Bionic Dance comments

All comments (119)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







P Dav1 hour ago







This guy says morality is absolute. Then, I say, all of the horrendous acts done by or sanctioned by god in the bible, such as murder, slavery, rape, genocide, cannibalism, and treatment of women as property are absolutely immoral.

Reply
 · 




















ThomasTrue4 days ago







Within my own lifetime it was once 'moral' to punish children in school by striking them across the hands with a leather strap or a cane (or across the buttocks with a paddle in US schools) and a man could not rape his wife but was merely exercising his 'moral' conjugal 'rights'.  Go back less than a century and a husband had the 'moral right' to strike his wife with a rod 'no thicker than his thumb' (hence, "rule of thumb").  These 'morals' were based upon Biblical teaching and yet we now look upon them as examples of a barbaric past we have since thankfully rejected.  If this fool thinks that the Bible has 'stood the test of time', then he is so sadly deluded I frankly feel sorry for him.

Reply
 · 
1


















BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
12







View all 13 replies








BionicDance
4 days ago


Well, it'll probably be a few months to gather enough GOOD blooper footage, but I've started collecting some...



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


Damn but the struck by lightning bit was funny!  I was half expecting you to end the video with a long fade to black then.



Reply
 · 
1







Chris Cunningham1 week ago (edited)







You mean: one man, many wives... :p

Reply
 · 
5







View all 18 replies








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


+Steve Harvey
Okay. Well, i still dont see anything wrong with it. Unless you can back up your other claims with some societies in which neither sex is dominant and either marriages between 1 female and multiple males are similarly common as the opposite in similar proportions or alternativly societies where people marry more then one male and one female for one male and one female each (i.e. 3 males and 3 females)
Read more

Reply
 · 








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


In fact, the latter couldnt even be called hoarding.



Reply
 · 









Star Laughter1 week ago







"I believe in absolute truth!" He says, while munching on shellfish that was harvested on the Sabbath...

Reply
 · 
1


















Dragnauct Sylvas1 week ago







I love how they want to dissolve the negative connotations of terms used against them. Can't wait till they do it to the word "Faith."

Reply
 · 




















Charles Kunkle1 week ago







and we're totally ignoring the fact that God does NOT define marriage as one man and one woman...
Otherwise, many of the patriarchs of the Christian religion were violating God's law. Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines? Excatly how is that "one man and one woman"

Reply
 · 
3


















Inannalu1 week ago







Harmful to an ideology is not the same thing as harmful to people.
Behaviors and activities which do the former, but do not do the latter, are perfectly okay ethically, so far as I'm concerned.
In fact, if some behavior or activity harms an ideology which is responsible for much harm to people, so much the better.

Reply
 · 
5


















themplar1 week ago







Another great video from you. And again very right.
I personally cannot understand the objections people have against gays and gay marriage.  Sadly its not just religious biggots i've been in many discussions with non theist who were still absolute biggots.
Its funny how they Always accuse me of intolerance when i call their arguments absolute bogus and them biggots.  Every time the arguments are.. its not natural.. well obviously it is..  what if everybody turned gay the human species would end... wouldnt happen and if so what? They still can get children by In Vitro.
In the end all their arguments are invalid. and only one real arguments is left over they wont pronounce.
They suffer from imagination and see two gays going at it and they think its Icky. And thats all it is for them.. they think its icky.. well then stop fantasizing about it.
Towards religious biggotry.... i whish it was allowed to smack them around with their own bibles...
Read more (13 lines)
Reply
 · 
1

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Not to mention that there's also the ridiculous idea that gays want to recruit children for the sole purpose of making them gay.
People don't just become gay. Usually a person has a predisposition to being gay, but this is something many people will deny. I myself, a person who grew up in a Christian home, had a predisposition to being pansexual, but it's easier to deny something than to actually own up to it. I'm so glad I grew out of that horseshit though, I'm much happier.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Red Cloud1 week ago







You can't just re-define words to fit your own ends. Start doing that all willy-nilly, and you ruin the foundation of language itself, the fact that we can understand it. You can't just destroy an entire language, because you don't like how some of the words coming together make you feel, that's bullshit. Words like Tolerance are there, because we need them, if we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them. 

Reply
 · 




















CarefulAtheist1 week ago







WTF moment @7:05. Gold!

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester1 week ago







Speaking from experience living in a country where gay marriage has been legal for almost 9 years, I haven't noticed anything different. I would have never known the law changed except it was on the news.  The only reason I can see why a person would be against gay marriage, they are fucking assholes and they like to hurt people.

Reply
 · 
1


















Moor Letoh1 week ago







Epic.

Reply
 · 




















markedfang1 week ago







What if god was true? What would actually change?
He'd still have to come up with good arguments to justify his demands. I would see god as no more then another human with another opinion and unless he can convince me of his case I still wouldn't feel any obligation towards him.
Worship blinds you to attrociaties.

Reply
 · 
2


















Griffin98571 week ago







7:03 I nearly jumped out of my own skin shakes fist at Kate.

Reply
 · 
1







View all 6 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Griffin9857 *sticks out tongue*



Reply
 · 
1






christopher9000p
5 days ago


Hey, blame "god", not Kate for that one. :P



Reply
 · 









Felhaven1 week ago (edited)







You really shouldn't quote old testament based definitions of marriage while wearing a polyblend shirt.  

Reply
 · 
2

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Gives a whole new meaning to "don't throw stones while standing in a glass house".



Reply
 · 









RRoocckkyy501 week ago







Nice new intro! : )

Reply
 · 
1

















BionicDance
1 week ago


Thanks! I was going for a kind of 80s look. :)



Reply
 · 
1







VGatheist1 week ago (edited)







well the moral argument against abortion is that you are killing a baby. A mother does not have a right to kill her new born baby, so the question then comes about, at what point does a baby have the right to live. But the trick in proving abortion immoral within a real world sense is to prove that the fetus is being harmed. Big argument and I am not going to go through the whole case for abortion, but I just don't find your "if you do not agree with abortion don't have one." as a valid point because the whole reason there is any argument is the attempt to demonstrate that the fetus should have rights. I think the laws for abortion are very close to taking all of this in account. But the Christians idea of egg + sperm = no abortion is just not valid. I think the laws very, but right now all states at least use viability and not birth as the starting point for fetus rights. Allot of laws will use the trimester to determine if an abortion as legal. But you know as a Lesbian you likely will never have to worry about it. If you have a baby, you'd have to choose it.
Read more
Reply
 · 




















Justin Atheist via Google+1 week ago







Love you Bionic!!! 

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


D'awww, shucks. *blush*



Reply
 · 








Justin Atheist
1 week ago


On a less creepy note. The style you bring and the voice you express is great. Always great to watch one of your videos.



Reply
 · 









TheRealPaulMarshall1 week ago







@7:05- Nice green cross.  Faded in a bit early but still nice.

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


Heh. It's a chromakey guide mark to keep CGI elements in place relative to the camera.



Reply
 · 








TheRealPaulMarshall
1 week ago


I figgered.  Still nice given the context.



Reply
 · 





Show more

























































All comments (119)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







P Dav1 hour ago







This guy says morality is absolute. Then, I say, all of the horrendous acts done by or sanctioned by god in the bible, such as murder, slavery, rape, genocide, cannibalism, and treatment of women as property are absolutely immoral.

Reply
 · 




















ThomasTrue4 days ago







Within my own lifetime it was once 'moral' to punish children in school by striking them across the hands with a leather strap or a cane (or across the buttocks with a paddle in US schools) and a man could not rape his wife but was merely exercising his 'moral' conjugal 'rights'.  Go back less than a century and a husband had the 'moral right' to strike his wife with a rod 'no thicker than his thumb' (hence, "rule of thumb").  These 'morals' were based upon Biblical teaching and yet we now look upon them as examples of a barbaric past we have since thankfully rejected.  If this fool thinks that the Bible has 'stood the test of time', then he is so sadly deluded I frankly feel sorry for him.

Reply
 · 
1


















BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
12







View all 13 replies








BionicDance
4 days ago


Well, it'll probably be a few months to gather enough GOOD blooper footage, but I've started collecting some...



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


Damn but the struck by lightning bit was funny!  I was half expecting you to end the video with a long fade to black then.



Reply
 · 
1







Chris Cunningham1 week ago (edited)







You mean: one man, many wives... :p

Reply
 · 
5







View all 18 replies








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


+Steve Harvey
Okay. Well, i still dont see anything wrong with it. Unless you can back up your other claims with some societies in which neither sex is dominant and either marriages between 1 female and multiple males are similarly common as the opposite in similar proportions or alternativly societies where people marry more then one male and one female for one male and one female each (i.e. 3 males and 3 females)
Read more

Reply
 · 








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


In fact, the latter couldnt even be called hoarding.



Reply
 · 









Star Laughter1 week ago







"I believe in absolute truth!" He says, while munching on shellfish that was harvested on the Sabbath...

Reply
 · 
1


















Dragnauct Sylvas1 week ago







I love how they want to dissolve the negative connotations of terms used against them. Can't wait till they do it to the word "Faith."

Reply
 · 




















Charles Kunkle1 week ago







and we're totally ignoring the fact that God does NOT define marriage as one man and one woman...
Otherwise, many of the patriarchs of the Christian religion were violating God's law. Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines? Excatly how is that "one man and one woman"

Reply
 · 
3


















Inannalu1 week ago







Harmful to an ideology is not the same thing as harmful to people.
Behaviors and activities which do the former, but do not do the latter, are perfectly okay ethically, so far as I'm concerned.
In fact, if some behavior or activity harms an ideology which is responsible for much harm to people, so much the better.

Reply
 · 
5


















themplar1 week ago







Another great video from you. And again very right.
I personally cannot understand the objections people have against gays and gay marriage.  Sadly its not just religious biggots i've been in many discussions with non theist who were still absolute biggots.
Its funny how they Always accuse me of intolerance when i call their arguments absolute bogus and them biggots.  Every time the arguments are.. its not natural.. well obviously it is..  what if everybody turned gay the human species would end... wouldnt happen and if so what? They still can get children by In Vitro.
In the end all their arguments are invalid. and only one real arguments is left over they wont pronounce.
They suffer from imagination and see two gays going at it and they think its Icky. And thats all it is for them.. they think its icky.. well then stop fantasizing about it.
Towards religious biggotry.... i whish it was allowed to smack them around with their own bibles...
Read more (13 lines)
Reply
 · 
1

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Not to mention that there's also the ridiculous idea that gays want to recruit children for the sole purpose of making them gay.
People don't just become gay. Usually a person has a predisposition to being gay, but this is something many people will deny. I myself, a person who grew up in a Christian home, had a predisposition to being pansexual, but it's easier to deny something than to actually own up to it. I'm so glad I grew out of that horseshit though, I'm much happier.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Red Cloud1 week ago







You can't just re-define words to fit your own ends. Start doing that all willy-nilly, and you ruin the foundation of language itself, the fact that we can understand it. You can't just destroy an entire language, because you don't like how some of the words coming together make you feel, that's bullshit. Words like Tolerance are there, because we need them, if we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them. 

Reply
 · 




















CarefulAtheist1 week ago







WTF moment @7:05. Gold!

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester1 week ago







Speaking from experience living in a country where gay marriage has been legal for almost 9 years, I haven't noticed anything different. I would have never known the law changed except it was on the news.  The only reason I can see why a person would be against gay marriage, they are fucking assholes and they like to hurt people.

Reply
 · 
1


















Moor Letoh1 week ago







Epic.

Reply
 · 




















markedfang1 week ago







What if god was true? What would actually change?
He'd still have to come up with good arguments to justify his demands. I would see god as no more then another human with another opinion and unless he can convince me of his case I still wouldn't feel any obligation towards him.
Worship blinds you to attrociaties.

Reply
 · 
2


















Griffin98571 week ago







7:03 I nearly jumped out of my own skin shakes fist at Kate.

Reply
 · 
1







View all 6 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Griffin9857 *sticks out tongue*



Reply
 · 
1






christopher9000p
5 days ago


Hey, blame "god", not Kate for that one. :P



Reply
 · 









Felhaven1 week ago (edited)







You really shouldn't quote old testament based definitions of marriage while wearing a polyblend shirt.  

Reply
 · 
2

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Gives a whole new meaning to "don't throw stones while standing in a glass house".



Reply
 · 









RRoocckkyy501 week ago







Nice new intro! : )

Reply
 · 
1

















BionicDance
1 week ago


Thanks! I was going for a kind of 80s look. :)



Reply
 · 
1







VGatheist1 week ago (edited)







well the moral argument against abortion is that you are killing a baby. A mother does not have a right to kill her new born baby, so the question then comes about, at what point does a baby have the right to live. But the trick in proving abortion immoral within a real world sense is to prove that the fetus is being harmed. Big argument and I am not going to go through the whole case for abortion, but I just don't find your "if you do not agree with abortion don't have one." as a valid point because the whole reason there is any argument is the attempt to demonstrate that the fetus should have rights. I think the laws for abortion are very close to taking all of this in account. But the Christians idea of egg + sperm = no abortion is just not valid. I think the laws very, but right now all states at least use viability and not birth as the starting point for fetus rights. Allot of laws will use the trimester to determine if an abortion as legal. But you know as a Lesbian you likely will never have to worry about it. If you have a baby, you'd have to choose it.
Read more
Reply
 · 




















Justin Atheist via Google+1 week ago







Love you Bionic!!! 

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


D'awww, shucks. *blush*



Reply
 · 








Justin Atheist
1 week ago


On a less creepy note. The style you bring and the voice you express is great. Always great to watch one of your videos.



Reply
 · 









TheRealPaulMarshall1 week ago







@7:05- Nice green cross.  Faded in a bit early but still nice.

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


Heh. It's a chromakey guide mark to keep CGI elements in place relative to the camera.



Reply
 · 








TheRealPaulMarshall
1 week ago


I figgered.  Still nice given the context.



Reply
 · 





Show more








http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6eM-sBHa_0










































All comments (119)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







P Dav1 hour ago







This guy says morality is absolute. Then, I say, all of the horrendous acts done by or sanctioned by god in the bible, such as murder, slavery, rape, genocide, cannibalism, and treatment of women as property are absolutely immoral.

Reply
 · 




















ThomasTrue4 days ago







Within my own lifetime it was once 'moral' to punish children in school by striking them across the hands with a leather strap or a cane (or across the buttocks with a paddle in US schools) and a man could not rape his wife but was merely exercising his 'moral' conjugal 'rights'.  Go back less than a century and a husband had the 'moral right' to strike his wife with a rod 'no thicker than his thumb' (hence, "rule of thumb").  These 'morals' were based upon Biblical teaching and yet we now look upon them as examples of a barbaric past we have since thankfully rejected.  If this fool thinks that the Bible has 'stood the test of time', then he is so sadly deluded I frankly feel sorry for him.

Reply
 · 
1


















BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
12







View all 13 replies








BionicDance
4 days ago


Well, it'll probably be a few months to gather enough GOOD blooper footage, but I've started collecting some...



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


Damn but the struck by lightning bit was funny!  I was half expecting you to end the video with a long fade to black then.



Reply
 · 
1







Chris Cunningham1 week ago (edited)







You mean: one man, many wives... :p

Reply
 · 
5







View all 18 replies








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


+Steve Harvey
Okay. Well, i still dont see anything wrong with it. Unless you can back up your other claims with some societies in which neither sex is dominant and either marriages between 1 female and multiple males are similarly common as the opposite in similar proportions or alternativly societies where people marry more then one male and one female for one male and one female each (i.e. 3 males and 3 females)
Read more

Reply
 · 








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


In fact, the latter couldnt even be called hoarding.



Reply
 · 









Star Laughter1 week ago







"I believe in absolute truth!" He says, while munching on shellfish that was harvested on the Sabbath...

Reply
 · 
1


















Dragnauct Sylvas1 week ago







I love how they want to dissolve the negative connotations of terms used against them. Can't wait till they do it to the word "Faith."

Reply
 · 




















Charles Kunkle1 week ago







and we're totally ignoring the fact that God does NOT define marriage as one man and one woman...
Otherwise, many of the patriarchs of the Christian religion were violating God's law. Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines? Excatly how is that "one man and one woman"

Reply
 · 
3


















Inannalu1 week ago







Harmful to an ideology is not the same thing as harmful to people.
Behaviors and activities which do the former, but do not do the latter, are perfectly okay ethically, so far as I'm concerned.
In fact, if some behavior or activity harms an ideology which is responsible for much harm to people, so much the better.

Reply
 · 
5


















themplar1 week ago







Another great video from you. And again very right.
I personally cannot understand the objections people have against gays and gay marriage.  Sadly its not just religious biggots i've been in many discussions with non theist who were still absolute biggots.
Its funny how they Always accuse me of intolerance when i call their arguments absolute bogus and them biggots.  Every time the arguments are.. its not natural.. well obviously it is..  what if everybody turned gay the human species would end... wouldnt happen and if so what? They still can get children by In Vitro.
In the end all their arguments are invalid. and only one real arguments is left over they wont pronounce.
They suffer from imagination and see two gays going at it and they think its Icky. And thats all it is for them.. they think its icky.. well then stop fantasizing about it.
Towards religious biggotry.... i whish it was allowed to smack them around with their own bibles...
Read more (13 lines)
Reply
 · 
1

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Not to mention that there's also the ridiculous idea that gays want to recruit children for the sole purpose of making them gay.
People don't just become gay. Usually a person has a predisposition to being gay, but this is something many people will deny. I myself, a person who grew up in a Christian home, had a predisposition to being pansexual, but it's easier to deny something than to actually own up to it. I'm so glad I grew out of that horseshit though, I'm much happier.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Red Cloud1 week ago







You can't just re-define words to fit your own ends. Start doing that all willy-nilly, and you ruin the foundation of language itself, the fact that we can understand it. You can't just destroy an entire language, because you don't like how some of the words coming together make you feel, that's bullshit. Words like Tolerance are there, because we need them, if we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them. 

Reply
 · 




















CarefulAtheist1 week ago







WTF moment @7:05. Gold!

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester1 week ago







Speaking from experience living in a country where gay marriage has been legal for almost 9 years, I haven't noticed anything different. I would have never known the law changed except it was on the news.  The only reason I can see why a person would be against gay marriage, they are fucking assholes and they like to hurt people.

Reply
 · 
1


















Moor Letoh1 week ago







Epic.

Reply
 · 




















markedfang1 week ago







What if god was true? What would actually change?
He'd still have to come up with good arguments to justify his demands. I would see god as no more then another human with another opinion and unless he can convince me of his case I still wouldn't feel any obligation towards him.
Worship blinds you to attrociaties.

Reply
 · 
2


















Griffin98571 week ago







7:03 I nearly jumped out of my own skin shakes fist at Kate.

Reply
 · 
1







View all 6 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Griffin9857 *sticks out tongue*



Reply
 · 
1






christopher9000p
5 days ago


Hey, blame "god", not Kate for that one. :P



Reply
 · 









Felhaven1 week ago (edited)







You really shouldn't quote old testament based definitions of marriage while wearing a polyblend shirt.  

Reply
 · 
2

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Gives a whole new meaning to "don't throw stones while standing in a glass house".



Reply
 · 









RRoocckkyy501 week ago







Nice new intro! : )

Reply
 · 
1

















BionicDance
1 week ago


Thanks! I was going for a kind of 80s look. :)



Reply
 · 
1







VGatheist1 week ago (edited)







well the moral argument against abortion is that you are killing a baby. A mother does not have a right to kill her new born baby, so the question then comes about, at what point does a baby have the right to live. But the trick in proving abortion immoral within a real world sense is to prove that the fetus is being harmed. Big argument and I am not going to go through the whole case for abortion, but I just don't find your "if you do not agree with abortion don't have one." as a valid point because the whole reason there is any argument is the attempt to demonstrate that the fetus should have rights. I think the laws for abortion are very close to taking all of this in account. But the Christians idea of egg + sperm = no abortion is just not valid. I think the laws very, but right now all states at least use viability and not birth as the starting point for fetus rights. Allot of laws will use the trimester to determine if an abortion as legal. But you know as a Lesbian you likely will never have to worry about it. If you have a baby, you'd have to choose it.
Read more
Reply
 · 




















Justin Atheist via Google+1 week ago







Love you Bionic!!! 

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


D'awww, shucks. *blush*



Reply
 · 








Justin Atheist
1 week ago


On a less creepy note. The style you bring and the voice you express is great. Always great to watch one of your videos.



Reply
 · 









TheRealPaulMarshall1 week ago







@7:05- Nice green cross.  Faded in a bit early but still nice.

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


Heh. It's a chromakey guide mark to keep CGI elements in place relative to the camera.



Reply
 · 








TheRealPaulMarshall
1 week ago


I figgered.  Still nice given the context.



Reply
 · 





Show more


















































All comments (119)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







P Dav1 hour ago







This guy says morality is absolute. Then, I say, all of the horrendous acts done by or sanctioned by god in the bible, such as murder, slavery, rape, genocide, cannibalism, and treatment of women as property are absolutely immoral.

Reply
 · 




















ThomasTrue4 days ago







Within my own lifetime it was once 'moral' to punish children in school by striking them across the hands with a leather strap or a cane (or across the buttocks with a paddle in US schools) and a man could not rape his wife but was merely exercising his 'moral' conjugal 'rights'.  Go back less than a century and a husband had the 'moral right' to strike his wife with a rod 'no thicker than his thumb' (hence, "rule of thumb").  These 'morals' were based upon Biblical teaching and yet we now look upon them as examples of a barbaric past we have since thankfully rejected.  If this fool thinks that the Bible has 'stood the test of time', then he is so sadly deluded I frankly feel sorry for him.

Reply
 · 
1


















BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
12







View all 13 replies








BionicDance
4 days ago


Well, it'll probably be a few months to gather enough GOOD blooper footage, but I've started collecting some...



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


Damn but the struck by lightning bit was funny!  I was half expecting you to end the video with a long fade to black then.



Reply
 · 
1







Chris Cunningham1 week ago (edited)







You mean: one man, many wives... :p

Reply
 · 
5







View all 18 replies








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


+Steve Harvey
Okay. Well, i still dont see anything wrong with it. Unless you can back up your other claims with some societies in which neither sex is dominant and either marriages between 1 female and multiple males are similarly common as the opposite in similar proportions or alternativly societies where people marry more then one male and one female for one male and one female each (i.e. 3 males and 3 females)
Read more

Reply
 · 








Heiner Lilje
3 days ago


In fact, the latter couldnt even be called hoarding.



Reply
 · 









Star Laughter1 week ago







"I believe in absolute truth!" He says, while munching on shellfish that was harvested on the Sabbath...

Reply
 · 
1


















Dragnauct Sylvas1 week ago







I love how they want to dissolve the negative connotations of terms used against them. Can't wait till they do it to the word "Faith."

Reply
 · 




















Charles Kunkle1 week ago







and we're totally ignoring the fact that God does NOT define marriage as one man and one woman...
Otherwise, many of the patriarchs of the Christian religion were violating God's law. Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines? Excatly how is that "one man and one woman"

Reply
 · 
3


















Inannalu1 week ago







Harmful to an ideology is not the same thing as harmful to people.
Behaviors and activities which do the former, but do not do the latter, are perfectly okay ethically, so far as I'm concerned.
In fact, if some behavior or activity harms an ideology which is responsible for much harm to people, so much the better.

Reply
 · 
5


















themplar1 week ago







Another great video from you. And again very right.
I personally cannot understand the objections people have against gays and gay marriage.  Sadly its not just religious biggots i've been in many discussions with non theist who were still absolute biggots.
Its funny how they Always accuse me of intolerance when i call their arguments absolute bogus and them biggots.  Every time the arguments are.. its not natural.. well obviously it is..  what if everybody turned gay the human species would end... wouldnt happen and if so what? They still can get children by In Vitro.
In the end all their arguments are invalid. and only one real arguments is left over they wont pronounce.
They suffer from imagination and see two gays going at it and they think its Icky. And thats all it is for them.. they think its icky.. well then stop fantasizing about it.
Towards religious biggotry.... i whish it was allowed to smack them around with their own bibles...
Read more (13 lines)
Reply
 · 
1

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Not to mention that there's also the ridiculous idea that gays want to recruit children for the sole purpose of making them gay.
People don't just become gay. Usually a person has a predisposition to being gay, but this is something many people will deny. I myself, a person who grew up in a Christian home, had a predisposition to being pansexual, but it's easier to deny something than to actually own up to it. I'm so glad I grew out of that horseshit though, I'm much happier.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Red Cloud1 week ago







You can't just re-define words to fit your own ends. Start doing that all willy-nilly, and you ruin the foundation of language itself, the fact that we can understand it. You can't just destroy an entire language, because you don't like how some of the words coming together make you feel, that's bullshit. Words like Tolerance are there, because we need them, if we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them. 

Reply
 · 




















CarefulAtheist1 week ago







WTF moment @7:05. Gold!

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester1 week ago







Speaking from experience living in a country where gay marriage has been legal for almost 9 years, I haven't noticed anything different. I would have never known the law changed except it was on the news.  The only reason I can see why a person would be against gay marriage, they are fucking assholes and they like to hurt people.

Reply
 · 
1


















Moor Letoh1 week ago







Epic.

Reply
 · 




















markedfang1 week ago







What if god was true? What would actually change?
He'd still have to come up with good arguments to justify his demands. I would see god as no more then another human with another opinion and unless he can convince me of his case I still wouldn't feel any obligation towards him.
Worship blinds you to attrociaties.

Reply
 · 
2


















Griffin98571 week ago







7:03 I nearly jumped out of my own skin shakes fist at Kate.

Reply
 · 
1







View all 6 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Griffin9857 *sticks out tongue*



Reply
 · 
1






christopher9000p
5 days ago


Hey, blame "god", not Kate for that one. :P



Reply
 · 









Felhaven1 week ago (edited)







You really shouldn't quote old testament based definitions of marriage while wearing a polyblend shirt.  

Reply
 · 
2

















DoctorScarlet
1 week ago


Gives a whole new meaning to "don't throw stones while standing in a glass house".



Reply
 · 









RRoocckkyy501 week ago







Nice new intro! : )

Reply
 · 
1

















BionicDance
1 week ago


Thanks! I was going for a kind of 80s look. :)



Reply
 · 
1







VGatheist1 week ago (edited)







well the moral argument against abortion is that you are killing a baby. A mother does not have a right to kill her new born baby, so the question then comes about, at what point does a baby have the right to live. But the trick in proving abortion immoral within a real world sense is to prove that the fetus is being harmed. Big argument and I am not going to go through the whole case for abortion, but I just don't find your "if you do not agree with abortion don't have one." as a valid point because the whole reason there is any argument is the attempt to demonstrate that the fetus should have rights. I think the laws for abortion are very close to taking all of this in account. But the Christians idea of egg + sperm = no abortion is just not valid. I think the laws very, but right now all states at least use viability and not birth as the starting point for fetus rights. Allot of laws will use the trimester to determine if an abortion as legal. But you know as a Lesbian you likely will never have to worry about it. If you have a baby, you'd have to choose it.
Read more
Reply
 · 




















Justin Atheist via Google+1 week ago







Love you Bionic!!! 

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


D'awww, shucks. *blush*



Reply
 · 








Justin Atheist
1 week ago


On a less creepy note. The style you bring and the voice you express is great. Always great to watch one of your videos.



Reply
 · 









TheRealPaulMarshall1 week ago







@7:05- Nice green cross.  Faded in a bit early but still nice.

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 week ago


Heh. It's a chromakey guide mark to keep CGI elements in place relative to the camera.



Reply
 · 








TheRealPaulMarshall
1 week ago


I figgered.  Still nice given the context.



Reply
 · 





Show more















































































































All comments (225)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
5







View all 48 replies








BionicDance
3 days ago


Oh, you have to piss me off pretty bad before I start losing it.
Like acting like a brick wall, where logic, reason, and evidence bounce right the hell off of someone. Or not letting what other people say affect what they're going to say next; you don't have to agree, but don't be a damned broken record.
Basically, if you decide to be frustrating, yeah, I might just unload on you. Or just block your ass.
But if you decide to have a rational, reasonable, and open-minded, back-and-forth, two-way discussion, you will never incur my wrath.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
3 days ago


+BionicDance One of the many reasons I subscribe to your channel. 



Reply
 · 
1







Charlie sc5 days ago







Good video.

Reply
 · 




















gothatfunk1 week ago







"you can't play that ignorance role..."
says the guy playing the ignorant role.

Reply
 · 
22

















eire138
1 week ago


problem is...I doubt he was playing a role...



Reply
 · 
15







Dragnauct Sylvas6 days ago







A theist conflating terms for their own use and strawman'ing our positions? Never.

Reply
 · 




















Bunto Skiffler6 days ago







BD, absolutely serious here. Next time you do vid like this... use simple diagrams for him.  Just saying

Reply
 · 









View all 3 replies








Charlie sc
5 days ago


+BionicDance I have a feeling he realises he is wrong, but he's gone too far down the rabbit hole to turn back and admit his defeat.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
4 days ago


+Charlie sc I think that's likely, yes.
There is no greater enemy to rational discussion than excessive ego and endangered dignity.



Reply
 · 









Robert Wallace1 week ago







It's Atheist Baby season !

Reply
 · 









View all 12 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace Right on the button. 



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


=D



Reply
 · 









anthonyg59911 week ago







Have you ever addressed the kalam cosmological argument? 

Reply
 · 









View all 13 replies








Anthony Gloria
1 week ago


Would you accept acts of impossibilities concerning causal or logical connections as evidence?



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Anthony Gloria Can these "impossibilities" be shown objectively and tested in a lab?



Reply
 · 









Charles Kunkle1 week ago







now I just love this guy's argument... I misunderstand the English language, and do not even know how to look up the meanings of words, so everyone has to use my incorrect definitions for things.

Reply
 · 
3


















lec06211 week ago







I think I just heard someone storm off and call us names.  Forget this jerk.  He's as dishonest as the day is long...maybe longer.  Don't wrestle with pigs....

Reply
 · 




















BrianJ19621 week ago







"Ignorance of belief in God" would be, in a broad sense, ig-theism and be closer to reflecting babies than any option requiring some understanding of the deity concept and making a decision regarding acceptance, or dismissal of that concept. But we've had that discussion before - lol - and I'm not going to re-open that particular can-o-worms. So I'll attempt your new angle on atheist / theist bi-polarism...
As for a word to describe the concept "the number of gods believed in is zero", this would only be of 'use' in such a bi-polar sense - and, if used as a mechanism to bolster demographic numbers, absolutely meaningless - as many of those babies designated "atheist" would, upon eventual cogitation of the concept, actually turn out to be "theist" - thereby kinda invalidating the 'utility' of the resulting demographic with regards actual, cognitive 'opinion' in discussions on any topic...
Unless, of course, there is some 'value' in the inclusion of the pre-supposed 'opinion' of those inherently without an opinion on any specific topic matter when it comes to discussion of said topic?
The only other 'utility' I can see, is a means to insinuate oneself into a 'default' position - thereby absolving oneself of any onus to substantiate one's decision-making process when it comes to discussion of the reasons "why" one holds the position one does on any given topic / concept - essentially halting any 'dialogue' beyond establishing an "I don't have to prove anything; but let's discuss you" 'beachhead' from which to speak...
Surely it's the "why do you think this?" discussions that holds more 'value' than a simple evaluation of the concept one adheres to?
If there are other 'motivations' for "needing" formalisation of this concept in society, or 'utility' in the application of it for demographic evaluation purposes - please enlighten us? But in essence, if that is the concept you "need a word for", then I agree - you are going to have to come up with a new one in order to prevent re-defining something already in common usage.
Read more (27 lines)
Reply
 · 
1







View all 9 replies








BrianJ1962
6 days ago


+BionicDance
And, of course, your initial reply was totally devoid of 'snark' (now who's bring their pre-formed opinions to the table?)...
"The idea is to have a base from which to even start the discussion."
The discussion is already open. The issue is whether, or not, babies are "default" (I would posit yes), and if that default is a "no" to the question 'Do you believe in a god, or gods?" (I would posit no).
In my original comment, I posed the question whether, or not, there were any potential (or utility) in the bi-polar position you keep advocating (especially as you have simply dismissed the possibility of any third alternative - "whether there is some third, neutral category...which there is not.")
You, however, decided to 'attack' me on the basis of what you thought I was arguing ("you argue that I'm trying to re-define terms that are already in common use") - whereas I was merely extrapolating the potentials from the inclusion of those inherently without an opinion in a discussion about what opinion is actually held.
You're the one trying to find conflict between us here, not I. And, if you wish to persist rather than have the actual discussion, that's fine - I'll leave you to it.
Read more (19 lines)

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
6 days ago


+BrianJ1962 As a matter of fact, yes; my initial reply was devoid of snark. But I suppose I should expect you to lash out when put on the defensive. *rolls eyes*
That's been your MO since I've known you, frankly. I think I no longer have any use for your presence; never darken my internet again.



Reply
 · 
1







Star Laughter1 week ago (edited)







I'm sorry this is off topic, but every time I watch your video's I desperately want to reach out and tuck your hair behind your ears! I have always had long hair, and find it uncomfortable to feel hair in my face. Hell, I did it at least once to a wisp that got blown by my air-con during this sentence :)
"Let you have the word atheism, but we're going to need another word"
Love that idea! Of course they would hijack and misrepresent any position we took, as it threatened to push an iota of reason into the equation.
Here's an "ism" that I think aptly describes this bloke.... "egocentrism".
"Every baby is ignorant"
Yep, and for nearly 200 thousand years of human life (or more) humans were all ignorant to the Judeo-Christian God. Isn't that more evidence that he isn't much of a God more than him being a loving God who wants a personal relationship with someone?
I have to say, BD, it has been pleasant to not only grow myself through my years on YT arguing and debating with others, but I have seen that in you too. You used to be a lot more hot-headed and insulting to these types of believers (as I was) and now you are much more calm. It's easier for them to respond thoughtfully I think when they're not on the defensive (I'm sure you know), but I still have trouble not just making a passing remark about their lack of intelligence some days :D
Anywho, good video, thanks.
Read more (22 lines)
Reply
 · 
2







View all 3 replies








Star Laughter
1 week ago


+BionicDance Just don't be offended if every now and then a random hand comes slowly towards your face :D
I agree, this sort of approach seems much more effective (especially towards the undecided agnostic sorts) than the old name and shame type stuff.
Having said that, sometimes they say something so silly that it seems deserving of nothing less than utter ridicule, but this usually has a negative effect on me 8( 
Read more

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Star Laughter Well, I have to admit, I had to reeeeeeeaaaaally hold back when he made those comments about atheists thinking they're smarter, and the should-have-been-a-psychiatrist line. Egad...talk about just handing it to someone, neh?
What I have to remember is that I'm not just talking to the person I'm responding to; I'm trying to convince all the people watching, as well.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Inannalu1 week ago







Maybe he's conflating "atheist" with "apostate" (one who denounces a faith previously adhered to).  Many atheists are indeed apostates, but one does not need to be an apostate in order to be an atheist.

Reply
 · 
7

















Matthew Bannock
1 week ago


I think that you are correct. 



Reply
 · 









Red Cloud1 week ago







I agree with you, in every part, except one, and for me, this is a big one, and causes Much frustration. Ignorance is Not a derogatory term, and only people who take offence, are those who literally don't know better, and the only people who Use the term in a derogatory manner are those too Stupid to understand. There Is NO shame in ignorance, there's Nothing wrong with not knowing an answer to a question, however being unable, or unwilling to take and/or comprehend new information Does incur that something is wrong with You. That is Stupidity, a lack of ability or willingness to learn, Ignorance is merely a lack of information, or education, and they are Very different. See what I mean about labels? They've become so muddled, so incorrectly used, so confused...I Know we can do better, and so can damn near everyone else, some people just don't know they can, and so it's our responsibility to show them through example. 
Read more
Reply
 · 
6







View all 3 replies








Red Cloud
1 week ago


+hotdoh I disagree, I don't think because the word, or its usage is misinterpreted by a majority, makes the misinterpretation true or valid in any sort of way. To me, that just means the majority is misinformed, and it's the responsibility of those who know better to show them that they're wrong, how they're wrong, and that it's ok to be wrong, so long as you're willing to do and be right. Besides, when you put that kind of stigma on a word that literally means "a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education", and start to make it as derogatory as Stupid, you start to stifle chances for communication, and learning. All of a sudden people are afraid to show what they don't know, so that they can get answers, because of some Label, that people use Wrong. Words have meaning for a Reason. 
Read more

Reply
 · 
1






Ziliath
1 week ago


+Red Cloud
I agree with hotdoh, even if it is by definition descriptive rather than a slanderous term, it is perceived as such. its used to denote a lack of somethig, when there is a lack of something, by comparison somebody else is superior by contrast, this is where the insult comes from, while sure it is stupid of people to use this as a type of slander, it happens, and the resulting superiority by contrast leave the person with a bad feeling to the concept. thus its taken as an insult.
and while everything you said about putting the stigma on the word is true... its also accurate to reality, there is this stigma.
Read more

Reply
 · 









claudiaquat1 week ago







Dude, the American Psychiatric Association thanks you for not attempting to enter the field.

Reply
 · 
3


















adir mugrabi1 week ago







i wish that NO ONE used the word Atheist!

Reply
 · 









View all 12 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


So? This isn't gonna make it any better.



Reply
 · 








oscargordon
1 week ago


+adir mugrabi So I think I might be starting to understand where you are coming from.  As BD pointed out in her vid, we regularly stick an "a" in front of a word to indicate that something is not a part of a particular group.  We have a perfectly good word that is clearly defined in any modern dictionary to indicate that you are not a part of the group that believes in the existence of gods.  What I am seeming to hear you say is that you object to the word because of the "idiot" in this video trying to tortuously redefine it.  Let me clue you in.  People like this guy most likely believe that if you don't worship the same god that they do, you must therefore worship and be in league with the devil and have certain sets of beliefs and rituals, such as eating babies, and since all babies are atheists....  So really, isn't it all about the babies?
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Robert WLester1 week ago







Stiggy, a.k.a. bruce, is a guy i have avoided debating because he is a convertee and made it his crutch, but i don't mind you responding to him, he needs the attention to think out of the box.
the baby thing is lame, all babies argument is irrelevant, since the debate is between those with thought in mind beyond food or nappy changes ;)
I do agree largely, semantics divide us in some ways, however i would prefer greater discussion on the huge difference between fundy nutbags and lesser believers, or indeed liberal versions of Christianity, I only state this thought because painting the debate black and white is playing to the fundies, in a way.
i like how you state "agnostic atheist", many fundies can't understand this concept, so bruce will not accept it as valid until he grows up(maybe never).
Read more
Reply
 · 
2







View all 10 replies








Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)


If you can convince people to drink poison, you can convince them of anything. Remember, 50% of people are below average intelligence.



Reply
 · 








sogghartha
1 week ago


+Jacob Williams And they get to vote! :O
;)



Reply
 · 









Merit Coba1 week ago (edited)







We do not mind the be called anything they like as long as we get the discount. A cat is a cat... no matter what.  Nya.

Reply
 · 
1


















rohanwotan21 week ago







He should have been a psychiatrist?  Sheesh, I think he needs to SEE a psychiatrist.

Reply
 · 
5







View all 5 replies








Robert WLester
1 week ago


actually he does, he got religion when he stopped being addict, i think.



Reply
 · 








Jesse Sisolack
1 week ago


+BionicDance Yes, but you know we were all thinking it, and you could not have been thinking it any louder, haha. 



Reply
 · 









jiberish0011 week ago







At 5:02
ARRRRG!!!
NO, BRUCE!
It is A-Theism. It is NOT Athe-ism!

Reply
 · 
1







View all 9 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+tctheunbeliever Thanks. :)
Not that it did me any good...you should see the, uh, "conversation" he and I had on his original video.



Reply
 · 








Gnomefro
1 week ago


+Robert WLester To be honest, I think it will take at least as much work to explain people what bright means as arguing about what atheist means. And the advantage of sticking with atheism is that people do understand what the gist of it is and we are free to terminate meaningless semantics games at any time by introducing well established terms like Naturalist to explain our positive views.



Reply
 · 









steveb05031 week ago







I'm perfectly fine with "atheist" (being that I'm not ignorant as to its actual meaning) - but, wouldn't "non-theist" serve? I mean, I realize it's not (in the strictest terms) A word, but it does seem as though it has the potential to eliminate some of the confusion. I dunno - just a thought.

Reply
 · 
















Show more





































All comments (225)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
5







View all 48 replies








BionicDance
3 days ago


Oh, you have to piss me off pretty bad before I start losing it.
Like acting like a brick wall, where logic, reason, and evidence bounce right the hell off of someone. Or not letting what other people say affect what they're going to say next; you don't have to agree, but don't be a damned broken record.
Basically, if you decide to be frustrating, yeah, I might just unload on you. Or just block your ass.
But if you decide to have a rational, reasonable, and open-minded, back-and-forth, two-way discussion, you will never incur my wrath.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
3 days ago


+BionicDance One of the many reasons I subscribe to your channel. 



Reply
 · 
1







Charlie sc5 days ago







Good video.

Reply
 · 




















gothatfunk1 week ago







"you can't play that ignorance role..."
says the guy playing the ignorant role.

Reply
 · 
22

















eire138
1 week ago


problem is...I doubt he was playing a role...



Reply
 · 
15







Dragnauct Sylvas6 days ago







A theist conflating terms for their own use and strawman'ing our positions? Never.

Reply
 · 




















Bunto Skiffler6 days ago







BD, absolutely serious here. Next time you do vid like this... use simple diagrams for him.  Just saying

Reply
 · 









View all 3 replies








Charlie sc
5 days ago


+BionicDance I have a feeling he realises he is wrong, but he's gone too far down the rabbit hole to turn back and admit his defeat.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
4 days ago


+Charlie sc I think that's likely, yes.
There is no greater enemy to rational discussion than excessive ego and endangered dignity.



Reply
 · 









Robert Wallace1 week ago







It's Atheist Baby season !

Reply
 · 









View all 12 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace Right on the button. 



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


=D



Reply
 · 









anthonyg59911 week ago







Have you ever addressed the kalam cosmological argument? 

Reply
 · 









View all 13 replies








Anthony Gloria
1 week ago


Would you accept acts of impossibilities concerning causal or logical connections as evidence?



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Anthony Gloria Can these "impossibilities" be shown objectively and tested in a lab?



Reply
 · 









Charles Kunkle1 week ago







now I just love this guy's argument... I misunderstand the English language, and do not even know how to look up the meanings of words, so everyone has to use my incorrect definitions for things.

Reply
 · 
3


















lec06211 week ago







I think I just heard someone storm off and call us names.  Forget this jerk.  He's as dishonest as the day is long...maybe longer.  Don't wrestle with pigs....

Reply
 · 




















BrianJ19621 week ago







"Ignorance of belief in God" would be, in a broad sense, ig-theism and be closer to reflecting babies than any option requiring some understanding of the deity concept and making a decision regarding acceptance, or dismissal of that concept. But we've had that discussion before - lol - and I'm not going to re-open that particular can-o-worms. So I'll attempt your new angle on atheist / theist bi-polarism...
As for a word to describe the concept "the number of gods believed in is zero", this would only be of 'use' in such a bi-polar sense - and, if used as a mechanism to bolster demographic numbers, absolutely meaningless - as many of those babies designated "atheist" would, upon eventual cogitation of the concept, actually turn out to be "theist" - thereby kinda invalidating the 'utility' of the resulting demographic with regards actual, cognitive 'opinion' in discussions on any topic...
Unless, of course, there is some 'value' in the inclusion of the pre-supposed 'opinion' of those inherently without an opinion on any specific topic matter when it comes to discussion of said topic?
The only other 'utility' I can see, is a means to insinuate oneself into a 'default' position - thereby absolving oneself of any onus to substantiate one's decision-making process when it comes to discussion of the reasons "why" one holds the position one does on any given topic / concept - essentially halting any 'dialogue' beyond establishing an "I don't have to prove anything; but let's discuss you" 'beachhead' from which to speak...
Surely it's the "why do you think this?" discussions that holds more 'value' than a simple evaluation of the concept one adheres to?
If there are other 'motivations' for "needing" formalisation of this concept in society, or 'utility' in the application of it for demographic evaluation purposes - please enlighten us? But in essence, if that is the concept you "need a word for", then I agree - you are going to have to come up with a new one in order to prevent re-defining something already in common usage.
Read more (27 lines)
Reply
 · 
1







View all 9 replies








BrianJ1962
6 days ago


+BionicDance
And, of course, your initial reply was totally devoid of 'snark' (now who's bring their pre-formed opinions to the table?)...
"The idea is to have a base from which to even start the discussion."
The discussion is already open. The issue is whether, or not, babies are "default" (I would posit yes), and if that default is a "no" to the question 'Do you believe in a god, or gods?" (I would posit no).
In my original comment, I posed the question whether, or not, there were any potential (or utility) in the bi-polar position you keep advocating (especially as you have simply dismissed the possibility of any third alternative - "whether there is some third, neutral category...which there is not.")
You, however, decided to 'attack' me on the basis of what you thought I was arguing ("you argue that I'm trying to re-define terms that are already in common use") - whereas I was merely extrapolating the potentials from the inclusion of those inherently without an opinion in a discussion about what opinion is actually held.
You're the one trying to find conflict between us here, not I. And, if you wish to persist rather than have the actual discussion, that's fine - I'll leave you to it.
Read more (19 lines)

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
6 days ago


+BrianJ1962 As a matter of fact, yes; my initial reply was devoid of snark. But I suppose I should expect you to lash out when put on the defensive. *rolls eyes*
That's been your MO since I've known you, frankly. I think I no longer have any use for your presence; never darken my internet again.



Reply
 · 
1







Star Laughter1 week ago (edited)







I'm sorry this is off topic, but every time I watch your video's I desperately want to reach out and tuck your hair behind your ears! I have always had long hair, and find it uncomfortable to feel hair in my face. Hell, I did it at least once to a wisp that got blown by my air-con during this sentence :)
"Let you have the word atheism, but we're going to need another word"
Love that idea! Of course they would hijack and misrepresent any position we took, as it threatened to push an iota of reason into the equation.
Here's an "ism" that I think aptly describes this bloke.... "egocentrism".
"Every baby is ignorant"
Yep, and for nearly 200 thousand years of human life (or more) humans were all ignorant to the Judeo-Christian God. Isn't that more evidence that he isn't much of a God more than him being a loving God who wants a personal relationship with someone?
I have to say, BD, it has been pleasant to not only grow myself through my years on YT arguing and debating with others, but I have seen that in you too. You used to be a lot more hot-headed and insulting to these types of believers (as I was) and now you are much more calm. It's easier for them to respond thoughtfully I think when they're not on the defensive (I'm sure you know), but I still have trouble not just making a passing remark about their lack of intelligence some days :D
Anywho, good video, thanks.
Read more (22 lines)
Reply
 · 
2







View all 3 replies








Star Laughter
1 week ago


+BionicDance Just don't be offended if every now and then a random hand comes slowly towards your face :D
I agree, this sort of approach seems much more effective (especially towards the undecided agnostic sorts) than the old name and shame type stuff.
Having said that, sometimes they say something so silly that it seems deserving of nothing less than utter ridicule, but this usually has a negative effect on me 8( 
Read more

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Star Laughter Well, I have to admit, I had to reeeeeeeaaaaally hold back when he made those comments about atheists thinking they're smarter, and the should-have-been-a-psychiatrist line. Egad...talk about just handing it to someone, neh?
What I have to remember is that I'm not just talking to the person I'm responding to; I'm trying to convince all the people watching, as well.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Inannalu1 week ago







Maybe he's conflating "atheist" with "apostate" (one who denounces a faith previously adhered to).  Many atheists are indeed apostates, but one does not need to be an apostate in order to be an atheist.

Reply
 · 
7

















Matthew Bannock
1 week ago


I think that you are correct. 



Reply
 · 









Red Cloud1 week ago







I agree with you, in every part, except one, and for me, this is a big one, and causes Much frustration. Ignorance is Not a derogatory term, and only people who take offence, are those who literally don't know better, and the only people who Use the term in a derogatory manner are those too Stupid to understand. There Is NO shame in ignorance, there's Nothing wrong with not knowing an answer to a question, however being unable, or unwilling to take and/or comprehend new information Does incur that something is wrong with You. That is Stupidity, a lack of ability or willingness to learn, Ignorance is merely a lack of information, or education, and they are Very different. See what I mean about labels? They've become so muddled, so incorrectly used, so confused...I Know we can do better, and so can damn near everyone else, some people just don't know they can, and so it's our responsibility to show them through example. 
Read more
Reply
 · 
6







View all 3 replies








Red Cloud
1 week ago


+hotdoh I disagree, I don't think because the word, or its usage is misinterpreted by a majority, makes the misinterpretation true or valid in any sort of way. To me, that just means the majority is misinformed, and it's the responsibility of those who know better to show them that they're wrong, how they're wrong, and that it's ok to be wrong, so long as you're willing to do and be right. Besides, when you put that kind of stigma on a word that literally means "a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education", and start to make it as derogatory as Stupid, you start to stifle chances for communication, and learning. All of a sudden people are afraid to show what they don't know, so that they can get answers, because of some Label, that people use Wrong. Words have meaning for a Reason. 
Read more

Reply
 · 
1






Ziliath
1 week ago


+Red Cloud
I agree with hotdoh, even if it is by definition descriptive rather than a slanderous term, it is perceived as such. its used to denote a lack of somethig, when there is a lack of something, by comparison somebody else is superior by contrast, this is where the insult comes from, while sure it is stupid of people to use this as a type of slander, it happens, and the resulting superiority by contrast leave the person with a bad feeling to the concept. thus its taken as an insult.
and while everything you said about putting the stigma on the word is true... its also accurate to reality, there is this stigma.
Read more

Reply
 · 









claudiaquat1 week ago







Dude, the American Psychiatric Association thanks you for not attempting to enter the field.

Reply
 · 
3


















adir mugrabi1 week ago







i wish that NO ONE used the word Atheist!

Reply
 · 









View all 12 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


So? This isn't gonna make it any better.



Reply
 · 








oscargordon
1 week ago


+adir mugrabi So I think I might be starting to understand where you are coming from.  As BD pointed out in her vid, we regularly stick an "a" in front of a word to indicate that something is not a part of a particular group.  We have a perfectly good word that is clearly defined in any modern dictionary to indicate that you are not a part of the group that believes in the existence of gods.  What I am seeming to hear you say is that you object to the word because of the "idiot" in this video trying to tortuously redefine it.  Let me clue you in.  People like this guy most likely believe that if you don't worship the same god that they do, you must therefore worship and be in league with the devil and have certain sets of beliefs and rituals, such as eating babies, and since all babies are atheists....  So really, isn't it all about the babies?
Read more

Reply
 · 
1







Robert WLester1 week ago







Stiggy, a.k.a. bruce, is a guy i have avoided debating because he is a convertee and made it his crutch, but i don't mind you responding to him, he needs the attention to think out of the box.
the baby thing is lame, all babies argument is irrelevant, since the debate is between those with thought in mind beyond food or nappy changes ;)
I do agree largely, semantics divide us in some ways, however i would prefer greater discussion on the huge difference between fundy nutbags and lesser believers, or indeed liberal versions of Christianity, I only state this thought because painting the debate black and white is playing to the fundies, in a way.
i like how you state "agnostic atheist", many fundies can't understand this concept, so bruce will not accept it as valid until he grows up(maybe never).
Read more
Reply
 · 
2







View all 10 replies








Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)


If you can convince people to drink poison, you can convince them of anything. Remember, 50% of people are below average intelligence.



Reply
 · 








sogghartha
1 week ago


+Jacob Williams And they get to vote! :O
;)



Reply
 · 









Merit Coba1 week ago (edited)







We do not mind the be called anything they like as long as we get the discount. A cat is a cat... no matter what.  Nya.

Reply
 · 
1


















rohanwotan21 week ago







He should have been a psychiatrist?  Sheesh, I think he needs to SEE a psychiatrist.

Reply
 · 
5







View all 5 replies








Robert WLester
1 week ago


actually he does, he got religion when he stopped being addict, i think.



Reply
 · 








Jesse Sisolack
1 week ago


+BionicDance Yes, but you know we were all thinking it, and you could not have been thinking it any louder, haha. 



Reply
 · 









jiberish0011 week ago







At 5:02
ARRRRG!!!
NO, BRUCE!
It is A-Theism. It is NOT Athe-ism!

Reply
 · 
1







View all 9 replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


+tctheunbeliever Thanks. :)
Not that it did me any good...you should see the, uh, "conversation" he and I had on his original video.



Reply
 · 








Gnomefro
1 week ago


+Robert WLester To be honest, I think it will take at least as much work to explain people what bright means as arguing about what atheist means. And the advantage of sticking with atheism is that people do understand what the gist of it is and we are free to terminate meaningless semantics games at any time by introducing well established terms like Naturalist to explain our positive views.



Reply
 · 









steveb05031 week ago







I'm perfectly fine with "atheist" (being that I'm not ignorant as to its actual meaning) - but, wouldn't "non-theist" serve? I mean, I realize it's not (in the strictest terms) A word, but it does seem as though it has the potential to eliminate some of the confusion. I dunno - just a thought.

Reply
 · 
















Show more