Reason, Belief, Athiesm. Lacking belief in Gods

Qualasoup has put out a well put together video that sums up not just athiesm, but can be applied towards anything believed by us simple humans. I encourage everyone to take a look at it.

To a theist,- Watching the video may help you to understand the mindset of a general athiest/agnostic

To a non-theist - It may help in articulating your position to others when your being hammered

Anyhow, good viewing, dont forget to tip your waitress

Thank you for the link, but I had many differences with the views presented. A few haphazrdly chosen points follow.

The video promotes the superstition that there are fixed "definitions" of words, and that these magical formulas are to be found in grimoires called "dictionaries."

No. Words in natural language mean only what they are used and understood to mean by the community that speaks the language. Dictionaries summarize how the people compiling the dictionary have seen or heard the word used.

This is useful information, since it can provide rough guidance to the approximate usage of the word, past and present. It is not legislative, however, and word lawyering based upon exquisite analysis of the wording of a dictionary entry is a waste of time, and a misuse of the resource.

As to the name of my religion, agnosticism has always meant neither theist nor atheist. It has for a very long time meant exactly the absence of professed belief either way.

In part, that's because our domain-independent ideas about the nature of belief, and so of knowledge, have developed markedly since the death of Huxley, whose very own private word agnosticism once was.

There is some irony in the video's 1906 quote of Willima Graham Sumner, because there we see the essence of what became the 20th Century reform in the understanding of belief. Possibility is distinguished clearly from belief, and degrees of belief are distinguished from certainity.

Nobody today would seriously require "certainty" in the proponent of any contingent belief, including religious beliefs.

Full marks, though, for the silliest argument I have yet heard for placing the burden of proof on theists for their categorical statements, but not on atheists for theirs. Since babies lack the cognitive capacity to grasp the question, we all begin with the position of not believing any gods exist. Therefore, as adults, those who wish to change what we didn't believe as babies have the burden of proof.

Obvious counter: Those who favor remaining in an infantile state of mind throughout life have the burden of proof.

Sorry that I couldn't find more common cause with the guy. He is, of course, entitled to call himself an atheist, even though he insists that he professes only "I don't believe in any god claim I have encountered," and not "I believe there is no god."

However, his complaint that he is misunderstood when he uses "atheist" that way is entirely on him for using words differently from the community at large. It is inevitable that he will be misunderstood, and not some failing on the part of theists. Nor of those of us who are neither theists nor atheists.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
Thank you for the link, but I had many differences with the views presented. A few haphazrdly chosen points follow.

The video promotes the superstition that there are fixed "definitions" of words, and that these magical formulas are to be found in grimoires called "dictionaries."

No. Words in natural language mean only what they are used and understood to mean by the community that speaks the language. Dictionaries summarize how the people compiling the dictionary have seen or heard the word used.

The video actually states that dictionaries make glaring mistakes, particularly in some where they say that atheism is the 'belief there is no God' which I've seen before.

Nice straw man.

This is useful information, since it can provide rough guidance to the approximate usage of the word, past and present. It is not legislative, however, and word lawyering based upon exquisite analysis of the wording of a dictionary entry is a waste of time, and a misuse of the resource.

It actually doesn't 'word lawyer' based on the analysis of dictionary definitions, more of colloquial ones. In fact, it uses analytic linguistic logic to break down the meaning of the words atheism and agnosticism.

As to the name of my religion, agnosticism has always meant neither theist nor atheist. It has for a very long time meant exactly the absence of professed belief either way.

1: Agnosticism cannot be a religion, it lacks any structures and is an answer to knowledge. Whether or not you know the answer to a question is an independent question to whether or not you have a belief or lack of a belief. Agnosticism in the sense of being a different entity to theism and atheism would be 'not caring' rather than not believing.
2: Atheism is not a belief but a lack of one.

In part, that's because our domain-independent ideas about the nature of belief, and so of knowledge, have developed markedly since the death of Huxley, whose very own private word agnosticism once was.

And words develop independently of their creators.

There is some irony in the video's 1906 quote of Willima Graham Sumner, because there we see the essence of what became the 20th Century reform in the understanding of belief. Possibility is distinguished clearly from belief, and degrees of belief are distinguished from certainity.

I lack belief in a deity, making me an atheist. Depending on the various definitions of 'deity' I have different levels of certainty and knowledge.

Nobody today would seriously require "certainty" in the proponent of any contingent belief, including religious beliefs.

I would. You see, I just made your argument go poof.
If I ask a religious person what they believe I'd hope they provide a level of certainty as a portion of that and typically they do.

Full marks, though, for the silliest argument I have yet heard for placing the burden of proof on theists for their categorical statements, but not on atheists for theirs.

I've done this dance before on ATS million times, so it gets old.
Atheists don't make categorical statements

Since babies lack the cognitive capacity to grasp the question, we all begin with the position of not believing any gods exist. Therefore, as adults, those who wish to change what we didn't believe as babies have the burden of proof.

Um...that's actually what we define with all beliefs. If I want to believe in the laws of gravitation as outlined by Newton, I need to have someone provide me with coherent evidence of their certainty. If I want to believe germ theory, I need evidence of germs.

Anything that is contrary to our natural state of not understanding anything must be justified in order to be a

Obvious counter: Those who favor remaining in an infantile state of mind throughout life have the burden of proof.

Obvious counter to this idiocy: Why wasn't the world created last Thursday by an all powerful being that sought to use its infinite power and wisdom to create a world in which everything seems as if the world has been around for billions of years?

Why isn't there an invisible pink unicorn in my room?

Why am I not a deity that simply chooses not to exercise my powers?

Why didn't cheese create everything?

If you have to provide evidence to stay skeptical it is not skepticism.

Sorry that I couldn't find more common cause with the guy. He is, of course, entitled to call himself an atheist, even though he insists that he professes only "I don't believe in any god claim I have encountered," and not "I believe there is no god."

"I believe there is no god" is not the definition of an atheist.
Straw man argument.

However, his complaint that he is misunderstood when he uses "atheist" that way is entirely on him for using words differently from the community at large.

The community at large also misuses the words 'communist', 'socialist', 'fascist', etc.
That doesn't make the community at large right.

It is inevitable that he will be misunderstood, and not some failing on the part of theists. Nor of those of us who are neither theists nor atheists.

You do not believe in a deity. You do not accept the claims of a deity as proposed to you. If you are not settled on the claims of theism (or deism) then you are an atheist.

The video actually states that dictionaries make glaring mistakes, particularly in some where they say that atheism is the 'belief there is no God' which I've seen before.

Actually, the video plays it both ways. The graphic of a dictionary definition is displayed while the narrator recites his view of what words mean, then later he says that even some dictionaries make mistakes about the words of interest.

The viewer is invited to conclude that the narrator's dictionary doesn't make such mistakes, else he wouldn't have displayed the graphic. He doesn't actually say what dictionary he is using.

While people differ about what is properly called atheism, agnosticism is much simpler. It exlcudes atheism, and excludes theism. Always has. That's why it was coined, that was why the name caught on.

Nice straw man.

Nice red herring.

1: Agnosticism cannot be a religion, ...

It is my religion. The existence of my religion is not open for discussion.

You have a nice day.

reply to post by eight bits


Wow, I make 12 points and have only a quarter of them half addressed...well, I'm used to that.

Originally posted by eight bits
The viewer is invited to conclude that the narrator's dictionary doesn't make such mistakes, else he wouldn't have displayed the graphic. He doesn't actually say what dictionary he is using.

The provided definition is one that can be logical defended, that is why it is chosen to be accepted.

While people differ about what is properly called atheism, agnosticism is much simpler. It exlcudes atheism, and excludes theism. Always has. That's why it was coined, that was why the name caught on.

And communism was used to describe a post-governmental state in which the community owned all means of production and all were equal, yet it doesn't mean just that.

Agnosticism has three parts: A-GNOSTIC-ISM
A (not)
GNOSTIC (from the Greek gnosis, or knowledge)
ISM (belief of a person)

Agnostic means "I believe I don't know", it doesn't speak to your position regarding theism and atheism.

Again, I am most quickly defined as an agnostic atheist. I do not know if I'm right, but the position I take is that of skepticism.

Nice straw man.

Nice red herring.

I'm sorry, but how is a direct response to your problem a red herring?
I said

The video actually states that dictionaries make glaring mistakes, particularly in some where they say that atheism is the 'belief there is no God' which I've seen before.

It is my religion. The existence of my religion is not open for discussion.

It is definitively not a religion. That would mean 'liking butterflies' is the same hobby as 'collecting butterflies'

Agnosticism speaks to a single question, it is not a religion. A religion is a structure of many beliefs. "Theism" is not a religion, but "Catholicism" or "Islam" are. Both religions are theistic, but theism on its own is not a religion.

And nothing is 'not open for discussion'. Such talk is simply the sort of idiocy I'd expect from a fundamentalist, not one who identifies with the label 'agnostic'.

Saturn, I LOVED that video! It explained things in a way that I understand and agree with, but have never been able to verbalize, myself. I'm going to bookmark the video to use in the future for those who think atheism is a religious position and requires the burden of proof. That one always slays me.

I especially loved his explanation of how we are born atheist and that it is a default position. We are taught everything else in our lives by use of demonstrative evidence. But there is and has never been any demonstrative evidence of a supreme deity, yet people are conditioned to believe it under pressure. I will be relieved when people stop teaching their children this fantasy as fact. A quote from the video: "When you want to move people away from their default lack of belief towards your belief, it's you, NOT they, who has to provide justification. If you want people to believe that any gods exist, the burden of proof is on you, not on those who are simply skeptical of your claim."

I also appreciated his explanation of how believers want to make atheism into a position of faith. Another favorite quote: "Those who can't approach discussion with a basic level of intelligence and maturity shouldn't be expected to be taken seriously." (I think that's why there are so few responses here...)

I understand and agree with the author when he illustrates that being atheist AND agnostic is compatible. I have always struggled with that personally, thinking that agnostic was some middle ground between atheism and theism, and that I had to pick one, as illustrated in this thread of mine. I can now describe myself as an agnostic and an atheist and the conflict is resolved.

Atheist - lack of belief in the biblical God.
Atheist - lack of knowledge to form a belief either way about gods

Thanks for this important thread! I subscribed to it when you first posted it because it looked so good, but I didn't have time to watch the vid.

And nothing is 'not open for discussion'.

In order to be open for discussion, there must be something for each party to say about a subject that they have not already said.

You have said something doesn't exist. That pretty much exhausts the subject from your side, now doesn't it?

I've already stated my views, in the post you answered.

So, we are done, as claimed.

That was easy.

reply to post by eight bits


So you're simply refusing to continue this conversation even though I've made numerous points objecting to many of your claims that you've failed to address?

Hell, you've claimed that agnosticism is a religion without justifying such nonsense.

You've just stated the pinnacle of ignorance.