"Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical" | Talks At Google

[-V-]

Entertaining conspiracy theory, but it doesn't ring true for any atheist I know, who would say "I don't believe in any of the god claims I've come across" and would never say "I believe no gods exist."

But, if it makes you feel better to believe in things that aren't true, be my guest. It definitely makes it easier to knock down your version of an atheist than my actual version of an atheist.

Hmmm, knock down...

Sure sounds like a straw man to me...

Well, thank goodness we have your say-so to prove it. Odd how we should just accept your personal experience as true, when atheists keep insisting that personal experiences don't count as actual evidence. But hey, thanks for sharing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, thank goodness we have your say-so to prove it. Odd how we should just accept your personal experience as true, when atheists keep insisting that personal experiences don't count as actual evidence. But hey, thanks for sharing.

My personal use of the word "atheist" is what defines it for me. Everyone does this. Because all the atheists I know define it the same way, then amongst ourselves, the word has a common usage. That's how words are defined in dictionaries, by gathering information about what's common usage for a word, the evidence of which is again... how people use words.

This is, of course, apples and oranges to whether or not I believe that someone's personal experience is evidence of a god existing.

But, I suspect you know that because of that straw man you seem to like so much.

OR, you could just accept that as an atheist, I don't say "I believe that no god exists" and just leave it at that.

That seems... more honest.

 

[-V-]

My personal use of the word "atheist" is what defines it for me. Everyone does this. Because all the atheists I know define it the same way, then amongst ourselves, the word has a common usage. That's how words are defined in dictionaries, by gathering information about what's common usage for a word, the evidence of which is again... how people use words.

This is, of course, apples and oranges to whether or not I believe that someone's personal experience is evidence of a god existing.

But, I suspect you know that because of that straw man you seem to like so much.

OR, you could just accept that as an atheist, I don't say "I believe that no god exists" and just leave it at that.

That seems... more honest.

Oh, that's what defines it "for you". Well, since I can use whatever definitions define it for me, I can rest easy that I'm not using any straw man fallacies, as I'm fairly using whatever definitions define things for me.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Oh, that's what defines it "for you". Well, since I can use whatever definitions define it for me, I can rest easy that I'm not using any straw man fallacies, as I'm fairly using whatever definitions define things for me.

You seem to not know what a straw man fallacy is. Let me help you out:

Your logical fallacy is strawman

You see, if you use a definition of a term that isn't representative of the way another speaker is using the term, with the intended purpose of misrepresenting their position, then you're engaging in a straw man fallacy. For example, if you use the phrase "Atheists believe there is no god", then you've created a straw man because you're misrepresenting their position. The word itself doesn't matter, it's the misrepresentation that matters.

Which you seem to be guilty of.

So sure, you can define "atheist" however you want. But if you use your definition to misrepresent someone else, you're committing a fallacy.

And also just being a generally bad person...

 

[-V-]

You seem to not know what a straw man fallacy is. Let me help you out:

Your logical fallacy is strawman

You see, if you use a definition of a term that isn't representative of the way another speaker is using the term, with the intended purpose of misrepresenting their position, then you're engaging in a straw man fallacy. For example, if you use the phrase "Atheists believe there is no god", then you've created a straw man because you're misrepresenting their position. The word itself doesn't matter, it's the misrepresentation that matters.

Which you seem to be guilty of.

So sure, you can define "atheist" however you want. But if you use your definition to misrepresent someone else, you're committing a fallacy.

And also just being a generally bad person...

Then the initial claim of straw man fallacy is itself a straw man fallacy. If the video is using "atheist" for those who do in fact believe there is no god, then NV is using a definition that isn't representative of how it's used in the video, making NV guilty of the straw man fallacy, misrepresenting what the video is claiming.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then the initial claim of straw man fallacy is itself a straw man fallacy. If the video is using "atheist" for those who do in fact believe there is no god, then NV is using a definition that isn't representative of how it's used in the video, making NV guilty of the straw man fallacy, misrepresenting what the video is claiming.

Ok, I just watched that entire mess of a video. When the speaker says that he's a pastor and not an intellectual, I wholeheartedly agreed. About every thirty seconds I was yelling "wrong!" in my head.

Anyway... while the speaker never explicitly says the phrase "atheists believe there is no god", he does hint at there being a false dichotomy where you either believe a god exists, or you believe a god does not exist. And at one point he says that secularism means you believe a god doesn't exist.

Personally, I'd prefer it if no one engages in straw men, and we accept that the word "atheist" can mean "someone who does not accept any god claims they've been given".

How about that?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

They got "parallel" wrong? Here's what it says: "Parallel: extending in the same direction and at the same distance apart at every point, so as never to meet, as lines, planes, etc."

Right, that's a consequence of lines being parallel in a plane. Not the same as the definition.

And you're just plain wrong about the transversal being required to form a right angle. It *CAN* form a right angle, but a transversal does not have to form a right angle.
See:Parallel Lines, and Pairs of Angles

I know. I fixed my error long before you said anything. Check the timestamps.

But the point, which seemingly blew right by you, is that the dictionary is wrong quite often.

There's a couple of pictures demonstrating transversals that do NOT form right angles, yet the lines are still parallel. So, it seems you're the one giving less-than-accurate definitions.

I forgot an important word: exists. I put it in and everything is fine.

Lmao. I see. So, at first, "atheists believe there is no god" is a straw man fallacy. Now you're conceding that it is, in fact, the position of a lot of atheists.

It is not the defining characteristic of what it means to be an atheist. Obviously if you poll enough people who lack a belief in God, some might positively claim there is no God. But definitions are "for all" statements. They are categorical.

You come full force at me and other atheists on small details, but refuse to admit your own error. Stop feigning ignorance.

I think what we all understand now is that you're the one running out of excuses.

I offered no excuse for my error. I pointed out that I fixed it.

It's clear that what has happened is that atheists started to get confronted more and more when they claimed there is no god. They realized they can't prove it, so suddenly they changed their tune to, "I don't claim there is no god, I just don't accept your claim that there is one." (Which didn't stop many of them from still making claims when they think no one is paying attention.) Once they got confronted more and more and realized that "I believe there is no god" is a faith position, and atheists are so terrified of being associated with "faith", that they started chickening out and changed their tune to, "I don't believe there is no god, I just lack belief that there is one."

This is a silly thing to say. As a Christian, you positively claim that Zeus does not exist. You do not say that you just lack a belief in Zeus until evidence is produced. I don't see your proof. So as a Christian, you're not interested in adhering to the rules of logic. As a Christian, you're illogical - and there's no other way to be a Christian.

 

[-V-]

Right, that's a consequence of lines being parallel in a plane. Not the same as the definition.

I know. I fixed my error long before you said anything. Check the timestamps.

But the point, which seemingly blew right by you, is that the dictionary is wrong quite often.

I forgot an important word: exists. I put it in and everything is fine.

And your definition is STILL wrong.

Here’s a picture of two lines that will have one transversal at a 90-degree angle to both, yet are not parallel lines:
InterMath / Dictionary / Description

The dictionary definition I provided still works, while yours continues to fail. You give no valid reason that you have more authority on word definitions than the dictionary.

It is not the defining characteristic of what it means to be an atheist. Obviously if you poll enough people who lack a belief in God, some might positively claim there is no God. But definitions are "for all" statements. They are categorical.

And "atheist" categorically means one who believes there is no god", as the dictionary states, which you have yet to provide a valid argument against, other than your say-so. The "atheists" who want to claim, "we don't really know, but I don't accept arguments that there is a god" are AGNOSTIC atheists, not atheists. There's a clear distinction, yet atheists try to cover their butts now by claiming "atheist" and "agnostic atheist" should be lumped together.

So as a Christian, you're not interested in adhering to the rules of logic. As a Christian, you're illogical - and there's no other way to be a Christian.

Lmao, sure, cuz once again, we have your say-so proving it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And "atheist" categorically means one who believes there is no god", as the dictionary states, which you have yet to provide a valid argument against, other than your say-so. The "atheists" who want to claim, "we don't really know, but I don't accept arguments that there is a god" are AGNOSTIC atheists, not atheists. There's a clear distinction, yet atheists try to cover their butts now by claiming "atheist" and "agnostic atheist" should be lumped together.

Sigh... still no.

I'm not "covering my butt" by (rightfully) calling myself an atheist. Theists who claim this are simply being dishonest, because it's easier to demonize atheists than to try and understand them.

It's a very lazy tactic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sigh... still no.

I'm not "covering my butt" by (rightfully) calling myself an atheist. Theists who claim this are simply being dishonest, because it's easier to demonize atheists than to try and understand them.

It's a very lazy tactic.

Did he just say that agnostic atheists are not atheists?

Lol, and one-humped camels are not camels.

 

[-V-]

Did he just say that agnostic atheists are not atheists?

I said there's a clear distinction and the two shouldn't be lumped together.

Lol, and one-humped camels are not camels.

I know, right? It's just as foolish as thinking that red pandas aren't actually pandas.

 

[-V-]

Sigh... still no.

I'm not "covering my butt" by (rightfully) calling myself an atheist. Theists who claim this are simply being dishonest, because it's easier to demonize atheists than to try and understand them.

It's a very lazy tactic.

Sigh.. still no. I'm not "being dishonest". Atheists who claim this are simply being dishonest, because it's easier to demonize theists than to try and understand them.

It's a very lazy tactic.

Gosh, I guess that settles it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sigh.. still no. I'm not "being dishonest". Atheists who claim this are simply being dishonest, because it's easier to demonize theists than to try and understand them.

It's a very lazy tactic.

Gosh, I guess that settles it.

It settles that you're not interested at all in how people actually use words, and are more interested in straw men that help you make fallacious points.

But please keep it up. It gives me more examples of dishonesty that I can show to Christians on the fence as to how some of their brethren act.

So far it's been a very productive year...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I said there's a clear distinction and the two shouldn't be lumped together.


I know, right? It's just as foolish as thinking that red pandas aren't actually pandas.

Now you're backing off.

ARE

AGNOSTIC

ATHEISTS

ACTUALLY

ATHEISTS

OR

ARE

THEY

NOT?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And your definition is STILL wrong.

Here’s a picture of two lines that will have one transversal at a 90-degree angle to both, yet are not parallel lines:
InterMath / Dictionary / Description

Right again, I did need to specify that the lines are in the same plane.

Anything else wrong with my definition?

The dictionary definition I provided still works, while yours continues to fail. You give no valid reason that you have more authority on word definitions than the dictionary.

No it does not work because parallel lines cross on a sphere. You are great at nit-picking, but your fundamental knowledge of mathematics, and Euclidean/Non-Euclidean geometry, appears to be lacking.

Every mathematician on earth will tell you that the definition of parallel lines has nothing to do with whether or not the lines intersect.

So, thanks to your help, here's the exhaustive definition of parallel:

Two lines, if in the same plane, are parallel if and only if there exists a transversal that is perpendicular to both lines.

Now, go google "Non-Euclidean geometry parallel lines" and you'll see how wrong you are. If you fail to own up to it, then you don't have a spine.

And "atheist" categorically means one who believes there is no god", as the dictionary states, which you have yet to provide a valid argument against, other than your say-so. The "atheists" who want to claim, "we don't really know, but I don't accept arguments that there is a god" are AGNOSTIC atheists, not atheists. There's a clear distinction, yet atheists try to cover their butts now by claiming "atheist" and "agnostic atheist" should be lumped together.


Lmao, sure, cuz once again, we have your say-so proving it.

the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: theism

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

If one is not a theist, then one is an atheist. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Do you not know how the prefix "a-" works?

Take a piece of paper. Draw a circle. Write "theism" in that circle. ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT CIRCLE IS ATHEISM. ANYONE WHO LACKS A BELIEF IN A DEITY IS AN ATHEIST.

*THROWS COMPUTER OFF ROOF*

 

[-V-]

It settles that you're not interested at all in how people actually use words, and are more interested in straw men that help you make fallacious points.

But please keep it up. It gives me more examples of dishonesty that I can show to Christians on the fence as to how some of their brethren act.

So far it's been a very productive year...

Yeah, cuz it's so unfair to point out when someone is just presents opinions or unsubstantiated claims that we all just assume are true.

 

[-V-]

Right again, I did need to specify that the lines are in the same plane.

Anything else wrong with my definition?

The only thing wrong is that you expect anyone to think you're an authority on definitions after you keep getting them wrong.

No it does not work because parallel lines cross on a sphere.

Wrong.
"Parallel lines do not exist in spherical geometry"
Parallel Lines on the Sphere

You are great at nit-picking, but your fundamental knowledge of mathematics, and Euclidean/Non-Euclidean geometry, appears to be lacking.

Yet I keep citing references showing how wrong you are. Gosh, that's weird.

Every mathematician on earth will tell you that the definition of parallel lines has nothing to do with whether or not the lines intersect.

Prove it.

So, thanks to your help, here's the exhaustive definition of parallel:

Two lines, if in the same plane, are parallel if and only if there exists a transversal that is perpendicular to both lines.

All you demonstrate is that it takes you several attempts to get a definition correct. Still nothing demonstrating you're an authority over dictionaries in providing correct definitions.

Now, go google "Non-Euclidean geometry parallel lines" and you'll see how wrong you are. If you fail to own up to it, then you don't have a spine.

LMAO!! Now you have to back-pedal, "oh, I really meant non-Euclidean geometry".

the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: theism

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

If one is not a theist, then one is an atheist. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Do you not know how the prefix "a-" works?

Take a piece of paper. Draw a circle. Write "theism" in that circle. ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT CIRCLE IS ATHEISM. ANYONE WHO LACKS A BELIEF IN A DEITY IS AN ATHEIST.

Yeah, cuz your thorough demonstration of screwing up definitions really lends just oodles of weight to your explanation of "atheist".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yeah, cuz it's so unfair to point out when someone is just presents opinions or unsubstantiated claims that we all just assume are true.

Ok...

You've been shown that the dictionary definition of "atheist" includes things like:

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

and

"a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."

And yet you keep on suggesting that the word only means a belief that a god or gods don't exist. And you use that in a fallacious attempt to show that atheists are trying to "cover their butts" or are themselves being dishonest.

So my question to you is, why are you taking this tactic when it's so obviously wrong? Why shouldn't I see this as being dishonest?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The only thing wrong is that you expect anyone to think you're an authority on definitions after you keep getting them wrong.

I'm an authority on intellectual honesty. You're an authority on being an invertebrate. It's hard having a spine. Makes you rigid. Makes you conform to honesty. You, on the other hand, can contort yourself into any position you like.

Wrong.
"Parallel lines do not exist in spherical geometry"
Parallel Lines on the Sphere

A blog. What an amazing source.

Yet I keep citing references showing how wrong you are. Gosh, that's weird.

Yeah... blogs.

Prove it.

I went to college and got my BS in mathematics. So I know for a fact that I'm right. If you're so inclined, go to a college website - a real college, not some Christian thing - and find the mathematics faculty. Get their emails and send them your question.

All you demonstrate is that it takes you several attempts to get a definition correct. Still nothing demonstrating you're an authority over dictionaries in providing correct definitions.

I never said I'm an authority. I just said Webster isn't. Remind me how long it took them to update the word "gay."

LMAO!! Now you have to back-pedal, "oh, I really meant non-Euclidean geometry".

I'm not back-pedaling. I even reminded you that definitions are "for all" statements. For all lines.

But really this statement of yours demonstrates the magnitude of your deficiency in this conversation. You think I'm retreating to non-Euclidean geometry, as if I was trying to prove that parallel lines can cross in Euclidean geometry. This notion of yours is necessarily either moronic (you are aware of Euclid's fifth and final postulate, which means you expect me to disprove an axiom - a tautologically impossible task) or else you are ignorant of Euclid's fifth postulate (in which case, why are you fighting me for post after post when you don't even know the basics of geometry?).

We are in an infinite loop here. I'm right, and you refuse to admit that you're wrong.

1. You are wrong.
2. Go to 1.

Yeah, cuz your thorough demonstration of screwing up definitions really lends just oodles of weight to your explanation of "atheist".

Yeah, I think we're done here. You are unwilling to admit when you're wrong and I do not have time for an infinite loop of stupidity. We're never speaking again.

 

[-V-]

Here’s why “atheism is just a lack of belief” is largely nonsense:

This page explains it rather well:
“There is no God!” – A Common Atheist Belief

After reading that article, look through the comments, and you find even more evidence - the fact that atheists themselves tell us that the “atheism is just a lack of belief” is bunk.

There’s a reference there to Luke Muehlhauser, a well-known, popular, outspoken atheist who stated:

But most intellectually-inclined atheists I know do not merely “lack” a belief in God – as, say, my dog lacks a belief in God. Atheists like to avoid the burden of proof during debates, so they say they merely “lack” a belief in God. But this is not what their writings usually suggest. No, most intellectual atheists positively believe that God does not exist. In fact, most of them will say – at least to other atheists – that it’s “obvious” there is no God, or that they “know” – as well as we can “know” anything – that God does not exist. Thus, if the atheist wants to defend what he really believes, then he, too, has a burden of proof. He should give reasons for why he thinks that God almost certainly doesn’t exist.

An atheist essentially admitting that the “atheism is just a lack of belief” position is just a shell game to avoid a burden of proof.

On top of that, we have atheist sites that flat out lie about what atheism is:
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

They claim,”Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god,” and, “To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods.” Nowhere do they even admit that there are, in fact, many who are atheists who DO hold the position and openly say that no gods exist. They don’t even acknowledge the existence of hard atheism, a VERY commonly-held position. They come right out and claim atheism is NOT a denial or disbelief.

So, according to them, apparently, if one DOES claim there are no gods, then you’re not an atheist.

What?? How an atheist organization can actually expect people to accept such brazenly deceitful statements is beyond me.