atheist, then it follows logically that the person is an atheist simply due to preference, not evidence, and therefore, "lack of belief" fails to define the position because "lack of belief" implies neutrality, and preference towards atheism contradicts neutrality. However, if the reason a person lives as an atheist due to evidence,... 1. This implies the reason a person is an atheist is because of lack of evience, *whih is a claim* that "There is no sufficient evidence to justify belief in God", which is a claim *with a burden of proof.* If that burden of proof isn't met, then the atheist is apparently okay with making his own faith claims as long as it helps him deny God, but he only seems to require this evidence when it points to God existing, *exposing a preference towards atheism apart from evidence, contradicting "lack of belief".* 2. Evidence being the reason to live as an atheist implies that actions and beliefs should be motivted by truth, and of course, if they are not motivated by truth, then #1 is implied *(preference).* This would mean the conclusion would be to only conform if one has reason to do so. If you are consistent, then you would be implying your actions are motivated by truth/evidence, which would inadvertantly be admitting you do not perform spiritual practices because you are not convinced it is true, and do not conformed your life because you are not convinced or do not have reason to believe it is true, meaning one would respond to the claim in this scenario in a way which, through action, treats the claim "God exists" *as false.* Therefore, in both cases, "lack of belief" is a false definition. ------------------------- You Said: _"Your first statement; that not believing in God implies that one believes that God cannot be known. It's flat out wrong."_ Reply: That isn't what I said. This is what I said: *_"Lack belief in God would imply one does not believe God can be known...so if a person lacks belief that God exists, then he also lacks the belief that God can be known, and that would make atheism and agnosticism redundant."_* The point was not "not believing in God implies that one believes that God cannot be known, the point is that not believing in God also implies *not believing* God can be known. In short, if one is not certain that God exists, one is also not certain that God can be known, making agnosticism and atheism redundant. The first gentlemen tried to make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism/or define "agnostic atheism" by saying that the agnostic doesn't believe God can be known, and the atheist doesn't believe in God's existence. I'm saying this distinction the atheist gentlemen is trying to create by defining these 2 this way does not succeed in making this distinction because if a person does not believe God exists, then he also isn't certain of the conclusion that God can/cannot be known. This means saying "agnostic atheist" becomes redundant. The context would come from this video which makes the point that the line between agnosticism and atheism becomes blurred by this definition of atheism that atheists use. -------------------------------- You Said: _"I hate to use this example again, but if you have a jar of gumballs, there is either an odd or an even number in the jar. Now with no knowledge do you believe that there is an odd number?"_ Reply: My friend, that is a false analogy. This is not parrallel with atheism. I also used an analogy which closer matches. The wife leans over and whispers to the husband that the man is a murderer. The husband says "I don't believe you", and continues eating his meal. He is treating the claim "He is a murderer" *as false.* The gumball analogy fails because not every situation allows there to be a neutral position because not every claim is the same, and some claims force a person to choose a side, and God's existence is one of those claims. The claim of God's existence is a claim of ultimate reality where a person would have to conform his life if the claim is true. This is not the same with gumballs. There is no call to change one's life in the claim of gumballs, but there is with God. Therefore, if one doesn't conform because he is not convinced the claim is true, then he is treating the claim *as false.* Therefore, the gumball analogy is a false analogy.
@@B.S._Lewis we have lots of evidence that many cultures create God's. It seems to me that there is so much humans don't know about the universe and the nature of reality, that there may well be a God or something equivalent at the base of it all. It seems even more likely to me that it is something we have never even considered, given our limited knowledge and experience but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a God. I'd be crazy surprised if there was actual leprechaun's.
@@B.S._Lewis I think that God being a Leprechaun seems unlikely to me but some kind of entity at the base of reality might be the case. I think that Leprechaun's are man made beast's like God's are but we might have accidentally got it right with Gods. Maybe not though, I suspect that the nature of reality it something we cannot even imagine.
I still don't understand why you'd want your opponent to also hold counter beliefs. Do you think that disproving some counter argument counts FOR your argument?
@@hannahalice1000 Even if it's a true dichotomy, adding evidence on the opposing side just hurts your case. Disproving such evidence brings you at best back to zero.
The issue is that if there are not arguments that propose the nonexistence of God, then the existence of God, being the only theory remaining, would be the most likely. However, winning arguments by default is not a good way to search for truth. The more counter-arguments considered, the better the chance of arriving at the correct conclusion...just as long as the arguments are reasonably good, anyway. That's why theists, such as Socrates or Des Cartes, typically engage in debate and philosophy.
@@hannahalice1000 A dichotomy? Not really. There's a whole list of positions to be falsified, from Deism, to Pantheism, to Paganism, to Spiritualism. The problem is that Atheism is literally the easiest to disprove, as it can be refuted with bare logic, as per natural theology. Atheism is currently losing ground in philosophy, and Christianity is starting to gain some serious traction in history as well. The problem arises when there are atheists on the internet and in popular culture who bury their heads in the sand and make some ridiculous arguments that aren't philosophically viable. I would much rather move on to dealing with these so-called Neo-Pagans (Spiritualists who think they are Pagans), or converting Hindus and Buddhists in the East. The issue in the West is that we're currently dealing with a society of philosophically illiterate numbskulls, many of which are Atheists or supposed "Christians", and few of which have valid arguments, so that means I have to spend most of my life around people who either can't understand the Teleological Argument or who don't know that getting drunk is both sinful and detrimental to one's health. So no, I don't hear philosophers arguing for a dichotomy, and I see many appeal to the fact that even Pagans and Deists can accept the existence of the Prime Mover, as it is clearly outline in logic, which has been subsequently confirmed by empirical observation. The question is, why can't you?
Either an individual acknowledges the existence of a god (theist) or does not acknowledge the existence of a god (atheist). There are no other options in a proper dichotomy.
I'm going to challenge the assertion that subatomic particles, zygotes, etc., do not "believe in God." English poet and hymn writer William Cowper (1731-1800)wrote, "Part of Thy Name divinely stands in all Thy creatures writ. They speak the labor of Thy hands, or impress of Thy feet." Psalm 19 makes a similar point, as do the hymn "The Spacious Firmament" ("In reason's ear they all rejoice..."), CS Lewis's space trilogy, and Mike Deasy's song "Mark of the Maker." It is rebellious humanity that is the exception.
@@browserboy1984 Ha ha , my comment is not a criticism of anyone. And are you saying i have to believe in this god to criticize the believers of ? You're butthurt you'll be fine
@@browserboy1984 My goal in life is to fight the oppression machine known as religion. I very well believe in that. My comment nor any part of our conversation has had anything to do with anything i do not believe in. You're regurgitating something that is supposed to be some sort of go to argument theists use against unbelievers. Lol , i don't believe in a god, but i am obsessed with fighting the spillover effects it has wrought on humanity for centuries. If somehow my being fixated on god believers and religion's encroachment on free society tells you something,,, Well, then more power to you buddy...
Typically, it's the proposition that their lack of belief is somehow exempt from the burden of proof, and that there belief is therefore true by default. In actual philosophy, if you aren't claiming your opponent to be wrong, with supporting evidence of some kind, then you lose the argument by default. Also, they may be wrong for believing such a use of the term is acceptable, depending on what principles of philology are assumed.
@@jonathandoe1367 there are people that go to church every Sunday and believe that if they don’t worship God they’ll burn in the flames of hell, that haven’t studied natural theology!
First of all, we can't all be philosophers. Most of us are standard laymen who either don't have the time, inclination or cognitive ability to comprehend and reflect on the various philosophical terms and concepts. I'm one of these people. If I'm going to listen to an argument in favour of God's existence, it'd better end with the conclusion "therefore we have reliably demonstrated the existence of a God." If not, it's a waste of my time. This squabbling over the usage of the term atheist only exists among pompous agnostics and Theists who are trying to redirect the conversation away from their unjustified beliefs. Call me whatever the hell you want, the point remains that people make the unjustified claim that a God exists, and I'm not convinced.
@Frances Snowflake The simple fact that the existence of a God has not yet been demonstrated means that those who believe one does are holding a belief that is unsupported bu sufficient evidence - it's an unjustified belief. Same reason why belief in ghosts, intelligent extraterrestrial life or theoretical ideas like multiverse theory are unjustified. There might be some evidence, but it isn't sufficient enough for them to be considered facts.
Then i see another video,,, ''The three biggest mistakes made by atheists'' Ha ha , still on this theme that the term means anything other than disbelief. Change the term atheists to unbelievers and see how silly the entire premise of the title is .. ''The three biggest mistakes unbelievers make'' What mistakes could there be in unbelieving ? They just do not believe you !! Discussing it with this philosophy guy as if the term meant something other than unbelief is the fallacy going on with this entire ''big thing'' you have made about a single term, and it is ridiculous to say the least. A title of systematic following you're trying to turn it into ...Geeeeesh. Let go of the term and just call them unbelievers and then show them your god and be done with this discussion........ Stop with the fallacious arguments against nothing.
Well, at least hypothetically, failing to accept or acknowledge the truth could be an issue. Failing to address the philosophical implications should they be wrong is another. Defining the issue incorrectly so as to misunderstand the nature of the disagreement is the one they are addressing in this video. Specifically, the fact that the term atheist is not interchangeable with unbeliever. Non-Christian theists may be defined as unbelievers, but not atheists. The same with various kinds of nontheists. Technically speaking, I think Deism is distinct from Theism, although both agree on the existence of the Prime Mover, and generally the Moral Argument as well.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I can't speak for him, but I can speculate that he may be referencing Pascal's Wager, or possibly atheist pro-theism (like Mussolini, later in his life, Nietzsche, or RockingMrE). The former proposes quite correctly that the rational choice, from a utilitarian perspective, is to assume theism, no matter how unlikely a proposition that might be. The latter refers to atheist systems of belief that postulate religion to be a necessary, or even beneficial belief/practice, at least for the vast majority of people. Also, have you never heard of natural theology? You might need to consider arguments for Deism.
@@jonathandoe1367 I didn't get the sense that Xavier Isra Elijah was referencing either of those concepts. He was simply making an misguided inference that good reason is not based in evidentiary fact. I had stated 10 facts that I considered when evaluating the theistic claim that gods exist. Had ANY of those facts not been established (or if such facts would change in the future) I would _then_ have a good to acknowledge such a existence.
@@jonathandoe1367 Yes. I have heard of Natural Theology. I have an advanced degree in Theology (MDiv, Ecumenical Studies, Princeton Theological Seminary).
There's no such thing as "lacktheism" except as a pejorative on the internet. The term is "negative atheism", which has been employed, along with "positive atheism", since the 19th century, even within academic philosophy of religion, well before Antony Flew re-introduced those terms in 1972. The only mistake I'm seeing is a lot of people talking about something called "lacktheism" while being completely ignorant of the most common form of atheism. Agnosticism is a legitimate philosophical position but it is not strictly incompatible with atheism. Negative atheism and positive atheism are not competing definitions, but positive atheism is one subset of atheism. Who says it makes sense to say that theism is true or false? Certainly not this atheist. I reject Draper's argument on that basis alone. I reject the other arguments too if they rest on the belief that the proposition "God exists" is a cognitively meaningful statement, because it is not. In fact atheism addresses both questions: "Is there a God?" and "Do you believe in a God?" _"Atheism is the negation of theism"_ Great, and since privation is a form of negation I guess we can go ahead and construe it both ways: an absence of a belief or a positive disbelief. Since this happens to be consonant with the Greek a- it is etymologically sound, as well as philosophically and linguistically sound. _"A failure to care about good philosophy."_ Pretentious. Most people in general don't care about philosophy in case you hadn't noticed. What, you want to pretend like the average theist cares about philosophy? I don't think so, my dude. Besides that, there's a difference between philosophy and philosophy of religion. One can care about philosophy and disregarding philosophy of religion. To me there's no wonder why most philosophers are atheists and agnostics while most philosophers of religion are Christian theists.
When Iwas young an atheist was one who believed they knew there is no God an agnostic did not know. Now we have the new atheists as if the old needed updating
And did you _know_ any atheists, or was that just what theists were telling you? Because I've been an atheist for at least 60 years or so - for as long as I can remember even considering the issue, at least - and my understanding of the term hasn't changed. Obviously, living languages change over time, and dictionaries try to keep up with that. But what difference does the _label_ make, anyway? I don't believe in a god or gods, because I've never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that any god is real. But I don't claim that gods _can't_ exist, because I can't imagine what kind of evidence there could be - even hypothetically - that an invisible, immaterial, magical being _can't_ exist, somewhere. That's simple enough, isn't it? I call myself an agnostic atheist, but the _label_ certainly isn't what's important.
@@Bill_Garthright Your comment is reasonable I just think atheists are often reluctant to commit themselves to a definition I dont presume to know your beliefs or lack of. As for knowing athiests I am surprised you ask that since there are more unbelievers than believers I am sure, certainly that was the case among building tradesmen of which I was one.Also I was an atheist myself until I was mid twenties a convinced one at that. My comment was really an honest enquiry from a lack of understanding.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 _Your comment is reasonable I just think atheists are often reluctant to commit themselves to a definition_ Thank you. But it's been my experience that I say what I think, and then theists keep telling me that I actually think something else. Heh, heh. I mean, it's bad enough that they want to re-define the labels I use to describe _myself,_ but it's frequently even worse than that. They want to tell _me_ what I think! _there are more unbelievers than believers I am sure_ I don't know where you live, but that's *not* the case here in America! The latest poll I've seen shows only 4% of Americans are atheists (with another 5% who identify as agnostic). That's a huge increase when I was young, but it's still a very small minority. (Most of the so-called "Nones" - who are also a distinct minority here - still believe in a god. They just don't want to get specific.) _I was an atheist myself until I was mid twenties_ Uh, huh. Well, maybe so. But pretty much _every_ Christian tells me that - and every Muslim, too. It's very popular these days to be a "former atheist." And hey, that might even be true. But I'd still bet that, whatever religion you believe, you were _raised_ to believe it - or, at the very least, had a family background in that religion and were raised in a culture where that religion was the norm. I don't know you, but that's just _overwhelmingly_ the case, worldwide. There's a reason why 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu.
@@Bill_Garthright My parents were atheist school taught me evolution as did TV and media. I am interested to know how atheists think thats all. Seeing my son born and his developement it made me think it all seemed like a miracle to me.Then the Christening hearing what Jesus said and did I studied the Prophets and believed the bible.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 _My parents were atheist_ And how about the rest of that? You never said where you live, but I still suspect that you grew up in a predominantly Christian culture. It doesn't really matter, since I'm sure there _are_ exceptions. (Muslims on TH-cam are always bragging about the Christians they've converted to Islam.) They're just quite rare compared to the overwhelming majority of theists who stick with whatever they learned as children. _school taught me evolution_ Huh? What does evolution have to do with any of this? Evolution is science, not religion. It has nothing to do with Christianity, one way or another. _hearing what Jesus said and did_ You don't _know_ what Jesus said and did, do you? All you've got are stories written by anonymous authors who don't claim to have even _met_ the guy. I'm not sure what you mean about "the Prophets." But do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? I'd also accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice.
@@CapturingChristianity please make a video on philosophy books recommendation for beginners +how to study philosophy/Best guideline for studying philosophy
What officiates being an atheist is one willfully testifying to being an atheist,.. We live according to Faith, so likewise we ALSO can only make a statement OF belief in God which opens the door for the more simple minded to also be able to accept even with the Faith of a mustard seed, which implies you choose to claim belief without having to meet some criteria because if there were, then even you, or I might not have reached a level of belief sufficient to be considered a Believer, thus still damned,
Well, top marks for not disabling comments. So much I would love to say to William Lane Craig. But I can't. As for this guy, I guess he will look back at this later with shame of how he rambled before his balls dropped. A direct answer to does God exist : No! Because mythical beings do not exist! I am also an agoblinist. He has obviously done a philosophy 101 course, so, so-and-so makes a fallacy .. so-and-so believes thus and so he should believe thus ..superficial argumenting and so tiresome ... Atheism is the belief that mythical beings called god or goddesses don't exist. What is so hard to understand about that?
Rationality Rules released a good video where he defends both the hard and soft uses of the word "atheist" for different reasons, I thought it was very informative
So the common usage of atheism, is not talking about probability, or what is more likely. You can not believe "x" is true, and false at the same time. Using common usage, if they don't believe the claim is true, and do not believe the claim is false, that would be a atheist. You either believe true, neither, or false. Yes there is room for agnosticism using the most common usages. Yo can not believe you know if a God exist, and believe a God exist. Yo can be a agnostic theist, a agnostic atheist, or a agnostic anti-theist. You could be a Gnostic theist, or a Gnostic anti-theist.
"You cannot believe 'x' is true and false at the time" True but that is not the problem he stated the problem is someone who believes the probabilty of Go existing is as likely as God not existing or in other words the guy thinks there is a 50% probabilty God exists but also believes there is a a 50% probability that God does not exists, is that kind of guy an Atheist? Definitionally so(if you go with the lack theism claim) because you lack the belief in God but that is a bit screwy (if that makes sense) because his lacking of belief isn't the same as the Atheist who lacks the belief there is a God. His lacking of belief in God is that he believes there is a 50/50 chance so that guy is unsure about God's existence....and there is already a term for that, Agnostic.
Yes it doesn't talk about probability but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take that into accountability because a baby who doesn't believe in God because he or she isn't aware of such a being isn't the same kind of Atheist as Richard Dawkins. Even tho I disagree with Joe saying "Babies, lack the belief in God" for the sake of argument I used it as an analogy.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster No, there is no problem. The 50/50 would still be atheist, using the most common usage of, not believing/lacking belief a God exist. Agnostic would be not believing you do know if a God exist.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster If a thing can not believe a God exist, and does not believe a God exist, would be a atheist, using common usage. There is no problem, with the usage. No one is claiming atheism is addressing the age of the person, or if the person has been presented with the concept of a God.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster In regards to belief, you either believe "x" is true(theist), not believing "x" is true, or false(atheist), or believe "x" is false(anti-theist). Gnosticism, and Agnosticism, is addressing believing you do know, or not believing you do know. There is no problem with the common usages. And you can be a agnostic theist, a agnostic atheist, a agnostic anti-theist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic anti-theist, and more. So saying agnostic, or gnostic is not telling much. You can not believe you do know if a God exist(agnostic), and believe a God exist(theist).
I do not know anyone that describes the term as a lack of theism. It is the mere disbelief in god or gods. But why should anyone care, lets throw out the term completely. We do not believe in gods. There you have it. You still have yet to demonstrate that there is so this is a ridiculous issue within the issue of existence.
I dissagre that you can have a "wrong defenition" of a term. Sure your definition maybe dosnt align with the majoritys definition. But both definitions are just as wrong in respect to eachother. If i define a horse as "something with wheels", that defenition is only wrong if you are talking about what "horse" usually means in english speaking society. Its just diffrent usages of the word horse.
The issue only when A) you're trying to speak with people who don't understand your definition, or B) you're using an equivocation fallacy, such as motte-and-bailey, extracting things like rhetorical appeal, historical tradition, or strong evidence onto something that does not. In this case, it's usually B, but some honest instances of A may be occurring as well.
Pfffft. To quote Joe: "We can define terms however we like but also let's be clear that definitions matter." Nope. If we can define terms however we like then definitions _don't_ matter. But I get Joe's drift: in philosophy, language and the proper use of it matters. Otherwise people just talk past each other. They need to be on the same page or debate goes wonky. And that's what's happening here. You have atheists trying to paint atheism as only nonbelief while Xians say atheism is actually disbelief. Neither side sees that it can be either. Or denial. The person who is neutral about gods is an atheist. The person who says "I believe there are no gods" is an atheist. The person who says "I know there are no gods" is an atheist. Stop trying to narrow the definition to any one of these. And neither is theism one thing. It's two. It helps to compare gods to other cryptids e.g. Martian microbes. Do they exist? Affirmers: "Definitely." Believers: "Probably." Nonbelievers: (Neutral). Disbelievers: "Probably not." Deniers: "Definitely not." The latter three are analogous to different types of atheists. Joe and his hack author Huemer can blah blah about how atheism should be thought of as disbelief or denial because that's the "ordinary usage" of the word but that just shows a preference to keep the debate at a low-brow level and an unwillingness to embrace philosophical nuance. If you define a word in a non-ordinary way before discussion begins, this doesn't cause confusion, it heads it off. Poor definition of belief: "Affirming some proposition or statement to be true." Nuh uh. "Affirm" means "to validate or state something positively." That inherits a burden of proof. Better would be "presuming" a proposition or statement as true i.e. to take to be the case without verification or proof. I _presume_ that I won't die today; that no human ever ran 100 MPH; that if I draw 4 aces in a poker hand, I'll win; that ghosts aren't real; that black holes _are_ real. I can't affirm (i.e.prove) any of these presumptions (i.e. beliefs) but I can rationally justify all of them. The theistic affirmer must prove that a god or gods exist. A tall order. But there are infinite ways the theistic _believer_ can justify their belief without proof or objective verification. Ugh! This idiotic argument again. A Frank Turek fave! "If atheism is a lack of belief in God, then (X) are atheists!" Where X can be rocks or chairs. Or subatomic particles. Sorry, but the definition of "atheist" always begins with: "A person who..." or "Someone who..." That rules out non-people. And whether babies are nonbelieving atheists is debatable. But why stop at atheists? By Joe's reasoning, since teetotalism is the lack of alcohol consumption, subatomic particles are teetotalers! Since vegetarianism is the lack of meat consumption, subatomic particles are vegetarians! Pathetic. For all his blathering about the importance of clear language, Joe is muddling the issue. The problem is that the name "God" and the general term "god" are pronounced the same. Ask any apologist - any apologist more competent than Joe - what they would call, as a group, those who lack belief in God, disbelieve in God or deny God outright. They will ignorantly answer: "Atheists." Not a wrong answer but hardly adequate. Why? Because atheists are outnumbered internationally at least 4-to-1 by religious theists who eschew or reject God just like atheists do. They have their own gods, none of whom is God. But it's toddler-easy for apologists to show that they are referring to atheists and not the billions of theists who share atheistic attitudes toward God. When describing or channeling atheists or atheism, always use the lower-case "g" and pluralize! Say it with me: "gods." Or say "a god" or "any gods." If the apologists' problem is with those who eschew or reject God, then their problem isn't just with atheists but _all non-Xians._ But if their problem is with atheism qua atheism, then they'd be happy to see all atheists ditch atheism and become devotees of the Hawaiian shark god, Kamohoali'i, right? Theists and atheists alike shun God. Only atheists shun gods. But will apologists like Joe ever make this easy change for better clarity and define atheism as positions toward gods instead of God? Nope! Guaranteed! Listen carefully to this farrago of philosophical folderol and note how often the name "God" is used when "gods" or "a god" would have been better.
3:21 that isn't a problem for the term Atheism, Atheism going by the standrad definition and the one you said is a lack of belief or disbelief in God. The definition indicates the knowledge of a certain kind of concept (i.e God) that the term represents to disagree with. You cannot be an Atheist (or a Theist or anything God related) if you aren't familliar with the concept of God than you can't be an Atheist (or anything resembling a belief in God related i.e Theism, Deism etc) 4:20 Oh yeah there we go..... Also to solve the Atheist problem, of a guy that believes that God's existence is 50% probable but also 50% improbable, so would that person be an Atheist furthermore how can that term for Atheism be any way distinguishable to Agnostic-well that depends on the belief itself, an Agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of a God cannot be proven or unproven it is an unknowbable, so the man is certainly an Agnostic as (the analogy implies) he thinks the odds are equal and neither side could be settled on (Again as implied by the scenario). If the guy believed in a 50/50 scenario but favours the improbable side than he is an Atheist but if he favours the probable side than he is a Theist.
all debates about THEIST/GOD EXISTANCE seems ignoring/denying LordJesus as TheTrueGod, TheReal ONE&ONLY IMAGE OF GOD/YHWH! 🙏 LORDJESUS IS NOT OPINION & OPTION! HE IS THE ONLY REAL ANSWER/EVIDENCE, JESUS IS GOD!
Here's a parable to show how Joe's emphasis on the importance of proper definitions comes back to bite him. My friend Bob is not colorblind. He sees colors just fine. Point to a house, a bird, a flower or your clothing and he will agree on the colors every time. But when it comes to cars, Bob has a strange quirk: he calls all cars blue. _All_ cars. Blue. I once asked him why he calls all cars blue when they so obviously come in a plethora of colors. He answered that that's just how he defines the word "blue" when it comes to cars: compatible with any color of the rainbow. So he just says blue. All cars. Blue. Well, Bob called me today to tell me that he just repainted his car. And that now it's blue! What sense does that make? I presume he repainted his car but...blue? Now you know what the wise man hears when Xians say "God is good." They're going to say that anyway, no matter what their god does. Sorry apologists! The definition of "good" is _not,_ never has been, and never will be "Doing anything to anyone, any time for any reason."
Also, theistic apologists like WLC love to smugly dismiss the Euthyphro Dilemma with a wave of their hand, but horrendously fail to account for Euthyphro’s first “definition” of what is holy and pious: “Do as I am doing now”. Euthyphro’s first basic insistence that his action itself is quintessentially holy and pious is the true Achilles Heel for those who want to dismiss the Dilemma, because the deity they defend can essentially do the exact same thing. Imagine questioning the biblical deity as depicted in, say, Job with the same general questions, and receiving at first Euthyphro’s non-definition of holiness and piety: “What I do now to Job is holiness and piety.” But the theist must invariably fail fo see how that answer would allow all people to sociopathically slap the label “objectively good and just” on every action done by their idol, and it would, from a moral objectivist point of view even, become morally unfalsifiable. It’s essentially moral nihilism wrapped in a faux-moral skin and sprinkled with glitter.
Are we still trying to gate keep the usage of words? Seems like you still don’t get that words have no intrinsic meaning and are entirely dependent on human interpretation. You don’t get to dictate how people use words. You can either accept the usage as described, or reject the usage as described. I reject your usage of the “atheism,” and “atheist.” Theism as I use the word, is someone who does believe in at least one god. So the opposite, atheism, is not someone who believes in no gods, but is someone who does not believe in at least one god. So can you explain why someone should be convinced that at least one god exists to justify your belief that at least one god exists, demonstrating your theism is true? Or are you incapable of defending your belief and as such can only focus on trying to gate keep the definitions of words? Which is entirely a non sequitur as to the context of the conversation. Which appears to me what apologetics has devolved to. To put it another way, let’s look at another field where the definitions of words differ from common colloquial usage. Theory. In scientific discussions the word theory has the usage to convey the meaning of “a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.” Whereas in the colloquial sense the word theory has the usage to convey the meaning of “an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.” It would be an equivocation to interchange these two definitions for the word theory in any discussion and is as such flawed logic. So we can agree in philosophical discussions atheism can be used to convey one understanding of the word, but in colloquial discussions another usage can be used. An honest participant in a discussion would not try and dictate what people use in the discussion but ask what do you mean when you use the word. Thereby clearing up any ambiguous terms. Colloquially I’m an atheist, as I defined above. As epistemologically it is valid. If you want to press on the philosophical definition, then I’m agnostic. This isn’t a change of goal posts, it’s using which definition of the word the context of the discussion requires. To bring it back to theory, that would be like me trying to dictate that in colloquial discussion someone says they have a theory about what happened, and I ask for them to lay out the well substantiated explanation that can account for all data points, and when they say it was a hunch or untested guess, I call them dishonest and shifting the goal post.
@Frances Snowflake incorrect. Theists insist that atheists have a burden of proof to demonstrate how their god doesn’t exist after a theist has made claims their god does exist. I’m starting to believe you aren’t really an atheist.
@Frances Snowflake yes, and you realize most atheist you tubers don’t actively and proactively make claims they utilize theists videos that make claims and point out why they are not convinced by them. Matt dillahunty has a call in show where theists call in to attempt to prove their case by making claims about their beliefs and cannot support them with evidence, Matt doesn’t call theists, theists call Matt. So in the context of the content the theist has already made claims and the atheist is not accepting their claims for reasons they lay out. The theist does have the burden of proof in that context. Matt has taken debates, which is entirely different context of discussion, and has made claims and supported those claims with reasons. You cannot get upset that TH-cam atheist creators are pointing out how theists haven’t met their burden of proof when the theist has already made a claim.
Yes, there are 2 popular definitions of "atheism". The most popular definition being the one that most people that call themselves "atheist" use: lack-theism. Then there's the definition that you would find in some academic philosophy literature. They can stay in their own bubble, that's fine. Don't try to force your definitions on the rest of the world. You don't see physicists complaining about people using the wrong definition of "theory" when they hear someone saying "my neighbor has a theory about wiping your ass".
@Frances Snowflake An atheist is commonly defined as an individual that does not/lacks a belief in any God/s. Agnosticism is another term that has a similar definition to this one. You are free to use whichever term you wish, and we will do the same.
@Frances Snowflake t wasn't a question. You were putting words in my mouth that I never said. Saying "So you're saying that..." followed by something that I've never said, does not make you look like an honest interlocutor. I would've just answered if you actually asked it as a normal question. Anyways, I'm not sure. All I can say is that I have not seen anything remotely convincing that points to a god.
@Frances Snowflake No. I don't believe he is real and I don't believe he is imaginary. I have no evidence for either claim, so I suspend judgement. I'm leaning more towards him being imaginary, though.
Coming from people who reject all the other gods in all the other religions wont look at their own religion in the same light. Christianity is mythology and what is believed not what is fact and proven to be true.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s nearly impossible to have a constructive conversation if definitions for terms are not acknowledged and agreed upon.
@@vejeke monotheism?
@@vejeke I don’t understand why are you trying to complicate it, but perhaps we humans are good at complicating simple things
@@oscarwong4201 "Monotheism" is a very funny and very succinct answer... to a silly question.
@@jonsparkee3520 stupid questions deserve stupid answers, so perhaps my answer is overqualified haha
Yes, that's why you define your terms in a conversation.
There are plenty of terms that have colloquial and academic definitions:
- "quantum theory" or "the germ theory of decease"
Or
- "my neighbor Bob has a theory about wiping your ass"
They're both fine. Just make sure you define them if it would cause ambiguity otherwise.
I didn't know Tom Holland was such a knowledgeable philosopht guy
Hahaha yes!
@@jmac6973 is this krav maga?
@@Funny1budgie 🤔 I’m confused. I like Krav Maga and all but i must have missed something!
@@jmac6973 yeah I just clicled your videos
Uh...he kinda doesn't look like Tom Holland but I can see the simillarities.
In my informal uninformed opinion, if you’re engaged in a philosophical debate between philosophers then use these philosophical terms. If you’re engaged in a casual conversation with a friend or coworker then ask your interlocutor what they mean about being an atheist and just work with that. Trying to use formal philosophy on your casual friend can have a negative outcome on the relationship.
Finally an intelligent response
Formal philosophy? We're talking about a definition in the dictionary that a bunch of people are trying to avoid with mental gymnastics!
@@andres.e. Nope. We are talking about a label that is been put on people saying what the think and what their position is which they totally don't subscribe to. It's like telling every theist that he/she is a Muslim.
@Frances Snowflake You think this is a game.of.semantics but it's not. Yes theism is belief in a god. But in order to believe in a god you need to have a positive claim or accept someone's positive claim. As soon as you have a positive claim you ow have to substantiate.your claim. Or at least explain why in your opinion that believe is justified.
@@Carlos-fl6ch that's funny because "atheists" usually have a similar habit to that which you just described of telling every "theist" that they are Christian.
If you lack a belief, then clueless might be better term than atheism
Good point! 👍👍😎
i believe things after they make sense, not before they make sense.
The only reason why "atheist" took up the "lacktheism" banner dropped by Anthony Flew (before Flew virtually accepted theism over his long held atheist position) is to avoid having to defend their "atheism". Claiming atheism is not a positive position but negative therefor requiring no defence or "BOP" ("Burden of Proof").
Great talk.
God Bless.
To play devils advocate: if one is genuinely a believer of lacktheism then a redefinition is justified given that is what they believe. If this is true then it is not an epistemic tactical maneuver. I'm not sure the theist can impose their strong atheist definition on the atheist, if the atheist just dont believe in strong atheism.
@@prosperitynuggets the not strong 'atheist' can call himself an agnostic lmao.
Thats actually not true, claiming a positive negative does require a BOP. If I claim that the earth ISNT round, id have to support my claim with evidence
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices all of what you said is irrelevant. The existence of God has already been proven through deductive arguments with sound premises
Lacktheism isn't really sincere because the people who supposedly lack a belief are ardently involved in the conversation.
I lack a belief on whether Python or Perl is a better programming language for certain applications. Because I'm not a programmer, I do not know about programming,, and I'm also not involved passionately within those conversations.
That is an actual "lack of belief." Not lacktheism.
Asserting that atheism is a lack of belief is like saying it is a condition of some sort, beyond your personal control, rather than a purposeful intellectual ascent to a knowledge claim. It`s ridiculous and a terrible copout.
No, it's just describing what I think, rather than what some theist _wants_ me to think.
I don't believe in a god or gods (because I've never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that any god is real). I don't claim that gods _can't_ exist, though. How could I possibly claim _that?_
I'm evidence-based. That means I try to apportion my beliefs to the evidence. (As you know, evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking.) And I can't even _imagine_ what kind of evidence there might be - even hypothetically - that an invisible, immaterial, magical being _can't_ exist, somewhere. So why would I _claim_ that I know that?
Theists seem to try very hard to make their gods unfalsifiable. OK. That's fine with me, because I _still_ can't believe their claims, as long as they have _nothing_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing them up.
But then, they want me to claim that their gods _don't_ exist, in order to shift the burden of proof. Sorry. Even though you really, really _want_ me to do that, I'm still evidence-based, not faith-based.
I hold the position I hold for a reason. If you can argue against my position, then go right ahead and do so. I'm listening. But don't insist that I hold some _other_ position, just because you think it would be easier to argue against _that._
@@Bill_Garthright you haven't seen evidence that The Universe exists?
The Universe is synonymous with The Pantheistic God. Since there is undeniable evidence for such a God, it follows logically that atheism is false.
@@Bill_Garthright The trouble is atheists don't know they're deluding themselves into calling evidence no evidence. Pattern and complexity alone is enough to infer an intelligent mind. The odds of life forming by mere chance is impossible. You don't have to be smart to know this. When are you going to stop deluding yourself?
@@extract8058
_The Universe is synonymous with The Pantheistic God._
*Evidence?* That's an easy claim to make, but it's _just_ a claim. The universe is evidence that the universe exists, that's all.
Now, admittedly, you can call your _dog_ "God," if you want, and then claim that "atheism is false" since "God" exists. I don't know why you'd expect me to take that seriously, though.
You can't define a god into existence. You can play games, certainly. But does anyone take your games seriously? If you've got more than games, let's hear it. Start by defining what you mean by "The Pantheistic God" and explaining why anyone should take that seriously.
@@myrddingwynedd2751
_Pattern and complexity alone is enough to infer an intelligent mind. The odds of life forming by mere chance is impossible. You don't have to be smart to know this._
No, I guess you just have to be smart to see how that is complete nonsense. Claims are easy. Do you have anything _but_ claims? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your claims are actually _true?_ Then why should I believe you?
I dont mind taking the "agnostic" label in a conversation with someone who understands terms this way and has done some homework in philosophy. However, in my day-to-day interactions with people, I find that saying I'm agnostic can imply to people that I'm just wishy-washy, and really not sure what I think, or just need one invite to church to settle things, or havent taken time to consider either way. And that's completely not true. I think about these things almost every day. I've watched many of the conversations hosted right here on this channel. And the journey continues, but I dont believe in God at all and havent for over two years. I agree that language is important, and needs to be very precise in formal debates and such. But when I want to communicate "I dont believe in any gods, and think the christian God in particular makes no sense to me." Agnostic doesnt communicate that message as well as "atheist" does in an everyday conversation. Should I perhaps use "agnostic atheist." Anyone else want to weigh in here?
Maybe the term you use should be determined by the context you're in. So if 'atheist' works in every day conversation and 'agnostic' does not, it would seem counterproductive to change that.
"I'm agnostic"=/="I'm AN agnostic".
And someone saying they don't know about a very hard to nail down matter of fact isn't wishy washy. It's not sports.
If one wishing to avoid wishy washyness by reputation over truth drives a social stigma in honesty vs tribalism. That's how you get European "christians" who don't even believe in God... and it's how you get lacktheism, genuine shallowness enshrouded in maximally defensible rhetoric while having all the support of the atheist tribe, while not actually having any real position.
@@prosperitynuggets I would be fine doing that! Not that I'll ever be asked to an formal debates. But in a deep conversation with someone who knows these philosophical definitions of positions, I'm willing to use agnostic to describe myself. It's just that those are rare, compared to the rest of the brief and more shallow interactions with others when talking about faith and beliefs.
@@ravissary79 I get that you dont hear the term "agnostic" and think "wishy-washy," but it's been my experience that people who are not familiar with philosophical terms get that impression. The conversations hosted on this channel ask, "Does God exist?" I'm agnostic on this, I dont know. But day to day, I'm being asked, "Do you believe in God?" And there, I dont want to imply that "I dont know" I want to imply "No.". But unless its phrased this exact way, I tend to say I'm an atheist over agnostic, because that seems to communicate my answer to the question that people asking more truthfully.
@@ravissary79 Greetings, Rav -- been a while.
An atheist is someone that doesn’t believe in god. Here’s an example: hey do you believe in god? No. Then you are an atheist. Its not that complicated.
Did you even watch the video?
@@CoooollNameBro yes
@@LosChongo Ok why do you not believe in God?
@@asgaiyawaya3973 I believed in God growing up, my whole family is catholic with no atheists I know of. Going into my teenage years I started having doubts and questions, I suppressed those thoughts for years and felt guilty for them. By about 18 or 19 confronted these doubts and questions, finally 2 or 3 years later I realized I didn’t have any GOOD reasons to believe in God, it was just what I was raised to believe. And thats where I’m at today, I just don’t see anything convincing - I don’t have a belief in God.
@@LosChongo I didn't ask for your biography neither am I interested in one. Why? Because I have heard 1000 different I use to be a christian stories each one more boring then the last one and they all typically have one of 4 different patterns 1. You confused God with some sort of Magic Genie and got a chip on your shoulder when you found out he wasn't.
2. You got on a moral high horse on the bible not realizing that a. attacking a religion's actions is not a truth argument and b. you never took motive into consideration when anyone with an inkling of legal authority knows you can't judge anything as evil or wrong without looking at the motive and atheists almost never do.
3. Mom, dad, paster, priest whatever gave you a bad experience that not even a percent of all Christians experience.
4. You bought into someone else's BS about religion without anything closely resembling a careful examination of the evidence.
So spare me the BS stories and just bluntly state why you don't believe in God.
My favorite agnostic. I like Joe Schmid
If he's truly agnostic, then his search for God makes completely no sense :-) An agnostic believes there's no way to know if God exists or not.
@@piotr.ziolo. you could stand to listen to Joe instead of lecturing a literal philosopher
Atheism is not a lack of belief.
Correct
Agreed. 🙂
Holy heck! MoR literally explained so succinctly what I’ve been trying to explain to atheists for ever. I’m an agnostic, and every time I tell that to an atheist, they fire back with “agnosticism is only a statement of knowledge/certainty.” I hate this, because it pigeon-holes me into the atheist camp (via their definition) when I really don’t associate myself with that view at all. Theists don’t do this, by contrast-to their credit. Thank you, MoR.
That's nonsensical. There are many different definitions over the ages. Theists prefer the metaphysical definition because than they can indeed shift the burden of proof. This is BS because of different reasons..the first being that the god hypothesis is non falsifiable. Thus it's nonsensical to try and disprove.
Atheist recently found that the epistemic psychological meaning better suits there position and thus this is the colloquial usage of the word. It's time that people begin to understand that a word is not important it's ideas that count. Ask people what they believe and what not and that's it. Just forcing your definition to people is condescending and smug.
@@Carlos-fl6ch indeed. I agree 100%.
@@Carlos-fl6ch I’m not forcing my definitions on anybody. If anything, my original charge was that atheists are forcing this new definition on everyone else. You yourself admit as much in the latter half of your comment.
Also, I’d contend that words in fact *do* matter-very much so-precisely *because* they point to ideas/concepts. Words are not a thing to change willy-nilly to best suit your subjective worldview. That only works for subjectivism. But suppose I reject subjectivism (as I do)?-then words are all the more important because they point to things congruent with objective truth, in so far as it’s assumed to be the case.
God is “non-falsifiable”, as you say (I prefer the term unaffirmable, myself-fewer negative connotations, you see). Regardless, if we both admit that the argument at hand is purely conjectural, given the aforementioned unfalsifiability of God, then whether one believes of not seems to be of little importance, at the very least because the metaphysical question at hand cannot be proven (at least empirically). Why, then, do atheists seem so hellbent on tearing down religion? Why!-for reasons *other* than the metaphysical proposition of God/gods. That is why I don’t want to side with the atheists, being that I see a lot of beauty and truth and good in religion, and frankly think the world is all the more beautiful for it.
BUT, given that I “don’t know” whether God/gods exist, I cannot therefor claim to be a theist. Does this salient conviction alone make me an atheist? Not if your definition of atheism is a positive one, as MoR points out in this video.
@The Real Cat of 2020 Not according to many atheists. For many, agnosticism exists definitionally on a y-axis, as a statement of capable knowledge, whereas (a)theism exists on the x-axis, as a statement of belief. In their view, you can be an agnostic-theist (one that supposably holds the position that they don’t know if God exists, but believe so anyways).
I think there are a number of problems with this view, not least the ones MoR pointed out in this clip.
@The Real Cat of 2020 that isn't correct. An agnostic theist can say, "I dont know with certainty that God exists, but I do believe that he best explains reality." Agnosticism is about what can be KNOWN. Theism and atheism are about BELIEF.
Great analysis by Joe Schmid and nice reflection by Cameron! Great content , thanks!!!
Do you believe in God ?
No- Atheist
Yes- Theist
There is nothing else.
Any other questions that enter the discussion like: Do you think a God is possible? Do you know for a fact a God exists or not? Are separate questions with separate defined answers. I don't know why they have to make this so difficult and hide behind philosophy and definitions.
@@WintersunExtras Those questions are completely irrelevant to the forementioned dichotomy. Why complicate extremely simple binary proposition.
@@hldemi Why turn the question into an epistemic one when the ontological question is way more relevant? Solution:
Does God exist?
Yes-theist
No-atheist
I don't know-agnostic
@@hldemi I was adding onto the point you were making, I wasn't criticising it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
@@vincentiormetti3048 The problem is that no one knows. You have people you claim a God does exist, and those who claim a God does not. The only justified position is "I don't know", so the question of whether or not you believe in a God is more relevant to people.
It is not the lack of _belief_ that determines an atheist. It is the solid rationale to remain in the default position of atheism because there is a lack of EVIDENCE.
Joe's expressions at 1:00 are gold! The eyebrow raise as in, "yea right bruh."
😆
Im an atheist and I totally agree here. If you are talking about what someone believes then talk about the phycological state and if you are talking about arguments without any psychological states involved then use atheist in a negation role.
"You can define words however you want but if you do it in a way I don't like your definition is wrong."
Classy...
Yeah, I should be able to define a skyscraper as "dog", otherwise, you are being a fascist...man.
@Excuse me but What does bravery have to do with using language correctly?
@Excuse me but So theists are brave when they challenge the status quo of atheistic identity? Or are you saying its brave for lacktheists to change the definition of atheism from a propositon to a psychological state to avoid philosophical scrutiny?
@Frances Snowflake I'm not sure what you mean? I suppose the act of being a theist is psychological, but the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean if I misunderstood.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway I could be wrong but I think Frances is just playing devil's advocate.
Love your responses by the way.
As an atheist, I share your frustration for the lack of appreciation for good philosophy and dealing with the best arguments on both sides. In general, I wish the basics of philosophy were taught earlier in school and were more required for much of education. It’s a big blind spot.
On that note, I empathize with atheist frustration over Apologetics. It sometimes feels like a millennia old game of moving the goalposts, even if you don’t see it that way. There’s some underlying feeling that is hard to describe in language that if the arguments for gods existence were any good, they wouldn’t need to be constantly updated. Good philosophy can be exhausting to many.
You could say the same things for arguments against God, like the argument from evil. Philosophy, like any other academic field, is subject to refinement with new discoveries.
It's amazing to me the lengths atheists go to make their point seem relevant. It doesn't have to be this difficult to express your belief that something exists or doesn't. All belief, whether you think something is true or not, is anchored directly in you coming to a conclusion based off many different things that you've seen, heard, read, experienced and so forth. Really not that hard.
We know of four elementary forces in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. Do you believe there is a 5th elementary force? It's easy to decide according to you, right? Then just go and win the Nobel Prize.
@@piotr.ziolo. What does that have anything to do with believing something is true or not?
I have never seen, heard, read or experienced a god. You're right, that wasn't hard at all.
@@jacoblee5796 I find it hard to believe that you have never heard of or read about a god prior to this video.
@@tannarframpton9454 nothing that convinced me that a god/gods exist.
Any proposition lacking epistemic burden, as such also lacks epistemic weight.
Very true.
But that is surely not the aim of such a proposition then, is it?
This guy is awesome
Love Joe Schmid! More please
I find this to be so incredibly ironic. I find it’s theists that play this game, not atheists.
How? Where?
why?
@tkwtg asking atheists to disprove God is not really a respected or common technique among theists. The only time I can see it used is if they're a shitty presupper (not the same as a regular presupper).
Atheists are far more likely to do a motte and bailey between "I merely lack belief" and "there is no God".
@@ja.k3051 I’ve watched about every theist vs atheist debate I can find. It is almost always the theist playing the “definition game” not the atheist.
@@jacoblee5796 We must be watching different debates then.
“By lack-theism what I mean is that most people define atheism as a lack of belief. But here’s what a philosopher says.”
Me: *scrambles for multiple dictionaries*
Dictionary Consensus: “lack of belief in a god or diety”
Ah okay. Cool.
@North Korea Is Second Best Korea directly from Merriam-Webster:
belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
Sounds to me like a claim that carries a burden of proof, or you don’t understand burden of proof.
@@JustZackster beliefs don't incur a burden of proof
Not to mention plenty of philosophers define atheism as an absence of belief and distinguish between negative and positive atheism with the latter being just one subset of atheism. To claim otherwise is a popular pastime for armchair philosophers on the internet, like these two in this video.
@@FrankWinchester correct. Beliefs themselves do not carry burden of proof. But if that belief then carries on to some claim about reality, like I believe the earth is flat, then i do have a burden of proof.
@@JustZackster no it doesnt. It someone believes the earth is flat, no burden of proof is required
God exists:
- Yes
- No
- I don't know
Santa exists:
- Yes
- No
- I don't know
@@ivanvnucko3056 no. Your point?
@@ramezaziz2336 You now have the BURDEN OF PROOF. You are asantist and need to defend your position with arguments... :)
Odd number of skittles in this packet:
-yes
-no
-I don’t know
@@ivanvnucko3056 Easy. Santa is supposed to be a real person who is locked in time at a certain age and lives in Lapland the whole year and is all over the planet one night a year. Simply impossible. QED. Next.
Merriam-Webster: a) a lack of belief or strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Unless Webster's is out of step with English speakers, I'd say, from definition (a), that lack-theists do not use the term "atheist" without warrant.
Merriam Webster is no longer objective with their definitions and word entries. They have a clear political bias and it shows with new entries into their dictionaries of silly media buzzwords such as "anti-vaxxer"
If we are talking about common usage being so important at the start, why are you mentioning philosophy dictionaries instead of common dictionaries?
I've never heard the term "common dictionaries" before. Is that a term you just fabricated?
@@extract8058 Yes, to distinguish them from philosophical dictionaries.
@@Thundawich And what distinguishes them from philosophy dictionaries such that philosophy dictionaries have no relevance? A dictionary of philosophy is merely a compendium of words frequently used in philosophical discussion and their meanings. When you engage in discussion about the existence or nonexistence of deities, then whether you like it or not, you're engaged in a philosophical discussion.
@Frances Snowflake "Atheists tend to insist we use common usage definitions." Yea because most people aren't deeps into philosophy.
"The problem is, if we do that, theists don't incur a burden of proof." Incorrect, theists are the ones making the claim that I god exists therefore the burden of proof in on them.
Who cares about the label? The label isn't the important thing. And it's not as though it would take me more than a few seconds to describe my position. Arguing about the label seems to be a way that theists avoid arguing against what I actually _think._ It's just a way to stall, isn't it?
I discussed with someone who said an atheist (an ex-Mulsim) is a closet Christian because he (supposedly) only criticize Islam and real atheists have to criticize all religions. That atheist said in a video " I certainly do not believe in God, I'm convinced there is no God."
I replied, saying atheists don't need to criticize religions, atheists can be religious, that atheist sometimes criticized Christianity, and he's an ex-Muslim who doesn't know much about Christianity as Islam.
Another atheist interfered, saying that we're using the word "atheist", invoking the "original meaning", that the Greek meaning didn't change and atheist is not believing in theism: "Theist means believer (of gods/gods), atheist means non believer. It's Greek and it's written in stone, so to speak. Do not try to wash it out by being a simpleton/pseudo intellectual."
He also said: "If you semi believe in a god or other fairytales, you're an agnostics."
I cited an etymological dictionary, definitions, and how the word is used - namely between me and the other person.
That guy said he wasn't reading my comments and accused me of being arrogant, pseudointellectual, etc. ... but refuses to explain his accusations and other claims.
I'm not saying all atheists are like this (I'm an atheist) and I don't think "lack-theism" is the biggest mistake, but those aggressive comments about a definition and behaving like trolls are problems.
Cool, do I get to define what defines what a Christian is?
In the first 5 minutes he's making a strawman. Typical apologist. Try this for a definition:
An atheist is anyone who is aware of the deity conjecture and rejects it.
Also as an Agnostic or Atheist we don't have to make a case for the truth... It's just we don't believe or we believe in God just not the man made religions.
@@zooedca Precisely.
You don’t even have to redefine the definition of a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. An atheist can be a follower of Jesus without ever having to fall down and worship him as deity or a messianic figure head.
@@streetsdisciple0014 Which sect?
@@mathunt1130 pragmatists
I use agnostic atheist. I define the terms as such:
(Claims of belief)
Theist- One who believes a god exists.
Atheist- One who does not believe a god exists. (This is inclusive of those that have the active belief that a god does not exist)
(Claims of knowledge)
Gnostic- One who has knowledge about the existence of a god
Agnostic- One who does not have knowledge about the existence of a god
---
A gnostic theist, would be one who believes and knows (that is, claims to know) a god exists.
An agnostic theist would be one who believes a god exists, but doesn’t know if a god exists.
A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe a god exists and claims to know whether or not a god exists.
An agnostic atheist is one who doesn’t believe or know if a god exists.
---
The 50/50 or dichotomy wouldn’t be “does God exist?” in regards to belief. ‘I don’t know’ may be the most intellectually honest answer to give to a question of knowledge. The 50/50 would be “do you believe a god exists?” Yes or No covers all bases here.
Redefining a term in a nebulous manner is something akin to moving the goalpost - hide the ball so no one can play. It's not about philosophy, good or bad. It's about getting to keep your belief no matter how irrational or unsupported that belief is.
In my experience most atheists debating or discussing theism or religion on the Internet are 'weak' atheists - they are not fully convinced of atheism but they really want to be. Losing a point means losing their 'faith' and they would rather argue incoherently than accept being wrong even on minor points.
Basically, people dodge arguments when they are afraid of being wrong about a core or dearly held belief. Sure, you'll see the same lack of confidence in some Christians, but atheism seems to be trying to corner the market.
Well stated Phyllis Maddox!
You could say I'm a 'weak' atheist, as its often described as not knowing if a god exists or not, but I always found that way of describing it to be pretty dumb as it gives the feeling that I'm unsure if I don't believe in a god or if I do. But I'm fully convinced that I don't have a believe in any gods, but nor am I claiming that no gods exist. I'm an agnostic atheist.
@@darrylelam256 While you are by no means obligated to assign full confidence to any particular theory, if you can't argue for a less-than-stellar confidence in theism, you have conceded the argument. In philosophy, all claims bear the burden of proof, but uncontested claims are just that, uncontested. As such, atheists, Christians, and agnostics all bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why their position is, in fact, rational.
@@jonathandoe1367 But I'm not making any claim on the existence of a god. I'm simply stating that I don't have a belief that one exists. Therefore no burden of proof.
The ordinary usage of "is some one who lacks belief in a god or gods" (as used by most atheists, not as defined in most philosophical dictionaries). So it's not a matter of us defining ourselves as we want (and as you don't want), but the ordinary usage, particularly among atheists. Can you not deal with that definition? Is that why theist attacks on atheism are generally strawman attacks. But I see many apologists do this, attack their idea of athiesm.
Since zygotes and subatomic particles don't have the capacity to believe (as noted), and an athiest isn't something that believes, but someone, and since these two examples are known to be impossible, "S lacks a belief in a god or gods" is sufficient to establish that S is an atheist. This does not mean that S is a bad communicator, when that would fall to you for insisting that S define atheism to your satisfaction. You know what S believes sufficiently to move the conversation forward. And if you don't, you're in the wrong business. Because nothing reported in this video is conducive to creating dialog.
Atheism is a matter of belief. A-theism: the absence of theistic belief that entails NO OTHER philosophical position.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. A-gnostic: one who lacks knowledge. And since all atheists lack knowledge of god, all atheists are also agnostic, but all agnostics are not atheist since in having no knowledge, the agnostic has no opinion about god.
Yes, I would consider the 50/50 person to be an atheist. You are instead describing a skeptic.
"the experts who define these terms" is an appeal to authority fallacy. Basically arguing the athiests must define themselves as you dictate. If someone tells you that they lack a belief in god, how does that impede you from moving forward with the conservation?
Wow holy crud, this was extremely great! I am extremely impressed, cheers Cameron and Joe! I can’t help but want more.
Every sperg fedora going "but I get to decide what words mean" should just be asked, is equivocation possible?
This is not atheist's #1 BIGGEST mistake, that's a bit silly.
Why did you add "#1"?
@@bosspaw4028 The full video was titled "Top 3 BIGGEST mistakes made by Atheists" and this clip is just the final one. Also the thumbnail has "#1".
@@emilbonnek I see, thank you for the clarification.
The biggest mistake atheists do is saying: "I don't have evidence for the existence of God" , by using I they r presupposing their own existence without any evidence.
@@B.S._Lewis if an atheist can't even prove he exists why ask for evidence of God.
the points he gives to show why definitions are important are really reasons why definitions are problematic. The meaning of a word often does not correspond to the definition shared by the greatest number of minds
This statements about the lack of education and non engaging with the best versions of arguments is frustrating. It's not the problem that non-theist do not know some modern version of kalam, it's just that it is only more convoluted, but the same archaic nonsense based on the thousands years old worldviews. It's like if you would still think that aether exists and in those years you would create complex theories about it's properties. These theories would maybe be complex and impressive but still have nothing to do with reality.
THANK YOU
It's all just an attempt to dress-up and modernise ideas that remain as unsubstantiated as they've been for millennia.
Interesting choice with aether, I wonder who believe in it.
@@Sednoob Funny you should ask that. Spacetime, as we know it, is somewhat similar to the idea of aether (although mechanically quite different, of course). Matter itself is requires spacetime to exist, and spacetime is predicated on quantum fields, which are themselves just streams of mathematical data. So, in a way, it is true that light does require a medium, it's just not the Newtonian idea of a medium. I'm not sure if that qualifies as belief in the aether, but the intuition upon which this theory was grounded in was at least partially correct, though the specifics were quite a bit off (as one would expect for holding a Newtonian model of a non-Newtonian Universe).
The problem is that the original arguments were rock solid, and have been rephrased slightly for clarity, to keep up with recent developments in philosophy, or to incorporate new discoveries as part of the evidence. You can read Plato or Aquinas today, (in fact, I recently purchased a copy of the Republic) and it would be no different than when it was proposed. The thing about logic is that it, like the Prime Mover, must necessarily be timeless.
I will say that some arguments do need reworking, such as Des Carte's Trademark Argument. If it were rephrased as an inductive argument with some better articulated premises, and incorporated contemporary evidence such as neuroscience or evo-psych, it would be a decent argument, but not the strongest.
@@jonathandoe1367 Aether is as "somewhat similar" to Spacetime as a car is somewhat similar to a road. Sure a car and a road are both medium for you to travel, but that's about it. Calling them "somewhat similar" is quite an interesting sketch, and it's even worse with Aether and Spacetime. Aether was supposed to be a material that fill everywere in the universe, while Spacetime is a propriety of the universe itself. It's a significant shift on how to think about the universe. For the first time, the universe was explain throught property that weren't reductible to what was inside the universe.
The motivation behing my comment was to be found elsewere thought. Turn out that William Lane Craig do believe in the existance of aether, and reject Einstein Spacetime. And it's not at all a motivated reasoning of course.
Woah. Slow down there. Really good stuff here, but hard to process at that pace. I'll have to rewatch!
Seems like we have to settle on a definition in order to discuss this...or anything for that matter!
Yes, and as an atheist I prefer epistemological definitions over metaphysical definitions. "I am not convinced by theistic claims" is not in and of itself "a belief" and it certainly is not an affirmative position, either for, or against the proposition of the existence of God. It is a rejection position of, "I am not convinced", which requires no burden of proof!
@@coffeetalk924 Thanks for your reply. As a Christian I am often not 100% sure about anything. I have searched for answers my whole life because of it. Anyway, my question is if someone is only 90% sure that God does not exist, is that person an atheist?
@@passthebaton7916 There is no such thing as 90% sure, or unsure. There is only 100% sure that God is the best explaination for reality, or not. Either you believe in X, or you do not believe in X. There is no grey area. Is a woman ever 90% pregnant? (Polite laugh). Either she is 100% pregnant, or she is 100% not pregnant. Agreed?
@@coffeetalk924 I don't really agree. After working in the OR for 20 years I have helped either deliver a baby or products of conception on several women who did not know or were not 100% sure that they were pregnant....don't get me wrong here. I know that they were 100% pregnant because the evidence showed me that they were. But yet they didn't know it. They only knew they were bleeding and something was wrong or just didn't feel right....and lets face it if "pregnancy starts with conception then every single women who is pregnant, is probably pregnant before she knows it 100%.
@@passthebaton7916 it's completely irrelevent whether they knew they were pregnant. You're missing the point. Either they are 100% pregnant, or they are 100% not pregnant. There is no 90% pregnant. And the analogy to God belief is exactly the same thing here! Either you believe in X, or you do not believe in X. There is no, "well, I sort of do and I sort of don't!" That would be nonsense!
If a person thought a God existence was more probable then not, would also believe a God exist.
First, I'm blessed
The problem lies in the lack of associativity:
a-(the-ism) != (a-the)-ism
We just need brackets!
Uh...no...where did you even found that brackets?
Nowhere, I was just observing that the suffix and the prefix can be interpreted as being applied in two differenti orders, giving the meaning of "absence (a) of belief(ism) in dities(the)" or "belief in the absence of deities".
@@giovannironchi5332 The issue here is with the long history of adapting Greco-Latin word parts into English and similar languages. When a- or ana- is used, it is more typically used to negate the core reference of the word, and not the suffix indicating the form. On the other hand, non- is used for just such a purpose. So atheist would read as "agentive noun of not-god", whereas nontheist would read as "not agentive-noun-of-god". It's much clearer at getting the point across, and already exists as a word.
It becomes pretty apparent in typical usage that the term is a motte-and-bailey for the traditional definition. Such "lacktheists" suppose that they aren't making a claim, and thus have no burden of proof, which therefore makes their position true by default. The issue with this this is pretty simple. If one claims only that he doesn't believe something, he only bears the burden to prove that he isn't lying or mistaken about his own beliefs (which, to be fair, people often can be, on some level). However, what you believe in has no direct bearing on the external world. Therefore, even if his claim is true, he isn't detracting from theism in any way. To oppose theism, he must suppose it false, which would require evidence. Also, many state that there "is no evidence", or that they haven't seen any evidence. Ironically, these are claims which too bear the burden of proof. If a theist supposing something amounts to evidence, the atheists must demonstrate how it does not function as evidence. This is all very well understood in academia, where "lacktheism" is not taken seriously by atheists. In an argument, if there is only one claim anyone is willing to argue for, it must be treated as the most likely claim. If atheists claim nothing, then theism, ironically, becomes true by default. That why every atheist scholar actually supposes evidence for atheism, and gives an argument of why it is more likely than theism.
For the 10,000th time, theism deals in belief, gnosticism deals in knowledge. So if I ask someone if they believe in God and they reply, "I don't know," they haven't answered my question. I didn't ask what you know. I asked what you believe.
@Frances Snowflake Yes but you BELIEVE that something exists, but you can't show that it exists yet you expect others to believe too then you do indeed have a burden of proof.
I've had this happen numerous times.
"You don't know if you believe in god?"
- "No. I don't know if god exists"
"That's not what I asked. Do you believe in god?"
- "I just told you: I don't know"
Somehow, this is very difficult
@@tomwimmenhove4652 I think its likely to avoid getting the reply of 'Can you prove there is no god' because I often get that when I say I don't believe in any gods.
@Frances Snowflake "Theism is not defined as expecting anything of anyone." DUH, that's because theism isn't a F'ing person, theists on the other hand are people and do expect things of other people.
"But if a theist expects you to believe God exist" Of course they do, hint its why I know your name so well because you can't seem to stop talking about god to others because you are not satisfied with just you believing but that you also want others to believe.
"doesn't incur a burden of proof" YES IT DOES! If you are unable to provide evidence for your claim that a god exists then there is literally no reason to believe.
You're hopelessly confused
@Frances Snowflake "Prove it" If you had the guts to answer the question in the other tread I could do so very easy. But despite me asking over and over again, not only have you refused to answer but you have repeatedly tried to lie about what I said.
Joe's summary of objections: 11:48 to 12:40
I would have thought the number 1 mistake for Atheist would be...
Wasting their time trying to explain what an Atheist is to an apologist.
....and once again a guy who doesn't understand Philosophy and just wrote an ignorant comment that is supposed to implicate a cheap "drop the mic" moment. Bro watch the video and understand what he is saying before commenting he makes some interesting points regarding the problems that comes up with the common usages of the word Atheist. Also this guy isn't an apologist! Bro why are there so many Atheists in the comment who think by challenging the term Atheism means they are affirming God belief? Even if we disprove the term Atheist and say the term makes no sense than that still doesn't prove God! Like why are they this insecure and emotional about a term!?
@@lobstered_blue-lobster.... Yeah. One of us two does seem rather emotional about this term Atheist or Atheism..
One of us. ;)
But.. go ahead.. and I will continue answer the question..
"Do you think a God exist?"
My answer will still be, No.
Call that answer whatever you or any philosopher want to call it... it does change the fact that I do not believe a God exist.
Keep up the good works.. you're helping people become atheists every day. ;)
@@lamaar8252 ok first of all I do apologize fir the off rant in my comment it was a bit unintentional I am sorry I just read so many of these comments who didn't even bother to watch the video and commented that just seeing the title.
And sure terms doesn't matter to you, these terms merely exist to simplify beliefs if you decided to not employ them than sure but just be clear with your beliefs so we can communicate well.
And also I am helping people become Atheist? That just proves how dumb you guys are really that you are persuaded by rhetoric and not the argument itself. Your kind off mindset just shows why weird beliefs like Flat Earth exists because they are perpetuated by intelligent conman who use strong rhetoric, if you become/became an Atheist because of how I phrased my argument that speaks a lot about your intellectuality and intelligence.
I am fairly sure you didn't even go beyond the 5 minute mark but it's interesting just as I finished watching that i found your reply, (not saying it was by some God talking to me just a coincidence) in the video they talked about people like you use strong rhetoric to hide your weak beliefs which could easily be demolished with 30 seconds of critical thought. People like you don't want to know the truth but simply want to believe in what you want to believe in.
@@lamaar8252
"You are helping people becoming Atheists everyday"
I know I already replied but I wanted to give more of my thoughts, I think it is sad that you and other people are being persuaded by rhetoric than argumentation as I said in my previous comment, it speaks volumes about why superstition or stupid beliefs survive because they are perpetuated by intelligent pollemicists and conman that people are so easily comvinced by because of the gotchas and sarcasm and other techniques they use. You did those same things as well to be persuasive and insult me never giving a critical thought about my argument. Your replies just embodies everything wrong with communication. It's just a sad sight to see tbh.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster "People like you don't want to know the truth but simply want to believe in what you want to believe."
I would call this a good definition of PROJECTION! :)
"And also I am helping people become Atheist? That just proves how dumb you guys are really that you are persuaded by rhetoric and not the argument itself."
Arguments? Really?
This what I mean by wasting time discussing what an atheist is to an apologist, or defender of faith.. or whatever you want to call yourself. I, myself, do not care about the arguments.. I care about evidence.. Tangible. Recordable. Measurable. Testable. Challengeable and Reliable EVIDENCE.
Hell, One could "Argue" that this universe was farted into existence by a gargantuan fire breathing Unicorn.. But.. @CapturingChristianity would tell you... "arguments are not evidence." ;)
That is why.. when one ask the question.. "Do you believe in God," My answer is No. Which makes me an.. Atheist.
Am I willing to change my mind? Yes..
How? WITH EVIDENCE.
I hope that helps. Cheers.
Impressive. Good arguments, good presentation of your arguments. I don't see people with this level of clear mind very often. I am truly impressed. 👍
Everybody I know who are not atheists know exactly what I mean when I say atheist mean someone who doesn't believe in god's . I'll never understand why apologist go on and on about this it has no bearing on anything substantive
When I first heard the word 'atheist' is when I told someone that I didn't believe in a god. The believer is the one who called me an atheist when I told them I did not have a belief in a god.
I however do understand the reason why apologist go on and on about it, they can't actual present anything that can show a god to be real, so instead they try to make others prove that it's impossible that there exists some kind of god. Its a shifting of the burden of proof, which is most commonly seen as 'well you can't prove that god doesn't exist' as if that somehow validates their baseless claim that one does.
@Jon Well atheism is a lack of belief. If you don't have a belief in something than you lack a belief in it. If you don't have a belief that a good exists than you lack the belief that a god exists.
@Jon I did. They are ignoring the common usage definition and claiming that only the philosophical definition is correct. But most people don't care much about philosophy. But the common usage of atheist is anyone who is not a theist. And if you're not a theist that means you do not have a belief in a god, if you do not have a belief in a god that means you lack a belief and a god. This is all very simple and common things that they are ignoring.
@Jon So what are we mssing everything @darryle Elam made sense to me. I did watch the video . You don't believe in Zeus I assume there for you lack a believe in Zeus. Are you saying you don't lack a believe in Zeus but still don't believe in Zeus
@Jon Atehsim
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods - Oxford dictionary
a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods - merriam-webster
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. - wikipedia
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. - American atheists
You aren't going to to fine a more common definition of atheism than a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Following a religion does not mean you are a theist. Acting as if you belief a God exist does not mean you believe a God exist. There is no problem where you claim there is a problem.
"Following a religion does not meant you are an Atheist" can you please rephrase that don't mind me but I think the grammar is a bit off.
Yeah exactly! One who acts to believe in God does not actually believe in God and furthermore if he says we need to carve up space for the term Agnostic because it exists than why aren't we ought to do the same with term "Christian Atheist"? That term exists to and perfectly fits the definition of a Pascallian Theist.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster
You are correct. I meant to say, following a religion does not make you a theist.
Its stupid to call atheism a belief, "a" means "not", so its "not theism".
If you're not a theist, then you don't believe in god(s).
The dictionary definition tends to be a person that lacks belief in god(s).
So that rules out atoms and cement mixers as being atheists.
That seems a little dodgy to bungle in that extra condition, but I can see the practical value of it.
Yes, "I'm not convinced by theistic claims" is not in and of itself "a belief". If all the religions in the world were channels on a television, atheism would not be a channel on the list....it would be the OFF button!
@@coffeetalk924 I watched a bit more, 5:25, that makes sense, but then he says there's no room for agnostics on that picture, that makes no sense to me at all.
7:06, they should count as an atheist, since they don't believe in god.
7:56, the negation of theism is not the denial of anything, whoever said that should be shot.
8:53, if theism is just belief in god(s), then its not true or false, the same way atheism isn't.
The thing being believed would be true or false though.
@@colinjava8447 *The thing being believed would be true or false though*
He’s summarizing Paul Draper’s argument. Draper distinguishes between the psychological state of accepting a claim, and the content of the claim itself, defining theism as the latter. In other words, theism is not a _psychological state_ but the assertion _God exists._
@@colinjava8447 It's true that "A" is a negative, but "A" can just as easily mean "no", not "not".
Theos means God
Atheos means No God
Ism means belief
Therefore, atheism means "No God *belief".*
No-God-Belief = A belief that states there is no God.
@@nathanaelculver5308 I thought theism was just belief in god(s)?
Where does the assertion come in?
I believe there are no gods, but I'm not asserting it.
I was preparing for his brain to blow up contemplating all possibilities
"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." -Wikipedia
It's almost as if words often have several applicable definitions depending on scope and context. Maybe just agree on definitions when debating somebody, and then get to the actual subject matter?
Well then, I’d say they don’t know if there is a God. Which put them right into agnosticism, coz the 2 terms now describe the same thing
Or if those insist that they don’t want to be called agnostics , well cluelessness might be a better term than atheism
@@oscarwong4201 you don’t get to gate keep definitions for words.
Quoting Wackypedia the site that any goofball can edit. Classy
@@elgatofelix8917 do you accept the definition of atheism as expressed in Merriam Webster dictionary as being a valid definition for the term atheism?
Strange how you need faith to make it seem to feel real.
I actually agree with most of these points and have thought about some my self. I would have no problem describing myself as a non theist instead of atheist to describe my lack of belief. Great guest to have on the channel more regularly! 👍🏻
non theist makes about as much sense as atheist. Why not just call yourself "a person who lives as though God does not exist, selfish and unconcerned about others"?
@@l.m.892 How does that make you selfish and unconcerned about others just because you do not believe in a god? that makes no sense
@@lucaedwards3576 Did you not read the part about "living as though God does not exist"? Many consider themselves "fair and good people". Where do they get this concept of "fair and good" from? KKK members considered themselves doing mankind a favor (being fair and good) when they lynched African Americans. Atheists are generally pawns of the oppressors. Most of them have no idea who they serve, so I am not surprised at your response.
Theists should be glad 'lack-theists' are not pressing they have positive proof there is no such thing as deity. It should make the debate simpler, right? No complicated 'natural a-theology' to muddy the water. All we are asking the theist to do is define deity coherently, then provide verifiable evidence said deity is more than just a brain-state, and it may get a fair hearing among those of us who identify as 'lack-style' atheists.
BTW, Draper's preference for treating atheism as purely propositional is simply an occupational hazard. He is a philosopher, so of course he debates propositions, not brain states. I get it.
But at least he recognizes the distinction. Theism (or lack thereof) as a subjective brain-state is not the same thing as an objective proposition. When viewed as a brain state, it makes sense to treat the negation as the negation of a belief, a lack of belief. Despite your appeal to 'nontheist,' I'm confident most ordinary 'lack-theists' are approaching this as a question of belief, not a proposition problem, and 'atheist' vs 'nontheist' as interchangeable terms. That might drive rigorous philosophical types batty, but it also might be why so many people in this debate keep talking past each other, playing this annoying little game of shifting the burden of proof. And according to your citation from Huemer, one could view it as a totally valid expression of the linguistic model of that community.
Which gets to a bigger issue. In your apologetics, pinning your argument on prescriptive definitions rooted in a propositional mindset may win you points with the theistic in-group. But for those of us just trying to live our lives as close to reality as we can, this attempt to lock us into your linguistic model so you can play 'shift the burden of proof' doesn't really gain you anything.
For example, labelling people as 'bad communicators' because they don't use 'atheism' propositionally? Seriously? That's not the real issue. The real issue is that philosophical theism as a propositional science is a very weak tool for real life apologetics. In the grand scheme, theists are arguing that belief in God is necessary to well-being, that the deity is real, can answer prayer, can save something called a soul, can even render an eternal judgment, meaning it's demands must be addressed. But based on what? Some 'expert' named Draper says it's a proposition? In what universe do you think that has any relevance to most people wrestling with this question?
Then you drop to ad hominem. People who use 'atheism' as descriptive of their subjective beliefs 'have a psychological thing?' We're 'rebels?' Well, lots of good people were rebels. Jesus was considered a rebel. So maybe it's not ad hominem after all? Still, kind of a mean dig there, Cam. I expected better of you.
So here's my rebellion. People like me choose to not be afraid of pissing off invisible angry tribal war gods, but will go on with their lives, eating, sleeping, working, playing, loving, and dying, in accordance with reality as they honesty perceive it, as they believe it to be. You won't reach these people, you won't reach me, without evidence so robust it would change my beliefs. An arcane debate over specialist terminology isn't enough to build a life on.
@North Korea Is Second Best Korea Whatever. Peace. 🙂
@North Korea Is Second Best Korea No, I don't understand. So I'm trying to politely ignore you. If you have a cogent point to make, I will be glad to respond. I do not waste my time on nonsense. Peace. 🙂
@North Korea Is Second Best Korea Like I said, whatever. Peace.
I think the reason why philosophy is devalued by atheists because it rarely helps them. In my experience with arguing with atheists Philosophy in general tends to be a thorn in their sides because it forces them to question ideas they Don't want to question and accept propositions they Don't want to accept. Hence, the absurdity in their definitions because it's not held within this space that can be torn apart by philosophy even though it still is. Tolkien even remarks on this way of thinking because it really comes from materialism, which atheists themselves Don't realize failed as a Philosophy, he compared to locking one's self into a jail cell and pretending Nothing exists outside the cell not even the prison or jail if you prefer. Just the 4 walls, maybe a bench and the bars and that's it.
Excellent observation. Materialism is self refuting.
@@extract8058 Accusing athiest of being materialist is just an excuse apologist use for not having evidence. If Obi-Wan Kenobi real he could demonstrate the spiritual power known as the force on a daily basis.
@@AJ-sl7be thank you for admitting you don't know what a materialist is. It was an actual philosophy followed by Atheists starting in the late 1800s and failed following WW2. Materialism is of the belief that anything you can't see touch smell or feel doesn't exist. Like modern Atheists they believed this was backed by science until things like atomic physics, gasses, even radiation became part of scientific study did this philosophy collapse because what these showed was that there were things beyond the senses that existed the only reason we had no clue they were even there was because the means of studying them hadn't been invented yet. So nice job admitting how dumb and ignorant you are. You could have spared yourself a great deal of humiliation if you Googled the term first before writing. Lmao
@@asgaiyawaya3973 No Athiest believes that if you can't sense something it doesn't exist. Why would you create such an insane strawman? Show me one athiest who thinks this.
@@asgaiyawaya3973 also i said ACCUSING atheist of being materialist, you can't even follow the argument. There are plenty of atheist with spiritual beliefs so that debunks your argument as well.
The simplest way to spell out the lacktheist error:
Yes, atheist means "the negation of god" but there's two kinds of negation, it doesn't mean "not god" it means "no god". They are equivocating between the two.
If you want the more pinky up answer, it's a scope distinction.
Also you have to see presup as a debate tactic granting the lacktheism definition.
So he wants the definition of atheism in such a way for there to be arguments for and against it? Weird.
Sarcasm appreciated.
@@aanon2550 I agree, the main ones being science, problems with the arguments, evolution of the religion from a multiple deity pantheon to a single one.
@@mathunt1130 Try "The Case for Ancient Monotheism Documentary" by InspiringPhilosophy here on TH-cam.
@@jonathandoe1367 There is no case for a deity. It *all* has to be taken on faith, and faith alone.
This was an odd one to listen to. Ivory towers don't get to decide the usages of terms. If there's confusion, just clear it up.
So less then 20 seconds into the video and the "BIGGEST' mistake that atheists make is to accurately define their position?
I'm sorry but it is a fact that I lack(A) theism(a belief in god or gods). So no it is not a mistake when I correctly and accurately define my position on the belief in a god or gods. I don't have such a belief, I LACK that belief.
1:30 into the video the guy is talking about 'standard english usage' and 'ordinary usage' yet when you look at standard ordinary dictionaries you find the definition that most atheists use, and the only time you find the definitions that he like you only find the in philosophy dictionaries such as Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which are not commonly used by normal people.
The first time I ever even heard the word atheist was was when I told a theist that I didn't believe in god after he asked if he could pray for my bad knee. I kindly told him 'No, you don't need to I don't believe in god' He called me an atheist and then he ran away, and yes he literally ran away, confused I looked up the definition when I got home and I got the common usage definition for atheist which I still use to this day.
Two questions for Joe Smith (that are not directly related to the video subject, but are related to definitions of "atheist"):
1) Can an atheist be religious? (For instance: is Raëlism an atheistic religion?)
2) Can an atheist be agnostic?
For instance, is someone who believes God doesn't exist but also believes it's impossible to know if God exists (belief and knowledge are different), is that person an atheist and agnostic?
(added)
After sending the comment, I watched another video where Joe Smith says "agnosticism" is defined as a suspension of belief in Philosophy.
But I know other definitions. I'm providing two I found (on the Web) to provide examples:
- "Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition." (Philosophy Pages)
- "(...) an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false (...) Call this the “psychological” sense of the term. (...) it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known (...)" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(edited)
I replaced "Cameron Bertuzzi". I meant "Joe Smith" (Joe is the expert). Sorry, Cameron :P
I have always thought of Atheism vs Agnosticism as this:
Atheism: the lack of belief that a God or gods exist.
Agnosticism: the lack of belief that the existence of a God or gods can be known, whether they exist or not.
Thus, an agnostic atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in God because they don't think they could know either way, and thus neither believe in or believe against that God. A gnostic atheist would be someone who believes against a God. A gnostic theist believes that God exists and that such information can be known, and an agnostic theist believes in God but doesn't "know" whether their God actually exists.
These two words describe answers to two different unrelated questions, so there can be overlap where one is also the other. At least,this is my take on ot
Lack belief in God would imply one does not believe God can be known, because if God can be known, then a God exists who can be known. If one does not believe God exists, then it logically follows you cannot know something that doesn't exist, so if a person lacks belief that God exists, then he also lacks the belief that God can be known, and that would make atheism and agnosticism redundant.
The issue is, this is not just a matter of "defining terms", this is about behavioral patterns and whether or not people's actions agree with what they claim their position is.
If a person claims something and their lifestyle contradicts what they claim, then their true position is what they actually live out, not what they claim their position is.
If a man and his wife are at a restaurant, and the wife leans over and whispers into the husband's ears that the man sitting alone a few tables away was on the news yesterday and it was reported that he was a murderer, if the husband responds and says "I'm not convinced" or "I don't believe you", and he continues eating his meal as though his wife didn't say anything, then he is treating the claim "he is a murderer" *as false.* It is not a neutral position.
If the atheist does not perform spiritual practices because he's not convinced that God exists, then the very action to proceed to live life without conforming to the will of any G(g)od from any given faith, then he is treating the claim "God exists" *as false.* It is not neutral.
Therefore kind the true position is not "lack of belief", the true position is "God does not exist", and this is why I'm not convinced that the position of lack of belief actually exists.
@@Bi0Dr01d I disagree with this. Let's say I have no clue if any God exists, like I might be 50 percent convinced on the kalam or whatever. But I'm 100 percent sure that Christianity isn't true, and the same for every other ritualistic religion. How can you judge anything about my stance on a God existing just because I don't perform the rituals associated with the obviously manmade religions. Like what spiritual practices should I engage in?
This strikes me as a very strange take
Don't define things in terms of "lacks". Both of those definitions entail that rocks are atheists and agnostics, since they lack a belief in God or a belief that God can be known.
@@Bi0Dr01d also. You are not using the word "believe" correctly. Your first statement; that not believing in God implies that one believes that God cannot be known. It's flat out wrong.
I hate to use this example again, but if you have a jar of gumballs, there is either an odd or an even number in the jar. Now with no knowledge do you believe that there is an odd number?
- No you don't belive that.
Does that mean that you believe that one can't know? No.
( Should we focus on those who claim to know? Yes. )
I mean it's so simple really. Not believing in God does not imply anything like what you are postulating.
@@esbensteen5412 You Said: _"Let's say I have no clue if any God exists, like I might be 50 percent convinced on the kalam or whatever."_
Reply: Saying "I have no clue" would be a cop-out. This is not a question of what a person knows, but belief, and a person's actions supports one conlusion above another which removes this 50/50% scenario.
----------------------
You Said: _"How can you judge anything about my stance on a God existing just because I don't perform the rituals associated with the obviously manmade religions."_
Reply: Easy. If evidence is not the reason a person lives as an atheist, then it follows logically that the person is an atheist simply due to preference, not evidence, and therefore, "lack of belief" fails to define the position because "lack of belief" implies neutrality, and preference towards atheism contradicts neutrality.
However, if the reason a person lives as an atheist due to evidence,...
1. This implies the reason a person is an atheist is because of lack of evience, *whih is a claim* that "There is no sufficient evidence to justify belief in God", which is a claim *with a burden of proof.* If that burden of proof isn't met, then the atheist is apparently okay with making his own faith claims as long as it helps him deny God, but he only seems to require this evidence when it points to God existing, *exposing a preference towards atheism apart from evidence, contradicting "lack of belief".*
2. Evidence being the reason to live as an atheist implies that actions and beliefs should be motivted by truth, and of course, if they are not motivated by truth, then #1 is implied *(preference).* This would mean the conclusion would be to only conform if one has reason to do so. If you are consistent, then you would be implying your actions are motivated by truth/evidence, which would inadvertantly be admitting you do not perform spiritual practices because you are not convinced it is true, and do not conformed your life because you are not convinced or do not have reason to believe it is true, meaning one would respond to the claim in this scenario in a way which, through action, treats the claim "God exists" *as false.*
Therefore, in both cases, "lack of belief" is a false definition.
-------------------------
You Said: _"Your first statement; that not believing in God implies that one believes that God cannot be known. It's flat out wrong."_
Reply: That isn't what I said.
This is what I said: *_"Lack belief in God would imply one does not believe God can be known...so if a person lacks belief that God exists, then he also lacks the belief that God can be known, and that would make atheism and agnosticism redundant."_*
The point was not "not believing in God implies that one believes that God cannot be known, the point is that not believing in God also implies *not believing* God can be known. In short, if one is not certain that God exists, one is also not certain that God can be known, making agnosticism and atheism redundant.
The first gentlemen tried to make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism/or define "agnostic atheism" by saying that the agnostic doesn't believe God can be known, and the atheist doesn't believe in God's existence. I'm saying this distinction the atheist gentlemen is trying to create by defining these 2 this way does not succeed in making this distinction because if a person does not believe God exists, then he also isn't certain of the conclusion that God can/cannot be known. This means saying "agnostic atheist" becomes redundant. The context would come from this video which makes the point that the line between agnosticism and atheism becomes blurred by this definition of atheism that atheists use.
--------------------------------
You Said: _"I hate to use this example again, but if you have a jar of gumballs, there is either an odd or an even number in the jar. Now with no knowledge do you believe that there is an odd number?"_
Reply: My friend, that is a false analogy. This is not parrallel with atheism. I also used an analogy which closer matches. The wife leans over and whispers to the husband that the man is a murderer. The husband says "I don't believe you", and continues eating his meal. He is treating the claim "He is a murderer" *as false.*
The gumball analogy fails because not every situation allows there to be a neutral position because not every claim is the same, and some claims force a person to choose a side, and God's existence is one of those claims.
The claim of God's existence is a claim of ultimate reality where a person would have to conform his life if the claim is true. This is not the same with gumballs. There is no call to change one's life in the claim of gumballs, but there is with God. Therefore, if one doesn't conform because he is not convinced the claim is true, then he is treating the claim *as false.* Therefore, the gumball analogy is a false analogy.
It's OK, I'm totally fine being called an Agnostic - it's no biggie :)
That's not the same as "lacking theism", though. Atheist is a perfectly good and useful term. If it needs since clarification, that's also fine.
@@B.S._Lewis I don't know if there is a God or not.
@@B.S._Lewis yes same! Leprechaun's are a bit different than God though, there could be a God, but leprechaun's are a made up thing.
@@B.S._Lewis we have lots of evidence that many cultures create God's. It seems to me that there is so much humans don't know about the universe and the nature of reality, that there may well be a God or something equivalent at the base of it all. It seems even more likely to me that it is something we have never even considered, given our limited knowledge and experience but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a God. I'd be crazy surprised if there was actual leprechaun's.
@@B.S._Lewis I think that God being a Leprechaun seems unlikely to me but some kind of entity at the base of reality might be the case. I think that Leprechaun's are man made beast's like God's are but we might have accidentally got it right with Gods. Maybe not though, I suspect that the nature of reality it something we cannot even imagine.
I still don't understand why you'd want your opponent to also hold counter beliefs. Do you think that disproving some counter argument counts FOR your argument?
That's exactly what they want. A dichotomy.
But i can guarantee that if atheism cannot be proven, they wouldn't think Shiva or Thor was the opposite
@@hannahalice1000 Even if it's a true dichotomy, adding evidence on the opposing side just hurts your case. Disproving such evidence brings you at best back to zero.
The issue is that if there are not arguments that propose the nonexistence of God, then the existence of God, being the only theory remaining, would be the most likely. However, winning arguments by default is not a good way to search for truth. The more counter-arguments considered, the better the chance of arriving at the correct conclusion...just as long as the arguments are reasonably good, anyway. That's why theists, such as Socrates or Des Cartes, typically engage in debate and philosophy.
@@hannahalice1000 A dichotomy? Not really. There's a whole list of positions to be falsified, from Deism, to Pantheism, to Paganism, to Spiritualism. The problem is that Atheism is literally the easiest to disprove, as it can be refuted with bare logic, as per natural theology. Atheism is currently losing ground in philosophy, and Christianity is starting to gain some serious traction in history as well. The problem arises when there are atheists on the internet and in popular culture who bury their heads in the sand and make some ridiculous arguments that aren't philosophically viable. I would much rather move on to dealing with these so-called Neo-Pagans (Spiritualists who think they are Pagans), or converting Hindus and Buddhists in the East. The issue in the West is that we're currently dealing with a society of philosophically illiterate numbskulls, many of which are Atheists or supposed "Christians", and few of which have valid arguments, so that means I have to spend most of my life around people who either can't understand the Teleological Argument or who don't know that getting drunk is both sinful and detrimental to one's health. So no, I don't hear philosophers arguing for a dichotomy, and I see many appeal to the fact that even Pagans and Deists can accept the existence of the Prime Mover, as it is clearly outline in logic, which has been subsequently confirmed by empirical observation. The question is, why can't you?
@@jonathandoe1367 I said "even if". Not "There is". Somewhat of a difference. Reading comprehension required.
Either an individual acknowledges the existence of a god (theist) or does not acknowledge the existence of a god (atheist). There are no other options in a proper dichotomy.
I'm going to challenge the assertion that subatomic particles, zygotes, etc., do not "believe in God." English poet and hymn writer William Cowper (1731-1800)wrote, "Part of Thy Name divinely stands in all Thy creatures writ. They speak the labor of Thy hands, or impress of Thy feet." Psalm 19 makes a similar point, as do the hymn "The Spacious Firmament" ("In reason's ear they all rejoice..."), CS Lewis's space trilogy, and Mike Deasy's song "Mark of the Maker." It is rebellious humanity that is the exception.
Rev 18:4
An entire show to dismantle a terms usage ... HA HA HA !! Yes that should show everyone that god is real huh !!!!
Wow. Congratulations. You completely missed the point of this video. You must feel so smart, so proud.
An entire comment to criticize the believers of a god you don't even believe in!!
Her obviously lives rent free in your head.
@@browserboy1984 Ha ha , my comment is not a criticism of anyone. And are you saying i have to believe in this god to criticize the believers of ? You're butthurt you'll be fine
@@johnnybickle4116 it obviously was.
And no, I was not.
You just seem fixating on something that you claim to not believe in. Odd...
@@browserboy1984 My goal in life is to fight the oppression machine known as religion. I very well believe in that. My comment nor any part of our conversation has had anything to do with anything i do not believe in.
You're regurgitating something that is supposed to be some sort of go to argument theists use against unbelievers. Lol , i don't believe in a god, but i am obsessed with fighting the spillover effects it has wrought on humanity for centuries. If somehow my being fixated on god believers and religion's encroachment on free society tells you something,,, Well, then more power to you buddy...
13:05 How are they wrong if they are using that strange definition? What false proposition are they believing in?
Typically, it's the proposition that their lack of belief is somehow exempt from the burden of proof, and that there belief is therefore true by default. In actual philosophy, if you aren't claiming your opponent to be wrong, with supporting evidence of some kind, then you lose the argument by default. Also, they may be wrong for believing such a use of the term is acceptable, depending on what principles of philology are assumed.
I have not been presented with enough evidence to believe that any gods exist. I don’t really care what you or anyone calls that.
Haha, yes. It’s not about the word, it’s about the idea.
Err, then this discussion won’t benefit you much it seems
Well, I'd call that someone who hasn't studied natural theology very seriously.
@@jonathandoe1367 there are people that go to church every Sunday and believe that if they don’t worship God they’ll burn in the flames of hell, that haven’t studied natural theology!
First of all, we can't all be philosophers. Most of us are standard laymen who either don't have the time, inclination or cognitive ability to comprehend and reflect on the various philosophical terms and concepts.
I'm one of these people. If I'm going to listen to an argument in favour of God's existence, it'd better end with the conclusion "therefore we have reliably demonstrated the existence of a God." If not, it's a waste of my time.
This squabbling over the usage of the term atheist only exists among pompous agnostics and Theists who are trying to redirect the conversation away from their unjustified beliefs.
Call me whatever the hell you want, the point remains that people make the unjustified claim that a God exists, and I'm not convinced.
@tkwtg The 'unjustified beliefs' part wasn't supposed to include Agnostics, it was purely aimed at Theists.
@Frances Snowflake The simple fact that the existence of a God has not yet been demonstrated means that those who believe one does are holding a belief that is unsupported bu sufficient evidence - it's an unjustified belief.
Same reason why belief in ghosts, intelligent extraterrestrial life or theoretical ideas like multiverse theory are unjustified. There might be some evidence, but it isn't sufficient enough for them to be considered facts.
Then i see another video,,, ''The three biggest mistakes made by atheists'' Ha ha , still on this theme that the term means anything other than disbelief. Change the term atheists to unbelievers and see how silly the entire premise of the title is .. ''The three biggest mistakes unbelievers make'' What mistakes could there be in unbelieving ? They just do not believe you !! Discussing it with this philosophy guy as if the term meant something other than unbelief is the fallacy going on with this entire ''big thing'' you have made about a single term, and it is ridiculous to say the least. A title of systematic following you're trying to turn it into ...Geeeeesh. Let go of the term and just call them unbelievers and then show them your god and be done with this discussion........ Stop with the fallacious arguments against nothing.
Well, at least hypothetically, failing to accept or acknowledge the truth could be an issue. Failing to address the philosophical implications should they be wrong is another. Defining the issue incorrectly so as to misunderstand the nature of the disagreement is the one they are addressing in this video. Specifically, the fact that the term atheist is not interchangeable with unbeliever. Non-Christian theists may be defined as unbelievers, but not atheists. The same with various kinds of nontheists. Technically speaking, I think Deism is distinct from Theism, although both agree on the existence of the Prime Mover, and generally the Moral Argument as well.
How is the term agnostic useful if it too is just describing your psychological state?
I have never encountered any evidence that suggests the existence of a god. Call it what you will, it is still a fact.
Evidence and good reason is two different things.
@@xavierisraelijah9523 Are you stating that evidence doesn't provide a good reason to believe a claim?
@@theoskeptomai2535 I can't speak for him, but I can speculate that he may be referencing Pascal's Wager, or possibly atheist pro-theism (like Mussolini, later in his life, Nietzsche, or RockingMrE). The former proposes quite correctly that the rational choice, from a utilitarian perspective, is to assume theism, no matter how unlikely a proposition that might be. The latter refers to atheist systems of belief that postulate religion to be a necessary, or even beneficial belief/practice, at least for the vast majority of people. Also, have you never heard of natural theology? You might need to consider arguments for Deism.
@@jonathandoe1367 I didn't get the sense that Xavier Isra Elijah was referencing either of those concepts. He was simply making an misguided inference that good reason is not based in evidentiary fact. I had stated 10 facts that I considered when evaluating the theistic claim that gods exist. Had ANY of those facts not been established (or if such facts would change in the future) I would _then_ have a good to acknowledge such a existence.
@@jonathandoe1367 Yes. I have heard of Natural Theology. I have an advanced degree in Theology (MDiv, Ecumenical Studies, Princeton Theological Seminary).
There's no such thing as "lacktheism" except as a pejorative on the internet. The term is "negative atheism", which has been employed, along with "positive atheism", since the 19th century, even within academic philosophy of religion, well before Antony Flew re-introduced those terms in 1972. The only mistake I'm seeing is a lot of people talking about something called "lacktheism" while being completely ignorant of the most common form of atheism. Agnosticism is a legitimate philosophical position but it is not strictly incompatible with atheism. Negative atheism and positive atheism are not competing definitions, but positive atheism is one subset of atheism.
Who says it makes sense to say that theism is true or false? Certainly not this atheist. I reject Draper's argument on that basis alone. I reject the other arguments too if they rest on the belief that the proposition "God exists" is a cognitively meaningful statement, because it is not.
In fact atheism addresses both questions: "Is there a God?" and "Do you believe in a God?"
_"Atheism is the negation of theism"_
Great, and since privation is a form of negation I guess we can go ahead and construe it both ways: an absence of a belief or a positive disbelief. Since this happens to be consonant with the Greek a- it is etymologically sound, as well as philosophically and linguistically sound.
_"A failure to care about good philosophy."_
Pretentious. Most people in general don't care about philosophy in case you hadn't noticed. What, you want to pretend like the average theist cares about philosophy? I don't think so, my dude. Besides that, there's a difference between philosophy and philosophy of religion. One can care about philosophy and disregarding philosophy of religion. To me there's no wonder why most philosophers are atheists and agnostics while most philosophers of religion are Christian theists.
When Iwas young an atheist was one who believed they knew there is no God an agnostic did not know. Now we have the new atheists as if the old needed updating
And did you _know_ any atheists, or was that just what theists were telling you? Because I've been an atheist for at least 60 years or so - for as long as I can remember even considering the issue, at least - and my understanding of the term hasn't changed.
Obviously, living languages change over time, and dictionaries try to keep up with that. But what difference does the _label_ make, anyway?
I don't believe in a god or gods, because I've never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that any god is real. But I don't claim that gods _can't_ exist, because I can't imagine what kind of evidence there could be - even hypothetically - that an invisible, immaterial, magical being _can't_ exist, somewhere.
That's simple enough, isn't it? I call myself an agnostic atheist, but the _label_ certainly isn't what's important.
@@Bill_Garthright Your comment is reasonable I just think atheists are often reluctant to commit themselves to a definition I dont presume to know your beliefs or lack of. As for knowing athiests I am surprised you ask that since there are more unbelievers than believers I am sure, certainly that was the case among building tradesmen of which I was one.Also I was an atheist myself until I was mid twenties a convinced one at that. My comment was really an honest enquiry from a lack of understanding.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491
_Your comment is reasonable I just think atheists are often reluctant to commit themselves to a definition_
Thank you. But it's been my experience that I say what I think, and then theists keep telling me that I actually think something else. Heh, heh. I mean, it's bad enough that they want to re-define the labels I use to describe _myself,_ but it's frequently even worse than that. They want to tell _me_ what I think!
_there are more unbelievers than believers I am sure_
I don't know where you live, but that's *not* the case here in America! The latest poll I've seen shows only 4% of Americans are atheists (with another 5% who identify as agnostic). That's a huge increase when I was young, but it's still a very small minority. (Most of the so-called "Nones" - who are also a distinct minority here - still believe in a god. They just don't want to get specific.)
_I was an atheist myself until I was mid twenties_
Uh, huh. Well, maybe so. But pretty much _every_ Christian tells me that - and every Muslim, too. It's very popular these days to be a "former atheist."
And hey, that might even be true. But I'd still bet that, whatever religion you believe, you were _raised_ to believe it - or, at the very least, had a family background in that religion and were raised in a culture where that religion was the norm.
I don't know you, but that's just _overwhelmingly_ the case, worldwide. There's a reason why 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu.
@@Bill_Garthright My parents were atheist school taught me evolution as did TV and media. I am interested to know how atheists think thats all. Seeing my son born and his developement it made me think it all seemed like a miracle to me.Then the Christening hearing what Jesus said and did I studied the Prophets and believed the bible.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491
_My parents were atheist_
And how about the rest of that? You never said where you live, but I still suspect that you grew up in a predominantly Christian culture. It doesn't really matter, since I'm sure there _are_ exceptions. (Muslims on TH-cam are always bragging about the Christians they've converted to Islam.) They're just quite rare compared to the overwhelming majority of theists who stick with whatever they learned as children.
_school taught me evolution_
Huh? What does evolution have to do with any of this? Evolution is science, not religion. It has nothing to do with Christianity, one way or another.
_hearing what Jesus said and did_
You don't _know_ what Jesus said and did, do you? All you've got are stories written by anonymous authors who don't claim to have even _met_ the guy.
I'm not sure what you mean about "the Prophets." But do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? I'd also accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice.
Today, Cam interviews bully macguire
How old is Joe Schmid?
already saw this months ago, but Joe is the best
You saw it months ago, and that's awesome, but many others haven't.
@@CapturingChristianity please make a video on philosophy books recommendation for beginners +how to study philosophy/Best guideline for studying philosophy
What officiates being an atheist is one willfully testifying to being an atheist,.. We live according to Faith, so likewise we ALSO can only make a statement OF belief in God which opens the door for the more simple minded to also be able to accept even with the Faith of a mustard seed, which implies you choose to claim belief without having to meet some criteria because if there were, then even you, or I might not have reached a level of belief sufficient to be considered a Believer, thus still damned,
Well, top marks for not disabling comments. So much I would love to say to William Lane Craig. But I can't. As for this guy, I guess he will look back at this later with shame of how he rambled before his balls dropped. A direct answer to does God exist : No! Because mythical beings do not exist! I am also an agoblinist. He has obviously done a philosophy 101 course, so, so-and-so makes a fallacy .. so-and-so believes thus and so he should believe thus ..superficial argumenting and so tiresome ... Atheism is the belief that mythical beings called god or goddesses don't exist. What is so hard to understand about that?
Rationality Rules released a good video where he defends both the hard and soft uses of the word "atheist" for different reasons, I thought it was very informative
Stephen’s latest content has been pretty solid.
So the common usage of atheism, is not talking about probability, or what is more likely. You can not believe "x" is true, and false at the same time. Using common usage, if they don't believe the claim is true, and do not believe the claim is false, that would be a atheist. You either believe true, neither, or false. Yes there is room for agnosticism using the most common usages. Yo can not believe you know if a God exist, and believe a God exist. Yo can be a agnostic theist, a agnostic atheist, or a agnostic anti-theist. You could be a Gnostic theist, or a Gnostic anti-theist.
"You cannot believe 'x' is true and false at the time"
True but that is not the problem he stated the problem is someone who believes the probabilty of Go existing is as likely as God not existing or in other words the guy thinks there is a 50% probabilty God exists but also believes there is a a 50% probability that God does not exists, is that kind of guy an Atheist? Definitionally so(if you go with the lack theism claim) because you lack the belief in God but that is a bit screwy (if that makes sense) because his lacking of belief isn't the same as the Atheist who lacks the belief there is a God. His lacking of belief in God is that he believes there is a 50/50 chance so that guy is unsure about God's existence....and there is already a term for that, Agnostic.
Yes it doesn't talk about probability but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take that into accountability because a baby who doesn't believe in God because he or she isn't aware of such a being isn't the same kind of Atheist as Richard Dawkins.
Even tho I disagree with Joe saying "Babies, lack the belief in God" for the sake of argument I used it as an analogy.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster
No, there is no problem. The 50/50 would still be atheist, using the most common usage of, not believing/lacking belief a God exist. Agnostic would be not believing you do know if a God exist.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster
If a thing can not believe a God exist, and does not believe a God exist, would be a atheist, using common usage. There is no problem, with the usage. No one is claiming atheism is addressing the age of the person, or if the person has been presented with the concept of a God.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster
In regards to belief, you either believe "x" is true(theist), not believing "x" is true, or false(atheist), or believe "x" is false(anti-theist). Gnosticism, and Agnosticism, is addressing believing you do know, or not believing you do know. There is no problem with the common usages. And you can be a agnostic theist, a agnostic atheist, a agnostic anti-theist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic anti-theist, and more. So saying agnostic, or gnostic is not telling much. You can not believe you do know if a God exist(agnostic), and believe a God exist(theist).
I do not know anyone that describes the term as a lack of theism. It is the mere disbelief in god or gods. But why should anyone care, lets throw out the term completely. We do not believe in gods. There you have it. You still have yet to demonstrate that there is so this is a ridiculous issue within the issue of existence.
I completely agree! Well said!
I suggest updating this video in response to Rationality Rules well made video on this subject.
I dissagre that you can have a "wrong defenition" of a term. Sure your definition maybe dosnt align with the majoritys definition. But both definitions are just as wrong in respect to eachother.
If i define a horse as "something with wheels", that defenition is only wrong if you are talking about what "horse" usually means in english speaking society. Its just diffrent usages of the word horse.
The issue only when A) you're trying to speak with people who don't understand your definition, or B) you're using an equivocation fallacy, such as motte-and-bailey, extracting things like rhetorical appeal, historical tradition, or strong evidence onto something that does not. In this case, it's usually B, but some honest instances of A may be occurring as well.
My dude is getting his Ph.D now.
Pfffft. To quote Joe: "We can define terms however we like but also let's be clear that definitions matter." Nope. If we can define terms however we like then definitions _don't_ matter. But I get Joe's drift: in philosophy, language and the proper use of it matters. Otherwise people just talk past each other. They need to be on the same page or debate goes wonky. And that's what's happening here. You have atheists trying to paint atheism as only nonbelief while Xians say atheism is actually disbelief. Neither side sees that it can be either. Or denial. The person who is neutral about gods is an atheist. The person who says "I believe there are no gods" is an atheist. The person who says "I know there are no gods" is an atheist. Stop trying to narrow the definition to any one of these. And neither is theism one thing. It's two. It helps to compare gods to other cryptids e.g. Martian microbes. Do they exist? Affirmers: "Definitely." Believers: "Probably." Nonbelievers: (Neutral). Disbelievers: "Probably not." Deniers: "Definitely not." The latter three are analogous to different types of atheists.
Joe and his hack author Huemer can blah blah about how atheism should be thought of as disbelief or denial because that's the "ordinary usage" of the word but that just shows a preference to keep the debate at a low-brow level and an unwillingness to embrace philosophical nuance. If you define a word in a non-ordinary way before discussion begins, this doesn't cause confusion, it heads it off.
Poor definition of belief: "Affirming some proposition or statement to be true." Nuh uh. "Affirm" means "to validate or state something positively." That inherits a burden of proof. Better would be "presuming" a proposition or statement as true i.e. to take to be the case without verification or proof. I _presume_ that I won't die today; that no human ever ran 100 MPH; that if I draw 4 aces in a poker hand, I'll win; that ghosts aren't real; that black holes _are_ real. I can't affirm (i.e.prove) any of these presumptions (i.e. beliefs) but I can rationally justify all of them. The theistic affirmer must prove that a god or gods exist. A tall order. But there are infinite ways the theistic _believer_ can justify their belief without proof or objective verification.
Ugh! This idiotic argument again. A Frank Turek fave! "If atheism is a lack of belief in God, then (X) are atheists!" Where X can be rocks or chairs. Or subatomic particles. Sorry, but the definition of "atheist" always begins with: "A person who..." or "Someone who..." That rules out non-people. And whether babies are nonbelieving atheists is debatable. But why stop at atheists? By Joe's reasoning, since teetotalism is the lack of alcohol consumption, subatomic particles are teetotalers! Since vegetarianism is the lack of meat consumption, subatomic particles are vegetarians! Pathetic.
For all his blathering about the importance of clear language, Joe is muddling the issue. The problem is that the name "God" and the general term "god" are pronounced the same. Ask any apologist - any apologist more competent than Joe - what they would call, as a group, those who lack belief in God, disbelieve in God or deny God outright. They will ignorantly answer: "Atheists." Not a wrong answer but hardly adequate. Why? Because atheists are outnumbered internationally at least 4-to-1 by religious theists who eschew or reject God just like atheists do. They have their own gods, none of whom is God. But it's toddler-easy for apologists to show that they are referring to atheists and not the billions of theists who share atheistic attitudes toward God. When describing or channeling atheists or atheism, always use the lower-case "g" and pluralize! Say it with me: "gods." Or say "a god" or "any gods." If the apologists' problem is with those who eschew or reject God, then their problem isn't just with atheists but _all non-Xians._ But if their problem is with atheism qua atheism, then they'd be happy to see all atheists ditch atheism and become devotees of the Hawaiian shark god, Kamohoali'i, right? Theists and atheists alike shun God. Only atheists shun gods. But will apologists like Joe ever make this easy change for better clarity and define atheism as positions toward gods instead of God? Nope! Guaranteed! Listen carefully to this farrago of philosophical folderol and note how often the name "God" is used when "gods" or "a god" would have been better.
3:21 that isn't a problem for the term Atheism, Atheism going by the standrad definition and the one you said is a lack of belief or disbelief in God. The definition indicates the knowledge of a certain kind of concept (i.e God) that the term represents to disagree with. You cannot be an Atheist (or a Theist or anything God related) if you aren't familliar with the concept of God than you can't be an Atheist (or anything resembling a belief in God related i.e Theism, Deism etc)
4:20 Oh yeah there we go.....
Also to solve the Atheist problem, of a guy that believes that God's existence is 50% probable but also 50% improbable, so would that person be an Atheist furthermore how can that term for Atheism be any way distinguishable to Agnostic-well that depends on the belief itself, an Agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of a God cannot be proven or unproven it is an unknowbable, so the man is certainly an Agnostic as (the analogy implies) he thinks the odds are equal and neither side could be settled on (Again as implied by the scenario). If the guy believed in a 50/50 scenario but favours the improbable side than he is an Atheist but if he favours the probable side than he is a Theist.
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.
I’ve always thought of Trojan horses with wheels-or maybe that was wooden rabbits?
Psalms 3:5-6
One of my favorite Joe videos ever. This is so good
all debates about THEIST/GOD EXISTANCE seems ignoring/denying LordJesus as TheTrueGod, TheReal ONE&ONLY IMAGE OF GOD/YHWH! 🙏
LORDJESUS IS NOT OPINION & OPTION! HE IS THE ONLY REAL ANSWER/EVIDENCE, JESUS IS GOD!
Here's a parable to show how Joe's emphasis on the importance of proper definitions comes back to bite him.
My friend Bob is not colorblind. He sees colors just fine. Point to a house, a bird, a flower or your clothing and he will agree on the colors every time. But when it comes to cars, Bob has a strange quirk: he calls all cars blue. _All_ cars. Blue. I once asked him why he calls all cars blue when they so obviously come in a plethora of colors. He answered that that's just how he defines the word "blue" when it comes to cars: compatible with any color of the rainbow. So he just says blue. All cars. Blue. Well, Bob called me today to tell me that he just repainted his car. And that now it's blue! What sense does that make? I presume he repainted his car but...blue? Now you know what the wise man hears when Xians say "God is good." They're going to say that anyway, no matter what their god does. Sorry apologists! The definition of "good" is _not,_ never has been, and never will be "Doing anything to anyone, any time for any reason."
Also, theistic apologists like WLC love to smugly dismiss the Euthyphro Dilemma with a wave of their hand, but horrendously fail to account for Euthyphro’s first “definition” of what is holy and pious: “Do as I am doing now”. Euthyphro’s first basic insistence that his action itself is quintessentially holy and pious is the true Achilles Heel for those who want to dismiss the Dilemma, because the deity they defend can essentially do the exact same thing. Imagine questioning the biblical deity as depicted in, say, Job with the same general questions, and receiving at first Euthyphro’s non-definition of holiness and piety: “What I do now to Job is holiness and piety.” But the theist must invariably fail fo see how that answer would allow all people to sociopathically slap the label “objectively good and just” on every action done by their idol, and it would, from a moral objectivist point of view even, become morally unfalsifiable. It’s essentially moral nihilism wrapped in a faux-moral skin and sprinkled with glitter.
Are we still trying to gate keep the usage of words? Seems like you still don’t get that words have no intrinsic meaning and are entirely dependent on human interpretation. You don’t get to dictate how people use words. You can either accept the usage as described, or reject the usage as described. I reject your usage of the “atheism,” and “atheist.”
Theism as I use the word, is someone who does believe in at least one god. So the opposite, atheism, is not someone who believes in no gods, but is someone who does not believe in at least one god.
So can you explain why someone should be convinced that at least one god exists to justify your belief that at least one god exists, demonstrating your theism is true? Or are you incapable of defending your belief and as such can only focus on trying to gate keep the definitions of words? Which is entirely a non sequitur as to the context of the conversation. Which appears to me what apologetics has devolved to.
To put it another way, let’s look at another field where the definitions of words differ from common colloquial usage. Theory. In scientific discussions the word theory has the usage to convey the meaning of “a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.” Whereas in the colloquial sense the word theory has the usage to convey the meaning of “an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.”
It would be an equivocation to interchange these two definitions for the word theory in any discussion and is as such flawed logic.
So we can agree in philosophical discussions atheism can be used to convey one understanding of the word, but in colloquial discussions another usage can be used. An honest participant in a discussion would not try and dictate what people use in the discussion but ask what do you mean when you use the word. Thereby clearing up any ambiguous terms.
Colloquially I’m an atheist, as I defined above. As epistemologically it is valid. If you want to press on the philosophical definition, then I’m agnostic. This isn’t a change of goal posts, it’s using which definition of the word the context of the discussion requires.
To bring it back to theory, that would be like me trying to dictate that in colloquial discussion someone says they have a theory about what happened, and I ask for them to lay out the well substantiated explanation that can account for all data points, and when they say it was a hunch or untested guess, I call them dishonest and shifting the goal post.
In Cams mind gay can only mean happy, gay bars are just places where the lads get together to be happy. Such innocence.
@Frances Snowflake incorrect. Theists insist that atheists have a burden of proof to demonstrate how their god doesn’t exist after a theist has made claims their god does exist.
I’m starting to believe you aren’t really an atheist.
@Frances Snowflake I believe theists incur a burden of proof, when they state something exists in reality and actuality.
@Frances Snowflake no. I disagree with your characterization of atheists.
Again I’m starting to be convinced you aren’t an atheist.
@Frances Snowflake yes, and you realize most atheist you tubers don’t actively and proactively make claims they utilize theists videos that make claims and point out why they are not convinced by them. Matt dillahunty has a call in show where theists call in to attempt to prove their case by making claims about their beliefs and cannot support them with evidence, Matt doesn’t call theists, theists call Matt.
So in the context of the content the theist has already made claims and the atheist is not accepting their claims for reasons they lay out. The theist does have the burden of proof in that context. Matt has taken debates, which is entirely different context of discussion, and has made claims and supported those claims with reasons.
You cannot get upset that TH-cam atheist creators are pointing out how theists haven’t met their burden of proof when the theist has already made a claim.
Hello cam! Can you do the long-awaited crossover of Jordan Peterson and John lennox
Can we ever prove we exist?
Spider-Man!
I watched this like 15 times in the original video. Joe is 💯💯💯
Yes, there are 2 popular definitions of "atheism". The most popular definition being the one that most people that call themselves "atheist" use: lack-theism. Then there's the definition that you would find in some academic philosophy literature. They can stay in their own bubble, that's fine. Don't try to force your definitions on the rest of the world. You don't see physicists complaining about people using the wrong definition of "theory" when they hear someone saying "my neighbor has a theory about wiping your ass".
@Frances Snowflake An atheist is commonly defined as an individual that does not/lacks a belief in any God/s. Agnosticism is another term that has a similar definition to this one. You are free to use whichever term you wish, and we will do the same.
@Frances Snowflake I'm confused. Where did I say I "literally do not think God is imaginary"?
@Frances Snowflake t wasn't a question. You were putting words in my mouth that I never said. Saying "So you're saying that..." followed by something that I've never said, does not make you look like an honest interlocutor. I would've just answered if you actually asked it as a normal question.
Anyways, I'm not sure. All I can say is that I have not seen anything remotely convincing that points to a god.
@Frances Snowflake No. I don't believe he is real and I don't believe he is imaginary. I have no evidence for either claim, so I suspend judgement. I'm leaning more towards him being imaginary, though.
@Frances Snowflake No worries. I'd probably have to give you the exact same answer for leprechauns. Why?
Coming from people who reject all the other gods in all the other religions wont look at their own religion in the same light. Christianity is mythology and what is believed not what is fact and proven to be true.