Live Call in Q@A - Atheism: The Belief There is NO God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มิ.ย. 2024
- #atheist #theism #atheism
Channel: / @nonsequiturshow
/ @poggy
/ @redsrhetoric
/ @redsrhetoric
The purpose of this video is simple:
To argue that atheism would be best understood as the philosophical understanding, ‘belief there is no god’. Asserting that it’s just a lack of belief in a god pushes the goal post down that would still lead to the most optimal definition being the belief there is no god.
Note: I tried a different recording method. Might not repeat it based on the sound.
Follow on Discord: / discord
Link to what happen next on
The NonSequitur Show
th-cam.com/users/live0noiVqiort4?si=fgWpm5AKU8z4bjtt
Hey! Just popping in after some more bed rest. I enjoyed the conversations and would love to have another call back in another time. Thanks for hosting this JCO.
I appreciate for coming on!
@@JonathanCOwens Thank you. Seriously fun show. I appreciate the open floor.
I enjoyed listening to you and Sean on the podcast. Steve’s a very slippery one. He loves to assert his preferred definition of atheism as superior by evoking its normative usage in a niche discipline in academia, but don’t anyone dare call him prescriptivist lol. Anyway, I love the point you made here:
@ 1:16:20 - “atheists aren’t saying philosophers mean this. They’re saying WE mean this.” 👏👏
Steve doesn’t understand what esoteric, prescriptive, pedantic or pretentious means.
This whole debate just exposes the desperation of creationists to put us on a level playing field. We aren't. Creationists believe in fairy tales, atheists don't. Very simple.
Uh you know Steve is agnostic? And creationist and theist are two different positions.
@@JonathanCOwenscreationist believes the universe was created by a God. A theist believes a God created the universe. You can argue they are different but they really aren’t.
How about an evolutionary theist? Evolution happening or not has nothing to do with whether there is a god. It’s seems you made a hasty generalization.
@@JonathanCOwensWhile, you are correct about creationists and theists not being same thing. Ironically, they're using the same hasty generalization tactic you use to describe Atheism.
Creationists and Theists both believe in a God created universe. They still aren't the same.
Some Atheist believe that there are no Gods and there are some (most) who simply lack the belief that there is, they both share nonbelief. But they still are different from each other.
@jamie.nolanofficial 😂 I never said if you say you lack the belief there is a god, then you believe there is no god. I explained this multiple of times in the videos I made.
@1:37:19 - “Are any of them in here right now?” 🤣🤣
Steve’s always upset at a small handful of people on twitter and takes it out on everyone else 😅
One doesn't have to have a position with something that cannot be proven. One can simply say that you haven't provided enough evidence to warrant belief in your specific god claim, and to date no one has. As far as agnostic goes, we are all agnostic because to 'know' something requires evidence and demonstration. Of which, no one claiming a god has ever been able to do.
Exactly. No evidence, no Gawd.
I’m curious. Can you answer this for me?
Do any of you recommend any atheist TH-cam channels? What’s your favorite? Do you recommend shows from Aron Ra and Matt D.
@@JonathanCOwens Themagicskeptic
@@JonathanCOwens paulogia, mr deity, tjump, the friendly atheist, prophet of zod, alex o'conner, rationality rules, mindscape podcast, star talk, IAI, sabine hossenfelder - there are plenty of great youtube channels on science that have nothing to do with religion because god is imaginary and there is no need of god anywhere - name ONE place god is invoked to make anything practical happen?
So, you don't even know what the definition of an atheist is.
What?😂
If you present evidence a god exists we will no longer be atheist. Most atheist dont say "no god exists" we are waiting on proof of your god claim😅
👍🏿, I guess you can continue to wait.
@@JonathanCOwens So no Gawd then. Thanks for playing.
Cool
Bro literally took "3 atheists walk in to a bar" to a whole next level 😂
The guy running his mouth a mile a minute believes he cannot be wrong. His thinking is fundamentalist in nature and makes for some dreadfully boring content. Sorry, I'm out. And, you're wrong about Matt D., his hard position is regarding only specific god claims. I've listened to 20 years of his content over the last 20 months. You are wrong, Steve.
😂
The funniest part is that the guy who’s running his mouth a mile a minute and constantly interrupting & talking over people, equivocating, and gish galloping supposedly wants to promote better arguments by atheists 🤣🤣
@@EveK-North Oh, that's right, in my frustration I'd forgotten. So, even more ridiculous.
@@kevinfancher3512 right! Haha. Steve has a history of this type of stuff. He wants to lauded as a great thinker in social media philosophy circles. There’s a fun discussion with him where he ends up annoying everyone on Tom Rabbit’s channel from 3 years ago. I don’t think I can post links. But if you search “tom rabbit mcrae part 2”, you can find it. It’s fun because people call him out, and he doesn’t take it well. 🍿
two and a half hours of pettifoggery. Chuckles all round.
that would be religion for you.
1:35:09 “this is what the word (1) means”
“This is also what the word (1) means”
“I don’t care about your definition and I’m totally not ignoring the other definitions of the word just for my argument’s sake”
I have a hard time with people who cherry pick and ignore valid arguments like that.
I’ve been listening while working and idk how to spell the word they’re trying to define, but it was the one on certain words being intended for a certain group and that whole argument is easily destroyed by the fact that intention does not mean exclusive. I’m no scientist but I know about redshift dating the age of the universe and the equation being bogus (increase the redshift by a couple decimal points it increases, increase by another couple decimal points it decreases. That goes against common science). Does that mean I can’t talk about this cuz I’m not a scientist? No because it isn’t exclusive.
@PreachTh3Truth They were talking about the word “esoteric”
@@JonathanCOwens thanks!
@@JonathanCOwens how are you today?
@@PreachTh3Truth tired and alive. That stream got done around 10:30 and would kept going.
2:26:00
I think what Poggy is misunderstanding here is that Steve IS only talking about 1 proposition: God exists.
Steve is saying THAT proposition is either true or false.
So either:
a) Poggy thinks P is true.
b) Poggy thinks P is false.
or
c) Poggy doesn't think it's true or false (suspends judgement).
These are the three epistemic positions that Steve is referring to.
Poggy is correct in that you either:
i) believe P is true
ii) don't believe P true
But what Poggy is misunderstanding about Steve's point is that *if you don't believe P, this could mean he either thinks P is false (b) or Poggy doesn't think it's true or false (c).
And this is one of Steve's points: that just saying you don't believe P is unnecessarily ambiguous. The fact that Poggy has to further clarify what his actual position is demonstrates Steve's point.
Thank you for the break down. I want to try to clarify my point. I was talking about "in conversation" there are only two possibilities. I believe you, or I do not believe you. The reason why I say that specifically is because, while yes, we agree there are in logic P and not P and a middle neither believe P nor not P. My point was, I'm never going to encounter a person who simultaneously believes both P and not P. Ever. There is no such possibility of someone having that position. So I'm ALWAYS either addressing someone who holds P or addressing someone who holds not P (two prongs). And in THOSE conversations, there are only TWO possibilities of a stance I can take to their side of the dilemma and the other prong of the dilemma is irrelevant to their position. Does that make it more clear? I was taking the logic of "there are these three positions", which I agreed with even on the call, and trying to explain it in a practical real world sense of when we have conversation. I wasn't saying he was wrong. I did say multiple times "in conversation", but that was either not heard or ignored (time crunch I suspect we were getting our last jabs in).
@@Poggy Thank you.
Yes, I think you and Steve were talking cross purposes. Steve was more interested in the formal logic side of it - a kind of 'non observer' p.o.v. And you were trying to talk about it in terms of how it applies in your unique p.o.v discussions with interlocutors.
That is: for you - you don't hold P (God exists) is true or false.
So the people *you engage with in debates/conversations are going to either believe God exists (holds P) or believe no gods exist (holds not P).
In this sense - because of your unique position there's only two positions that your interlocutor is going to have.
I.e. you're probably not going to debate someone who holds your same position (doesn't hold P is true and doesn't hold P is false).
And I think that's totally valid btw.
I think it was just cross wires. I think a lot this was crossed wires, which is probably why it felt unproductive for you.
e.g. the burden of proof thing too, seemed that you all had different things in mind. In Steve's case he just means:
What is your rationale/reasoning to come to your view?
Why don't you think God exists and why don't you think no gods exist? (just an example, I'm not expecting an explanation btw).
And further to that: what's your case for your atheism? If you were going to try and argue for why a theist discard their position for yours, how would you defend it? (Again - just an example, I'm not expecting you provide the actual defence here).
@@christaylor6574 Pretty much all of that yes. I think one slight correction, and maybe I'm just misreading what you said, but moreso what I'm saying is it is not possible to have a conversation with someone who believes both P and not P, and because of this, what I think about "Not P" is irrelevant when I'm talking to someone who believes "P". What matters in that conversation with the "P" believer is whether or not they have evidence sufficient for me to accept P or not. And I think "but what do you think about not P" is just a way to distract from the actual conversation with them. I think you mostly understood that I just wanted to clarify.
That all to say, it may come up in a future discussion with JCO or Steve! Who's to say? I did really enjoy talking with them, I just wanted to dip out at the end out of frustration for being told my position is "silly" when I was literally agreeing with Steve, just clarifying practicality.
@@Poggy Sure, that's fine. If you're talking to someone who believes God exists, then I wouldn't expect them to also say they believe no gods exists.
@@Poggy I do have a question:
If I said I God does not exist, because theists have not met their burden of proof" ....is that sufficient warrant to justify my claim there is no God?
I don't think Poggy is accurately applying 'esoteric'. Granted - a lot of the words and concepts are difficult to understand for lay people, but it's not exclusive to a particular group. All of these terms and ideas are out there in the public domain for lay people to access if they are willing to put in the time and effort to understand them.
Crying something appears 'esoteric' seems more like an excuse/crutch than anything else.
I think that it would be far better to have a talk with you and Steve and no one else.
Me and steve had about a short five min talk a while ago off stream about setting this up to address the comment section . We agreed on the logic I presented in the first video. Would been a waste to record both us agreeing without others.
@@JonathanCOwens wait wait -- he agreed with your logic (on your first vid)? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? O_o;;;
@DeconvertedMan Yeah.
1. He stated in his review in the first 5 min of the video.
2. We spoke on discord privately that he agreed
3. It was a brief talk about it I messaged him again about it
The only thing he said he disagreed was my conclusion but I do state that atheism can be defined as lack of belief there is a god but saying atheism can be defined as JUST is lack of belief there is a god is where I disagreed.
I mean it made sense and looked similar to his logic.
@@JonathanCOwens OK. I would have thought he would have tried to correct the numerus logical errors you made in that video. :/ Ah well.
?????
*"The only thing he said he disagreed was my conclusion but I do state that atheism can be defined as lack of belief there is a god but saying atheism can be defined as JUST is lack of belief there is a god is where I disagreed. "*
??????
No idea what your conclusion here means.
I think you need to learn informal/formal logic. :) or perhaps learn more. (or) relearn it. IDK but yeah I have no idea what your saying.
@DeconvertedMan He only disagreed with my conclusion. I did state that atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in a god. However, I disagreed with the assertion that atheism can be defined as JUST a lack of belief in a god
the glib throwaway manner in which these ACA acolytes claim the lacktheist definition of atheism is more popular (colloquial) than the conviction that atheism is a belief gods don't exist is misbegotten. I think the definition of atheism is the belief gods don't exist, for the hoi polloi.
Nope, that "lacktheism" has always been the more popular and colloquial usage, that is why you *only* hear the other one from churches.. Even in philosophy it is always stated both usages are valid and more nuance should be always presented.
It is not difficult:
A - theism = NOT - belief in god. Which is not the same as Beliefe in NOT god.
Try better.
Actually the word form was athe(os)-ism. The word atheism came before the word theism.
But I’m curious, is a rock an atheist since it’s not theist?
@@JonathanCOwens It would depend if you think the ability to have beliefs at all is required for the label of someone who doesnt have one specific belief.
@Julian0101 I’m asking you, do you think a rock is an atheist?
@@JonathanCOwens And im responding you, it would depend if you think the ability to have beliefs at all is necesary for the label of not having one specifc belief.
Can you clarify if you believe a rock can have beliefs?
"Atheism: The Belief There is NO God' That is not an atheists' position.
Are you sure you want to claim that?
@@JonathanCOwens See below in your own comments.
You make up shiit that only fits your narrative.
We reject your claims for the lack of evidence. The same way you reject all other gods' claims.
I can go as far as the abrahimic god does not exist with the bible as the source of evidence.
Atheism is the lack in belief
in my case i say it's not a belief, religists have the belief, i know there is no god, same as i know there is a sportscar headed for mars.
@@JonathanCOwens people define how they use a word, if i want to define atheist as someone who likes sandwiches then you either go with it or walk away. or you can be dumb and argue the toss.
Already from the title of the video you can tell that these people fundamentally don't understand what atheism is. Atheism is not a belief in no god. It's a lack of belief in god due to the lack of evidence.
Pretty much. At least he did not say, "atheism has been debunked". LMAO
i tell it my way, it's not a belief, religists have the belief, they believe god is real, i say i know god is mythology, all gods have been myth this one is no different. if you disagree with me - that's fine, we are on the same side after all, i do my own thing and don't care what people think of it.
@@HarryNicNicholas my problem with religious fanatics who have been convinced by others in their religion to commit horrible things in the name of their gods. So religion is the poison for humanity.
2:17:00
I think Sean puts himself in a difficult position without realising and I think Steve missed a chance to point out Sean's problem.
So when Sean says to Hank that he can define theist as 'lack belief no gods exist', then this would mean Sean IS a theist. Why? Because Sean lacks belief no gods exist.
This is the issue Steve's paper highlights.
i.e. Sean is saying they 'can' define it that way without realising it would subsume him as also a theist.
Correct. Under Hanks definition, then Sean is a theist. So in if Sean is in one of Hank's hangout, then using Hank's usages of terms Sean would be a theist and Sean would have to accept that as that is his argument to me. Good catch.
I actually do realize this, I just don't think it matters. If you are saying and defining "theist" in such a way that theist does NOT include "belief in a god or gods" and ONLY includes "lacking belief in the assertion that there are no gods", then yes under that specific definition, I would qualify as a theist. But this is almost like some kind of pointless game that people now want to weaponize in a sort of "haha, you just admitted you're a theist". Yeah, I suppose so. Under those very specific parameters, I think most people would be. It's just now theist means something completely different and we've come far far away from the actual substance of the conversation is and it hasn't remotely changed my position as an atheist either. I am still not convinced of the proposition "some god exists", and this was an exercise in semantic wordplay and accomplished nothing to demonstrate a god does or doesn't exist.
@@NonSequiturShow Yup - which raises the semantic collapse issue. If Sean goes into Hank's stream then Sean and Hank would both be atheist and theist, based on their mutual agreement that 'lack belief' is a minimal condition to be both.
i.e. they agree:
1) a minimal condition to be an atheist = lack belief God exists
2) a minimal condition to be a theist = lack belief no gods exist
Then they are both atheist and theist.
Losing all meaning in the terms - as per your paper.
@@Poggy
Sure, but the stream was about how the word 'atheist' is to be understood. i.e. the substance of this conversation *was the semantics of terms.
@@christaylor6574 I get that, and I was expressing my point that I think the semantic "breakdown of atheist" is irrelevant to whether or not I have good reasons to believe there is a god or not. No matter what word or label you get to or want to saddle atheists with or whatever else you want to do with these semantic discussions, at the end of the day, my position is the same as it was prior because we're entrenched in semantics rather than presenting evidence and arguments for positions and I don't see the point of that aspect of it. Which is why I also said, I'm sure the paper is interesting to someone, probably in Steve's field of philosophy, but I don't find it interesting or as important as Steve does. This is also, though, why I tried to throw a wrench into the works and ask Steve, don't you agree that the position one holds is far more important than the label we're going to use to describe it? If so, then I don't see the point of going around and around about "what atheist should mean" or whatever else - what matters is less the label I'm applying to myself (largely as a matter of shorthand and convenience anyway), and far moreso the ideas and concepts that I am representing with that label. My position.
I don't want chicken.
?
@@JonathanCOwens Steve mentioned not wanting chicken.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
I’m curious. Can you answer this for me?
Do any of you recommend any atheist TH-cam channels? What’s your favorite? Do you recommend shows from Aron Ra and Matt D.
@@JonathanCOwens Sure. Mythvision, mindshift, misterdeity, Alex Oconnor, godless engineer, AronRa, Matt Dillahunty, Forrest Valkai, Friendly Atheist, Genetically Modified Skeptic and there are many more good ones.
You can call in Theline. Different days have different hosts.
paulogia, mr deity, tjump, the friendly atheist, prophet of zod, alex o'conner, rationality rules, mindscape podcast, star talk, IAI, sabine hossenfelder - there are plenty of great youtube channels on science that have nothing to do with religion because god is imaginary and there is no need of god anywhere - name ONE place god is invoked to make anything practical happen?
what's wrong with you? can't you find youtubers for yourself?
@@LGpi314 gutsick gibbon comes to mind, but essentially ALL channels are atheist, we just never mention god or atheism in any of them.
@@JonathanCOwens if you used your brain you would realise that ALL activities are atheist, chess clubs, golf, flying to mars, football, nothing requires god. show me a an equation that mentions god, or a maths problem, or a manual or legal document - you don't even have to swear an oath anymore, god is surplus to requirements.
The title makes this not worth watching. That’s not the definition of atheism. Atheism is a rejection of a claim that a god exists. Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent. Not accepting the claim a god exists doesn’t mean affirming a god doesn’t exist. It means you’ve not proved your burden of existence.
😂.
Could there be a god? Maybe. But if there is a god, I dont believe that it could possibly be the god of the bible. Just my personal view
So krishna exists or zeus or thor. I like the last 2.
@@LGpi314 I don't believe in them either.
@@LGpi314 in fact, so far, there isn't a God that I do believe in. I can't say for certain that a God doesn't exist, because it's an unfalsifiable claim, the same way I can't claim that there aren't undetectable fairies living on Mars. I have no proof that this is the case. But this doesn't mean I believe. I'm just open, given sufficient evidence of course, that a God could exist. I just dont believe that one does at this time.
@Dingolia what are the evidence? Be specific.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world. It is insane.
@@LGpi314My apologies, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean to say is that If I was given sufficient evidence that a God exists, I'd easily change my position to conform to the evidence. I don't personally have such evidence at this time, and therefore do not believe. But I'm open to the possibility, however unlikely it may be, that evidence could one day surface. I doubt this will happen, but I can't eliminate it entirely. I have no evidence that a God *doesnt* exist. I can rule out certain specific Gods (probably all of them), but I can't say there for sure is no God in any way shape or form because I don't have the evidence to back that claim up.
Steve is incorrect. Agnostism by itself is not about belief, it's only about knowledge. So if question is: do you believe in god, only time your answer is agnostic, is when response is: I don't know do i believe in god or not and that is dishonest answer. If you don't know about your own belief/ opinion, then you can just ask it from yourself. Steve stated that he won't call to Matt Dillahunty's show, and we all know the true reason for that... he would be abolished.
So couldn’t you call in to Steve to tell him?
@@JonathanCOwens I was not watching your show live. Also I don't speak natively english so I prefer typing.
He has his own shows.
@@JonathanCOwens okay, this video was first time hearing you all.
I’m curious. Can you answer this for me?
Do any of you recommend any atheist TH-cam channels? What’s your favorite? Do you recommend shows from Aron Ra and Matt D.
For a group who pretends to care about truth they sure don't like having their own inconsistencies pointed out to them.
This applies to every group. So, who are you referring to with "they"?
@@rhett_rydinhood lacktheists.
@@rifleattheplayground
Strange, all the lacktheists I know are seriously interested in the search for truth and a fruitful discussion. Any pointers to inconsistencies are therefore gratefully welcomed. Where do these inconsistencies of lacktheism lie?
@@rhett_rydinhood I'm pretty much in agreement with Steve regarding the ambiguous and consistent use of terms (not so much truth, that was bad wording on my part), so if you disagreed with his positions there's really nothing to hash out here.
@@rhett_rydinhoodyou must be from another planet. A majority of your camp are trolls, or flagrant toddlers.
@4:13 "So, I . . . uh, athei . . . the word atheist some people take it now it, it is du-, duplicitous [sic] as far as you know how people understand the definition."
LOL Don't you just love how amusingly precious it is when ignorant individuals try to be pedantic?