Wrong, because knowledge means justified belief and confidence in that belief. They are tied together, you cannot know somehing without believing in it.
@@eklektikTubb But you can believe something without knowing it. Confidence in a belief doesn't mean that you know it. To know something, it has to be true. Even if you believe something and are convinced of that belief, it may not be true.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Confidence in a belief means you THINK you know it and you identify as gnostic. Lack of that belief confidence lead people to say "i dont know" and identify as agnostics.
@@eklektikTubb My understanding of the term "agnostic" is not simply that one doesn't know whether a god exists, but that one doesn't believe it is possible to know. Whether one claims to know or not is not important to me. What's important, what motivates a person, is what they believe.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Doesn't believe it is possible to know? Hmm... i am not sure if i heard that definition before. I would say it is possible to know, yet i personaly dont know, i have no idea if he is real or not real and, more or less, i dont even care. I like to be neutral on God and i like label agnosticism because i am not aware of a better label that would demonstrate such religious neutrality.
I would like to address the other guy as I agree with the definition of anti-theist. They (Anti-theist) are just against the idea of religion and the idea of god. But this doesn't address what the belief in no god.
I've said this for years, there's no effective difference between the two since any skeptic will change their view if good evidence for a god is provided.
Admittedly, this was one of the more frustrating videos I have come across in a while because such much of the analysis was quite good, and yet the final conclusions were just all over the place. I am going to use the common place example I can immediately think and then then tie it back to the subject of this video. Additionally, I will use your stipulation of using the term "God" to also possibly mean multiple Gods, supernatural beings, etc. There is a murder in a mansion, and criminal charges are made against the butler for committing the crime. It is true that either the butler is guilty of committing the murder or innocent of committing the murder. However, of those two propositions, only one proposition is considered at trial: the proposition of guilt. That is why a jury does not choose between finding the defendant innocent of guilty; instead, they choose between finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. If after hearing the case the jury finds the prosecution did meet its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then they will find the defendant guilty. However, there are three main groups I would propose would find the defendant not guilty. The first group would be any jurors that, after listening to the prosecution and defense, believe the defendant could have killed the victim or even very likely killed the victim; however, if they do not think the prosecution meet its burden of proof then they would vote not guilty. The second group would be jurors that have no idea who committed the murder after hearing both sides, so they vote not guilty. The third group would be jurors that find not only did the prosecution not meet its burden of proof, but the defense successfully made its case that there is no way the butler committed the crime, so those jurors vote not guilt as they are convinced the defendant is actually innocent. As you can see, a jury voting not guilty does not necessarily mean that they are voting him innocent. There is a claim that a God exists. It is either the case that this God either exists or does not exist. Both of these are positive claims that carry a burden of proof. However, when it comes to belief of existence, we are considering only one proposition: the proposition of God existing. When I look at the evidence, arguments, and reasons why Theists make the claim that God exists, I currently find that their case does not meet its burden of proof. As such, while Theism states that God is guilty of existing, I currently find that God is not guilty of existing. However, it does not automatically follow that I believe God does not exist, or to follow the analogy I do not find God innocent of existing. While I find the Arguments of Evil and Divine Hiddenness to be quite persuasive, those arguments are only applicable to some God claims but not all. Additionally, when it comes to claims where a God creates the Universe and then does not interact with it again (such as in Deism), I frankly have seen not a single good argument either for or against God and so cannot rule out that possibility. When I am just speaking to someone in real life or online and they ask me what my views on God are, my answer is that I am an Atheist. I do not believe the claim that a God or Gods exist, so I am using the term Atheist colloquially. However, if I was in a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig or another apologist, I would specify my exact position on this subject: I am a non-resistant Agnostic Atheist. I am non-resistant as Schellenberg defined being resistant and non-resistant. I am Agnostic as I do not know if a God exists. I am an Atheist as I do not believe the claim that a God exists. The best advice I would give to you and every Theist in the world: if someone calls themself an Atheist, just ask them if they could clarify their exact position for you. Frankly, most of us are so use to Apologist attempts to straw man Atheists that it is actually refreshing when someone asks for clarification.
@@JCOJourney Here is the flaw in your logic. When you get the end of your video where you are making your final points, you are stating that Theism is the belief in the existence of a God, and Atheism is the belief in the existence of no Gods. That is false for the entire analogy that I painstakingly tried to make clear to you. Theists are saying that God is guilty of existing. I am saying that I currently find God not guilty of existing. It follows from your logic that because I find God not guilty, what that actually means is that I find God innocent of existing. That statement is FALSE. I do not find God innocent of existing. Now, I showed you in my example that there is a subset of Atheists that not only agree that God is not guilty of existing but are making the positive claim that God is innocent of existing. That is a claim that carries its own burden of proof, and I stated above that I also do not believe their burden has been met. That is your logical flaw. Not everyone that votes not guilty is actually meaning a claim of innocence. Because someone does not believe the claim that God exists, it does not logically follow that they also believe God does not exist. Your argument does not reflect this reality.
I gave reasons for why the definitions must be that. I started with some atheist favorite definition “lack of belief there is god” and explained how that logically doesn’t make sense. Your rebuttal seems to be upset at the conclusion, but not any error in the logic or anything else? It’s like if I made a cake and you agreed with every baking step I gave but once I showed the cake, you think I did it wrong?
@@peteraguilar7600 The main point of the video is that one option "not guilty" should be replaced with two options "innocent" and "i have no idea". (First are real atheists, second are just agnostics.) You didnt address that point at all, you just deflecting from the topic by somehow suggesting that believers dont understand what atheists mean by not guilty and their lack of understanding makes them wrong about the whole topic. That is VERY DISHONEST way of arguing from your side.
This is super simple. We don't know all there is to know about this universe, for all we know we are in a lab experiment. People in the past have guessed. Believers find one of those guesses compelling. Atheists find none of them compelling. Grats on 50% comment rate on your video, RUclips will love you :)
Appreciate it. It’s funny because the retention rate is like at 2 min with impression currently at around 7%. With all these comments, I had people saying they read the thumbnail/title, clicked dislike, comment why I’m wrong, and admitted to never watching the video
Interesting idea! As a 'weak atheist' myself, I certainly wouldn't make the claim that God doesn't exist, as, for starters, the nature of God's characteristics aren't even definitively agreed upon for us to even begin to look for evidence. The most I would say is something along the lines of: "the gods proposed by the world's religions are highly unlikely to be accurate representations of reality due to their origins in culture and politics (that have significantly changed over a relatively small amount of time), personal, emotion-based experience, and frequent historical use to fill in gaps in our knowledge (which we have later found to be completely natural), etc." Weak atheists are (from my experience) indifferent to the notion of God - there is no evidence for or against, or reason/need to believe either way. However, what weak atheists may well counter are the specific truth claims of religions, clearly leaning more towards atheism than theism, whilst not making the explicit claim. I wouldn't claim that God doesn't exist, but, for example, if someone were to tell me that humans are superior, evolution doesn't exist, and that God created us all in his image, etc, then I would most certainly oppose it - something I'd imagine a 'weak theist' definitely wouldn't do.
@@JCOJourney I don't think the idea of weak theism really holds up. Theism and atheism aren't equals, they are fundamentally different. Theism is a belief, weak atheism is non-belief, and strong atheism is non-belief plus a claim. There is an important difference between a belief and a claim. Both strong and weak atheism fall under the umbrella of atheism (both expressing the lack of belief in a god). Someone who lacks a belief in God's non-existence wouldn't fall under the category of theism, as theism is fundamentally an expression of the belief in a God - something not expressed in your definition of weak theism.
But if weak theism doesn’t hold up, it must be fair to say weak atheism doesn’t hold up. I explained why atheism is a belief. Curious. What do you define these 6 words Agnostic Gnostic Agnosticism Gnosticism Atheist Theist. Using philosophy definitions.
@@JCOJourney You suggested that atheism is a belief because negative claims still hold the burden of proof. This may well apply to strong atheists, who do make the claim that God doesn't exist, but it does not apply to weak atheists, who make no positive or negative claim at all. The vast majority of atheists are weak atheists. In fact, I've never come across someone claiming to be a strong atheist anywhere - it seems it's just more of a useful conceptual distinction. Sure, Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence/non-existence is unknowable. An agnostic is someone that believes this, although lots of people use it more casually to just say they don't know. An atheist is someone who either disbelieves or lacks belief in a God. A theist is someone who believes in a God. I haven't come across gnostic and gnosticism before. Some put them together to be more specific, but they are ultimately just labels that people will have loads of different definitions for - it's the beliefs that they are referring to that matter.
I see no persuavive evidence for a god, I therefore lack knowledge of the existence of a god, so I am an agnostic. That's my interpretation of the factual, evidential basis for a god. Furthermore, I do not believe there is a god, which is a belief position like that of believers, so I am an atheist. I do not know that there is a god, nor can I prove there isn't one.
@@JCOJourney No, I'm stating my beliefs. Your 'sun' analogy, around 3:00, posits someone saying 'there is no sun,' then mentions evidence for the existence of the sun. The situation isn't the same with regard to a god, since, for some of us, the evidence isn't compelling. You follow on with your 'moon' example. I think you are conflating knowledge with belief. You may be a believer, and can't conceive that others do not agree with your belief.
In the English language, words are defined by usage- that is, by how people actually use them. There is no dictator of the English language that can tell people what words 'must' mean and have it stick. One can certainly object to how words are used for philosophical reasons, but since disbelief in gods without any affirmation that there is no god is an actual thing, it's hardly wrong to use a word like 'atheist' to denote that. As with every word, the important thing is to clarify meaning in a discussion in order to avoid confusion due to equivocation.
Agnosticism is about "gnosticism" ("having knowledge"), so agnostic is someone who has know knowledge. Knowledge is subset of believe. Theism is having believe in deity, atheism is not-having believe. Gnosticism is having knowledge, agnosticism is not-having knowledge. You can by gnostic-theist or agnostic-theist.
//agnostic is someone who has know knowledge.//. Respectfully is that what you mean. Agnostic lacks knowledge (which is a subset of belief). Atheism is belief in no deity as explained The video wasnt addressing the gnostic/agnostic atheist/theist. Those are relatively new 21st ideas that differs from agnostic and gnostic were used.
"Agnosticism is about "gnosticism" ("having knowledge") No university I know of teaches this...what academic source you using for this? o.O? Agnostic and gnosticism are UNRELATED. Even Wiki warns people not to make this puerile error.
@@JCOJourney The phrase "Agnostic on p" in literature, both inside and outside of philosophy connotes a person who is undecided on a proposition or has no opinion on the matter). "Steve was agnostic on the proposition to build a library on the corner of 11th and Elm or not to build it there" That setence has nothing relating to knowledge, but connotes by locution that Steve is undecided or has no opinion on the matter.
Problem is that no one single accepted definition of god. So you can not have active believe on god you don't know. But you can not be convinced that that god exists, because there is no evidence. It is strange that somebody don't understand that simple principle.
@@JCOJourney You can not provide definition of all gods. So I can't make my position to all possible gods. And my default position is that I don't believe that something exists before is a good reason to believe that. Both existence and non-existence have to be backed up by evidence.
@@JCOJourney Diety is concept. To figure out if something exists you have to be specific. If someone says that his god is timeless, then I can easily say that that god doesn't exist, because existence is necessarily tied to time. But not all gods could be so easily dismissed, like Perun.
We might be saying the same thing (almost). On my channel I say that we are all agnostics since god cannot be proven to exist or not to exist. The statements, "There is a god" or "there is not a god" are going beyond what we can honestly know. But we can have our beliefs. An agnostic-theist says "I believe god exists." An agnostic-atheist says, "I don't believe god exists." But I couldn't say that agnostic-atheism "cannot be defined as just the lack of belief that god exists." Could you? To me, that's a spot-on definition. I am an agnostic-atheist and that's how I define it: a lack of belief in god. My position is no more a "belief" than my lack of belief in unicorns is a belief.
So I wanted to stick to common terms of strong/positive and soft/negative/weak Atheism. The gnostic/agnostic is a different conversation, as those terms and way to describe Atheism and Theism throughout history is relatively new. The only term of that is Agnostic and Atheism, as that goes to a different conversation of why certain atheist use that terminology.
Theism means strong theism because that's how the word is used and understood. Atheism means strong or weak atheism because that's how the word is used and understood. Language doesn't have to be consistent.
@@JCOJourney I don’t know why in the development of language why theism just means strong theism. My intuition is: you can believe in something, you can believe something doesn’t exist, or you can not have an opinion one way or the other. However, that third category is still not believing in it. Atheism-not being a theist-would cover the second two categories, but not the first. Even the construction of the word is ‘a’ ‘theist’ is basically ‘not’ ‘theist’, so atheism is defined by what is not theism. God is something that exists in the universe. It may be mysterious and hard to understand, but it is a belief about something that exists out there. People believe things exist in the world because they think they have reason to believe it. The standard to believe in something really is lack of belief, meaning lack of opinion one way or the other. It may not seem so, but that’s because there are so many things that we think we have reason to believe are true. Is there a spider under my chair? I don’t know. I haven’t checked, so I do not affirmatively believe that there is no spider, but without having current evidence or logic to believe there is, I currently have a lack of belief in that spider. Do fairies exist? If I was told they existed as a child, I would assume my parents and my society had good reason to believe they exist. My belief can be in error, but still, I think there is logic or evidence supporting this fairy belief. I haven’t been told that fairies exist, and haven’t seen evidence for them, so lack of belief is my starting position. I would go further and say I think they don’t exist, even though my certainty isn’t super high; they just seem impossible based on what I know of the possible…but I could be wrong. The point I’m trying to explain is that anything we haven’t heard of or that we don’t think there is reason to believe exists, we have a lack of belief. We may additionally think it doesn’t exist with varying convictions. Both of these are not believing in the existence of that thing. Weak theism would basically mean a lack of belief in not believing something. Kind of a double negative. It intuitively feels awkward to think I have a lack of belief in the belief of something not existing. We’d normally just say I lack belief in the thing, or I don’t believe in the thing. I don’t think weak theism is even a separate category from weak atheism. They are the same thing. God existing or not is a dichotomy. So, if you simply lack belief but have no affirmative beliefs on the question of God, you both lack a belief in God and lack a belief in the non-existence of God. That’s the same thing. It’s the same question or/and answer worded different ways. Either way, you are not currently convinced one way or the other, and either way you do not believe in God, and therefore are not a theist.
I have no issue with lacking the belief that something either is or is not there would be the third group. But atheism isn’t that, atheism only lacks the existence, not the nonexistence. If theism lacks the nonexistence, while atheism lacks the existence, I’m not calling them either atheist or theist. There is no god Atheism There is a god theism Lack belief that there is a god and lacks belief there isn’t a god. -agnostic- If you think weak theism is a double negative, you think lack and no are the same right?
Simple example. If someone ask me if you were real, my answers are yes,no and I don’t know. If I don’t think yes, then I’m A-yesist. (NO And I don’t know) But if I don’t think no, then I’m A-Noist (yes and I don’t know). If i don’t know is both a-yes and a-no. I wouldn’t call them a-no. Just nothing or a new word
@@JCOJourney Atheism isn’t a word separate form theism though. It is ‘a’ ‘theism’. It is what theism is not, which includes both nonbelieving categories.
Your intro slide text has a typo. It says "Atheism is not the belief there is a God,.." As an atheist, I'm fine with the definition of non-belief in a god or gods. It's possible one existed, but there is scant evidence for it.
Agnostic and gnostic are knowledge claims. Atheist and theists are belief claims. One can be either an agnostic theists or atheist, or one can be a gnostic theist or atheist. I don’t know why this has to be such a difficult discussion.
@2:31 is where I disagree because an individual (A) starts at neutral position w/o knowledge of anything, sometimes called the default position. Such time later they are given the god claim by another individual (B), who has the burden of proof. At this time person (A) has the knowledge of the claim and then they can decide their position. You're assuming in your scenario 1 that person B already has knowledge of a claim of a god's existence, furthermore each time a claim is made it's a new claim and has to be appealed to as such. Ultimately that's why atheists say. "I am an atheist to all god claims that I have been presented with" or "Everyone is an atheist to god claims including you. The only difference is I'm an atheist to one more god claim then you are."
I agree that the neutral position is the default. But the video was discussing that saying atheist is the default position. Neutrality is not just believing something doesn’t exist until proof. It’s not believing whether something is existence or not. It’s refusing judgement. I explained how atheism isn’t that
@@JCOJourney Yes I understand what you're saying but your ignoring knowledge of something. I could say Do you believe in JEMJEMJEM. You had no knowledge of JEMJEMJEM so you had no belief either way until you hear my claim about JEMJEMJEM. Until your claim is made, I have no belief either way until you present your claim. That is the default, not what you are saying it is.
I don’t believe jem exist because of my PRESUMPTION that’s it’s ridiculous. That’s not saying my presupposition is correct though. The default is saying I can’t say it is or isn’t real.
@@JCOJourney Your answer is fine but the point is you didn't even know it was something to consider because you had no knowledge of it till, I brought it to your attention.
In actuality there is no problem saying that' "I believe there is no god" as an atheist. But I am pretty sure that agreeing to this is going to allow some very well hiden equivocation arguments to take place. The words "believe" in the sentences: "I believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" have some slightly different meanings and you can't claim that atheism is a belief system or a religion for that matter.
@@JCOJourney I am just saying. Making a video just to change the definition slightly smells like you are going to make a follow up video to make a claim against atheism utilizing that new definition that swits you better.
If you are talking about a "lack of belief there is a God" that would simply be agnosticism. Atheism claims a great enough knowledge of what is happening throughout the universe to confidently state He isn't there anywhere. It's a claim of omniscience to go beyond not knowing to denying God can be anywhere in any form because his speck in the universe hasn't perceived Him.
@@JCOJourney The problem is God tells on these people. He says that if you seek Him you will find Him. Those that claim he doesn't exist don't have the intellectual honesty to admit they haven't truly tried to find Him. Often it seems like these bold claims are a tantrum to try and make God mad enough to prove Himself and tempting God to pride and a need to show Himself is silly. If they don't get it together God will be plainly evident at the White Throne Judgement.
You can be an agnost theist or an agnost atheist. Agnost theists say they don’t know (or can’t know) whether a god exists or not, but they do believe it does. Agnost atheists say they don’t know (or can’t know) whether a god exists or not, but they don’t believe it exists. (Notice here that an atheist says he doesn’t believe it exists, and doesn’t necessarily says “they believe it does not exist”) One cannot both believe and not believe a proposition at the same time and in the same respect, so one cannot be both a theist and an atheist… and one cannot be neither. Both “one or more gods exist” and “no gods exist” are positive claims. If you believe the first, you are a theist. If you don’t believe the first, you are an atheist. If you believe the second, you are a strong atheist. It’s this simple. As for your example of a “weak theist”… does the weak theist believe that a god or gods exist? If yes, they are a strong theist. If not, they are an atheist. Calling an atheist “a weak theist” is quite silly, don’t you agree?
@@JCOJourney "If strong atheism means believing there is no god and weak atheism means not believing there is a god, then one can say that strong theism means believing there is a god and weak theism means not believing there is no god. Since weak theism and weak atheism both mean not believing there is a god and not believing there is no god, the two words are synonyms and we should use a single, neutral term instead of the two, like agnostic." Is this a fair summation of your position?
I would just add that, that lead three categories of people. One who believes no god, the one who just lacks the belief of a god-atheism One who believes in god, the one who just lacks the belief of no god- theism And the one who just lacks the belief of no god and lacks the belief of a god- agnostic.
@@JCOJourney There are actually way more categories. As I said, agnostic already has a meaning: it means someone who doesn’t know or believe we can’t know, whether a god exists. An agnostic can either believe a god exists, believe no gods exist, or lack a belief either way. So using the term “agnostic” to mean lacking a belief, even though with its current meaning they could be in any of the 3 positions you gave, would lead to quite some misunderstandings. Also, why do you care that the current labels for the three categories are theist, weak atheist and strong atheist? Having 3 labels for 3 types of people is fine, is it not? Atheist just means “not a theist”, ergo someone who doesn’t believe in a god. That’s where the term came from. Within this category there are loads of subcategories like agnostic atheists, strong atheists, igtheists, antitheists, pantheists (which I categorize as atheists because they redefine god so much that I don’t accept their definition), and so forth. So it’s actually very very simple. Is that person a theist? No? Then that person is an atheist. Plain and simple. We can now ask what kind of atheist that person is.
You don’t have to use agnostic, I’ll honestly just call them nothing. But it’s easier to reference that for here. If people don’t fit into those three categories, can you give me a fourth one?
You are so busy trying to shift the burden of proof, that you try to define your way to that Atheism means what YOU want it to mean, so you can turn around and say "AHA! You silly Atheist, you must now demonstrate that my unfalsifiable god doesn't exist!" You further insist on definitions of words to mean what you want them to mean, your continued misuse of "Steelman" in the comments. And your instance that you decide who gets to speak in comments. I would like to refer you to Russell's Teapot, but I doubt you will even know what that is and how it relates to the burden of proof. If there was ANY verifiable evidence for your god then the discussion might be different, but you don't so I don't believe. Also, the bible is not evidence of god.
I know there is a god - theism I know there is not a god - atheism I don't know if there is a god - agnosticism Definitions are important, if words mean nothing, why are we debating, why are we talking, why are we reading but meaningless nonsense, and hearing meaningless sounds?
2:54 Cannont Please proof read your slides carefully before posting your videos. I know that it has nothing to do with your argument, but sloppy preparation and presentation tends to go hand in hand with sloppy thinking, so at the very least you are not doing yourself a favour.
The default position on the moons existence is that it exists, this is undeniable as we can see it, see its affects on the earth, and we have been on it. the default position for any gods existing is that they dont, until or unless one is shown to exist, just as the default position of unicorns existing is that they dont , until or unless one is shown to exist.
I am making a second post here just to give you a different angle of my argument. Say you and I sit somewhere together having some tea. For argument sake, say at this time and place neither you or I have ever heard of the concept of the flying spaghetti monster. Person C comes up to both of us and say that the Flying spaghetti monster exists and have created everything and that the FSM is God. At this point both you and I do not believe in the FSM as we have not just never heard of it but we do not have evidence that this God exist. So we ask person C to give us evidence for the existence of the FSM and that it is God. Until such time that evidence can be provided for us, both you and I do not believe in the existence of the FSM. So we have a lack of belief in the FSM due to insufficient evidence. If someone comes up to use and can prove that the FSM does not exist we will believe that the FSM does not in fact exist but until such time be just do not have a belief in its existence or non existence. Now you can replace FSM with any other God and the same will apply.
I believe there is no spaghetti monster. The only reason I would lack the belief because it seems ridiculous to me. My presumptions are that it doesn’t exist in the beginning, therefore no spagetti is the default. Now for god, I don’t have presumptions that the universe was or was not created.
I don’t have presuppositions that the universe was or wasn’t created by a creator. I believe the evidence has led me to conclude that there is a creator
i agree with your points but find your demonstration pointlessly difficult to follow, i made it to the end with my sentience intact but it sure did feel like you were trying to lobotomize me with your words, i would suggest considering more thoroughly how you present your points but in all honesty there's really no need to step away from this more technical style of demonstration, if you simply wanted to make people feel stupid or instead practice arguing in this way than of course it would not be in your best interest to simplify, but i figure there's still a chance you don't see how easy it would be to mix things up or fail to grasp your points at all due to the way you present things, because of that possibility pointing it out to you could be helpful. other than that though the video is well made, I hate the editing style and the music you use as the music used in this video is often used practically everywhere on the internet and so it comes off as lazy or cheap, which to be fair there's a time and place for both, weather that's here and now is up for debate. but when it comes to the editing pretty much all of it is great it's just the stylistic choice of using a glitch effect that i dislike but to each their own so i won't shit on it further. to sum things up this video is certainly well made and i can see all the effort that went into it, there's a few spots you can improve but all in all a good video 😁
@@JCOJourney you are correct in assuming that my intentions harbor no malice or hatred towards you, perhaps i should also consider the way i present my points lol, i blame the tism on this one.
Theist says, I believe in [the existence of] god, and atheist says I don't [believe you, provide evidence]. Atheist may also say, I believe god doesn't exist [skeptic says,I don't believe you, provide argument/evidence]. The existence of the the sun and moon are not analogous to the existence of a god.
Believing something is generally taken to be an admission that what you believe is true. Most people don't go around believing things that they personally think are false, in fact, it's functionally impossible. So saying you believe something is equivalent to saying you believe it is true, and as such it is a truth claim when we are talking about logic and belief.
@@joeo3377 I believe that there is no god. I also believe that I could be wrong about that. Do I have a burden of proof for the claim that I could be wrong?
@@aaronpolichar7936 Yes, you have a burden of proof for the claim that you could be wrong. However, for such a mundane claim, there isn't a lot of proof required. The fact that people have been wrong before is all the evidence you need to prove the claim that you could be wrong now.
I'd argue that from a historical perspective, people who weren't strong theists were accused of being atheists, regardless of what they actually believed (and further before that, people were accused of being atheists for being strong theists about an insufficiently high amount of gods). But I do agree with this system! This "atheis is just a lack of belief in God" line was used rhetorically by the new atheists. Then again, if you called yourself agnostic at thet time, you'd usually get accused of hiding you atheism ;)
@@JCOJourney Well, yes, but believing in God (strongly) is a pretty important thing regardless of what kind of Christian you are. So I think it made sense historically that the meaning of the word 'atheist' naturally started to mean 'a person without that belief'. A simple logical negation with a single letter.
The Christian example didn't have to do with God but the idea that //people who weren't strong theists were accused of being atheists,//. i.e. You are not a true one or Strong Theist, then you are not one of us, an atheist or unbeliever. I think we missed each other.
You are over complicating this. There is no need for a diagram and you are just wrong. This is a etymological issue. First, let me agree with one thing. The belief there is no God is indeed a positive claim. Alright, Theism is derived from the Greek word "Theos," which means "God." "-ism" is a suffix in the English language that indicates belief or practice. Putting the two together means "God-Belief" which gives you the belief in a God or Gods. Specifically, however, a belief in a personal God(s), while "Deism" (which comes from the latin word "Deus" which means "God") is the belief of a non-interventionist God (though that doesn't mean it can't, nor does it exclude the possibility of many Gods, but is much less common). This was an enlightenment era term. Now, Atheism is derived from Greek as well, however, when the word is Prefaced with an "A", that indicates a lack of something or indicates a negative word. So Atheism (A-Theos-ism) means "Lacks-God-Belief." Or just Godless. It's actually that simple. I actually think prefacing the word with "strong" or "weak" is an improper use of syntax. You either lack or you don't lack. Adding the two prefaces just makes it, 'kinda lack' or 'kinda don't lack', which just seems weird to me. It is better to just use agnostic athiest, as it means 'a lack of divine knowledge and god belief.' Moving onto Agnostic, which you mostly got correct. This word is also derived from Greek. Firstly the word is a negative of "Gnosis" which means knowledge, and more specifically, divine knowledge. So agnostic (A-Gnosis) means "Lacks-Divine-Knowledge." I'm not done, but this is interesting, since we are talking about God and English. Agathos and Gōd. Agathos is the Greek concept of absolute perfection. It is the concept Plato spoke about when referring to the Form of the Good, which possess the maximal qualities of all things and is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Gōd is the Old English word for Good, which means virtuous, fitting, and suitable. There is significant overlap here and as the words evolved and the ideas migrated, you get what we have in modern English as "Good." So when you say God is Good, you are saying God is Gōd (God), which is tautology that means Absolute Perfection is Absolute Perfection (and all the qualities associated with God). Some say this is an affirmation of God's sovereignty. So in conclusion, no, atheism doesn't mean the belief there is no God(s). It means a lack of belief in God(s). Thank you for reading this. Edit: Gnosis (no-sis)
Thank you for watching. One issue we would disagree is //So Atheism (A-Theos-ism) means "Lacks-God-Belief." Or just Godless// It seems you are implying it is "lack of belief in god" while I say "belief in lack of god". You seem to say that the A- is referencing the A-Theism, rather than Athei-ism. Atheos actually means "godless". So the -ism just indicates the belief in godless. Trust me. I don't like the idea of "Strong" and "Weak" Atheism or Theism. I didn't speak about agnostic/gnostic atheist and theism concept as it seems irrelevant. I personally believe that it is a relatively new 21st century concept and that people aren't using the words correctly. But that's a different conversation. //So agnostic (A-Gnosis) means "Lacks-Divine-Knowledge." // This is interesting. Two things. 1. I don't care about using the term agnostic for describing those who don't believe there is or isn't a god as that was a term coined around the 19th century. I wouldn't call them anything, but fine with the secondary meaning of the word. 2/ If Agnostic is Lacks-divine-knowledge, wouldn't -ism added be belief of the lack-divine-knowledge. Just as I describe atheism? If you say lack of belief in divine knowledge, wouldn't' you be changing what is the "lack". The belief or divine knowledge. I also explained why i used "god" in the video
@@JCOJourney I am not implying that Atheism (A-Theos-ism) is a lack of belief in God, I am telling you that it is. The definition of the word is in the succession of how it is synthesized. It is a linear progression. A-Theos, as I already stated, means "Godless," and "-ism" is an English addition. Godless does not indicate a positive statement, and lacking-God-belief (atheism) means exactly that. Theos is "God," not "belief." The "-ism" does not indicate a belief in Godless. I explained it already. You did bring up agnotics (7:41), so if it was irrelevant, then why bring it up? I obviously watched the video, and it is even timestamped in your description. You even say that all strong Atheists are weak atheists, which is the same as saying agnostic Atheist, and you put that in your diagram. [Agnostic] 1. Your caring is irrelevant. The word is as old as ancient Greece and means exactly what it means. This is simple etymology. No, it isn't a 19th-century term either. It's a word as old as ancient Greece. It is as old as Socrates and Plato. It was the word the Gnostic traditions adopted to describe themselves after breaking off from other Christian traditions. 2. You seem to be confusing belief for knowledge and vice versa. They are not the same thing. Notice that "-ism" isn't attached to the word, which means it does not indicate a belief or practice. Agnostic is just lacking knowledge of the divine or lacking divine knowledge. It's a position of non-assertion, which means it isn't a positive position, unlike somebody who would claim to have Gnosis, is. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is meant to assist us in understanding the world we live in and the abstractions we make. You can rewrite the definitions all you want, but it doesn't take away the roots of the words. It seems you are pleading that I (or we) ignore this and adopt your own definitions. At the beginning of the video, you acknowledge that words change over time. Yes, they do, but there is a genealogy to language that can be traced back to the original understanding, and that is what our language has been built off of (along with several other gramatical contributions from other languages. English is weird, I know). I mentioned Agathos and Gōd because I found it interesting and thought you would too. Maybe I was wrong. I don't know how else to explain any of this. Maybe take what I gave you and study up on it, then you'll probably understand it. Look into esoteric stuff as there is a rich tepestry of understanding there. Anyway, thanks for replying, and I hope that this helps.
@JonathanCOwens Theism: The belief in a God(s). Theist: One who believes in a God(s). Atheism: Lack of belief of a God(s). Atheist: One who lacks belief of a God(s). Gnosis: Knowledge (particularly of a spiritual or divine nature). Gnostic: One who has knowledge (particularly of a spiritual or divine nature). Agnosia: Ignorance. A lack of knowledge. Agnostic: One who is ignorant to or lacks knowledge (particularly of a spiritual or divine nature). Hope this helps. Edit: I think a better word for you to associate with a belief in no God would be antitheism. Maybe this will prove to be a valuable tool to assist you in your musings.
The comparison with moon vs no moon fails. The default assumption should be that there is no moon. However there is a lot of evidence that actually proofs there is a moon. So we know that it exists. The lack of evidence for a god causes me to say that I do not see proof of a god and if you do not want to call that atheisme, i'm fine. Just call it whatever you want. There is a reason that it is important to first define word definitions. If you understand my position better if I call myself agnostic atheist. Than that is what I will call myself in any conversation we might have.
Same points. The default position is actually no judgement, not that it doesn’t matter exist. Based on your logic: I don’t know if you’re a man or not, so the default is that you are not a man.
The prefix “a”, in the context of the word “atheist”, means “without”. So since theist is defined as “a person with belief in a god or gods”, an atheist is defined as “a person without belief in a god or gods”. A weak theist (as defined at 4:29) is the only definition in the 4 laid out on screen compatible with being either an “Atheist” or a “Theist”. You could be either, just that further confirmation is needed on whether you believe in a god or not. So this isn’t really a useful definition here, and you certainly can’t say stuff like at 4:46. A weak atheist does not have this problem, as it addresses the question directly by not having a belief in a god. So in reality, the most useful 4 definitions are: Agnostic atheist: Does not confirm either yes or no on the question of gods existence, and lacks belief that there is a god. What I would call the “Default position”. Gnostic atheist: Claims to have the knowledge that a god does not exist, and also of course lacks the belief in one. Agnostic theist: Does not confirm either yes or no on the question of gods existence, but believes in a god. Gnostic theist: Claims to have the knowledge that god exists, and of course believes there is a god. I think all of these positions do have to be defended as the most rational by their proponents (if they want to be seen as such), but they all have different jobs in order to do so. The agnostic atheist’s job is to basically deny evidence that a god exists, or point out that the evidence doesn’t necessarily lead to a god. The gnostic atheist’s job is to provide evidence that there is no god. The agnostic theist’s job is to provide reasons to believe in god, although still denying that the his existence is ultimately unknowable. (Although I don’t think many people defend this against scrutiny because it’s usually on the basis of being honest that they believe in a god by faith). The gnostic theists job is to provide evidence that there is a god.
This video has nothing to do with burden of proof shifting. If anything this seems that a lot of people don’t know what it is. And the big a- for atheism. How do you define agnosticism and atheist then.
@@JCOJourneyI brought up the burden of proof for clarity as to how I believe discussion can continue for people at the end, not really the main point. Also at 5:40 you did mention burden of proof, so it clearly IS a point of contention. But your video seems mainly to be arguing that atheists aren’t being consistent, and if they were, theists could say the exact same things as them. But I’m saying no, because of the definitions of the words. The term “Weak theist” completely takes the “Theist” out of the word because a “weak theist” doesn’t entail a belief. But to answer your questions at the end I already did define atheism in the original post. As for agnosticism at its purest form seems to be basically just an admittance that you can’t know anything for sure aside your very existence. In the context of god, it’s referring to the denial of being able to know for sure whether one exists or not. (What someone beliefs is a different category). For atheists, this does remove the initial burden of proof. Since theism is a claim, they still have that initial burden. So all in all I’m pretty sure I understand what your video is conveying and hopefully this adds some clarity. Also for the life of me I cannot understand what “And the big a- for atheism?” Means. Agnosticism is basically just admitting you can’t know anything for sure aside your existence.
Just because I brought up burden of proof doesn’t mean it’s what the video was about. The issue again is that atheism is a belief. I’m tired of repeat myself on different comments, I got a video for that. How do you define atheist and agnosticism.
@@JCOJourneyI never said it was the main topic of your video, but it’s clearly A point of contention here. But no an atheist is someone without a particular belief. And I literally just defined those in the last post, although to be fair I did edit it a lot so you must’ve not loaded it at the last frame lol.
Tl;dr I'll just tell you a definition that's actually applicable to the real world. "I am an atheist" means "Your religion is not relevant to me, except when your religious groups impose it on me." Every once in a while I'll run into one of you "default position" types and I always find you fascinating. What do you expect to accomplish with that framework? Related, whatever your conclusion was in the video, apply it to any other god you happen not to believe in. What is the "default position" on Zeus? Tell me so I can go browbeat my bookie. But moving on, as a mathematician, I'll tell you that it can sometimes be useful to put on those blinders and pretend that everything is strictly true/false - in math; otherwise, in the real world you have to consider other factors like "Is it even worth considering this question". If I told you that there was an invisible, undetectable unicorn floating exactly 3 feet above your head, you - well, you would try to figure out the "default position" - but any normal person would just say "So you're telling me that it's unknowable and irrelevant? ...I will never think about this again."
@@JCOJourney There's been some miscommunication. If I was any more chill right now, I'd be monotone. I guess the tone didn't carry through text. I hope you'll give some thought to the things I pointed out: 1. Other people aren't obligated to give your beliefs the same deference you do. 2. What do you actually gain from a framework with "default positions" - is that even a reasonable concept? 3. There is more value in directly considering another person's perspective than trying to reconstruct it through dichotomy.
1. I don’t care what people believe they are. If one wants to believe they are an atheist, so be it. But when someone define atheism as belief there is no god(s) as an “it is” statement, then we can have a discussion on what it actually is. I’m saying if you are an atheist you will believe this, but if atheism is belief in no gods (simply) and saying “lack of belief in god, pushes the goal post down. Are you familiar with the gumball analogy? 2. I don’t care what someone’s personal default position is, but stating the objective “default” is refusing to give judgement, I.e. I can’t say something exist or doesn’t exist. 3. The video is just giving definitions and explaining the flaws of calling atheism “lack of belief in god”. There should be no shame in one saying they believe there is no god. If one wants to say atheism is the lack of belief in a god, one could call theism the lack of belief in no god.
@@JCOJourney "give some thought to" doesn't mean "read and react". There is not a single word in your responses that indicates you understand what I'm saying. It's like you're spinning your wheels, mentally.
I understand as agnostic was some term in like the 19th century. Like I said, if someone didn’t believe the cheifs will win or lose, I’ll call them nothing.
Yes. I was expecting to disagree with this video. But yes. When people use atheist nowadays, they are usually referring to an agnostic position. Anyone who has thought through the logic is saying there isn't evidence either way. Science says there isn't evidence either way. Burden of proof lies on those who specify they are theist or atheist in the literal sense. Agnostic perspective is the scientific perspective.
Thank you for watching. I'm glad I gave you a different perspective. It just saying the "lack of belief there is god" for atheism just makes things more complicated than it already is
If someone says, "I am X," there is no more of an issue than if someone says, "I believe X". Words are defined by how people use them. You use them one way, and someone else uses them a different way. It's not logic that determines that one is right and the other wrong. So your use of logic is irrelevant.
All top-down origin scenarios (gods or the like first) necessarily include the infinite regression issue, something that cannot be defined away. If you reject the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily reject all top-down (deity first) origin scenarios. If you accept the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily accept that your favorite deity cannot sit at the origin because top-down scenarios cannot have finite origins. Top-down (god first) origin scenarios simply don't work, they are irrational, illogical, or both. Bottom-up origin scenarios (quantum fields or something even more basal first) can work because quantum theory, supported by innumerable objective empirical experiments, shows that there are hard limits to how small and simple things can be. All of our available objective empirical evidence points exclusively and unambiguously to an objective reality that is built from the bottom up.
@@JCOJourney I'm just saying that believing in deities is irrational, illogical, or both. It isn't a belief that is supported by any objective empirical evidence. Heck, I have never seen anyone even be able to fully explain what a deity is supposed to be. I don't see any reason to think that deities exist anywhere outside the minds of believers. No one has ever been able to show that deities are even possible in objective reality.
Theism is being convinced that a god exists. Atheism is not being convinced that a god exists. I don't give a fuck about what it may or may not have meant at one time. Being convinced that no god exists is called antitheism. You can call that strong atheism if you like, but it doesn't really carry the weight involved in the conviction. Maybe it is better to use theism and gnosticism An antitheist would in this case be described as a gnostic atheist. My position would be that gnosticism is not possible for either theism or atheism sine there is no evidence either way. All theists (whether they admit it or not) are agnostic. Interestingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury - head of the Anglican church - describes himself as agnostic. This is an admission that his belief is entirely without foundation. Presumably he persists in his pretended belief because he isn't old enough yet to claim his pension.
"Theism is being convinced that a god exists. Atheism is not being convinced that a god exists." Can you tell me what university in the world teaches that "not being convinced that a god exists" is a both a necessary AND sufficiency condition for atheism? I know of none, which infers to me you're making up claims with no academic support whatsoever. Anti-theism is an AXIOLOGICAL position that the belief in God or religion has a net negative value to society...it has nothing whatsoever to do with the ontological status of God. It is absolutely NOT "being convinced that no God exists" as theists CAN be antitheists! Antitheism is merely the contradictory to protheism. Where do you all get this drivel from as it is clear you never actually studied any of this have you.
Okay. First off, I am not an atheist. That said, I do watch a great deal of atheist shows and such. Therefor, I'd like to try and rebut a few points. Agnosticism is different from theism and atheism. Gnosticism is about knowing. You can be an agnostic theist, believing there is a god but not knowing there is. Second, most atheists that use the "I lack a belief in god" definition do in fact also hold they lack a belief in the lack of a god because there is no proof for either claim, remaining logical in that stance. Then they use the principals of skepticism to say that until there is proof of either claim, the claim that needs the least assumptions is the most likely. Your using there is no sun as an example of a similar claim fails as a comparison in that there is evidence for the existence of the sun. It takes more assumptions to say there is not one because it can be demonstrated. God claims, either for or against, have not yet been demonstrated, so the default is there is not a god because, so far, there is nothing that cannot be at least somewhat demonstrated without a god. We may not know the mechanism of the beginning of the universe, for example, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the "big bang" model of a singularity having an unknown event and beginning to expand, creating the universe we live in. That unknown event might be a god taking an action, but it could also be a type of quantum event that has actually been observed where a stable quantum state went into flux without any observable cause. Less assumptions exist in following that route than a being doing it. To look at another example from your video: The statement that there is no god is a positive claim. The statement there is no moon is also a positive claim. They are both positive claims because they are not claims of belief but claims of fact. The statement there is no god is a default position because there is no proof otherwise, and it is not a necessary position. The existence of the moon is a default position because there is evidence of it's existence. We can see it in the sky. We can measure the effects it has on reality. We have sent people there. The fact we exist and are not in a simulation or a brain in a jar or some other type of rebuttal to the idea of our proof is the reason for my reference to a necessary position. Reality is a necessary position we cannot prove but must accept because without that necessary position, there is no basis for anything to exist because we cannot trust any source of belief or evidence.
To be fair, Gnostic/agnostic theist and atheist are relatively recent terms that were popularized in the 21st century. Those terms are irrelevant when discussing what atheism is. I Saying “there is a god” is as much as a claim as saying “there is no god”. To say there is no god is the default position, is like saying there is no moon or sun or what ever is the default position. There is x or there is no x is a claim. The default should be something along the lines of there is no evidence to say there is or isn’t a god. You last statement is a presumption. How do you know you aren’t in a brain or simulation? Your “evidence” pointed you to make a choice from the default position. The default would be not stating you aren’t, but rather I can’t say we are or we aren’t. The issue i see that we can’t imply we the default is as something is not there not change it when there is something you believe is there. That may work on a personal level but it can’t be on an objective level.
Until there is evidence, the default position is "there is no...". For instance, there is a theory of a Counter Earth by some conspiracy types. With no other evidence available, the proper default position is "there is no Counter Earth". Because of gravity for one, there is a way to show evidence that that default position is correct as well. There is no sun is the default position as well, until there is proof. There is a great deal of proof, therefor, the default position has become, due to proof, there is a sun. Yes, my last point is a presumption. It is a presumption that is required for all the rest. If we remove the presumption that reality exists, then the default position becomes nothing exists. Not reality. Not god. Not me. Because I experience my existence within reality, just like I experience the sun from the earlier point, my default position becomes reality does exist because my experience is my proof. As I stated before, I am a theist. I have experience that proves to me that gods do exist. I did change to plural there because I follow a polytheistic faith. However, my experience is not proof. It cannot be tested or verified. It cannot be shared. Because it is not proof, I do not try and refute someone that says they do not believe in what I believe in. I have no way to defend a positive claim of there being a god, or there not being one. I just believe there are gods, just like I believe reality is real. My default position is there are gods, but I understand why it is not a proper one; it is an unnecessary claim with no proof.
@@thomasanderson8446 //Until there is evidence, the default position is "there is no..."// The default isn't to say yes or no. But refuse judgment. //With no other evidence available, the proper default position is "there is no Counter Earth". Because of gravity for one, there is a way to show evidence that that default position is correct as well.// The default would still be to refuse judgment. Now, the individual default position may vary. For example, for me the default is that there is a god. For you, probably not. It depends on the evidence you accept as valid or such. Another example I can't say something like doesn't exist, I just refuse judgment //Yes, my last point is a presumption. It is a presumption that is required for all the rest. If we remove the presumption that reality exists, // The issue here is that who determines which presumption is correct? What if I presuppose that there is a god first? Now does everyone have them. Sure. But, just because it's a presumption, doesn't make it a correct one. //However, my experience is not proof.// Now this leads to a different conversation on what is "proof". Proof is evidence or "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.". For example, the bible can be evidence for claims about Christ. A fake documentary can be evidence for big foot existing. Does that mean the evidence validifies the claims? No. //It cannot be tested or verified. It cannot be shared. Because it is not proof, I do not try and refute someone that says they do not believe in what I believe in. I// Personal testimony is considered proof. The big issue is that you probably don't consider that valid or scientific evidence. Then, what, OR WHO, determines if evidence is valid. I can't test logic or history scientifically.
@@JCOJourney First point, default position. You are correct. The proper phrasing of the default is to say I don't know. However, in a case of lack of evidence, the default position is also to act on the situation as if there is no, until you can find provable evidence that there is. As a thought experiment: let us state a race of intelligent cave dwellers exists. They live underground in still air. One of these being proposes wind as a thing without ever experiencing it. The correct logical position for other such people is to say "I don't know. I don't believe air can move on it's own, but I withhold judgement on if it can or can't." They could equally say "I don't know. I don't believe air can't move on it's own, but I withhold judgement on if it can or can't." And in either case, they should not build a windmill generator and expect power to be generated. In both cases, they should build tests to see which is right, and then remain in the default acting state of air doesn't move on it's own until their situation changes and they find wind somehow, like discovering a cave entrance. They would also be correct in defaulting to acting like there is no sun, to reference one of your own points, until they found proof of a sun by discovering outside the cave. Which presupposition is correct about reality? The one that requires the least. For us to debate this, we need reality to exist and we need a shared state. We don't need to know if it was a natural occurrence or a created one. We don't need to know if it was spoken into existence, or molded from the flesh of a titan. In all honesty, we don't even need to know if it is truly real or a simulation. All we need is to accept is that it appears to be real and we share it. Then, as we discover things that either define that reality or exist within it, we can add things we can prove to that reality. We orbit a single sun. We have a single moon. Gravity. As we find flaws in our understanding of that shared reality, we can dismiss them. Phrenology, of instance. Everything else is yet to be believed, but to be treated as whatever conforms to reality the most closely with the least assumptions. On the point of proof, personal experience and testimony is proof only to a point. It is recognized that the human mind is flawed. Witness testimony is not judged as solid proof, typically, without either a large number of witnesses or other forms of verification. My personal experience is proof to me, but I don't expect you to abandon your god because I tell you about times I called upon mine to cast a spell and it worked because it is not proof.
Typing on phone. It appears as you say “lack of evidence”. I address before what evidence is in another video. But even you agree or don’t with the Bible, it is evidence that can be used to support Christianity. The question becomes is that the evidence valid and who or what determines that, which doesn’t detract that it’s still evidence. Secondly, we you suggest which presuppositions require the least, that is still subjective. For example, I could say I know man created a calculator and that it’s works so seemingly well with intricate parts , therefore I presuppose that the earth was created by a creator since it’s works so seemingly well with intricate parts . Personal experiences are still proof. The question again would become, who determines if someone’s experiences is valid or not. That’s a different conversation
We can do away with all of the biased wordplay to set up your own definitions if we just look at the evidence both sides offer. Atheism’s “evidence” is disproving claims made by theists and theist’s evidence is claims as to why their god is real, and their disproving of atheist claims are also just more evidence for their side. If one side can only offer evidence and one side can only refute evidence it seems painfully obvious which one makes the positive claim in the argument. (Plus we both know that no intellectually honest person 100% believes there is no god. People just say that for simplicity’s sake. They just don’t believe the people saying there is one.)
@@JCOJourney Oh, thanks for telling me. To be honest my comment wasn’t fully me trying to disprove you. More just my thoughts on this topic. I think it’s best to disregard all definitions we give these words since people twist them to fit their arguments 99% of the time. If there’s a specific claim you made at the start you want me to talk about I will.
I think your presentation was somewhat reasoned, but overly pedantic and flawed. But just for the sake of argument I'll accept your conclusion. That doesn't get you anywhere. Just because you reclassify athiesm as a "belief" doesn't mean that there is a "god(s)". You still have all your work in front of you. All you've done is generate word salad, and rebrand a person with a new label. It's a clumbsy and useless exorsize in "what-about-ism". I'm not sure what you were actually trying to accomplish. Atheism is a belief, therefore God created the universe, Adam and Eve, flooded the earth, has an affinity for foreskins and burnt sacrifice, and became a human to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind, cares deeply about what two people do when naked, and hates shellfish. I don't know how much time it took you to create this video, but however long it took was a complete waste of time.
@@JCOJourney Well, I don't accept your conclusion. I was just being kind for the sake of argument. Just because I generously give your argument a "pass", is essentially meaningless. I think your video was just an attempt at muddying the waters. That being said, I think your approach was at least better than the typical presuppositional gish-gallop.
@@JCOJourney I'm not clear on what you're trying to say. I've already conceded that "atheism" *could be* considered a "belief", illistrated by your argument. However, to use that as supporting "evidence" to the existence of God is a nonsequiter. I can understand why you might think I'm strawmanning or providing a red herring, but given the context of the rest of your videos, it's clear that you are trying to "logic" your way into the existence of God. Where (at least in this video) you are simply using word games to classify atheism as a belief. Just because New York is a real place, doesn't mean that Spiderman is real. I do however respect your diligence. Clearly you have invested a great deal of time into the video, and I appreciate that. (even though I disagree).
Nope. What you've presented here is easily refutable by the following: 1. Definitions reflect how words are used. Words can and do have multiple definitions. 2. The overwhelming majority of individuals who describe themselves as atheist, do so because they lack a belief in "God" (or any supernatural creator being) 3. The fact that the word "atheist" is also used be to describe those who positively assert that no God exists, does nothing to logically contradict or refute #2.
1. I agree 2. The video is describing how saying just "they (just) lack a belief in "God"" means the same as belief there is no god". 3. Where is the flaw in the logic I presented?
@@JCOJourney Here's the flaw. Your conclusion "lack of belief in God means the same as belief there is no God" does not logically follow from any of the arguments you have presented. BTW, when you present your definitional chart at 4:38 (and present that false analogy between "weak atheism" and "weak theism") you mispell both "theism" and "atheism".
@@JCOJourney Again, the flaw is that the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument that precedes it. I can eloborate. 1. You say that it can be assumed that anyone who is a strong atheist is also a weak atheist. But that doesn't follow -- there's nothing logical about that. These terms represent two different propositions -- one does not encompass the other. 2. You also argue that atheism must be a positive claim that God does NOT exist, because the same word is used for two positions. Again, this isn't logical --- as you've already acknowledged, words can have multiple definitions. 3. You also introduce an imaginary concept of "weak theism" and argue that this must mean "a lack of belief that there is no God" -- but this is word game, not an actual position held by anyone. Your construct of "weak theism" is no different from theism. On the other hand, strong atheism is very different from weak atheism. This is a false analogy -- you're not comparing like with like. 4. Finally, if, as you seem to concude, atheism MUST mean - and only mean - the positive assertion that God does ot exist, is it also your contention that there is no such thing as an atheist? Do you know of anyone who holds that position? We can go on, but I think that's enough for now :)
That's a different conversation, about proof, evidence, belief in the relationship between them. Simple question. Do believe no god exist? If you want to say you lack the belief there is a god, do you lack the belief there is no god?
The “government” or “plaintiff” speaks first or they claim something first. They present the claim first. That’s in a judicial setting. In ordinary life, whoever declares has the burden.
Whatever. I'm not out to convince anyone of what even I am not convinced of - that nothing we might see as a higher power of some kind exists. If anyone wants to convince me that they know of any such higher power, however, the onus will be on them to explain why I should be convinced.
@JonathanCOwens Fine. But if you want to convince me that it's not okay to simply say, "I don't believe these claims," that too will require some work.
You don’t have to believe my statement. Im just stating a fact. For example, you can believe the sun is green and powered by the human torch. Okay. I’m just stating it is not green and powered by the human touch. What you believe and what is are two different things.
I generally identify as an athiest in the weak athiest sense i.e. lack of belief in a god. Based on the outline in your video i would also fall into the category of 'weak thiest' i.e. lack of a belief in the proposition 'no god exists'. On this basis, i would be an agnostic under your preferred definitions. However, I think by turning the beliefs into a four way chat / diagram you miss the nuance of what people actually believe in a real world sense. For example, I am strongly convinced that any currently proposed gods e.g. the god of christanity, islam etc do not exist. This is because a) we have a good historical basis to argue that these gods were invested / developed over time within particular cultures and b) because many of the attributes of these gods are internally inconsistent. but I can't call myself a 'strong athiest' because I have no way to prove that no god could possibly exist (such a claim is unfalsifable). I still think the athiest label is more suitable than the agnostic label as it reflects my view that we have no good reason to believe that any god exists and we have good reasons to believe that the proposed gods do not exist. However, at the end of the day this whole issue of labels is irrelevant and I see people on both sides getting too caught up in this. What really matters is what people actually believe, so on the labels as described in your video I'm happy to go with 'agnostic' but personally I still believe that athiest is a better label for my position.
I appreciate for watching the video. “Strong” Atheist and Theist don’t really have nothing to do with proof the claim. It’s really just belief. I mean, I don’t believe the Islam god is true, but still have belief in some deity, specifically the Christian one (sounds weird saying that). like agnostic would be I can’t say this is true or false, but atheist would be I don’t believe. The label thing is kind of redundant, so I tried to speak more as with -ism since it deals with just belief than -ist in the video but it happens just to be easier to say that, as you can see in the comment and at times.
Yeah my comment wasn’t about proof of the positions as such. I just mean that all words carry baggage with them which is why people may feel more comfortable identifying with a certain word over another. If someone is strongly convinced (but less than 100% sure) that there is no god, then they might prefer the atheist label over agnostic as it more closely maps onto what they believe. But they might still feel uncomfortable saying I believe there is no god, because they know that can’t be proven. But again, at the end of the day as long as you are clear about how you are defining the terms (which you are in your video) then there are no issues in using different definitions and I think this video provides a good argument for why these terms should be defined differently.
Given the range: Animism -- inanimate objects have spirits Shamanism -- a special person can commune with spirits Afterlife -- life after death Ancestor worship -- spirits of ancestors participate in life of the living Inactive high gods -- beings that formed reality, but don't participate in the life of the living Active high gods -- beings that formed reality, and whimsically participate in the life of the living Moralistic high gods -- beings that formed reality, punish the bad, and reward the good where is your atheist/theist line? Where it can get confusing is when someone talks about belief in one and only one god exists. They are a theist toward that one god, but are an atheist toward any other god. Philosophical logic can only describe a subset of reality, it can't define reality. The subset being where a clear dichotomy exists. Using the double negative form shows there is no clear dichotomy, so the atheist/theist line is outside the realm of philosophical logic. Cool.
Simple you don't like the definition, why because it's not a positive claim of no god. Here I'll make it simple: there is no god I'm aware of. Theist, Agnostic, and Atheist are beliefs. The problem arises when they are stated as facts. The lack of belief is clarifying this.
Tbh this is kinda straightforward. I’ve noticed among a lot of people they will go through so many hoops to justify doing anything when everything is a lot simpler than they care to admit.
We can pick the definitions of words to be whatever we like. Contradictory to the suggestion of your title there is nothing whatsoever stopping us from defining atheism as "the lack of belief that there is a God". There is no logical inconsistency in that, it is a concept that can be named just as any other. To me, your video presents itself as an argument that it is more convenient to define it a particular way that you like to define it. This is the real world however, and not everyone will agree with your argument or even have seen and/or considered it. You have to be prepared for and accept that not everyone will use the word with the exact same rigour and to the exact same definitions as you. With that in mind, it a sign of someone who argues in good faith to look past these semantic differences to the core of whatever argument is being presented. I am sure you are familiar the opposite from commenters imposing their conflicting definitions upon your arguments (i.e. your 'faith' video?) so please, don't do the same thing when making sweeping statements about 'the atheists in your comment section'. As to my thoughts on your actual argument: with the greatest respect, I think it is irredeemably flawed and built upon this false implicit assumption I get from many religious people that (those who call themselves) atheists believe in their atheism the same ways that they believe in their religion. I don't blame them at all, it's human/natural to assume others think the same way that you do, even if they reach different conclusions, but I think, e.g. putting the two standpoints on a scale of theist-agnostic-atheist is such a gross oversimplification and a complete misrepresentation of the differences between the two thought processes. Here my view of my own personal experience of atheism that might explain why I think 'lack of belief in a God' is a sufficient definition of 'atheist': My beliefs are primarily based on the principles of the scientific method and rationality. Ideally, I believe in "the simplest explanation of all observations" (I say ideally because I am not perfect, but this is at least the standard I hold my beliefs to). I should be clear however that I don't mean a vague, subjective definition of simplest, but that it is the explanation that relies on the fewest details. To be honest, that's not well worded and doesn't convey my meaning well, I don't know how to condense the entire scientific school of thought into a sentence but I hope it should be familiar enough to you that you get what I am trying to say, if not, please research this extremely important philosophical approach. Importantly though my belief doesn't involve extraneous details that aren't necessary to explain any of my observations. For example, every time I check my basement, it is empty. I hear no noises coming from my basement, and I've never seen anybody else go into my basement. Consequently I believe that there is nobody living in my basement. I believe this despite the fact that I have never proven that there is nobody in my basement no matter how many times I go in there, and I will continue to be confident in my belief that there is nobody living in my basement until the moment I see evidence that contradicts that. In fact I can pinpoint your clear misunderstanding of this concept to your complete straw man analogy at about 3:30. To play along with your unhelpfully poorly defined concept of 'default position', the 'default position' of anything, moon, God, or man in my basement is non-existence until evidence suggests otherwise. At 'default' I don't believe in the moon. But then I see a light in the sky, I see the periodic phases, I see eclipses, and I conclude that the simplest explanation of these observations is a moon. I don't believe in a second moon, despite the fact that I have not proven there isn't one, because the first alone explains all my observations (should I, if moon existence is the 'default position' believe in this second moon?). There is no circular reasoning there, nor any 'special pleading' in approaching God or the moon differently. That is what I mean when I personally describe myself as atheist, I don't believe in God the same way I don't believe that there's a second moon we just can't see for some reason, or that Saddam Hussein survived and persists in my basement. But here's where I see a problem. The way I see it in this approach the lines between "not believing in something" and "believing something isn't" become blurred, (asymmetrically with "believing something is") into a vague sense of "basing my predictions/statements about the world on the assumption that it is not, and pretty much disregarding the thought entirely". Am I, by your definitions, a 'strong atheist' because my worldview is one in which God does not exist, or am I a weak atheist because I concede that I am unable to prove its non-existence? If the former, then I reject your idea that it is equivalent to the belief in God in terms of requiring justification beyond a lack of evidence to the contrary. Attempting to prove the lack of existence of an unfalsifiable concept is a deliberate 'gotcha' thrown against my belief and one that is not required to justify the lack of belief in something. If I am the latter, then a 'strong atheist' is exceedingly rare, a generic 'God' is a completely unfalsifiable concept as mentioned before, so it is completely impossible to have proven conclusively the lack of its existence. If you think 'strong atheist' means someone who thinks they have then 'strong atheists' are all lunatics.
@@JCOJourney That's not really a focus of my comment nor really a point I care about at all, but no, not really. Your title says that atheism 'cannot be defined' that way. Your video only really provides an argument that you think it is more practical to define it a different way. "Lack of belief in a God" is a concept that can be assigned a name like anything else, no reason that that name can't be 'atheism'. Again though I didn't wanna focus on this I don't really care and I understand the reasoning behind the video title.
@@thomasfoster1985 First, I like to address one point at a time. You kind of did focus your first two paragraphs on the title, so it’s only fair I respond to it accordingly. Now, there is a reason there is a JUST in the title. If you disagree with the title, then it would imply you think Atheism CAN be defined as just the “Lack of Belief There is a God””, which isn’t true as Atheism CAN be defined as other things. If we can acknowledge this, then we continue with your critique, one point at a time.
@@JCOJourney If you think those paragraphs were focusing on the title you've entirely missed the point I was making, or you're intentionally misrepresenting me. I don't know how you can possibly read those and think the title is my concern.
@@thomasfoster1985 “Contradictory to the suggestion of your title there is nothing whatsoever stopping us from defining atheism as ‘the lack of belief that there is a God.’ There is no logical inconsistency in that...” So I can't address this point one at a time. You then even went to say "As to my thoughts on your actual argument: " So what was even the first two paragraphs about?
🫣 Me: shows an informative video about words and logic. You: So what? I still lack a belief in any gods. Me:-_- (what does that have to do with the video)
Sorry, you won't change my mind making semantic tricks redifining "what I believe". I know what I believe better than you, and you're speaking nonsense. And your accsations of fallacies and lack of reasoning but for the biased one are all sweet projections. This is another trite attempt to shift the burden of proof on atheist. You can make yourself comfy: let alone the fail about that, even if it would have worked, that doesn't mean you are dispensed from presenting YOUR evidence. And still, theists have none.
@christaylor6574 isn't a problem to you that what he defines as what I believe, is not what I believe? That's the problem, not the relations. Let's say I define religion as "the delusion of a god existing". Yeh, work relations with that.
@christaylor6574 "I don't know what you believe." Yeh. I know. What about, I don't know, asking for it? So you don't have to guess? "If you disagree with the video then can i ask - what terms do you use for the following: [...]" see? you're doing it too.Noone needs to make a true/false claim to NOT believe him on his god's existence. It's sufficent that his arguments fail catastrophically somewhere, like at the beginning, with the definition used. I would conclude "therefore god isn't real" if my premise is "religion is the delusion of god existing", that follows directly. it doesn't mean it's conclusion is true tho, or that someone shouldn't object to how it was setup. Also, I'm not the one to decide how they are to be called, do as I do and ask them: language is our bitch, ask them how they want to be called and why.
I think the issue you may have is from the concept of belief. Defined as the ability to accept as true something for which you have no concrete evidence. I can't do that, I either know or I don't know. I don't 'believe' in anything because without evidence I don't know if it's true and if I said it was I would be lying. I know it's hard for religious people to understand but a better way to look at atheism is to say they are people who do not engage with the concept of belief. 99% of atheists put God in the same category as astrology, the Loch Ness monster and Atlantis. There is no evidence for their unlikely existence but plenty of evidence for Humans making things up. Look at how quickly internet conspiracies propagate, flat earthers, fake moon landings, kids raised by wolves, the Jews control the world. It's very clear that we are an extremely gullible species. I don't know if there is a God, it seems unlikely given the evidence for evolution but I do know we can be naïve, foolish and gullible.
@@JCOJourney Just being precise with how I see it. 'Proof' can be a bit subjective these days where everyone likes to believe their own truth. 'Concrete evidence' removes the subjectivity and is truthful to my view. For example The Bible may be proof to some but it's not concrete evidence. Whereas red shifting galaxies is concrete evidence that the universe is expanding.
@@JCOJourney Yes. I don't 'believe' anything in the way you mean it, positive or negative. Although I can suspend disbelief for fun. I actually like all the spiritual and metaphysical stuff, it's interesting and entertaining and I wouldn't mock religious people for enjoying that, unless they were denying a proven scientific truth. Believe has two meanings, 'know it' in my heart which is what religious people mean and 'hope' as in I believe my cat loves me. Do I hope there's a God, sure although maybe not the Christian one as he'd send me to hell for no good reason. Do I know it in my heart? No, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
If you lack the belief there is a god and is no god. That’s not atheism. That’s really just nothing (but agnostic is the common term). But you can believe what you want to believe.
It’s a weird distinction, but there is a difference in saying lack of believe vs believe not. In practical usage, some people might use them to mean the same thing
Just because there are weak and strong atheists doesn't necessitate that there are weak and strong theists. You don't have to have parity between the terms.
Someone must be either: 1. A strong Atheist. 2. A strong theist. 3. Both weak atheist and theist. Is that correct? if not, what is at least the four option?
@@JCOJourney 4. Only a weak theist. 5. Only a weak atheist. 6. None of the above. This is because we don't have to accept the premise that the definitions are correct or necessary.
You suggest weak theist and atheist alone. Okay. If I were to ask you (assuming you are in the category) do there believe there is a god. What should your response be.
I'm a little disappointed on my fellow atheists for not getting the purpose of this video. The thesis of the video is not "all people that call themselves atheists believe there is no God", but rather "the label 'atheist' must apply only to those who deny the existence of God". I agree with you up to the point where you used "agnostic" as a label to denote lack of believe. While I agree that it has been used in that sense, I think it serves a better purpose to denote lack of knowledge, so we can distinguish gnostics and agnostics among both theists and atheists (,although I don't really like the label "agnostic atheist", I'd rather identify myself as both an agnostic and an atheist). Now, the reason why your argument doesn't work. At 7:28, you used the word "should". At that moment, your argument stopped being "Atheism MUST mean..." and became "Atheism SHOULD mean..." I mean, I don't blame you, this is not a bad SHOULD argument, but one cannot make an argument about how a word MUST mean something because that's not how definitions work (and you even acknowledge some of that at the beginning). Finally, if you think I misrepresented you by plugging MUST when you never used that word, I'm using it to represent the idea that "it necessary follows that atheist means...", which is the impression that I got from your argument. Maybe I'm misrepresenting you, so I would love some feedback.
I think the purpose of the video is silly. There is no reason not to just accept that people mean what they say they mean and let them use whatever label they feel is appropriate. Arguing about labels is pointless.
@miguelangelguillenhernande8647 Thank you watching. I guess the MUST and SHOULD could be switch. I just used MUST to infer something like: If someone plays football, therefore they must be a football player. Or if someone believes there is a god. They are a theist, one who believe in a god. They therefore MUST believe in a god. I don't care what a person believes (to an extent). But that words have meanings.
@@JCOJourney The problem with swapping SHOULD with MUST is, how do you justify that? In your two examples, the only way I could see of justifying the claims is, literally, "by definition". That is, you establish the definition of "football player" and "theist" before making the claims. If you were to do that in your argument, you would be establishing your definitions in order to conclude the establishment of your definitions, and that would be begging the question. Then again, I think it is impossible to make an argument like "X must necessarily mean Y", because that's not how definitions work.
@emmanuelbeaucage4461 I talked about this already in my video Atheism: The belief there is no god. Watch if you are willing for your position to be challenged. If not, take care.
@@JCOJourney Then the video have an error in its title... not only atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in gods... It's also exactly how it is already accuratly defined!
@@JCOJourney It's the claim that something exists. Whether it's the moon, unicorns, spacetime, the McDonald's on Main St, if one of us believes any of those doesn't exist, the other party has the burden of proof. You can't prove that something DOESN'T exist, after all.
@@JCOJourney The issue is that is that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove that fae, unicorns, trolls, or any other mythical thing doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you have to believe in it. If I argued that they did, you'd want proof, right?
OK, it seems to me that you are carving out the terms, "strong atheist" to mean a "gnostic atheist," and "weak atheist" to me an "agnostic atheist." If a person says, "there is X" then that person has made a claim. A person making a claim is different from someone who believes a thing. A person stating, "I don't believe that there is X" has not made a claim, they have merely made a declaration of fact. As far as what the terms mean, unless you can convince the majority to change definitions, your time is probably better put to other uses. I mean, go talk with those who insist that "impact" is not a verb if you want to find consolation.
@@JCOJourney Of course. I just think they are not very good terms, because gnostic and agnostic cover the same ground and are more clear about what they mean.
Gnostic/agnostic is a relatively new 21st terminology that I personally believe, is not used right, but that’s a different conversation. How about this? If I lack the belief in a god, doesn’t mean I believe there is no god. But if I believe there is no god, I lack the belief in a god. Do you agree.
@@JCOJourney "Gnostic/agnostic is a relatively new 21st terminology " Sources I find point to it being a 19th century terminology. Do you mean that it became more common in the 21st century? Why is that relevant to you? "If I lack the belief in a god, doesn’t mean I believe there is no god. " If you lack the belief in a god, how would it imply that you don't believe there is no god? If you are saying that not having a belief in a god (thus being atheist) means you do not claim that there is no god, then it seems to me you would be an agnostic atheist. "if I believe there is no god, I lack the belief in a god." Yes. Perhaps we need to dig deeper into the meaning of "belief?"
@rodshop5897 So agnostic/gnostic atheist and theist really popped off in this century. I mean it’s have a few mentions of individuals saying All atheists are agnostic or something along the lines, but wasn’t like some “category” or say. It’s isn’t really define and really just what people want to call themselves. For example, Gnostic was known as specially divine knowledge and a special “religion”. The idea that Gnostic means just claim in knowledge today for describing atheism and theism, isn’t some “official” term in a sense. Or wasn’t use that way. Basically combining Gnostic/agnostic and atheism/theism is, what I believe, not properly defied yet. Some individuals use the terminology strong/positive/hard vs weak/negative/soft atheism to explain the difference in say the lack of belief in god vs belief in no god. Now I say this because you brought agnostic and gnostic up. I never brought it up in the video. So some atheists I talk do will say: It’s not that I believe there is no god (strong), but I lack the belief there is a god (weak) Another reason I don’t add the Gnostic/agnostic is because some people use it to define claim in knowledge, which I’m not addressing just belief. Belief is just an acceptance that a statement is true To believe something means to accept something is true. Are you following me and does that address your points?
I plan on being on live at 4 eastern on this coming Wednesday It appears the comments who don’t agree go two different ways 1. “I understand the individual steps you, but it SHOULD be “X” without”addressing any of the error in steps. 2. Believing the claim “There is no God” is not a positive claim.
I think there's a misunderstanding of what positive and negative claims are. A positive claim P could be "There is a Moon." A negative claim !P, then, is "There is no Moon." I think there's also a misunderstanding of what a default position is. The default position for anything is that it doesn't exist. There's are reasons behind that. One reason, that it's easier to prove something's existence, yet very hard to prove something's nonexistence. I do like your categorization at the end. That of Weak/Strong Theism/Atheism. I don't know if I would bring Agnosticism into this, though. Since Gnosticism isn't even in this picture, Agnosticism shouldn't be either. Unless you can fit it in. "Words have meaning." That is true. You sound like a prescriptionist, someone who believes that there's only one true meaning for a word. On the flip side there are descriptionists, someone who believes that words have usages that can deviate from any prescribed meaning. For descriptionists, a word has the meaning that the speaker intends. For a prescriptionist, a word has the meaning that the prescriptionist intends. Which one is the fairest position? Which one is the most pragmatic?
@@JCOJourney _"There is no moon and there is no god are both positive claims"_ I disagree. The sources I've found give me different results. But well, that distinction isn't that important for this topic. What's important is that we both agree that all claims need evidence. Positive or negative. _"the default is no position. It’s not saying it does or doesn’t exist."_ Ah! That I do agree with. What's your take on Gnosticism and Agnosticism?
In terms of what on Gnosticism and agnosticism. You know saying no something thing doesn’t exist and saying I don’t know are not the same. Do the reason there is no moon and there is no god have different criteria is because of your belief? Not an objective one?
@@JCOJourney _"You know saying no something thing doesn’t exist and saying I don’t know are not the same."_ I am aware. But the fact that you ask this indicates to me that I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying that you're not talking about Gnosticism and Agnosticism at all in this video? If so, why do you refer to Agnosticism from 7:45? _"Do the reason there is no moon and there is no god have different criteria is because of your belief? Not an objective one?"_ What do you mean by criteria?
That was the term used in the 19th century and still continues to be used by some as not atheist or theist. I also said I would call them anything. The Gnostic and agnostic atheist/theist are really recent terms anyway, that I don’t address.
3:20, no sir. Both examples are incorrect for different reason. "There is no god" is a positive claim because it asserts a "there is" statement. In the next example, "there is no moon" is also a positive claim and therefore assumes the burden of proof. When you mention the "default position" you're actually referring to the "null hypothesis" (something you should read about before responding to this). The null hypothesis should always be a rejection of the claim: "I don't believe there is no moon" the syntax is subtle here but you missed it a couple times in this video. The statements, "There is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god" are different statements. It's subtle like I said, but the former is a positive assertion of a claim, the latter is a rejection of someone else's positive claim. It has nothing to do with how much evidence there is, although I appreciate your admission of lack of evidence to the positive claim of "there is a god".
Yeah I probably should have elaborated. In scenario 1, person B is incorrect to say person A is not making a positive claim. In scenario 2, person B is correct to say person A is making a positive claim, but its not because "the default position is existence" The reason I evaluate these as such is because the default position has nothing to do with the evidence. I made an additional mistake telling you to look into the "null hypothesis" as that doesn't apply here. Really, were searching for a "true dichotomy" so that we can figure out which ideas to compare to each other. If we start a debate with two positive claims like: "There is a god" and "there is no god", then there is no default position. It introduces a 3rd possibility, which is to reject both claims. We want to avoid having a 3rd position if we want to have meaningful conversations about which things are actually true. So the true dichotomy becomes, "there is a god" and "I don't believe there is a god". In this case, the burden of proof is on the person claiming a god. Inversely, we can say "There is no god" and "I don't believe there is no god", and now the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is no god. Both of these examples are true dichotomies because there is no possible 3rd position. And now we can proceed with presenting evidence for the positive claims, and the negatives evaluating if that evidence is sound. So the claim that needs to provide evidence is not the side that is generally accepted, but rather whoever is asserting something to be true. To come full circle, person A in Scenario 2 is making a positive claim that the moon doesn't exist. They need to provide evidence not because the status quo is that we can see the moon, it's because they're positively claiming the moon does not exist. If someone were to say "the moon does exist", and someone rejects that claim, the burden of proof is on the person positively claiming the moon exists.
That section could have been explained better. The scenario happens multiple times where I ask an Atheist both the no god and no moon claim, with them saying only one is the positive claim.
Instead of wasting time trying to redefine a word you've demonstrated you understand the meaning of when used by Atheists, why not just provide convincing evidence for the god you believe in? No one is ever going to be convinced a god exists by redefining the word they use to describe their state of mind.
@@JCOJourney If we're going to play that game, then your video has no purpose as it sure as shit not going to redefine a word that you already know the common definition of.
@christaylor6574 Bullshit. He is conflating a positive claim of "there is no god" with the definition he admits to understanding, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god(s). Any who make the claim that there are NO gods are also atheist same as those who do not make the claim. A Toyota Camry is a car, but not all cars are Toyota Camrys. Instead of trying to deduce the internal thoughts of other people through oratorical masturbation, ask them.
@christaylor6574 Are you unaware of the existence of subsets? I feel like you and the OP of the video must know each other personally and this is why you showed up in his video, it's like you both failed the same philosophy 101 course and became fast friends in sucking at this. If a person makes the claim "There is no god" would they also necessarily not believe a god exists? If so, then they are an atheist as well. Atheism is a BROAD TERM that encompasses any who are not convinced of the existence of god(s.)
@christaylor6574 If you are aware of subsets then you're wasting your time trying to make an argument pretending they don't exist. "It can't be if you agree not all cars are a Toyota Camrys." Do people think you being intellectually dishonest is cute? Do I really need to waste my time taking that line and reversing the order to point out how it's a subset? I've typed it 3 times now I think. Does it need to be repeated yet again for you? If you are only capable of seeing that in one way, let me know I'll just not respond anymore. > not all "atheists" think theism is false. Congrats you made a true statement. Atheism is not "theism is false." Multiple people have said this, it's like the most basic intro to this topic. Lacking a belief in a proposition is not the same as affirming that theism is "false." Theism: "I believe god(s) exist." Atheism: "I am not convinced, I do not believe god(s) exist." If you personally make the strong affirmation that no gods exist, that's your personal belief.
Let get started with definitions. Can you define these 6 words Atheist Theist Gnostic Agnostic Gnosticism Agnosticism. You don’t need some complicated definition but keep the philosophy definitions.
The chief error you are making here is in stating that the default position has to be a belief that something exists. Saying that the moon exists is a positive claim that requires a burden of proof, and saying that the moon does not exist is also a positive claim that requires a burden of proof. Someone who lacks a belief that the moon exists does not take a side in the argument; this is the default position. Now, lets look at you "weak theist" versus weak atheist. The weak theist lacks a belief that there is no god, which means they believe there is a god. The double negative does all of the work here, and so the "weak theist" is actually a strong theist, or theist. However, a weak atheist lacks a belief in a god. They are adopting the default position. They are not making the positive claim that there is no god, they just lack a belief in any god. Again, the key difference here is that the default position does not contain a double negative.
@@JCOJourney In scenario 1, you have one interlocuter state that "nonexistence is the default position", and in scenario 2, you have one interlocuter state that "existence is the default position". In both scenarios 1 and 2, the default position is refusing judgment, and both claims are positive claims. Because you used these scenarios to frame your discussion, you appear not to understand what the "default position" is. You then appear to apply this confusion about default positions to create a false equivalence between weak atheism and "weak theism". Now, I fully understand that you are using the term "weak theism" in order to argue that weak atheism should not be called atheism, but the issue is that you have created this false equivalence and you don't seem to understand that. The substantive part of my rebuttal, though, has nothing to do with what the actual default position is, but rather, the fact that your "weak theist" position, by virtue of being expressed as a double negative, is actually equivalent to the "strong theist" position, whereas the weak atheist position is distinct from both the strong theist and strong atheist positions. Really, we should think of belief as a spectrum, with strong theism on one end and strong atheism on the other end. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a position of "I lack a belief in any gods because I do not have sufficient evidence for any gods". This position marks the start of atheism, since it is characterized by non-acceptance of a god claim. Any position which accepts some god claim is a theist position. In this spectrum, you do have weak theists; these are people who believe in god, but perhaps acknowledge that they don't have strong evidence, or people who are unsure but feel there must be something, for example.
Ultimately, I think you are coming at this from the perspective of a theist, and you perhaps don't understand how someone can have a lack of belief in something, because all of your examples about "lack of belief" are just examples of someone believing a claim and therefore "lacking" belief in the opposite of the claim.
@@JCOJourney Sure, whatever. It doesn't come across that way, but I'll grant you that for the sake of the argument. You still aren't addressing the substance of my rebuttal. Your whole argument rests on drawing a false equivalence between "weak theism" and weak atheism.
@@JCOJourney Greek then Latin then French. yes. But most prefixes and suffixes we use today come from the Latin. The dictionary (not online) shows the origins. They also teach this in high school.
Agnostic is not a lack of belief, but a position concerning knowledge.
Wrong, because knowledge means justified belief and confidence in that belief. They are tied together, you cannot know somehing without believing in it.
@@eklektikTubb But you can believe something without knowing it. Confidence in a belief doesn't mean that you know it. To know something, it has to be true. Even if you believe something and are convinced of that belief, it may not be true.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Confidence in a belief means you THINK you know it and you identify as gnostic. Lack of that belief confidence lead people to say "i dont know" and identify as agnostics.
@@eklektikTubb My understanding of the term "agnostic" is not simply that one doesn't know whether a god exists, but that one doesn't believe it is possible to know. Whether one claims to know or not is not important to me. What's important, what motivates a person, is what they believe.
@@aaronpolichar7936 Doesn't believe it is possible to know? Hmm... i am not sure if i heard that definition before.
I would say it is possible to know, yet i personaly dont know, i have no idea if he is real or not real and, more or less, i dont even care. I like to be neutral on God and i like label agnosticism because i am not aware of a better label that would demonstrate such religious neutrality.
If anthiest are people who believe god does not exist. Then what is the word for people who just dont believe god exists?
I would like to address the other guy as I agree with the definition of anti-theist. They (Anti-theist) are just against the idea of religion and the idea of god. But this doesn't address what the belief in no god.
I've said this for years, there's no effective difference between the two since any skeptic will change their view if good evidence for a god is provided.
Admittedly, this was one of the more frustrating videos I have come across in a while because such much of the analysis was quite good, and yet the final conclusions were just all over the place. I am going to use the common place example I can immediately think and then then tie it back to the subject of this video. Additionally, I will use your stipulation of using the term "God" to also possibly mean multiple Gods, supernatural beings, etc.
There is a murder in a mansion, and criminal charges are made against the butler for committing the crime. It is true that either the butler is guilty of committing the murder or innocent of committing the murder. However, of those two propositions, only one proposition is considered at trial: the proposition of guilt. That is why a jury does not choose between finding the defendant innocent of guilty; instead, they choose between finding the defendant guilty or not guilty.
If after hearing the case the jury finds the prosecution did meet its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then they will find the defendant guilty. However, there are three main groups I would propose would find the defendant not guilty. The first group would be any jurors that, after listening to the prosecution and defense, believe the defendant could have killed the victim or even very likely killed the victim; however, if they do not think the prosecution meet its burden of proof then they would vote not guilty. The second group would be jurors that have no idea who committed the murder after hearing both sides, so they vote not guilty. The third group would be jurors that find not only did the prosecution not meet its burden of proof, but the defense successfully made its case that there is no way the butler committed the crime, so those jurors vote not guilt as they are convinced the defendant is actually innocent. As you can see, a jury voting not guilty does not necessarily mean that they are voting him innocent.
There is a claim that a God exists. It is either the case that this God either exists or does not exist. Both of these are positive claims that carry a burden of proof. However, when it comes to belief of existence, we are considering only one proposition: the proposition of God existing. When I look at the evidence, arguments, and reasons why Theists make the claim that God exists, I currently find that their case does not meet its burden of proof. As such, while Theism states that God is guilty of existing, I currently find that God is not guilty of existing. However, it does not automatically follow that I believe God does not exist, or to follow the analogy I do not find God innocent of existing. While I find the Arguments of Evil and Divine Hiddenness to be quite persuasive, those arguments are only applicable to some God claims but not all. Additionally, when it comes to claims where a God creates the Universe and then does not interact with it again (such as in Deism), I frankly have seen not a single good argument either for or against God and so cannot rule out that possibility.
When I am just speaking to someone in real life or online and they ask me what my views on God are, my answer is that I am an Atheist. I do not believe the claim that a God or Gods exist, so I am using the term Atheist colloquially. However, if I was in a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig or another apologist, I would specify my exact position on this subject: I am a non-resistant Agnostic Atheist. I am non-resistant as Schellenberg defined being resistant and non-resistant. I am Agnostic as I do not know if a God exists. I am an Atheist as I do not believe the claim that a God exists.
The best advice I would give to you and every Theist in the world: if someone calls themself an Atheist, just ask them if they could clarify their exact position for you. Frankly, most of us are so use to Apologist attempts to straw man Atheists that it is actually refreshing when someone asks for clarification.
Frustrating but you haven’t address my points in the video, just the stipulation of god. Where is the flaw in the logic of the video?
@@JCOJourney Here is the flaw in your logic. When you get the end of your video where you are making your final points, you are stating that Theism is the belief in the existence of a God, and Atheism is the belief in the existence of no Gods. That is false for the entire analogy that I painstakingly tried to make clear to you. Theists are saying that God is guilty of existing. I am saying that I currently find God not guilty of existing. It follows from your logic that because I find God not guilty, what that actually means is that I find God innocent of existing. That statement is FALSE. I do not find God innocent of existing. Now, I showed you in my example that there is a subset of Atheists that not only agree that God is not guilty of existing but are making the positive claim that God is innocent of existing. That is a claim that carries its own burden of proof, and I stated above that I also do not believe their burden has been met.
That is your logical flaw. Not everyone that votes not guilty is actually meaning a claim of innocence. Because someone does not believe the claim that God exists, it does not logically follow that they also believe God does not exist. Your argument does not reflect this reality.
I gave reasons for why the definitions must be that.
I started with some atheist favorite definition “lack of belief there is god” and explained how that logically doesn’t make sense.
Your rebuttal seems to be upset at the conclusion, but not any error in the logic or anything else? It’s like if I made a cake and you agreed with every baking step I gave but once I showed the cake, you think I did it wrong?
@@peteraguilar7600 The main point of the video is that one option "not guilty" should be replaced with two options "innocent" and "i have no idea". (First are real atheists, second are just agnostics.)
You didnt address that point at all, you just deflecting from the topic by somehow suggesting that believers dont understand what atheists mean by not guilty and their lack of understanding makes them wrong about the whole topic. That is VERY DISHONEST way of arguing from your side.
Can you steelman my position?
This is super simple. We don't know all there is to know about this universe, for all we know we are in a lab experiment. People in the past have guessed. Believers find one of those guesses compelling. Atheists find none of them compelling.
Grats on 50% comment rate on your video, RUclips will love you :)
Appreciate it. It’s funny because the retention rate is like at 2 min with impression currently at around 7%. With all these comments, I had people saying they read the thumbnail/title, clicked dislike, comment why I’m wrong, and admitted to never watching the video
Interesting idea! As a 'weak atheist' myself, I certainly wouldn't make the claim that God doesn't exist, as, for starters, the nature of God's characteristics aren't even definitively agreed upon for us to even begin to look for evidence. The most I would say is something along the lines of: "the gods proposed by the world's religions are highly unlikely to be accurate representations of reality due to their origins in culture and politics (that have significantly changed over a relatively small amount of time), personal, emotion-based experience, and frequent historical use to fill in gaps in our knowledge (which we have later found to be completely natural), etc."
Weak atheists are (from my experience) indifferent to the notion of God - there is no evidence for or against, or reason/need to believe either way. However, what weak atheists may well counter are the specific truth claims of religions, clearly leaning more towards atheism than theism, whilst not making the explicit claim. I wouldn't claim that God doesn't exist, but, for example, if someone were to tell me that humans are superior, evolution doesn't exist, and that God created us all in his image, etc, then I would most certainly oppose it - something I'd imagine a 'weak theist' definitely wouldn't do.
I’m saying that a weak atheist must be a strong atheist or also weak theist, which is why I don’t like the strong and weak usage of
@@JCOJourney I don't think the idea of weak theism really holds up. Theism and atheism aren't equals, they are fundamentally different. Theism is a belief, weak atheism is non-belief, and strong atheism is non-belief plus a claim. There is an important difference between a belief and a claim.
Both strong and weak atheism fall under the umbrella of atheism (both expressing the lack of belief in a god). Someone who lacks a belief in God's non-existence wouldn't fall under the category of theism, as theism is fundamentally an expression of the belief in a God - something not expressed in your definition of weak theism.
But if weak theism doesn’t hold up, it must be fair to say weak atheism doesn’t hold up. I explained why atheism is a belief.
Curious.
What do you define these 6 words
Agnostic
Gnostic
Agnosticism
Gnosticism
Atheist
Theist.
Using philosophy definitions.
@@JCOJourney You suggested that atheism is a belief because negative claims still hold the burden of proof. This may well apply to strong atheists, who do make the claim that God doesn't exist, but it does not apply to weak atheists, who make no positive or negative claim at all. The vast majority of atheists are weak atheists. In fact, I've never come across someone claiming to be a strong atheist anywhere - it seems it's just more of a useful conceptual distinction.
Sure, Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence/non-existence is unknowable. An agnostic is someone that believes this, although lots of people use it more casually to just say they don't know. An atheist is someone who either disbelieves or lacks belief in a God. A theist is someone who believes in a God. I haven't come across gnostic and gnosticism before.
Some put them together to be more specific, but they are ultimately just labels that people will have loads of different definitions for - it's the beliefs that they are referring to that matter.
I see no persuavive evidence for a god, I therefore lack knowledge of the existence of a god, so I am an agnostic. That's my interpretation of the factual, evidential basis for a god. Furthermore, I do not believe there is a god, which is a belief position like that of believers, so I am an atheist. I do not know that there is a god, nor can I prove there isn't one.
Can you steelman my position?
@@JCOJourney No, I'm stating my beliefs. Your 'sun' analogy, around 3:00, posits someone saying 'there is no sun,' then mentions evidence for the existence of the sun. The situation isn't the same with regard to a god, since, for some of us, the evidence isn't compelling. You follow on with your 'moon' example. I think you are conflating knowledge with belief. You may be a believer, and can't conceive that others do not agree with your belief.
Steelman just shows if you actually know what I’m saying in my video
@@JCOJourney Surely my comments indicate that I don't understand your argument.
So would it be fair to say you believe there is no god?
In the English language, words are defined by usage- that is, by how people actually use them. There is no dictator of the English language that can tell people what words 'must' mean and have it stick. One can certainly object to how words are used for philosophical reasons, but since disbelief in gods without any affirmation that there is no god is an actual thing, it's hardly wrong to use a word like 'atheist' to denote that. As with every word, the important thing is to clarify meaning in a discussion in order to avoid confusion due to equivocation.
So if me and other theists use the word theist to mean “not atheist”, will that be acceptable?
@JonathanCOwens Yes. Someone is not an atheist is a theist.
That’s fine because a baby is a theist because they are not atheist.
@@JCOJourney A baby believes in God? Do you have evidence for that?
Remember my definition of theist is not atheist. They are not atheist. They lack the belief there is no god.
Agnosticism is about "gnosticism" ("having knowledge"), so agnostic is someone who has know knowledge. Knowledge is subset of believe. Theism is having believe in deity, atheism is not-having believe. Gnosticism is having knowledge, agnosticism is not-having knowledge. You can by gnostic-theist or agnostic-theist.
//agnostic is someone who has know knowledge.//. Respectfully is that what you mean.
Agnostic lacks knowledge (which is a subset of belief).
Atheism is belief in no deity as explained
The video wasnt addressing the gnostic/agnostic atheist/theist. Those are relatively new 21st ideas that differs from agnostic and gnostic were used.
"Agnosticism is about "gnosticism" ("having knowledge")
No university I know of teaches this...what academic source you using for this? o.O?
Agnostic and gnosticism are UNRELATED. Even Wiki warns people not to make this puerile error.
@@JCOJourney The phrase "Agnostic on p" in literature, both inside and outside of philosophy connotes a person who is undecided on a proposition or has no opinion on the matter).
"Steve was agnostic on the proposition to build a library on the corner of 11th and Elm or not to build it there"
That setence has nothing relating to knowledge, but connotes by locution that Steve is undecided or has no opinion on the matter.
Problem is that no one single accepted definition of god. So you can not have active believe on god you don't know. But you can not be convinced that that god exists, because there is no evidence. It is strange that somebody don't understand that simple principle.
I explained why i used the word "god" in the video
@@JCOJourney You can not provide definition of all gods. So I can't make my position to all possible gods. And my default position is that I don't believe that something exists before is a good reason to believe that. Both existence and non-existence have to be backed up by evidence.
Deity, which I explained.
@@JCOJourney Diety is concept. To figure out if something exists you have to be specific. If someone says that his god is timeless, then I can easily say that that god doesn't exist, because existence is necessarily tied to time. But not all gods could be so easily dismissed, like Perun.
Yes. The concept. Not the specific god or his attributes. You’re conflating two different conversations. What is concept and the attributes of god.
We might be saying the same thing (almost). On my channel I say that we are all agnostics since god cannot be proven to exist or not to exist. The statements, "There is a god" or "there is not a god" are going beyond what we can honestly know. But we can have our beliefs. An agnostic-theist says "I believe god exists." An agnostic-atheist says, "I don't believe god exists." But I couldn't say that agnostic-atheism "cannot be defined as just the lack of belief that god exists." Could you? To me, that's a spot-on definition. I am an agnostic-atheist and that's how I define it: a lack of belief in god. My position is no more a "belief" than my lack of belief in unicorns is a belief.
So I wanted to stick to common terms of strong/positive and soft/negative/weak Atheism. The gnostic/agnostic is a different conversation, as those terms and way to describe Atheism and Theism throughout history is relatively new. The only term of that is Agnostic and Atheism, as that goes to a different conversation of why certain atheist use that terminology.
Theism means strong theism because that's how the word is used and understood. Atheism means strong or weak atheism because that's how the word is used and understood. Language doesn't have to be consistent.
Why isn’t “weak” theism a thing?
@@JCOJourney I don’t know why in the development of language why theism just means strong theism.
My intuition is: you can believe in something, you can believe something doesn’t exist, or you can not have an opinion one way or the other. However, that third category is still not believing in it. Atheism-not being a theist-would cover the second two categories, but not the first. Even the construction of the word is ‘a’ ‘theist’ is basically ‘not’ ‘theist’, so atheism is defined by what is not theism.
God is something that exists in the universe. It may be mysterious and hard to understand, but it is a belief about something that exists out there. People believe things exist in the world because they think they have reason to believe it. The standard to believe in something really is lack of belief, meaning lack of opinion one way or the other. It may not seem so, but that’s because there are so many things that we think we have reason to believe are true. Is there a spider under my chair? I don’t know. I haven’t checked, so I do not affirmatively believe that there is no spider, but without having current evidence or logic to believe there is, I currently have a lack of belief in that spider. Do fairies exist? If I was told they existed as a child, I would assume my parents and my society had good reason to believe they exist. My belief can be in error, but still, I think there is logic or evidence supporting this fairy belief. I haven’t been told that fairies exist, and haven’t seen evidence for them, so lack of belief is my starting position. I would go further and say I think they don’t exist, even though my certainty isn’t super high; they just seem impossible based on what I know of the possible…but I could be wrong. The point I’m trying to explain is that anything we haven’t heard of or that we don’t think there is reason to believe exists, we have a lack of belief. We may additionally think it doesn’t exist with varying convictions. Both of these are not believing in the existence of that thing.
Weak theism would basically mean a lack of belief in not believing something. Kind of a double negative. It intuitively feels awkward to think I have a lack of belief in the belief of something not existing. We’d normally just say I lack belief in the thing, or I don’t believe in the thing. I don’t think weak theism is even a separate category from weak atheism. They are the same thing. God existing or not is a dichotomy. So, if you simply lack belief but have no affirmative beliefs on the question of God, you both lack a belief in God and lack a belief in the non-existence of God. That’s the same thing. It’s the same question or/and answer worded different ways. Either way, you are not currently convinced one way or the other, and either way you do not believe in God, and therefore are not a theist.
I have no issue with lacking the belief that something either is or is not there would be the third group. But atheism isn’t that, atheism only lacks the existence, not the nonexistence. If theism lacks the nonexistence, while atheism lacks the existence, I’m not calling them either atheist or theist.
There is no god Atheism
There is a god theism
Lack belief that there is a god and lacks belief there isn’t a god. -agnostic-
If you think weak theism is a double negative, you think lack and no are the same right?
Simple example. If someone ask me if you were real, my answers are yes,no and I don’t know.
If I don’t think yes, then I’m A-yesist. (NO And I don’t know)
But if I don’t think no, then I’m A-Noist (yes and I don’t know).
If i don’t know is both a-yes and a-no. I wouldn’t call them a-no. Just nothing or a new word
@@JCOJourney Atheism isn’t a word separate form theism though. It is ‘a’ ‘theism’. It is what theism is not, which includes both nonbelieving categories.
Your intro slide text has a typo. It says "Atheism is not the belief there is a God,.."
As an atheist, I'm fine with the definition of non-belief in a god or gods. It's possible one existed, but there is scant evidence for it.
I put it in the description and someone else acknowledge that. But thanks. It’s weird you only the second to see that.
@@JCOJourney I read through several comments to check before I posted but didn't see that. I find it weird, too!
Agnostic and gnostic are knowledge claims. Atheist and theists are belief claims. One can be either an agnostic theists or atheist, or one can be a gnostic theist or atheist. I don’t know why this has to be such a difficult discussion.
Video never address how gnostic and agnostic are used for gnostic/agnostic atheist/theist.
@2:31 is where I disagree because an individual (A) starts at neutral position w/o knowledge of anything, sometimes called the default position. Such time later they are given the god claim by another individual (B), who has the burden of proof. At this time person (A) has the knowledge of the claim and then they can decide their position. You're assuming in your scenario 1 that person B already has knowledge of a claim of a god's existence, furthermore each time a claim is made it's a new claim and has to be appealed to as such. Ultimately that's why atheists say. "I am an atheist to all god claims that I have been presented with" or "Everyone is an atheist to god claims including you. The only difference is I'm an atheist to one more god claim then you are."
I agree that the neutral position is the default. But the video was discussing that saying atheist is the default position. Neutrality is not just believing something doesn’t exist until proof. It’s not believing whether something is existence or not. It’s refusing judgement.
I explained how atheism isn’t that
@@JCOJourney Yes I understand what you're saying but your ignoring knowledge of something. I could say Do you believe in JEMJEMJEM. You had no knowledge of JEMJEMJEM so you had no belief either way until you hear my claim about JEMJEMJEM. Until your claim is made, I have no belief either way until you present your claim. That is the default, not what you are saying it is.
I don’t believe jem exist because of my PRESUMPTION that’s it’s ridiculous. That’s not saying my presupposition is correct though. The default is saying I can’t say it is or isn’t real.
@@JCOJourney Your answer is fine but the point is you didn't even know it was something to consider because you had no knowledge of it till, I brought it to your attention.
Yes because of a presumption. Are you saying you presume that god doesn’t exist already?
In actuality there is no problem saying that' "I believe there is no god" as an atheist. But I am pretty sure that agreeing to this is going to allow some very well hiden equivocation arguments to take place. The words "believe" in the sentences: "I believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" have some slightly different meanings and you can't claim that atheism is a belief system or a religion for that matter.
I never said that it was a belief system or religion. Just that’s it’s a belief.
@@JCOJourney I am just saying. Making a video just to change the definition slightly smells like you are going to make a follow up video to make a claim against atheism utilizing that new definition that swits you better.
Why do you assume that.
Amazed sea lion clap.
🫸🫷
If you say so. (cute dog).
He's a good boi
If you are talking about a "lack of belief there is a God" that would simply be agnosticism. Atheism claims a great enough knowledge of what is happening throughout the universe to confidently state He isn't there anywhere. It's a claim of omniscience to go beyond not knowing to denying God can be anywhere in any form because his speck in the universe hasn't perceived Him.
Some people believe thats the definition of atheist instead. Which is why I made the video.
@@JCOJourney The problem is God tells on these people. He says that if you seek Him you will find Him. Those that claim he doesn't exist don't have the intellectual honesty to admit they haven't truly tried to find Him. Often it seems like these bold claims are a tantrum to try and make God mad enough to prove Himself and tempting God to pride and a need to show Himself is silly. If they don't get it together God will be plainly evident at the White Throne Judgement.
As an atheist, I lack belief in any God or Gods.
As an agnostic I lack the knowledge to have an opinion that is of any consequence
As a theist, I lack the belief there are no gods.
Equally valid reply
Thank you
You can be an agnost theist or an agnost atheist.
Agnost theists say they don’t know (or can’t know) whether a god exists or not, but they do believe it does.
Agnost atheists say they don’t know (or can’t know) whether a god exists or not, but they don’t believe it exists. (Notice here that an atheist says he doesn’t believe it exists, and doesn’t necessarily says “they believe it does not exist”)
One cannot both believe and not believe a proposition at the same time and in the same respect, so one cannot be both a theist and an atheist… and one cannot be neither.
Both “one or more gods exist” and “no gods exist” are positive claims. If you believe the first, you are a theist. If you don’t believe the first, you are an atheist. If you believe the second, you are a strong atheist.
It’s this simple.
As for your example of a “weak theist”… does the weak theist believe that a god or gods exist? If yes, they are a strong theist. If not, they are an atheist. Calling an atheist “a weak theist” is quite silly, don’t you agree?
Can you steelman my position?
@@JCOJourney
"If strong atheism means believing there is no god and weak atheism means not believing there is a god, then one can say that strong theism means believing there is a god and weak theism means not believing there is no god. Since weak theism and weak atheism both mean not believing there is a god and not believing there is no god, the two words are synonyms and we should use a single, neutral term instead of the two, like agnostic."
Is this a fair summation of your position?
I would just add that, that lead three categories of people.
One who believes no god, the one who just lacks the belief of a god-atheism
One who believes in god, the one who just lacks the belief of no god- theism
And the one who just lacks the belief of no god and lacks the belief of a god- agnostic.
@@JCOJourney
There are actually way more categories.
As I said, agnostic already has a meaning: it means someone who doesn’t know or believe we can’t know, whether a god exists.
An agnostic can either believe a god exists, believe no gods exist, or lack a belief either way.
So using the term “agnostic” to mean lacking a belief, even though with its current meaning they could be in any of the 3 positions you gave, would lead to quite some misunderstandings.
Also, why do you care that the current labels for the three categories are theist, weak atheist and strong atheist? Having 3 labels for 3 types of people is fine, is it not?
Atheist just means “not a theist”, ergo someone who doesn’t believe in a god. That’s where the term came from.
Within this category there are loads of subcategories like agnostic atheists, strong atheists, igtheists, antitheists, pantheists (which I categorize as atheists because they redefine god so much that I don’t accept their definition), and so forth.
So it’s actually very very simple. Is that person a theist? No? Then that person is an atheist. Plain and simple. We can now ask what kind of atheist that person is.
You don’t have to use agnostic, I’ll honestly just call them nothing. But it’s easier to reference that for here. If people don’t fit into those three categories, can you give me a fourth one?
You are so busy trying to shift the burden of proof, that you try to define your way to that Atheism means what YOU want it to mean, so you can turn around and say "AHA! You silly Atheist, you must now demonstrate that my unfalsifiable god doesn't exist!" You further insist on definitions of words to mean what you want them to mean, your continued misuse of "Steelman" in the comments. And your instance that you decide who gets to speak in comments. I would like to refer you to Russell's Teapot, but I doubt you will even know what that is and how it relates to the burden of proof. If there was ANY verifiable evidence for your god then the discussion might be different, but you don't so I don't believe. Also, the bible is not evidence of god.
I don’t care about shifting burden of proof. Never the purpose of the video.
@@JCOJourney Sure, buddy, if you say so.
Thanks for understanding
I know there is a god - theism
I know there is not a god - atheism
I don't know if there is a god - agnosticism
Definitions are important, if words mean nothing, why are we debating, why are we talking, why are we reading but meaningless nonsense, and hearing meaningless sounds?
2:54 Cannont
Please proof read your slides carefully before posting your videos. I know that it has nothing to do with your argument, but sloppy preparation and presentation tends to go hand in hand with sloppy thinking, so at the very least you are not doing yourself a favour.
6:05 "Thiesm" - twice. "Athiesm" - also twice.
Now this is great criticism
The default position on the moons existence is that it exists, this is undeniable as we can see it, see its affects on the earth, and we have been on it.
the default position for any gods existing is that they dont, until or unless one is shown to exist, just as the default position of unicorns existing is that they dont , until or unless one is shown to exist.
Do you know why that’s special pleading?
Can the Bible be used as evidence to prove god?
@@JCOJourney its not special pleading. we can see the moon, we can test the moon, there is no need for special pleading.
@@JCOJourney it is used as evidence, but its very weak evidence because the bible is not the god, but the moon is the moon.
@xenontouchstone I’m not asking if what I said is special pleading but can you define it.
I am making a second post here just to give you a different angle of my argument.
Say you and I sit somewhere together having some tea. For argument sake, say at this time and place neither you or I have ever heard of the concept of the flying spaghetti monster.
Person C comes up to both of us and say that the Flying spaghetti monster exists and have created everything and that the FSM is God. At this point both you and I do not believe in the FSM as we have not just never heard of it but we do not have evidence that this God exist. So we ask person C to give us evidence for the existence of the FSM and that it is God. Until such time that evidence can be provided for us, both you and I do not believe in the existence of the FSM. So we have a lack of belief in the FSM due to insufficient evidence. If someone comes up to use and can prove that the FSM does not exist we will believe that the FSM does not in fact exist but until such time be just do not have a belief in its existence or non existence.
Now you can replace FSM with any other God and the same will apply.
I believe there is no spaghetti monster. The only reason I would lack the belief because it seems ridiculous to me. My presumptions are that it doesn’t exist in the beginning, therefore no spagetti is the default. Now for god, I don’t have presumptions that the universe was or was not created.
@@JCOJourney So if you have no presumptions that the universe was created or not created, what do you have?
I don’t have presuppositions that the universe was or wasn’t created by a creator. I believe the evidence has led me to conclude that there is a creator
@@JCOJourney There is a difference between knowing and believing.
You will believe what you know.
i agree with your points but find your demonstration pointlessly difficult to follow, i made it to the end with my sentience intact but it sure did feel like you were trying to lobotomize me with your words, i would suggest considering more thoroughly how you present your points but in all honesty there's really no need to step away from this more technical style of demonstration, if you simply wanted to make people feel stupid or instead practice arguing in this way than of course it would not be in your best interest to simplify, but i figure there's still a chance you don't see how easy it would be to mix things up or fail to grasp your points at all due to the way you present things, because of that possibility pointing it out to you could be helpful. other than that though the video is well made, I hate the editing style and the music you use as the music used in this video is often used practically everywhere on the internet and so it comes off as lazy or cheap, which to be fair there's a time and place for both, weather that's here and now is up for debate. but when it comes to the editing pretty much all of it is great it's just the stylistic choice of using a glitch effect that i dislike but to each their own so i won't shit on it further. to sum things up this video is certainly well made and i can see all the effort that went into it, there's a few spots you can improve but all in all a good video 😁
I think I got punched to get a fly off my back. Thank….You….I Guess?
@@JCOJourney you are correct in assuming that my intentions harbor no malice or hatred towards you, perhaps i should also consider the way i present my points lol, i blame the tism on this one.
Theist says, I believe in [the existence of] god, and atheist says I don't [believe you, provide evidence]. Atheist may also say, I believe god doesn't exist [skeptic says,I don't believe you, provide argument/evidence]. The existence of the the sun and moon are not analogous to the existence of a god.
Danged. You had it right the first time. 🥲
Believing that there is no god is not a claim. A belief is not a claim.
Believing there is no god is a positive claim. It’s literally define as strong atheism.
@@JCOJourney a belief is not a claim.
Believing something is generally taken to be an admission that what you believe is true. Most people don't go around believing things that they personally think are false, in fact, it's functionally impossible. So saying you believe something is equivalent to saying you believe it is true, and as such it is a truth claim when we are talking about logic and belief.
@@joeo3377 I believe that there is no god. I also believe that I could be wrong about that. Do I have a burden of proof for the claim that I could be wrong?
@@aaronpolichar7936 Yes, you have a burden of proof for the claim that you could be wrong. However, for such a mundane claim, there isn't a lot of proof required.
The fact that people have been wrong before is all the evidence you need to prove the claim that you could be wrong now.
I'd argue that from a historical perspective, people who weren't strong theists were accused of being atheists, regardless of what they actually believed (and further before that, people were accused of being atheists for being strong theists about an insufficiently high amount of gods). But I do agree with this system! This "atheis is just a lack of belief in God" line was used rhetorically by the new atheists. Then again, if you called yourself agnostic at thet time, you'd usually get accused of hiding you atheism ;)
I hear you. It’s kind of like other Christians saying if you don’t believe abc you aren’t Christian, where you (or one) only has to believe a.
@@JCOJourney Well, yes, but believing in God (strongly) is a pretty important thing regardless of what kind of Christian you are. So I think it made sense historically that the meaning of the word 'atheist' naturally started to mean 'a person without that belief'. A simple logical negation with a single letter.
The Christian example didn't have to do with God but the idea that //people who weren't strong theists were accused of being atheists,//. i.e. You are not a true one or Strong Theist, then you are not one of us, an atheist or unbeliever. I think we missed each other.
You are over complicating this. There is no need for a diagram and you are just wrong. This is a etymological issue.
First, let me agree with one thing. The belief there is no God is indeed a positive claim.
Alright, Theism is derived from the Greek word "Theos," which means "God." "-ism" is a suffix in the English language that indicates belief or practice. Putting the two together means "God-Belief" which gives you the belief in a God or Gods. Specifically, however, a belief in a personal God(s), while "Deism" (which comes from the latin word "Deus" which means "God") is the belief of a non-interventionist God (though that doesn't mean it can't, nor does it exclude the possibility of many Gods, but is much less common). This was an enlightenment era term.
Now, Atheism is derived from Greek as well, however, when the word is Prefaced with an "A", that indicates a lack of something or indicates a negative word. So Atheism (A-Theos-ism) means "Lacks-God-Belief." Or just Godless. It's actually that simple. I actually think prefacing the word with "strong" or "weak" is an improper use of syntax. You either lack or you don't lack. Adding the two prefaces just makes it, 'kinda lack' or 'kinda don't lack', which just seems weird to me. It is better to just use agnostic athiest, as it means 'a lack of divine knowledge and god belief.'
Moving onto Agnostic, which you mostly got correct. This word is also derived from Greek. Firstly the word is a negative of "Gnosis" which means knowledge, and more specifically, divine knowledge. So agnostic (A-Gnosis) means "Lacks-Divine-Knowledge."
I'm not done, but this is interesting, since we are talking about God and English. Agathos and Gōd.
Agathos is the Greek concept of absolute perfection. It is the concept Plato spoke about when referring to the Form of the Good, which possess the maximal qualities of all things and is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge.
Gōd is the Old English word for Good, which means virtuous, fitting, and suitable. There is significant overlap here and as the words evolved and the ideas migrated, you get what we have in modern English as "Good." So when you say God is Good, you are saying God is Gōd (God), which is tautology that means Absolute Perfection is Absolute Perfection (and all the qualities associated with God). Some say this is an affirmation of God's sovereignty.
So in conclusion, no, atheism doesn't mean the belief there is no God(s). It means a lack of belief in God(s).
Thank you for reading this.
Edit: Gnosis (no-sis)
Thank you for watching.
One issue we would disagree is
//So Atheism (A-Theos-ism) means "Lacks-God-Belief." Or just Godless//
It seems you are implying it is "lack of belief in god" while I say "belief in lack of god". You seem to say that the A- is referencing the A-Theism, rather than Athei-ism. Atheos actually means "godless". So the -ism just indicates the belief in godless.
Trust me. I don't like the idea of "Strong" and "Weak" Atheism or Theism.
I didn't speak about agnostic/gnostic atheist and theism concept as it seems irrelevant. I personally believe that it is a relatively new 21st century concept and that people aren't using the words correctly. But that's a different conversation.
//So agnostic (A-Gnosis) means "Lacks-Divine-Knowledge." //
This is interesting. Two things.
1. I don't care about using the term agnostic for describing those who don't believe there is or isn't a god as that was a term coined around the 19th century. I wouldn't call them anything, but fine with the secondary meaning of the word.
2/ If Agnostic is Lacks-divine-knowledge, wouldn't -ism added be belief of the lack-divine-knowledge. Just as I describe atheism? If you say lack of belief in divine knowledge, wouldn't' you be changing what is the "lack". The belief or divine knowledge.
I also explained why i used "god" in the video
@@JCOJourney I am not implying that Atheism (A-Theos-ism) is a lack of belief in God, I am telling you that it is. The definition of the word is in the succession of how it is synthesized. It is a linear progression. A-Theos, as I already stated, means "Godless," and "-ism" is an English addition. Godless does not indicate a positive statement, and lacking-God-belief (atheism) means exactly that. Theos is "God," not "belief." The "-ism" does not indicate a belief in Godless. I explained it already.
You did bring up agnotics (7:41), so if it was irrelevant, then why bring it up? I obviously watched the video, and it is even timestamped in your description. You even say that all strong Atheists are weak atheists, which is the same as saying agnostic Atheist, and you put that in your diagram.
[Agnostic]
1. Your caring is irrelevant. The word is as old as ancient Greece and means exactly what it means. This is simple etymology. No, it isn't a 19th-century term either. It's a word as old as ancient Greece. It is as old as Socrates and Plato. It was the word the Gnostic traditions adopted to describe themselves after breaking off from other Christian traditions.
2. You seem to be confusing belief for knowledge and vice versa. They are not the same thing. Notice that "-ism" isn't attached to the word, which means it does not indicate a belief or practice. Agnostic is just lacking knowledge of the divine or lacking divine knowledge. It's a position of non-assertion, which means it isn't a positive position, unlike somebody who would claim to have Gnosis, is.
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is meant to assist us in understanding the world we live in and the abstractions we make. You can rewrite the definitions all you want, but it doesn't take away the roots of the words. It seems you are pleading that I (or we) ignore this and adopt your own definitions. At the beginning of the video, you acknowledge that words change over time. Yes, they do, but there is a genealogy to language that can be traced back to the original understanding, and that is what our language has been built off of (along with several other gramatical contributions from other languages. English is weird, I know).
I mentioned Agathos and Gōd because I found it interesting and thought you would too. Maybe I was wrong.
I don't know how else to explain any of this. Maybe take what I gave you and study up on it, then you'll probably understand it. Look into esoteric stuff as there is a rich tepestry of understanding there. Anyway, thanks for replying, and I hope that this helps.
Let’s keep this simple
Can you define then words
Atheist
Theist
Gnostic
Agnostic
@JonathanCOwens
Theism: The belief in a God(s).
Theist: One who believes in a God(s).
Atheism: Lack of belief of a God(s).
Atheist: One who lacks belief of a God(s).
Gnosis: Knowledge (particularly of a spiritual or divine nature).
Gnostic: One who has knowledge (particularly of a spiritual or divine nature).
Agnosia: Ignorance. A lack of knowledge.
Agnostic: One who is ignorant to or lacks knowledge (particularly of a spiritual or divine nature).
Hope this helps.
Edit: I think a better word for you to associate with a belief in no God would be antitheism. Maybe this will prove to be a valuable tool to assist you in your musings.
The comparison with moon vs no moon fails.
The default assumption should be that there is no moon. However there is a lot of evidence that actually proofs there is a moon. So we know that it exists.
The lack of evidence for a god causes me to say that I do not see proof of a god and if you do not want to call that atheisme, i'm fine. Just call it whatever you want.
There is a reason that it is important to first define word definitions. If you understand my position better if I call myself agnostic atheist. Than that is what I will call myself in any conversation we might have.
Same points.
The default position is actually no judgement, not that it doesn’t matter exist.
Based on your logic: I don’t know if you’re a man or not, so the default is that you are not a man.
@@JCOJourney that default (not a man) is perfectly fine to me. You should not assume i am a man. Unless you have good reasons
Basically I assumed you’re a woman. Since I assumed you’re no man.
The prefix “a”, in the context of the word “atheist”, means “without”. So since theist is defined as “a person with belief in a god or gods”, an atheist is defined as “a person without belief in a god or gods”.
A weak theist (as defined at 4:29) is the only definition in the 4 laid out on screen compatible with being either an “Atheist” or a “Theist”. You could be either, just that further confirmation is needed on whether you believe in a god or not. So this isn’t really a useful definition here, and you certainly can’t say stuff like at 4:46. A weak atheist does not have this problem, as it addresses the question directly by not having a belief in a god. So in reality, the most useful 4 definitions are:
Agnostic atheist: Does not confirm either yes or no on the question of gods existence, and lacks belief that there is a god. What I would call the “Default position”.
Gnostic atheist: Claims to have the knowledge that a god does not exist, and also of course lacks the belief in one.
Agnostic theist: Does not confirm either yes or no on the question of gods existence, but believes in a god.
Gnostic theist: Claims to have the knowledge that god exists, and of course believes there is a god.
I think all of these positions do have to be defended as the most rational by their proponents (if they want to be seen as such), but they all have different jobs in order to do so.
The agnostic atheist’s job is to basically deny evidence that a god exists, or point out that the evidence doesn’t necessarily lead to a god.
The gnostic atheist’s job is to provide evidence that there is no god.
The agnostic theist’s job is to provide reasons to believe in god, although still denying that the his existence is ultimately unknowable. (Although I don’t think many people defend this against scrutiny because it’s usually on the basis of being honest that they believe in a god by faith).
The gnostic theists job is to provide evidence that there is a god.
This video has nothing to do with burden of proof shifting. If anything this seems that a lot of people don’t know what it is.
And the big a- for atheism.
How do you define agnosticism and atheist then.
@@JCOJourneyI brought up the burden of proof for clarity as to how I believe discussion can continue for people at the end, not really the main point. Also at 5:40 you did mention burden of proof, so it clearly IS a point of contention.
But your video seems mainly to be arguing that atheists aren’t being consistent, and if they were, theists could say the exact same things as them. But I’m saying no, because of the definitions of the words. The term “Weak theist” completely takes the “Theist” out of the word because a “weak theist” doesn’t entail a belief.
But to answer your questions at the end I already did define atheism in the original post. As for agnosticism at its purest form seems to be basically just an admittance that you can’t know anything for sure aside your very existence. In the context of god, it’s referring to the denial of being able to know for sure whether one exists or not. (What someone beliefs is a different category). For atheists, this does remove the initial burden of proof. Since theism is a claim, they still have that initial burden.
So all in all I’m pretty sure I understand what your video is conveying and hopefully this adds some clarity. Also for the life of me I cannot understand what “And the big a- for atheism?” Means. Agnosticism is basically just admitting you can’t know anything for sure aside your existence.
Just because I brought up burden of proof doesn’t mean it’s what the video was about.
The issue again is that atheism is a belief. I’m tired of repeat myself on different comments, I got a video for that.
How do you define atheist and agnosticism.
@@JCOJourneyI never said it was the main topic of your video, but it’s clearly A point of contention here.
But no an atheist is someone without a particular belief.
And I literally just defined those in the last post, although to be fair I did edit it a lot so you must’ve not loaded it at the last frame lol.
Can you define just atheist. Is agnosticism, a philosophy, idea, concept,etc. what the does the -ism represents
Tl;dr I'll just tell you a definition that's actually applicable to the real world. "I am an atheist" means "Your religion is not relevant to me, except when your religious groups impose it on me."
Every once in a while I'll run into one of you "default position" types and I always find you fascinating. What do you expect to accomplish with that framework?
Related, whatever your conclusion was in the video, apply it to any other god you happen not to believe in. What is the "default position" on Zeus? Tell me so I can go browbeat my bookie.
But moving on, as a mathematician, I'll tell you that it can sometimes be useful to put on those blinders and pretend that everything is strictly true/false - in math; otherwise, in the real world you have to consider other factors like "Is it even worth considering this question".
If I told you that there was an invisible, undetectable unicorn floating exactly 3 feet above your head, you - well, you would try to figure out the "default position" - but any normal person would just say "So you're telling me that it's unknowable and irrelevant? ...I will never think about this again."
Chill. Have you watched the video?
@@JCOJourney There's been some miscommunication. If I was any more chill right now, I'd be monotone. I guess the tone didn't carry through text.
I hope you'll give some thought to the things I pointed out:
1. Other people aren't obligated to give your beliefs the same deference you do.
2. What do you actually gain from a framework with "default positions" - is that even a reasonable concept?
3. There is more value in directly considering another person's perspective than trying to reconstruct it through dichotomy.
1. I don’t care what people believe they are. If one wants to believe they are an atheist, so be it. But when someone define atheism as belief there is no god(s) as an “it is” statement, then we can have a discussion on what it actually is. I’m saying if you are an atheist you will believe this, but if atheism is belief in no gods (simply) and saying “lack of belief in god, pushes the goal post down. Are you familiar with the gumball analogy?
2. I don’t care what someone’s personal default position is, but stating the objective “default” is refusing to give judgement, I.e. I can’t say something exist or doesn’t exist.
3. The video is just giving definitions and explaining the flaws of calling atheism “lack of belief in god”. There should be no shame in one saying they believe there is no god. If one wants to say atheism is the lack of belief in a god, one could call theism the lack of belief in no god.
@@JCOJourney "give some thought to" doesn't mean "read and react".
There is not a single word in your responses that indicates you understand what I'm saying. It's like you're spinning your wheels, mentally.
Dude. It’s a response. It’s funny as I’m a “default type” you don’t really know why the video made if you resort to that.
You're not wrong but "agnostic" has other baggage that nitpickers fixate on, so I prefer just "unbeliever".
I understand as agnostic was some term in like the 19th century. Like I said, if someone didn’t believe the cheifs will win or lose, I’ll call them nothing.
Yes. I was expecting to disagree with this video. But yes. When people use atheist nowadays, they are usually referring to an agnostic position. Anyone who has thought through the logic is saying there isn't evidence either way. Science says there isn't evidence either way. Burden of proof lies on those who specify they are theist or atheist in the literal sense. Agnostic perspective is the scientific perspective.
Thank you for watching. I'm glad I gave you a different perspective. It just saying the "lack of belief there is god" for atheism just makes things more complicated than it already is
If someone says, "I am X," there is no more of an issue than if someone says, "I believe X". Words are defined by how people use them. You use them one way, and someone else uses them a different way. It's not logic that determines that one is right and the other wrong. So your use of logic is irrelevant.
So if I say you are wrong. Am I correct?
@@JCOJourney it doesn't matter
I gave logic as the reasoning. May you steelman my position then show the error in the logic.
All top-down origin scenarios (gods or the like first) necessarily include the infinite regression issue, something that cannot be defined away. If you reject the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily reject all top-down (deity first) origin scenarios. If you accept the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily accept that your favorite deity cannot sit at the origin because top-down scenarios cannot have finite origins. Top-down (god first) origin scenarios simply don't work, they are irrational, illogical, or both.
Bottom-up origin scenarios (quantum fields or something even more basal first) can work because quantum theory, supported by innumerable objective empirical experiments, shows that there are hard limits to how small and simple things can be. All of our available objective empirical evidence points exclusively and unambiguously to an objective reality that is built from the bottom up.
What does this have to do with the video?
@@JCOJourney I'm just saying that believing in deities is irrational, illogical, or both. It isn't a belief that is supported by any objective empirical evidence. Heck, I have never seen anyone even be able to fully explain what a deity is supposed to be. I don't see any reason to think that deities exist anywhere outside the minds of believers. No one has ever been able to show that deities are even possible in objective reality.
So do you believe there is no god?
@@JCOJourney I don't even know what a god is supposed to be, so no. Do you have one? If so, what do you use it for?
Deities
Theism is being convinced that a god exists. Atheism is not being convinced that a god exists. I don't give a fuck about what it may or may not have meant at one time. Being convinced that no god exists is called antitheism. You can call that strong atheism if you like, but it doesn't really carry the weight involved in the conviction. Maybe it is better to use theism and gnosticism
An antitheist would in this case be described as a gnostic atheist. My position would be that gnosticism is not possible for either theism or atheism sine there is no evidence either way. All theists (whether they admit it or not) are agnostic.
Interestingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury - head of the Anglican church - describes himself as agnostic. This is an admission that his belief is entirely without foundation. Presumably he persists in his pretended belief because he isn't old enough yet to claim his pension.
"Theism is being convinced that a god exists. Atheism is not being convinced that a god exists."
Can you tell me what university in the world teaches that "not being convinced that a god exists" is a both a necessary AND sufficiency condition for atheism? I know of none, which infers to me you're making up claims with no academic support whatsoever.
Anti-theism is an AXIOLOGICAL position that the belief in God or religion has a net negative value to society...it has nothing whatsoever to do with the ontological status of God. It is absolutely NOT "being convinced that no God exists" as theists CAN be antitheists! Antitheism is merely the contradictory to protheism.
Where do you all get this drivel from as it is clear you never actually studied any of this have you.
Okay. First off, I am not an atheist. That said, I do watch a great deal of atheist shows and such. Therefor, I'd like to try and rebut a few points. Agnosticism is different from theism and atheism. Gnosticism is about knowing. You can be an agnostic theist, believing there is a god but not knowing there is. Second, most atheists that use the "I lack a belief in god" definition do in fact also hold they lack a belief in the lack of a god because there is no proof for either claim, remaining logical in that stance. Then they use the principals of skepticism to say that until there is proof of either claim, the claim that needs the least assumptions is the most likely.
Your using there is no sun as an example of a similar claim fails as a comparison in that there is evidence for the existence of the sun. It takes more assumptions to say there is not one because it can be demonstrated. God claims, either for or against, have not yet been demonstrated, so the default is there is not a god because, so far, there is nothing that cannot be at least somewhat demonstrated without a god. We may not know the mechanism of the beginning of the universe, for example, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the "big bang" model of a singularity having an unknown event and beginning to expand, creating the universe we live in. That unknown event might be a god taking an action, but it could also be a type of quantum event that has actually been observed where a stable quantum state went into flux without any observable cause. Less assumptions exist in following that route than a being doing it.
To look at another example from your video: The statement that there is no god is a positive claim. The statement there is no moon is also a positive claim. They are both positive claims because they are not claims of belief but claims of fact. The statement there is no god is a default position because there is no proof otherwise, and it is not a necessary position. The existence of the moon is a default position because there is evidence of it's existence. We can see it in the sky. We can measure the effects it has on reality. We have sent people there.
The fact we exist and are not in a simulation or a brain in a jar or some other type of rebuttal to the idea of our proof is the reason for my reference to a necessary position. Reality is a necessary position we cannot prove but must accept because without that necessary position, there is no basis for anything to exist because we cannot trust any source of belief or evidence.
To be fair, Gnostic/agnostic theist and atheist are relatively recent terms that were popularized in the 21st century. Those terms are irrelevant when discussing what atheism is.
I Saying “there is a god” is as much as a claim as saying “there is no god”. To say there is no god is the default position, is like saying there is no moon or sun or what ever is the default position. There is x or there is no x is a claim. The default should be something along the lines of there is no evidence to say there is or isn’t a god.
You last statement is a presumption. How do you know you aren’t in a brain or simulation? Your “evidence” pointed you to make a choice from the default position. The default would be not stating you aren’t, but rather I can’t say we are or we aren’t.
The issue i see that we can’t imply we the default is as something is not there not change it when there is something you believe is there. That may work on a personal level but it can’t be on an objective level.
Until there is evidence, the default position is "there is no...". For instance, there is a theory of a Counter Earth by some conspiracy types. With no other evidence available, the proper default position is "there is no Counter Earth". Because of gravity for one, there is a way to show evidence that that default position is correct as well. There is no sun is the default position as well, until there is proof. There is a great deal of proof, therefor, the default position has become, due to proof, there is a sun.
Yes, my last point is a presumption. It is a presumption that is required for all the rest. If we remove the presumption that reality exists, then the default position becomes nothing exists. Not reality. Not god. Not me. Because I experience my existence within reality, just like I experience the sun from the earlier point, my default position becomes reality does exist because my experience is my proof.
As I stated before, I am a theist. I have experience that proves to me that gods do exist. I did change to plural there because I follow a polytheistic faith. However, my experience is not proof. It cannot be tested or verified. It cannot be shared. Because it is not proof, I do not try and refute someone that says they do not believe in what I believe in. I have no way to defend a positive claim of there being a god, or there not being one. I just believe there are gods, just like I believe reality is real. My default position is there are gods, but I understand why it is not a proper one; it is an unnecessary claim with no proof.
@@thomasanderson8446 //Until there is evidence, the default position is "there is no..."//
The default isn't to say yes or no. But refuse judgment.
//With no other evidence available, the proper default position is "there is no Counter Earth". Because of gravity for one, there is a way to show evidence that that default position is correct as well.//
The default would still be to refuse judgment. Now, the individual default position may vary. For example, for me the default is that there is a god. For you, probably not. It depends on the evidence you accept as valid or such. Another example I can't say something like doesn't exist, I just refuse judgment
//Yes, my last point is a presumption. It is a presumption that is required for all the rest. If we remove the presumption that reality exists, //
The issue here is that who determines which presumption is correct? What if I presuppose that there is a god first? Now does everyone have them. Sure. But, just because it's a presumption, doesn't make it a correct one.
//However, my experience is not proof.//
Now this leads to a different conversation on what is "proof". Proof is evidence or "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.". For example, the bible can be evidence for claims about Christ. A fake documentary can be evidence for big foot existing. Does that mean the evidence validifies the claims? No.
//It cannot be tested or verified. It cannot be shared. Because it is not proof, I do not try and refute someone that says they do not believe in what I believe in. I//
Personal testimony is considered proof.
The big issue is that you probably don't consider that valid or scientific evidence. Then, what, OR WHO, determines if evidence is valid. I can't test logic or history scientifically.
@@JCOJourney First point, default position. You are correct. The proper phrasing of the default is to say I don't know. However, in a case of lack of evidence, the default position is also to act on the situation as if there is no, until you can find provable evidence that there is. As a thought experiment: let us state a race of intelligent cave dwellers exists. They live underground in still air. One of these being proposes wind as a thing without ever experiencing it. The correct logical position for other such people is to say "I don't know. I don't believe air can move on it's own, but I withhold judgement on if it can or can't." They could equally say "I don't know. I don't believe air can't move on it's own, but I withhold judgement on if it can or can't." And in either case, they should not build a windmill generator and expect power to be generated. In both cases, they should build tests to see which is right, and then remain in the default acting state of air doesn't move on it's own until their situation changes and they find wind somehow, like discovering a cave entrance. They would also be correct in defaulting to acting like there is no sun, to reference one of your own points, until they found proof of a sun by discovering outside the cave.
Which presupposition is correct about reality? The one that requires the least. For us to debate this, we need reality to exist and we need a shared state. We don't need to know if it was a natural occurrence or a created one. We don't need to know if it was spoken into existence, or molded from the flesh of a titan. In all honesty, we don't even need to know if it is truly real or a simulation. All we need is to accept is that it appears to be real and we share it. Then, as we discover things that either define that reality or exist within it, we can add things we can prove to that reality. We orbit a single sun. We have a single moon. Gravity. As we find flaws in our understanding of that shared reality, we can dismiss them. Phrenology, of instance. Everything else is yet to be believed, but to be treated as whatever conforms to reality the most closely with the least assumptions.
On the point of proof, personal experience and testimony is proof only to a point. It is recognized that the human mind is flawed. Witness testimony is not judged as solid proof, typically, without either a large number of witnesses or other forms of verification. My personal experience is proof to me, but I don't expect you to abandon your god because I tell you about times I called upon mine to cast a spell and it worked because it is not proof.
Typing on phone.
It appears as you say “lack of evidence”. I address before what evidence is in another video. But even you agree or don’t with the Bible, it is evidence that can be used to support Christianity. The question becomes is that the evidence valid and who or what determines that, which doesn’t detract that it’s still evidence.
Secondly, we you suggest which presuppositions require the least, that is still subjective. For example, I could say I know man created a calculator and that it’s works so seemingly well with intricate parts , therefore I presuppose that the earth was created by a creator since it’s works so seemingly well with intricate parts .
Personal experiences are still proof. The question again would become, who determines if someone’s experiences is valid or not. That’s a different conversation
We can do away with all of the biased wordplay to set up your own definitions if we just look at the evidence both sides offer. Atheism’s “evidence” is disproving claims made by theists and theist’s evidence is claims as to why their god is real, and their disproving of atheist claims are also just more evidence for their side. If one side can only offer evidence and one side can only refute evidence it seems painfully obvious which one makes the positive claim in the argument. (Plus we both know that no intellectually honest person 100% believes there is no god. People just say that for simplicity’s sake. They just don’t believe the people saying there is one.)
Can you steelman what I said in the video. I believe this doesn’t acknowledge what I said.
@@JCOJourney Depends what steelman means lol
It is a technique that presents the other person's case in the strongest possible form. It shows if you honestly know my position.
@@JCOJourney Oh, thanks for telling me. To be honest my comment wasn’t fully me trying to disprove you. More just my thoughts on this topic. I think it’s best to disregard all definitions we give these words since people twist them to fit their arguments 99% of the time. If there’s a specific claim you made at the start you want me to talk about I will.
It just mean can you repeat my position back in simpler terms not attack it. It just shows that you acknowledge what I spoke before when continue
I think your presentation was somewhat reasoned, but overly pedantic and flawed. But just for the sake of argument I'll accept your conclusion. That doesn't get you anywhere. Just because you reclassify athiesm as a "belief" doesn't mean that there is a "god(s)". You still have all your work in front of you. All you've done is generate word salad, and rebrand a person with a new label. It's a clumbsy and useless exorsize in "what-about-ism". I'm not sure what you were actually trying to accomplish. Atheism is a belief, therefore God created the universe, Adam and Eve, flooded the earth, has an affinity for foreskins and burnt sacrifice, and became a human to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind, cares deeply about what two people do when naked, and hates shellfish. I don't know how much time it took you to create this video, but however long it took was a complete waste of time.
Im glad you accept the conclusion. That was all the video for. To show that atheism is a belief. Not proving god.
@@JCOJourney Well, I don't accept your conclusion. I was just being kind for the sake of argument. Just because I generously give your argument a "pass", is essentially meaningless. I think your video was just an attempt at muddying the waters. That being said, I think your approach was at least better than the typical presuppositional gish-gallop.
If you don’t accept. Why waste time to address a different topic. If we can’t admit this. Can you steelman my position?
@@JCOJourney I'm not clear on what you're trying to say. I've already conceded that "atheism" *could be* considered a "belief", illistrated by your argument. However, to use that as supporting "evidence" to the existence of God is a nonsequiter. I can understand why you might think I'm strawmanning or providing a red herring, but given the context of the rest of your videos, it's clear that you are trying to "logic" your way into the existence of God. Where (at least in this video) you are simply using word games to classify atheism as a belief. Just because New York is a real place, doesn't mean that Spiderman is real. I do however respect your diligence. Clearly you have invested a great deal of time into the video, and I appreciate that. (even though I disagree).
@Radioposting could be. It is a belief. I’m just saying that. I’m not trying to prove god.
Nope. What you've presented here is easily refutable by the following:
1. Definitions reflect how words are used. Words can and do have multiple definitions.
2. The overwhelming majority of individuals who describe themselves as atheist, do so because they lack a belief in "God" (or any supernatural creator being)
3. The fact that the word "atheist" is also used be to describe those who positively assert that no God exists, does nothing to logically contradict or refute #2.
1. I agree
2. The video is describing how saying just "they (just) lack a belief in "God"" means the same as belief there is no god".
3. Where is the flaw in the logic I presented?
@@JCOJourney Here's the flaw. Your conclusion "lack of belief in God means the same as belief there is no God" does not logically follow from any of the arguments you have presented. BTW, when you present your definitional chart at 4:38 (and present that false analogy between "weak atheism" and "weak theism") you mispell both "theism" and "atheism".
This is why I asked everytime: have you watch the video. I address why saying just lacking a belief in a god pushed the goal post down.
@citizenghosttown Preciate the missspell.
Now you say there is a flaw in the conclusion. What is the flaw
@@JCOJourney Again, the flaw is that the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument that precedes it. I can eloborate.
1. You say that it can be assumed that anyone who is a strong atheist is also a weak atheist. But that doesn't follow -- there's nothing logical about that. These terms represent two different propositions -- one does not encompass the other.
2. You also argue that atheism must be a positive claim that God does NOT exist, because the same word is used for two positions. Again, this isn't logical --- as you've already acknowledged, words can have multiple definitions.
3. You also introduce an imaginary concept of "weak theism" and argue that this must mean "a lack of belief that there is no God" -- but this is word game, not an actual position held by anyone. Your construct of "weak theism" is no different from theism. On the other hand, strong atheism is very different from weak atheism. This is a false analogy -- you're not comparing like with like.
4. Finally, if, as you seem to concude, atheism MUST mean - and only mean - the positive assertion that God does ot exist, is it also your contention that there is no such thing as an atheist? Do you know of anyone who holds that position?
We can go on, but I think that's enough for now :)
there is a difference in belief and proof or reason to believe , I'm atheist because there is no proof of any god but NOT proof there is no god
That's a different conversation, about proof, evidence, belief in the relationship between them. Simple question. Do believe no god exist? If you want to say you lack the belief there is a god, do you lack the belief there is no god?
How about using the word "disbelief" instead of "not belieinving in"?
An atheist and theist could use it in their claims.
@@JCOJourney Could use what? Pronouns without clear antecedents?
@markstuber4731 use the word you gave.
@@JCOJourney "disbelief" or "not believing in"?
A theist and atheist can use it(the word disbelief) in their claims.
It sounds like you're saying both sides share the burden of proof, is this correct?
Indirectly, but technically anyone who speaks first has the burden of proof.
@@JCOJourney So in a court setting, should defendants NOT be considered innocent until they are proven guilty?
No. When did I suggest that?
@@JCOJourney I'm just trying to understand how both sides could have the burden of proof.
Who would you say "speaks first" in a court setting?
The “government” or “plaintiff” speaks first or they claim something first. They present the claim first. That’s in a judicial setting. In ordinary life, whoever declares has the burden.
Whatever. I'm not out to convince anyone of what even I am not convinced of - that nothing we might see as a higher power of some kind exists. If anyone wants to convince me that they know of any such higher power, however, the onus will be on them to explain why I should be convinced.
I’m not out to convince you there is a high power either. Take care.
@JonathanCOwens Fine. But if you want to convince me that it's not okay to simply say, "I don't believe these claims," that too will require some work.
@@amtlpaul I don’t care what you believe. You can believe what you want. I’m stating a “what is” statement.
@@JCOJourney Should I believe your statement or not?
You don’t have to believe my statement. Im just stating a fact. For example, you can believe the sun is green and powered by the human torch. Okay. I’m just stating it is not green and powered by the human touch. What you believe and what is are two different things.
I generally identify as an athiest in the weak athiest sense i.e. lack of belief in a god. Based on the outline in your video i would also fall into the category of 'weak thiest' i.e. lack of a belief in the proposition 'no god exists'. On this basis, i would be an agnostic under your preferred definitions.
However, I think by turning the beliefs into a four way chat / diagram you miss the nuance of what people actually believe in a real world sense.
For example, I am strongly convinced that any currently proposed gods e.g. the god of christanity, islam etc do not exist. This is because a) we have a good historical basis to argue that these gods were invested / developed over time within particular cultures and b) because many of the attributes of these gods are internally inconsistent.
but I can't call myself a 'strong athiest' because I have no way to prove that no god could possibly exist (such a claim is unfalsifable). I still think the athiest label is more suitable than the agnostic label as it reflects my view that we have no good reason to believe that any god exists and we have good reasons to believe that the proposed gods do not exist.
However, at the end of the day this whole issue of labels is irrelevant and I see people on both sides getting too caught up in this. What really matters is what people actually believe, so on the labels as described in your video I'm happy to go with 'agnostic' but personally I still believe that athiest is a better label for my position.
I appreciate for watching the video. “Strong” Atheist and Theist don’t really have nothing to do with proof the claim. It’s really just belief. I mean, I don’t believe the Islam god is true, but still have belief in some deity, specifically the Christian one (sounds weird saying that). like agnostic would be I can’t say this is true or false, but atheist would be I don’t believe.
The label thing is kind of redundant, so I tried to speak more as with -ism since it deals with just belief than -ist in the video but it happens just to be easier to say that, as you can see in the comment and at times.
Yeah my comment wasn’t about proof of the positions as such. I just mean that all words carry baggage with them which is why people may feel more comfortable identifying with a certain word over another.
If someone is strongly convinced (but less than 100% sure) that there is no god, then they might prefer the atheist label over agnostic as it more closely maps onto what they believe. But they might still feel uncomfortable saying I believe there is no god, because they know that can’t be proven.
But again, at the end of the day as long as you are clear about how you are defining the terms (which you are in your video) then there are no issues in using different definitions and I think this video provides a good argument for why these terms should be defined differently.
Given the range:
Animism -- inanimate objects have spirits
Shamanism -- a special person can commune with spirits
Afterlife -- life after death
Ancestor worship -- spirits of ancestors participate in life of the living
Inactive high gods -- beings that formed reality, but don't participate in the life of the living
Active high gods -- beings that formed reality, and whimsically participate in the life of the living
Moralistic high gods -- beings that formed reality, punish the bad, and reward the good
where is your atheist/theist line?
Where it can get confusing is when someone talks about belief in one and only one god exists.
They are a theist toward that one god, but are an atheist toward any other god.
Philosophical logic can only describe a subset of reality, it can't define reality.
The subset being where a clear dichotomy exists.
Using the double negative form shows there is no clear dichotomy, so the atheist/theist line is outside the realm of philosophical logic. Cool.
Simple you don't like the definition, why because it's not a positive claim of no god. Here I'll make it simple: there is no god I'm aware of. Theist, Agnostic, and Atheist are beliefs. The problem arises when they are stated as facts. The lack of belief is clarifying this.
Strong theism is a belief, weak theism is a lack of belief.
@@drsatan9617 It is still a belief. Beliefs are held without full knowledge.
@@Sue-xv8os Then prove it smarty pants.
@Sue-xv8os Do you know if you know something, you would believe it also.
@@Sue-xv8os Ok, so you can't prove your claim. You must hold to it irrationally.
Tbh this is kinda straightforward. I’ve noticed among a lot of people they will go through so many hoops to justify doing anything when everything is a lot simpler than they care to admit.
It’s a really simple concept.
@@johnburn8031 do you actually have a logical
argument or you just gonna leave it at ad hominem?
We can pick the definitions of words to be whatever we like. Contradictory to the suggestion of your title there is nothing whatsoever stopping us from defining atheism as "the lack of belief that there is a God". There is no logical inconsistency in that, it is a concept that can be named just as any other. To me, your video presents itself as an argument that it is more convenient to define it a particular way that you like to define it. This is the real world however, and not everyone will agree with your argument or even have seen and/or considered it. You have to be prepared for and accept that not everyone will use the word with the exact same rigour and to the exact same definitions as you.
With that in mind, it a sign of someone who argues in good faith to look past these semantic differences to the core of whatever argument is being presented. I am sure you are familiar the opposite from commenters imposing their conflicting definitions upon your arguments (i.e. your 'faith' video?) so please, don't do the same thing when making sweeping statements about 'the atheists in your comment section'.
As to my thoughts on your actual argument: with the greatest respect, I think it is irredeemably flawed and built upon this false implicit assumption I get from many religious people that (those who call themselves) atheists believe in their atheism the same ways that they believe in their religion. I don't blame them at all, it's human/natural to assume others think the same way that you do, even if they reach different conclusions, but I think, e.g. putting the two standpoints on a scale of theist-agnostic-atheist is such a gross oversimplification and a complete misrepresentation of the differences between the two thought processes.
Here my view of my own personal experience of atheism that might explain why I think 'lack of belief in a God' is a sufficient definition of 'atheist': My beliefs are primarily based on the principles of the scientific method and rationality. Ideally, I believe in "the simplest explanation of all observations" (I say ideally because I am not perfect, but this is at least the standard I hold my beliefs to). I should be clear however that I don't mean a vague, subjective definition of simplest, but that it is the explanation that relies on the fewest details. To be honest, that's not well worded and doesn't convey my meaning well, I don't know how to condense the entire scientific school of thought into a sentence but I hope it should be familiar enough to you that you get what I am trying to say, if not, please research this extremely important philosophical approach. Importantly though my belief doesn't involve extraneous details that aren't necessary to explain any of my observations. For example, every time I check my basement, it is empty. I hear no noises coming from my basement, and I've never seen anybody else go into my basement. Consequently I believe that there is nobody living in my basement. I believe this despite the fact that I have never proven that there is nobody in my basement no matter how many times I go in there, and I will continue to be confident in my belief that there is nobody living in my basement until the moment I see evidence that contradicts that. In fact I can pinpoint your clear misunderstanding of this concept to your complete straw man analogy at about 3:30. To play along with your unhelpfully poorly defined concept of 'default position', the 'default position' of anything, moon, God, or man in my basement is non-existence until evidence suggests otherwise. At 'default' I don't believe in the moon. But then I see a light in the sky, I see the periodic phases, I see eclipses, and I conclude that the simplest explanation of these observations is a moon. I don't believe in a second moon, despite the fact that I have not proven there isn't one, because the first alone explains all my observations (should I, if moon existence is the 'default position' believe in this second moon?). There is no circular reasoning there, nor any 'special pleading' in approaching God or the moon differently. That is what I mean when I personally describe myself as atheist, I don't believe in God the same way I don't believe that there's a second moon we just can't see for some reason, or that Saddam Hussein survived and persists in my basement. But here's where I see a problem. The way I see it in this approach the lines between "not believing in something" and "believing something isn't" become blurred, (asymmetrically with "believing something is") into a vague sense of "basing my predictions/statements about the world on the assumption that it is not, and pretty much disregarding the thought entirely". Am I, by your definitions, a 'strong atheist' because my worldview is one in which God does not exist, or am I a weak atheist because I concede that I am unable to prove its non-existence? If the former, then I reject your idea that it is equivalent to the belief in God in terms of requiring justification beyond a lack of evidence to the contrary. Attempting to prove the lack of existence of an unfalsifiable concept is a deliberate 'gotcha' thrown against my belief and one that is not required to justify the lack of belief in something. If I am the latter, then a 'strong atheist' is exceedingly rare, a generic 'God' is a completely unfalsifiable concept as mentioned before, so it is completely impossible to have proven conclusively the lack of its existence. If you think 'strong atheist' means someone who thinks they have then 'strong atheists' are all lunatics.
One point at a time. You don’t agree with the title?
@@JCOJourney That's not really a focus of my comment nor really a point I care about at all, but no, not really. Your title says that atheism 'cannot be defined' that way. Your video only really provides an argument that you think it is more practical to define it a different way. "Lack of belief in a God" is a concept that can be assigned a name like anything else, no reason that that name can't be 'atheism'. Again though I didn't wanna focus on this I don't really care and I understand the reasoning behind the video title.
@@thomasfoster1985 First, I like to address one point at a time. You kind of did focus your first two paragraphs on the title, so it’s only fair I respond to it accordingly.
Now, there is a reason there is a JUST in the title. If you disagree with the title, then it would imply you think Atheism CAN be defined as just the “Lack of Belief There is a God””, which isn’t true as Atheism CAN be defined as other things.
If we can acknowledge this, then we continue with your critique, one point at a time.
@@JCOJourney If you think those paragraphs were focusing on the title you've entirely missed the point I was making, or you're intentionally misrepresenting me. I don't know how you can possibly read those and think the title is my concern.
@@thomasfoster1985 “Contradictory to the suggestion of your title there is nothing whatsoever stopping us from defining atheism as ‘the lack of belief that there is a God.’ There is no logical inconsistency in that...”
So I can't address this point one at a time.
You then even went to say "As to my thoughts on your actual argument: "
So what was even the first two paragraphs about?
whu sez? God?
It can be lack ov a belief in god.
eg Baron d'Holbach: 'All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.' (1772)
Do you want to use definitions?
That’s agnostic.
@@JCOJourney ay nostic - not known .
not really.
I’m have definitions older and younger than that quote that says others.
If anything, that’s agnostic. Atheism can’t just engulf agnosticism.
@@JCOJourney dusn't mattar oldar or yungar. it mattars how pepl use them.
you can't be prescriptiv.
But how would you know that more people use it that way?
i wonder where that puts people like me.
i believe there's a creator, but he's either NOT what we've been told, OR he's a malignant narcissist.
Can you define creator?
I do read a bible
Great point from someone: the disclaimer should say belief there is No go
So what? I still lack a belief in any gods.
Me: shows an informative video talking about Elon Musk.
You: who cares. He still rich.
Me:-_-
@@JCOJourney I have no clue what you're talking about.
🫣
Me: shows an informative video about words and logic.
You: So what? I still lack a belief in any gods.
Me:-_- (what does that have to do with the video)
Sorry, you won't change my mind making semantic tricks redifining "what I believe". I know what I believe better than you, and you're speaking nonsense. And your accsations of fallacies and lack of reasoning but for the biased one are all sweet projections. This is another trite attempt to shift the burden of proof on atheist. You can make yourself comfy: let alone the fail about that, even if it would have worked, that doesn't mean you are dispensed from presenting YOUR evidence. And still, theists have none.
You obviously don’t know the intent of the video.
@@JCOJourney yeh please continue with your misrepresentation. Now it's me not knowing, not you just failing. Funny that.
@christaylor6574 isn't a problem to you that what he defines as what I believe, is not what I believe? That's the problem, not the relations. Let's say I define religion as "the delusion of a god existing". Yeh, work relations with that.
@christaylor6574 "I don't know what you believe."
Yeh. I know. What about, I don't know, asking for it? So you don't have to guess?
"If you disagree with the video then can i ask - what terms do you use for the following: [...]"
see? you're doing it too.Noone needs to make a true/false claim to NOT believe him on his god's existence. It's sufficent that his arguments fail catastrophically somewhere, like at the beginning, with the definition used. I would conclude "therefore god isn't real" if my premise is "religion is the delusion of god existing", that follows directly. it doesn't mean it's conclusion is true tho, or that someone shouldn't object to how it was setup. Also, I'm not the one to decide how they are to be called, do as I do and ask them: language is our bitch, ask them how they want to be called and why.
confused, i have no idea what he's talking about
What you need help with.
I think the issue you may have is from the concept of belief. Defined as the ability to accept as true something for which you have no concrete evidence. I can't do that, I either know or I don't know. I don't 'believe' in anything because without evidence I don't know if it's true and if I said it was I would be lying.
I know it's hard for religious people to understand but a better way to look at atheism is to say they are people who do not engage with the concept of belief. 99% of atheists put God in the same category as astrology, the Loch Ness monster and Atlantis. There is no evidence for their unlikely existence but plenty of evidence for Humans making things up.
Look at how quickly internet conspiracies propagate, flat earthers, fake moon landings, kids raised by wolves, the Jews control the world. It's very clear that we are an extremely gullible species. I don't know if there is a God, it seems unlikely given the evidence for evolution but I do know we can be naïve, foolish and gullible.
It seems you are adding the “no concrete evidence” to the definition of belief. Where did you get your definition from?
@@JCOJourney Just being precise with how I see it. 'Proof' can be a bit subjective these days where everyone likes to believe their own truth. 'Concrete evidence' removes the subjectivity and is truthful to my view.
For example The Bible may be proof to some but it's not concrete evidence. Whereas red shifting galaxies is concrete evidence that the universe is expanding.
That a different conversation in who determines concrete evidence.
How about this, do you lack the belief there is no god(s)
@@JCOJourney Yes. I don't 'believe' anything in the way you mean it, positive or negative. Although I can suspend disbelief for fun.
I actually like all the spiritual and metaphysical stuff, it's interesting and entertaining and I wouldn't mock religious people for enjoying that, unless they were denying a proven scientific truth.
Believe has two meanings, 'know it' in my heart which is what religious people mean and 'hope' as in I believe my cat loves me.
Do I hope there's a God, sure although maybe not the Christian one as he'd send me to hell for no good reason. Do I know it in my heart? No, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
If you lack the belief there is a god and is no god. That’s not atheism. That’s really just nothing (but agnostic is the common term). But you can believe what you want to believe.
For me it seems like saying the same thing, just in different ways.. english isn't my 1st language thou
It’s a weird distinction, but there is a difference in saying lack of believe vs believe not. In practical usage, some people might use them to mean the same thing
Just because there are weak and strong atheists doesn't necessitate that there are weak and strong theists. You don't have to have parity between the terms.
Someone must be either:
1. A strong Atheist.
2. A strong theist.
3. Both weak atheist and theist.
Is that correct? if not, what is at least the four option?
@@JCOJourney 4. Only a weak theist.
5. Only a weak atheist.
6. None of the above.
This is because we don't have to accept the premise that the definitions are correct or necessary.
You suggest weak theist and atheist alone. Okay. If I were to ask you (assuming you are in the category) do there believe there is a god. What should your response be.
@@JCOJourney by your definition I would be a strong atheist. I don't believe there is a god. I also believe that there is no god.
So category 1.
I'm a little disappointed on my fellow atheists for not getting the purpose of this video. The thesis of the video is not "all people that call themselves atheists believe there is no God", but rather "the label 'atheist' must apply only to those who deny the existence of God".
I agree with you up to the point where you used "agnostic" as a label to denote lack of believe. While I agree that it has been used in that sense, I think it serves a better purpose to denote lack of knowledge, so we can distinguish gnostics and agnostics among both theists and atheists (,although I don't really like the label "agnostic atheist", I'd rather identify myself as both an agnostic and an atheist).
Now, the reason why your argument doesn't work. At 7:28, you used the word "should". At that moment, your argument stopped being "Atheism MUST mean..." and became "Atheism SHOULD mean..."
I mean, I don't blame you, this is not a bad SHOULD argument, but one cannot make an argument about how a word MUST mean something because that's not how definitions work (and you even acknowledge some of that at the beginning).
Finally, if you think I misrepresented you by plugging MUST when you never used that word, I'm using it to represent the idea that "it necessary follows that atheist means...", which is the impression that I got from your argument. Maybe I'm misrepresenting you, so I would love some feedback.
I think the purpose of the video is silly. There is no reason not to just accept that people mean what they say they mean and let them use whatever label they feel is appropriate. Arguing about labels is pointless.
@@aaronpolichar7936 I completely agree with you. Sadly, the comments I read did not address that, which is the main focus of the video
@miguelangelguillenhernande8647 Thank you watching. I guess the MUST and SHOULD could be switch. I just used MUST to infer something like: If someone plays football, therefore they must be a football player. Or if someone believes there is a god. They are a theist, one who believe in a god. They therefore MUST believe in a god.
I don't care what a person believes (to an extent). But that words have meanings.
@@JCOJourney The problem with swapping SHOULD with MUST is, how do you justify that?
In your two examples, the only way I could see of justifying the claims is, literally, "by definition". That is, you establish the definition of "football player" and "theist" before making the claims. If you were to do that in your argument, you would be establishing your definitions in order to conclude the establishment of your definitions, and that would be begging the question.
Then again, I think it is impossible to make an argument like "X must necessarily mean Y", because that's not how definitions work.
So how about an Atheist is one who believes there is no god. Atheism is the belief there is no god.
It's already the lack of belief in any god...
For certain people yes.
@@JCOJourney no... that's the exact definition of the word!
"noun. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
@emmanuelbeaucage4461
I talked about this already in my video
Atheism: The belief there is no god.
Watch if you are willing for your position to be challenged. If not, take care.
@@JCOJourney don't you think that opening a dictionary to verify the definition of atheism would have been the first thing to do?
@@JCOJourney Then the video have an error in its title...
not only atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in gods... It's also exactly how it is already accuratly defined!
The argument that "there is no Moon" is negative. If I didn't believe in the Moon, it's your job to prove it, no matter how common sense it seems.
Do you know what positive claim is?
@@JCOJourney It's the claim that something exists. Whether it's the moon, unicorns, spacetime, the McDonald's on Main St, if one of us believes any of those doesn't exist, the other party has the burden of proof. You can't prove that something DOESN'T exist, after all.
Positive is affirmative position. Not necessarily that saying something exist. If I say that doesn’t exist, that’s an affirmative position.
@@JCOJourney The issue is that is that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
You can't prove that fae, unicorns, trolls, or any other mythical thing doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you have to believe in it. If I argued that they did, you'd want proof, right?
Then don’t say it doesn’t exist. Say you believe it doesn’t exist. But still saying I believe there is no god is positive claim.
OK, it seems to me that you are carving out the terms, "strong atheist" to mean a "gnostic atheist," and "weak atheist" to me an "agnostic atheist."
If a person says, "there is X" then that person has made a claim. A person making a claim is different from someone who believes a thing. A person stating, "I don't believe that there is X" has not made a claim, they have merely made a declaration of fact.
As far as what the terms mean, unless you can convince the majority to change definitions, your time is probably better put to other uses.
I mean, go talk with those who insist that "impact" is not a verb if you want to find consolation.
Have you not heard of strong or weak atheism before?
@@JCOJourney Of course. I just think they are not very good terms, because gnostic and agnostic cover the same ground and are more clear about what they mean.
Gnostic/agnostic is a relatively new 21st terminology that I personally believe, is not used right, but that’s a different conversation.
How about this?
If I lack the belief in a god, doesn’t mean I believe there is no god. But if I believe there is no god, I lack the belief in a god.
Do you agree.
@@JCOJourney "Gnostic/agnostic is a relatively new 21st terminology " Sources I find point to it being a 19th century terminology. Do you mean that it became more common in the 21st century? Why is that relevant to you?
"If I lack the belief in a god, doesn’t mean I believe there is no god. " If you lack the belief in a god, how would it imply that you don't believe there is no god? If you are saying that not having a belief in a god (thus being atheist) means you do not claim that there is no god, then it seems to me you would be an agnostic atheist.
"if I believe there is no god, I lack the belief in a god." Yes.
Perhaps we need to dig deeper into the meaning of "belief?"
@rodshop5897 So agnostic/gnostic atheist and theist really popped off in this century. I mean it’s have a few mentions of individuals saying All atheists are agnostic or something along the lines, but wasn’t like some “category” or say. It’s isn’t really define and really just what people want to call themselves. For example, Gnostic was known as specially divine knowledge and a special “religion”. The idea that Gnostic means just claim in knowledge today for describing atheism and theism, isn’t some “official” term in a sense. Or wasn’t use that way. Basically combining Gnostic/agnostic and atheism/theism is, what I believe, not properly defied yet.
Some individuals use the terminology strong/positive/hard vs weak/negative/soft atheism to explain the difference in say the lack of belief in god vs belief in no god.
Now I say this because you brought agnostic and gnostic up. I never brought it up in the video.
So some atheists I talk do will say:
It’s not that I believe there is no god (strong), but I lack the belief there is a god (weak)
Another reason I don’t add the Gnostic/agnostic is because some people use it to define claim in knowledge, which I’m not addressing just belief.
Belief is just an acceptance that a statement is true
To believe something means to accept something is true.
Are you following me and does that address your points?
I plan on being on live at 4 eastern on this coming Wednesday
It appears the comments who don’t agree go two different ways
1. “I understand the individual steps you, but it SHOULD be “X” without”addressing any of the error in steps.
2. Believing the claim “There is no God” is not a positive claim.
@@johnburn8031 I try to respond to commenters who aare willing to have a fair and honest conversation. there are like 200
@@johnburn8031 //there wasn't when I wrote them. //
What
I can't have a conversation with you take care
I have conversations if we can have a civilized discussion. It seems him (and you) don’t.
If you can steelman my position accurately, I’ll try to engage with you.
You believe in the concept of god? That belief is theism.
So what.? Define whatever you want, It still does not prove any god(s) exist.
The video just shows why atheism is a belief.
@@JCOJourney like I said. So what?
That’s it. Why post your comment if the video was that
@@JCOJourney So what.....difference does it make if it is a belief or not?
I think there's a misunderstanding of what positive and negative claims are.
A positive claim P could be "There is a Moon."
A negative claim !P, then, is "There is no Moon."
I think there's also a misunderstanding of what a default position is.
The default position for anything is that it doesn't exist. There's are reasons behind that.
One reason, that it's easier to prove something's existence, yet very hard to prove something's nonexistence.
I do like your categorization at the end. That of Weak/Strong Theism/Atheism.
I don't know if I would bring Agnosticism into this, though. Since Gnosticism isn't even in this picture, Agnosticism shouldn't be either.
Unless you can fit it in.
"Words have meaning." That is true.
You sound like a prescriptionist, someone who believes that there's only one true meaning for a word.
On the flip side there are descriptionists, someone who believes that words have usages that can deviate from any prescribed meaning.
For descriptionists, a word has the meaning that the speaker intends.
For a prescriptionist, a word has the meaning that the prescriptionist intends.
Which one is the fairest position? Which one is the most pragmatic?
There is no moon and there is no god are both positive claims
Secondly, the default is no position. It’s not saying it does or doesn’t exist.
@@JCOJourney
_"There is no moon and there is no god are both positive claims"_
I disagree. The sources I've found give me different results.
But well, that distinction isn't that important for this topic. What's important is that we both agree that all claims need evidence. Positive or negative.
_"the default is no position. It’s not saying it does or doesn’t exist."_
Ah! That I do agree with.
What's your take on Gnosticism and Agnosticism?
In terms of what on Gnosticism and agnosticism.
You know saying no something thing doesn’t exist and saying I don’t know are not the same.
Do the reason there is no moon and there is no god have different criteria is because of your belief? Not an objective one?
@@JCOJourney _"You know saying no something thing doesn’t exist and saying I don’t know are not the same."_
I am aware. But the fact that you ask this indicates to me that I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying that you're not talking about Gnosticism and Agnosticism at all in this video? If so, why do you refer to Agnosticism from 7:45?
_"Do the reason there is no moon and there is no god have different criteria is because of your belief? Not an objective one?"_
What do you mean by criteria?
That was the term used in the 19th century and still continues to be used by some as not atheist or theist. I also said I would call them anything. The Gnostic and agnostic atheist/theist are really recent terms anyway, that I don’t address.
3:20, no sir. Both examples are incorrect for different reason. "There is no god" is a positive claim because it asserts a "there is" statement. In the next example, "there is no moon" is also a positive claim and therefore assumes the burden of proof. When you mention the "default position" you're actually referring to the "null hypothesis" (something you should read about before responding to this). The null hypothesis should always be a rejection of the claim: "I don't believe there is no moon" the syntax is subtle here but you missed it a couple times in this video. The statements, "There is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god" are different statements. It's subtle like I said, but the former is a positive assertion of a claim, the latter is a rejection of someone else's positive claim. It has nothing to do with how much evidence there is, although I appreciate your admission of lack of evidence to the positive claim of "there is a god".
Is saying there is no god a positive claim?
@@JCOJourney the answer to your question is in the very second sentence of that response. Yes
Oof. I have not read that second sentence and just skimmed.
Do you know the scenario had person b making the second statement also?
Yeah I probably should have elaborated. In scenario 1, person B is incorrect to say person A is not making a positive claim. In scenario 2, person B is correct to say person A is making a positive claim, but its not because "the default position is existence"
The reason I evaluate these as such is because the default position has nothing to do with the evidence. I made an additional mistake telling you to look into the "null hypothesis" as that doesn't apply here. Really, were searching for a "true dichotomy" so that we can figure out which ideas to compare to each other. If we start a debate with two positive claims like: "There is a god" and "there is no god", then there is no default position. It introduces a 3rd possibility, which is to reject both claims. We want to avoid having a 3rd position if we want to have meaningful conversations about which things are actually true. So the true dichotomy becomes, "there is a god" and "I don't believe there is a god". In this case, the burden of proof is on the person claiming a god. Inversely, we can say "There is no god" and "I don't believe there is no god", and now the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is no god. Both of these examples are true dichotomies because there is no possible 3rd position. And now we can proceed with presenting evidence for the positive claims, and the negatives evaluating if that evidence is sound. So the claim that needs to provide evidence is not the side that is generally accepted, but rather whoever is asserting something to be true. To come full circle, person A in Scenario 2 is making a positive claim that the moon doesn't exist. They need to provide evidence not because the status quo is that we can see the moon, it's because they're positively claiming the moon does not exist. If someone were to say "the moon does exist", and someone rejects that claim, the burden of proof is on the person positively claiming the moon exists.
That section could have been explained better. The scenario happens multiple times where I ask an Atheist both the no god and no moon claim, with them saying only one is the positive claim.
Instead of wasting time trying to redefine a word you've demonstrated you understand the meaning of when used by Atheists, why not just provide convincing evidence for the god you believe in?
No one is ever going to be convinced a god exists by redefining the word they use to describe their state of mind.
Uh. That wasn’t the purpose of the video to convince you about god
@@JCOJourney If we're going to play that game, then your video has no purpose as it sure as shit not going to redefine a word that you already know the common definition of.
@christaylor6574 Bullshit. He is conflating a positive claim of "there is no god" with the definition he admits to understanding, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god(s). Any who make the claim that there are NO gods are also atheist same as those who do not make the claim.
A Toyota Camry is a car, but not all cars are Toyota Camrys.
Instead of trying to deduce the internal thoughts of other people through oratorical masturbation, ask them.
@christaylor6574 Are you unaware of the existence of subsets? I feel like you and the OP of the video must know each other personally and this is why you showed up in his video, it's like you both failed the same philosophy 101 course and became fast friends in sucking at this.
If a person makes the claim "There is no god" would they also necessarily not believe a god exists? If so, then they are an atheist as well.
Atheism is a BROAD TERM that encompasses any who are not convinced of the existence of god(s.)
@christaylor6574 If you are aware of subsets then you're wasting your time trying to make an argument pretending they don't exist.
"It can't be if you agree not all cars are a Toyota Camrys."
Do people think you being intellectually dishonest is cute? Do I really need to waste my time taking that line and reversing the order to point out how it's a subset? I've typed it 3 times now I think. Does it need to be repeated yet again for you? If you are only capable of seeing that in one way, let me know I'll just not respond anymore.
> not all "atheists" think theism is false.
Congrats you made a true statement. Atheism is not "theism is false." Multiple people have said this, it's like the most basic intro to this topic. Lacking a belief in a proposition is not the same as affirming that theism is "false."
Theism: "I believe god(s) exist."
Atheism: "I am not convinced, I do not believe god(s) exist."
If you personally make the strong affirmation that no gods exist, that's your personal belief.
Is atheism a truth statement?
It claims to be. I explained why in the video.
The word describes a belief. What I mentioned in the video.
Let get started with definitions.
Can you define these 6 words
Atheist
Theist
Gnostic
Agnostic
Gnosticism
Agnosticism.
You don’t need some complicated definition but keep the philosophy definitions.
@@niel-w1g what is your evidence that proves this to be true
The chief error you are making here is in stating that the default position has to be a belief that something exists. Saying that the moon exists is a positive claim that requires a burden of proof, and saying that the moon does not exist is also a positive claim that requires a burden of proof. Someone who lacks a belief that the moon exists does not take a side in the argument; this is the default position.
Now, lets look at you "weak theist" versus weak atheist. The weak theist lacks a belief that there is no god, which means they believe there is a god. The double negative does all of the work here, and so the "weak theist" is actually a strong theist, or theist. However, a weak atheist lacks a belief in a god. They are adopting the default position. They are not making the positive claim that there is no god, they just lack a belief in any god.
Again, the key difference here is that the default position does not contain a double negative.
I actually never gave my reasoning for default position. It isn’t saying something doesn’t exist thought, but refusing judgement.
@@JCOJourney In scenario 1, you have one interlocuter state that "nonexistence is the default position", and in scenario 2, you have one interlocuter state that "existence is the default position".
In both scenarios 1 and 2, the default position is refusing judgment, and both claims are positive claims. Because you used these scenarios to frame your discussion, you appear not to understand what the "default position" is. You then appear to apply this confusion about default positions to create a false equivalence between weak atheism and "weak theism".
Now, I fully understand that you are using the term "weak theism" in order to argue that weak atheism should not be called atheism, but the issue is that you have created this false equivalence and you don't seem to understand that.
The substantive part of my rebuttal, though, has nothing to do with what the actual default position is, but rather, the fact that your "weak theist" position, by virtue of being expressed as a double negative, is actually equivalent to the "strong theist" position, whereas the weak atheist position is distinct from both the strong theist and strong atheist positions. Really, we should think of belief as a spectrum, with strong theism on one end and strong atheism on the other end. Somewhere in between the two extremes is a position of "I lack a belief in any gods because I do not have sufficient evidence for any gods". This position marks the start of atheism, since it is characterized by non-acceptance of a god claim. Any position which accepts some god claim is a theist position.
In this spectrum, you do have weak theists; these are people who believe in god, but perhaps acknowledge that they don't have strong evidence, or people who are unsure but feel there must be something, for example.
Ultimately, I think you are coming at this from the perspective of a theist, and you perhaps don't understand how someone can have a lack of belief in something, because all of your examples about "lack of belief" are just examples of someone believing a claim and therefore "lacking" belief in the opposite of the claim.
The scenario was to show Person B errors.
@@JCOJourney Sure, whatever. It doesn't come across that way, but I'll grant you that for the sake of the argument. You still aren't addressing the substance of my rebuttal. Your whole argument rests on drawing a false equivalence between "weak theism" and weak atheism.
Yes, everyone understands how Latin affixes work. Who cares?
Uh. Latin?
@@JCOJourney Greek then Latin then French. yes. But most prefixes and suffixes we use today come from the Latin. The dictionary (not online) shows the origins. They also teach this in high school.
This words use the Greek. With the first “official” word for atheism being French.
@@JCOJourney sorry, Greek to Latin to French. You realize that French is a Latin language, yes?
This isn’t a gotcha. Just correction. French is Latin based language.
lol.
I believe there are no gods.
There is no god
Oh no