Great Teacher Appoota | Reacting to @vimohlive's confusion about basic Phil of Religion during our debate @appoota | Uploaded April 2023 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
A few months ago, I went on Vimoh's (an "atheist" YouTuber) live stream to talk to him about veganism and Theology/Phil of religion.
This video is me reacting to that debate with him during that live stream, with my friends from Vegan India Discord Server.
I'm not even sure if this can be categorized as a debate because it is not clear that there is a proposition whose truth value is being contested. It is just me trying to convey to him that the terms "Agnostic Atheist" are rather vague, superfluous, or suboptimal for conveying one's views to an interlocutor. There are academic exegeses about why popular terms like Agnostic Atheist are not used by serious philosophers of religion.
For example -
Atheist: Lacks Belief in god
Agnostic: Not sure about it.
This just seems hilarious. If you don't have a doxastic attitude towards the existence of god (as they seem to construe atheism) then what is there to be unsure about? If unsure just means that the truth value is not known, that's just superfluous because the proposition would just be "I don't have a view on the existence of god and the truth value of the prop is not known to me" which is just a tautology. Those atomic props mean the same thing so why use superfluous terminology?
Link to the debate:
youtube.com/watch?v=I3E5-kFuikE&t=3880s
My links:
linktr.ee/appoota
A few months ago, I went on Vimoh's (an "atheist" YouTuber) live stream to talk to him about veganism and Theology/Phil of religion.
This video is me reacting to that debate with him during that live stream, with my friends from Vegan India Discord Server.
I'm not even sure if this can be categorized as a debate because it is not clear that there is a proposition whose truth value is being contested. It is just me trying to convey to him that the terms "Agnostic Atheist" are rather vague, superfluous, or suboptimal for conveying one's views to an interlocutor. There are academic exegeses about why popular terms like Agnostic Atheist are not used by serious philosophers of religion.
For example -
Atheist: Lacks Belief in god
Agnostic: Not sure about it.
This just seems hilarious. If you don't have a doxastic attitude towards the existence of god (as they seem to construe atheism) then what is there to be unsure about? If unsure just means that the truth value is not known, that's just superfluous because the proposition would just be "I don't have a view on the existence of god and the truth value of the prop is not known to me" which is just a tautology. Those atomic props mean the same thing so why use superfluous terminology?
Link to the debate:
youtube.com/watch?v=I3E5-kFuikE&t=3880s
My links:
linktr.ee/appoota
