The difference between atheism and theism is just words... sometimes

[@modern_jacob]

As someone who doesn’t have TikTok. I dig the longer videos on KZbin

[@TrinityTheOnly]

Dito!

[@SleepyRPGsuperCharged]

100% agree

[@seraph511]

Agreed!

[@HousecoatHero]

I've always wanted to hear you speak on something for longer than just a minute ❤️ please keep these videos coming!

[@poppyhali3648]

I have a degree in comparative religion, and I am truly enjoying your argument. It reminds me of a lecture one of my professors gave on Jewish spirituality. I was really into it, it was a brilliant explanation and I could have given him a standing ovation for how great it was. At the end, he asked who understood the concepts he was explaining. I was the only person who put their hand up. That's how I feel about this. It's very clear to me. Well done! I'll be back for more.

[@poppyhali3648]

@@aprilmay1700 LOL

[@citrusjuicebox]

I feel this frustration so much. Often, people latch on to something you say that specifically resonates with their beliefs or perception, without any regard to what you're actually saying, and just go off or shut down. Makes any kind of meaningful communication a huge pain.

[@Starcrash6984]

Yeah, it is a huge pain, isn't it? The reason why people often make this argument (about atheists also believing in gods) is to defend their belief in god as rational -- if they don't have evidence for their god's existence, they say "hey, you believe in gods, too" as if to make a "two wrongs make a right argument" or perhaps "ad hominem tu quoque" in order to discredit that person as a hypocrite. But all of this hinges on projecting a personal definition of "god" onto an atheist who does not share that definition, and if you're talking with different definitions, then you're not really communicating but rather talking past each other. If you feel that people "just go off" or "shut down" because you keep insisting that they believe in gods even though they don't share what you mean by "god", perhaps that's an invitation to self-reflect and consider if maybe your argument is the problem.

[@julia-crane]

imperfection of communication is it always runs through our individual filters which contain all of our life experiences and therefore color the koolaid. Let go of right and wrong and everything will make sense.

[@cappyjones]

This is such a nuanced conversation that the KZbin comment section is not properly equipped for.

[@jmoreno1335]

@10:25 Because we've lost ourselves centuries ago. When the old world conquered the new world, destroying the indigenous way of respecting The Earth. Keep doing yo thang brother 💪🏾💪🏾we need to start speaking and listening instead of getting caught up in our own little worlds and live in THIS 🌍🌎🌏

[@Nofundi]

I really enjoyed this! Petition for an Abraham Piper podcast?!

[@alexdatoss8962]

YES PLEASE

[@sterlingpratt4901]

All hail the benevolent, omniscient, omnipresent higher power: The Almighty Benelephant. 😔🙏🏻🐘

[@Smithburgt]

I so love your dynamic background and use of composition in this video. Especially that chair, it perfectly breaks up the concentration of canvases behind it. It’s visually comforting for such a topic.

[@GodOfThe]

I’ve had very similar streams of thought recently. I identify as an atheist, but I try really hard to understand where theists/deists/pantheists etc are coming from and their thought processes. I do believe youre right about at least some areas of atheist & theists disagreements may be the wording we decide to call something that we both actually accept as true without the label.

[@philosophicaltool5469]

eat copious amounts of magic mushrooms, as to not just "understand where they are coming from", you will have come from there too... You'll also won't be identifying as an atheist anymore ;-P

[@WhiteStoneName]

"Belief and doubt are ultimately equivalent. Doubt relies on a subterranean set of tacit belief in something else." - Michael Polanyi

[@danielaart9779]

This reminds me of the experience of Rob Bell which he described in "What we talk about when we talk about god." He said that he was part of a movement to try to present Christian concepts without using typical religious phrases and terms. When he talked to people they often responded things like "You mean God?" Or "You're talking about church?" The connotative and limited definition of some of these terms are pretty ingrained into a huge demographic of the population

[@oz_jones]

These longform videos are great. I dont interact with your shorter videos because I usually watch them on my phone and I find typing on the on-screen keyboard a hassle and annoying. I do enjoy them though and they give me food for thought. Or make me smile. Or both.

[@JuliHoffman]

I found this argument really interesting. While I was in the process of deconstructing my Evangelical upbringing, I explored other religions. I needed to know whether I was rejecting all god(s) or just Christianity. Wow! There are so many different religions and nuances amongst them. For me, this was an important step. I kept asking myself, how do I know that my happenstance of birth led to me believing the "correct" religion? If I had been born in a different time/place/location/etc, I would certainly believe in something else and think THAT was the only correct belief system. This was life-changing when I finally allowed the implications to sink in. If the reverse were true, if I hadn't been taught the "truth," then my other belief systems might also be false. I feel like this was the start of a life-long journey of discovering my MANY biases. I have come to realize that a majority of the beliefs I thought were true, even things like the concept of money, were simply based on imagination. (For more information on that, read the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari.) It has been a difficult journey, learning that I can't always believe what I think is true, is in fact true. There was a difficult mourning period when I finally made the choice to stop believing in the story of Christianity. So much of my life had been shaped by that belief, including my own self-worth. Letting that go in order to move forward was one of the most difficult and rewarding choices I've ever made. There is peace in shedding old belief systems, but it certainly isn't easy. I think maybe this is what struck a nerve with some people. If someone had been through this journey towards atheism only to discover that there is nuance even in this, it might be a little triggering for some people. I do understand this, only recently making this journey myself. I think this is why having these conversations are so incredibly important. I certainly wouldn't want to fight my way out of one limiting belief system only to fall into another limiting belief. I think there was real peace when I excepted "don't know" in the Buddhist sense, as an acceptable mindset.

[@andromedaspark2241]

Kudos to you for truly examining what you perceive as true, and the views of others. If there is a God or Gods which put us here for their glory, for some reason, surely they'd prefer a person does it from interacting with their creation with the senses and mind given to us rather than worshiping the words of man blindly.

[@MarkKohrmann]

"If I had been born in a different time/place/location..." resonates with my own journey... That may have been the pivotal shift when the walls started to crumble... Thanks for sharing!

[@bero342]

Fun experiment! Will be curious to see how the show develops as you hone your process.

[@LapsedSkeptic]

I definitely prefer the longer format…I do not have TikTok but enjoy your sense of humor. I am on the path to a Religious Studies degree and I thoroughly enjoy all perspectives..I hope to see more videos like this in the future. Where I disagree is it appears Theism and Deism is being conflated…Theism posits that this God has a “personal relationship” with its creation…This observation seems to only apply to Deism. Hope to see more longer videos in the future. 🖖

[@catie5939]

I love the longer form content so much, thank youuu 🥳

[@madisonc489]

Absolutely love this thought process.

[@valeryreed2199]

Your thoughts are interesting! Appreciate the opportunity to have videos where those thoughts are discussed longer.

[@katfangtastic1420]

I enjoyed this video even though the topic is not something I know (or care 😅) very much about. But I like your thought process and the way you explain things! Hope you keep up with this longform show format, as I've often found myself wishing the 1 min videos were much longer. I also hope Bill watches this, maybe it will pass his criteria for "interesting" content!! 😂 PS I would happily watch a 15 min boring life update, hahaha.

[@pattimobley2865]

Love love love this new venue. Growing up virtually identically as you did (and coming to much the same conclusions about my previous religion) I find watching you not only a reaffirming validation but a breath of fresh air.

[@danniellebarry1614]

That's how I feel too, it's helpful and refreshing to watch while I figure out what "God" means to me outside of a strict Christian world view. These long form videos outlining a thinking process is refreshing.

[@jmtatalias]

I think the issue with this discussion is that "believe in" is an ambiguous term that can mean "believe something exists" or "pin your philosophy on that thing." The other is that, as you say, people don't know other types of belief than they've been exposed to. So here's an example to fill in the other side: I'm a secular pagan. For me that means I don't believe anything supernatural exists, but I worship nature. I kinda think ancient people weren't wrong for worshipping the sun, because it is responsible for all life on earth, even if not consciously. Another way of expressing the point you're trying to make might be--you can be an atheist and also spiritual or religious. As an ex-vangelical, I found that I still had a spot in my life for spiritual experience, and I found that experience in the woods. To me the difference between this and simple atheism is that I choose to approach the natural world with awe and reverence. I have also met people who describe themselves as "Sagan-esque" atheists who are "not religious" but enjoy a deep experience with the wonder of our universe. As far as I can tell, it's the same *belief* and *attitude* , and the difference of word choice is about *practices* (e.g., observing holidays for cycles of the sun and moon). The word "god" isn't helpful to me, but if someone else used that word for the way I approach nature, I would agree we're on the same page.

[@gregbrutsche2]

Watching you read many comments using different words to say the same thing…pricless. You’re awesome, keep bring us along for the ride!

[@Starcrash6984]

What he's doing here is "equivocation", using two people's different definitions of a single word and pretending that both people are talking about the same thing when they're not. For example, if you've seen his video on the origin of "woman", you know it comes from "wif man", and he goes to pains to explain that "man" just mean "human being" to those who used it rather than our current use. But if he applied this same rationale from this video to that one, then one could say "no, they believed in Wife-Man because there are people who define Man to mean a male". He understands _in some instances_ why words can mean different things to different people, but in this video, he just couldn't grasp that concept.

[@SilentSandwhich24145]

Eclectic Pagan here, Gods I love your unique takes, by Thor and nature, you make my day

[@TheShannon2288]

I love how you think, i reminds me of me except wiser and with more memory and talent for putting it all together. Thanks for sharing!

[@brittanymeeker4905]

Here from FB. I dig the longer video. I’m a life long agnostic atheist and I vibe on pantheistic beliefs and a secular Taoist philosophy about existence and the human condition myself… & I agree with everything you said here though I can see this topic/ discussion in general is definitely a hurdle for some. Personally, in my life having been born in Texas I only use the term god/gods for a concept that attaches a metaphysical value to it which is obviously not the kind of god you were referring... I totally also can get on board with sun worshippers bc at least their god demonstrably brings life/death… 🤓 Glad you’re here!

[@ryanthomasjones]

Glad to have you on KZbin. Apparently I am an early adopter, which makes me feel special. I don't know, I wasn't loving this one. It felt a little long, and maybe I'm just used to seeing you short. But who am I kidding, I'm going to watch every one of these you post, so just keep doing what you're doing.

[@JohnSchley]

I don't quite know what it is about your content, but I find it highly interesting and entertaining. Maybe just the laid-back whatever attitude or just the topic, either way, I dig it.

[@nickvigneaux6868]

I love this topic. Thank you for the long form nuanced line of thinking. It is so desperately needed in today’s society. Keep it up I’m hooked!

[@julia-crane]

YES TO LONG-FORMAT! and the opportunity for Q and A interaction.

[@gideonzupfer121]

I love these videos. You have a lot of great ideas.

[@iamthebiggs252]

I like how you exclaim "Jesus Christ" in exasperation in a tete-a-tete regarding theism and religion. Not sure why, it's just funny to me.

[@warrior5203]

“We all have limitation in time and space”. Billy Graham spoken to Kim In Sung, North Korean leader

[@ExkupidsMom]

I appreciate deeper content, and I definitely think the world needs more nuance, which you can't get from short-form content. Please! Keep this up.

[@charliebrown1065]

As an atheist, I only have experience with monotheistic religions and have never paid attention to pantheism. Your video gives me a new path to explore. Thanks

[@johnmacias488]

I got your point the first video. It def made sense and all these comments are just trying too hard to argue 😅 it’s almost like they didn’t listen to you Hey! New fan here! I love your videos please keep pumping them out! Great insight and great personality to make it enjoyable! I like the long version better!

[@Koutouhara]

This was interesting for me to watch. At first I was disagreeing cause I didn't quite understand what you were meaning cause the term of 'God' alone holds so much baggage, then mixing that word with personal trauma - at least for myself - it was extra confusing at first with the wording; and I differentiate 'God', 'god', and 'gods' as 3 separate but intermingled things that reference particular aspects. However, by the end I understood what you meant more because of my current belief from my heritage being an animistic atheistic tradition around nature and atheists of other types would have a hard time saying the nature we worship doesn't exist (it's part of the reason that I believe it at all myself truthfully). Interestingly enough though, we don't have any gods despite it being translated as such in English because of the initial misunderstanding of the native faith. I'm Japanese-American and practice Shintō, which is one of the longest continued living traditions and the native tradition of the islands. Shintō believes in Kami. Kami is /ANYTHING/ that inspires the feeling of awe, possessed qualities of excellence, invokes reverence, or has extraordinary abilities. Kami-sama are not gods of any kind to be clear; they are their own thing, like how genies or deva are their own thing and not gods, if that makes it easier to understand. But still some people that know or read about Shintō from primarily English sources inevitably think Kami-sama are 'gods' (can't un-ring that bell unfortunately). Kami-sama are rocks, trees, mountains, rivers, oceans, homes, fields of food, wisdom, love, animals, dolls, books, roads, computers, etc - even YOU are kami-sama. All these things, even if we think they are mundane, are really wonderous and exist to be respected. It all has energy of some kind and is made from reality and the natural world, not the supernatural :) So, by the end of the video I realized that I am right in the middle of this conversation! I'm a Shintō practitioner of an animist faith that worships nature because it exists, but also it's Shintō which is atheistic because there is no belief in supernatural beings of which theists would deem 'gods'. AND! as such an atheist, I do except that others believe in the same things that I do and call them 'god' as another term different from my own faith in Kami-sama. And-and to turn it around there are probably some theisms out there that would believe in this atheistic view by having a different name for it. Very very interesting! It just really shows that the world on every level is a spectrum of some kind. Even faiths are a spectrum! I'm glad that I listened all the way through and tried to understand more exactly what you meant cause I was really thrown by the wording initially.

[@Kilvarian]

I call tissues Kleenex 😂 Everyone I know does. This was great, and I totally agree with you.

[@declanmcsherry9368]

That’s interesting I’ve never in my personal life heard that. It must be a regional thing or something as such, I honestly thought they made that up haha

[@slamburglar909]

I can't be the first person to say this but it's such a strong feeling I can't hold it back. I used to binge John and feel bad for Abraham, and now I binge Abraham and feel bad for John. All it took was one orange man and one world wide pandemic to reverse your roles in our minds XD

[@maximumPango]

A lot of people have a hard time dissociating theism generally from a particular religion (usually Christianity).

[@lynntoytrainmuseum8973]

Glad to hear more from your life experience and unique experience. You have a lot to offer. My hope is that this new video series does not get angry or critical of particular people. "See, Abraham is doing a new thing." Just come along with us, the viewers, and help us learn. 👍

[@loraoflahrity130]

I don't give 2 cowbells about most things, but when I order a cola and I'm asked if I want Dr.Pepper or Mt. Dew?

[@ronaldstanley4817]

No. Flawed Logic. Just because one person defines something as their God does not mean someone else holds the same definition.

[@hodsonjosh400]

That is exactly his point. He is not saying you should define that as God but that it is a semantic difference, i.e. you have a different definition of God, which he does as well.

[@rebeccas3455]

Please do continue this as a series 🙌🏻

[@dishdudetexarkana]

I admire your journey. Respect, I feel as though this genre is cutting firewood with a sledgehammer.

[@OldCleisthenes]

Abraham Piper should write a book called "Desiring Truth."

[@jacobshore]

So you’re actual point is that if there’s a pantheistic tradition that claims that claiming reality is “god” is a banal and meaningless statement - then disagreeing with them about whether to call reality god is not meaningful. This is a trueism.

[@dougware5649]

I agree with the concept - Spinoza's god is an example of something that might fall into this category. My point is that the distinction between theism and atheism becomes meaningful only when the definition of god(s) is the target of religious beliefs. Until then, it is a distinction without a difference.

[@HeatherShambles]

This feels a bit pointless IMO. Like if we're going to play linguistic games, then I'd say this - to believe something is to, very firmly, consider it to be true, not to know it is true. In short, belief is not knowledge. We use the word believe when we aren't totally sure about something. For example: "Where did she go?" "I believe she went to the shops" I am pretty certain that's where she is, but I do not know it. So when you say something like if you believe in reality then you believe in someone's god, you just don't call it that, it sounds silly to me. People don't believe in reality, they just know it is real. For another example, there is a vast difference between knowing the sun exists and believing that the sun is drawn across the sky in Apollo's chariot, or that it is Ra himself.

[@lynntoytrainmuseum8973]

10:20 "Jesus Christ" ? Is that a fizzy drink, too? A train? Ooooh! Nice. 🚂

[@MythBrigade]

Isn't the equalizer here simply the difference between 'believe in the existence of' and 'deify' here? Sad consequence of a language that over loads the word 'believes,' I think. Great talk!

[@pipermaisiemae1999]

I actually was brought up calling it kleenex 🤣🤣

[@jonnypimblott7365]

I get the sense you may enjoy Dogēn, if you haven’t read him already.

[@MarkKohrmann]

It struck me as odd the other day that atheism is defined by one DOESN'T believe... The implication that theism is the default, immediately shapes the discussion... Kinda like discussing the "can darkness/light exist without one another" concept, but in the framework of "can non-light exist without light?" You touched on another shared observation; Atheism, at least as I've encountered it, could more accurately be termed anti-christianity. Theism does tend to have a connotation of Mono-Theistic Abrahamic Religion in our "western world," while other terms like Pan-Theistic or Deistic are almost foreign... "Expanding cynicism past the traditions of your youth" is an intriguing challenge you've offered... Could be some fun...

[@annalysaboschgrayson790]

Spoken like someone who grew up watching Carl Sagan 👍🏻👍🏻

[@matthewbower299]

Have you considered making a podcast?

[@ottotellick]

If you keep doing this, I'll keep watching -- thanks. Funny thing about the term "God" that didn't come up in what you kept repeating: The term seems/tends to carry a sense of "intentionality" -- of purpose ... When something (all of nature, some superhero, some mischievous imp, whatever) is being called (a) "god", then everything about it -- everything it does -- is for some reason. (Dare we say "goal oriented"?) And for an atheist like me, that's going out of bounds. The universe does't seem to be working that way. We humans have goals (though we don't know yet what we're really capable of), but the universe? has goals? Well, if it does, this atheist isn't capable of getting his head around that.

[@casualcommenter9730]

"Elaborate my-self/thoughts" instead of "Explain myself" perhaps? Like nobody is "Right" Lots of people are "Wrong"/incomplete So best we can do is suggest why we think what we do, or describe how we get through our problems

[@showme43]

The reason I don't want to use spinozan pantheists' definition of "god" is because it strips so much out of the definition of a god that the word is essentially meaningless. My working definition is a supernatural entity that is significantly superior to a human being through their supernatural qualities, often including immortality. There's a lot of room for fuzziness, but not on the supernaturalism. I don't discourage the sense of wonder that pantheists feel, I would like to discourage calling all of existence a god, and especially a god named "God". It's like putting out a welcome mat for quote miners.

[@WhiteStoneName]

Also, "belief" may not be equivalent to self-identity with particular abstractions. Personally, I don't *think* (believe?) that it does.

[@gisellecarrillo3596]

Love it!!! Look forward to more!!! Made my brain hurt but I love it 😂😂

[@maxdanielj]

This makes me think of the historical difficulty of missionary work in Japan since western ideas of supernatural/divine don't fit with Japanese concepts

[@MrCanis4]

it's so hard to understand "I don't believe there is such a thing as god or gods." I just don't believe it.

[@danielmckerracher2435]

I love this

[@FaithySch]

Canadians call tissues Kleenex!

[@JamesTheTank]

Seeing this after CosmicSkeptic's breakdown of why Jordan Peterson is an Atheist is kinda funny.

[@Glowing_cactus]

Why do theists get primacy of observation in this argument? Is this based on a fundamental belief in a god/ gods? You say in this video that if a theist says that 'Nature is God' then if anyone else accepts the concept of nature then they accept the concept of a god. Why does it not mean the opposite? If someone who knows there are no gods accepts the concept of nature then any theist who says nature is god is automatically an atheist.

[@angeladawn4855]

I love listening to you on tik tok. One thing that seems different here is the camera angle. Maybe you can try out different set ups. Either way keep it up!

[@seraph511]

I think this video could've been really fun if there was any comment at all, even just one, that actually understood what you said haha. That was kind of disappointing; I was looking forward to hearing some disagreement that wasn't just misunderstanding. But you still make it fun! Somehow.

[@again617]

see I had a different problem with the video, the word belief is nonsense, is it anything other than catechisms we repeat to ourselves and each other and try to line them in some weird way?

[@123duelist]

Wait, he said that the atheist has to agree with a God that exists, not one that is absurd. But what if the atheist believes in a God that Abraham Piper believes is absurd?

[@calvinthirdandfirst]

What is missed here by the commenter’s he refers too is the different types of gods atheist have in mind when they make claims about atheism. The observation made in the video is very close to Local Atheism which has its differences with Global Atheism. What is funny is that a mono-theistic believer of christianity would find themselves to be a local atheist by denying that nature is god. There are different types of atheism and different views on what attributes gods can have.

[@amy_pieterse]

I found this interesting to watch.

[@oz_jones]

Oh and I love the shirt!

[@pollywoge1657]

Well that escalated quickly. After your video finished the next suggested video was your brother. 🤔

[@danielpech6521]

Genesis 1:1 does not, I repeat, not, open with the words, 'In the beginning, God.' That is just the first words of the ENGLISH syntax. The HEBREW syntax PRECLUDES such an idea. Specifically, the Hebrew puts verbs prior to subjects. Thus, for Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew says: In the beginning, created...(subject) (object(s)). Yoda of the Star Wars movies might say it the following way, 'Created God the Heaven and the Earth in the beginning He did.' Part of my point here is that the 'In the beginning' is directly about the object(s) (the Heaven and the Earth), not directly about the subject (God). God is not an aloof creator whose capacity to act, and to love His creatures, is an optional accessory, or a secondary quality. If God is a personal being, this does not mean God is autistic. A good father is not aloof, unlike what the English syntax of G1.1 suggests to too many pastors. These are pastors who seem more to care that the verse 'tells off' the modern, 'science'-worshiping atheist than to care for the good fatherhood of God. Genesis 1:1 does not “tell off” anyone. Not in the Hebrew it doesn't. For, even as it begs us to anticipate its subject, it then begs us to predict, and anticipate, its objects and their relation to one another. That relation is that which a good father cares most about: his children, and a good home for them. Like this: 1. The general, (or 'masculine') cosmos and the special (or 'feminine') Earth (Genesis 1:1). 2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (Genesis 1:2). 3. all that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (vs. 3-10); 4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12); 5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-22, 24-25); 6. Animal biology and its special category, human (vs. 26-28); 7. The general man and the special woman (Genesis 2:21-23). It seems not to be a coincidence that there are exactly five things that Genesis 1 reports that God names, and that those five seem to be the five basic non-biological factors of Earth's water cycle: Names 1 and 2: binary cyclically distributed thermal regulation ( v. 4-5 ); Name 3: radiologically mediative atmosphere ( vs. 6-8 ); Names 4 and 5: binary thermal surface distribution system ( vs. 9-10 ) Of the six days of the Creation Workweek, it commonly is assumed that the work of Day Two is not given any Divine esteem of 'good'. I argue that it does, by what the work of Day Two is merely part of. But, actually, the land and sea, in the first half of Day Three, is not alone that which God calls 'good' at that point of Day Three. For the land and the sea are mere subsystems of the Earth's water cycle. In short, Elohim in Genesis 1:1 is not just any good father. He is the best possible father. He is not like any of the Three Stooges. For, one may imagine the following exchange between the Three Stooges. Curly, doing the initial, sorting task, has a thought, and stops. So the packing task being done by his fellow Stooges is stopped, for which they look at him angrily. But Curly is too pleased with his thought to notice. He says, 'Hey! I got four hours of sleep last year! I'm going to lie down for a while!' Moe says, 'You idiot! You slept all last year!' Curly says, 'I know! But I did get four hours of sleep last year. Think about !' Moe, with sarcasm, says: 'I'm thinking about it! Now get back to work!' Curly, still not working, says hopefully, 'So?' Larry, now fidgeting for having nothing for his hands to do, complains, 'I got three hours of sleep last year, but you don't see me shirking work.' Moe adds, 'And I got two hours of sleep last year. So you're being unfair to us.' Curly, now looking dejected, concedes the point and gets back to sorting.

[@riffhammeron]

If someone says their clothes dryer is God, I can believe that their clothes dryer exists and still be an atheist. Believing people have Gods and acknowledging the existence of the thing that they call god is not the same as believing IN the God.

[@staytuned2L337]

This was a cool video.

[@jmoreno1335]

I definitely call them Kleenex...

[@thestralspirit]

I need to preface this with 2 disclaimers: I am going to pretend that you might read a comment on an old video and I am super far out of my field of expertise. I think it could be a linguistic debate but I think the problem is with the word "belief". I think it is widely used to mean 2 different things at the same time. I like to use the word to describe something that I have faith in, while this is not uncommon, there is another definition I hear used. Some people use belief to mean "accept" and I hate this definition. If someone exclusively believes that all of nature is God, I can accept the existence of that God. I would not say that I believe in it, as I am not taking any tenants of this religion on faith. I accept the existence of nature on observation. I think that your point is that all atheists could be theists if there exists a theist that uses God to describe the beliefs of that atheist. I do not accept that there is a religion that believes what I believe because I have no evidence for it. But I am willing to accept that one *could* exist.

[@Digitalhunny]

My whole _community_ calls it Kleenex. So 😝!

[@lorvincent]

That isn't really pantheism. It is more Spinozan, but a common belief misattributed to pantheism and deism for some very good reasons. There is a good bit of overlap. It is also nitpicky to say atheism and theism are the same, but for linguistics when using a Spinozan interpretation. That idea of god differs heavily from others, and has a history of being at the center of its own atheism/theism debate. It is often said of Spinoza he was either a fanatical theist or a militant atheist. Most believers in god do not believe in the idea of a non-interventionist immanent god. They believe in an interventionist god that is also transcendent. That is the god atheism challenges, and doesn't really take much stance on the Spinozan kind. I think the latter fits your entire point.

[@sehrgut42]

I don't understand how you can say that the god of a pantheist who identifies their god-concept with the universe is actually conceptualizing (since not all pantheistic traditions involve anything like "worship") a god that I should identify with the actual universe. The mere fact of projecting deity as a concept onto the universe makes the concept they're calling "god" fundamentally NOT "just the universe". If I were holding a cat, and someone said they believed that cat was god, I don't believe in their god just on the basis that I know the cat exists. Because I know the cat-as-physical-being exists, and they believe in the cat-which-is-god.

[@sehrgut42]

Like, literally "calling nature god" IS adding something to nature.

[@marcovoetberg6618]

One person does belief a certain thing is real and exists. And another person does not. This is not a matter semantics. The word used for that thing is entirely irrelevant.

[@lovetraveler1]

Understand what you what you’re saying, you’re saying that each person creates their own reality from which they look at the world

[@jolanderphilip]

You wanna coke? Yea What kind? A dr. Pepper -Texas

[@pazu8728]

"god" is "X" I believe "X" Therefore, I believe "god" but I don't want to use "god"

[@ellehernly3703]

Ya know, it's not a punchy short. It doesn't fit the brain space of the regular TikTok user. However, I could listen to you talk for at least 14 minutes and 17 seconds.

[@lovetraveler1]

Abraham I’m curious do you believe in any supernatural or are you purely materialism?

[@dullthud2825]

It is true that atheism and theism are not mutually exclusive concepts. That middle ground where both coexist is small, but it shouldn't be dismissed. That said, the wording used in this video was confusing and makes want to disagree. Not because the point made wasn`t valid, but more about it ignoring the common understanding of both words and being somewhat pedantic.

[@rojavida]

It’s interesting what you say but surely if two antonyms are not mutually exclusive concepts, then language is failing us. Theism is the belief in a god and atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Changing the definition of the word god doesn’t change this, in my view.

[@323liska]

Saying that one God is the same as another God just because it refers to the same object As representation of said god, is false Because the meaning of the god is embedded in the worship practices. Not in the object.

[@grumpylibrarian]

I just took a huge, steaming dump. I define god as a huge, steaming dump. Therefore, god exists. Is this seriously the game you want to play? Calling something god that obviously is not a god doesn't mean that god exists. The term "god" isn't well-defined, but it doesn't mean absolutely anything you pretend is god makes god exist. Words mean things.

[@northernexpanse_art7213]

I totally agree, Ryan! I believe in Nature, too. However, just because someone believes that Nature is god, doesn't mean I believe in that god. I believe in Science, biological wonders (which I believe Nature is), all that stuff... not god. Love this video, and the IG one (I guess I love hearing you talk lol), but I have to disagree.

[@deannaheadrickartist]

This is what I tell my atheist husband.

[@WhiteStoneName]

You can't reason with a rationalist that rationalism is irrational. I quasi-learned a long time ago that the hope of understanding via using language as a technology is a fool's errand.

[@a_being.97]

Then what's the best tool (technology) to use to bring to fruition hopes of understanding? for a wise man?

[@WhiteStoneName]

@@a_being.97 I don’t think there is a tool that can replace relationship and communion. And those are the soil of any proper knowing imo. Otherwise we’re just gaming the system to one degree or another. I think there is a spectrum of better and worse technologies. It’s hard to communicate what I mean in relationship-less text. I said in another KZbin comment recently that the Meaning Crisis (if indeed there is one) is rooted in the thinking that we can have meaning in an impersonal (relationship-less way). Which is what objectivism & positivism and all forms of rationalism are-a denial of the seer. The hard problem as it relates to meaning.

[@pr9039]

Kind'a super disagree, but I get where you're coming from. It's like the "joke" version, "A theist is just an atheist to all the gods except their own."

[@natanaellizama6559]

If that's true(not saying it isn't), then what would the difference be in regards to calling X not a theism? If atheism can be a form of pantheism, for example, then pantheism could also be said to be a form of atheism, and that presents an issue. If atheism and some kinds of theism are equal, in a way that one could call atheists those-theism-ists(like pantheists), then so can those-theists can be called atheists, as well, making them no longer theists, and therefore that no longer a theism and we are left with atheism. This also seems to beg the question, in relation to either there not being atheists, or theism being too loosely defined. Why would a theism that encompasses atheism be called a theism? This is not merely semantics but has to do with the notions the words represent. The astute atheist could just agree and say that such self-called theisms are in fact, no theism at all.

[@leeannsolice7473]

Are you saying that an "atheist" who says that they believe things like "a force for good" or "the sentience of nature" that the person's "atheism" is only semantically different from some theistic traditions? Like someone who believes that "nature is alive" is only sematically different from Gaia? I can see this.

[@dishdudetexarkana]

Can we talk about the banal elephant in the room?

[@seangreen4896]

It almost sounds like you're describing animism or totemism

[@Wrackey]

"Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition." ..... Define to me what you mean by "god", in a coherent and unambiguous, meaningful manner, and I may consider myself a believer.