Atheism: The Belief There is NO God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2024
- #atheist #theism #atheism
00:00 Introduction
00:27 The Word 'Atheos'
02:39 The Word 'Atheist'
11:32 Change in Usage?
13:45 Agnosticism
18:10 Non-Theism
18:52 Anti-Theist
19:43 A-Theism or Athe(os)-ism
25:05 Semiotic Square of Opposition
35:04 There is no god? Claim
37:09 Gumball Analogy
39:11 Burden of Proof
41:33 Believe and Belief
42:11 Assumptions and Null Hypothesis
42:09 Closing
The purpose of this video is simple:
To argue that atheism would be best understood as the philosophical understanding, ‘belief there is no god’. Asserting that it’s just a lack of belief in a god pushes the goal post down that would still lead to the most optimal definition being the belief there is no god.
Note: I tried a different recording method. Might not repeat it based on the sound.
Follow on Discord: / discord
Yup - I've yet to see anyone present any kind of reasonable rebuttal to the semiotic square of opposition argument.
I think you did well in explaining the logical relations - an improvement on your previous video, so I'm glad to see that you looked into it.
But I suspect it will still go over the head of a lot of the typical 'lack belief' atheists; I don't think most understand logical relations/consequences, even when laid out in a simple diagram.
Appreciate it. I already figured I could make a perfect video explaining it and people will still want to say its only 'lack belief'.
you literally lack critical thinking skills.
@@JonathanCOwens people are just saying they think your video is pointless and makes no difference in anyone’s life.
@Fierylove111 It’s weird for people to think the video is pointless if they come here to make a point how I’m wrong without reason…
@@JonathanCOwens if you feel good about yourself then do whatever you want. But if you’re point is to help people understand god more then you are wasting your time. Answer me this… is your point to explain a label and try to prove you are right or is your point to draw people to god?
It's not redundant. It's fundamentally not the same. "I am not convinced the defendant is guilty" is NOT fundamentally the same as "I am convinced the defendant is innocent." It's just not. Both "guilt" and "innocence" are assertions that require a demonstration. This is true for "Strong" atheism and theism. atheism can include "there is no god" as a belief, but it is not a REQUIREMENT. The minimum is "I am not convinced in the assertion that there is a god. And it is NOT redundant, nor is it in any way identical.
35:58 I don't know who person B is. I've never met such a person. But the correct answer is, they are both claims that carry a burden of proof.
38:32 The equivalent questions for both "is it odd" and "is it even" is "is there a god" and "is there not a god". Just for clarity. No, person 3 would NOT be an atheist and a-atheist. They would be 1. unconvinced a god does exist (atheist) and they would be unconvinced of the ASSERTION that there is no god, which there isn't really a label for, but is more likely a-antitheist. Agnostic is not s substitute because Agnostic addresses knowledge, not belief, and it is NOT a middle ground between atheist and theist. You either are convinced there is a god, (theist) or you aren't. And if you ALSO aren't convinced there is no god (a-strong-atheist), then you do not BELIEVE either claim - which isn't agnostic. Agnostic (knowledge) is a subcategory of belief and is irrelevant to this question. Further adding just for clarity, since you mentioned it earlier in the video - everything you claim as knowledge, you also believe, but NOT the other way around. (this was around 18:00). Everything you believe you don't claim as knowledge.
39:58 Yes, you SHOULD be taking everyone's argument at face value for what THEY are presenting.
40:42 Yes "god does not exist" is a positive claim to knowledge, but when I'm talking to a theist who believes god exists and they are trying to convince me it does, whether or not I accept the claim or even address the claim "god does not exist" is irrelevant to the conversation. They have the burden of proof to demonstrate their assertion if they hope to convince me, and presumably anyone who adheres to sound skepticism.
40:45 Yes, a theist can deny the assertion "there is no god", but that doesn't mean that "therefore god does exists" gets off scott free. They still have a burden of proof - but no one is required to demonstrate "god does not exist" is false in order to disbelieve that claim. This is very dangerously close to being a "you too" fallacy (tu quoque). It's a fallacy of irrelevancy. It doesn't matter if both "there is a god" and "There is not a god" carry a burden of proof. Again, EVERY claim carries a burden of proof. The problem here is that VERY many theists will use this as a distraction from the actual discussion, as the atheist they're talking to likely isn't adopting this position of "strong" atheism, and ultimately, they're using atheism as a label because it's easier to say "Atheist" than it is to repeatedly say "I lack belief in a god or gods. All labels are a shorthand. That's why we use them. I'm sure if you said "I'm a Christian" and I said "so you believe when you eat crackers you're eating the body of Jesus? hahaha" you would find that absurd presuming you're not Catholic. See the problem? Labels are useful shorthands, but will never tell the whole story, which is why you can, if needed, ask for clarification.
41:08 No offense, but this is just stupid. This goes right back to the gumball analogy. The only "evidence" I need to provide you is that I do not believe the gumballs are even. I don't have to PROVE they are even or prove why I am not convinced they are odd. You failed to make your case is all I need. Period. "I don't believe you" or "you didn't convince me" has NO burden of proof. I don't even need to address your assertions if I find them wanting. Now, if I want to convince OTHER people why what you just said is bullshit, you could argue I have a burden to argue out why you are incorrect or unreasonable. But it's not something I have to do otherwise.
42:06 No, atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of belief. The only way you can get to "atheism is a belief" is if you stretch words around and play semantic games, as you have done a lot of here. For instance "I believe theism has not met its burden of proof". That's one of only two ways you get to "atheism" as a belief; the other is you define it as "there are no gods", but that's not how I or most atheists are using the term.
42:21 You shouldn't believe someone has a car until you have evidence for what cars are and that people can have them. So the statement "do not believe claims until they are demonstrated", does make sense. I may not be able to demonstrate that you own a car just from your statement "I do have a car", but I do have evidence that people own cars, I know what cars are, and I have demonstrated prior experience owning cars myself. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude without seeing your car that you might or could have one. Whether or not the claim is sufficiently important for me to falsify is another issue - ECREE,Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. I'm willing to take you at your word that you own a car - a claim for which I am operating on a ton of past experience and evidence for - because it currently doesn't impact my life hardly at all.
42:41 And this falls apart now because you have NO prior examples of a god, and there is no evidence for a god that anyone is yet to present that is sufficient to warrant believing the assertion "some god or gods exist". Therefore, when operating with in the universe, it is fine to operate on the assumption that there isn't one - especially owing to the fact that when doing science "god dunnit" will never amount to anything or help us go further in our curiosity. It is a brick wall for ignorance. By the way, if there is a god, and that god wants me to stop assuming it doesn't exist, why doesn't it come and tell me that itself? Why do I have to hear it from you?
43:13 False. "I'm going to operate as if there is no god" does not mean I am convinced there is no god. There are scientists who are theists and they do PROPER science with the ASSUMPTION that there isn't a god intervening with their scientific discoveries. They have to to do good science. Yet, they still believe in a god, even though they have to operate on a regular basis like there isn't one in order to be objective in science.
43:55 And you just proved your own assertion moments ago false. I will assume for the sake of argument or for the sake of good science that my pill doesn't work, but I might BELIEVE it does, which is why I want to test it.
44:12 YES THANK YOU. AND YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE EITHER CLAIM. You should NEITHER believe god does exist or god does not exist until it is demonstrated that either claim is true. The problem is that the null hypothesis is a MATHEMATICAL thing used in science, so it's only used to address positive claims to existence or connections that are potentially falsifiable. Some, but not all, god claims are falsifiable. But "there is no god" is potentially completely unfalsifiable since we can't investigate beyond our universe at all. So whether or not I would accept using a null hypothesis when addressing the claim "god exists" would depend on how you're defining it and if it's falsifiable. If it's not, I would reject the claim on the basis that it's unfalsifiable, which is also why I reject "no god exists".
"There is no god" is only falsifiable if a definition of god is given. Some people will try to say that, for example, God is Love, and Love exists, so... God exists. And, in that case, God does exist. But, I do not believe that love created the universe.
I thought about writing my thoughts about this video but you've allready done that. Great comment.
@@jm8k thanks, it's not flawless I suspect, but a good primer for the person who created the video. I hope they get some good info from it.
@@chaosredefined3834 Right, exactly. If you define god as your computer CPU, then I definitely believe your god exists and is a falsifiable...erm...thing. I would just question why you're giving it this very unusual label god.
I like how you are addressing the common objections and have no response to the logics or history of the word. A lot of this your respond is kind of irrelevant, I’ll try address it later.
Seriously? A 46 minutes video on a definition? That gets boring faster than watching grass grow.
I’m fine you are here. But I can provide all the evidence in the world, and some people won’t change their mind.
Definitions are not about evidence. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about.
@@marknieuweboer8099 evidence to support my claim. But sure. Believe what you want.
The difference between a claim and a definition is not a matter of belief. Thanks for confirming my previous comment. You don't know what you're talking about. And your last comment provides evidence for this claim.
@@marknieuweboer8099 what was my claim? Let’s see if you actually know.
Never trust people who act and speak on behalf of their god.
Never believe in a god who requires people to act and speak on his behalf.
Wat🤣
Imagine having so little rational justification for your beliefs that you would attempt to redefine the positions of people who don't agree with you.
Oof
@@JonathanCOwens
He is talking about you, so OOF, stop doing that.
Ooh
@@JonathanCOwens
Your reply to him was ambiguous so I just wanted to clarify it. Oof could mean pretty much anything.
I know my comment was long, but it was meant in good faith to try to explain, from a long time atheist debater, why I disagree with this video. I hope it doesn't come off as combative.
I’ll address it in a stream.
@@JonathanCOwens Would you like to have a mutual, civil discussion about it on stream? I wouldn't mind talking about it with you from the perspective of an atheist. It might make more sense for you to address this with someone who doesn't share your perspective rather than doing so in a vacuum.
@Poggy I have streams on Wednesday unless you want to schedule one on your channel.
@@JonathanCOwens I'll see if I'm around at that time, my channel is a gaming channel so not exactly the place for us to discuss these sorts of topics at the moment. I may make another channel for that another day but it's not a matter of importance to me to do so presently. I'll just see if I can catch you live on Wed.
//I know, but what you're missing is it's NOT a personal arbitrary stance. It's based on reason and rationality and NO ONE should hold to that position (I believe no gods exist) since it is unfalsifiable. I just finished explaining all of that to you and you just ignored it to address what I just finished clarifying. Why are you so dishonest?//
Whether you think the claim is unfalsifiable or not is irrelevant. People make those claims. Arguing whether one should not hold to that position is a different conversation. I stated multiple times, the position that makes that claim is best to be understood as “x”. Then again, the philosophical academia already use that definition of atheism to mean something along the lines of ‘belief there is no gods’, which some holding that position. I’m explaining that to those who don’t think so.
//And this sloppy attempt to make it seem like atheists are using a definition that is so far removed from the word like "stuff that falls from the sky" is laughably stupid and not worth addressing, and no, the definition is NOT REDUNDANT.//
You don’t want to address logic and this. OKAY.
//"This was already explained to you ad nauseum and you won't friggin listen. 10th time now. "I DO NOT ACCEPT X" is not "I ACCEPT X IS FALSE", it can't and never will be.//
Uh okay? I know LOL.
//They are independent claims. The "gods do not exist" claim is one that is unfalsifiable and it is irrational to hold to. It is NOT irrational to hold to "I do not believe your assertion", though, so how can it be redundant if it's making entirely different statements?/
Again, whether you think a claim is unfalsifiable or not is not the topic.
One is saying "I don't believe the theist", the other one is saying "I do believe the anti-theist". They are not one in the same. No amount of sophistry from you will make them the same.//
TIME OUT. ANIT-THEIST. How are you defining that?
//They are independent claims. The "gods do not exist" claim is one that is unfalsifiable and it is irrational to hold to. It is NOT irrational to hold to "I do not believe your assertion", though, so how can it be redundant if it's making entirely different statements? One is saying "I don't believe the theist", the other one is saying "I do believe the anti-theist". They are not one in the same. No amount of sophistry from you will make them the same.//
Again, whether you think it’s unfalsifiable is irrelevant.
But it’s funny
A: To argue that atheism would be best understood as the philosophical understanding, ‘belief there is no god’. Asserting that it’s just a lack of belief in a god pushes the goal post down that would still lead to the most optimal definition being the belief there is no god.
B: No, it doesn't push the can down the road because I cannot assert that no gods exist because it would be arrogant of me to assume I have enough knowledge to rule out all gods that are purported to exist.
A I never said you had to assert that there are no gods since you label yourself as an atheist. The philosophical understanding of atheism as ‘belief there is no god’ doesn’t necessitate that all individuals that label themself atheists must hold this belief.
This always sounds to me like: “I think that your position is as unreasonable as mine, so there!” Great, go pat yourself on the shoulder.
Oof
I have a hard time understanding why so much time and effort is spent on this subject. It’s honestly ridiculous and makes no sense. Atheist don’t believe… end of story. Move on! I think there are a million other topics that atheist think and believe that would make more sense to research and discuss then spend hours on a label and what that label means.
K. Atheism is the belief there is no god. That’s it.
@@JonathanCOwens “If” Christians have a heart and desire to help people that don’t believe in god then WHY spend your time researching and discussing this?! Why not look at the issues atheist have and try to share why you see things differently. But Christian’s spend time getting hung up on a stupid label and the words that are used to explain the label instead of trying to get to the heart of the issues people have with god. How is this helpful in sharing god with non believers?? Like this is the issue you want to get hung up on with non believers? I will never understand and if Christian’s think this is helpful then they are wrong and miss the entire point!
@@Fierylove111 I gave the purpose of the video. What does your comment have to do with it?
@@JonathanCOwensif you can’t read my comment and understand then there’s not a thing I can say to you that will matter. Have the day you deserve.
Take care
Sorry, but this is just silly. How can this seem reasonable even to a _theist?_
First, this is a _label._ How can you imagine it would be worthwhile debating a label that you don't even use to describe _yourself?_ Why would you even waste your time like this? Do you think I'll change my mind about gods based on your definition of the _label_ I use as a short-hand for my position?
Obviously, my position is what's important, not the label I apply to it. So, if you disagree with the label, just address my position: I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary. I call myself an agnostic atheist, but I don't _care_ what you think about the label. (But note that there's a _reason_ why I don't make an unsupported claim that gods aren't real.)
Second, the history of the word doesn't make the slightest difference. I don't care whether you're right or wrong about that, because - obviously - languages change over time. The meanings of words change over time. Duh! And these days, at least, most of us atheists seem to agree on what we mean by the word - not all, but most. That's just how words work.
Third, you're not even defining a label you apply to _yourself._ You are trying to redefine the label for us _atheists._ Heh, heh. Why should we pay any attention to you? Why should _anyone_ pay any attention to you?
And I'm sorry, but your weird English contortions about "having a non belief" just makes the whole thing sillier. I don't believe in a god or gods, that's all. It's simple. Why make it complicated? That makes me an atheist by my definition of the word. (I don't claim that gods _can't_ exist, because... how could I know _that?_ And I don't like making claims I can't back up.)
I don't care if _you_ don't like the label I use, the label most of us atheists use to describe the same thing. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, but I don't know why that should affect _me_ in any way. Or why any of this even matters to you.
Is it maybe because you keep trying to strawman us atheists, and you get called out on that?
A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Let’s be real: the entire comment is ignoring crucial things. He said historical usage should not be used as the defining point, but helps give perspective.
You say if we don’t like the label, go after the position, what position of the three categories of beliefs or lack thereof do you have? 1 being someone who believes in God and lacks the belief in no God
2 being someone who believes in no God and lacks the belief in a God
3 being someone who lacks a belief in both of those statements.
What is wrong with those positions?
As for your last point, he isn’t prescribing any label on anyone. He is just defining what a word means using multiple facts and factors.
Theists deliberately and dishonestly keep on representing atheism like he does in an attempt to stawman atheism like it’s a religion, an ideology.
Strawman
@@PreachTh3Truth
_"A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"_
No, not really.
But I appreciate that you were willing to say more than just "strawman"! Heh, heh. You did give me something to consider.
_"the entire comment is ignoring crucial things."_
OK. But the video is almost 47 minutes long. I don't know about "crucial things," since you didn't actually specify any of them, but it's inevitable that I couldn't address _everything._ (In fact, I didn't even try.) If I missed something crucial, please explain further.
_"He said historical usage should not be used as the defining point, but helps give perspective."_
To *what?* What are you actually talking about here? I find the history of words to be interesting, but how does that apply to their common usage _today?_
_"You say if we don’t like the label, go after the position, what position of the three categories of beliefs or lack thereof do you have?"_
I already stated my position. Did you miss it? If so, here it is again: *I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to **_know_** that all gods are simply imaginary.*
_"What is wrong with those positions?"_
The main thing "wrong" with them, besides being awkwardly phrased, is that they're not _my_ position. I stated my position. I can elaborate, if you want.
For one thing, I don't define "god," because I'm not the one making the claim. If you believe in a god, I can ask _you_ to define what you mean by that. But I'm not going to attempt to define "god" - let alone "God" - for _you._ Because that would just be silly.
Atheism is a reaction to theism, after all. Tell me what you believe and why you believe it, and I'll go from there.
Second, note that the opposite of believing something is _not_ believing it. It's not... believing something else. If you claim that magic leprechauns are real, and I don't believe your claim, that doesn't mean I'm claiming that magic leprechauns _aren't_ real - or gods, either.
After all, _any_ invisible, immaterial, magical being would be the all-time world champion at hide-and-seek, let alone a being who is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, _let alone_ a being who is supposed to exist outside of time and space! I can't even demonstrate that _magic leprechauns_ aren't real, let alone gods.
And I recognize that. I try to be honest about it. I'm evidence-based, not faith-based. That means I try - I _try_ (I'm not perfect) - to apportion my beliefs to the evidence. And I can't even _imagine_ what kind of evidence there could be that an invisible, immaterial, magical being _doesn't_ exist, somewhere.
_"He is just defining what a word means using multiple facts and factors."_
But *why?* What's even the _point?_ He spend 47 minutes here for what _point?_ It's not a label that he uses _himself._ He's not explaining what _he_ thinks. He's trying to define a label for _other_ people, not for himself. Why? If you want to know how other people define a word, just _ask_ them!
It's just like the word "God," isn't it? I could define "God" for _you._ I could use "multiple facts and factors" to define "God" for _you._ But wouldn't that seem silly? _You_ are the one who believes in a god, not me. So why not just ask _you_ what you mean by that? Or even, in general conversation, assume the common definition among people who believe in a god. I really don't get it. Why do you think this is how words work?
You guys throw out "strawman" like it's a magic word, but that seems to be exactly what _he's_ doing, doesn't it? Why would he attempt to tell _me_ what I think? Why would he spend 47 minutes trying to re-define a label I call _myself?_ What does it have to do with _him,_ if he's not just trying to create a strawman 'atheist' here?
I really don't get it. What was the _point_ of all of this? Sorry, but it seemed silly to me, and it still does. But that's just my opinion, of course. Apparently it seems reasonable to _you,_ but I don't know how.
@Bill_Garthright if only someone actually watch the opening they would understand the why and point.
I'd like to add a pointer that in those "different dictionary definitions" starting from 3:34 , the term "disbelieve" does not mean "not believe."
"Disbelieve" is an active rejection of the given proposition that holds it to be false. If there is a proposition, "Sky is blue." if you "disbelieve" this, then it does not mean you lack a belief that the sky is blue. It means you hold the proposition "Sky is blue" to be FALSE = "I believe the sky is NOT blue." Therefore, every dictionary definition that mentions "disbelief" "rejection" and "denial" are talking about the same thing: to hold god/gods to be false = BELIEVE god/gods are false.
As you have aptly pointed out, despite the commonly observed behavior of "lack of belief" proponents just dumping a pic of an internet dictionary to support their argument, as a matter of fact, most English dictionaries ALREADY lean heavily toward the standard philosophical definition, or lists both.
I would define atheist as a person who rejects theism, disagree with theists and argue against them. And yes, this fits the most on those who believe there is no God. It could also be someone who only lack a belief, but that would be begging the question "what you disagree with, why you disagree and why you argue against us?" Some might respond in sense that they are just in some neutral position of wanting to believe and not being able to, but atheism is obviously not a neutral middleground label, so what is the point of using that label instead of something like "agnosticism"?
However, the agnostic label doesnt tell much about the person. There are hard agnostics, soft agnostics, agnostics that admit possibility of God, agnostics that doubt that possibility and asks people to demonstrate it, humble agnostics, pridefull agnostics, agnostics with no opinion and agnostics with clear opinion but low confidence in believing that their opinion is true.
Historically, words often start with specific meanings but evolve to reflect broader and more nuanced understandings. For instance, "atheism" originally referred strictly to the belief that no gods exist. Over time, its meaning has expanded to include anyone who lacks belief in deities, even if they do not actively deny their existence. Using only historical definitions is prescriptive, as it imposes old meanings rather than adapting to contemporary usage. A descriptive approach recognizes that language evolves to accommodate new ideas and understandings.
A similar evolution has occurred with the concepts of sex and gender. Traditionally, “male” and “female” were used to describe biological sex-characteristics such as chromosomes, reproductive organs, and hormones. These terms primarily focused on physical attributes. Meanwhile, "man" and "woman" often referred to gender roles and identities, encompassing both biological aspects and societal expectations about behavior and roles linked to being male or female. However, the distinction between sex and gender was less clear-cut historically, as these terms were frequently used interchangeably to describe both biological and social aspects.
Today, the understanding of sex and gender has become more nuanced. "Male" and "female" refer specifically to biological sex, while gender identity includes terms like "man," "woman," and "nonbinary." This modern view allows for a person to have a male or female sex while identifying with a nonbinary gender, acknowledging that gender identity can be independent of biological characteristics. For example, someone may have the biological sex of male or female but identify as nonbinary, reflecting a gender identity that doesn’t fit traditional categories.
This evolution parallels the development of terms in theism and atheism. Just as sex and gender can be distinct (male or female sex with nonbinary gender), belief systems can also be complex. One can be an "agnostic theist" (believing in a deity but without certainty) or an "agnostic atheist" (lacking belief in deities but without asserting their non-existence). These expanded terms allow for a more accurate description of diverse identities and beliefs, showing how language evolves to better reflect complex human experiences.
I address the words change and the whole agnostic atheist. Honesty what are you referencing from the video.
@@JonathanCOwens Your thesis is that atheism is the belief there is no god as a positive claim. You say it throughout the video and all your arguments are trying to prescribe that definition of atheism.
I say I am an atheist because I don't have a belief in any god. A theist is someone who does have a belief in at least one god. Every person who is atheist by your definition, is also an atheist by my definition (which is the modern one). If you want to argue with people who have the positive belief that there is no god, you are arguing with a minor subset of all people who identify themselves and describe themselves as atheist. Make a new word to describe the people you want to specify instead of saying the vast majority of atheists are not really atheists because atheist means something else than the vast majority of people think it does.
Hold up. One point at a time. What is that first sentence
@@JonathanCOwens Your thesis (a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved) is that atheism is the position that no gods exist, which would make it a positive claim asserting non-existence and require evidence to support it.
I like how you want to put the definition of thesis, but really I wanted you to adjust your sentence. But how about this, maybe you put the position I stated in the first 20 seconds of the video. It’s literally in the description.
Edit: Don't add more
Sigh… theist means belief in god and gods.
Atheist means no or non belief in gods or gods. It’s not hard.
Your crappy word games don’t change that fact. I mean if you want just prove a god or gods exists playing word games to say the other side isn’t what they say they are is lame.
I addressed this.
Atheism is not the belief there is no GOD. It's the stance of a lack of belief towards any religion that propose their own version of GOD is true and exist due. There is a huge difference between believing there is no GOD which also doesn't required evidence and to the lack of belief of a claim from any religion of their GOD which the burden of truth is on those who made that claim.
I addressed this already.
@@JonathanCOwensBut you were wrong.
“Are you convinced a god exists?”
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Theist - “There is a god”
Atheist - “Can you demonstrate that?”
Theist - “No”
Atheist - “I’ll believe you when you can”
Which word do you think I should use for my position?
1: I do not know if a god exists. I live my life as though none exist.
2: I am confident that the Christian bible is not a reliable source of truth. I am also confident that the Quran is not a reliable source of truth. As is the stories of the Greek and Roman gods.
The only god claim that I have heard and cannot rule out is the Deist claim: There is a God who did a bunch of stuff to make the universe, and then left.
So far, I have been using the term Atheist. Technically, I can see agnostic fitting the description, as I am still open to a god claim, just not any of the ones I've heard of so far (other than deism).
Furthermore, once I change which term I'm using... What does that accomplish?
You can call yourself whatever.
@@JonathanCOwens You made a 45 min video on what people should be calling themselves. Clearly, you have opinions. I have a variant of the atheism/agnosticism claims that you discuss. I outright reject the claims of Christians, Muslims, etc..., which is closer to your definition of atheism. But I am open to the idea of a universe-creating being existing, just not any of the ones that I've heard of, which is closer to agnosticism.
With that in mind... What term do you think best describes me?
Please note... I don't think my position is particularly unique. The term you denote for me is most likely applicable to a decent number of people including, from what I understand, the hosts of shows like The Atheist Experience.
Agnostic & Atheist aren’t mutually exclusive & you can be both.
They address differnt things.
Atheism - addresses BELIEF.
Agnosticism - addresses KNOWLEDGE.
“I do not believe/I am not convinced a god exists” = Atheist
“I do not Know for sure whether or not a god exists” = Agnostic.
@chaosredefined3834 🤦quote what I said about what people should call themselves.
A belief means there not being evidence of such but believeing there is such. But if there is no evidence of god(which is currently true) then there is no belief, thats just a fact.
Beliefs are related to propositions, i.e. statements that can be either true or false. To believe a proposition means to accept it as true. That's all there is to a belief- a belief that something is true is just an acceptance of the proposition that something is true. What you described refers more to a particular definition of the word 'faith'. To take something on faith means to believe something despite not having sufficient reasons to do so. But faith and belief are not the same thing. We all believe certain things. We all believe what we think we know because you cannot know that something is true and yet not also believe that it is true. There is nothing wrong with beliefs. When it comes to propositions, you can believe that they are either true or false, or you can suspend judgment if you see no good reasons to believe either way, or if you think that the reasons counterbalance.
No, I provided the definition of belief already.
Wrong, Atheism is “ the lack of a belief in any deity “
No argument.
@@JonathanCOwensYou don't need an argument for a definition.
I think that this semantic debate has become quite pointless. I think that the actual position of people matters more than the labels that they use. Just ask this question: Are there any gods? Then give people the following options to repsond:
1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know.
Just saying wrong doesn’t mean you’re right🤣
@@JonathanCOwens Yeah, I am also tired of both theists and atheists who only assert their views in comment sections without a single line of defence. I am happy to just go with the definition of atheism as a denial of the existence of gods because that's really what my position is.
John, It's Jamie...again... Your video format is admittedly better, I'll give you props. But please, allow me to help you. Let me explain why you keep missing the point on what "Atheism" is. I'm going to attempt to break this comment down in parts so hopefully, TH-cam lets me.
1. Ironically, you're using the "Prescriptive" definition to make atheism ought to be "the belief that there is no God/s", and that definition doesn't "Describe" the position that most atheists (like myself) have. Yes, “believing that no God/s or deities exist” is a part of what atheism is, but “lacking a belief in God/s or deities” is also a part of that definition because they both mean completely separate things. Just because the former has been used throughout time, definitions and words change to better reflect how things are to be “described”. They're not prescribed or set on how we should use words.
2. So, what's the difference? I'm glad you asked!
Q: Do you believe that (any) God exists?
A: No, I don't believe.
Q: So then, you believe that there is no God (aren't any Gods)?
A: Again, No. If I had a reason/s to believe that no Gods exist, I would be giving you a reason/those reasons as to why. However, I don't have a reason to believe that (any) God/s DO Exist, Ergo I "lack the belief that (any) God/s exist" and NOT "have a belief that no God/s exist"
Q: Ok, do you have a lack of belief that no Gods exist?
A: Timeout! I just said, “I don't have a reason to believe, so I don't believe.” It's that simple. But, let's break that question down a little further. That question is a double negative and incredibly redundant. Why? Let me ask you a different question. Which statement makes more sense? “I lack having no money in my wallet.” Or, “I have money in my wallet.”? If you have the “lack of not” you might as well say, “you have”. So no, I do not have a -lack of- belief that -no- God/s exist.
3. What's an “Agnostic”? And what's the difference between an “Agnostic Theist”, and an “Agnostic Atheist”?
Agnostic is an adjective which we describe to mean to have a “lack of a claim of knowledge towards”. The reason why we describe Agnostic in that context is because that term can/does apply to other things outside of A/Theism. You can be agnostic about ghosts, aliens, guilt, etc. SO, let's clear up any confusion in regards to A/Theism!
-A “Gnostic Theist” claims to know that God/s exist, and has a obvious reason to believe that God/s exist. (Not a Grifter or Scammer)
-An “Agnostic Theist” doesn't claim to know whether or not, but (probably) has a reason to believe that God/s exist. (PLEASE NOTE: I never used “lacks the belief that no God/s” exist, refer to point #2)
-An “Agnostic Atheist” neither has a claim towards knowing nor a reason to believe that God/s exist.
-A “Gnostic Atheist” not only claims to know that God/s do not exist, but has an obvious reason to believe that no Gods exist.
If that's confusing replace, “Theist” with “Believer”, “Atheist” with “Disbeliever”. And, “God/s” with “Aliens”.
4. Any person who claims "There is a God" or "There is no God" holds a burden of proof. HOWEVER, hopefully by now, you understand the difference between "lacking a belief" and "believing in the not."
"I'm not convinced/I don't believe in God/s existence" claims nothing, and doesn't have a burden to prove.
"I'm -not- convinced/ -don't- believe that there is -n't- a God/s is a confusing and redundant phrasing because of the double negative. (Again, please refer to point #2 if this is confusing)
Edit: Minor Corrections, Strikeouts to double negatives
5. Here's the thing about the Gumball analogy.
There is definitely either an even or odd number. If you claim that there is an definitely an odd number, the burden falls on you to demonstrate that there's an odd number. Just because I don't believe your baseless claim about the number being odd, that doesn't mean I automatically believe there is definitely an even number or that I claim to know that there is whatever that there is number of gumballs instead.
Edit: Minor Corrections
A weak theist would be someone who doesn't have a positive belief that there is a god, but lacks the belief that there is no god. A weak theist is simply an agnostic atheist, thats why it needn't be used.
Here’s a first. Weak theist and agnostic atheist have no correlation.
For me to understand this I need more examples. This is kinda hard to follow and doesn't really solve a problem imo. People use the word atheism to explain both position of weak atheism and hard atheism but hard atheism is a very very different position to have over weak atheism. Weak atheism is a state of not being convinced
What is confusing?
@@JonathanCOwens That in your model the position you call weak atheism and weak theism are in the same box
@RinZ3993 same box?
Do you agree the everyone will fit in 3 categories, no more, no less.
1. The belief there is a god with the lack of belief (or non-belief) there is no god.
2. The belief there is no god with the lack of belief (or non-belief) there is a god.
3. Both the lack of belief (or non-belief) there is a god and there is no god.
@@JonathanCOwens Maybe? But for me that does mis the dinstinction that you have put together in category 3.
Maybe if instead of "lack of belief" you use the term "unconvinced" it might be more clear? I am unconvinced there is a god. That is how I describe my atheism. For me, atheism is the default position in this way because it doesn't claim to know something. But maybe you got into this in the second video while discussing burden of proof?
But anyway, am I convinced there is no god? Well I haven't seen any evidence so I don't have a reason to be convinced. In your categorisation, am I an atheist?
@@JonathanCOwens I just watched the burden of proof part of the video. I don't think you actually got to the point where there is a burden of proof in the corner of the atheists. A weak theist would also have a burden of proof because they still agree to the concept of a god. They need proof that this 'god' thing can actually exist because how else can they say that they are not convinced that it doesn't exist.
I don't think you understood your own example in the double standard part. The default position on the existence of things you have no knowledge or conception of is that they don't exist. The default position on the existence of things that you have previously seen with your own eyes is that they do exist. If someone said "The moon exists" I would not require any evidence for it to be presented even though it is a positive claim because I have seen it in the night sky and that is the evidence that backs up the claim, so there is no burden of proof on the other person for me to believe it. If someone said "God exists" and I have never had any interactions with, seen any evidence of, or felt any prescense of this being then I would require evidence in order to believe it. They have a burden of proof before I believe their claim. If someone said "The moon doesn't exist", and I have evidence of it by having seen it in the night sky before, I would require evidence in order to believe it because it goes against the experiences I have had of seeing the moon. They have the burden of proof.
If I was born with no access to the night sky and no one ever mentioned the moon, then someone came to me and claimed there is a huge white ball that goes accross the sky every night that goes through phases every 2 weeks and causes the ocean tides, the default position there would be that it didn't exist and I would need evidence to be presented for me to believe it. There would be a burden of proof. The same way it would be if they came to me with the claims of any god's existence in that scenario.
So you are person B.
@@JonathanCOwens You don't understand english I believe
@canonicalgio7837 you missed the scenario.
What would you call someone who actively believes that the Christian god is not real that the Muslim god is not real that the Jewish god is not real, and that the Hindu gods are not real, but not make the same active claim about the possibility of some other god existing
I’m curious. Can you answer this for me?
Do any of you recommend any atheist TH-cam channels? What’s your favorite? Do you recommend shows from Aron Ra and Matt D.
@@JonathanCOwens can I answer the question I asked you to answer? Yes, I can answer that but my answer gives absolutely no insight on your line of reasoning
👍🏿.
@@JonathanCOwens what’s your answer, if you have one
@@ethanguy82 I’ll asked them what I stated in the video.
Atheism: The Belief There is NO God
No it is a lack of belief in gods due to the lack of evidence for them and the fact that all testable gods, such as the god of Genesis, fail testing.
Words have meanings. You don't get to make up false definitions simply because you cannot deal with actual definition.
I, speaking as an atheist, have to hard disagree here. Words don't have intrinsic meanings, they have usages. And "the belief there is no god" is one usage, albeit uncommon, of atheism, it's just not one that the overwhelming majority of atheists who are using the label are adopting. In fact, the most likely person to use the "the belief there is no god" definition of atheism is going to be a religious individual using it as a convenient strawman to knockdown as they apply it to the atheist who isn't using that definition. That all said, it's not a false definition, just not a common one.
@@Poggy
I didn't say there are intrinsic meanings.
This video has a cherry picked definition. It is not the only one and its not accepted by Atheists or us Agnostics. Even Dawkins, the bugaboo of the anti-science crowd, fits the definition of Agnostic as well as Atheist.
This video exists to lie about what most Atheists think so they can demand that Atheists disprove a negative.
In any case anyone that believes in the god of Genesis, believes in a disproved god. Which includes Jesus in the New Testament as it has Jesus treating Noah as a real person.
@@Poggy
If you have to hard disagree by pretending I said something I did nit, then you are wrong. I never said an intrinsic meaning. Only onomatopoeia words have intrinsic meaning.
This video pretends that his cherry picked minority definition is the only acceptable one. Because they NEED that one to avoid the primary definition to demand that Atheists do something they don't claim. Most Atheists, it is your own fault, fit the definition of Agnostic. Us Agnostics and most Atheist, include the anti-science crowds boogeyman man, Dawkins, fit Huxley's definition of Agnostic. There is inadequate evidence for any god.
On top of which many gods can be disproved. Such as the god of Genesis. I am pretty sure this guy is a fundamentalist. Seems to believe in that silly Exodus fantasy.
You could join the side of us VERY rational Agnostics.
@@Poggy
If you have to hard disagree by pretending I said something I did nit, then you are wrong. I never said an intrinsic meaning. Only onomatopoeia words have intrinsic meaning.
@@Poggy
This video pretends that his cherry picked minority definition is the only acceptable one. Because they NEED that one to avoid the primary definition to demand that Atheists do something they don't claim. Most Atheists, it is your own fault, fit the definition of Agnostic. Us Agnostics and most Atheist, include the anti-science crowds boogeyman man, Dawkins, fit Huxley's definition of Agnostic. There is inadequate evidence for any god.
Your God only exists as an imaginary character. Now make a video about that.
Oooh
Your square is flawed by your insistence that strong/weak atheism implies that there are actually strong/weak versions of theism as well that are distinct from the other sections on the square. It should be a triangle with 3 sections, not a square, because every person who is not a strong theist is actually either a strong atheist or a weak atheist, as there is no such distinction between a weak theist and a weak atheist.
Proof by example:
Strong atheism means you believe there is no god. A weak atheist is someone who lacks the belief that there is a god.
Strong theist means you believe there is a god. Weak theist means you lack the belief there are no gods.
Every strong theist is a weak theist. If someone is a weak theist, but not a strong theist, they lack the belief that there is a god (otherwise they would be a strong theist) and lack the belief that there is no god. (by definition of weak theist you chose). If they lack the belief that there is a god, then they are a weak atheist. So if weak theists are even a thing, they are actually all weak atheists simply by the definitions of the terms.
I don't understand how you can't see it.... its so obvious.
If you lack the belief that there is a god, you're a (weak) atheist. If you lack the belief that there is no god, you're either a strong theist or a weak atheist.
Your whole logic square falls apart.
Did you even watch the whole square section? I literally addressed this.
Dude. I obviously address it. Thats why I don’t think you watched it. Did you just pause on the image?
Edit: did you delete your comment?
I can't speak for all atheists, only for myself. I do not 'believe there is no God', there might be but I find the concept incredibly unlikely. This argument is like saying it is down to Christians to prove that Allah doesn't exist because they believe he doesn't exist. It is just lazy.
What. Don’t know how you getting that as the similar argument.
@@JonathanCOwens What does that even mean? LOL Bottom line is I don't care what you believe, what I care about is you telling other people what they believe and claiming it is up to them to prove your beliefs are nonsense. You can believe in fairies and unicorns and it doesn't bother me, but saying my disbelief is actually a belief and that it is up to me to prove you wrong is a pretty pathetic argument. But hey if that is all you have...
This has nothing to do with the video😂
@@JonathanCOwens yes it does. You are telling atheists that their disbelief is actually a belief and claiming the burden of proof is on them regarding your favourite fairy tales. Be smarter.
I love the straw-man. When did I say that😂
And somehow that doesn't change my opinion on the existence of a god... If thiest would stop playing stupid word games. I'd gladly say I believe the abrihamic god doesn't exist but I can't falsify a diestic god and therefore lack a belief in such a god and if you're going to bring up that rocks are atheist according to the lack of a belief definition you've removed the context of belief and are playing stupid word games.
Stupid word games, but some atheist don’t want to admit they believe there is no god.
@@JonathanCOwens I forgot to reply... Some theists lie and pretend they do have an active belief in no gods...
Remember I lack a belief in any gods. Just 'cause I have a belief that your god's not real doesn't mean I believe there are no gods.
Why should I admit to having a belief I don't hold?
Why should anyone admit to a position they don’t hold?
@@JonathanCOwens that's the question. Why?
@@coreywalker7928 it’s in the question. If someone doesn’t have the position, they can’t admit it😂
I love the format on this and it is pretty straightforward
Appreciate it.
straightforward, but wrong
Why
@@JonathanCOwens because you misrepresent atheism.
Evidence to support your claim?
Your claim that atheism is definitively "the belief there is no God" rather than "a lack of belief in God" is problematic. You exclude self-identified atheists who simply lack belief without actively disbelieving. There is a modern philosophical consensus that acknowledge that atheism include those who actively disbelieve and those who simply lack belief.
Your breakdown of "atheos" base on historical definition, arguing that this should directly inform the modern understanding of atheism might be seen as an etymological fallacy. The meaning of words can evolve independently of their origins, adapting to new philosophical and cultural contexts. An etymological fallacy is an argument of equivocation, arguing that a word is defined by its etymology, and that its customary usage is therefore incorrect.
You also blur the lines between atheism and anti-theism. Anti-theism is the opposition to theism or religious institutions, a stance that goes beyond mere disbelief or lack of belief in gods, indicating a more active and often critical stance against theistic claims. That is big difference with atheism.
1. you may need to reread my claim again. The claim you gave isn’t accurate.
2. You may also need to watch the Atheos part again. The claim you gave isn’t accurate.
3. I used the philosophical definitions of Anti-theism which stated what I said.