Literally 30 seconds in..."Well, it depends." I know you atheists don't believe in moral realism but even Sam Harris says that lying is detrimental (unless it serves a greater good like keeping Trump out of office or making Jesus sound like a bad guy). To be frank I just don't get the point of making such an obvious lie. It just makes you guys look bad.
20:13 "If you want to write in the comments below, I'd be happy to have a dialogue" Why does Trent say this when I never see him posting any replies to the comments?
@mugs of mirth he posts these videos to his podcast as well, so maybe more those comments? He will browse and respond to some TH-cam comments, but he’s mentioned not wanting to get dragged into TH-cam comments like that. Can’t say I blame him. Sometimes comment sections can be quite… interesting 😅
I sometimes liken the “I lack belief” assertion to a homeless man walking into a shoe store and interrupting all the discussions about which are the best shoes by shouting, “Look at me! I’m not wearing any shoes!” “Lacktheism”, as with other of the old New Atheist arguments (atheism is the default, burden of proof always rests on the theist), originated with Anthony Flew’s 1972 essay, “The Presumption of Atheism”: _Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter._ Flew later abandoned his “negative atheist” definition before abandoning atheism entirely.
@@mugsofmirth8101 That's right. I actually have a _logical justification_ that warrants my proposal, of which, of course, you have no interest in learning.
Saying you’re an atheist when you’re actually an agnostic (which I hear all the time) is like saying you’re a vegan that eats meat sometimes. I feel like it’s a power play sometimes to just deny having common definitions of their opposition even if they’re incoherent.
Well said. It's far too common and it seems obvious they simply like to call themselves "atheist" because the word agnostic doesn't sound "edgy" enough
@@elgatofelix8917 The whole point of labels is to summarize a stance and save time. If I say I’m an agnostic atheist, most people understand that I don’t believe in any god(s) but that I also don’t claim knowledge that no god(s) could possibly exist. If someone prefers a different definition or doesn’t know what I mean then we would disregard the labels altogether and get into the specifics. There is nothing wrong with using the labels in a way that makes most sense for the types of conversations I have. If I were having philosophical debates I would use a stricter definition. If you and I were having a conversation and you stonewalled on a strict definition of Atheism, I could be the better person and accept that definition and clarify that I am a hard-atheist with regard to classical Theism (a good personal creator), but an Agnostic with regard to general Theism. Or I could also just use a different label like non-Theist. Just like the word “Theory” words can have multiple definitions and usages.
@@Tinesthia "most people understand that" How do you know what "most people" understand? Do you claim to be psychic? Is your claim about "most people" understanding your philosophical position based on any analytical data? Prove your claim.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Is speaking from experience a problem? It should be obvious I am speaking about most people who I interact with. I couldn’t tell you what most people in the world would think because I will only ever interact with a small percentage of living people in my entire life. Which is why I said it is not a problem for me to use the definitions that make the most sense for *”the types of conversations that I have.”*
@@Tinesthia it's a problem when you oh so "rational" atheists hold others to that standard while dismissing our personal experience as merely "fairytales" or "anecdotal". Don't like the taste of your own medicine when it's turned back onto you, do you?
My thought on it is "if you lack a belief, get out of the conversation." I lack a belief on what the top of the line water softener is in the industry as of today. I'm not a water softener salesman, installer, reviewer, manufacturer, etc. I quite literally lack a belief, which is why I'm not involved in those conversations. Contrast this to an atheist, who supposedly "lacks a belief" but oftentimes has much fervor about this supposed "lack of belief" and gets in discussions and arguments surrounding this supposed "lack of belief." It's disingenuous.
Etymologically, atheism is "No-God belief" or "belief that there is no God." The prefix "a" means "no, not or without." Theos means "God" The suffix "ism" means practice, system, ideology or philosophy. A "lack of belief' etymologically would be closer to "a-ism" which is a practice or philosophy of... nothing, of a lack. Etymologically speaking, the term "God" is explicitly stated within the word atheism (as theos), which demonstrates that a position on God is inherent to the word and position of atheism itself. The suffix "ism" also demonstrates that it is a practice, philosophy, ideology or belief. This has been how the term was defined historically and academically. So that's why "atheism is a lack of belief" is disingenuous and not really worth taking seriously.
oof. That's disingenuous. Christians and Muslims want to run the world according to their belief in a way that stamp collectors and water softener salesmen don't. There's a Great Commision in Matthew 28 to go and preach and spread the gospel. In many countries, politicians run on the promise to enact policies based on their theology, not on living in the real world. In short, theists make it our business.
@@stephengalanis if I ask a muslim what he believes, he will tell me (taqiyya notwithstanding), he will go on about why islam is true and whatnot, but if an atheist pretends that he's involved in the issue by talking about what he can't bring into the conversation, that's merely childish. Which checks out, most atheists become disinterested in religion around their teenage years, it stands to reason their rationale was unsophisticated then and is unsophisticated now.
@@stephengalanis nothing disingenuous about it. It's true. And nice work, you admit that you don't merely "lack a belief." Well done. Hope we can actually proceed now. You also seem to think of conversations between theists and atheists as a type of power game as opposed to an actual conversation and working to find truth. Also well done. Atheists demonstrate time and time again that it's a battle of the will over one of intellect. Theology is concerned with the real world and atheists can and have made governance on their own theology throughout history (atheistic communism of the USSR and Maoist China comes to mind, with the League of the Militant Godless).
Finding truth? How do you define truth? If truth is what conforms to reality, then theists have nothing to say on that matter and should leave the conversation. By definition theism requires believing things that can't possibly be verified. Theism doesn't get to sit at the table of true and false until it's supernatural claims are brought into the natural. A belief that can't be falsified is a trivial one.
@Otangelo Grasso "I lack belief that there is no God." So you simply don't believe that there is no god. Wonderful, that puts you out of the "positive atheist" position. You are rejecting the claim that there is no god. However, it doesn't say whether you are a negative atheist or a theist. So it doesn't really say whether you are an atheist or a theist. This is because although you reject the claim that there is no god (you reject positive atheism), you could also reject the claim that there is a god (you don't believe that a god exists, and as such, you reject theism ). Which makes you a negative atheist. Lacking a belief that there is a god on the other hand means that you don't believe that a god exists. Which puts you out of the whole theism category. This is because there is no positive or negative theism. Theism means believing in the existence of a god or gods. and it can not mean "not believing that a god does not exist". This means that you can not reject the claim that there is a god while accepting the claim that a god exists. It's self-contradictory. And as such, "lacking a belief that there is a god" directly demonstrates that you are an atheist. This is the difference between atheism and theism. Atheism is the default position. *Not believing that something is true (like the existence of a god or gods) because there is no sufficient evidence for the proposition is the default position.* Atheism can simply mean not believing that a god exists "negative atheism". While theism can not mean "not believing that a god does not exist". This is because theism means believing in the existence of a god or gods.
@@americanliberal09 False. This false belief stems from the fact that the people who present this claim don't know what atheism and agnosticsm mean. And they don't know the difference between positive atheism and negative atheism. When people say: "agnostics don’t know whether a god exists or not, so they don't believe that a god exists and they also don't believe that a god does not.". They are 100% correct. But atheism is not just believeing that a god does not exist (positive atheism), it can also be not believing that a god exists (negative atheism). One is a belief, and the other is a rejection of a belief. So all agnostics are negative atheists. They don't believe that a god exists (They are negative atheists). But they also don't believe that a god does not exist. (They are not positive atheists). Wikipedia's explanation about positive/negative atheism: " "Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not necessarily explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists." It's quite simple actually, but I think the stigma around atheism is what's making some people refuse to accept that all agnostics are atheists, which reminds me of Stephen Colbert's quote: "Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?" While another reason that make people refuse to accept that all agnostics are atheists, is that many people insist that atheism should not be defined as the lack of belief in god or gods, and instead should be defined as the belief that no gods exist. This is because they want to make it seem like a position of faith. Clearly when you feel at a disadvantage because your beliefs are faith based and insupportable by logic or evidence, then pretending that those who lack your belief also have a faith based position, is a much easier option than facing up to the burden of proof you give yourself by insisting that others believe as you do. But one doesn't have to believe no god exists to recognize theistic claims as indefensible. Say we have 2 people, both of whom debunk every theistic claim put to them. One believes there are no gods, and the other is simply unconvinced. Either way the claims are debunked. Even if atheism was redefined as the belief that no gods exist, there would still be the same non-believers outside that category dismantling theistic claims. Defenders of theism who fixate on strong atheists (positive atheists) are either misidentifying or trying to distract attention from their real problem, that their claims have no valid foundation and consistently collapse under critical scrutiny. Some other people have complained that "atheism can not be a lack of belief in gods, or we would have to class rocks and dogs as atheists.". Rocks and dogs? really? It's a measure of the loss of perspective that happens around the subject of atheism that statements as puerile as these are made. If you had a big family celebration and I said: "Look around and tell me which ones aren't married," would you need me to specify that I was talking about people in order to stop you from listing items of furniture and family pets? Those who can't approach the discussion with a basic level of intelligence and maturity, shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. Besides the suffix '-ist in "atheist" is used and understood to denote a personal noun. That said, while there is no point applying the term 'atheist' to things that lack the cognitive capacity to grasp the ideas involved, it can be useful to remember that none of us start life with a belief in any gods. A lack of belief in gods is the default position. That's not to say the default position is always preferable, after all the default position is a complete lack of coherent understanding of our universe - but it is a reminder that in the marketplace of ideas, when you want to move people away from their default lack of belief towards your belief, it's you, not they who has to provide justification. If you want people to believe that fairies, dragons, or any god exists, the burden of proof is one you not on those who are simply skeptical of your claim.
Glad you admit that we atheists rock! You theists are just mad because we skeptics support progressive causes like Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, Racial Equality, Mandatory Ab0rtion, Mandat0ry Marriage to a Trans Person of Color, Mandat0ry Triple-Daily VaxxB00ster Shots, Mandatory Multiple Mask Wearing inside and outside the home as well as home surveillance cameras to ensure you never remove your masks in order to stop the spread. Black Lives Matter! ✊✊✊
@@glof2553 pretty sure THE PROLETARIAT is not trying to be "ironic". That's the soycialist game plan in a nutshell. And atheism is a tenet of Marxism. To quote KKKarl Marx: " religion is the opiate of the masses"
it's yet another example of the consequences of modernism, if the only thing that matters is the inner life of whatever is being referred to well then yes of course, the rock is atheist, we simply lack access to the inner life of the rock. The fundamental problem is the inability to distinguish that while it's true rocks lack any belief in God, they lack all belief because beliefs properly belong to subjects, not objects. I don't really believe any marginally intelligent atheist doesn't understand this. Many pretend not to, but that to me is demonstrating they have no interest in a serious discussion.
@Adam Cosper the fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it gibberish. To simplify it a bit, ever since the protestant reformation and Descartes philosophy has moved into the space of assigning what's real to the experience of the subject as opposed to his experience corresponding to the objective realm outside of him. But whatever maybe I just made it up, its just gibberish no?
@euthyphro dilemma why do you repeat your points like they're something compelling that none of your opponents have ever considered? "Which god' is not an argument
@Excuse me but People can challenge whatever they please, but try and explain why someone who has no content is somehow correct to challenge someone whose belief has content. It's a harder case to make than it at first appears, but you are welcome to try.
@Excuse me but Notice the shift you made. First it was that it was correct to challenge theists. Now it is the more modest statement that content can be challenged. Those are two different statements. So which is it?
@Excuse me but "That's what a skeptic does." And solipsists challenge the existence of an external world because they lack belief in an external world, but that doesn't mean they are correct to do it. I hope it is obvious that simply because someone does something doesn't mean it is correct to do it. I was asking for some explanation as to why atheists are CORRECT to challenge theism, but none is forthcoming. It takes effort to provide an explanation, but it is worth it. I read your comment again, and what is the substantial difference between an atheist challenging a theIST and an atheist challenging theISM? The atheist challenges the theist on theism, so the two statements are equivalent (feel free to disagree and show that they are not equivalent if you want to). Either way, you shifted from saying it is CORRECT to challenge theism to saying that any content CAN be challenged. That is a large shift, and no reason was provided. I hope by now it is obvious that the statement "something CAN be done" is not the same as the statement "it is CORRECT to do it". If it were, one can just as easily make the opposite conclusion from yours and state that any content can be praised, and that nonexistent content cannot be praised, and therefore atheists are correct to praise theism, and theists are incorrect to praise atheism.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas we shall see that there is absolute truth which does transcend human belief. A human who believes they know it all is arrogant beyond words.
@@joebrinson5040 ok, but what are you claiming is the "word of god"? The christian bible has been rewritten and revised hundreds of times. With around 40 original authors, writing different books over a thousand years, which of those books were inspired by a god, and how would anyone verify it? The original Hebrew versions were full of spelling and grammatical errors, and glaring contradictions that were removed in later versions. And if those authors were magically inspired to write a giant rule book, why did they completely ignore Australia and the entire western hemisphere? Why did they make rules about how to treat your slaves, instead of outright banning slavery? Why does the bible treat women and slaves as property? If there is a god that wants to be known it could at least provide the same information to all humans on the planet, and it wouldn't require bible thumpers to go knocking door to door, or invading other countries to force their beliefs.
@@drengr2759 the Bible in any of its many translations into modern languages or in Greek and Hebrew. Nothing magical about the inspiration, friend. I'm not the least interested in arguing with you but I am glad that I got to share truth with you. Perhaps one day you will find truth yourself. Notifications off.
Hi Trent, I don't know where you normally respond to comments, but I will try here. You mentioned agnostic theism and how that isn't a contradiction. As someone who identified as an agnostic theist during college before converting to Catholicism, I would have defined it this way: I believed that there was a God for a variety of reasons (human consciousness, Aquinas' arguments, etc.) but I was somewhat skeptical of specific religious teachings about God, as well as what was claimed to be divine revelation. I wasn't a deist, as I didn't necessarily doubt that God interacts with man, or that God would never interact with me, although at that point I would have said that I don't believe I had experienced God in any special way, apart from the human experience. I didn't dismiss any or all religion as myth and fairy tales. I thought that there may very well be something to each of the religions, and that God may very well interact with them in some way or another. I just didn't see any reason to devote myself to any particular one. Anyway, hope that helps.
@euthyphro dilemma agnostic theist does not exist. Neither does agnostic atheist. Someone is either theist, agnostic, or atheist. Your quadrant stops here.
The funny thing about is that rocks are amongst the type of creation that do not have the ability to be in unbelief, and therefore will not experience condemnation even when thrown into the fire in the last days. This would mean Aron Ra would not experience condemnation because he has no unbelief. Problem is, he claims he's justified in his unbelief. That means he is not a rock, and will not be spared from condemnation in the last days. Funny thing is, sometimes I would conclude it better to be a rock.
@Interesting Religion while true I cannot justify "the fire" narrative with logic, the point is there should be nothing offensive about "the fire" unless you are a sinner whom believes in god. Everyone whom believes in god has to face this. Anyone whom doesn't shouldn't have anything to worry about.
You stated that the atheist position of lacking belief is "not interesting" . Honestly, that sounds like a you problem. I was unaware there was a requirement that a persons position must be interesting.
He explains why it's boring an presents paradeigmas. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue this but it seams you are just as ignorant as all atheists claim to not be.
Perfect! The length and discussion of this video are perfect. It is a good one to refer to people who just want to claim atheism and deny any need to support this claim/belief. Thanks!
Atheism isn't a _belief._ It is a position on a claim to truth - specifically the claim made by theists that a god(s) exists. Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
glof you state atheism is a belief on one of your previous comments, why do you need to believe that when people have already educated you on it, atheism is a belief in the same way as not stamp collecting is a hobby. Anti-theism is a belief, it's a belief that not only does god not exist but religion causes damage Atheism is just a lack of belief in theists god claim, atheism has nothing to do with any other subject whatsoever, it's just a lack of belief in the god claim, you claiming atheism is a belief just exposes you
I reject the term "theist," I simply lack belief in natural materialism. Therefore, I am not a "theist," rather I am an "amaterialist." If you believe in materialism, the burden of proof is on you to prove materialism is true.
@Gaboon Viper atheism is a positive thing not a negative thing you irrational theist. Theism is negative and is the root cause of all the world's problems - except for Judaism and Islam of course - people who criticize Islam and Judaism are antisemitic, Islamophobic fascist Nazi bigots!
So if you're a lacktheist, let's say your own 10 yr-old child asks you, "Does God exist? How do you know?" How do you respond? Don't you have to be honest and tell the kid "no" and offer an explanation? That is to say, affirm a proposition and defend your position? What, are you gonna teach your kid how to lack belief? Come on!
How to handle a child’s god questions is especially important when both parents have different beliefs. But it is really not that difficult to find a good way to handle it. Neither parent is allowed to express what to believe, but what they believe. To answer your specific example… “No child, I don’t believe God exists, I have found no compelling reason to believe a particular god exists, though I have not ruled out the possibility.” “So you believe there are no God’s?” Asks the child. The parent answers “Currently, because I haven’t seen any compelling reasons to believe, if I see a specific reason why one should believe it, I can show you why I find that reason is not compelling. If that reason is compelling to you then by all means…” The only position for the lacktheist is showing that the positive affirmations of the contrary are not good enough reasons to accept a proposition. And the Theist parent: “Yes child I believe in God.” Child asks “Why?.” Well because I find reason Argument from Design, Evidence for Resurrection, etc compelling.” “But why doesn’t Atheist parent find these compelling?” asks child. “Ask them.”
@@Tinesthia You don't talk that way to a 10 yr-old. Please. And, a kid deserves a yes or no to a yes or no question: "Does God exist?" "By all means." You're OK with your kid holding beliefs you think are false? Responsible atheist parent: "No, God does not exist. How do I know? Because the reasons people believe in God don't make sense." Responsible theist parent: "Yes, God exists. How do I know? Lots of reasons, and I'll explain them to you the best I can." "Then why are there people that don't believe in God?" "Because they're not thinking straight."
Q: "Does God exist?" A: "I don't know. I don't believe so. There are many people that say they believe in a God. None of them have convinced me that those gods exist... What do you think?" * discussion * If you pretend to know everything, eventually an intelligent child will learn to not trust anything you tell them. I want my children to think, and decide for themselves.
@@NeoDemocedes This sounds reasonable: basically agnostic and basically ambivalent to the child's own belief about the question. Sure. What isn't reasonable is doing some nuanced epistemological tapdance with a small kid. Or speaking aggressively and condescendingly against theism then say you're ok with your kid making up his own mind just to hold on to your lacktheism. One is responsible for protecting a child from what one strongly thinks is a false belief.
@@MiguelArcangel12 Simple questions and a little philo 101 are the only tools necessary to see through the types of religious arguments a ten-year-old would be exposed to. It's actually a great age to start teaching them critical thinking skills. Like how the person making the claim assumes a burden of proof, and that no counter argument is required to reject bald assertions.
Given how many stars there are in the universe, I’d say that it is fair to say that both propositions 1 and 2 are true. Stars will be born and die over the course of the sentence, meaning that, within the time span of making the claim, there will either be an odd number or an even number. Before taking into consideration relativity.
@@CMVBrielman “Between” gives the game away. That there is a beginning, an end and a “between” indicates that the beginning and end differ by some finite amount of time. Hence they are not at the _same_ time.
@@nathanaelculver5308 But what really can be said to be the “same” time? You need a perfectly precise instant, which is impossible to quantify. I propose to you that there’s so many stars being born and dying all the time that, even if you were to measure time down to the plank scale, you’d still be unable to answer the question. Or, put another way: define “now.”
The statements I dont believe in God and I lack a belief in God is the same statement. Just semantics game. I think the traditional definition of atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists. But because that is a positive claim they cannot prove. They put te onus on Christians who say God exists, Jesus rose. See atheists gloat all the time it is on you to prove God, not us. Its a debate strategy.
This has to be my least favourite tactic of atheist apologetics. The only reason anyone uses it is to cynically avoid having to defend any of their positive beliefs in a debate. My second least favourite tactic is the insistence on referring to atheism as a lack of belief in "gods", as if there were no qualitative difference between the non-omnipotent gods of polytheism and the omnipotent God of monotheism (which is clearly the only one they actually care about disproving).
To what are you referring when you state "The only reason anyone would claim to believe _it_ is to cynically avoid having to defend any of their positive beliefs in a debate". To what does "it" and "their" refer?
@@glof2553 👨🎓 it would be nice if high education works this way. I lack belief in any classes. If the professor of a course failed to convince me, then it should be the failure of that professor not me. For I'm in the default position. 🤣
It's consistent with both the old testament and the new testament. The New Testament, for example, declares all who are not FOR a position, then they are in an entirely different group. If, for example, you are not FOR Christ then you are in a different group, by fiat. So if you do not BELIEVE in god (THEIST position) then you are in the other group (ATHEIST). If a rock is not FOR Christ, then what's the scriptural consequent?
Theism is the lack of belief in the proposition that G-d does not exist... this is my answer to the dunces who claim that atheism is the lack of belief in G-d
Pretty accurate. I'm curious however about 1 thing - it's meant to be an answer to those atheists? I'm asking because I fail to see your point there. Not that this theism words play is exhaustive, unless your point is to implicitly point out that agnosticism exists.
If atheism is a lack of belief then its just a preference claim like your favorite color. No argument to be had nor does such a claim lead to further knowledge.
Adherence to “lacktheism” raises a dilemma for many of its proponents. It really is just a “preference,” an expression of one’s psychological state, devoid of actual intellectual content. This becomes immediately apparent as soon as lacktheists attempt to wield the position in an intellectual debate, and so they often wind up tacking on a supporting claim such as “because there’s no evidence”. The dilemma is that making an assertion such as “there’s no evidence” requires an intellectual defense, which is what “lacktheism” was supposed to avoid by shifting the burden of proof onto the theist. Hoist on their own petard. [Note to atheists: I’m talking only about atheists who actually treat “I lack belief” as an intellectual position that relieves them of burden of proof.]
@euthyphro dilemma Its a little bit hypocritical to go onto a religious channel and cherry pick comments to try to argue with. Its no ones place to debunk someones beliefs my friend. Let the children believe in santa.
@@glof2553 When you went outside and look at the world did you think this is all due to the mindless-purposeless forces of nature created a world like this? Do you think your body and all its functions can be explained by the mindless-purposeless forces of nature? If so, then you have more faith than I do as a Christian.
While I was still confused by my religious childhood indoctrination, an Atheist once shared his personal feelings with me. He said, "If I pretended to believe in a god, and the god was real, it would know that I was pretending, because the fact is, I just don't believe that a god exists." That point of view resonated with me as being heartfelt and as honest "as could be." I later chose to become a born-again Atheist, and wanted to be as honest with my self, as that man had been honest with me and with his self. Once I was doubtful about the existence of a god, there wasn’t any way to entrap my thoughts where they once had been, as freedom from religion was my only alternative. Now I believe as did Stephen Hawking before he died ... that the universe in one form or another always existed ... no creator or plan involved ... and that suffering of all forms of life always was ... and is ... natural.
Years ago I put together a document I call “How to Argue Like an Atheist”, in which I collect all of the really, really bad atheist arguments-flying pasta, unicorns, Bronze Age goat herders, “one less god”, “lack of belief” and more. I still post it once in a while. There’s really only a handful of atheist arguments, in my opinion, that are even worth responding to: the arguments from evil, from self-contradiction, from relativity, divine hiddenness, and appeals to parsimony and alternate explanations to God.
@@BabyDingo *HOW TO ARGUE LIKE AN ATHEIST* *Philosophy* 1. Insist all religion is illogical and/or stupid. 2. Insist that atheism is just a lack of belief. Be angry. Be loud. Use profanity. 3. Insist you're all about logic and rationality. 4. Remember, no matter what the theist says, there is no evidence; his arguments are all "faith". 5. You can’t prove a negative and no, you don’t need to prove that. *Psychology* * Insist religious belief is a mental disease/brainwashing. *Theology* 1. Mention any two of the following: Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies, Zeus, invisible sky daddies, flying pasta. 2. Insist you just believe in "one less god". *History* 1. Insist religion is responsible for most war/murder/icky stuff. 2. Bring up two or more of the following: the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Bronze Age goat herders *Sociology* Insist on the following: 1. Stalin was a seminarian who didn’t kill in the name of atheism. 2. communism is a religion 3. bad atheists don't invalidate atheism 4. bad Christians do invalidate religion *Science* Claim two or more of the following: 1. Science proves atheism 2. Evolution invalidates Genesis 3. Religious people can't understand science *Authority* Claim you are a well-educated former Christian, or at least that you know more about the Bible/religion than most Christians. Remind everyone (as often as possible) how smart you are, that you once took a philosophy class in college, and that you're all about "logic and science". *Helpful Tips* * Remember to liberally salt all your arguments with ad hominems, pejoratives and other insults. Crude and rude is the way to go! * When discussing the Bible, insist on absolute literal interpretations of everything - talking snakes, and so forth; but * if the Christian is doing it, call him a fundie loon. * Whenever possible, insist faith means "believing without evidence". * If the Christian denies any of your claims, or insists on evidence, don't get bogged down in specifics; just insist he’s being intellectually dishonest, then repeat your claims louder. * The only good atheist is an agnostic atheist. * Remember - there's NO evidence at all for "God", no matter what anyone says. * And whatever else happens, just insist you’re not convinced. *And the Number One Rule of Atheist Argument* Always, always, always! insist the theist has made the first claim, then spend the rest of the discussion whinging about *Burden of Proof.*
And in case any readers are atheists who are feeling triggered by the above list, the point is to call out the worst atheist arguments, not to impugn all atheists. If you recognize how bad these arguments are, the list doesn’t apply to you. If you think these are _good_ arguments, you’re probably precisely the low-hanging atheist fruit the list is aimed at.
@euthyphro dilemma "I can't speak for all atheist but generally the lack of belief or disbelief is because there is not any or sufficient evidence for the proposition to warrant a belief ." Lack of evidence=/=Evidence of abscent.
@euthyphro dilemma *”let me commend you for all the strawmen and generalizations”* Generalizations I’ll admit to; that’s the entire purpose of the list. Whom have I straw manned? *”You forgot to add " God drowned babies”* Nope, it’s there in the History section.
They turn into rocks when it comes to defending their worldview in paradigm-level debates (where nobody can possibly evade any burden to defend their worldview).
Here is my position as an agnostic atheist in a nutshell: I withhold belief of the existence of god until good and compelling reasons are presented backed up by empirically verifiable data in the same way I withhold believing the existence of anything else that is remotely superstitious such as the concept of chi energy emanating from your body. Philosophical arguments are out of the question, when you claim someone made the universe you need to back it up with scientific evidence.
No, what I am saying is that when you're making a statement about the nature of existence (the claim that a god exists and created it all) then it has to be demonstrated to be the case since its an empirical claim.
@@karlazeen So you cannot use philosophical methods when in the realm of considering the nature of existence? Isn’t that the same thing? I do see your point of making a distinction in fields - natural philosophy (science) for scientific questions and philosophy for philosophical questions, though. I’m not sure the genre limitation to natural philosophy would apply to the existence of a god - especially a god (like one of the abrahamic ones) that is not confined to nature. I would not expect to reliably use a study of natural process (science) to describe the supernatural just as I would not use a beaker to measure the brightness of a light. The genre limitation would apply to the act of such a god upon nature (like creating it), but the application of it would be like a historical or forensic science - which involves natural science, but is not quite the same thing as plain natural science, and it involves a bit of philosophy as well.
I also have a concern of my own when it comes to believing in the supernatural through pure emotion, intuition and faith alone instead of empiricism and science. How do I know for sure that if I convince myself god exists and open my heart to him that it isn't just placebo effect and parodolia?
What I'm trying to say is that philosophical methods only really work as valid explanations up to a point and when they are applied to the reality we see around us, using pure rationalism to explain the world would just be fun thought experiments and nothing more unless it can be tested. For example a timeless, spaceless, triomni entity that can't be verified empirically would be a fun thought experiment and certainly an idea to leave in the back burner for now but so far hasn't been shown to exist in or outside reality as we know it. When if comes to belief in things that can be shown to exist such as cells, trees, thinking entities and molecules I choose science and direct observation and experience over philosophy and pure internal thinking. I hope you understand where I'm coming from since I try to be as scientifically minded as I can and nothing in it seems to point to a being like god, at least from my perspective I know there are scientifically minded people who do believe in god (like yourself I hope) however these are obviously subjective perspectives so neither of us really know then.
@@Dennistube001 literally every single one. A rock stands for non organic matter. Organic matter only comes from living beings. To get a living being you need another living being to give you the life and that goes back all the way to the efficent cause that created the universe that always existe which is a living cause since if it wasn't there wouldn't be life in the universe that was created. Darwinists claim that life starts from non living matter so technically it can star from a freking rock
Anakin Skywalker organic matter is made from the merging of elements in puddles, these elements combine to make RNA which can self replicate, evolving in to DNA the building blocks of protein which is the building blocks of life. Scientists can create RNA in a lab by recreating the ancient conditions on earth, rock is only a tiny amount of known and unknown elements. Once again state one atheist that claims we evolved from rocks
Their the most difficult people to write to. Every time one writes to me, it's always "I don't understand what do you mean" and it's the most simplest things ever, but because I missed one or 2 exclamation marks they go all crazy saying they don't understand 🤦♀️. Not sure if they act stupid cause they can't answer the questions or really are? Yes, sometimes my grammar is horrible, but I'll ask my friends or people I've met on the internet and they'll easily understand me. The Christians are supposed to be dumb but can easily read a sentence even if the grammar is messed up the can put 2 and 2 together non believers can't the go crazy maybe that's why they don't understand bible well they all know the same verses so the rest of the Bible is foreign to them they flip out
II philosophy, one can define a word however one wishes, and all that matters is that one is clear. However, this can be a subterfuge of sorts if the definition is at odds with ordinary usage. I would submit that, in ordinary language, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are distinguished primarily by what speech-act theorists might call their "performative force." When someone calls themselves "agnostic," what the theist hears is: "I am an atheist, but I don't dismiss or discount theism as a legitimate/ reasonable/ rational alternative to my position." When someone calls themselves "atheist," by contrast, what the theist hears is: "I am someone who believes theists are -- at least qua theists -- mentally, emotionally, and/or morally deficient." I think this difference in performative force has mostly to do with "atheism" historically being appropriated as a "fighting word," both by militant atheists and by religious authorities seeking to marginalize skeptical types. Obviously, in religiously dominated cultures, atheists have a prudential interest in using the "softer" term. (For example, Bart Ehrman was quite prudent in calling himself an "agnostic" given his employment at a public institution in the Bible Belt.)
in philosophy, words have set meanings to avoid situations like these. That you can then describe the fact that people are disingenuous in their use is a different issue.
@@abramwarpness6053 never met him. We might be part of the same Church, though. Since the Catholic Church has a few billion members, many universities, an intellectually and robust philosophical tradition that spans several millennia and all. Fact is, many/most atheists are not really worth taking seriously, and I have taken them seriously before and gotten nowhere. Qwerty here has apparently drawn a similar conclusion.
Here is a reading list: - Trent Horn (books "Answering atheism" and "Made this way: How to Prepare Kids to Face Today's Tough Moral Issues" and "Why we are catholic"), - Dan Kimball (book "How (not) to read the bible") - Paul Copan (book "Is god a moral monster") - Ray Comfort (book "Faith is for Weak People: Responding to the Top 20 Objections to the Gospel") - J. Warner Wallace (book "Cold-case christianity: Homicide detective investigates claims of the gospel") - C.S. Lewis (book "mere christianity") - William Lane Craig (book "On guard") - Frank Turek (book "I don´t have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Stealing from god") - Scott Hahn (book "Rome sweet home")
@@hhstark8663 sir, why have you only quoted books that support your beliefs, i add 1 of thousands to your list, eg the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, (audiobook FREE on youtube)
If 70% of your friends and neighbors believed in Leprechauns and wanted to get into politics and force the teaching of and prayer to leprechauns in public schools and went around handing you flyers about them, and trying to get your children to believe in them, and were giving people bad medical advice based on their leprechaun belief you might take a vested interest showing the silliness of that belief too…
@@glof2553 Maybe you are unfamiliar with the general goings on in the United States, but examples of Theists pushing their views on others, trying to affect politics and public education, and preference toward their religion in schools and government, wanting a Theocracy, giving medical misinformation and home remedies that stop people from getting actual help, are all over the place. It’s not just Christians being mean… It’s Christians actively trying to circumvent the protections and rights of and causing harm to myself and my fellow Humans, based on their bad ideas derived from a fantastical book. Even if all Theists were perfectly behaved and didn’t do these things, it could still be good to discuss ideas, especially ones we don’t currently accept, to see if they are sound enough for us to accept them.
Hi Trent, "atheist" here and ready to dialogue (as requested at 20:14 ). I put atheist inside of quotations because I'm not sure what label you'd actually prefer me to use. I'll tell you about my psychological state: I am not convinced that God exists, and I strongly suspect that the Catholic God doesn't exist, though I cannot claim to have any knock-down proof, any syllogisms, or anything like that which would "prove" that no Gods exist. In fact, although I do not accept the soundness of WLC's Kalam P2, I can totally see why people do, and hence why they are theists. When people ask me my beliefs, I'll often call myself an "atheist". This seems to work well enough for people who aren't into apologetics or philosophy. When people ask deeper questions, I'll explain that I am a person who isn't convinced by theistic arguments. If a person tells me "Well technically you're an agnostic then", then my response is "Sure, call me whatever you feel comfortable with". I'm not interested in labels, I'm interested in ideas. I do want to add that people have been using the word atheist to mean "lacktheist" since as early as the 1700s, when Baron d'Holbach defined it as such in his work "Good Sense Without God". So, defining the word as such isn't some some invention of Matt Dillahunty or something like that. It has historical precedent, even if that precedent never caught in in the philosophical circles. Again, I don't actually care about definitions. Trent - what would you call me?
do you realize you just formally stated you have no justification for saying God doesn't exist? What assertion besides your own mental states can you defend here?
Bump for discussion! that and/or let's see if trent will allow a go fund me to fight aids in africa and if we reach a goal he has to conversate with pinecreek.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj "I am not convinced. My unconving-ness is my justification. I am the arbiter of truth." haha, I am just messing around. Seriously, I have no idea what he actually would answer.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don’t think you have any grounds to claim the psychology of someone so your assumption that pinecreeks communicates in bad faith is false. He’s very transparent where he stands and what he does or doesn’t find reasonable AND more importantly what markers would change his mind that has precedent in the Bible.
Ultimately, this whole definition debate is useless. If a person tells you that they are an atheist, and by that they mean they don't believe in a god, not that they think that one doesn't exist, just let it be at that and move on. Words have the meaning that they are used for. These meanings change with common usage. It amazes me that apologists waste time on this issue
You don't understand what the conversation is for. What you call yourself is irrelevant, the point is whether you can rationally justify it. It turns out atheists are rather poor at doing that.
@@theoskeptomai2535 "the point is whether you can rationally justify *what you call yourself*" You keep asking for "it" like it (it being the question you're asking in this context) is supposed to be a profound question. Re-read the sentence if you struggle to find out what "it" is.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj does it matter if they are "rationally using it?" When a person says what they are, accept it and move on in conversation. It doesn't help anything besudes being intellectually arrogant to say "Nuh uh, you can't be an atheist because you're not using it right."
I don't think someone who claims to be an agnostic aethist means to say that they don't have ANY justification for their lack of belief, but rather that they don't have sufficient justification to be certain of it. It just goes back to the point you made earlier about being able to "know" with varying degrees of certainty. I don't see a problem with people claiming that they don't know if God exists, haven't concluded that He does (and therefore don't believe He does), but aren't totally sure. I'm not sure what the point of the video was exactly, maybe I misunderstood something. I also believe that theists do have the burden of proof. That's why God gave the Church its mission to evangelize. All the Apostle's preaching and teaching (as well as Jesus') were accompanied by signs and wonders. Since we're claiming that something that cannot be seen exists, it should be on us to explain why. If I held up an invisible ball in my hand (representing God), and I told someone else I found this invisible ball, I wouldn't ask them to tell my why the ball doesn't exist. No, I would tell them why it does.
That person is (most likely) an *irreligous* agnostic. That person is an agnostic who is NOT religous. "Agnostic atheist" means that a person claims that the epistemic probability is >50% in favor of atheism. This I assume is NOT what the person in question si referring to.
*”I also believe that theists do have the burden of proof.”* Theists have _a_ burden of proof if they are making an epistemic claim, because _all_ epistemic claims carry a burden of proof. But I disagree that theists have the sole burden of proof.
@@nathanaelculver5308 atheists think that just because they're atheists, that precludes them from EVER having the burden of proof, regardless if they make a claim or not. They can make all sorts of wild and positivistic epistemic claims about what constitutes truth, knowledge and belief, that they apparently don't need to justify, solely because they're atheists. It's so juvenile, the way they demand the world spoon feed them epistemic justification, when they won't offer any when they make a claim.
@@glof2553 It’s an attempt to paint a veneer of rationality on a fundamentally irrational position. "Lack of belief", "burden of proof", "proof is always on the positive", "Can’t prove a negative" - it all has one purpose: to avoid any burden of proof.
Trent, I would contest your distinction knowledge vs. belief. Knowledge is ultimately ALWAYS some kind of belief. Even 2+2=4 requires faith in your reason. That would be the lowest kind of belief. A tiny little more faith is required for experiential knowledge, faith that your senses are conveying faithful information about the reality outside your mind. Indeed, the whole edifice of human knowledge is based on a couple of epistemological or metaphysical axioms that cannot be proven, that must be believed as a first step towards the acquisition of any knowledge. From then on, it's all a process of evaluation of the reliability of authoritative sources of knowledge. Ultimately, the source of all knowledge has to be the same as the source of all reality (but that's a conclusion after a long rational process).
*"Knowledge is ultimately ALWAYS some kind of belief."* Maybe I misunderstood Trent, but I thought that’s what he said: knowledge is _justified, true_ belief.
@@nathanaelculver5308 No, I think you understood him right. Trent is just too smart, and sometimes a thought crosses my mind and, when I come back, he's already several miles ahead. Anyway, I think part of my point is still valid and worth pointing out to atheists. I "secretly" believe the the atheistic position is ultimately irrational, because it severs itself from the source of reason. They may not realize it, but the moment they claim to know (just simply "know", regardless degrees of certainty) they are already implicitly believing in a source of that knowledge. And it wouldn't take too long to demonstrate that that source cannot be themselves. Only someone ready to claim to be their own creator (and hence, the manufacturer of their tools of knowledge) can be a true atheist. In this way (and I think I read this somewhere...), only God can be truly atheist. Hence, if you want to honestly and thoroughly be an atheist, you must be ready to become God.
@@hhstark8663 That is not the position of atheism. The position does not express the lack of _belief_ but rather the lack of _sufficient credible evidence_ to warrant any acknowledgement of the truth of this claim.
Mr. Horn, there's more to say if tell us that knowledge is justified, true belief since Prof, Edmund Gettier discovered counterexamples to that definition. For example, suppose that it's 11:00 and my watch's hands tell me it's 1100. Then my belief is true and my watch justifies it. But I don't know that my watch stopped at 11:00 o'clock last night. So my stopped watch hasn't turned my true belief into knowledge. You need more than a true belief to have knowledge. You need something to warrant that belief, to turn it into a piece of knowledge. Suppose I don't understand the French language when my friend Isabelle, a real French woman who attends Holy Mass at our SSPX chapel. Although she doesn't translate the sentence into English, she tells me how to say the French sentence that means that two is an even number. But since I don't understand her first language, and since I don't know she taught me how to say a declarative sentence in that language, I'll seem to state a true proposition when I speak that sentence to Isabelle's best friend who also speaks French and understands it. Still, I haven't asserted anything to Isabelle's other friend. After all, I had no idea what the French sentence means. Something like that happens when a cruel practical joker wants to humiliate me in Bejing, China where I'm a tourist. The practical joker teaches me how to say the sentence I'd say to call a Chinese woman the most insulting, most hateful name in her language. I think I told her that she was the most gorgeous woman in the world. But I haven't told her anything. Instead, I only said the words without asserting what the sentence means. Talking birds don't make any claims when they repeat words they hear. They merely mimic what they heard. That's why it would be absurd for me to feel hurt if an African Gray Parrot seemed to tell me that I was an offensive cripple. I have cerebral palsy. But I don't know whether I'm offensive.
Atheism can only be as true as its own understanding of God that it rejects, a person's rejection of an objective understanding can only be true if the person truly knows what he/she is rejecting. Most, if not all, "atheists" do not get the general idea of God as the Church understands God.
Why? Like if you say that you believe that that a deity exists, and you provide no convincing evidence, then why would I need a deeper understanding of your claims to state that I don't believe you?
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 defending the proposition "God exists", doesn't mean "convince me that God exists". You can _believe_ whatever you want regardless of whether an argument is sound or not.
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 You demand evidence that is not the nature of God, like show me a coin in your pocket; well God is not an object of science, otherwise he is not God (although many of his actions can be observed objectively if you want to be open and honest). You can read those books Trent's recommending here to understand God.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj _"You can believe whatever you want regardless of whether an argument is sound or not."_ If your argument is sound then I will believe you. What I care about is the truth. If the truth would be that deities exist, I'd like to know that. But I couldn't believe that based on blind faith.
@@JohnR.T.B. _"You demand evidence that is not the nature of God"_ So God wants me to believe. And if I don't believe he will torture me. But he also hides from me, refusing to provide any convincing evidence. How does that make sense? That reminds me on an analogy: Imagine I'd hand you a metal detector, and tell you "here on this part of the beach I've hidden a coin. You have time until the sun sets. If you find it, I will reward you with untold riches. If you fail, I will set you on fire and burn you alive". And you search and search, and when the sun sets you have found nothing. And then I tell you "the coin was made of plastic", and I set you on fire and watch you die. This is like a deity, that gives us a body that allows us to detect many many things, EXCEPT for that deity. And when we don't find the one thing we can't detect, which is that deity, that deity will torture us. Also, I might have missed your answer to my question. Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept and blindly believe any claim about anything unless we have studied it in great detail?
I think deism or pantheism better explains the world. It explains the apparent fine tuning and mathematical order, but also explains evil and suffering because either God is not interfering or god is everything both good and evil. Ying and Yang are balanced.
Deism we can debate. Pantheism does NOT since they posit that the universe is eternal and that god is _internal_ of time and space, which is NOT supported by the empirical findings of the 20th century.
It is relatively simple to define atheism in an understandable way, and I have never understood the difficulty with it. My atheism is the same position that you have on the existence of dragons. They probably do not exist because there is little evidence to suggest that they do.
I do not find labels useful because people focus on them instead of the discussion. So I will describe myself and you can feel free to label me:) Do I make the statement that "there is no God". No, there could be? I just currently do not believe in The God of the bible, because I find the evidence that has been shared with me either lacking or contradictory. I have also looked at over 40 different philosophical arguments for God and none are compelling enough. I also have no desire to change anyone’s mind about how they believe. I am on a journey to find what is true and had hoped that God was real because the alternative is sad. So far, I have been disappointed.
Ah yes... you just need to get to point to where you understand that creation demands a Creator. You need to get to the point to when you think about DNA, you think to yourself, "ah yes, of course that needs a Creator." Once you get to this point, the rest is pretty simple. Jesus. Go the humble route.
Here's a quick paraphrase of this philosophical gobbledygook: "My problem with those who lack belief in E-T aliens in UFOs is that it's just not very interesting. So I demand you take a side!" Whoa! Who died and made you the arbiter? The question is: is this position _rational?_ Yes? Then same with gods. Again, you're right that atheism is NOT just a lack of belief i.e. nonbelief. It's mostly nonbelief but some atheists are disbelievers (who can easily justify their belief that no gods exist) and a rare few atheists are deniers who may not be able to prove their claim that no gods exist (like ghost deniers can't prove _their_ claim) but can't be criticized by Xians because Xians make many more unprovable claims.
You have no idea why he said that, do you? "Philosophical gobbledygook" tell me you don't understand philosophy without telling me you don't understand philosophy. Atheism as a "lack of belief" says nothing about the world. It talks of your mental state. That's it. That's why it's boring. I don't care about your mental state. Atheism as "there is no God" actually says something about the world. Plus it is how atheism is defined academically and has been defined historically, AND it's inherent in the actual etymology of the word. "Lack of belief" atheism is a cowardly tactical move for people who would not dare be caught dead having to defend something. Plus it's an outright falsehood. If you lack a belief, what are you doing here? I lack a belief on what the greatest water softener is in the world. I am not a water softener installer, manufacturer, or salesman. I know next to nothing about them. I am also not involved in those conversations. That's an actual "lack of belief." What's NOT a "lack of belief" is calling yourself "Max Doubt" (a name totally uninspired by atheism, I'm sure), having an atheist symbol AVI and showing up repeatedly on videos about atheist to defend vehemently the integrity of atheism, this supposed "lack of belief". There's nothing that is a "lack of belief" about that. Atheism should be reserved for the deniers like it's always been. Not these "lack of belief" simps.
@@glof2553 Haha! What a faux-losopher you are! To look your foolishness in the face, tell me your position on the existence of other hypothetical beings e.g. Martian microbes. Do they exist? Most people lack belief. Tell me why this neutral position is irrational or admit your error. Also, you are making the same blunder as most apologists and many atheists: trying to define atheism as one thing. It's not. But neither is it totally chaotic. It's mostly nonbelief/neutrality and to a lesser extent disbelief and very rarely denial. You don't appreciate disbelief: the _positive belief_ that gods don't exist. What you are too obtuse to grasp is that _beliefs don't require proof!_ Only knowledge claims do. All beliefs require is some rational justification. I _believe_ that I won't die today; that no human ever ran 100 MPH; that neither the Jets nor the Browns will win the 2023 Superbowl; that if I draw 4 aces in a poker hand, I will win. Sure, I can't prove any of these beliefs and you can blah, blah about how these beliefs merely reflect my "mental state" but that's not the question. Are they rational? I can show they are. Same with gods. How many gods have arisen in the past and now reside in the graveyard of gods? Hundreds. And all inveterate hiders, just like today's gods! Is that just a coincidence? Did they all make a mutual concealment pact? I doubt it. And how many physical phenomena have been attributed to gods only to be found to have better, natural explanations? Scores e.g. the Earth, sun, moon, planets and stars; volcanoes; the sky; the rain; the wind; the day/night cycle; plants and animals; earthquakes; oceans and rivers; mountains; eclipses; the aurora; the seasons; comets; glowing seas; fire; multiple births and plagues, to name a few. Never has a workable natural explanation ceded to a supernatural one. This justifies the further belief that whatever caused the Big Bang and Biogenesis, gods had nothing to do with it. Plus, no "holy" book shows any knowledge advanced beyond the socio-historical milieu of the authors and all contain mistakes, contradictions and primitive cosmogonies. I admit: none of this rises to the level of proof but face it: the firm belief that no gods exist _can be justified!_ But none of this deep-diving into the philosophy class you skipped is necessary. How many gods do you claim exist? One only? Then ipso facto you are claiming that other gods do _not_ exist. That's a claim that calls for proof! So you prove that other gods besides yours don't exist and I'll use your method to prove _your_ god doesn't exist. GL with that, chump.
@@glof2553 I never said I was a nonbeliever; that I lack belief in gods. I'm a disbeliever and I justified it! I'm just sticking up for the nonbeliever position. It IS rational.
@@maxdoubt5219 I've explained this elsewhere. Atheists generally treat God as if God is a "mythical creature"/guy with a beard who lives in the woods and pulls strings. You're speaking of God as if God existed univocally, like a paperclip or unicorn or something. It's not how God is understood in a classical sense. If you want me to prove a sky man to you, you'd be sorely disappointed. Beliefs require justification, which can encompass proof or not. And here we go again on the belief/knowledge quadrant. Yawn. As if knowledge is not a type of belief itself. So boring. Let me guess: "agnostic theist" is a term with meaning to you. Also the "what's God's name" argument is old hat. That's all you guys really have. "Oh yeah? You believe in God but not Zeus? Or Thor? Heh, what's God's name?" Gods in a pagan sense are really not comparable to God in an Abrahamic sense- the two share a name in that they're analogous only. God in an Abrahamic sense is "metaphysical foundation of existence itself." God in a pagan sense is essentially a "superhuman." Zeus came into existence (i.e has potentiality) when he was born of Kronos. Zeus is not pure act, esse ipsum subsistens, existence as such. Zeus is composite, mutable, corporeal, ephemeral, not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. Zeus is not the foundation of existence as such. Zeus is, in essence, a superhuman. I, as a theist, do not believe in gods, but I do believe in God. This hopefully offers some distinction and why the "once god more, one god less, what's god's name and which god" arguments don't work or make sense. They fundamentally misunderstand what the Christian, Muslim, Jew, or general classical theist means by God. "Which god" is like asking "which foundation of existence itself?"
Well the Atheists that I talk to say there is no reason to believe on God due to the immense suffering in the world, prayers are not answered, or if some say they are it is coincidence, nobody has seen God, cannot prove resurrection actually happened, the list goes on.
If theists get to tell atheists what they mean when they label themselves as an atheist. Then atheists get to tell theists what they mean when they label themselves as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. This way we can deal exclusively in strawmanning and avoid any substantive discussions.
What a load of nonsense, if we instead are forced to accept against reason and reality that a person is one thing only because he says so we would end up with ridiculous scenarios like saying a man can actually be a woman if he pretends har enough and.... Nevermind.
@euthyphro dilemma ah, the irony of some room temperature IQ euphoric fedora tipper attempting to condescend to me about theories of truth.... You're into correspondence theory now? but you also get to define what the objective category of atheism or woman means for yourself, is that also true?
Me: As a Christian, I lack a lack of belief. Atheist: That´s not fair! Me: Why can´t I nest negative clauses, as many as I like? 1-1 = 1-1+1-1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1 = ....
I don't define atheism as a lack of belief for it is the lack of evidence that substantiates the position. Rather I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Now, do you think I am rationally justified in my position?
lacking a lack of belief? Do you know how language works or do you need a tutor? Not to mention that even if said "lack" worked according to your wish, it would still be a words play - hardly a way to confront criticism.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes, I understood it just fine. It's just your application of "lack" would indicate that it's not me who could use a dictionary, or better yet - full english mentoring program
@@Mish844 I wasn't the one employing the term "lack of belief". Atheism is a position which exposes a lack of _evidence_ substantiating a claim, not a lack of _belief._ Have a good evening.
What we have here is carping from the cheap seats. But the point stands. Aron was wrong. The stupid Xian apologetic goes like this: you can't define atheism as a lack of belief in gods because that would make rocks, since they lack belief in gods, atheists. Nope. The definition of atheist always begins with: "A person who..." or "Someone who..." That precludes the inanimate. To appreciate the inanity of this apologetic we need just extend it further. Teetotalism is the lack of alcohol consumption. So rocks are teetotalers! Vegetarianism is the lack of meat consumption. So rocks are vegetarians! Rocks lack the ability to see colors. So it makes sense to call them colorblind! Sorry, that don't fly. And remember: you can rebuke and denounce Xianity all day long and still be a nonbeliever in gods just as you can rip the claim that Klingons exist but still be a neutral nonbeliever about intelligent E-Ts.
A person who holds atheism to be true is an atheist, this discussion was about atheism itself not the persons. Atheistic people often claim that babies are atheists, this is just the consequence of your arguments. _Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, All things that lack belief also lack belief in gods. Rocks lack belief, therefore, rocks are atheistic._ Sure, you wouldn't call rocks atheists, but they do lack belief in God. Whatever, I don't care, I'm just arguing because it's fun. This is all just pedantry. Moral of the story: don't claim to hold views you don't hold, don't claim a want when you hold a refusal.
Here's to all atheists in these comments who think they're so smart and big: The Wisdom of Solomon is a Historical book considered Canon by the Orthodox and Catholic churches, written in 50BC, and it contains a series of passages which perfectly prophesy Jesus' life, to the point where it is spine chilling. 12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant.[a] 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him. 21 This was how the ungodly reasoned, but they were mistaken. Their malice completely blinded them. 22 They didn’t know of God’s secret plan. They didn’t hope for the reward that holiness brings. They didn’t consider the prize they would win if they kept their whole beings free from stain. 23 God created humans to live forever. He made them as a perfect representation of his own unique identity. 24 Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy. Those who belong to the devil’s party experience death.[b] To deny this historical document would be to deny a lot of other history, and frankly look like a conspiracy theorist who simply doesn't want Christianity to be true. Another piece of evidence is what Flavius Josephus, a Jewish Historian, wrote about Jesus some years after his death, and bare in mind he wasn't even a Christian: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. This should be sufficient for you to look into it. If not, you're literally just choosing not to believe. That is on you.
Agnostic are convinced that we can’t have knowledge, about the propositions god exist and god does not exist. Atheist only needs to not be convinced that god exists. They don’t need to be convinced that doesn’t exist.
"I lack belief in a god or gods." is nothing but a sentiment and not a rational thought. Sentiments are by definition irrational. Hence "atheism" is irrational.
That is why my definition of atheism is better suited that "lack of belief". I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. Now, how is such a position "irrational"?
@@theoskeptomai2535 you don't get fallacies my dude. OP was deductive. Atheism is a sentiment. Sentiments are irrational. So atheism is irrational. I define atheism as "the practice of self-fellatio". Ergo, since you are an atheist, that's what you do.
@@glof2553 sen·ti·ment /ˈsen(t)əmənt/ noun 1. a view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an opinion. There's the definition. Sentiments are NOT irrational "by definition". A sentiment can be either rational or irrational. The OP is a syllogism. It is not valid as one of the two premises has just been shown to be erroneous. Person A - "Bigfoot exists" Person B - "I can't believe your claim until you provide compelling evidence to support it". Both person A and person B have expressed a sentiment. Is either one of them irrational? Are both of them? Lastly, "A/My god exists" is a sentiment. Oops.
OK so Is it irrational lack belife in unicorns and goblins? Clearly people lack belife for a reason and it is that reason that defines whether a statement is rational or not. The statement itself is not the position, saying " I don't belive in god" is not atheism itself.
Yes, because they're not prudent enough to realise that belonging to a religion is the safest afterlife route. Having none means that they don't feel pressured to be righteous. It's like saying that you have all of the answers in a book, yet saying that you don't have to revise/study because 'you know all of the answers anyway' because you think that you're intelligent enough. But to sit in an exam room, realising it's too late to revise as you don't know any of the questions answers, is foolish behaviour - and that's what exactly is going to happen at the end of their lives (I've met God). In life, we all get repeated messages across in many different ways. Bouncing a wall against a wall for instance; the amount of pressure you put in, the amount you get out. Yet I heard my abusive ex finally confessed everything 3 years too late - far gone to fix even everything. The reason being is that their karma had finally hit them.
Atheism as a lack of belief is used as a Motte and Bailey. They will criticize the existence of God, and when challenged to support their position they will retreat to the defense of they're not making a claim and so have no burden of proof. I have no respect for such intellectually dishonest discourse.
"when challenged to support their position they will retreat to the defense of they're not making a claim and so have no burden of proof" an athist dosent assert a claim, an anti-theist believes there is no god, (holds a burden of proof) a gnostic atheist Knows theres no god theism is about belief gnosticism is about knowledge a- = without or not theism is a belief, in a god or gods a-theism = without belief in god or no belief if a god anti- = against or opposite to something anti-theism = against a god belief or the opposite belief, eg a belief that there is no god im an atheist but just for you i will temporarily hold the anti-theists burden of proof
Does it matter? You’re the one who believes something exists… prove it. I can make a claim like “Bigfoot DOESNT exist.” I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist. Those who believe in bigfoot must prove he does
I don't believe any of the gods I've heard about exist. Does a god or gods actually exist? I have no idea (but then, on that line of reasoning, I have no idea if Russell's Teapot exists either). I don't care what label you use to describe that position. I use the label "atheist" to describe that position. I am not "dumb as rocks". _That is all._
@Quack Epistemologist Either you didn't read the comment or your comprehension is lacking. I absolutely addressed whether I believe a god exists or not. By the way, you do understand that when considering one's position on a binary subject, there are _three_ possible positions, right?
Atheists are those who thinks all arguments for God are bad.So weak atheist will say God has low probability to exist but they can`t say he doesn`t exist and strong atheist will say God doesn`t exist.But agnostic thinks one can`t tell anything about God because (1)arguments for and against God has 50% probability to be true so they can`t decide or (2)we are epistemically limited to judge whether God can exist or not
Is atheism not a reaction to theism? As in, there can be no atheist without the claims of a theist, as if no claim was made then there would be no rebuttal to the claim?
Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. So I would agree. If there were no claim asserted by theists that some god exists, there would be no such _position_ as atheism.
Trent, is there a dollar amount that we can crowd fund for a non-religious charity of your choice that if reached would motivate you to conversate with Pinecreek for an hour?
Disappointed in this one. As an atheist I lack a belief in God Trent: so what, who cares? Um you should . You've been called to bring others to Christ have you not??
I don’t think he means he wouldn’t care at all, just that it means a person would have little value to offer to the conversation on an intellectual level.
If you’re not a born again Christian then chances are that you’ll be unable to place your right palm on the KJV and say these words once only-> I refuse to be deceived by the devil. Rev.12:9 The devil deceives the whole world. ❤️✝️Jn.3:7
This video reveals a perennial problem: people trying to define atheism as one thing. We have atheists trying to define atheism as strictly nonbelief while Xians try to define atheism as disbelief or denial and accuse self-ID'ed nonbelievers as being crypto-disbelievers or deniers who masquerade as nonbelievers to avoid any burden of proof or justification. This perennial failure to communicate disappears with the realization that atheism is _either_ nonbelief, disbelief or denial. Don't trust dictionary definitions of atheism. Trust Wiki. To see this more clearly, just compare gods to other hypothetical beings: Martian microbes. Do they exist? Nonbeliever: "I'm neutral." Disbeliever: "I believe Mars is sterile." Denier: "I _know_ Mars is sterile." The neutral nonbeliever slips the burden of claim-proof _and_ belief-justification. The disbeliever slips the burden of proof but should still justify his disbelief i.e. his belief in the opposite. The denier inherits a burden of _proof._ If the ultra-rare atheist denier can't prove his _claim_ that no gods exist then it's definitely a faith position. But it's no different than the unprovable faith position that no ghosts exist. That's not a worldview or a belief "system," let alone a religion. Theists can be believers; who needn't prove that a god or gods exist but should still substantiate their belief - e.g. deists. Or they can be affirmers who _claim_ outright _or inadvertently_ that they _know_ their god(s) exist, thus inheriting a burden of _proof._ So the theistic affirmer must prove his claim while the atheistic disbeliever need merely justify his belief that no gods exist and that's easy. The point is: _all_ Xians are affirmers and inherit a burden of _proof,_ a greater burden than the disbeliever who need merely rationally justify his disbelief. Xians who say "I don't know if God exists. That would inherit a burden of proof which I can't provide. But based on certain facts, I believe he does" are one in a million. The vast, VAST majority of Xians are affirmers; who go around making claims they can't prove and thus can be kindly asked to shut their piety-holes. But here's the kicker: the atheistic denier has one claim to prove: "No gods exist." The theistic affirmer has one claim to prove: "A god or gods exist." Neither can provide any proof so it's a wash. But that all changes with the atheist denier vs the Xian. That's because, if asked to list their claims involving religion, that of the denier (i.e. the naturalist affirmer) can be expressed in just 5 words: "I know nothing supernatural exists." One baseless claim. But Xians are making multiple claims they can't prove e.g. God, a supernatural realm, angels, archangels, an angelic rebellion, demons, demon possession, a god/human hybrid, sin, souls, a propitiatory human blood-sacrifice and a coming apocalypse followed by some form of millennialism. So the atheist denier can be told to "prove it or remove it!" but not by any Xian, Muslim or Jew, for they would be throwing stones from a glass house; on steroids!😉
Here is another perspective: There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists." Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground. And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of any identity associated with such a position. The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The gnostic theist is justified by sufficient knowledge and has good reason to change both default positions. Having sufficient knowledge of a god, he or she can now justly acknowledge such existence. The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending any acknowledgement as to the truth of the theistic claim until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist until sufficient credible evidence convinces the individual to acknowledge such existence. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist. Please feel free to commement, even criticize, my expkanation. Prace.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I've told you before, find my explanations there if you're so interested. In short, it does not understand the relationship between belief and knowledge, or what either of them are. We've talking about this, yes or no ass boy.
@@glof2553 I am not receiving notification of your responses and didn't see this particular response until Quack Epistemologist posted his/her comment below. I have muted you (and for good reason) so I do not see your replies. But I will respond to you comment as I see it now. Your previous arguments are rubbish. I, too have explained, why. Ass boy.
Gigachad Trent: “Yes” (fails to elaborate further, stares at camera for 30 minutes)
Not fail, refuse
@@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577 sorry, a turn of phrase
His point was: Defining atheism as just 'lack of belief' is unhelpful.
He didn't said 'yes'.
Literally 30 seconds in..."Well, it depends."
I know you atheists don't believe in moral realism but even Sam Harris says that lying is detrimental (unless it serves a greater good like keeping Trump out of office or making Jesus sound like a bad guy). To be frank I just don't get the point of making such an obvious lie. It just makes you guys look bad.
These are the video titles I need to wake up to in the morning
20:13 "If you want to write in the comments below, I'd be happy to have a dialogue"
Why does Trent say this when I never see him posting any replies to the comments?
@mugs of mirth he posts these videos to his podcast as well, so maybe more those comments? He will browse and respond to some TH-cam comments, but he’s mentioned not wanting to get dragged into TH-cam comments like that.
Can’t say I blame him. Sometimes comment sections can be quite… interesting 😅
"if the people were quiet , then the rocks would cry out." - Jesus.
Rocks are Theists.
"Rocks are Atheist" will never die as long as Aron Ra is still alive to promote it.
AronRa totally looks like he is trying too hard to be a comic book super villain.
@@mugsofmirth8101 what no God does to a mf
@@mugsofmirth8101 Complete with the pointy mustache, haha hihihi.
"BRING IT" , oh that guy cracks me up, haha hihihi.
which probably wont be much longer
@@mugsofmirth8101 I thought it was obvious Aron Ra is a Klingon.
I sometimes liken the “I lack belief” assertion to a homeless man walking into a shoe store and interrupting all the discussions about which are the best shoes by shouting, “Look at me! I’m not wearing any shoes!”
“Lacktheism”, as with other of the old New Atheist arguments (atheism is the default, burden of proof always rests on the theist), originated with Anthony Flew’s 1972 essay, “The Presumption of Atheism”:
_Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter._
Flew later abandoned his “negative atheist” definition before abandoning atheism entirely.
You do or do _not_ recognize atheism as being the default position?
@@theoskeptomai2535 it's not a default position. It's a reactionary position.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I disagree.
@@theoskeptomai2535 of course you do
@@mugsofmirth8101 That's right. I actually have a _logical justification_ that warrants my proposal, of which, of course, you have no interest in learning.
Saying you’re an atheist when you’re actually an agnostic (which I hear all the time) is like saying you’re a vegan that eats meat sometimes. I feel like it’s a power play sometimes to just deny having common definitions of their opposition even if they’re incoherent.
Well said. It's far too common and it seems obvious they simply like to call themselves "atheist" because the word agnostic doesn't sound "edgy" enough
@@elgatofelix8917
The whole point of labels is to summarize a stance and save time. If I say I’m an agnostic atheist, most people understand that I don’t believe in any god(s) but that I also don’t claim knowledge that no god(s) could possibly exist. If someone prefers a different definition or doesn’t know what I mean then we would disregard the labels altogether and get into the specifics.
There is nothing wrong with using the labels in a way that makes most sense for the types of conversations I have. If I were having philosophical debates I would use a stricter definition. If you and I were having a conversation and you stonewalled on a strict definition of Atheism, I could be the better person and accept that definition and clarify that I am a hard-atheist with regard to classical Theism (a good personal creator), but an Agnostic with regard to general Theism. Or I could also just use a different label like non-Theist.
Just like the word “Theory” words can have multiple definitions and usages.
@@Tinesthia "most people understand that"
How do you know what "most people" understand? Do you claim to be psychic? Is your claim about "most people" understanding your philosophical position based on any analytical data? Prove your claim.
@@mugsofmirth8101
Is speaking from experience a problem? It should be obvious I am speaking about most people who I interact with. I couldn’t tell you what most people in the world would think because I will only ever interact with a small percentage of living people in my entire life.
Which is why I said it is not a problem for me to use the definitions that make the most sense for *”the types of conversations that I have.”*
@@Tinesthia it's a problem when you oh so "rational" atheists hold others to that standard while dismissing our personal experience as merely "fairytales" or "anecdotal". Don't like the taste of your own medicine when it's turned back onto you, do you?
My thought on it is "if you lack a belief, get out of the conversation."
I lack a belief on what the top of the line water softener is in the industry as of today. I'm not a water softener salesman, installer, reviewer, manufacturer, etc. I quite literally lack a belief, which is why I'm not involved in those conversations.
Contrast this to an atheist, who supposedly "lacks a belief" but oftentimes has much fervor about this supposed "lack of belief" and gets in discussions and arguments surrounding this supposed "lack of belief."
It's disingenuous.
Etymologically, atheism is "No-God belief" or "belief that there is no God."
The prefix "a" means "no, not or without."
Theos means "God"
The suffix "ism" means practice, system, ideology or philosophy.
A "lack of belief' etymologically would be closer to "a-ism" which is a practice or philosophy of... nothing, of a lack. Etymologically speaking, the term "God" is explicitly stated within the word atheism (as theos), which demonstrates that a position on God is inherent to the word and position of atheism itself. The suffix "ism" also demonstrates that it is a practice, philosophy, ideology or belief. This has been how the term was defined historically and academically.
So that's why "atheism is a lack of belief" is disingenuous and not really worth taking seriously.
oof. That's disingenuous. Christians and Muslims want to run the world according to their belief in a way that stamp collectors and water softener salesmen don't. There's a Great Commision in Matthew 28 to go and preach and spread the gospel. In many countries, politicians run on the promise to enact policies based on their theology, not on living in the real world. In short, theists make it our business.
@@stephengalanis
if I ask a muslim what he believes, he will tell me (taqiyya notwithstanding), he will go on about why islam is true and whatnot, but if an atheist pretends that he's involved in the issue by talking about what he can't bring into the conversation, that's merely childish.
Which checks out, most atheists become disinterested in religion around their teenage years, it stands to reason their rationale was unsophisticated then and is unsophisticated now.
@@stephengalanis nothing disingenuous about it. It's true. And nice work, you admit that you don't merely "lack a belief." Well done. Hope we can actually proceed now.
You also seem to think of conversations between theists and atheists as a type of power game as opposed to an actual conversation and working to find truth. Also well done. Atheists demonstrate time and time again that it's a battle of the will over one of intellect.
Theology is concerned with the real world and atheists can and have made governance on their own theology throughout history (atheistic communism of the USSR and Maoist China comes to mind, with the League of the Militant Godless).
Finding truth? How do you define truth?
If truth is what conforms to reality, then theists have nothing to say on that matter and should leave the conversation. By definition theism requires believing things that can't possibly be verified. Theism doesn't get to sit at the table of true and false until it's supernatural claims are brought into the natural. A belief that can't be falsified is a trivial one.
I lack belief that there is no God.
Good call yesterday with Stephen
Good one, dude. 🙂
@Otangelo Grasso
"I lack belief that there is no God."
So you simply don't believe that there is no god. Wonderful, that puts you out of the "positive atheist" position. You are rejecting the claim that there is no god. However, it doesn't say whether you are a negative atheist or a theist. So it doesn't really say whether you are an atheist or a theist. This is because although you reject the claim that there is no god (you reject positive atheism), you could also reject the claim that there is a god (you don't believe that a god exists, and as such, you reject theism ). Which makes you a negative atheist.
Lacking a belief that there is a god on the other hand means that you don't believe that a god exists. Which puts you out of the whole theism category. This is because there is no positive or negative theism. Theism means believing in the existence of a god or gods. and it can not mean "not believing that a god does not exist". This means that you can not reject the claim that there is a god while accepting the claim that a god exists. It's self-contradictory. And as such, "lacking a belief that there is a god" directly demonstrates that you are an atheist.
This is the difference between atheism and theism. Atheism is the default position. *Not believing that something is true (like the existence of a god or gods) because there is no sufficient evidence for the proposition is the default position.* Atheism can simply mean not believing that a god exists "negative atheism". While theism can not mean "not believing that a god does not exist". This is because theism means believing in the existence of a god or gods.
@@tris2141 *Atheism is the default position.*
Wrong. That's usually reserved for agnosticism.
@@americanliberal09 False. This false belief stems from the fact that the people who present this claim don't know what atheism and agnosticsm mean. And they don't know the difference between positive atheism and negative atheism.
When people say: "agnostics don’t know whether a god exists or not, so they don't believe that a god exists and they also don't believe that a god does not.".
They are 100% correct. But atheism is not just believeing that a god does not exist (positive atheism), it can also be not believing that a god exists (negative atheism). One is a belief, and the other is a rejection of a belief.
So all agnostics are negative atheists. They don't believe that a god exists (They are negative atheists). But they also don't believe that a god does not exist. (They are not positive atheists).
Wikipedia's explanation about positive/negative atheism: " "Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not necessarily explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists."
It's quite simple actually, but I think the stigma around atheism is what's making some people refuse to accept that all agnostics are atheists, which reminds me of Stephen Colbert's quote: "Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?"
While another reason that make people refuse to accept that all agnostics are atheists, is that many people insist that atheism should not be defined as the lack of belief in god or gods, and instead should be defined as the belief that no gods exist. This is because they want to make it seem like a position of faith. Clearly when you feel at a disadvantage because your beliefs are faith based and insupportable by logic or evidence, then pretending that those who lack your belief also have a faith based position, is a much easier option than facing up to the burden of proof you give yourself by insisting that others believe as you do. But one doesn't have to believe no god exists to recognize theistic claims as indefensible.
Say we have 2 people, both of whom debunk every theistic claim put to them. One believes there are no gods, and the other is simply unconvinced. Either way the claims are debunked. Even if atheism was redefined as the belief that no gods exist, there would still be the same non-believers outside that category dismantling theistic claims. Defenders of theism who fixate on strong atheists (positive atheists) are either misidentifying or trying to distract attention from their real problem, that their claims have no valid foundation and consistently collapse under critical scrutiny.
Some other people have complained that "atheism can not be a lack of belief in gods, or we would have to class rocks and dogs as atheists.". Rocks and dogs? really? It's a measure of the loss of perspective that happens around the subject of atheism that statements as puerile as these are made. If you had a big family celebration and I said: "Look around and tell me which ones aren't married," would you need me to specify that I was talking about people in order to stop you from listing items of furniture and family pets? Those who can't approach the discussion with a basic level of intelligence and maturity, shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. Besides the suffix '-ist in "atheist" is used and understood to denote a personal noun.
That said, while there is no point applying the term 'atheist' to things that lack the cognitive capacity to grasp the ideas involved, it can be useful to remember that none of us start life with a belief in any gods. A lack of belief in gods is the default position. That's not to say the default position is always preferable, after all the default position is a complete lack of coherent understanding of our universe - but it is a reminder that in the marketplace of ideas, when you want to move people away from their default lack of belief towards your belief, it's you, not they who has to provide justification. If you want people to believe that fairies, dragons, or any god exists, the burden of proof is one you not on those who are simply skeptical of your claim.
"Obviously Santa Claus exists" - Jonathan Pageau.
I remember that, you have to wonder by how many hundreds of years the Orthodox were ahead of the enlightenment atheists when it came to phenomenology
Rocks are atheists, Cant wait for trents next debate against a rock
Taking "like talking to a brick wall" to a whole new level.
Glad you admit that we atheists rock! You theists are just mad because we skeptics support progressive causes like Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, Racial Equality, Mandatory Ab0rtion, Mandat0ry Marriage to a Trans Person of Color, Mandat0ry Triple-Daily VaxxB00ster Shots, Mandatory Multiple Mask Wearing inside and outside the home as well as home surveillance cameras to ensure you never remove your masks in order to stop the spread. Black Lives Matter! ✊✊✊
@@xstatic-ow5mz good irony
@@glof2553 pretty sure THE PROLETARIAT is not trying to be "ironic". That's the soycialist game plan in a nutshell. And atheism is a tenet of Marxism. To quote KKKarl Marx: " religion is the opiate of the masses"
"Triple-Daily VaxxB00ster Shots"
😂😂😂 that's awesome
it's yet another example of the consequences of modernism, if the only thing that matters is the inner life of whatever is being referred to well then yes of course, the rock is atheist, we simply lack access to the inner life of the rock. The fundamental problem is the inability to distinguish that while it's true rocks lack any belief in God, they lack all belief because beliefs properly belong to subjects, not objects.
I don't really believe any marginally intelligent atheist doesn't understand this. Many pretend not to, but that to me is demonstrating they have no interest in a serious discussion.
@Adam Cosper
the fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it gibberish. To simplify it a bit, ever since the protestant reformation and Descartes philosophy has moved into the space of assigning what's real to the experience of the subject as opposed to his experience corresponding to the objective realm outside of him.
But whatever maybe I just made it up, its just gibberish no?
@Adam Cosper whered you get your degree? DeVry? You sleep through it most days?
@Adam Cosper
I can see the degree is paying off already...
@Adam Cosper Atheists as perpetual teenagers pt. 1847472
@euthyphro dilemma why do you repeat your points like they're something compelling that none of your opponents have ever considered?
"Which god' is not an argument
Jesus said, You are Peter and upon this _Rock_ will I found My Church.
Bruh 🤣🤣
Awful lot of neckbeards in this comment section
If atheism is a lack of belief, then atheism has no content. If there is no content, it is not worth anybody's time.
@Excuse me but People can challenge whatever they please, but try and explain why someone who has no content is somehow correct to challenge someone whose belief has content. It's a harder case to make than it at first appears, but you are welcome to try.
@Excuse me but Notice the shift you made. First it was that it was correct to challenge theists. Now it is the more modest statement that content can be challenged. Those are two different statements. So which is it?
If atheism has no content, then why there are so many atheists writing books, giving speeches, making TH-cam videos for money?
@Excuse me but "That's what a skeptic does." And solipsists challenge the existence of an external world because they lack belief in an external world, but that doesn't mean they are correct to do it. I hope it is obvious that simply because someone does something doesn't mean it is correct to do it. I was asking for some explanation as to why atheists are CORRECT to challenge theism, but none is forthcoming. It takes effort to provide an explanation, but it is worth it.
I read your comment again, and what is the substantial difference between an atheist challenging a theIST and an atheist challenging theISM? The atheist challenges the theist on theism, so the two statements are equivalent (feel free to disagree and show that they are not equivalent if you want to).
Either way, you shifted from saying it is CORRECT to challenge theism to saying that any content CAN be challenged. That is a large shift, and no reason was provided. I hope by now it is obvious that the statement "something CAN be done" is not the same as the statement "it is CORRECT to do it". If it were, one can just as easily make the opposite conclusion from yours and state that any content can be praised, and that nonexistent content cannot be praised, and therefore atheists are correct to praise theism, and theists are incorrect to praise atheism.
@@adamc1694 exactly. "Atheism is a lack of belief" is complete rhetoric and a debating tactic against theists. That's all it is.
I lack a belief in atheism
That's how I would define theism "lack of belief in atheism" (this triggers the lacktheist)
I lack a belief in everything that is not Catholicism
@@glof2553 the Earth is not Catholicism. Do you lack belief in the Earth?
@@mugsofmirth8101 The Earth is not real. I am the only thing that is real to you.
@@abramwarpness6053 nobody asked you
"The fool says in his heart, there is no God!" Psalm 51
@@ReverendDr.Thomas no, but you can believe the Word of God.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas we shall see that there is absolute truth which does transcend human belief. A human who believes they know it all is arrogant beyond words.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I can't help your reading comprehension. You will need to get help for that yourself.
@@joebrinson5040 ok, but what are you claiming is the "word of god"? The christian bible has been rewritten and revised hundreds of times. With around 40 original authors, writing different books over a thousand years, which of those books were inspired by a god, and how would anyone verify it? The original Hebrew versions were full of spelling and grammatical errors, and glaring contradictions that were removed in later versions. And if those authors were magically inspired to write a giant rule book, why did they completely ignore Australia and the entire western hemisphere? Why did they make rules about how to treat your slaves, instead of outright banning slavery? Why does the bible treat women and slaves as property? If there is a god that wants to be known it could at least provide the same information to all humans on the planet, and it wouldn't require bible thumpers to go knocking door to door, or invading other countries to force their beliefs.
@@drengr2759 the Bible in any of its many translations into modern languages or in Greek and Hebrew. Nothing magical about the inspiration, friend. I'm not the least interested in arguing with you but I am glad that I got to share truth with you. Perhaps one day you will find truth yourself. Notifications off.
Hi Trent, I don't know where you normally respond to comments, but I will try here. You mentioned agnostic theism and how that isn't a contradiction. As someone who identified as an agnostic theist during college before converting to Catholicism, I would have defined it this way: I believed that there was a God for a variety of reasons (human consciousness, Aquinas' arguments, etc.) but I was somewhat skeptical of specific religious teachings about God, as well as what was claimed to be divine revelation. I wasn't a deist, as I didn't necessarily doubt that God interacts with man, or that God would never interact with me, although at that point I would have said that I don't believe I had experienced God in any special way, apart from the human experience. I didn't dismiss any or all religion as myth and fairy tales. I thought that there may very well be something to each of the religions, and that God may very well interact with them in some way or another. I just didn't see any reason to devote myself to any particular one. Anyway, hope that helps.
@euthyphro dilemma agnostic theist does not exist. Neither does agnostic atheist.
Someone is either theist, agnostic, or atheist. Your quadrant stops here.
I believe I exist in some form, do I not know that? Is what I am saying right now dishonest to you?
@@glof2553 agreed.
@@glof2553 you lack understanding of what the words atheist, agnostic and theist mean, and so does the guy in the video
@@littleredpony6868no he doesn't. He completely understands the topic at hand unlike people like you.
The funny thing about is that rocks are amongst the type of creation that do not have the ability to be in unbelief, and therefore will not experience condemnation even when thrown into the fire in the last days.
This would mean Aron Ra would not experience condemnation because he has no unbelief. Problem is, he claims he's justified in his unbelief. That means he is not a rock, and will not be spared from condemnation in the last days.
Funny thing is, sometimes I would conclude it better to be a rock.
Exactly amigo.
All built on the belief that there is judgement and that you're 'thrown' into a fire.
@@interestingreligion5204 I ask that you take the following response in the kindest way possible - yes, and?
@@ZenexTheZealous I have, it's a shame sometimes kindness isn't always applied. Sometimes it's fire is the only option.
@Interesting Religion while true I cannot justify "the fire" narrative with logic, the point is there should be nothing offensive about "the fire" unless you are a sinner whom believes in god. Everyone whom believes in god has to face this. Anyone whom doesn't shouldn't have anything to worry about.
You stated that the atheist position of lacking belief is "not interesting" . Honestly, that sounds like a you problem. I was unaware there was a requirement that a persons position must be interesting.
Boom! In his face!
He explains why it's boring an presents paradeigmas. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue this but it seams you are just as ignorant as all atheists claim to not be.
Perfect! The length and discussion of this video are perfect. It is a good one to refer to people who just want to claim atheism and deny any need to support this claim/belief. Thanks!
Atheism isn't a _belief._ It is a position on a claim to truth - specifically the claim made by theists that a god(s) exists.
Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
@@theoskeptomai2535 (atheism is a belief)
Nobody agrees
@@theoskeptomai2535 Listen again. ;)
@@gardenladyjimenez1257Was there anything preventing you from answering my question?
glof you state atheism is a belief on one of your previous comments, why do you need to believe that when people have already educated you on it, atheism is a belief in the same way as not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Anti-theism is a belief, it's a belief that not only does god not exist but religion causes damage
Atheism is just a lack of belief in theists god claim, atheism has nothing to do with any other subject whatsoever, it's just a lack of belief in the god claim, you claiming atheism is a belief just exposes you
Who are the atheist philophers Trent mentions in the beginning of this video ?
I reject the term "theist," I simply lack belief in natural materialism. Therefore, I am not a "theist," rather I am an "amaterialist." If you believe in materialism, the burden of proof is on you to prove materialism is true.
I'm not theist , Only I have a lack Of believe that atheism is true
You are an a-atheist, haha. :)
Username checks out.
@Gaboon Viper atheism is a positive thing not a negative thing you irrational theist. Theism is negative and is the root cause of all the world's problems - except for Judaism and Islam of course - people who criticize Islam and Judaism are antisemitic, Islamophobic fascist Nazi bigots!
@@xstatic-ow5mz I like your satire
@@glof2553 it's not satire you theist bigot. Check your white privlege. Black Lives Matter! ✊✊✊
Is there an incoming Friday episode regarding Santa Claus now, on the other channel?
I believe Saint Nicholas (the real Santa Claus), because he did exists =).
He's a saint so not only does he exist, but is pretty much alive.
@@gabev5973 YES!
Saints are, indeed, alive.
hey Trent can you do a couple videos on rabbi tovia singer?
So if you're a lacktheist, let's say your own 10 yr-old child asks you, "Does God exist? How do you know?"
How do you respond? Don't you have to be honest and tell the kid "no" and offer an explanation? That is to say, affirm a proposition and defend your position? What, are you gonna teach your kid how to lack belief? Come on!
How to handle a child’s god questions is especially important when both parents have different beliefs.
But it is really not that difficult to find a good way to handle it. Neither parent is allowed to express what to believe, but what they believe.
To answer your specific example… “No child, I don’t believe God exists, I have found no compelling reason to believe a particular god exists, though I have not ruled out the possibility.”
“So you believe there are no God’s?” Asks the child. The parent answers “Currently, because I haven’t seen any compelling reasons to believe, if I see a specific reason why one should believe it, I can show you why I find that reason is not compelling. If that reason is compelling to you then by all means…”
The only position for the lacktheist is showing that the positive affirmations of the contrary are not good enough reasons to accept a proposition.
And the Theist parent: “Yes child I believe in God.” Child asks “Why?.” Well because I find reason Argument from Design, Evidence for Resurrection, etc compelling.”
“But why doesn’t Atheist parent find these compelling?” asks child. “Ask them.”
@@Tinesthia You don't talk that way to a 10 yr-old. Please. And, a kid deserves a yes or no to a yes or no question: "Does God exist?"
"By all means." You're OK with your kid holding beliefs you think are false?
Responsible atheist parent: "No, God does not exist. How do I know? Because the reasons people believe in God don't make sense."
Responsible theist parent: "Yes, God exists. How do I know? Lots of reasons, and I'll explain them to you the best I can."
"Then why are there people that don't believe in God?"
"Because they're not thinking straight."
Q: "Does God exist?"
A: "I don't know. I don't believe so. There are many people that say they believe in a God. None of them have convinced me that those gods exist... What do you think?" * discussion *
If you pretend to know everything, eventually an intelligent child will learn to not trust anything you tell them. I want my children to think, and decide for themselves.
@@NeoDemocedes This sounds reasonable: basically agnostic and basically ambivalent to the child's own belief about the question. Sure.
What isn't reasonable is doing some nuanced epistemological tapdance with a small kid. Or speaking aggressively and condescendingly against theism then say you're ok with your kid making up his own mind just to hold on to your lacktheism. One is responsible for protecting a child from what one strongly thinks is a false belief.
@@MiguelArcangel12 Simple questions and a little philo 101 are the only tools necessary to see through the types of religious arguments a ten-year-old would be exposed to. It's actually a great age to start teaching them critical thinking skills. Like how the person making the claim assumes a burden of proof, and that no counter argument is required to reject bald assertions.
7:50 I'm out. I don't know what this guy is talking about.
Given how many stars there are in the universe, I’d say that it is fair to say that both propositions 1 and 2 are true. Stars will be born and die over the course of the sentence, meaning that, within the time span of making the claim, there will either be an odd number or an even number.
Before taking into consideration relativity.
But they can’t both be true at the same time.
@@nathanaelculver5308 Between when you start saying that sentence and when you finish it, I’d say they are.
so no matter what it is true and false at the same time.
@@CMVBrielman “Between” gives the game away. That there is a beginning, an end and a “between” indicates that the beginning and end differ by some finite amount of time. Hence they are not at the _same_ time.
@@nathanaelculver5308 But what really can be said to be the “same” time? You need a perfectly precise instant, which is impossible to quantify. I propose to you that there’s so many stars being born and dying all the time that, even if you were to measure time down to the plank scale, you’d still be unable to answer the question.
Or, put another way: define “now.”
Atheism is madness.
It's worse than that.
Atheism is destructive.
@@glof2553 yes, and in some cases genocidal.
@@mugsofmirth8101 yes
There is a sense in which that is true. Or perhaps 'tends toward madness,' which could explain it's being selected out for most of history ..
Positive use of click bait 👌🏿
The statements I dont believe in God and I lack a belief in God is the same statement. Just semantics game. I think the traditional definition of atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists. But because that is a positive claim they cannot prove. They put te onus on Christians who say God exists, Jesus rose. See atheists gloat all the time it is on you to prove God, not us. Its a debate strategy.
What if someone is not sure? Do you believe aliens exist? Perhaps you are unsure?
This has to be my least favourite tactic of atheist apologetics. The only reason anyone uses it is to cynically avoid having to defend any of their positive beliefs in a debate.
My second least favourite tactic is the insistence on referring to atheism as a lack of belief in "gods", as if there were no qualitative difference between the non-omnipotent gods of polytheism and the omnipotent God of monotheism (which is clearly the only one they actually care about disproving).
Imagine if everyone defined their beliefs in terms of a lack.
I lack a belief in everything that is not Catholicism. I merely lack belief.
To what are you referring when you state "The only reason anyone would claim to believe _it_ is to cynically avoid having to defend any of their positive beliefs in a debate". To what does "it" and "their" refer?
@@glof2553 👨🎓 it would be nice if high education works this way. I lack belief in any classes. If the professor of a course failed to convince me, then it should be the failure of that professor not me. For I'm in the default position. 🤣
@@theoskeptomai2535 it: the claim that atheism is a lack of belief
Their: the people holding this belief
This is pretty obvious Theo.
@@adamc1694 it's really quite an arrogant position to hold and a rhetorical tactic at best the more you think about it.
uuuuuuh not to cause a panic or anything, guys but •gulps• isnt our Church built on a rock?!
'rocks are atheist' is not dumb or boring, it is irrelevant and puerile - it does not rise to level of 'boring' or 'dumb'
It accurately describes the lacktheist/new atheist position though, absurd as it may be.
@Gaboon Viper cringe
It's consistent with both the old testament and the new testament.
The New Testament, for example, declares all who are not FOR a position, then they are in an entirely different group.
If, for example, you are not FOR Christ then you are in a different group, by fiat.
So if you do not BELIEVE in god (THEIST position) then you are in the other group (ATHEIST).
If a rock is not FOR Christ, then what's the scriptural consequent?
Mythicists are
Theism is the lack of belief in the proposition that G-d does not exist... this is my answer to the dunces who claim that atheism is the lack of belief in G-d
Pretty accurate. I'm curious however about 1 thing - it's meant to be an answer to those atheists? I'm asking because I fail to see your point there. Not that this theism words play is exhaustive, unless your point is to implicitly point out that agnosticism exists.
@@Mish844 Right, you did not get my point ...
@@deusimperator soooo I may expect you'll elaborate and not resort to narcisism and condescension, right?
@@Mish844apparently nope, lol
If atheism is a lack of belief then its just a preference claim like your favorite color. No argument to be had nor does such a claim lead to further knowledge.
Adherence to “lacktheism” raises a dilemma for many of its proponents. It really is just a “preference,” an expression of one’s psychological state, devoid of actual intellectual content. This becomes immediately apparent as soon as lacktheists attempt to wield the position in an intellectual debate, and so they often wind up tacking on a supporting claim such as “because there’s no evidence”. The dilemma is that making an assertion such as “there’s no evidence” requires an intellectual defense, which is what “lacktheism” was supposed to avoid by shifting the burden of proof onto the theist.
Hoist on their own petard.
[Note to atheists: I’m talking only about atheists who actually treat “I lack belief” as an intellectual position that relieves them of burden of proof.]
@euthyphro dilemma Its a little bit hypocritical to go onto a religious channel and cherry pick comments to try to argue with. Its no ones place to debunk someones beliefs my friend. Let the children believe in santa.
@euthyphro dilemma praytell, friend, how did you seek God?
"I went outside every day and look in the sky but I never see God :("
@@glof2553 When you went outside and look at the world did you think this is all due to the mindless-purposeless forces of nature created a world like this? Do you think your body and all its functions can be explained by the mindless-purposeless forces of nature? If so, then you have more faith than I do as a Christian.
@@Justas399 you must have me mixed up, I am a Christian.
While I was still confused by my religious childhood indoctrination, an Atheist once shared his personal feelings with me.
He said, "If I pretended to believe in a god, and the god was real, it would know that I was pretending, because the fact is, I just don't believe that a god exists."
That point of view resonated with me as being heartfelt and as honest "as could be."
I later chose to become a born-again Atheist, and wanted to be as honest with my self, as that man had been honest with me and with his self.
Once I was doubtful about the existence of a god, there wasn’t any way to entrap my thoughts where they once had been, as freedom from religion was my only alternative.
Now I believe as did Stephen Hawking before he died ... that the universe in one form or another always existed ... no creator or plan involved ... and that suffering of all forms of life always was ... and is ... natural.
Years ago I put together a document I call “How to Argue Like an Atheist”, in which I collect all of the really, really bad atheist arguments-flying pasta, unicorns, Bronze Age goat herders, “one less god”, “lack of belief” and more.
I still post it once in a while.
There’s really only a handful of atheist arguments, in my opinion, that are even worth responding to: the arguments from evil, from self-contradiction, from relativity, divine hiddenness, and appeals to parsimony and alternate explanations to God.
Mind sharing that google doc?
@@BabyDingo
*HOW TO ARGUE LIKE AN ATHEIST*
*Philosophy*
1. Insist all religion is illogical and/or stupid.
2. Insist that atheism is just a lack of belief. Be angry. Be loud. Use profanity.
3. Insist you're all about logic and rationality.
4. Remember, no matter what the theist says, there is no evidence; his arguments are all "faith".
5. You can’t prove a negative and no, you don’t need to prove that.
*Psychology*
* Insist religious belief is a mental disease/brainwashing.
*Theology*
1. Mention any two of the following: Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies, Zeus, invisible sky daddies, flying pasta.
2. Insist you just believe in "one less god".
*History*
1. Insist religion is responsible for most war/murder/icky stuff.
2. Bring up two or more of the following: the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Bronze Age goat herders
*Sociology*
Insist on the following:
1. Stalin was a seminarian who didn’t kill in the name of atheism.
2. communism is a religion
3. bad atheists don't invalidate atheism
4. bad Christians do invalidate religion
*Science*
Claim two or more of the following:
1. Science proves atheism
2. Evolution invalidates Genesis
3. Religious people can't understand science
*Authority*
Claim you are a well-educated former Christian, or at least that you know more about the Bible/religion than most Christians. Remind everyone (as often as possible) how smart you are, that you once took a philosophy class in college, and that you're all about "logic and science".
*Helpful Tips*
* Remember to liberally salt all your arguments with ad hominems, pejoratives and other insults. Crude and rude is the way to go!
* When discussing the Bible, insist on absolute literal interpretations of everything - talking snakes, and so forth; but
* if the Christian is doing it, call him a fundie loon.
* Whenever possible, insist faith means "believing without evidence".
* If the Christian denies any of your claims, or insists on evidence, don't get bogged down in specifics; just insist he’s being intellectually dishonest, then repeat your claims louder.
* The only good atheist is an agnostic atheist.
* Remember - there's NO evidence at all for "God", no matter what anyone says.
* And whatever else happens, just insist you’re not convinced.
*And the Number One Rule of Atheist Argument*
Always, always, always! insist the theist has made the first claim, then spend the rest of the discussion whinging about *Burden of Proof.*
And in case any readers are atheists who are feeling triggered by the above list, the point is to call out the worst atheist arguments, not to impugn all atheists. If you recognize how bad these arguments are, the list doesn’t apply to you. If you think these are _good_ arguments, you’re probably precisely the low-hanging atheist fruit the list is aimed at.
@euthyphro dilemma "I can't speak for all atheist but generally the lack of belief or disbelief is because there is not any or sufficient evidence for the proposition to warrant a belief ."
Lack of evidence=/=Evidence of abscent.
@euthyphro dilemma *”let me commend you for all the strawmen and generalizations”*
Generalizations I’ll admit to; that’s the entire purpose of the list. Whom have I straw manned?
*”You forgot to add " God drowned babies”*
Nope, it’s there in the History section.
I love how Trent will not pronounce Aron like Aron wants it to be pronounced 😆😂
Huh?
Karen Rah
@@glof2553 LOL I'm totally going to start using this! 👍😂 Thanks 😇
Very relevant.
They turn into rocks when it comes to defending their worldview in paradigm-level debates (where nobody can possibly evade any burden to defend their worldview).
Here is my position as an agnostic atheist in a nutshell: I withhold belief of the existence of god until good and compelling reasons are presented backed up by empirically verifiable data in the same way I withhold believing the existence of anything else that is remotely superstitious such as the concept of chi energy emanating from your body. Philosophical arguments are out of the question, when you claim someone made the universe you need to back it up with scientific evidence.
Are you saying that unless you can scientifically prove something it is not true?
No, what I am saying is that when you're making a statement about the nature of existence (the claim that a god exists and created it all) then it has to be demonstrated to be the case since its an empirical claim.
@@karlazeen
So you cannot use philosophical methods when in the realm of considering the nature of existence?
Isn’t that the same thing?
I do see your point of making a distinction in fields - natural philosophy (science) for scientific questions and philosophy for philosophical questions, though.
I’m not sure the genre limitation to natural philosophy would apply to the existence of a god - especially a god (like one of the abrahamic ones) that is not confined to nature. I would not expect to reliably use a study of natural process (science) to describe the supernatural just as I would not use a beaker to measure the brightness of a light.
The genre limitation would apply to the act of such a god upon nature (like creating it), but the application of it would be like a historical or forensic science - which involves natural science, but is not quite the same thing as plain natural science, and it involves a bit of philosophy as well.
I also have a concern of my own when it comes to believing in the supernatural through pure emotion, intuition and faith alone instead of empiricism and science. How do I know for sure that if I convince myself god exists and open my heart to him that it isn't just placebo effect and parodolia?
What I'm trying to say is that philosophical methods only really work as valid explanations up to a point and when they are applied to the reality we see around us, using pure rationalism to explain the world would just be fun thought experiments and nothing more unless it can be tested. For example a timeless, spaceless, triomni entity that can't be verified empirically would be a fun thought experiment and certainly an idea to leave in the back burner for now but so far hasn't been shown to exist in or outside reality as we know it. When if comes to belief in things that can be shown to exist such as cells, trees, thinking entities and molecules I choose science and direct observation and experience over philosophy and pure internal thinking. I hope you understand where I'm coming from since I try to be as scientifically minded as I can and nothing in it seems to point to a being like god, at least from my perspective I know there are scientifically minded people who do believe in god (like yourself I hope) however these are obviously subjective perspectives so neither of us really know then.
Ooh Velveeta, fancy. In my day we settled for good ol' cheese wiz!
Absolutely they are, because they evolved from rocks
Quite literally. (Eventhough the sience says its impossible)
Show me just one atheist that claims we evolved from rocks, I formally challenge you to do so,
then work out WHO LIED TO YOU
Anakin Skywalker Show me just one atheist that claims we evolved from rocks, I formally challenge you to do so,
then work out WHO LIED TO YOU
@@Dennistube001 literally every single one. A rock stands for non organic matter. Organic matter only comes from living beings. To get a living being you need another living being to give you the life and that goes back all the way to the efficent cause that created the universe that always existe which is a living cause since if it wasn't there wouldn't be life in the universe that was created. Darwinists claim that life starts from non living matter so technically it can star from a freking rock
Anakin Skywalker organic matter is made from the merging of elements in puddles, these elements combine to make RNA which can self replicate, evolving in to DNA the building blocks of protein which is the building blocks of life. Scientists can create RNA in a lab by recreating the ancient conditions on earth, rock is only a tiny amount of known and unknown elements. Once again state one atheist that claims we evolved from rocks
Their the most difficult people to write to. Every time one writes to me, it's always "I don't understand what do you mean" and it's the most simplest things ever, but because I missed one or 2 exclamation marks they go all crazy saying they don't understand 🤦♀️. Not sure if they act stupid cause they can't answer the questions or really are? Yes, sometimes my grammar is horrible, but I'll ask my friends or people I've met on the internet and they'll easily understand me. The Christians are supposed to be dumb but can easily read a sentence even if the grammar is messed up the can put 2 and 2 together non believers can't the go crazy maybe that's why they don't understand bible well they all know the same verses so the rest of the Bible is foreign to them they flip out
II philosophy, one can define a word however one wishes, and all that matters is that one is clear. However, this can be a subterfuge of sorts if the definition is at odds with ordinary usage. I would submit that, in ordinary language, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are distinguished primarily by what speech-act theorists might call their "performative force." When someone calls themselves "agnostic," what the theist hears is: "I am an atheist, but I don't dismiss or discount theism as a legitimate/ reasonable/ rational alternative to my position." When someone calls themselves "atheist," by contrast, what the theist hears is: "I am someone who believes theists are -- at least qua theists -- mentally, emotionally, and/or morally deficient." I think this difference in performative force has mostly to do with "atheism" historically being appropriated as a "fighting word," both by militant atheists and by religious authorities seeking to marginalize skeptical types. Obviously, in religiously dominated cultures, atheists have a prudential interest in using the "softer" term. (For example, Bart Ehrman was quite prudent in calling himself an "agnostic" given his employment at a public institution in the Bible Belt.)
in philosophy, words have set meanings to avoid situations like these. That you can then describe the fact that people are disingenuous in their use is a different issue.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj atheists have a severe case of nominalism lol
@@glof2553 Are you and Qwerty a band of two brothers?
@@abramwarpness6053 never met him. We might be part of the same Church, though. Since the Catholic Church has a few billion members, many universities, an intellectually and robust philosophical tradition that spans several millennia and all.
Fact is, many/most atheists are not really worth taking seriously, and I have taken them seriously before and gotten nowhere. Qwerty here has apparently drawn a similar conclusion.
@@glof2553 I use the late Rene Girards works to help illustrate how the Bible and Christianity are unique apart from other cultures.
Trent, can you recommend some of your favorite books?
Mi biiiiible and only books that support it, NEVER anything else
@@Dennistube001 yawn
@@glof2553 "yawn"
read a differnt book if your bored of it
Here is a reading list:
- Trent Horn (books "Answering atheism" and "Made this way: How to Prepare Kids to Face Today's Tough Moral Issues" and "Why we are catholic"),
- Dan Kimball (book "How (not) to read the bible")
- Paul Copan (book "Is god a moral monster")
- Ray Comfort (book "Faith is for Weak People: Responding to the Top 20 Objections to the Gospel")
- J. Warner Wallace (book "Cold-case christianity: Homicide detective investigates claims of the gospel")
- C.S. Lewis (book "mere christianity")
- William Lane Craig (book "On guard")
- Frank Turek (book "I don´t have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Stealing from god")
- Scott Hahn (book "Rome sweet home")
@@hhstark8663 sir, why have you only quoted books that support your beliefs, i add 1 of thousands to your list, eg the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, (audiobook FREE on youtube)
If atheists do not believe in God, why do they keep talking about God?
God seems to be living rent free in their heads 😂
If 70% of your friends and neighbors believed in Leprechauns and wanted to get into politics and force the teaching of and prayer to leprechauns in public schools and went around handing you flyers about them, and trying to get your children to believe in them, and were giving people bad medical advice based on their leprechaun belief you might take a vested interest showing the silliness of that belief too…
@@Tinesthia lmao literally nobody does this. "Christians r mean to us :("
Because they are perfectly programed slaves for Satan.
@@glof2553
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the general goings on in the United States, but examples of Theists pushing their views on others, trying to affect politics and public education, and preference toward their religion in schools and government, wanting a Theocracy, giving medical misinformation and home remedies that stop people from getting actual help, are all over the place.
It’s not just Christians being mean… It’s Christians actively trying to circumvent the protections and rights of and causing harm to myself and my fellow Humans, based on their bad ideas derived from a fantastical book.
Even if all Theists were perfectly behaved and didn’t do these things, it could still be good to discuss ideas, especially ones we don’t currently accept, to see if they are sound enough for us to accept them.
I can confirm that it is indeed raining in Portland 😆
Hi Trent, "atheist" here and ready to dialogue (as requested at 20:14 ). I put atheist inside of quotations because I'm not sure what label you'd actually prefer me to use. I'll tell you about my psychological state: I am not convinced that God exists, and I strongly suspect that the Catholic God doesn't exist, though I cannot claim to have any knock-down proof, any syllogisms, or anything like that which would "prove" that no Gods exist. In fact, although I do not accept the soundness of WLC's Kalam P2, I can totally see why people do, and hence why they are theists.
When people ask me my beliefs, I'll often call myself an "atheist". This seems to work well enough for people who aren't into apologetics or philosophy. When people ask deeper questions, I'll explain that I am a person who isn't convinced by theistic arguments. If a person tells me "Well technically you're an agnostic then", then my response is "Sure, call me whatever you feel comfortable with". I'm not interested in labels, I'm interested in ideas.
I do want to add that people have been using the word atheist to mean "lacktheist" since as early as the 1700s, when Baron d'Holbach defined it as such in his work "Good Sense Without God". So, defining the word as such isn't some some invention of Matt Dillahunty or something like that. It has historical precedent, even if that precedent never caught in in the philosophical circles. Again, I don't actually care about definitions.
Trent - what would you call me?
do you realize you just formally stated you have no justification for saying God doesn't exist? What assertion besides your own mental states can you defend here?
Bump for discussion! that and/or let's see if trent will allow a go fund me to fight aids in africa and if we reach a goal he has to conversate with pinecreek.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
"I am not convinced. My unconving-ness is my justification. I am the arbiter of truth." haha, I am just messing around.
Seriously, I have no idea what he actually would answer.
@@creatinechris
why humor people who discuss in bad faith?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don’t think you have any grounds to claim the psychology of someone so your assumption that pinecreeks communicates in bad faith is false. He’s very transparent where he stands and what he does or doesn’t find reasonable AND more importantly what markers would change his mind that has precedent in the Bible.
Rocks are Atheists? Luke 19:40 would imply thats not the case
Ultimately, this whole definition debate is useless. If a person tells you that they are an atheist, and by that they mean they don't believe in a god, not that they think that one doesn't exist, just let it be at that and move on. Words have the meaning that they are used for. These meanings change with common usage. It amazes me that apologists waste time on this issue
You don't understand what the conversation is for. What you call yourself is irrelevant, the point is whether you can rationally justify it. It turns out atheists are rather poor at doing that.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj To what are you referring by "it"?
@@theoskeptomai2535
you wouldn't get it. Read a book.
@@theoskeptomai2535 "the point is whether you can rationally justify *what you call yourself*"
You keep asking for "it" like it (it being the question you're asking in this context) is supposed to be a profound question. Re-read the sentence if you struggle to find out what "it" is.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj does it matter if they are "rationally using it?" When a person says what they are, accept it and move on in conversation. It doesn't help anything besudes being intellectually arrogant to say "Nuh uh, you can't be an atheist because you're not using it right."
Yeah, there are as a matter of fact I found many of them who just say that whatever i say was irrelevant.
I don't think someone who claims to be an agnostic aethist means to say that they don't have ANY justification for their lack of belief, but rather that they don't have sufficient justification to be certain of it. It just goes back to the point you made earlier about being able to "know" with varying degrees of certainty. I don't see a problem with people claiming that they don't know if God exists, haven't concluded that He does (and therefore don't believe He does), but aren't totally sure. I'm not sure what the point of the video was exactly, maybe I misunderstood something.
I also believe that theists do have the burden of proof. That's why God gave the Church its mission to evangelize. All the Apostle's preaching and teaching (as well as Jesus') were accompanied by signs and wonders. Since we're claiming that something that cannot be seen exists, it should be on us to explain why. If I held up an invisible ball in my hand (representing God), and I told someone else I found this invisible ball, I wouldn't ask them to tell my why the ball doesn't exist. No, I would tell them why it does.
That person is (most likely) an *irreligous* agnostic. That person is an agnostic who is NOT religous.
"Agnostic atheist" means that a person claims that the epistemic probability is >50% in favor of atheism.
This I assume is NOT what the person in question si referring to.
"Agnostic-atheist" is an contradiction in terms. Nobody who refers to themselves as such should be taken seriously.
*”I also believe that theists do have the burden of proof.”*
Theists have _a_ burden of proof if they are making an epistemic claim, because _all_ epistemic claims carry a burden of proof. But I disagree that theists have the sole burden of proof.
@@nathanaelculver5308 atheists think that just because they're atheists, that precludes them from EVER having the burden of proof, regardless if they make a claim or not.
They can make all sorts of wild and positivistic epistemic claims about what constitutes truth, knowledge and belief, that they apparently don't need to justify, solely because they're atheists.
It's so juvenile, the way they demand the world spoon feed them epistemic justification, when they won't offer any when they make a claim.
@@glof2553 It’s an attempt to paint a veneer of rationality on a fundamentally irrational position. "Lack of belief", "burden of proof", "proof is always on the positive", "Can’t prove a negative" - it all has one purpose: to avoid any burden of proof.
Trent, What is the best book on the proof of God?
Summa theologica. In my opinion
Thank you Trent, so sensible and coherent
The rock in the thumbnail is sooo cute
Trent, I would contest your distinction knowledge vs. belief. Knowledge is ultimately ALWAYS some kind of belief. Even 2+2=4 requires faith in your reason. That would be the lowest kind of belief. A tiny little more faith is required for experiential knowledge, faith that your senses are conveying faithful information about the reality outside your mind. Indeed, the whole edifice of human knowledge is based on a couple of epistemological or metaphysical axioms that cannot be proven, that must be believed as a first step towards the acquisition of any knowledge. From then on, it's all a process of evaluation of the reliability of authoritative sources of knowledge. Ultimately, the source of all knowledge has to be the same as the source of all reality (but that's a conclusion after a long rational process).
*"Knowledge is ultimately ALWAYS some kind of belief."*
Maybe I misunderstood Trent, but I thought that’s what he said: knowledge is _justified, true_ belief.
@@nathanaelculver5308 No, I think you understood him right. Trent is just too smart, and sometimes a thought crosses my mind and, when I come back, he's already several miles ahead.
Anyway, I think part of my point is still valid and worth pointing out to atheists. I "secretly" believe the the atheistic position is ultimately irrational, because it severs itself from the source of reason. They may not realize it, but the moment they claim to know (just simply "know", regardless degrees of certainty) they are already implicitly believing in a source of that knowledge. And it wouldn't take too long to demonstrate that that source cannot be themselves. Only someone ready to claim to be their own creator (and hence, the manufacturer of their tools of knowledge) can be a true atheist. In this way (and I think I read this somewhere...), only God can be truly atheist. Hence, if you want to honestly and thoroughly be an atheist, you must be ready to become God.
@@xaviervelascosuarez *"I think part of my point I still valid."*
Yes, I agree with the rest of your post.
My vacuum cleaner is also an atheist
I'll bite. And will probably regret this. How is a vacuum cleaner "an atheist"?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Since it lacks a belief.
@@hhstark8663 That is not the position of atheism. The position does not express the lack of _belief_ but rather the lack of _sufficient credible evidence_ to warrant any acknowledgement of the truth of this claim.
@@theoskeptomai2535 it lacks a belief in God just like a rock, geez theo come on, I thought you would understand that.
@@ceceroxy2227 Did you actually _read_ my comment directly proceeding yours? Yes or no.
We used to have a name for them. That was "Village Atheists"
The modern equivalent would be "internet atheists"
@@mugsofmirth8101 or middle school atheists? Not sure if that's a fit in american culture.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Reddit atheist
Mr. Horn, there's more to say if tell us that knowledge is justified, true belief since Prof, Edmund Gettier discovered counterexamples to that definition. For example, suppose that it's 11:00 and my watch's hands tell me it's 1100. Then my belief is true and my watch justifies it. But I don't know that my watch stopped at 11:00 o'clock last night. So my stopped watch hasn't turned my true belief into knowledge. You need more than a true belief to have knowledge. You need something to warrant that belief, to turn it into a piece of knowledge.
Suppose I don't understand the French language when my friend Isabelle, a real French woman who attends Holy Mass at our SSPX chapel. Although she doesn't translate the sentence into English, she tells me how to say the French sentence that means that two is an even number. But since I don't understand her first language, and since I don't know she taught me how to say a declarative sentence in that language, I'll seem to state a true proposition when I speak that sentence to Isabelle's best friend who also speaks French and understands it. Still, I haven't asserted anything to Isabelle's other friend. After all, I had no idea what the French sentence means.
Something like that happens when a cruel practical joker wants to humiliate me in Bejing, China where I'm a tourist. The practical joker teaches me how to say the sentence I'd say to call a Chinese woman the most insulting, most hateful name in her language. I think I told her that she was the most gorgeous woman in the world. But I haven't told her anything. Instead, I only said the words without asserting what the sentence means.
Talking birds don't make any claims when they repeat words they hear. They merely mimic what they heard. That's why it would be absurd for me to feel hurt if an African Gray Parrot seemed to tell me that I was an offensive cripple. I have cerebral palsy. But I don't know whether I'm offensive.
Atheism can only be as true as its own understanding of God that it rejects, a person's rejection of an objective understanding can only be true if the person truly knows what he/she is rejecting. Most, if not all, "atheists" do not get the general idea of God as the Church understands God.
Why? Like if you say that you believe that that a deity exists, and you provide no convincing evidence, then why would I need a deeper understanding of your claims to state that I don't believe you?
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763
defending the proposition "God exists", doesn't mean "convince me that God exists". You can _believe_ whatever you want regardless of whether an argument is sound or not.
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 You demand evidence that is not the nature of God, like show me a coin in your pocket; well God is not an object of science, otherwise he is not God (although many of his actions can be observed objectively if you want to be open and honest). You can read those books Trent's recommending here to understand God.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj _"You can believe whatever you want regardless of whether an argument is sound or not."_
If your argument is sound then I will believe you. What I care about is the truth. If the truth would be that deities exist, I'd like to know that. But I couldn't believe that based on blind faith.
@@JohnR.T.B. _"You demand evidence that is not the nature of God"_
So God wants me to believe. And if I don't believe he will torture me. But he also hides from me, refusing to provide any convincing evidence.
How does that make sense?
That reminds me on an analogy:
Imagine I'd hand you a metal detector, and tell you "here on this part of the beach I've hidden a coin. You have time until the sun sets. If you find it, I will reward you with untold riches. If you fail, I will set you on fire and burn you alive". And you search and search, and when the sun sets you have found nothing. And then I tell you "the coin was made of plastic", and I set you on fire and watch you die.
This is like a deity, that gives us a body that allows us to detect many many things, EXCEPT for that deity. And when we don't find the one thing we can't detect, which is that deity, that deity will torture us.
Also, I might have missed your answer to my question. Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept and blindly believe any claim about anything unless we have studied it in great detail?
That thumbnail 🤣
I think deism or pantheism better explains the world. It explains the apparent fine tuning and mathematical order, but also explains evil and suffering because either God is not interfering or god is everything both good and evil. Ying and Yang are balanced.
Deism we can debate.
Pantheism does NOT since they posit that the universe is eternal and that god is _internal_ of time and space, which is NOT supported by the empirical findings of the 20th century.
Deism is only tenable if you can defend existential inertia.
deism can't pass the scrutiny of the PSR
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Wasn´t the only reason, deism came into existence, so the French revolution could keep god without the religion?
@@hhstark8663 that's not a good reason why it's wrong tho. I think a decent argument can be made for it from the evidence we have of the world.
babies don't understand mathematics
It is relatively simple to define atheism in an understandable way, and I have never understood the difficulty with it.
My atheism is the same position that you have on the existence of dragons. They probably do not exist because there is little evidence to suggest that they do.
That is perfectly understandable to me. Keep commenting. We all need to hear rational voices such as yours. Peace.
Why definition is important. I do believe dragons exist. The komodo dragon which resides in Indonesia is a real dragon. ;-)
The same low brow, know nothing definition that doesn't address the issue but only aims to be passive aggressive.
@@neilsiddons-smith1574 No. Komodo dragons are not actual dragons. They are lizards. _That_ is why definitions are important.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj In what manner is Leo Behe's analogue a "low brow, no nothing definition"? Did you not understand his clearly articulated point?
I do not find labels useful because people focus on them instead of the discussion. So I will describe myself and you can feel free to label me:)
Do I make the statement that "there is no God". No, there could be? I just currently do not believe in The God of the bible, because I find the evidence that has been shared with me either lacking or contradictory. I have also looked at over 40 different philosophical arguments for God and none are compelling enough. I also have no desire to change anyone’s mind about how they believe. I am on a journey to find what is true and had hoped that God was real because the alternative is sad. So far, I have been disappointed.
Ah yes... you just need to get to point to where you understand that creation demands a Creator. You need to get to the point to when you think about DNA, you think to yourself, "ah yes, of course that needs a Creator." Once you get to this point, the rest is pretty simple. Jesus. Go the humble route.
Here's a quick paraphrase of this philosophical gobbledygook: "My problem with those who lack belief in E-T aliens in UFOs is that it's just not very interesting. So I demand you take a side!" Whoa! Who died and made you the arbiter? The question is: is this position _rational?_ Yes? Then same with gods. Again, you're right that atheism is NOT just a lack of belief i.e. nonbelief. It's mostly nonbelief but some atheists are disbelievers (who can easily justify their belief that no gods exist) and a rare few atheists are deniers who may not be able to prove their claim that no gods exist (like ghost deniers can't prove _their_ claim) but can't be criticized by Xians because Xians make many more unprovable claims.
You have no idea why he said that, do you? "Philosophical gobbledygook" tell me you don't understand philosophy without telling me you don't understand philosophy.
Atheism as a "lack of belief" says nothing about the world. It talks of your mental state. That's it. That's why it's boring. I don't care about your mental state.
Atheism as "there is no God" actually says something about the world. Plus it is how atheism is defined academically and has been defined historically, AND it's inherent in the actual etymology of the word.
"Lack of belief" atheism is a cowardly tactical move for people who would not dare be caught dead having to defend something. Plus it's an outright falsehood. If you lack a belief, what are you doing here?
I lack a belief on what the greatest water softener is in the world. I am not a water softener installer, manufacturer, or salesman. I know next to nothing about them. I am also not involved in those conversations. That's an actual "lack of belief."
What's NOT a "lack of belief" is calling yourself "Max Doubt" (a name totally uninspired by atheism, I'm sure), having an atheist symbol AVI and showing up repeatedly on videos about atheist to defend vehemently the integrity of atheism, this supposed "lack of belief". There's nothing that is a "lack of belief" about that.
Atheism should be reserved for the deniers like it's always been. Not these "lack of belief" simps.
@@glof2553 Haha! What a faux-losopher you are! To look your foolishness in the face, tell me your position on the existence of other hypothetical beings e.g. Martian microbes. Do they exist? Most people lack belief. Tell me why this neutral position is irrational or admit your error. Also, you are making the same blunder as most apologists and many atheists: trying to define atheism as one thing. It's not. But neither is it totally chaotic. It's mostly nonbelief/neutrality and to a lesser extent disbelief and very rarely denial. You don't appreciate disbelief: the _positive belief_ that gods don't exist. What you are too obtuse to grasp is that _beliefs don't require proof!_ Only knowledge claims do. All beliefs require is some rational justification. I _believe_ that I won't die today; that no human ever ran 100 MPH; that neither the Jets nor the Browns will win the 2023 Superbowl; that if I draw 4 aces in a poker hand, I will win. Sure, I can't prove any of these beliefs and you can blah, blah about how these beliefs merely reflect my "mental state" but that's not the question. Are they rational? I can show they are. Same with gods. How many gods have arisen in the past and now reside in the graveyard of gods? Hundreds. And all inveterate hiders, just like today's gods! Is that just a coincidence? Did they all make a mutual concealment pact? I doubt it. And how many physical phenomena have been attributed to gods only to be found to have better, natural explanations? Scores e.g. the Earth, sun, moon, planets and stars; volcanoes; the sky; the rain; the wind; the day/night cycle; plants and animals; earthquakes; oceans and rivers; mountains; eclipses; the aurora; the seasons; comets; glowing seas; fire; multiple births and plagues, to name a few. Never has a workable natural explanation ceded to a supernatural one. This justifies the further belief that whatever caused the Big Bang and Biogenesis, gods had nothing to do with it. Plus, no "holy" book shows any knowledge advanced beyond the socio-historical milieu of the authors and all contain mistakes, contradictions and primitive cosmogonies. I admit: none of this rises to the level of proof but face it: the firm belief that no gods exist _can be justified!_ But none of this deep-diving into the philosophy class you skipped is necessary. How many gods do you claim exist? One only? Then ipso facto you are claiming that other gods do _not_ exist. That's a claim that calls for proof! So you prove that other gods besides yours don't exist and I'll use your method to prove _your_ god doesn't exist. GL with that, chump.
@@glof2553 I never said I was a nonbeliever; that I lack belief in gods. I'm a disbeliever and I justified it! I'm just sticking up for the nonbeliever position. It IS rational.
@@maxdoubt5219 I've explained this elsewhere. Atheists generally treat God as if God is a "mythical creature"/guy with a beard who lives in the woods and pulls strings. You're speaking of God as if God existed univocally, like a paperclip or unicorn or something. It's not how God is understood in a classical sense. If you want me to prove a sky man to you, you'd be sorely disappointed.
Beliefs require justification, which can encompass proof or not. And here we go again on the belief/knowledge quadrant. Yawn. As if knowledge is not a type of belief itself. So boring. Let me guess: "agnostic theist" is a term with meaning to you.
Also the "what's God's name" argument is old hat. That's all you guys really have. "Oh yeah? You believe in God but not Zeus? Or Thor? Heh, what's God's name?"
Gods in a pagan sense are really not comparable to God in an Abrahamic sense- the two share a name in that they're analogous only. God in an Abrahamic sense is "metaphysical foundation of existence itself." God in a pagan sense is essentially a "superhuman." Zeus came into existence (i.e has potentiality) when he was born of Kronos. Zeus is not pure act, esse ipsum subsistens, existence as such. Zeus is composite, mutable, corporeal, ephemeral, not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. Zeus is not the foundation of existence as such. Zeus is, in essence, a superhuman.
I, as a theist, do not believe in gods, but I do believe in God. This hopefully offers some distinction and why the "once god more, one god less, what's god's name and which god" arguments don't work or make sense. They fundamentally misunderstand what the Christian, Muslim, Jew, or general classical theist means by God. "Which god" is like asking "which foundation of existence itself?"
@@maxdoubt5219 yeah you haven't really offered justification. Mainly rhetoric. Which is par for the course for your ilk.
Well the Atheists that
I talk to say there is no reason to believe on God due to the immense suffering in the world, prayers are not answered, or if some say they are it is coincidence, nobody has seen God, cannot prove resurrection actually happened, the list goes on.
If theists get to tell atheists what they mean when they label themselves as an atheist. Then atheists get to tell theists what they mean when they label themselves as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. This way we can deal exclusively in strawmanning and avoid any substantive discussions.
What a load of nonsense, if we instead are forced to accept against reason and reality that a person is one thing only because he says so we would end up with ridiculous scenarios like saying a man can actually be a woman if he pretends har enough and.... Nevermind.
@Excuse me but
It's a spurious, invented typology only for the sake of being self serving.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj It sounds like you think you know what people believe even when they tell you differently.
@euthyphro dilemma
Tell me more about what constitutes objective reality pls.
@euthyphro dilemma
ah, the irony of some room temperature IQ euphoric fedora tipper attempting to condescend to me about theories of truth....
You're into correspondence theory now? but you also get to define what the objective category of atheism or woman means for yourself, is that also true?
Me: As a Christian, I lack a lack of belief.
Atheist: That´s not fair!
Me: Why can´t I nest negative clauses, as many as I like? 1-1 = 1-1+1-1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1 = ....
I don't define atheism as a lack of belief for it is the lack of evidence that substantiates the position.
Rather I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.
Now, do you think I am rationally justified in my position?
lacking a lack of belief? Do you know how language works or do you need a tutor? Not to mention that even if said "lack" worked according to your wish, it would still be a words play - hardly a way to confront criticism.
@@Mish844 I explained my position clearly. If you are having trouble comprehending my explanation, invest in a dictionary and thesaurus.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes, I understood it just fine. It's just your application of "lack" would indicate that it's not me who could use a dictionary, or better yet - full english mentoring program
@@Mish844 I wasn't the one employing the term "lack of belief".
Atheism is a position which exposes a lack of _evidence_ substantiating a claim, not a lack of _belief._
Have a good evening.
What we have here is carping from the cheap seats. But the point stands. Aron was wrong. The stupid Xian apologetic goes like this: you can't define atheism as a lack of belief in gods because that would make rocks, since they lack belief in gods, atheists. Nope. The definition of atheist always begins with: "A person who..." or "Someone who..." That precludes the inanimate. To appreciate the inanity of this apologetic we need just extend it further. Teetotalism is the lack of alcohol consumption. So rocks are teetotalers! Vegetarianism is the lack of meat consumption. So rocks are vegetarians! Rocks lack the ability to see colors. So it makes sense to call them colorblind! Sorry, that don't fly. And remember: you can rebuke and denounce Xianity all day long and still be a nonbeliever in gods just as you can rip the claim that Klingons exist but still be a neutral nonbeliever about intelligent E-Ts.
Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
A person who holds atheism to be true is an atheist, this discussion was about atheism itself not the persons. Atheistic people often claim that babies are atheists, this is just the consequence of your arguments.
_Atheism is a lack of belief in gods,
All things that lack belief also lack belief in gods.
Rocks lack belief,
therefore, rocks are atheistic._
Sure, you wouldn't call rocks atheists, but they do lack belief in God. Whatever, I don't care, I'm just arguing because it's fun. This is all just pedantry.
Moral of the story: don't claim to hold views you don't hold, don't claim a want when you hold a refusal.
I’m agnostic in that I don’t know if there is a god. I’m pretty much atheist over God in general, but I’m proper atheist re Christian God
Here's to all atheists in these comments who think they're so smart and big:
The Wisdom of Solomon is a Historical book considered Canon by the Orthodox and Catholic churches, written in 50BC, and it contains a series of passages which perfectly prophesy Jesus' life, to the point where it is spine chilling.
12 Let’s lie in ambush for the one who does what is right. He’s a nuisance to us. He always opposes our actions. He blames us because we have failed to keep the Law. He condemns us for turning our backs on our upbringing. 13 He boasts of his knowledge of God. He even calls himself the Lord’s servant.[a] 14 He exposes our secret plans. Just to look at him makes us sick. 15 His life isn’t like the lives of others. His ways are completely different. 16 He thinks we’re frauds. He avoids us and our actions as though we’re unclean. Instead, he blesses the final days of those who do what’s right. He even boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s put him to the extreme test and see what happens. 18 If this man who does the right thing is indeed God’s son, then God will assist him. God will rescue him from the hand of those who oppress him. 19 Let’s test him by assaulting and torturing him. Then we will know just how good he really is. Let’s test his ability to endure pain. 20 Let’s condemn him to a disgraceful death: according to him, God should show up to protect him.
21 This was how the ungodly reasoned, but they were mistaken. Their malice completely blinded them. 22 They didn’t know of God’s secret plan. They didn’t hope for the reward that holiness brings. They didn’t consider the prize they would win if they kept their whole beings free from stain. 23 God created humans to live forever. He made them as a perfect representation of his own unique identity. 24 Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy. Those who belong to the devil’s party experience death.[b]
To deny this historical document would be to deny a lot of other history, and frankly look like a conspiracy theorist who simply doesn't want Christianity to be true.
Another piece of evidence is what Flavius Josephus, a Jewish Historian, wrote about Jesus some years after his death, and bare in mind he wasn't even a Christian:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
This should be sufficient for you to look into it. If not, you're literally just choosing not to believe. That is on you.
Prove god exists
Santa exists in all of our hearts
Obligatory “Seeing isn’t believing, believing is seeing.”
“You just gotta have faith.”
His fist existed in front of Arius' face
Agnostic are convinced that we can’t have knowledge, about the propositions god exist and god does not exist.
Atheist only needs to not be convinced that god exists. They don’t need to be convinced that doesn’t exist.
At around 7:30 ish. If you're agnostic about the stars in the universe is that not an knowledge claim rather than a belief.
Knowledge is belief
"I lack belief in a god or gods." is nothing but a sentiment and not a rational thought.
Sentiments are by definition irrational.
Hence "atheism" is irrational.
Great use of the _Non Sequitur_ fallacy!!👍
That is why my definition of atheism is better suited that "lack of belief".
I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced.
Now, how is such a position "irrational"?
@@theoskeptomai2535 you don't get fallacies my dude. OP was deductive.
Atheism is a sentiment.
Sentiments are irrational.
So atheism is irrational.
I define atheism as "the practice of self-fellatio". Ergo, since you are an atheist, that's what you do.
@@glof2553
sen·ti·ment
/ˈsen(t)əmənt/
noun
1. a view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an opinion.
There's the definition.
Sentiments are NOT irrational "by definition".
A sentiment can be either rational or irrational.
The OP is a syllogism. It is not valid as one of the two premises has just been shown to be erroneous.
Person A - "Bigfoot exists"
Person B - "I can't believe your claim until you provide compelling evidence to support it".
Both person A and person B have expressed a sentiment.
Is either one of them irrational?
Are both of them?
Lastly, "A/My god exists" is a sentiment. Oops.
OK so Is it irrational lack belife in unicorns and goblins? Clearly people lack belife for a reason and it is that reason that defines whether a statement is rational or not. The statement itself is not the position, saying " I don't belive in god" is not atheism itself.
You can only lack something if you had the capability to have it.
Yes, because they're not prudent enough to realise that belonging to a religion is the safest afterlife route. Having none means that they don't feel pressured to be righteous.
It's like saying that you have all of the answers in a book, yet saying that you don't have to revise/study because 'you know all of the answers anyway' because you think that you're intelligent enough. But to sit in an exam room, realising it's too late to revise as you don't know any of the questions answers, is foolish behaviour - and that's what exactly is going to happen at the end of their lives (I've met God).
In life, we all get repeated messages across in many different ways. Bouncing a wall against a wall for instance; the amount of pressure you put in, the amount you get out. Yet I heard my abusive ex finally confessed everything 3 years too late - far gone to fix even everything. The reason being is that their karma had finally hit them.
Atheism as a lack of belief is used as a Motte and Bailey. They will criticize the existence of God, and when challenged to support their position they will retreat to the defense of they're not making a claim and so have no burden of proof. I have no respect for such intellectually dishonest discourse.
you are still obviously trying to shift the burden of proof, the word burden gives a hint, you cant just shrug it off, its a burden
"when challenged to support their position they will retreat to the defense of they're not making a claim and so have no burden of proof"
an athist dosent assert a claim, an anti-theist believes there is no god, (holds a burden of proof) a gnostic atheist Knows theres no god
theism is about belief gnosticism is about knowledge
a- = without or not
theism is a belief, in a god or gods
a-theism = without belief in god or no belief if a god
anti- = against or opposite to something
anti-theism = against a god belief or the opposite belief, eg a belief that there is no god
im an atheist but just for you i will temporarily hold the anti-theists burden of proof
Does it matter? You’re the one who believes something exists… prove it. I can make a claim like “Bigfoot DOESNT exist.” I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist. Those who believe in bigfoot must prove he does
As an atheist, i can confirm that we are indeed 99% rocks.
Atheists are stupid and cannot defend their beliefs like men.
I don't believe any of the gods I've heard about exist.
Does a god or gods actually exist? I have no idea (but then, on that line of reasoning, I have no idea if Russell's Teapot exists either).
I don't care what label you use to describe that position.
I use the label "atheist" to describe that position.
I am not "dumb as rocks".
_That is all._
@Quack Epistemologist Either you didn't read the comment or your comprehension is lacking. I absolutely addressed whether I believe a god exists or not.
By the way, you do understand that when considering one's position on a binary subject, there are _three_ possible positions, right?
Thank you Trent. My guessing is; they may be are using that name because is a
Atheists are those who thinks all arguments for God are bad.So weak atheist will say God has low probability to exist but they can`t say he doesn`t exist and strong atheist will say God doesn`t exist.But agnostic thinks one can`t tell anything about God because (1)arguments for and against God has 50% probability to be true so they can`t decide or (2)we are epistemically limited to judge whether God can exist or not
You truly are a waste of molecules lol. Your delusions are just that... delusions
4:30 What dude?
Is atheism not a reaction to theism? As in, there can be no atheist without the claims of a theist, as if no claim was made then there would be no rebuttal to the claim?
formally speaking, what is a rebuttal?
Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence is introduced.
So I would agree. If there were no claim asserted by theists that some god exists, there would be no such _position_ as atheism.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj To rebut an accusation or evidence, to persuade against something that has been asserted. I believe it's along those lines.
@@Pac81
To rebut it with what? You're saying a rebuttal is to rebut something
@@Qwerty-jy9mj To rebut it with whatever they are rebutting it with. It's not that hard to follow.
Trent, is there a dollar amount that we can crowd fund for a non-religious charity of your choice that if reached would motivate you to conversate with Pinecreek for an hour?
Something we agree on ;)
A kinder way to say it is: Are atheists as smart as rocks?
Did Jesus say that rocks would cry out if God isn’t praised?
This is such a good video
Disappointed in this one.
As an atheist I lack a belief in God
Trent: so what, who cares?
Um you should . You've been called to bring others to Christ have you not??
I don’t think he means he wouldn’t care at all, just that it means a person would have little value to offer to the conversation on an intellectual level.
Some of them, yes, extremely. Others? They just have hardened hearts
Angina?
@@theoskeptomai2535 ?
If you’re not a born again Christian then chances are that you’ll be unable to place your right palm on the KJV and say these words once only-> I refuse to be deceived by the devil.
Rev.12:9 The devil deceives the whole world.
❤️✝️Jn.3:7
This video reveals a perennial problem: people trying to define atheism as one thing. We have atheists trying to define atheism as strictly nonbelief while Xians try to define atheism as disbelief or denial and accuse self-ID'ed nonbelievers as being crypto-disbelievers or deniers who masquerade as nonbelievers to avoid any burden of proof or justification. This perennial failure to communicate disappears with the realization that atheism is _either_ nonbelief, disbelief or denial. Don't trust dictionary definitions of atheism. Trust Wiki. To see this more clearly, just compare gods to other hypothetical beings: Martian microbes. Do they exist? Nonbeliever: "I'm neutral." Disbeliever: "I believe Mars is sterile." Denier: "I _know_ Mars is sterile." The neutral nonbeliever slips the burden of claim-proof _and_ belief-justification. The disbeliever slips the burden of proof but should still justify his disbelief i.e. his belief in the opposite. The denier inherits a burden of _proof._ If the ultra-rare atheist denier can't prove his _claim_ that no gods exist then it's definitely a faith position. But it's no different than the unprovable faith position that no ghosts exist. That's not a worldview or a belief "system," let alone a religion. Theists can be believers; who needn't prove that a god or gods exist but should still substantiate their belief - e.g. deists. Or they can be affirmers who _claim_ outright _or inadvertently_ that they _know_ their god(s) exist, thus inheriting a burden of _proof._ So the theistic affirmer must prove his claim while the atheistic disbeliever need merely justify his belief that no gods exist and that's easy. The point is: _all_ Xians are affirmers and inherit a burden of _proof,_ a greater burden than the disbeliever who need merely rationally justify his disbelief. Xians who say "I don't know if God exists. That would inherit a burden of proof which I can't provide. But based on certain facts, I believe he does" are one in a million. The vast, VAST majority of Xians are affirmers; who go around making claims they can't prove and thus can be kindly asked to shut their piety-holes. But here's the kicker: the atheistic denier has one claim to prove: "No gods exist." The theistic affirmer has one claim to prove: "A god or gods exist." Neither can provide any proof so it's a wash. But that all changes with the atheist denier vs the Xian. That's because, if asked to list their claims involving religion, that of the denier (i.e. the naturalist affirmer) can be expressed in just 5 words: "I know nothing supernatural exists." One baseless claim. But Xians are making multiple claims they can't prove e.g. God, a supernatural realm, angels, archangels, an angelic rebellion, demons, demon possession, a god/human hybrid, sin, souls, a propitiatory human blood-sacrifice and a coming apocalypse followed by some form of millennialism. So the atheist denier can be told to "prove it or remove it!" but not by any Xian, Muslim or Jew, for they would be throwing stones from a glass house; on steroids!😉
The perennial problem seems to be the refusal by the average atheist to read.
Maybe instead of using insults actually try to understand our position please
Thank u for clarifying on the difference between an atheist and an agnostic..that was helpful...
Here is another perspective:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground.
And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of any identity associated with such a position.
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions.
The gnostic theist is justified by sufficient knowledge and has good reason to change both default positions. Having sufficient knowledge of a god, he or she can now justly acknowledge such existence.
The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending any acknowledgement as to the truth of the theistic claim until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist until sufficient credible evidence convinces the individual to acknowledge such existence.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.
Please feel free to commement, even criticize, my expkanation. Prace.
@@theoskeptomai2535 here's a criticism: your explanation sucks.
@@glof2553 I love to hear criticism. Why does my explantion "suck"? Be specific.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I've told you before, find my explanations there if you're so interested.
In short, it does not understand the relationship between belief and knowledge, or what either of them are. We've talking about this, yes or no ass boy.
@@glof2553 I am not receiving notification of your responses and didn't see this particular response until Quack Epistemologist posted his/her comment below. I have muted you (and for good reason) so I do not see your replies. But I will respond to you comment as I see it now.
Your previous arguments are rubbish. I, too have explained, why.
Ass boy.