For the Atheist, is this an accurate steelman? An Atheist cannot have faith in Atheism. One cannot accept atheism, like a man accepts an Apple or jacket. It just is. A theist can accept the idea of deities but an atheist cannot accept it as atheism is just the lack of belief in deities. Atheism the default position. Theism introduces the claim that there are deities and must provide evidence to the atheist since the theist has the burden or proof. When one claims an atheist has faith, it’s illogical as you can’t accept the lack of belief in something.
I think you’ve got a couple of decent points in this statement. I’d put it like this: I don’t have faith (a belief that is confident with a lack of strong testable evidence) in any deity. I don’t have faith (same definition) in that lack of evidence, I have no position on any deity since I completely lack any evidence that I could consider. I know this is a hackneyed expression but for most theists they also don’t believe in any deity not of their own religion. Do you even lack faith in the ones that you have not heard of? The ones that were forgotten before yours even was conceived of? I have no position on them, but since they were “present” when the Abrahamic god came along maybe they should be revered more? Perhaps you think they were foolish to have such silly ideas about who made the sun shine or the crops grow or their local sports team win a championship. I see a set of conventions and lies conveniently embedded in society used for control, corruption, financial gain
1. That first statement is probably not the most accurate definition of faith. The “lack of strong testable evidence” isn’t found as a consistent definition in dictionaries, scholars, or how text like the Bible define it as. The definition is trust/confidence and one cannot have that without some kind evidence. 2. Faith in a deity isn’t the only thing people have faith in. People have faith (look at definitions given above and video) in everything in life. 3. I do not have faith that Islam is true if that answers the question
@@JCOJourney do you have faith in Abraham’s god when seen through an alternate cultural interpretation? Or do you have a god outside those traditions? I ask because those traditions typically have many different ways of mentioning that faith is specifically about things that one should not have typical evidence for. I agree that the definition I use isn’t the only one, I’m just saying that this atheist (me) finds the word used so often to be used for religious reasons to imply that having no evidence that would hold up to scrutiny in scientific investigation or even most criminal court proceedings in the age of forensic science. Most of the arguments made, perhaps all, to support claims of a religious god/deity/immortal prophet etc end up being fallacious/circular. The only ones that have any real sense to me are anecdotes and they seem to be useless for anyone but the person with the anecdote and people who believed already/shared that faith. I don’t want to convince you to join my lack of religion, I just don’t want to be misunderstood as a person who has “no real reason” to believe that all god claims I’ve heard so far are nonsense.
Keeping it short. Do I believe the God of Abraham is the true one. Yeah. Evidence is not limited to a consensus of scholars or scientists. It’s anything that’s supports or brings proof to a claim. Doesn’t matter if claim is true or false. I’m not trying to convince there are deities here. I talk about this in streams if people ask.
Obviously faith in the context of religion is believing in something without evidence. You’re trying to conflate faith and trust in an attempt to say “look, everyone else’s beliefs are just as unjustifiable as mine”, but in reality, you’re just trying to justify believing in things for bad reasons, because you really want them to be true. Stop playing apologetic word games, and show us evidence that god is real.
1. Have you even watch the whole video? 2. I don’t have to prove to you there is a god. If you don’t. Good luck 3. I appreciate you deleted your original comment.
@@JCOJourney Sorry, but if you assert a god, the burden of proof is on you, my friend. I don't believe in unicorns. That doesn't mean I have to prove Unicorns exist ot don't exist.
@@mathgod Thinking that when you die, you'll decompose into matter, which is floating around in the universe for absolutely no reason and with no end goal, is just plain pessimistic and quite dumb imo. Obviously there's some higher power who created this universe, and we simply can't even begin to understand their plane of reality. You don't have to be religious to think that, you just gotta be critically thinking. You think a bunch of matter just comes from nowhere and has absolutely no purpose?
@josiahgittman1268 I think we have to be careful when we parse out what counts as evidence. If you take evidence to be established by scientific methods only, we exclude all knowledge from philosophy. We can have evidence say for a moral theory like utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. But this knowledge of morally is a different flavor from scientific, with sometimes different standards for assessing what counts as evidence. Religious evidence can be philosophical evidence. So, I am not sure it is obviously the cases faith is without evidence. By the way I am an atheist.
Hey man, great video! The important point I think is that "agnosticism" is the position which represents a complete lack of faith, being neither entirely convinced of any particular notion of a deity nor entirely convinced that no deity exists. What it comes down to me in simpler terms is a question of whether one believes that the larger world is itself a living being in the same way that humans are living beings or not. I can understand why someone would be open to either possibility when looking at the question from first principles.
I Watched The Whole Video And There Are Several Fundamental Problems With It 1. Regardless Of What Definition Of Faith You Use...All It Takes To Be An Atheist Is To Either Not Believe The God Claim Or To Accept The God Claim To Be False. Although Both Of Those Positions Are Similar, They Are NOT The Same. What You're Doing Is Confusing The Positions And Manipulating Your Wording So That Both Positions Mean The Same. "Atheist Don't Have Faith In Theism Being True -Therefore, Atheists Have Faith That Atheism Is True- !" The First Part Is What Atheism Is, The Second Part Is Your Manipulation Of Wording. That's Like Saying "The Jury Found The Defendant Not Guilty, -Therefore They Believe He Was Completely Innocent- !" Or, "I'm Don't Have Enough Money To Be Poor, Therefore I Have Enough Money To Be Rich!" Do You See How Nonsensical Those Statements Are? That's What It Sounds Like To Us When You Say, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist." 2. The Examples You Pulled From Other Comments Seem Edited In A Way You Can Once Again Manipulating Wording Except You're Misrepresenting Their Arguments. However, Let Me Give You The Benefit Of The Doubt, And Assume That They Just Didn't Articulate Their Positions Well Enough, So Allow Me To Articulate This Argument. I'm Not An Atheist Because I Accept Atheism. I Am An Atheist Because I Reject The Claim That "God Exist". Additionally, To Piggy Back Off The Example/Strawman You Gave Around 3:18 , Allow Me To Demonstrate My Point By Providing You With A Better Example. "I'm Not Black Because I Accept My Blackness. I Am Black Because Of My Heritage." 3. 3:32 - 4:18 All Of That Is Just A Huge Mess Of Enough Word Salad To Feed The Entire Nation. In Fact, I Think Frank Turek Called...He Would Like His Horse Back To Gish Gallop His Way Back To His Channel. Do Better 4. The Whole Section About How You Think We Have A Problem With "Words Can't Have Multiple Definitions/Things Can't Be Described With Different Words." Is, Actually, Not A Problem For Us. We Do Have A Problem With You Manipulating Definitions And Bending Words In A Way To Make Your Nonsensical Arguments Seem More Reasonable And Infallible Than You Make Them To Be. It's Like We're In The Middle Of A Game, And You Decided To Reinterpret A Ruling To Your Advantage On The Fly So You Can Win On. That's Incredibly Dishonest. 5. Regardless Of However You Manipulate Words Or Gish Gallop Word Salad...At The End Of The Day, Evidence And Reasoning Aren't The Same. Additionally, Prayer, The Moral Belief, Nor The Theologicial Argument Isn't Evidence. It's Just Very Poor Reasoning. 6. I, As An Atheist, Don't Outright Reject The "Evidence" Because It Doesn't Fit What I Believe To Be Evident. The Evidence You(Theists) Have Provide Was Not Valid. I Could Very Easily Turn You're Position On The Matter Back At You And Say "You Only Believe The Evidence You Provided Because It Fits What You Believe, And Not Because It's Valid." Do Better There's So Much More I Can Tear Into Within The Last 3 Mins Of The Video...But At This Rate...Is It Really Worth It?
1. Can an individual have some sort of trust that atheism is true? The claims of atheism you said I’m conflating is agnostic vs gnostic atheism. But atheism is just the lack of belief in deities. If you don’t accept the belief in deities, then you accept the lack of belief of deities. This isn’t like choice of color, but two opposing concepts. If a jury found someone not guilty, therefor the found them innocent. Don’t add completely. I differentiate that in the video for faith being completely, firmly, and just plain. Poor and rich are subjective qualities. Not absolutes like belief in a definite qualitative number of deities. 2.If seems like I edited in away to misunderstand there argument, I invite you to read those comments in the original videos. I didn’t delete them. I am black. I accept that I am black. Don’t know the purpose of adding more to my statement 3.Word Salad? Define it. It’s not what you think it means. Sometimes I need to break down logical statements down for others to understand. 4.Where in a game? I used definitions to explain logical statements. Just because you don’t like the conclusion, blame Oxford. 5.i address what evidence is. Your misunderstood that evidence can only be evidence if it benefits your position. 6.when I said you have to accept my evidence? Evidence is just something that supports my position. Difference between evaluating evidence is true or authentic, but I stated it in the video I’m glad you watch Be better. Glad you watch the video. You gave me future ideas.
@@JCOJourneysorry, you completely fail in responding to this guys criticism...... He made valid points that you try to turn into a game of word play........ Do better
@@JCOJourney "If you don’t accept the belief in deities, then you accept the lack of belief of deities." WRONG! *A*Theism, the LACK of a Theistic belief. *A*Symmetric, the lack of symmetry. NOT the "lack of belief of ..." symmetry! Your sad desperation is glaringly hilarious!
The problem is faith is trust without solid evidence. Whilst trusting scientific data, that's repeatable and observable is trust that's based on healthy skepticism. Faith is blind ignorant trust..
Atheism = Without theism... is the rejection of a single claim that's it.... you can talk in circles all day trying to redefine "faith" but its not the same thing as believing in a deity without actual evidence. If someone says they're atheist the only thing they've told you is they do not accept any god claim, that is is. you would have to ask questions to understand what they do believe in. If someone states god (or gods) don't exist that's a claim that one should be able to demonstrate with evidence. If not then the belief that gods don't exist is the same as a religious belief in them (without evidence and therefor faith based). Belief with evidence = rational Belief without evidence =irrational.
@@JCOJourney yeah and I got bored listening to you go around the same circle for the third time. trying to justify how athiests have faith comparable to religious folk.
@@JCOJourney Fixed, however, if you think you have a winning argument, take it on "the line" give it ago against a couple of atheists and see how it goes.
I am an Atheist. I think I understand where you're coming from, but I also think there is a potential misunderstanding of the burden of proof and what it means to ask "is Atheism true". Atheism is not a proposition - meaning it does not propose that god doesn't exist. It cannot be true or false. Atheism is simply not accepting the proposition that there is a god. So to ask if Atheism is true or if I have faith that Atheism is true, is to ask "Do you believe that a lack of belief in god is true?". This is an incoherent sentence. How can a lack of belief be true or false? A belief can be true or false, but not a LACK of belief. When you reject a claim, it does not mean you are accepting the opposite. For example, if a jury rules "Not guilty" that does NOT mean that the jury believes the defendant is innocent. They simply did not have enough evidence to accept "guilt". The reason for this is the burden of proof. If you make a claim i.e. god exists, you adopt a burden of proof. If I remain unconvinced by the proof/evidence, that does not mean I am convinced of the contrary. In fact, I may remain agnostic about the existence of god for example, but still be an Atheist. I think that your video focuses quite heavily on semantics and getting Atheists to admit that they have faith in their position. Unless an Atheist makes a CLAIM that god does in fact NOT exist, then they do not have a burden of proof and they do not have "faith" or "trust" that their position is true. In most cases, Atheism is simply the negation of Theism. I just saw your pinned comment as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when you say "Do you accept the lack of belief in deities is true?", you are really asking "Do you believe that god does not exist?". If this is what you are asking, it is simply not what a lack of belief in god is. I apologise for the lengthy comment or if I'm repeating myself or am unclear in any way. Let me know if I can clarify anything or if there are any points of contention. I appreciate your video. Keep searching for the truth.
I enjoy your comment much more than the rest. The first video I made about this topic was just a short video why I can’t accept the idea or concept of Atheism. It became semantical over this video with the comments I got. I say that if you accept or trust the concept that a “lack of belief of deities” is true, it seems to be equivalent to say, “One has faith in atheism being true”. The was not try to belittle atheism but just that having faith in something is not some religious concept they humans experience everyday for why we do or believe in things. I don’t see it as an issue with saying “I don’t have the trust to accept this concept as true”.
@@JCOJourney Sorry for cutting in here Sam, but I personally *cannot* believe - after having read so many comments explain this rather simple concept a myriad of ways - that you (Jonathan) have *still* not understood what we mean when we say we lack a belief in a deity. If it is about definitions and we absolutely *have* to separate out "lack of belief in existence" and "denial of existence", then let's call them Nons (non-believers) and Antis (Antitheists). With Antitheist who makes the claim "there is no god or gods" it absolutely makes sense to say "I don't accept that/don't have confidence in it/am not convinced by it". They make a claim that can be either true or false (independent of whether or not we can know so). People who merely do not believe in a god , the Nons, don't make any claim that you could then be unconvinced by. (I've read the gumball analogy (only with marbles) in the comments here already and you answered, so don't you claim to not understand what I mean.) "I don’t see it as an issue with saying “I don’t have the trust to accept this concept as true”." YES! Abso-fudging-lutely. No issue whatsoever. ... What doesn't make sense is to say: "I don’t have the trust to accept this lack of a concept as true". If I tell you about the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you say "I don't believe you" what in the world would it even mean for me to reply: "I do not have the confidence to accept your lack of a belief in the FSM". It makes no sense, right? Unless one means to say that they don't accept that someone else doesn't believe something, which is, not only momentously arrogant, but also basically the entire stick of presuppositonalists.
@TheYuvimon Theism is a concept. Atheism is a concept that is a lack in belief in a concept (theism). One can have trust/confidence that atheism is true since it’s a concept. This is all it is.
@@JCOJourney Thanks for your reply. I think we're at somewhat of a stalemate here. To avoid talking in circles and just restating what we've already said, it might be best to agree to disagree on the particular point about having faith that Atheism as a concept is true. Although, I'm not sure if a concept in itself can be true or false either. I think it comes down to a proposition being true or false. But I digress. I do have one other comment just on the usage of the word faith that I'd be interested to hear your input on. I have no problem with the word faith being used interchangeably with the word trust or confidence. That is in fact how it is colloquially used. I have faith that my chair will hold my weight, I have faith that my car won't break down on the way to work etc. However, like you mentioned in the video, words have multiple usages and definitions, and one of those definitions is commonly used by religious folk - "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on *spiritual conviction* rather than proof." Now if you tell me, that is not what you mean by faith, then I am fine with that. But then I would ask, why not just use the word "trust" or "confidence" instead? If you said "Atheists trust that their position is reasonable" instead of "Atheists have FAITH that their position is reasonable", then I believe that there wouldn't be as much of a pushback regarding your statement. Atheists, or at least me personally, do not want to be saddled with the religious baggage that comes with the word "faith". We do not have faith the same way religious folk have faith. And like I said, if you don't use the word faith the same way that most religious people use the word, then it might be better to make that clarification and instead use a clearer word like trust or confidence. So I feel like there is potentially an equivocation where you use the same word - "faith" - but with two different definitions. And this could be viewed as a way to get Atheists to admit they have faith, just like Christians do, when in fact, we mean it in an entirely different way.
@Sam-fb4jb Easily one of the best comments here I think it depends on who is the someone that uses faith. Typically, an atheist would always see faith as this blind reasons. They would usually accept that second definition. But theists go both ways with claiming faith having evidence or not. I always say if you have a reason, that’s your evidence. Evidence isn’t limited to being only consensus and can lead to wrong facts on reality, but it’s still evidence. From what I seen, asking questions to theist sources whether TH-cam, google search, or just the Bible; believers are not suppose to have blind faith. Many individuals would claim that since a certain definition applies to a word, means the another definition can’t apply. (Then again, one could argue that this spiritual apprehension is proof). Faith isn’t like the word bank with literally two different meanings but has a common meaning. Trust or confidence. Short: Faith has always meant one common thing trust and confidence in something
2:22 skeptics don't want to be grouped with people who believe in a God because there is no evidence. Skepticism is believing when evidence is provided. It's why you begin the video by talking about YOUR confidence in a claim rather than demonstrating the evidence that warrants that level of confidence in any reasonable person. Also dictionary definitions don't work for philosophical discussions because people use different words in different ways. Under your definition of Faith every single belief is faith. The belief that putting your hand into a fire will burn your hand is a type of Faith even though this is not how the word is typically used or how religious people use it. 4:58 claims are not evidence. 7:41 the documentary isn't evidence if it's fake. How do you know it's fake? 8:37 if this is the case then you just use the term proof to mean what skeptics mean when they say evidence which contradicts with your own example of replacing the word with the definition to see if it makes sense. If a fake documentary about leprechauns can be evidence to you then we're not talking about the same thing when we say evidence. If you want to play the dictionary game than Google says evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." A person thinking that something is evidence doesn't make it evidence. 9:32 ????? People do this all the time. Other religions also exist with different expectations that you think are wrong. 9:52 so you expect something that you've never seen happen? How can you expect something with evidence that doesn't come in your own lifetime?
I define my terms and basically everyone has faith. Even if you want to take the scriptures, believers this is the type of faith individuals are required to have. Not blind faith. The documentary is that persons evidence even if it is fake. It’s a different conversation to question the validity of the evidence, but it’s something that supports his claim. Just because you don’t accept the evidence I provided is a different conversation. Individuals have reasons, or evidence, that supports and gives why they may believe in something. I never seen Julius Caesar, the Andromeda Galaxy, or gravity. I guess since I don’t see them they aren’t really either. I expect the sun to come up when I’m dead though
@@JCOJourney Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. By your standards of definitional substitution "things unseen" and "blind" are equivalent. And if we use your special definition of faith then you still need good evidence to demonstrate that it is not blind/fallacious. No one believes their eternal soul depends on believing Caesar was real. You expect the sun to come up because the Earth's rotation doesn't depend on you being alive.
Did you not understand my reasoning of that verse? This can also help th-cam.com/video/S0tyRvSIEH4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=my4Qcb2hlLbv1HCr The eternal soul is irrelevant to the discussion about not seeing Julius Caesar. Those are two different things as I never seen Julius Caesar so he can’t exist. The sun isn’t expected to rise and fall forever is it? If I’m, dead how can I be sure the sun will continue the cycle.
Say I claim have a marble in my pocket. You have the people who will have faith that the marble is red, and the people who have faith that the marble is blue (etc for all the other colors). But no group has any evidence that supports their claim. Now say someone chooses not to believe the marble is any color, or maybe they don't think there's any marble at all since there's no evidence to support it. Would you say this person "has faith" that the marble has no color? That would be a mischaracterization of their position, since their position is defined by a lack of faith due to a lack of evidence. (Trying to say you basically used a whole mess of words strung together nonsensically because you think having faith despite no evidence is comparable to not having faith due to no evidence)
In this example, if none of the individuals have evidence to choose a color, they have blind faith. There is a reason that blind faith and faith are different things. But they may have evidence for having faith in that there is a marble, based on the experiment. Why would they have faith in a color of a marble, if they already had faith that there is a marble. The person who chooses not to believe in a color of the marble and if there is a marble in the first place are two different people, with different reasons. But, they accept whatever reason they hold to be true. They are confident, or trust, that there is a lack of evidence to make a claim. They have faith that the Anti-Marblist is true, the same way the ones arguing about color has faith that there is a marble, but blind faith on the color, if no evidence. But this is all a hypothetical. Faith isn’t some religious concept. It’s just confidence or trust in something or someone. If you have trust or confidence that atheism is true, you have faith that it is true.
You keep rejecting the simple proposition everyone in the comments is making. Atheism is not a position where one believes their stance is true. They are just refusing to believe a stance that other people are claiming to be absolutely true. Why is it so difficult for you to understand? And yes, I did painfully watch the entire video. This is why theists are not taken seriously.
A majority of the comments is atheist saying they don’t accept that but theist do. I do the reverse. It’s not a disingenuous position to stay you trust that something is true. It’s logical.
@@JCOJourney Brother, let me simplify. You are way too deep into semantics to sound intelligent. We don't need that here. You- atheist have to trust their position to be true Me- No, we just reject your position because it has no backing We have nothing to do with asserting that the atheist position is true or not. We don't know. How can we then have faith? Try simple English, cut the word salad and you might get it. It's really that simple. "WE DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE RIGHT"
Let’s keep this simple. Do you have trust, confidence, belief, accept, whatever word, that the concept of atheism is true. Do you hold a conviction in the proposition that no god or gods exist
@@JCOJourney Ok, firstly no you cannot use "whatever" word. That's the first fallacy you make in your video as well. No, THAT'S MY WHOLE point. Atheists do hold any sort of conviction in the proposition that god exists or not. That is what I (and many others) have been trying to explain it to you with futility. We don't know if there are God's or not but we are not ready to share your faith of God's existence because you lack good evidence. If undeniable evidence is presented every atheist shall believe in God. That's all. Atheism shouldn't even be a label to begin with, but unfortunately, it now is. You made this entire video putting yourself on an intellectual pedestal and don't even know the basics of atheism. Hence, I repeat, this is why no one takes theists seriously.
I’m glad you speak for every atheist. I get tired of hearing different people give different things across videos. Let’s break it down simpler. Can someone have trust that theism is true?
What an interesting hole I am in. IMO both theism and atheism is based on faith. Ye, there may be a magical invisible tea pot orbiting around jupiter, but people don't believe it because there's no evidence of said pot where others had individual experiences with teapot showing them their glory and both are valid. As long as you treat people with respect and don't commit horrendous crimes in the name of teapot or start censuring tea pots all around the world it is healthy to have different wievpoints
By the way, faith has nothing to do with evidence. Faith is just trust & hope in some belief. I can say that I have faith of some other world - after you die - where all your favourite shows, food, etc are right there specially laid out for you to enjoy for eternity. Ignoring the fact that this is (in a way) what Heaven is like, you may say that is absurd or ridiculous: however, you could never prove that to be false, since either way, we have no idea what happens after life. I think atheism is instead more concerned of where that belief came from. If some random person wrote a book explaining their strange faith, you have no evidence to objectify that belief, except for doubting it. In this modern day & age, we can all identify that such a belief is likely nonsense, but back when people thought lightning was magic, that book would have seemed to have answered all their questions about how the world works - therefore making it seem like a reliable and trustworthy source. Think about the time that source was written and how influential it would be on people back then, then think about how the modern day of society may approve or reject it. I would love to hear God undeniably prove he existed, instead of other people trying to convince me he's real, threatening Hell in the process.
I don't have faith in atheism. I lack a belief in any god. I think you're misunderstanding what a lack of belief means. What you don't seem to understand is that skepticism definitionally is the opposite of faith.
No wonder you see zero evidence, because we can't begin to comprehend the plane of existence that this higher power who created our universe operates on. I'm not even religious but to me it seems like common sense that something happened to create this universe. Matter doesn't just spawn in and float around within well defined laws and constants for no purpose
@@JCOJourney It’s still just trying to flip the burden of proof on atheists just a long circular path to do it. That still doesn’t work. God existing is the claim. You have to prove things exist people don’t have to prove everything that does not exist.
What's the point of this video or similar ones? You certainly don't seem to be convincing any atheists with this kind of stuff. Is it meant to be some kind of troll or just patting your own back? 🤨
@@JCOJourney Eleven minutes of you trying to play with words? No thanks. What atheist hasn't heard this a thousand times? You popped up in my recommended somehow, and I saw the other comments.
I reject "faith" as an acceptable approach to a world view. Show us all ANYTHING that has to be accepted and only with FAITH. IOW it lacks any factual support or rational thought. We can accept that this or that person is or is not reliable based on our previous interactions or those of others with them. That is NOT "faith". That is experience. So show us all ONE THING that lacks facts and rational thought but we need to accept anyway in order to live.
@@JCOJourney You are wrong. Faith is belief BEYOND evidence. This is why faith is beautiful and powerful. The thing you have faith in can't be proven and can't be disproven; there is no evidence.
You trust something (like science and friends and food) when they prove their trustability. I wouldnt put my trust in the realness of text in a book, and i read all the time. I live my life by characters ive read from throughtout history, and in much better prose and poetry than any "holy" book, and not once have i stepped out my front door in search of their realness. It simply isnt necessary.
Do you realize that the very definition that you are appealing to when it comes to faith, doesn't say anything about evidence? Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because even though faith means the trust in something doesn't necessarily invoke a type of evidence to support that trust. Now, I'm not saying that Faith can't incorporate evidence. But again you have to understand that the very definition that you are appealing to doesn't mention anything about evidence.
The same reason the definitions of man does mention the amount chromosomes and water definition doesn’t h20. Faith is complete trust in something. Evidence is something that furnishes proof. If you have faith in something, there has to be a reason for you to have faith in it that furnishes what you believe to be true.
@@JCOJourney So if it's possible to have faith in something and be wrong about it we can conclude that faith is not a reliable means to a belief. Would you agree or disagree?
Faith and belief are very similar words. Just because someone has faith in something or someone, doesn’t mean their faith leads to correct conclusions of what is true in the world.
I'm really trying to understand. You're saying I'm trusting...that I'm not convinced gods exist? Sure, I'd agree with that. But then I feel like we're not saying anything noteworthy at that point.
@JonathanCOwens That what's true though? That it's true that I'm not convinced yet? This seems like...such an obvious statement that I'm genuinely confused why we're talking about it.
@@chrislyonm Because people seem to not understand if you reject a claim then you accept the rejection of that claim as true. It’s just explaining that.
@JonathanCOwens Perhaps. My initial interpretation when hearing that phrasing was "you reject the claim, and that's the same as claiming the opposite". I wonder how many of us who think we disagree are simply interpretating it differently than was intended. Pedantic arguments are a bit frustrating. It's one reason why I liked your suggestion of replacing words with simpler definitions for clarity so much.
Trust me. This is the the second video for responding to comments because everyone has a different phrasing of what faith is. It’s not trying to be a getcha that atheist are just like theist but that we all trust to accept something, people, concepts, whatever to be true in life. And if you trust something to be true then it’s just faith.
Faith is an imagination (Hebrews 11:1). Atheistic understanding of the natural world is based on scientific methods. Therefore, Atheism is not based on faith but on hypotheses, theories, or facts.
Let me clarify, when I say accept the belief in deities or accept the lack of belief in deities, I should have added “is true” for more clarity. I was using accept as acknowledge or recognize the position to be true. I’m not redefining faith but using it to provided context. The first video on this was literally me saying why I don’t have faith that atheism is true. Some people don’t understand that faith, given all the definitions is just having trust and confidence in someone or something. It isn’t some religious thing. For one to be confident or trust that in someone or that something is true. They would need a reason to. That reason is the evidence. The video was just explaining that.
As much as you think this clarifies things, it very much doesn't. Yes, I was initially very confused by the sentence "I do not have complete confidence or confidence in general to accept the lack of belief in deities" as it sounds completely non-sensical to me, but honestly ... slapping an "is true" at the end doesn't really help. When you say "accepting a belief in a deity" surely you must mean that the claims made by the believers (from the church, the holy scriptures or direct revelation) are true. Or do you mean to say that you believe that the person claiming to hold a certain belief is correct about their assessment of their own conviction? A belief is just a conviction that certain claims are true. _You are either convinced that the moon is made of cheese or you are not_ means the same as _you either hold a belief that the moon is made out of cheese or you do not_ . So the point is that saying "I do not have the confidence to accept the *LACK* of belief in deities" that doesn't make any sense to me. What claims are you saying are false? What claims do you lack the confidence to accept? There are no truth statements made by a *lack of belief* with which you could be disagreeing (this is under the definition of atheism meaning a lack of a belief in gods, not hard atheism meaning a positive denial of the existence of gods).
If we are going to be pedantic then no. Someone who believes the statement "There is a god" is called a theist. That is a statement which has a truth value. Theism is not. I've seen you try this in other comments before, your follow-up would be "Then that means a person can believe atheism is true", am I right. All you are doing here is demonstrating a fundamental and strangely persistent inability or unwillingness to understand what a "lack of a belief" *is*. You do not become an Atheist by accepting "atheist doctrine" or "atheist claims" because there is no such thing. It is simply the most appropriate label to attach to somebody isn't convinced by any religions. It is the default. The null hypothesis. If you give someone who has never heard of any religion a comprehensive run-down of all of them and he turned around and said; "Nah I don't believe any of that" that would mean he was an atheist. He could be one without even knowing the word. So I ask you again: When you say "The first video on this was literally me saying why I don’t have faith that atheism is true" .... what do you mean? What isn't true? Are you saying I don't know my own convictions? Are you saying I am wrong about what I believe, that I, in fact unknowingly, *do* believe in a god? Because the atheist position is "I do not believe a god exists", NOT "I believe a god doesn't exist". To say you do not accept the latter is fair enough, I have not given any evidence or argument as to why a god does not exists. To say you do not accept the former makes no sense unless you are trying to say you know my mind better than I do.
Bro, do we need faith to believe this video is on yt rn when all the evidences point to it, or do we need faith to not believe in the existence of Leprechauns when there are no evidences for them?
@@JCOJourney What do,you mean by faith, anything I believe, I have faith in? like I have faith I'm alive? ........... if that's your point then yes you need faith for everything
These are some of the most disingenuous arguments I've heard. Plenty of THEISTS and ATHEISTS share the view that everything proven by science is valid. Nothing about that assertion requires faith. There are tons of religious scientists and no one has an issue with the scientific method. Things that require religious faith are those that go beyond the scope of what's provable/disprovable. This includes both theistic and atheistic religious views. There are religions that don't have a god and by definition they are atheists. Not everyone who is an atheist is areligious but everyone who is areligious is an atheist. If someone is areligious they have no faith. Therefore an atheism does not require faith. It might be a good idea to engage with the work of religious scholars of your own faith.
@@JCOJourney I know you didn't say anything about science. I was using it to build my argument. When did I say anything about faith being blind? Words have multiple meaning. Faith in this context is exclusively religious. Context is absolutely important. I would still like you to respond to this argument: "Not everyone who is an atheist is areligious but everyone who is areligious is an atheist. If someone is areligious they have no faith. Therefore an atheism does not require faith."
Did you watch the video How in this context did I misinterpret faith. Faith is just confidence in something. How did I use it for to refer to religious?
@@JCOJourney Yeah I watched the video. It was garbage. Faith is not JUST the confidence in something. Its confidence in something beyond evidence. All you've done is talk in circles and make bad arguments in bad faith. Oh look, another use of the word faith. Its almost like it has multiple definitions.
Atheism is not believing there is a god. Atheism is not believing there is no god. Read those two sentences carefully and discern the difference. There is no faith required to be an athiest because lack of belief in a god is not the same thing as disbelief in a god.
@@JCOJourney Yes, to summarize you have two points. 1) Atheism makes a claim that athiests have faith in. Ergo athiests shouldn't mock faith as a basis for belief as they do it too. 2) Faith is equivalent to confidence. You have evidence that has led you to have faith a god exists, and this is how faith should be understood/applied in a religious (specifically christian) context. To point 1) Atheism does not make any claims about anything. If you asked me if I believed in a god, I would say no. If you asked me if I believed there is no god, I would say no. I am unconvinced on both propositions, lacking belief in either. There is no burden of proof because Atheism doesnt make any claims. 2) Cool, I'm happy that you have evidence to believe in god and you use faith to mean confidence in your evidence. This does not change the fact that faith is used by many people to justify their belief in the abscence of evidence. In all honesty, I'm not going to use your definition for faith because it is synonymous with confidence and the abscence of evidence definition doesn't have another word for it. If you wann call your confidence faith, more power to you, but there are a lot of theists who don't use it that way and when I talk to them about its helpful to have a distinct term for it.
I appreciate the steelman, but let me correct some misunderstandings 1: Atheism is just lack of belief in deities. If someone can trust that the belief of deities is true, it seems reasonable that one can trust that the lack of belief in deities is true. If anything, I probably should have added “it’s true” to clarify my point. If not that you have to make claims, whether you deny or have simply no belief that there are deities, it’s that you have some level trust that the position is true (a lack of belief in atheism) over theism. 2.Everyone has a reason for their faith. If not, then we would call it blind faith. This reason is their evidence. I would need to be provided an example of people using faith contrary to evidence. This seems very rare. For an individual to have trust or confidence in something, they would have to have some reason. I think you’re misunderstanding that just because there is evidence one way, doesn’t mean there is evidence another. There’s a difference conversation on the validity on the evidence vs whether there is evidence in the first place. It does matter if you don’t agree with “my” definition of faith. Faith, at its core, is just trust/confidence in someone or thing. That’s is evident the definitions and scriptures I provided. Now, there are few definitions that say no proof, but the majority and essence of all definitions was trust/confidence (I also provided the water and MJ example with words having multiple definitions).
@@JCOJourney To be honest, I've seen quite a lot of people be asked the question of "If it turned out all your evidence was wrong would you still believe?" and they respond, "Well I'd still have faith." I'm not really gonna argue this point any further, I'm glad you have justification for your belief. I does not make sense to say athiests have faith in a lack of belief. If you asked someone a hard math question and they didn't know how to solve it, you would not then say that they are confident that they don't know, unless you are doubting that they are telling the truth. This shouldn't be compared to a student who has solved the math problem, having confidence their answer is correct. In the latter case, we can dissect the student's work and see if he has made any flaws in the proof of his answer to the question. In the former case, there is no work to look at because the student has not given a numerical answer. The first student has not made claims about his answer, he doesn't even have one. You should at least be able to acknowledge that whatever "faith" the second student has in himself for not knowing how to solve the problem, is different than the "faith" the first student has that their answer to the problem is correct. One of those two positions can be checked to see if it is correct.
@straycat9258 For those people I would ask what reasoning they would have faith in the first place. If there is not evidence or reasonings, that’s blind faith. If a student doesn’t know the answer to the question, it can be said that they have some level of trust or confidence that they don’t know the answer. If a student knows the answer, they have trust or confidence that they know the answer AND there is an answer.
@@JCOJourney Yes. Ultimately words are not defined by a dictionary but the usage of them in society. And words change drastically in context, regions, societies, and historical time. To say faith will always consistently mean confidence is using a synonymous definition of a word, but not the unique definition of the word. By appealing to a dictionary definition( and interpreting that definition incorrectly btw) you are playing word salad. Instead of addressing the conceptual idea of what is intended by the idea of atheism, and the idea of faith, you’re using semantics to disprove it. Your argument is invalid because Dictionaries are not valid sources or a source of authority,
I’m using the definition of a word. Words have meanings. You’re using word salad in an incorrect way. It’s basically a scrambled mix of words. It’s like saying “Salad Car Bed Man Gravity”
@@JCOJourney you are using a medicinal definition of word salad. Is the a medical context? No, I’m using a colloquial definition of the word, meaning you are not making a logical argument. Words mean things but different things in different context.
Atheism is just that I'm not convinced by your God claim. No faith needed for that. I'm not convinced there is a loch Ness monster. No faith needed for that either.
@@JCOJourney Yes agnostic atheist is correct. Agnosticism is about knowledge while Atheism is about belief or lack of it. Importantly I don’t make a claim that there is no God. I don’t know and I am confident that nobody else knows either.
@@JCOJourney I can’t be a theist because I’m not convinced a God exists . I don’t believe a God exists although I don’t make the claim that a God doesn’t exist. It’s a bit like not guilty in a court trial doesn’t mean the person is innocent. The agnosticism is that I don’t think the knowledge is available for anybody to make the judgment, at least the knowledge is not available to me.
@@anthonythompson1680 Since you said you don’t believe god exist, wouldn’t atheism be the belief that a god does exist? Wouldn’t it be fair for me to say I don’t believe that your belief is true?
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
For the Atheist, is this an accurate steelman?
An Atheist cannot have faith in Atheism.
One cannot accept atheism, like a man accepts an Apple or jacket.
It just is.
A theist can accept the idea of deities but an atheist cannot accept it as atheism is just the lack of belief in deities.
Atheism the default position.
Theism introduces the claim that there are deities and must provide evidence to the atheist since the theist has the burden or proof.
When one claims an atheist has faith, it’s illogical as you can’t accept the lack of belief in something.
I think you’ve got a couple of decent points in this statement.
I’d put it like this:
I don’t have faith (a belief that is confident with a lack of strong testable evidence) in any deity.
I don’t have faith (same definition) in that lack of evidence, I have no position on any deity since I completely lack any evidence that I could consider.
I know this is a hackneyed expression but for most theists they also don’t believe in any deity not of their own religion.
Do you even lack faith in the ones that you have not heard of? The ones that were forgotten before yours even was conceived of?
I have no position on them, but since they were “present” when the Abrahamic god came along maybe they should be revered more?
Perhaps you think they were foolish to have such silly ideas about who made the sun shine or the crops grow or their local sports team win a championship.
I see a set of conventions and lies conveniently embedded in society used for control, corruption, financial gain
1. That first statement is probably not the most accurate definition of faith. The “lack of strong testable evidence” isn’t found as a consistent definition in dictionaries, scholars, or how text like the Bible define it as. The definition is trust/confidence and one cannot have that without some kind evidence.
2. Faith in a deity isn’t the only thing people have faith in. People have faith (look at definitions given above and video) in everything in life.
3. I do not have faith that Islam is true if that answers the question
@@JCOJourney do you have faith in Abraham’s god when seen through an alternate cultural interpretation? Or do you have a god outside those traditions? I ask because those traditions typically have many different ways of mentioning that faith is specifically about things that one should not have typical evidence for.
I agree that the definition I use isn’t the only one, I’m just saying that this atheist (me) finds the word used so often to be used for religious reasons to imply that having no evidence that would hold up to scrutiny in scientific investigation or even most criminal court proceedings in the age of forensic science.
Most of the arguments made, perhaps all, to support claims of a religious god/deity/immortal prophet etc end up being fallacious/circular.
The only ones that have any real sense to me are anecdotes and they seem to be useless for anyone but the person with the anecdote and people who believed already/shared that faith.
I don’t want to convince you to join my lack of religion, I just don’t want to be misunderstood as a person who has “no real reason” to believe that all god claims I’ve heard so far are nonsense.
Keeping it short.
Do I believe the God of Abraham is the true one. Yeah.
Evidence is not limited to a consensus of scholars or scientists. It’s anything that’s supports or brings proof to a claim. Doesn’t matter if claim is true or false.
I’m not trying to convince there are deities here.
I talk about this in streams if people ask.
Have you seen Dorothy, Lion and Tin Man? I assumed they would be hanging out with the Strawman you just made.
Boom. Roasted.
I love how this has more likes than the video.
Cool
Exactly, "Strawmanning" was the word that kept popping in my head as I watched the video. This is what winning all shower arguments does to a man.
Can you steelman my position.
Obviously faith in the context of religion is believing in something without evidence. You’re trying to conflate faith and trust in an attempt to say “look, everyone else’s beliefs are just as unjustifiable as mine”, but in reality, you’re just trying to justify believing in things for bad reasons, because you really want them to be true. Stop playing apologetic word games, and show us evidence that god is real.
1. Have you even watch the whole video?
2. I don’t have to prove to you there is a god. If you don’t. Good luck
3. I appreciate you deleted your original comment.
@@JCOJourney Sorry, but if you assert a god, the burden of proof is on you, my friend. I don't believe in unicorns. That doesn't mean I have to prove Unicorns exist ot don't exist.
This is talking about faith. There was no claim that there is a god. Have you watch the video
@@mathgod Thinking that when you die, you'll decompose into matter, which is floating around in the universe for absolutely no reason and with no end goal, is just plain pessimistic and quite dumb imo. Obviously there's some higher power who created this universe, and we simply can't even begin to understand their plane of reality. You don't have to be religious to think that, you just gotta be critically thinking. You think a bunch of matter just comes from nowhere and has absolutely no purpose?
@josiahgittman1268 I think we have to be careful when we parse out what counts as evidence. If you take evidence to be established by scientific methods only, we exclude all knowledge from philosophy. We can have evidence say for a moral theory like utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. But this knowledge of morally is a different flavor from scientific, with sometimes different standards for assessing what counts as evidence. Religious evidence can be philosophical evidence. So, I am not sure it is obviously the cases faith is without evidence. By the way I am an atheist.
Hey man, great video!
The important point I think is that "agnosticism" is the position which represents a complete lack of faith, being neither entirely convinced of any particular notion of a deity nor entirely convinced that no deity exists.
What it comes down to me in simpler terms is a question of whether one believes that the larger world is itself a living being in the same way that humans are living beings or not.
I can understand why someone would be open to either possibility when looking at the question from first principles.
I Watched The Whole Video And There Are Several Fundamental Problems With It
1. Regardless Of What Definition Of Faith You Use...All It Takes To Be An Atheist Is To Either Not Believe The God Claim Or To Accept The God Claim To Be False. Although Both Of Those Positions Are Similar, They Are NOT The Same. What You're Doing Is Confusing The Positions And Manipulating Your Wording So That Both Positions Mean The Same. "Atheist Don't Have Faith In Theism Being True -Therefore, Atheists Have Faith That Atheism Is True- !" The First Part Is What Atheism Is, The Second Part Is Your Manipulation Of Wording. That's Like Saying "The Jury Found The Defendant Not Guilty, -Therefore They Believe He Was Completely Innocent- !" Or, "I'm Don't Have Enough Money To Be Poor, Therefore I Have Enough Money To Be Rich!" Do You See How Nonsensical Those Statements Are? That's What It Sounds Like To Us When You Say, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist."
2. The Examples You Pulled From Other Comments Seem Edited In A Way You Can Once Again Manipulating Wording Except You're Misrepresenting Their Arguments. However, Let Me Give You The Benefit Of The Doubt, And Assume That They Just Didn't Articulate Their Positions Well Enough, So Allow Me To Articulate This Argument.
I'm Not An Atheist Because I Accept Atheism. I Am An Atheist Because I Reject The Claim That "God Exist". Additionally, To Piggy Back Off The Example/Strawman You Gave Around 3:18 , Allow Me To Demonstrate My Point By Providing You With A Better Example. "I'm Not Black Because I Accept My Blackness. I Am Black Because Of My Heritage."
3. 3:32 - 4:18 All Of That Is Just A Huge Mess Of Enough Word Salad To Feed The Entire Nation. In Fact, I Think Frank Turek Called...He Would Like His Horse Back To Gish Gallop His Way Back To His Channel.
Do Better
4. The Whole Section About How You Think We Have A Problem With "Words Can't Have Multiple Definitions/Things Can't Be Described With Different Words." Is, Actually, Not A Problem For Us. We Do Have A Problem With You Manipulating Definitions And Bending Words In A Way To Make Your Nonsensical Arguments Seem More Reasonable And Infallible Than You Make Them To Be. It's Like We're In The Middle Of A Game, And You Decided To Reinterpret A Ruling To Your Advantage On The Fly So You Can Win On. That's Incredibly Dishonest.
5. Regardless Of However You Manipulate Words Or Gish Gallop Word Salad...At The End Of The Day, Evidence And Reasoning Aren't The Same. Additionally, Prayer, The Moral Belief, Nor The Theologicial Argument Isn't Evidence. It's Just Very Poor Reasoning.
6. I, As An Atheist, Don't Outright Reject The "Evidence" Because It Doesn't Fit What I Believe To Be Evident. The Evidence You(Theists) Have Provide Was Not Valid. I Could Very Easily Turn You're Position On The Matter Back At You And Say "You Only Believe The Evidence You Provided Because It Fits What You Believe, And Not Because It's Valid."
Do Better
There's So Much More I Can Tear Into Within The Last 3 Mins Of The Video...But At This Rate...Is It Really Worth It?
1. Can an individual have some sort of trust that atheism is true? The claims of atheism you said I’m conflating is agnostic vs gnostic atheism. But atheism is just the lack of belief in deities. If you don’t accept the belief in deities, then you accept the lack of belief of deities. This isn’t like choice of color, but two opposing concepts.
If a jury found someone not guilty, therefor the found them innocent. Don’t add completely. I differentiate that in the video for faith being completely, firmly, and just plain.
Poor and rich are subjective qualities. Not absolutes like belief in a definite qualitative number of deities.
2.If seems like I edited in away to misunderstand there argument, I invite you to read those comments in the original videos. I didn’t delete them.
I am black. I accept that I am black. Don’t know the purpose of adding more to my statement
3.Word Salad? Define it. It’s not what you think it means. Sometimes I need to break down logical statements down for others to understand.
4.Where in a game? I used definitions to explain logical statements. Just because you don’t like the conclusion, blame Oxford.
5.i address what evidence is. Your misunderstood that evidence can only be evidence if it benefits your position.
6.when I said you have to accept my evidence? Evidence is just something that supports my position. Difference between evaluating evidence is true or authentic, but I stated it in the video I’m glad you watch
Be better.
Glad you watch the video. You gave me future ideas.
@@JCOJourneysorry, you completely fail in responding to this guys criticism...... He made valid points that you try to turn into a game of word play........ Do better
So I respond but you can’t. Cool.
@@JCOJourney "If you don’t accept the belief in deities, then you accept the lack of belief of deities." WRONG! *A*Theism, the LACK of a Theistic belief. *A*Symmetric, the lack of symmetry. NOT the "lack of belief of ..." symmetry!
Your sad desperation is glaringly hilarious!
Can you steel man my video
The problem is faith is trust without solid evidence.
Whilst trusting scientific data, that's repeatable and observable is trust that's based on healthy skepticism.
Faith is blind ignorant trust..
Curious. Did you watch the video?
Atheism = Without theism... is the rejection of a single claim that's it.... you can talk in circles all day trying to redefine "faith" but its not the same thing as believing in a deity without actual evidence.
If someone says they're atheist the only thing they've told you is they do not accept any god claim, that is is. you would have to ask questions to understand what they do believe in.
If someone states god (or gods) don't exist that's a claim that one should be able to demonstrate with evidence. If not then the belief that gods don't exist is the same as a religious belief in them (without evidence and therefor faith based).
Belief with evidence = rational
Belief without evidence =irrational.
Have you watch the full video?
@@JCOJourney yeah and I got bored listening to you go around the same circle for the third time. trying to justify how athiests have faith comparable to religious folk.
@llamathrust8646 English please.
@@JCOJourney Fixed, however, if you think you have a winning argument, take it on "the line" give it ago against a couple of atheists and see how it goes.
I don’t have to go on The Line. But can you steel man my reasoning?
I am an Atheist. I think I understand where you're coming from, but I also think there is a potential misunderstanding of the burden of proof and what it means to ask "is Atheism true".
Atheism is not a proposition - meaning it does not propose that god doesn't exist. It cannot be true or false. Atheism is simply not accepting the proposition that there is a god. So to ask if Atheism is true or if I have faith that Atheism is true, is to ask "Do you believe that a lack of belief in god is true?". This is an incoherent sentence. How can a lack of belief be true or false? A belief can be true or false, but not a LACK of belief. When you reject a claim, it does not mean you are accepting the opposite.
For example, if a jury rules "Not guilty" that does NOT mean that the jury believes the defendant is innocent. They simply did not have enough evidence to accept "guilt".
The reason for this is the burden of proof. If you make a claim i.e. god exists, you adopt a burden of proof. If I remain unconvinced by the proof/evidence, that does not mean I am convinced of the contrary. In fact, I may remain agnostic about the existence of god for example, but still be an Atheist.
I think that your video focuses quite heavily on semantics and getting Atheists to admit that they have faith in their position.
Unless an Atheist makes a CLAIM that god does in fact NOT exist, then they do not have a burden of proof and they do not have "faith" or "trust" that their position is true. In most cases, Atheism is simply the negation of Theism.
I just saw your pinned comment as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when you say "Do you accept the lack of belief in deities is true?", you are really asking "Do you believe that god does not exist?". If this is what you are asking, it is simply not what a lack of belief in god is.
I apologise for the lengthy comment or if I'm repeating myself or am unclear in any way. Let me know if I can clarify anything or if there are any points of contention.
I appreciate your video. Keep searching for the truth.
I enjoy your comment much more than the rest. The first video I made about this topic was just a short video why I can’t accept the idea or concept of Atheism. It became semantical over this video with the comments I got. I say that if you accept or trust the concept that a “lack of belief of deities” is true, it seems to be equivalent to say, “One has faith in atheism being true”. The was not try to belittle atheism but just that having faith in something is not some religious concept they humans experience everyday for why we do or believe in things.
I don’t see it as an issue with saying “I don’t have the trust to accept this concept as true”.
@@JCOJourney Sorry for cutting in here Sam, but I personally *cannot* believe - after having read so many comments explain this rather simple concept a myriad of ways - that you (Jonathan) have *still* not understood what we mean when we say we lack a belief in a deity.
If it is about definitions and we absolutely *have* to separate out "lack of belief in existence" and "denial of existence", then let's call them Nons (non-believers) and Antis (Antitheists). With Antitheist who makes the claim "there is no god or gods" it absolutely makes sense to say "I don't accept that/don't have confidence in it/am not convinced by it".
They make a claim that can be either true or false (independent of whether or not we can know so).
People who merely do not believe in a god , the Nons, don't make any claim that you could then be unconvinced by. (I've read the gumball analogy (only with marbles) in the comments here already and you answered, so don't you claim to not understand what I mean.)
"I don’t see it as an issue with saying “I don’t have the trust to accept this concept as true”."
YES! Abso-fudging-lutely. No issue whatsoever.
...
What doesn't make sense is to say: "I don’t have the trust to accept this lack of a concept as true".
If I tell you about the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you say "I don't believe you" what in the world would it even mean for me to reply: "I do not have the confidence to accept your lack of a belief in the FSM". It makes no sense, right?
Unless one means to say that they don't accept that someone else doesn't believe something, which is, not only momentously arrogant, but also basically the entire stick of presuppositonalists.
@TheYuvimon Theism is a concept. Atheism is a concept that is a lack in belief in a concept (theism). One can have trust/confidence that atheism is true since it’s a concept. This is all it is.
@@JCOJourney Thanks for your reply. I think we're at somewhat of a stalemate here. To avoid talking in circles and just restating what we've already said, it might be best to agree to disagree on the particular point about having faith that Atheism as a concept is true. Although, I'm not sure if a concept in itself can be true or false either. I think it comes down to a proposition being true or false. But I digress.
I do have one other comment just on the usage of the word faith that I'd be interested to hear your input on. I have no problem with the word faith being used interchangeably with the word trust or confidence. That is in fact how it is colloquially used. I have faith that my chair will hold my weight, I have faith that my car won't break down on the way to work etc. However, like you mentioned in the video, words have multiple usages and definitions, and one of those definitions is commonly used by religious folk - "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on *spiritual conviction* rather than proof."
Now if you tell me, that is not what you mean by faith, then I am fine with that. But then I would ask, why not just use the word "trust" or "confidence" instead? If you said "Atheists trust that their position is reasonable" instead of "Atheists have FAITH that their position is reasonable", then I believe that there wouldn't be as much of a pushback regarding your statement. Atheists, or at least me personally, do not want to be saddled with the religious baggage that comes with the word "faith". We do not have faith the same way religious folk have faith. And like I said, if you don't use the word faith the same way that most religious people use the word, then it might be better to make that clarification and instead use a clearer word like trust or confidence.
So I feel like there is potentially an equivocation where you use the same word - "faith" - but with two different definitions. And this could be viewed as a way to get Atheists to admit they have faith, just like Christians do, when in fact, we mean it in an entirely different way.
@Sam-fb4jb
Easily one of the best comments here
I think it depends on who is the someone that uses faith. Typically, an atheist would always see faith as this blind reasons. They would usually accept that second definition. But theists go both ways with claiming faith having evidence or not. I always say if you have a reason, that’s your evidence. Evidence isn’t limited to being only consensus and can lead to wrong facts on reality, but it’s still evidence. From what I seen, asking questions to theist sources whether TH-cam, google search, or just the Bible; believers are not suppose to have blind faith.
Many individuals would claim that since a certain definition applies to a word, means the another definition can’t apply. (Then again, one could argue that this spiritual apprehension is proof). Faith isn’t like the word bank with literally two different meanings but has a common meaning. Trust or confidence.
Short: Faith has always meant one common thing trust and confidence in something
2:22 skeptics don't want to be grouped with people who believe in a God because there is no evidence. Skepticism is believing when evidence is provided.
It's why you begin the video by talking about YOUR confidence in a claim rather than demonstrating the evidence that warrants that level of confidence in any reasonable person.
Also dictionary definitions don't work for philosophical discussions because people use different words in different ways. Under your definition of Faith every single belief is faith. The belief that putting your hand into a fire will burn your hand is a type of Faith even though this is not how the word is typically used or how religious people use it.
4:58 claims are not evidence.
7:41 the documentary isn't evidence if it's fake. How do you know it's fake?
8:37 if this is the case then you just use the term proof to mean what skeptics mean when they say evidence which contradicts with your own example of replacing the word with the definition to see if it makes sense. If a fake documentary about leprechauns can be evidence to you then we're not talking about the same thing when we say evidence.
If you want to play the dictionary game than Google says evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." A person thinking that something is evidence doesn't make it evidence.
9:32 ????? People do this all the time. Other religions also exist with different expectations that you think are wrong.
9:52 so you expect something that you've never seen happen? How can you expect something with evidence that doesn't come in your own lifetime?
I define my terms and basically everyone has faith. Even if you want to take the scriptures, believers this is the type of faith individuals are required to have. Not blind faith.
The documentary is that persons evidence even if it is fake. It’s a different conversation to question the validity of the evidence, but it’s something that supports his claim. Just because you don’t accept the evidence I provided is a different conversation. Individuals have reasons, or evidence, that supports and gives why they may believe in something.
I never seen Julius Caesar, the Andromeda Galaxy, or gravity. I guess since I don’t see them they aren’t really either. I expect the sun to come up when I’m dead though
@@JCOJourney Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
By your standards of definitional substitution "things unseen" and "blind" are equivalent. And if we use your special definition of faith then you still need good evidence to demonstrate that it is not blind/fallacious.
No one believes their eternal soul depends on believing Caesar was real. You expect the sun to come up because the Earth's rotation doesn't depend on you being alive.
Did you not understand my reasoning of that verse?
This can also help th-cam.com/video/S0tyRvSIEH4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=my4Qcb2hlLbv1HCr
The eternal soul is irrelevant to the discussion about not seeing Julius Caesar. Those are two different things as I never seen Julius Caesar so he can’t exist.
The sun isn’t expected to rise and fall forever is it? If I’m, dead how can I be sure the sun will continue the cycle.
Say I claim have a marble in my pocket. You have the people who will have faith that the marble is red, and the people who have faith that the marble is blue (etc for all the other colors). But no group has any evidence that supports their claim. Now say someone chooses not to believe the marble is any color, or maybe they don't think there's any marble at all since there's no evidence to support it. Would you say this person "has faith" that the marble has no color? That would be a mischaracterization of their position, since their position is defined by a lack of faith due to a lack of evidence. (Trying to say you basically used a whole mess of words strung together nonsensically because you think having faith despite no evidence is comparable to not having faith due to no evidence)
In this example, if none of the individuals have evidence to choose a color, they have blind faith. There is a reason that blind faith and faith are different things. But they may have evidence for having faith in that there is a marble, based on the experiment. Why would they have faith in a color of a marble, if they already had faith that there is a marble.
The person who chooses not to believe in a color of the marble and if there is a marble in the first place are two different people, with different reasons. But, they accept whatever reason they hold to be true.
They are confident, or trust, that there is a lack of evidence to make a claim. They have faith that the Anti-Marblist is true, the same way the ones arguing about color has faith that there is a marble, but blind faith on the color, if no evidence.
But this is all a hypothetical.
Faith isn’t some religious concept. It’s just confidence or trust in something or someone. If you have trust or confidence that atheism is true, you have faith that it is true.
You keep rejecting the simple proposition everyone in the comments is making. Atheism is not a position where one believes their stance is true. They are just refusing to believe a stance that other people are claiming to be absolutely true. Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
And yes, I did painfully watch the entire video. This is why theists are not taken seriously.
A majority of the comments is atheist saying they don’t accept that but theist do. I do the reverse. It’s not a disingenuous position to stay you trust that something is true. It’s logical.
@@JCOJourney Brother, let me simplify. You are way too deep into semantics to sound intelligent. We don't need that here.
You- atheist have to trust their position to be true
Me- No, we just reject your position because it has no backing
We have nothing to do with asserting that the atheist position is true or not. We don't know. How can we then have faith?
Try simple English, cut the word salad and you might get it. It's really that simple.
"WE DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE RIGHT"
Let’s keep this simple. Do you have trust, confidence, belief, accept, whatever word, that the concept of atheism is true.
Do you hold a conviction in the proposition that no god or gods exist
@@JCOJourney Ok, firstly no you cannot use "whatever" word. That's the first fallacy you make in your video as well.
No, THAT'S MY WHOLE point. Atheists do hold any sort of conviction in the proposition that god exists or not. That is what I (and many others) have been trying to explain it to you with futility.
We don't know if there are God's or not but we are not ready to share your faith of God's existence because you lack good evidence. If undeniable evidence is presented every atheist shall believe in God. That's all.
Atheism shouldn't even be a label to begin with, but unfortunately, it now is. You made this entire video putting yourself on an intellectual pedestal and don't even know the basics of atheism.
Hence, I repeat, this is why no one takes theists seriously.
I’m glad you speak for every atheist. I get tired of hearing different people give different things across videos.
Let’s break it down simpler. Can someone have trust that theism is true?
Room temperature IQ
Have you watch the full video? If so, can you steelman my position?
@@JCOJourneyYour pathetic and disingenuous semantic games don't deserve discussion, only derision.
What an interesting hole I am in.
IMO both theism and atheism is based on faith. Ye, there may be a magical invisible tea pot orbiting around jupiter, but people don't believe it because there's no evidence of said pot where others had individual experiences with teapot showing them their glory and both are valid. As long as you treat people with respect and don't commit horrendous crimes in the name of teapot or start censuring tea pots all around the world it is healthy to have different wievpoints
By the way, faith has nothing to do with evidence. Faith is just trust & hope in some belief. I can say that I have faith of some other world - after you die - where all your favourite shows, food, etc are right there specially laid out for you to enjoy for eternity. Ignoring the fact that this is (in a way) what Heaven is like, you may say that is absurd or ridiculous: however, you could never prove that to be false, since either way, we have no idea what happens after life. I think atheism is instead more concerned of where that belief came from. If some random person wrote a book explaining their strange faith, you have no evidence to objectify that belief, except for doubting it. In this modern day & age, we can all identify that such a belief is likely nonsense, but back when people thought lightning was magic, that book would have seemed to have answered all their questions about how the world works - therefore making it seem like a reliable and trustworthy source.
Think about the time that source was written and how influential it would be on people back then, then think about how the modern day of society may approve or reject it.
I would love to hear God undeniably prove he existed, instead of other people trying to convince me he's real, threatening Hell in the process.
I recommend other videos I spoke on faith requiring evidence
I don't have faith in atheism. I lack a belief in any god. I think you're misunderstanding what a lack of belief means.
What you don't seem to understand is that skepticism definitionally is the opposite of faith.
Have you watch the video
Why would I need faith to believe there’s no god. I see zero evidence for a god.
Have you watch the full video? If so, can you steelman my position?
No wonder you see zero evidence, because we can't begin to comprehend the plane of existence that this higher power who created our universe operates on. I'm not even religious but to me it seems like common sense that something happened to create this universe. Matter doesn't just spawn in and float around within well defined laws and constants for no purpose
@@JCOJourney It’s still just trying to flip the burden of proof on atheists just a long circular path to do it. That still doesn’t work. God existing is the claim. You have to prove things exist people don’t have to prove everything that does not exist.
@@JCOJourney How did I know you were going to say this? Oh... and before you reply, I just want to ask something. Can you steelman my position?
What's the point of this video or similar ones? You certainly don't seem to be convincing any atheists with this kind of stuff. Is it meant to be some kind of troll or just patting your own back? 🤨
Have you watch the full video or are you commenting just because you saw the title?
@@JCOJourney Eleven minutes of you trying to play with words? No thanks. What atheist hasn't heard this a thousand times? You popped up in my recommended somehow, and I saw the other comments.
And atheists say religious people don’t like reason. -_- Take care.
@@JCOJourneyand you are a prime example of this
@@JCOJourney So the first one, gotcha. Aint even gonna humor you trying to call wordplay reason.
I reject "faith" as an acceptable approach to a world view. Show us all ANYTHING that has to be accepted and only with FAITH. IOW it lacks any factual support or rational thought. We can accept that this or that person is or is not reliable based on our previous interactions or those of others with them. That is NOT "faith". That is experience. So show us all ONE THING that lacks facts and rational thought but we need to accept anyway in order to live.
Faith requires evidence. I’m willing to bet you don’t run with 100% evidence to live life.
@@JCOJourney You are wrong. Faith is belief BEYOND evidence. This is why faith is beautiful and powerful. The thing you have faith in can't be proven and can't be disproven; there is no evidence.
I define the terms by giving definitions and provided logical statements.
Do people have reasons for believing things?
@@JCOJourney your definitions are dog.
If you don’t like definitions, talk to the dictionary.
Atheism requires evidence, not faith.
Have you even watched the video? If so, can you steelman me?
You trust something (like science and friends and food) when they prove their trustability.
I wouldnt put my trust in the realness of text in a book, and i read all the time. I live my life by characters ive read from throughtout history, and in much better prose and poetry than any "holy" book, and not once have i stepped out my front door in search of their realness. It simply isnt necessary.
Do you reject all historical records since they were written by man?
Do you realize that the very definition that you are appealing to when it comes to faith, doesn't say anything about evidence?
Why do you think that is?
Maybe it's because even though faith means the trust in something doesn't necessarily invoke a type of evidence to support that trust.
Now, I'm not saying that Faith can't incorporate evidence. But again you have to understand that the very definition that you are appealing to doesn't mention anything about evidence.
The same reason the definitions of man does mention the amount chromosomes and water definition doesn’t h20.
Faith is complete trust in something.
Evidence is something that furnishes proof.
If you have faith in something, there has to be a reason for you to have faith in it that furnishes what you believe to be true.
@@JCOJourney So let me ask you a question.
Is it possible to have faith in something and be wrong about it?
Yes
@@JCOJourney So if it's possible to have faith in something and be wrong about it we can conclude that faith is not a reliable means to a belief.
Would you agree or disagree?
Faith and belief are very similar words.
Just because someone has faith in something or someone, doesn’t mean their faith leads to correct conclusions of what is true in the world.
I'm really trying to understand. You're saying I'm trusting...that I'm not convinced gods exist? Sure, I'd agree with that. But then I feel like we're not saying anything noteworthy at that point.
That’s all it is. You have some sort of confidence or trust that it is true. It’s just another way of saying you have faith that it’s true
@JonathanCOwens That what's true though? That it's true that I'm not convinced yet? This seems like...such an obvious statement that I'm genuinely confused why we're talking about it.
@@chrislyonm Because people seem to not understand if you reject a claim then you accept the rejection of that claim as true. It’s just explaining that.
@JonathanCOwens Perhaps. My initial interpretation when hearing that phrasing was "you reject the claim, and that's the same as claiming the opposite". I wonder how many of us who think we disagree are simply interpretating it differently than was intended. Pedantic arguments are a bit frustrating. It's one reason why I liked your suggestion of replacing words with simpler definitions for clarity so much.
Trust me. This is the the second video for responding to comments because everyone has a different phrasing of what faith is. It’s not trying to be a getcha that atheist are just like theist but that we all trust to accept something, people, concepts, whatever to be true in life. And if you trust something to be true then it’s just faith.
I have faith that you don’t know what your talking about
Cool man.
Faith is an imagination (Hebrews 11:1). Atheistic understanding of the natural world is based on scientific methods. Therefore, Atheism is not based on faith but on hypotheses, theories, or facts.
Have you watch the video or just commenting. If so, can you steel man my position.
@@JCOJourney I think I just wrapped up your 10 minutes talking most cognitively. There was a lot of talking around about the same thing.
Steelman?
Let me clarify, when I say accept the belief in deities or accept the lack of belief in deities, I should have added “is true” for more clarity. I was using accept as acknowledge or recognize the position to be true.
I’m not redefining faith but using it to provided context. The first video on this was literally me saying why I don’t have faith that atheism is true. Some people don’t understand that faith, given all the definitions is just having trust and confidence in someone or something. It isn’t some religious thing. For one to be confident or trust that in someone or that something is true. They would need a reason to. That reason is the evidence.
The video was just explaining that.
As much as you think this clarifies things, it very much doesn't. Yes, I was initially very confused by the sentence "I do not have complete confidence or confidence in general to accept the lack of belief in deities" as it sounds completely non-sensical to me, but honestly ... slapping an "is true" at the end doesn't really help.
When you say "accepting a belief in a deity" surely you must mean that the claims made by the believers (from the church, the holy scriptures or direct revelation) are true. Or do you mean to say that you believe that the person claiming to hold a certain belief is correct about their assessment of their own conviction?
A belief is just a conviction that certain claims are true. _You are either convinced that the moon is made of cheese or you are not_ means the same as _you either hold a belief that the moon is made out of cheese or you do not_ .
So the point is that saying "I do not have the confidence to accept the *LACK* of belief in deities" that doesn't make any sense to me. What claims are you saying are false? What claims do you lack the confidence to accept? There are no truth statements made by a *lack of belief* with which you could be disagreeing (this is under the definition of atheism meaning a lack of a belief in gods, not hard atheism meaning a positive denial of the existence of gods).
Just because someone makes claims doesn’t mean those claims are true.
Let’s keep this simple. Can an individual believe that theism is true?
If we are going to be pedantic then no. Someone who believes the statement "There is a god" is called a theist.
That is a statement which has a truth value.
Theism is not.
I've seen you try this in other comments before, your follow-up would be "Then that means a person can believe atheism is true", am I right.
All you are doing here is demonstrating a fundamental and strangely persistent inability or unwillingness to understand what a "lack of a belief" *is*.
You do not become an Atheist by accepting "atheist doctrine" or "atheist claims" because there is no such thing.
It is simply the most appropriate label to attach to somebody isn't convinced by any religions. It is the default. The null hypothesis. If you give someone who has never heard of any religion a comprehensive run-down of all of them and he turned around and said; "Nah I don't believe any of that" that would mean he was an atheist. He could be one without even knowing the word.
So I ask you again: When you say "The first video on this was literally me saying why I don’t have faith that atheism is true" .... what do you mean?
What isn't true?
Are you saying I don't know my own convictions? Are you saying I am wrong about what I believe, that I, in fact unknowingly, *do* believe in a god?
Because the atheist position is "I do not believe a god exists", NOT "I believe a god doesn't exist".
To say you do not accept the latter is fair enough, I have not given any evidence or argument as to why a god does not exists.
To say you do not accept the former makes no sense unless you are trying to say you know my mind better than I do.
Ask this on live at 4est wed
The definition of faith is the belief in something without evidence
Have you watched the video?
@@JCOJourney I watched some of it , but what difference does that make ? I was just giving the definition of faith in the religious context .
The video gives why faith requires evidence.
@@JCOJourney Sure if you make up your own definition so things will fit your argument
@@righty-o3585 I provided evidence. You just stated something.
Bro, do we need faith to believe this video is on yt rn when all the evidences point to it, or do we need faith to not believe in the existence of Leprechauns when there are no evidences for them?
Do you have complete confidence this video is on YT?
@@JCOJourney yes
@@Atlantislives so you have faith it’s on TH-cam.
@@JCOJourney What do,you mean by faith, anything I believe, I have faith in? like I have faith I'm alive? ........... if that's your point then yes you need faith for everything
@@Atlantislives did you watch the video? I explained this.
These are some of the most disingenuous arguments I've heard. Plenty of THEISTS and ATHEISTS share the view that everything proven by science is valid. Nothing about that assertion requires faith. There are tons of religious scientists and no one has an issue with the scientific method.
Things that require religious faith are those that go beyond the scope of what's provable/disprovable. This includes both theistic and atheistic religious views. There are religions that don't have a god and by definition they are atheists.
Not everyone who is an atheist is areligious but everyone who is areligious is an atheist. If someone is areligious they have no faith. Therefore an atheism does not require faith.
It might be a good idea to engage with the work of religious scholars of your own faith.
Did you watch the video?
When have I ever said science isn’t valid?
When did I assume faith was blind?
Faith isn’t a religious only concept
@@JCOJourney I know you didn't say anything about science. I was using it to build my argument.
When did I say anything about faith being blind?
Words have multiple meaning. Faith in this context is exclusively religious. Context is absolutely important.
I would still like you to respond to this argument:
"Not everyone who is an atheist is areligious but everyone who is areligious is an atheist. If someone is areligious they have no faith. Therefore an atheism does not require faith."
Did you watch the video
How in this context did I misinterpret faith. Faith is just confidence in something. How did I use it for to refer to religious?
@@JCOJourney Yeah I watched the video. It was garbage. Faith is not JUST the confidence in something. Its confidence in something beyond evidence. All you've done is talk in circles and make bad arguments in bad faith. Oh look, another use of the word faith. Its almost like it has multiple definitions.
@@JCOJourney You also failed to address my argument again. Seems like you can't.
Atheism is not believing there is a god. Atheism is not believing there is no god. Read those two sentences carefully and discern the difference.
There is no faith required to be an athiest because lack of belief in a god is not the same thing as disbelief in a god.
Have you watch the full video? If so, can you steelman my position?
@@JCOJourney Yes, to summarize you have two points.
1) Atheism makes a claim that athiests have faith in. Ergo athiests shouldn't mock faith as a basis for belief as they do it too.
2) Faith is equivalent to confidence. You have evidence that has led you to have faith a god exists, and this is how faith should be understood/applied in a religious (specifically christian) context.
To point 1) Atheism does not make any claims about anything. If you asked me if I believed in a god, I would say no. If you asked me if I believed there is no god, I would say no. I am unconvinced on both propositions, lacking belief in either. There is no burden of proof because Atheism doesnt make any claims.
2) Cool, I'm happy that you have evidence to believe in god and you use faith to mean confidence in your evidence. This does not change the fact that faith is used by many people to justify their belief in the abscence of evidence. In all honesty, I'm not going to use your definition for faith because it is synonymous with confidence and the abscence of evidence definition doesn't have another word for it. If you wann call your confidence faith, more power to you, but there are a lot of theists who don't use it that way and when I talk to them about its helpful to have a distinct term for it.
I appreciate the steelman, but let me correct some misunderstandings
1: Atheism is just lack of belief in deities. If someone can trust that the belief of deities is true, it seems reasonable that one can trust that the lack of belief in deities is true. If anything, I probably should have added “it’s true” to clarify my point.
If not that you have to make claims, whether you deny or have simply no belief that there are deities, it’s that you have some level trust that the position is true (a lack of belief in atheism) over theism.
2.Everyone has a reason for their faith. If not, then we would call it blind faith. This reason is their evidence. I would need to be provided an example of people using faith contrary to evidence. This seems very rare. For an individual to have trust or confidence in something, they would have to have some reason.
I think you’re misunderstanding that just because there is evidence one way, doesn’t mean there is evidence another. There’s a difference conversation on the validity on the evidence vs whether there is evidence in the first place.
It does matter if you don’t agree with “my” definition of faith. Faith, at its core, is just trust/confidence in someone or thing. That’s is evident the definitions and scriptures I provided. Now, there are few definitions that say no proof, but the majority and essence of all definitions was trust/confidence (I also provided the water and MJ example with words having multiple definitions).
@@JCOJourney To be honest, I've seen quite a lot of people be asked the question of "If it turned out all your evidence was wrong would you still believe?" and they respond, "Well I'd still have faith." I'm not really gonna argue this point any further, I'm glad you have justification for your belief.
I does not make sense to say athiests have faith in a lack of belief. If you asked someone a hard math question and they didn't know how to solve it, you would not then say that they are confident that they don't know, unless you are doubting that they are telling the truth. This shouldn't be compared to a student who has solved the math problem, having confidence their answer is correct. In the latter case, we can dissect the student's work and see if he has made any flaws in the proof of his answer to the question. In the former case, there is no work to look at because the student has not given a numerical answer. The first student has not made claims about his answer, he doesn't even have one.
You should at least be able to acknowledge that whatever "faith" the second student has in himself for not knowing how to solve the problem, is different than the "faith" the first student has that their answer to the problem is correct. One of those two positions can be checked to see if it is correct.
@straycat9258 For those people I would ask what reasoning they would have faith in the first place. If there is not evidence or reasonings, that’s blind faith.
If a student doesn’t know the answer to the question, it can be said that they have some level of trust or confidence that they don’t know the answer. If a student knows the answer, they have trust or confidence that they know the answer AND there is an answer.
If you have to appeal to the authority of a dictionary, your argument is fallacious and will always fall on its face. This is word salad.
I don’t think you use those words in a correct way.
Appeal to the authority of a dictionary when defining a word?
Word salad?
@@JCOJourney Yes. Ultimately words are not defined by a dictionary but the usage of them in society. And words change drastically in context, regions, societies, and historical time. To say faith will always consistently mean confidence is using a synonymous definition of a word, but not the unique definition of the word. By appealing to a dictionary definition( and interpreting that definition incorrectly btw) you are playing word salad. Instead of addressing the conceptual idea of what is intended by the idea of atheism, and the idea of faith, you’re using semantics to disprove it. Your argument is invalid because Dictionaries are not valid sources or a source of authority,
I’m using the definition of a word. Words have meanings.
You’re using word salad in an incorrect way. It’s basically a scrambled mix of words. It’s like saying
“Salad Car Bed Man Gravity”
@@JCOJourney you are using a medicinal definition of word salad. Is the a medical context? No, I’m using a colloquial definition of the word, meaning you are not making a logical argument. Words mean things but different things in different context.
Word salad is still random words. Just because you can’t follow doesn’t make it word salad
Atheism is just that I'm not convinced by your God claim. No faith needed for that. I'm not convinced there is a loch Ness monster. No faith needed for that either.
Wouldn’t that be agnosticism? Or do you prefer agnostic atheist?
@@JCOJourney Yes agnostic atheist is correct. Agnosticism is about knowledge while Atheism is about belief or lack of it. Importantly I don’t make a claim that there is no God. I don’t know and I am confident that nobody else knows either.
@anthonythompson1680 can you please explain why not be an agnostic theist? Or gnostic atheist.
@@JCOJourney I can’t be a theist because I’m not convinced a God exists . I don’t believe a God exists although I don’t make the claim that a God doesn’t exist. It’s a bit like not guilty in a court trial doesn’t mean the person is innocent. The agnosticism is that I don’t think the knowledge is available for anybody to make the judgment, at least the knowledge is not available to me.
@@anthonythompson1680 Since you said you don’t believe god exist, wouldn’t atheism be the belief that a god does exist?
Wouldn’t it be fair for me to say I don’t believe that your belief is true?