"Atheism is neither true nor false" - I can live with that. Better than convincing yourself something is definitely true without proper evidence based observation... don't you think?

The point is, atheism becomes meaningless under this definition. It isn't a posirion, it isnt true or false, it isnt a view point, and even cats and babies could be atheists. You might as well say you like ponies.

To say you lack belief is simply an obfuscation of your true position on the question of God, which could either be yes, in which case you would be a theist, no in which case you would be an atheist, or i dont know in which case you would be an agnostic. If you consider it a meaningless question then you are a verificationist.

yes, atheism is the de facto position as it then requires additional information to change that position (and none is given). i would agree with that. atheism isn't a viewpoint, it's a lack of a viewpoint.



probably the most lucid thing i've heard craig say, except for the fact that he thinks it's nonsensical.

"You might as well say you like ponies" and "don't believe in god/gods" are opposite types of statements and have no relation to each other. if you can't differentiate between the two then you are unable to have any kind of meaningful conversation on the subject.

>> ^kir_mokum:
"You might as well say you like ponies" and "don't believe in god/gods" are opposite types of statements and have no relation to each other. if you can't differentiate between the two then you are unable to have any kind of meaningful conversation on the subject.


We can't have a meaningful conversation on the subject if you cherry pick my post. Saying you don't believe in a God is fine, because that is a concrete position that corresponds to the definition of atheism. Saying you lack belief in a God is an autobiographical statement on your psychology that has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. That is why I contrasted it to liking ponies.

fuck you videosift for glitching out and deleting my response.

When you ask me if I believe if there is a god or not, I would say no. However, this question is not really important in my life - I don't care whether there's a god... it doesn't bother me at any time of the day and it doesn't affect my personality... you would think so, but I promise you that we pretty much have the same morals - I don't like killing people and the likes. It's the same way that you would ask me whether pixies exist or not - I don't care, and unless god/jesus/Moses/pixie himself come down from the heavens and beg me to reconsider my opinion, I would definitely think about it...

shinyblurry, do you believe in Baal? yes or no will suffice.

@shinyblurry, would a man who is from a christian point of view, undeniably "good" his entire life, but doesn't believe in your god, be rejected by the "lord"?

Atheist is a label. What that label means, is different to different people. "Negative atheism" is the same as saying "I have no religion". In that sense most people are atheists, because they likely have not thought about it. Animals are this kind of atheists too, if you will.

Positive atheists is an active belief, "I believe there is no god". In practice there's not much difference. People live how they live, and I doubt you could tell either from the other.


William Lane Craig is overrated in the Christian community.

So you're apathetic about the existence of God, but you also have formed a definite opinion on the probability of Gods existence, comparing Him to pixies. So I think it's more accurate to say you don't care because you don't believe. If you thought He was likely to exist I think you would care, don't you think? It's really a fallacy to compare God to pixies or teapots, because they explain precisely zero. The idea of God has explanatory power for our lives, and for the existence of the Universe.

So, what do you think happens to you when you die? You say you are generally moral, and I have no trouble believing that, but restraining yourself from killing people is not exactly the picture of morality. How well do you follow the ten commandments? Do you ever look at a woman with lust? Do you hate anyone? God calls us to a much higher standard than what you seem to be implicating.

>> ^G-bar:

Yes, I believe in the existence of Baal; a fallen angel masquarading as a god.

>> ^kir_mokum:

As I was saying to gar, we have all sinned and fallen short. Even one sin is one too many. Even the most pious people will have broken the ten commandments hundreds if not thousands of times. That is not what God considers good. The only person to live a perfect life was Jesus Christ, and that is Gods standard for good.

>> ^luxury_pie:

Atheist is a label. What that label means, is different to different people. "Negative atheism" is the same as saying "I have no religion". In that sense most people are atheists, because they likely have not thought about it. Animals are this kind of atheists too, if you will.

Well, most people have thought about it and believe in God. If you're lumping in animals with this definition, is this just not ignorance of God?

Positive atheists is an active belief, "I believe there is no god". In practice there's not much difference. People live how they live, and I doubt you could tell either from the other.

If I saw them walking along the street, no. I can usually tell believers from unbelievers though by looking in their eyes. Positive atheists, as you term them, let you know who they are, so in practical terms, I don't usually have to guess. Once they find out I am a Christian I find out they are an atheist rather quickly.

William Lane Craig is overrated in the Christian community.

I don't think so. He has debated some of the biggest names in atheism and won more than his share of debates. He has contributed a vast amount to Christian philosophy, and apologetics, and in general has inspired many Christians to have a deeper understanding of their faith. He has made a very positive contribution to the Christian community overall. I don't agree with everything he says or what he believes but I respect him as a philosopher.

Me? I don't even attempt to follow the rules of your pixie... And try to look at yourself before judging others, which appears to be something you excel in.
BTW, since I had 12 years of bible studies as an Israeli Jew, allow me to ask you this - do YOU follow the rules of god as written in the old testament? I'm pretty sure you don't... since you probably have at least 1-10 portraits of your god at home, you go to church which is filled with fake gods and saints (which is also forbidden).
Your god has no value to me, no more than a common pixie - when I was a kid, I believed that I get presents from pixies when I lose my teeth. Now I've grown up out of it... I think It's time for you to do the same... you'll find out that you can be a good person without the big brother in the sky to help you out.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So you're apathetic about the existence of God, but you also have formed a definite opinion on the probability of Gods existence, comparing Him to pixies. So I think it's more accurate to say you don't care because you don't believe. If you thought He was likely to exist I think you would care, don't you think? It's really a fallacy to compare God to pixies or teapots, because they explain precisely zero. The idea of God has explanatory power for our lives, and for the existence of the Universe.
So, what do you think happens to you when you die? You say you are generally moral, and I have no trouble believing that, but restraining yourself from killing people is not exactly the picture of morality. How well do you follow the ten commandments? Do you ever look at a woman with lust? Do you hate anyone? God calls us to a much higher standard than what you seem to be implicating.
>> ^G-bar:

Wow...not just a troll, but a mindreader too? I stand in awe of your achievements! Imagine being able to identify my beliefs just by looking in my eyes.

But then again, we've already established that you don't need or want evidence before making up your mind, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I haven't judged you; I am not your judge. I do follow the ten commandments, and no I do not have portraits of God in my house. Neither are there fake gods and saints at my church; I am not a catholic.

God demands a higher standard than just trying to be good, and that is the standard we will be judged by. You say Jesus Christ has no value, but it is only through Him that our sins are forgiven. Since we cannot earn our way into eternal life, I would say His value is maximal.

I've never said you cannot be moral without God, but Gods standard of good is not anything anyone besides Jesus Christ has ever lived up to. You can be relatively good in comparison to other people, but as I've shown you, even the most pious people have broken His commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. If you hate anyone, refuse to forgive, lust, steal, lie, etc, you are guilty. We are all guilty of transgressing His laws, and apart from Jesus Christ, we all will face judgement. Unlike pixies, you will be meeting Jesus one day, so get right with God on this side of life. He loves you and He will give you eternal life if you turn to Him.

>> ^G-bar:

I'm no mind reader. There is just a certain light that I can see that identifies someone as Christian. I can usually tell before I even speak with someone. It doesn't mean I can tell what people believe beyond that. It's only a dichotomy between believers and nonbelievers.

>> ^Stormsinger:

It's less a re-definition and more of a course correction. Compare atheism to similar words:

amoral = without morals.
atypical = without type.
apathy = without pathos. More specifically, without empathy or sympathy.
agnostic = without gnosis (greek: knowledge).

So let's talk about what theism is, since atheism is without it. Theism, as I understand it, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

So there you go. I credit the internet for this course correction, since most popular dictionaries usually define an atheist incorrectly by claiming it is someone who believes there is/can be no god. You're free to do that too, shiny. Your comfort level at being wrong is well road-tested, clearly.

atheos - without god

It's a metaphysical position, a denial that any deity exists. The redefinition of atheism is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof by turning atheism from a positive to a negative claim. To say you lack belief is simply an obfuscation of your true position. If you are unwilling to say God does not exist, you are an agnostic and not an atheist. There is no inbetween; you have a belief about the existence of God, which is that either you don't believe it, or you don't know.


>> ^shuac:
It's less a re-definition and more of a course correction. Compare atheism to similar words:
amoral = without morals.
atypical = without type.
apathy = without pathos. More specifically, without empathy or sympathy.
agnostic = without gnosis (greek: knowledge).
So let's talk about what theism is, since atheism is without it. Theism, as I understand it, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
So there you go. I credit the internet for this course correction, since most popular dictionaries usually define an atheist incorrectly by claiming it is someone who believes there is/can be no god. You're free to do that too, shiny. Your comfort level at being wrong is well road-tested, clearly.

Haha shiny, 'Lack of belief' is the same as 'don't believe'. God you're as dumb as Big Willy.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^kir_mokum:
"You might as well say you like ponies" and "don't believe in god/gods" are opposite types of statements and have no relation to each other. if you can't differentiate between the two then you are unable to have any kind of meaningful conversation on the subject.

We can't have a meaningful conversation on the subject if you cherry pick my post. Saying you don't believe in a God is fine, because that is a concrete position that corresponds to the definition of atheism. Saying you lack belief in a God is an autobiographical statement on your psychology that has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. That is why I contrasted it to liking ponies.

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

uh. ok. what don't you believe in then?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, I believe in the existence of Baal; a fallen angel masquarading as a god.

While I couldn't state that I know no gods exist I will say it right now that I know your god doesn't exist. Christians have defined him out of existance with these two statements you can't deny repeating ad nauseum.

1. God loves us all
2. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus

If these two statements are true according to Christianity then nowhere on Earth would we find Muslim, Hindu or Bhuddist or whatever people (especially children) dying with no plausable way to find Jesus.

What hope would a two year old girl starving to death in Afghanastan have of picking up a bible, reading it, finding it's claims any more credible than those of the quaran, converting to christianity and being saved before she dies of malnutriution. It can't be believed. Therefore I have no problem saying your god does not exist full stop.

"even cats and babies could be atheists"

The alternative is call them theists. You're either one or the other – it's a binary position. Since babies and cats are not theists, then logically they're atheists. WLC just calls this ridiculous, but doesn't say why.

Shinyblurry: "If you are unwilling to say God does not exist, you are an agnostic and not an atheist"

A/gnosticism deals with knowledge, A/theism deals with belief. They are two separate subjects. I can say I don't believe in aliens visiting earth without claiming any knowledge on the subject. I could be wrong, but as it happens I don't believe. You can say "I don't believe aliens visit earth, but I could be wrong". You CAN'T say "Aliens don't visit earth, but I could be wrong".
The first sentence is coherent, the second is self-contradictory. Thus it's pretty obvious that belief statements and knowledge statements are not the same.