Surprise, surprise. A conversation with a theist begins to devolve once someone tries using precise language and definitions. Who knew that would happen...
It shouldn't be this hard to get someone to acknowledge when they're wrong. They ignore the first definition that comes up on google. From the 2012 Webster dictionary, they want to ignore the first definition and use the 2nd one. Then they want to use a definition from 1973. An agnostic says - 'I don't know that a god exists'. An atheist says - 'I don't believe that a god exists'. They don't have to be mutually exclusive terms. It shouldn't be that hard for them to grasp this.
The World Book Encyclopedia - Dictionary vol A-K 1963: "atheist",1. A person who believes that there is no God. 2. a person who ignores his duty to God; a godless person.
I don't get it, what is the major malfunction in not accepting that: 1) dictionaries are not authorities on meaning, they are authorities on usage, how the word is used by people, thereby word meanings can change over time as the usage change 2) words have multiple definitions 3) "atheist" can mean a person who claims to know there is no god or gods OR a person who does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods. fsx23 says he does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods
It is true that some definitions were refined in recent years. But self description of most atheists was always "I don't believe in god", not "I believe there is no god". To claim otherwise is dishonest.
If they did that then how could they attempt to shift the burden of proof from the person making the positive claim (god exists), to the person who rejects that claim (I don't believe you, prove it)? Nah, far easier to be disingenuous and play semantic word games (using a 40 year old dictionary) in the vain hope that someone will fall for it.
This always seems a senseless debate. If you are arguing religion with someone it is irrelevant how the dictionary defines Atheist, what matters is what the atheist you are arguing with believes. With regard his continued argument that your definition of atheism is similar to the definition of agnosticism I would have so what? many words have similar meanings and if he pushed the matter further I would have responded Ok, fine, I am agnostic.
What dictionary...1973 bahahahahahahah !! Oh man these so called debates are priceless. David and Joe should know that they are no where near fsx23's league. It's so funny how simple these guys are. Like I almost wanna believe that they're trolls. But U can't make this shit up
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r_5yUXjXizQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] RNT vs SPG - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUTkf8Detj8/mqdefault.jpg)
I saw all of the debate videos. Kudos to you fsx23.
That laugh at the end says it all.
You are a. atheist hero. Regardless of definition.
Man these two dudes were so sad, but at least they had a sense of humor.
Yep - spot on! :-)
"Are we all feeling gay today?" That really made me laugh. I'm very immature.
Online Websters:
Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
FSX23 that was the best way to end this video, with you chuckling after they 1973 definition was given.
reason - awesome
fsx23: Do you know how dictionaries work?
Joe: The other definitions mean the same as the first one.
Me: Facepalm
Surprise, surprise. A conversation with a theist begins to devolve once someone tries using precise language and definitions. Who knew that would happen...
It shouldn't be this hard to get someone to acknowledge when they're wrong.
They ignore the first definition that comes up on google.
From the 2012 Webster dictionary, they want to ignore the first definition and use the 2nd one.
Then they want to use a definition from 1973.
An agnostic says - 'I don't know that a god exists'.
An atheist says - 'I don't believe that a god exists'.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive terms. It shouldn't be that hard for them to grasp this.
The World Book Encyclopedia - Dictionary vol A-K 1963: "atheist",1. A person who believes that there is no God. 2. a person who ignores his duty to God; a godless person.
Even the Hovinds are face-palming.
Even SyeTen is face-palming.
This is beneath you, FSX. We need to find you better targets.
I don't get it, what is the major malfunction in not accepting that:
1) dictionaries are not authorities on meaning, they are authorities on usage, how the word is used by people, thereby word meanings can change over time as the usage change
2) words have multiple definitions
3) "atheist" can mean a person who claims to know there is no god or gods OR a person who does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods. fsx23 says he does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods
It is true that some definitions were refined in recent years. But self description of most atheists was always "I don't believe in god", not "I believe there is no god". To claim otherwise is dishonest.
If they did that then how could they attempt to shift the burden of proof from the person making the positive claim (god exists), to the person who rejects that claim (I don't believe you, prove it)?
Nah, far easier to be disingenuous and play semantic word games (using a 40 year old dictionary) in the vain hope that someone will fall for it.
geez....those two guys are dense
This always seems a senseless debate. If you are arguing religion with someone it is irrelevant how the dictionary defines Atheist, what matters is what the atheist you are arguing with believes.
With regard his continued argument that your definition of atheism is similar to the definition of agnosticism I would have so what? many words have similar meanings and if he pushed the matter further I would have responded Ok, fine, I am agnostic.
Munch. Crunch. Smack. Munch. God is real. Munch. Crunch. Smack. Munch. Because reasons. Munch. Crunch. Smack. Munch.
Does this guy ever stop eating ?
duhhhhhhhh...stuff my face some more...duhhhhhhhhh!
What dictionary...1973 bahahahahahahah !! Oh man these so called debates are priceless. David and Joe should know that they are no where near fsx23's league. It's so funny how simple these guys are. Like I almost wanna believe that they're trolls. But U can't make this shit up
It seems unfair.
ha ha ha ha ha
You use semantics like a fencer uses his foil. Is some good shit, you wield consternation like a bludgeon you should be a lawyer.
just pure dishonesty, I dont see why you bother with them.
Please request that your future guests don't eat while appearing in your videos. It's distracting and kinda nauseating, at least with this guy.