Bionic Dance Youtube comments from three videos including atheists are mentally-disabled toddlers

All comments (211)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
5







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. A proposition does not have to be considered to lack acceptance of it.
I'm sorry, but it seems to me as if you're manipulating words in order to establish a neutral ground...and there isn't one. Either a proposition has been accepted, or it hasn't...for ANY reason, not just after having weighed it.
If the number of gods a baby believes in is zero, then that baby lacks acceptance of the proposition of a god's existence, DESPITE having not considered the matter. I'm afraid this is inescapable: either you do believe or you don't; there is no middle ground.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


No. Acceptance or REJECTION is conditional of confronting a proposition; merely LACKING acceptance is something else entirely.
Your example of money misses the point entirely. The question is not about accepting or rejecting an offer or money...the question is about whether one HAS the money. Just as the question is about whether someone HAS belief in a god.
A baby either believes or doesn't believe; the question of having heard the proposition is irrelevant, except in determining WHY the baby believes or doesn't.
The problem is that you either don't understand or are not listening to my side. I feel as though you are trying to ASSIGN me a side to defend, one I do not hold.
Read more

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


See, again, you're side-stepping the issue, trying to re-frame it.
The money doesn't have to be OFFERED in order for one to not have it.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


facepalm No. WRONG.
You're still talking about accepting propositions; that's not the issue here. Your thinking on this matter is VERY distorted, to the point where I doubt our ability to communicate.
And, frankly, I think that at this point you don't so much care about communication, finding common ground, and actually reaching any kind of understanding of both our points and the truth.
I think you're just trying to WIN.
And I have no interest in that. So either dump some fucking hormones and actually have a REAL conversation...or we can end this right now. You choose.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


See, the problem is that you seem to think that "having a position" can only come from an explicitly-made decision. And that's simply not true.
How many gods does someone believe in if they've never heard of a god? Hmm? How many? I'm gonna go with zero...wouldn't you?
So when it comes to believing in gods, that person's position is that they don't...EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER MADE A DECISION ON THE MATTER. Even though they cannot STATE that they don't believe...they still DON'T. And that is their position.
There is your example. Please understand it, because it's the same thing I've been saying all along...which you seem unable--or is it unwilling?--to grasp. You've got to break out of this thinking that a position someone holds is a conscious, knowing, explicitly-decided state of being. Because that is narrow thinking that does not cover every possibility.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


facepalm It's the person who is NOT going to do the offering--the potential receiver--that doesn't have the money, not the other way around.
...is our lack of understanding each other here a problem when it comes to critical reading? raised eyebrow



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


I'm sorry, but I reject your analogy; you're framing it as being asked a question about which one gives a conscious answer. You're expecting the position to be a KNOWING one...and that's not the only kind.
Which is what I've been trying to get you to realize this whole time.

It's like you've got a barrier up; you seem to shy away from the point I'm making every time you come even close to it. It's like you won't even consider the possibility I'm raising, that of having an unknowing position on something.
There are several reasons why your analogy does not work: first, it requires prior experience; you seem unable or unwilling to consider someone's state before having had that prior experience.
Second, taste is a biological condition: whether one's taste buds and brain chemistry will respond to the chemical reactions regarding chicken. This is not the same as having come to a reasoned conclusion about an intellectual proposition...or not.
So I must reject your analogy as not addressing a truly parallel scenario.
The money analogy was much better, frankly. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?
Step 1 - Person A does not have money. They have not been offered the money yet, but they still do not have it.
Step 2 - Person B offers the money to Person A;  Person A either takes the money or does not.
Step 3 - If Person A took the money from Person B, they now have the money. If Person A did not take the money from Person B, they still do not have the money.
Now, let's apply this to god-belief:
Step 1 - Baby has never heard of god (does not have the money). They have not been told of god by Adult (has not been offered the money), so they do not have belief in god (still do not have the money).
Step 2 - Adult tells Baby of god (offers the money). Baby either believes Adult (takes the money) or does not believe Adult (does not take the money)
Step 3 - If Baby believed Adult (took the money), they now believe in god (have the money). If Baby did not believe Adult (did not take the money), they do not believe in god (do not have the money).
...please tell me that this helps you to understand now. PLEASE.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


Dude, I already know what you meant; I'm telling you that it's wrong.
You're trying to equate belief or non-belief as something that can ONLY happen after the opportunity to try to believe or not--or, as you put it, after the offer has been made--rather than a state or variable that always exists.
...and you're wrong about that.
The problem here is that you and I are having to completely different conversations.
I'm talking about belief being present or not; you're talking about an informed decision.
These are two different questions. I'm sorry, but you are off--I repeat, off--topic.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago (edited)


Okay, let me explain something to you:
"...something that can only happen after the opportunity to try..."
"...dispositions that necessarily relate to a proposition..."
In my world, those both mean EXACTLY the same thing. A proposition is something explicitly presented to someone for a response or reaction to it...which is giving them to opportunity to try to believe or not.
"One cannot hold a disposition toward a proposition that one is not aware of."
Well, belief is NOT NECESSARILY a "disposition toward a proposition"; as I've illustrated, belief can be not-present BECAUSE the proposition has not yet been put forward.
I'm sorry, but yes...we ARE talking about different things. And if we're not, then I would you to explain to me EXACTLY how someone who has not been exposed to the concept of god is believing in any number of gods OTHER than zero.
And if your answer is 'nil', I'm sorry, but I will not accept that as a valid answer; there is no difference between 'nil' and 'zero' in this context.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


But, again, you're putting this 100% in terms of what someone is conscious of, and not allowing there to be a default starting point.
I'm afraid it is you who is making the categorical error here. Belief really is an on-or-off, yes-or-no, does-or-doesn't variable; it does not matter whether someone is aware of which state they're in. It's either yea or nay; it cannot be anything else.
The term 'belief' most emphatically does exist in the absence of a proposition; I fail to see how it could not.
And the answer is that the number of gods he believes in is zero; if he doesn't know what gods are, explain to me how many he believes in.
A relationship may not exist between the individual and the concept, but that's WHY the individual believes in zero gods. But the reason--lacking a relationship with the proposition--does not negate this lack of belief, it only explains it.
And, I'm sorry, but you are the one using those terms incorrectly; "belief", "non-belief", and "disbelief" have NOTHING TO DO with propositions...they have to do with belief being present or not. And that's all. Observe:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelief
noun
1 - the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
Are you seriously telling me that someone who has never heard the proposition that a god exists is able to believe in god(s)? *raised eyebrow* No, they clearly are not. Thus, they disbelieve.
It really is that simple.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
1 week ago


"My" definition doesn't do that at all; where are you getting that from? *boggle*
And now you're reinterpreting "inability" in a way that suits your case...but that is NOT the only way that "inability" can be used. If someone is unable to do something, that may have something to do with their capability...but it can also have to do with their having had the opportunity.
Your reinterpretation leads me to believe you may, in fact, be dishonest.
I'm afraid this conversation is over. Your next paragraph is nothing but a tangled web of reinterpretations, redefinitions, and ignoring ideas and words that do not suit your case.
THIS IS DISHONESTY.
And I have no use for people whose entire case is nothing more than prevarication.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
1 week ago


"You can't even get that far unless you are met with the proposition. "
Look, I don't know how I put this any clearer: Bull. Fucking. Shit.
If you have not been met with the proposition, THEN ONE THING YOU CANNOT DO IS BELIEVE.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? *rolls eyes*
And I did read your second paragraph. Like I said, it was nothing but equivocation and prevarication; you broke down the definition THE WAY YOU WANTED, ignoring any possible alternate interpretation--of which there are several--that would have been inconvenient to your premise.
Which, as I said...is dishonest.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


I didn't say that stating your case was dishonest... I said that leaving out inconvenient details and reinterpreting things to suit your needs is dishonest.
And I DID present to you the correct interpretation of the definition; I did it BEFORE your reinterpretation. *shakes head sadly*
And I know that your argument is that you cannot disbelieve the proposition...and I've already asked you to explain how that is possible.
At least one of the definitions of disbelief matches the interpretation I'VE been putting forth, namely not having any. But YOU have been behaving as if that definition does not exist or is invalid in this context...and that's bullshit. It's dishonest. There is a valid and relevant definition of a critical word that is DESTROYING your case...which you are avoiding as hard as you can.
So, I'm sorry, but you are dishonest and you are WRONG.
Now, if you want to rephrase your case so that you are ONLY talking about active belief and active disbelief--EXPLICIT belief or disbelief--then, FINE.
But passive disbelief exists, and it describes the state a baby or someone who has never heard of god(s) is in. Get the fuck used to it, because I am sick and tired of going 'round and 'round and 'round, repeating myself endlessly because you're doing a great brick wall imitation.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


No, you most emphatically HAVE left out details and reinterpreted things. You ignored one definition of "disbelief", then reinterpreted it so that it meant what you WANTED it to mean, instead of a perfectly valid interpretation that defeated your arguments. That is EXACTLY what you did.
_"This is the explanation to how you cannot disbelieve a proposition you have no idea exists: One cannot disbelieve a proposition that does not exist." _
BULLSHIT. Right now, you don't believe in a fictional alien race you've never heard of; you disbelieve their existence, DESPITE HAVING NEVER HEARD OF THEM.
Just the way a baby disbelieves in the god its never heard of.

_"The nature of belief and the nature of disbelief is relational." _
They're only "relational" in that they're opposites.
"I say "I believe" without providing the referenced object to which the term would apply (in this case, the proposition "god exists") then I have made a meaningless statement."
And the fact that your example is about saying something only proves what I've been saying all along: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS.
"If I say "I disbelieve" without providing the referenced object to which the term would apply (in this case, the proposition "god exists") then I have, again, made a meaningless statement."
Yes, that would be a meaningless STATEMENT. But we're not TALKING about statements.
What we are talking about is STATES OF BEING.
Is Person A currently in a state of believing in god? They've never heard of god...so they can hardly believe, can they? So they don't believe. They are in a state of not believing in god. Therefore, they disbelieve in the god they've never heard of BECAUSE they've never heard of that deity.
It's that simple. It's not about making STATEMENTS...it's about being in a certain state.
"That's why, in the definition you provided for disbelief (the inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true), I took efforts to point out the fact that the term inability, in this situation, was intimately tied to disposition toward an object, and therefore a comment on capacity and not means."
And THIS is exactly what I mean when I say that you reinterpreted...because NO, IT FUCKING DOESN'T refer to capacity and not means; that is only ONE interpretation...and you're ignoring the inconvenient one.
And even if it DID refer to capacity, you don't have the capacity if you've never heard of something; the ability to believe in it is not there.
No matter how you twist and turn, the fact is that You. Are. WRONG.
The reason I appear to you to be doing a brick wall impression is not because I'm actually doing one, it's because I have to keep repeating myself since the points I've raised have not been adequately addressed.
No, the fact that the points you've raised have have not been addressed to your satisfaction is because they're BULLSHIT. I keep trying to point out where you've gone off the rails and you keep either ignoring or reinterpreting in order to hold onto your mistakes just as hard as you can. You seem unable or unwilling to accept that you've gotten it wrong.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


Hell, your entire argument is bullshit.
It's based entirely on the completely absurd notion that never having heard of a god actually changes something..
I'm dealing in realities, here: is belief in a god present or not. I don't care about why...I just care about whether or not.
You can go play your idiotic philosophical word games if you want to, but you're not going to change the fact that someone who has never heard of god(s) does not believe in god(s).
And is therefore an atheist.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


"Please explain how belief and disbelief can exist apart from a referent object (proposition). If you can do that, I will concede the argument and admit I'm wrong."
I've done that REPEATEDLY. You're just too stupid and stubborn to understand and accept it.
I explained it with the money example...which you rejected out of hand because it wasn't what YOU meant.
"I don't see any examples or effort on your part to make your point."
Okay, fuck you. Back to your bridge, troll. Never darken my internet with your presence again.
Show less

Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
1 week ago


+gambleor
*As for the alien race, I only am capable of disbelieving it now that you've mentioned it. *
wrong.
You had no possible way of either accepting or rejecting the notion before, therefore, you NECESSARILY disbelieved the claim, since you were UNABLE to accept the claim as true before then, due to your ignorance of the claim altogether.
You are only capable of believing or NOT believing the claim now that it has been mentioned.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
1 week ago


Finally! Someone who gets it!
Thank you!



Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
1 week ago


+BionicDance
it really isnt a difficult concept.  Why +gambleor is having such a hard time with it is quite baffling, honestly.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


He had to be trolling; nobody can be that stupid and still log onto the internet.



Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
1 week ago (edited)


+BionicDance
Also, i do enjoy the vids of yours that I end up watching.  Keep up the good work, as you seem to have a firm grasp on critical thinking and logic, something far too few possess.



Reply
 · 
2






BionicDance
1 week ago


I appreciate that, thanks! :)



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
5 days ago


+BionicDance Is it me, or did you just PWN Santa Claus's Redneck cousin? 



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
5 days ago


I get the distinct impression beardy there is under the distinct impression atheism means anti theism, an ideology actively opposed to theism.



Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
5 days ago


+VinnyMonster1
I don't know, but he keeps insisting that disbelief requires knowledge of the proposition.
Of course, one can not do ANYTHING but disbelieve until one is aware of a proposition, as the inability to accept a thing as true applies to claims that one has not been exposed to. I mean, how can you have the ability to believe or not believe before coming across the proposition? You can't.
+gambleor seems to think that people's opinions exist in something akin to a quantum state before being exposed to a proposition, where their position is actually a superposition of belief, disbelief, and nonbelief.
And the asshat has the nerve to start an entire thread to try and attack me on a point he has already lost so severely to +BionicDance, and wants to call me a coward for not wanting to waste my time rehashing the exact same debate he has already lost,
Show less

Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
5 days ago


+Jason Kay Sounds like he thinks he can win a debate merely by tiring his opponent. 



Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
4 days ago


It's amazing to me how people try to call you chicken if you don't let them pound on your forehead with rocks...



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


+BionicDance That is behaviour I'd normally only associate with a kindergarten bully 



Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
4 days ago


Welcome to the internet, where civility, maturity, and courtesy are suspended as a matter of course.



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


+BionicDance I rarely notice you suspend either.  Even when you're obviously pissed off.  You certainly didn't in that video. 



Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
4 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.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


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



Reply
 · 
1







Charlie sc6 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 Sylvas1 week ago







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

Reply
 · 




















Bunto Skiffler1 week ago







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

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Oh, it won't help; the guy is clearly too mentally deficient to understand.
Fortunately, I'm not actually trying to convince him...or, more specifically, I'm not trying to convince HIM.
Plenty of people are subscribed to me, and I'm really talking to them.



Reply
 · 








Charlie sc
6 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
5 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
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Dude...seriously; are you trying to turn this into drama? *raised eyebrow*



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


+BionicDance Would I do that?



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace It's not outside the realm of possibility.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


Awe....Shucks. ;)'



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace Yeah, well, my intention was to make this one video and drop it. So...fuel the fire all you like, if you feel you must. But I'm done.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


+BionicDance Ill believe it when i see it.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace But you won't see it.
That's the point.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


But...But... It's about the Evidence!



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace No...it's all about the Benjamins.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


That's the old guy who gets young , right?



Reply
 · 








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
 · 
2


















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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


I think you misunderstand the point.
The idea is to have a base from which to even start the discussion.
You start from "believe" and "do not believe". From there, you find the sub-categories as to why these states exist, stated with adjectives added to the "theist" and "atheist" macro-categories.
It makes the discussion even possible in the first place, because now there is an actual structure to the system; we'd be no longer quibbling over terminology and can actually discuss the topic rationally.
Without this, we will forever be arguing about definitions...and arguing about the reasons for belief or non-belief having something to do with whether a person can be classified as a believer (theist) or non-believer (atheist), and whether there is some third, neutral category...which there is not. It is impossible to neither believe nor not-believe; one must be in one of those two states.
See, you argue that I'm trying to re-define terms that are already in common use...but I think the fact that conversations about terminology, about semantics, have been raging in this community for years shows that there is no definition that is in "common-use".
So the point is to solidify these definitions in order to cease this pointless and frustrating wrangling so the conversation can begin for real, in earnest.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week ago


+BionicDance  Did you just try to state my 'motivation' or 'position' for me regards what I'm 'arguing'?
That aside, it sounds like you are, actually, agreeing with me on the second of my 2 points (and no, I'm not stating it, I'm asking, because that's what it sounds like when you say the point is to consolidate this bi-polar aspect in order to have the conversation - especially after merely dismissing any possible 3rd state out-of hand and seeming desire to include those without an actual opinion in a debate concerning the opinion once given)?
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+BrianJ1962 No...I stated my motivation and position with regard to what I'm arguing. And since you seem to be trying to debate my side on my video--and you're getting my point disastrously wrong--I think it's more than appropriate to explain to you your error. Otherwise you are the one trying to assign my position to me.
And I'm not dismissing a third state out of hand. If you think one exists, how about you try to explain to me what a third state between believing and not believing might look like. How can "I don't believe...but I also don't not believe," be even remotely logical?
It's not about not having an opinion; it's about whether one does or does not believe...for ANY reason. Not having an opinion is clearly a state of not believing.
I swear, it's like you didn't even watch the video before replying. *raised eyebrow* I don't want to have to re-state the case just to you, individually, when I already made it in the video.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week ago


+BionicDance Yeah - at which point I glaze over - as you seem intent on telling me "where I'm wrong" in response to my actually trying to understand where you're coming from. QED as per my earlier observations.
Have fun with your inflexibility with regards discussing anything other than what you are trying to "get across", K8te. Bye (again)
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+BrianJ1962 If you glaze over when someone is telling you you're incorrect, you miss out on why that's the case.
And if you're only trying to understand where I'm coming from, you're doing a damn good job of hiding it.
And, frankly, I haven't actually said that you're wrong...but I'd be quite justified in doing so, since you've misconstrued my point quite badly.
To be perfectly honest, you seem to have your hackles up, and are not responding at all well to criticism...and are trying to blame me for it. *pointed look*
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week ago


+BionicDance And now you're simply projecting - as none of this is evident in my comments.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+BrianJ1962 I'm afraid I must disagree.
For example: "Have fun with your inflexibility with regards discussing anything other than what you are trying to "get across"" <--- if that isn't snark, I don't know what is.
Or this: "after merely dismissing any possible 3rd state out-of hand and seeming desire to include those without an actual opinion in a debate concerning the opinion once given"
You seem quite devoid of anything resembling tact, You were dismissive, rude, took almost everything I said about as badly as possible.
Quite frankly, your behavior was clearly confrontational...and if that's not what you intended, then perhaps you ought to seriously consider adjusting how you respond to people, because that's how you come off.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week 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.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week 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







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
 · 




















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







Hide replies








hotdoh
1 week ago


I'd say the word "ignorance" isn't necessarily derogatory, but I imagine that the majority of the public will interpret it that way...which, in at least some way, does make it mostly derogatory in practice.



Reply
 · 
1






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. 
Show less

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.
Show less

Reply
 · 









claudiaquat1 week ago







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

Reply
 · 
3


















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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Well, don't go holding your breath; the man is mentally deficient. No insult intended, either; that's just an accurate description.
I posted my video on his, and all I'm getting back are insults or--on the rare occasion when he actually tries to answer one of my questions--a complete misunderstanding, answering something I never asked in the first place.
Seriously...I'm convinced he's retarded.
Show less

Reply
 · 








Robert WLester
1 week ago


+BionicDance LOL, agreed, he is a nutjob through and through :)
LOL, I'll note this rumour, a thing I've heard from a few people, he may have converted to get clean, to get of drugs, sadly the ones converted in this way are the worst kind, and criticism is like a boot to the knee(or worse).



Reply
 · 
1






Jacob Williams
1 week ago


@1:35 "and next of all.."
Effective way of moving onto your next point without knowing how many points you'll end up conjuring, and not needing to keep track of how many you've made. I shall use it henceforth.



Reply
 · 








Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)


Most people say, "2nd of all, and 3rd of all."
I figure you can get more points in if the listener doesn't know how many you've made. I'd interrupt someone if they said 4th or 5th of all. Very effective debate truth we've stumbled upon here. 



Reply
 · 








yadabub
1 week ago (edited)


Actually, "all babies" is not irrelevant:
1. One person lives their entire life, never having been exposed to the concept of god(s) and doesn't happen upon the god concept on their own.
2. Another  person is exposed to religion, but never convinced enough to garner belief.
3. A third person is exposed to religion, believes in god(s,) then later loses that belief.
The three have one thing in common: at the time of their birth and death they are not believers.  I would call them atheists.  The difference is that the first two never changed from the default position.  They were unbelievers as babies, and never did believe.  Many theists like to argue that belief in God is self-evident, that atheists are simply denying what everyone knows to be true.  This is incorrect, and the reason is that babies(and children unless indoctrinated) are atheists.  The fact that they are "ignorant atheists" doesn't change anything.
Show less

Reply
 · 








raboesperto
1 week ago


+BionicDance
Christianity: better than Bionicdance ...



Reply
 · 
1






Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)


The default position is an unconvincing argument for either side.
Evolution by natural selection is the mechanism for which we inherit all sorts of traits be they physical or psychological. It's easy to conceive that having a belief in an afterlife would benefit a particular tribe/species. Most notably in convincing the villagers that the other village must be destroyed. God wills it. I recon a lot of the unradical sapiens were killed off. There are vestigial behaviors or positions just as there are organs.
Show less

Reply
 · 








yadabub
1 week ago


+Jacob Williams I'm not sure if you are responding to me, but in any case I am unsure if there is a convincing argument for those who believe atheists are lying, evil, intentional deniers of God.



Reply
 · 








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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


I didn't wanna be the one to say it. :D



Reply
 · 
1






John Klein
1 week ago


In all reality he should have been a street sweeper. It's obvious from his lack of basic understanding of simple words he's not qualified for much else.



Reply
 · 








Kate Hoover
1 week ago


His heath care plan doesn't include visits to shrinks. Welfare only covers the basics.



Reply
 · 








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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Even if it is athe-ism, "atheos" means "without god", thus "athe-ism" is a lack of god...uh...ism.
It's the same word with the emphasis somewhere else, is all.



Reply
 · 
3






jiberish001
1 week ago


+BionicDance
I used to allow that variation in my explanations. But it more often than not just confuses them into thinking like Bruce does. lol



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+jiberish001 True, true...but some people try to get pedantic about it.
Again, it's the concept, not the label...but that idea seems to go over a lot of heads.



Reply
 · 








Robert WLester
1 week ago


+BionicDance we need a better term, the term bright is a good one, after all the real issue is not what you think but how you think, do you derive truth from the wishful assumptions of magical interventions or do you look at what's conformable and move forward from these rational foundations.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert WLester Honestly...? I don't much care for the term "Bright".
For starters, it sounds like an insult: "We're bright, and you're fucking retarded."
Maybe that's not the intention...but how does that help if someone gets their hackles up and won't listen to an explanation?
But second...it doesn't really say anything. It doesn't describe anything. Nowhere in the word "Bright" does it say, "Non-believer in deities."
In fact, it sounds no different than, say, "Atheism Plus"; it sounds like we've joined something, The Brights™. Like it's a club or a group of some kind.
So...no; I don't much care for that term.
Show less

Reply
 · 
2






Robert WLester
1 week ago


+BionicDance LOL, that's true, insulting in a way, and ripe for abuse from within, I guess.
I like to call myself a skeptic, although the same error arises in regards to religion, since theists would be skeptical of atheistic thinking.
LOL, I think it's funny how every group of atheists (by which ever term) seems to gain a mildly toxic odour as soon as someone opens their mouth, like setting an agenda, or a set of guidelines, suddenly the sky starts to fall, lol.
i guess atheist, as a general term, will do for now, best to stay with the lean cuts and not spend time crewing on the gristle :)
Show less

Reply
 · 








tctheunbeliever
1 week ago


+BionicDance I like your etymological examples (asymmetrical, asymptomatic, etc.)--I hadn't thought to look for those.



Reply
 · 








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
 · 




















badnewsBH1 week ago (edited)







I really get tired of such semantic gymnastics.  I don't care if my position comes to be described as "awesome possum", I'm still rejecting the god hypothesis until I see some very good evidence to indicated I should do otherwise.
Actually, "awesome possum" would rock.  I shall refer to myself as such from now on.  :P

Reply
 · 
1

















BionicDance
1 week ago


And I shall refer to myself as a "confidential coordinating first chief deputy executive assistant".



Reply
 · 
1







TheAtheistReasonist1 week ago







Love it! I've been wanting to address this guy on his many ignorant assumptions, Excellent execution Bionic Dance! :-)

Reply
 · 
2














Show more






























All comments (211)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 week ago









Reply
 · 
5







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. A proposition does not have to be considered to lack acceptance of it.
I'm sorry, but it seems to me as if you're manipulating words in order to establish a neutral ground...and there isn't one. Either a proposition has been accepted, or it hasn't...for ANY reason, not just after having weighed it.
If the number of gods a baby believes in is zero, then that baby lacks acceptance of the proposition of a god's existence, DESPITE having not considered the matter. I'm afraid this is inescapable: either you do believe or you don't; there is no middle ground.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


No. Acceptance or REJECTION is conditional of confronting a proposition; merely LACKING acceptance is something else entirely.
Your example of money misses the point entirely. The question is not about accepting or rejecting an offer or money...the question is about whether one HAS the money. Just as the question is about whether someone HAS belief in a god.
A baby either believes or doesn't believe; the question of having heard the proposition is irrelevant, except in determining WHY the baby believes or doesn't.
The problem is that you either don't understand or are not listening to my side. I feel as though you are trying to ASSIGN me a side to defend, one I do not hold.
Read more

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


See, again, you're side-stepping the issue, trying to re-frame it.
The money doesn't have to be OFFERED in order for one to not have it.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


facepalm No. WRONG.
You're still talking about accepting propositions; that's not the issue here. Your thinking on this matter is VERY distorted, to the point where I doubt our ability to communicate.
And, frankly, I think that at this point you don't so much care about communication, finding common ground, and actually reaching any kind of understanding of both our points and the truth.
I think you're just trying to WIN.
And I have no interest in that. So either dump some fucking hormones and actually have a REAL conversation...or we can end this right now. You choose.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


See, the problem is that you seem to think that "having a position" can only come from an explicitly-made decision. And that's simply not true.
How many gods does someone believe in if they've never heard of a god? Hmm? How many? I'm gonna go with zero...wouldn't you?
So when it comes to believing in gods, that person's position is that they don't...EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER MADE A DECISION ON THE MATTER. Even though they cannot STATE that they don't believe...they still DON'T. And that is their position.
There is your example. Please understand it, because it's the same thing I've been saying all along...which you seem unable--or is it unwilling?--to grasp. You've got to break out of this thinking that a position someone holds is a conscious, knowing, explicitly-decided state of being. Because that is narrow thinking that does not cover every possibility.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


facepalm It's the person who is NOT going to do the offering--the potential receiver--that doesn't have the money, not the other way around.
...is our lack of understanding each other here a problem when it comes to critical reading? raised eyebrow



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


I'm sorry, but I reject your analogy; you're framing it as being asked a question about which one gives a conscious answer. You're expecting the position to be a KNOWING one...and that's not the only kind.
Which is what I've been trying to get you to realize this whole time.

It's like you've got a barrier up; you seem to shy away from the point I'm making every time you come even close to it. It's like you won't even consider the possibility I'm raising, that of having an unknowing position on something.
There are several reasons why your analogy does not work: first, it requires prior experience; you seem unable or unwilling to consider someone's state before having had that prior experience.
Second, taste is a biological condition: whether one's taste buds and brain chemistry will respond to the chemical reactions regarding chicken. This is not the same as having come to a reasoned conclusion about an intellectual proposition...or not.
So I must reject your analogy as not addressing a truly parallel scenario.
The money analogy was much better, frankly. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?
Step 1 - Person A does not have money. They have not been offered the money yet, but they still do not have it.
Step 2 - Person B offers the money to Person A;  Person A either takes the money or does not.
Step 3 - If Person A took the money from Person B, they now have the money. If Person A did not take the money from Person B, they still do not have the money.
Now, let's apply this to god-belief:
Step 1 - Baby has never heard of god (does not have the money). They have not been told of god by Adult (has not been offered the money), so they do not have belief in god (still do not have the money).
Step 2 - Adult tells Baby of god (offers the money). Baby either believes Adult (takes the money) or does not believe Adult (does not take the money)
Step 3 - If Baby believed Adult (took the money), they now believe in god (have the money). If Baby did not believe Adult (did not take the money), they do not believe in god (do not have the money).
...please tell me that this helps you to understand now. PLEASE.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


Dude, I already know what you meant; I'm telling you that it's wrong.
You're trying to equate belief or non-belief as something that can ONLY happen after the opportunity to try to believe or not--or, as you put it, after the offer has been made--rather than a state or variable that always exists.
...and you're wrong about that.
The problem here is that you and I are having to completely different conversations.
I'm talking about belief being present or not; you're talking about an informed decision.
These are two different questions. I'm sorry, but you are off--I repeat, off--topic.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago (edited)


Okay, let me explain something to you:
"...something that can only happen after the opportunity to try..."
"...dispositions that necessarily relate to a proposition..."
In my world, those both mean EXACTLY the same thing. A proposition is something explicitly presented to someone for a response or reaction to it...which is giving them to opportunity to try to believe or not.
"One cannot hold a disposition toward a proposition that one is not aware of."
Well, belief is NOT NECESSARILY a "disposition toward a proposition"; as I've illustrated, belief can be not-present BECAUSE the proposition has not yet been put forward.
I'm sorry, but yes...we ARE talking about different things. And if we're not, then I would you to explain to me EXACTLY how someone who has not been exposed to the concept of god is believing in any number of gods OTHER than zero.
And if your answer is 'nil', I'm sorry, but I will not accept that as a valid answer; there is no difference between 'nil' and 'zero' in this context.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


But, again, you're putting this 100% in terms of what someone is conscious of, and not allowing there to be a default starting point.
I'm afraid it is you who is making the categorical error here. Belief really is an on-or-off, yes-or-no, does-or-doesn't variable; it does not matter whether someone is aware of which state they're in. It's either yea or nay; it cannot be anything else.
The term 'belief' most emphatically does exist in the absence of a proposition; I fail to see how it could not.
And the answer is that the number of gods he believes in is zero; if he doesn't know what gods are, explain to me how many he believes in.
A relationship may not exist between the individual and the concept, but that's WHY the individual believes in zero gods. But the reason--lacking a relationship with the proposition--does not negate this lack of belief, it only explains it.
And, I'm sorry, but you are the one using those terms incorrectly; "belief", "non-belief", and "disbelief" have NOTHING TO DO with propositions...they have to do with belief being present or not. And that's all. Observe:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelief
noun
1 - the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
Are you seriously telling me that someone who has never heard the proposition that a god exists is able to believe in god(s)? *raised eyebrow* No, they clearly are not. Thus, they disbelieve.
It really is that simple.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
1 week ago


"My" definition doesn't do that at all; where are you getting that from? *boggle*
And now you're reinterpreting "inability" in a way that suits your case...but that is NOT the only way that "inability" can be used. If someone is unable to do something, that may have something to do with their capability...but it can also have to do with their having had the opportunity.
Your reinterpretation leads me to believe you may, in fact, be dishonest.
I'm afraid this conversation is over. Your next paragraph is nothing but a tangled web of reinterpretations, redefinitions, and ignoring ideas and words that do not suit your case.
THIS IS DISHONESTY.
And I have no use for people whose entire case is nothing more than prevarication.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
1 week ago


"You can't even get that far unless you are met with the proposition. "
Look, I don't know how I put this any clearer: Bull. Fucking. Shit.
If you have not been met with the proposition, THEN ONE THING YOU CANNOT DO IS BELIEVE.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? *rolls eyes*
And I did read your second paragraph. Like I said, it was nothing but equivocation and prevarication; you broke down the definition THE WAY YOU WANTED, ignoring any possible alternate interpretation--of which there are several--that would have been inconvenient to your premise.
Which, as I said...is dishonest.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


I didn't say that stating your case was dishonest... I said that leaving out inconvenient details and reinterpreting things to suit your needs is dishonest.
And I DID present to you the correct interpretation of the definition; I did it BEFORE your reinterpretation. *shakes head sadly*
And I know that your argument is that you cannot disbelieve the proposition...and I've already asked you to explain how that is possible.
At least one of the definitions of disbelief matches the interpretation I'VE been putting forth, namely not having any. But YOU have been behaving as if that definition does not exist or is invalid in this context...and that's bullshit. It's dishonest. There is a valid and relevant definition of a critical word that is DESTROYING your case...which you are avoiding as hard as you can.
So, I'm sorry, but you are dishonest and you are WRONG.
Now, if you want to rephrase your case so that you are ONLY talking about active belief and active disbelief--EXPLICIT belief or disbelief--then, FINE.
But passive disbelief exists, and it describes the state a baby or someone who has never heard of god(s) is in. Get the fuck used to it, because I am sick and tired of going 'round and 'round and 'round, repeating myself endlessly because you're doing a great brick wall imitation.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


No, you most emphatically HAVE left out details and reinterpreted things. You ignored one definition of "disbelief", then reinterpreted it so that it meant what you WANTED it to mean, instead of a perfectly valid interpretation that defeated your arguments. That is EXACTLY what you did.
_"This is the explanation to how you cannot disbelieve a proposition you have no idea exists: One cannot disbelieve a proposition that does not exist." _
BULLSHIT. Right now, you don't believe in a fictional alien race you've never heard of; you disbelieve their existence, DESPITE HAVING NEVER HEARD OF THEM.
Just the way a baby disbelieves in the god its never heard of.

_"The nature of belief and the nature of disbelief is relational." _
They're only "relational" in that they're opposites.
"I say "I believe" without providing the referenced object to which the term would apply (in this case, the proposition "god exists") then I have made a meaningless statement."
And the fact that your example is about saying something only proves what I've been saying all along: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS.
"If I say "I disbelieve" without providing the referenced object to which the term would apply (in this case, the proposition "god exists") then I have, again, made a meaningless statement."
Yes, that would be a meaningless STATEMENT. But we're not TALKING about statements.
What we are talking about is STATES OF BEING.
Is Person A currently in a state of believing in god? They've never heard of god...so they can hardly believe, can they? So they don't believe. They are in a state of not believing in god. Therefore, they disbelieve in the god they've never heard of BECAUSE they've never heard of that deity.
It's that simple. It's not about making STATEMENTS...it's about being in a certain state.
"That's why, in the definition you provided for disbelief (the inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true), I took efforts to point out the fact that the term inability, in this situation, was intimately tied to disposition toward an object, and therefore a comment on capacity and not means."
And THIS is exactly what I mean when I say that you reinterpreted...because NO, IT FUCKING DOESN'T refer to capacity and not means; that is only ONE interpretation...and you're ignoring the inconvenient one.
And even if it DID refer to capacity, you don't have the capacity if you've never heard of something; the ability to believe in it is not there.
No matter how you twist and turn, the fact is that You. Are. WRONG.
The reason I appear to you to be doing a brick wall impression is not because I'm actually doing one, it's because I have to keep repeating myself since the points I've raised have not been adequately addressed.
No, the fact that the points you've raised have have not been addressed to your satisfaction is because they're BULLSHIT. I keep trying to point out where you've gone off the rails and you keep either ignoring or reinterpreting in order to hold onto your mistakes just as hard as you can. You seem unable or unwilling to accept that you've gotten it wrong.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


Hell, your entire argument is bullshit.
It's based entirely on the completely absurd notion that never having heard of a god actually changes something..
I'm dealing in realities, here: is belief in a god present or not. I don't care about why...I just care about whether or not.
You can go play your idiotic philosophical word games if you want to, but you're not going to change the fact that someone who has never heard of god(s) does not believe in god(s).
And is therefore an atheist.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


"Please explain how belief and disbelief can exist apart from a referent object (proposition). If you can do that, I will concede the argument and admit I'm wrong."
I've done that REPEATEDLY. You're just too stupid and stubborn to understand and accept it.
I explained it with the money example...which you rejected out of hand because it wasn't what YOU meant.
"I don't see any examples or effort on your part to make your point."
Okay, fuck you. Back to your bridge, troll. Never darken my internet with your presence again.
Show less

Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
1 week ago


+gambleor
*As for the alien race, I only am capable of disbelieving it now that you've mentioned it. *
wrong.
You had no possible way of either accepting or rejecting the notion before, therefore, you NECESSARILY disbelieved the claim, since you were UNABLE to accept the claim as true before then, due to your ignorance of the claim altogether.
You are only capable of believing or NOT believing the claim now that it has been mentioned.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
1 week ago


Finally! Someone who gets it!
Thank you!



Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
1 week ago


+BionicDance
it really isnt a difficult concept.  Why +gambleor is having such a hard time with it is quite baffling, honestly.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


He had to be trolling; nobody can be that stupid and still log onto the internet.



Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
1 week ago (edited)


+BionicDance
Also, i do enjoy the vids of yours that I end up watching.  Keep up the good work, as you seem to have a firm grasp on critical thinking and logic, something far too few possess.



Reply
 · 
2






BionicDance
1 week ago


I appreciate that, thanks! :)



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
5 days ago


+BionicDance Is it me, or did you just PWN Santa Claus's Redneck cousin? 



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
5 days ago


I get the distinct impression beardy there is under the distinct impression atheism means anti theism, an ideology actively opposed to theism.



Reply
 · 








Jason Kay
5 days ago


+VinnyMonster1
I don't know, but he keeps insisting that disbelief requires knowledge of the proposition.
Of course, one can not do ANYTHING but disbelieve until one is aware of a proposition, as the inability to accept a thing as true applies to claims that one has not been exposed to. I mean, how can you have the ability to believe or not believe before coming across the proposition? You can't.
+gambleor seems to think that people's opinions exist in something akin to a quantum state before being exposed to a proposition, where their position is actually a superposition of belief, disbelief, and nonbelief.
And the asshat has the nerve to start an entire thread to try and attack me on a point he has already lost so severely to +BionicDance, and wants to call me a coward for not wanting to waste my time rehashing the exact same debate he has already lost,
Show less

Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
5 days ago


+Jason Kay Sounds like he thinks he can win a debate merely by tiring his opponent. 



Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
4 days ago


It's amazing to me how people try to call you chicken if you don't let them pound on your forehead with rocks...



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


+BionicDance That is behaviour I'd normally only associate with a kindergarten bully 



Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
4 days ago


Welcome to the internet, where civility, maturity, and courtesy are suspended as a matter of course.



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


+BionicDance I rarely notice you suspend either.  Even when you're obviously pissed off.  You certainly didn't in that video. 



Reply
 · 
1






BionicDance
4 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.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
4 days ago


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



Reply
 · 
1







Charlie sc6 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 Sylvas1 week ago







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

Reply
 · 




















Bunto Skiffler1 week ago







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

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Oh, it won't help; the guy is clearly too mentally deficient to understand.
Fortunately, I'm not actually trying to convince him...or, more specifically, I'm not trying to convince HIM.
Plenty of people are subscribed to me, and I'm really talking to them.



Reply
 · 








Charlie sc
6 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
5 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
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Dude...seriously; are you trying to turn this into drama? *raised eyebrow*



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


+BionicDance Would I do that?



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace It's not outside the realm of possibility.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


Awe....Shucks. ;)'



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace Yeah, well, my intention was to make this one video and drop it. So...fuel the fire all you like, if you feel you must. But I'm done.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


+BionicDance Ill believe it when i see it.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace But you won't see it.
That's the point.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


But...But... It's about the Evidence!



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert Wallace No...it's all about the Benjamins.



Reply
 · 








Robert Wallace
1 week ago


That's the old guy who gets young , right?



Reply
 · 








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
 · 
2


















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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


I think you misunderstand the point.
The idea is to have a base from which to even start the discussion.
You start from "believe" and "do not believe". From there, you find the sub-categories as to why these states exist, stated with adjectives added to the "theist" and "atheist" macro-categories.
It makes the discussion even possible in the first place, because now there is an actual structure to the system; we'd be no longer quibbling over terminology and can actually discuss the topic rationally.
Without this, we will forever be arguing about definitions...and arguing about the reasons for belief or non-belief having something to do with whether a person can be classified as a believer (theist) or non-believer (atheist), and whether there is some third, neutral category...which there is not. It is impossible to neither believe nor not-believe; one must be in one of those two states.
See, you argue that I'm trying to re-define terms that are already in common use...but I think the fact that conversations about terminology, about semantics, have been raging in this community for years shows that there is no definition that is in "common-use".
So the point is to solidify these definitions in order to cease this pointless and frustrating wrangling so the conversation can begin for real, in earnest.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week ago


+BionicDance  Did you just try to state my 'motivation' or 'position' for me regards what I'm 'arguing'?
That aside, it sounds like you are, actually, agreeing with me on the second of my 2 points (and no, I'm not stating it, I'm asking, because that's what it sounds like when you say the point is to consolidate this bi-polar aspect in order to have the conversation - especially after merely dismissing any possible 3rd state out-of hand and seeming desire to include those without an actual opinion in a debate concerning the opinion once given)?
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+BrianJ1962 No...I stated my motivation and position with regard to what I'm arguing. And since you seem to be trying to debate my side on my video--and you're getting my point disastrously wrong--I think it's more than appropriate to explain to you your error. Otherwise you are the one trying to assign my position to me.
And I'm not dismissing a third state out of hand. If you think one exists, how about you try to explain to me what a third state between believing and not believing might look like. How can "I don't believe...but I also don't not believe," be even remotely logical?
It's not about not having an opinion; it's about whether one does or does not believe...for ANY reason. Not having an opinion is clearly a state of not believing.
I swear, it's like you didn't even watch the video before replying. *raised eyebrow* I don't want to have to re-state the case just to you, individually, when I already made it in the video.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week ago


+BionicDance Yeah - at which point I glaze over - as you seem intent on telling me "where I'm wrong" in response to my actually trying to understand where you're coming from. QED as per my earlier observations.
Have fun with your inflexibility with regards discussing anything other than what you are trying to "get across", K8te. Bye (again)
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+BrianJ1962 If you glaze over when someone is telling you you're incorrect, you miss out on why that's the case.
And if you're only trying to understand where I'm coming from, you're doing a damn good job of hiding it.
And, frankly, I haven't actually said that you're wrong...but I'd be quite justified in doing so, since you've misconstrued my point quite badly.
To be perfectly honest, you seem to have your hackles up, and are not responding at all well to criticism...and are trying to blame me for it. *pointed look*
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week ago


+BionicDance And now you're simply projecting - as none of this is evident in my comments.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+BrianJ1962 I'm afraid I must disagree.
For example: "Have fun with your inflexibility with regards discussing anything other than what you are trying to "get across"" <--- if that isn't snark, I don't know what is.
Or this: "after merely dismissing any possible 3rd state out-of hand and seeming desire to include those without an actual opinion in a debate concerning the opinion once given"
You seem quite devoid of anything resembling tact, You were dismissive, rude, took almost everything I said about as badly as possible.
Quite frankly, your behavior was clearly confrontational...and if that's not what you intended, then perhaps you ought to seriously consider adjusting how you respond to people, because that's how you come off.
Show less

Reply
 · 
1






BrianJ1962
1 week 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.
Show less

Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week 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







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
 · 




















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







Hide replies








hotdoh
1 week ago


I'd say the word "ignorance" isn't necessarily derogatory, but I imagine that the majority of the public will interpret it that way...which, in at least some way, does make it mostly derogatory in practice.



Reply
 · 
1






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. 
Show less

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.
Show less

Reply
 · 









claudiaquat1 week ago







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

Reply
 · 
3


















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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Well, don't go holding your breath; the man is mentally deficient. No insult intended, either; that's just an accurate description.
I posted my video on his, and all I'm getting back are insults or--on the rare occasion when he actually tries to answer one of my questions--a complete misunderstanding, answering something I never asked in the first place.
Seriously...I'm convinced he's retarded.
Show less

Reply
 · 








Robert WLester
1 week ago


+BionicDance LOL, agreed, he is a nutjob through and through :)
LOL, I'll note this rumour, a thing I've heard from a few people, he may have converted to get clean, to get of drugs, sadly the ones converted in this way are the worst kind, and criticism is like a boot to the knee(or worse).



Reply
 · 
1






Jacob Williams
1 week ago


@1:35 "and next of all.."
Effective way of moving onto your next point without knowing how many points you'll end up conjuring, and not needing to keep track of how many you've made. I shall use it henceforth.



Reply
 · 








Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)


Most people say, "2nd of all, and 3rd of all."
I figure you can get more points in if the listener doesn't know how many you've made. I'd interrupt someone if they said 4th or 5th of all. Very effective debate truth we've stumbled upon here. 



Reply
 · 








yadabub
1 week ago (edited)


Actually, "all babies" is not irrelevant:
1. One person lives their entire life, never having been exposed to the concept of god(s) and doesn't happen upon the god concept on their own.
2. Another  person is exposed to religion, but never convinced enough to garner belief.
3. A third person is exposed to religion, believes in god(s,) then later loses that belief.
The three have one thing in common: at the time of their birth and death they are not believers.  I would call them atheists.  The difference is that the first two never changed from the default position.  They were unbelievers as babies, and never did believe.  Many theists like to argue that belief in God is self-evident, that atheists are simply denying what everyone knows to be true.  This is incorrect, and the reason is that babies(and children unless indoctrinated) are atheists.  The fact that they are "ignorant atheists" doesn't change anything.
Show less

Reply
 · 








raboesperto
1 week ago


+BionicDance
Christianity: better than Bionicdance ...



Reply
 · 
1






Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)


The default position is an unconvincing argument for either side.
Evolution by natural selection is the mechanism for which we inherit all sorts of traits be they physical or psychological. It's easy to conceive that having a belief in an afterlife would benefit a particular tribe/species. Most notably in convincing the villagers that the other village must be destroyed. God wills it. I recon a lot of the unradical sapiens were killed off. There are vestigial behaviors or positions just as there are organs.
Show less

Reply
 · 








yadabub
1 week ago


+Jacob Williams I'm not sure if you are responding to me, but in any case I am unsure if there is a convincing argument for those who believe atheists are lying, evil, intentional deniers of God.



Reply
 · 








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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


I didn't wanna be the one to say it. :D



Reply
 · 
1






John Klein
1 week ago


In all reality he should have been a street sweeper. It's obvious from his lack of basic understanding of simple words he's not qualified for much else.



Reply
 · 








Kate Hoover
1 week ago


His heath care plan doesn't include visits to shrinks. Welfare only covers the basics.



Reply
 · 








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







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 week ago


Even if it is athe-ism, "atheos" means "without god", thus "athe-ism" is a lack of god...uh...ism.
It's the same word with the emphasis somewhere else, is all.



Reply
 · 
3






jiberish001
1 week ago


+BionicDance
I used to allow that variation in my explanations. But it more often than not just confuses them into thinking like Bruce does. lol



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+jiberish001 True, true...but some people try to get pedantic about it.
Again, it's the concept, not the label...but that idea seems to go over a lot of heads.



Reply
 · 








Robert WLester
1 week ago


+BionicDance we need a better term, the term bright is a good one, after all the real issue is not what you think but how you think, do you derive truth from the wishful assumptions of magical interventions or do you look at what's conformable and move forward from these rational foundations.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 week ago


+Robert WLester Honestly...? I don't much care for the term "Bright".
For starters, it sounds like an insult: "We're bright, and you're fucking retarded."
Maybe that's not the intention...but how does that help if someone gets their hackles up and won't listen to an explanation?
But second...it doesn't really say anything. It doesn't describe anything. Nowhere in the word "Bright" does it say, "Non-believer in deities."
In fact, it sounds no different than, say, "Atheism Plus"; it sounds like we've joined something, The Brights™. Like it's a club or a group of some kind.
So...no; I don't much care for that term.
Show less

Reply
 · 
2






Robert WLester
1 week ago


+BionicDance LOL, that's true, insulting in a way, and ripe for abuse from within, I guess.
I like to call myself a skeptic, although the same error arises in regards to religion, since theists would be skeptical of atheistic thinking.
LOL, I think it's funny how every group of atheists (by which ever term) seems to gain a mildly toxic odour as soon as someone opens their mouth, like setting an agenda, or a set of guidelines, suddenly the sky starts to fall, lol.
i guess atheist, as a general term, will do for now, best to stay with the lean cuts and not spend time crewing on the gristle :)
Show less

Reply
 · 








tctheunbeliever
1 week ago


+BionicDance I like your etymological examples (asymmetrical, asymptomatic, etc.)--I hadn't thought to look for those.



Reply
 · 








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
 · 




















badnewsBH1 week ago (edited)







I really get tired of such semantic gymnastics.  I don't care if my position comes to be described as "awesome possum", I'm still rejecting the god hypothesis until I see some very good evidence to indicated I should do otherwise.
Actually, "awesome possum" would rock.  I shall refer to myself as such from now on.  :P

Reply
 · 
1

















BionicDance
1 week ago


And I shall refer to myself as a "confidential coordinating first chief deputy executive assistant".



Reply
 · 
1







TheAtheistReasonist1 week ago







Love it! I've been wanting to address this guy on his many ignorant assumptions, Excellent execution Bionic Dance! :-)

Reply
 · 
2














Show more




















































All comments (141)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance2 days ago









Reply
 · 
9







View all 18 replies








dimbulb23
1 day ago


+VinnyMonster1  I see what you're saying but I'd say it's a little more complex.  Christianity preaches that we are dirt, crap from birth and only god can save us.  It's a funny kind of arrogance that would swallow that.  It's only later that the arrogance blooms from the desperation planted by the religion itself which is later replaced by the belief that they have overcome a sinful nature that they never actually had....   In my case, I think it was my own arrogant belief that I should trust my own judgment and make up my own mind that led me to reject the nonsense from the beginning.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+dimbulb23 Yeah, Christianity is one of those religions based on fear and guilt. 



Reply
 · 









gothatfunk1 day ago







god is hiding? lol, who knew god was a scaredy cat?

Reply
 · 
1







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Maybe he's just waiting for us to finish counting to 100.



Reply
 · 
2






Ezio Realta
1 day ago


He better hide, bitch owes me money



Reply
 · 
4






Tiwaking Tiwaking
23 hours ago


I thought he was hiding in Russell's Teapot



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
23 hours ago


No...that's Schrodinger's Cat. ;)



Reply
 · 
1







WildwoodClaire11 day ago







I can't tell either but I tend toward "poe," or at least desperate attention seeker. 

Reply
 · 
5







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Those two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, of course...



Reply
 · 








WildwoodClaire1
1 day ago


+BionicDance True. Poes are, by definition, seeking attention. 



Reply
 · 








Robert Nugent
1 day ago


Technically, it's a Poe if you can't tell the difference, not whether it's satirical or not. So if you have to ask, it's a Poe.



Reply
 · 
1






Justin Howlett
1 day ago


+WildwoodClaire1
 By that definitions, we are all poes when you think about it.



Reply
 · 









117Jorn22 hours ago







Okay... I didn't want to sound like and idiot asking this, but I gotta ask... What Simpsons Episode is that with the old guy, and what the heck is he saying? Its sounding like he's saying 'Its a Peddling'?

Reply
 · 









View all 5 replies








117Jorn
9 hours ago


+BionicDance
 Well, I never saw it until I started watching your videos. And I'm only recently starting to watch the Simpsons because my Parents never let me watch it when I was a kid.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
9 hours ago


+117Jorn You have my sympathies.
But at least it's all coming right in the end. :)



Reply
 · 









Chris Cunningham1 day ago







This guy's a trip. XD

Reply
 · 




















GreatPirateSolomon1 day ago







Sorry Chase, its not your words we feed on, its your sweet delicious tears.

Reply
 · 




















Dakota Graftt1 day ago







Your videos are so retro... I love it.

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 day ago


I'm an 80s kid to the very core. :)



Reply
 · 
1







Robert Wallace1 day ago







That guy is funny, it's like he thinks religion is all we have...

Reply
 · 
1


















Kate Hoover1 day ago







He obviously thinks that "Atheist" is a job description. As if we had nothing better to do than debunking spiritual nonsense. We wouldn't starve without religious nutjobs - we'd just call it a day and go to bed. Sadly, some of us fire up YT - at the end of an honest days work - and are hit by utter spiritual bollocks.  Sadly, we consider it our duty, to enlighten the mentally challenged.  As pointless as it seems . . . 

Reply
 · 




















uncleanunicorn1 day ago







Because Christian babies taste the sweetest.

Reply
 · 



















DeHerg
1 day ago


you should try jewish baby, braised in sauce chasseur (with backed potatoes)
hhmmmmm le magnifique
after that you never gonna go back to christian



Reply
 · 









rebbyra1 day ago







Much doubt in this one I sense.  Yeesssssss.

Reply
 · 




















Bunto Skiffler1 day ago (edited)







He kinda looks like a GI-joe doll.... good hair.

Reply
 · 
1


















al m1 day ago







I've dealt with him before. His views are out there and he has nothing of substance to back himself up. He's a poe

Reply
 · 




















Philip Wagner1 day ago







Poe or no, a clown is a clown.

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester1 day ago







The bottom line is science is a lot of hard work, religion is lazy.

Reply
 · 




















Shay C1 day ago







Love your message.

Reply
 · 
1







Hide replies








Shay C
1 day ago


This guy should be neutered.



Reply
 · 
2






MAKELOVENOTWAR1231
1 day ago


+Shay C Lol I'm sure there in for a big supprise when they drop there body and there still alive looking down at themselves lol cheers shay siCs



Reply
 · 
1






Shay C
1 day ago


+MAKELOVENOTWAR1231 oh goodness! I didn't mean bionic dance should be neutered. I was referring to the judgmental person he was referring to. I personally believe live and let live. It doesn't bother me if you believed that a purple and green girraff came up from the middle of the earth and blessed you. As long as you are kind and don't harp on me about what I believe, we are good. :)



Reply
 · 
2






MAKELOVENOTWAR1231
1 day ago


+Shay C That was so beautifully said I couldn't agree more live and let live ;) well said lol



Reply
 · 
2







TB Tabby1 day ago







If you renounce Jesus, don't say anything.

Reply
 · 




















Justin Atheist1 day ago







Now I am hungry for baby.......

Reply
 · 



















DoctorScarlet
1 day ago


Your profile pic makes it hard to doubt that.
Why do you do this?



Reply
 · 








Justin Atheist
1 day ago


Because I can.



Reply
 · 
2







Griffin98571 day ago







The only 100% proof I can show evidence for, comes in a glass bottle.

Reply
 · 
1







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


*sad trombone*



Reply
 · 
2






Griffin9857
1 day ago


You love it :P



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 If'n yer gunna steal my lines, at least get 'em right, girlie!



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


Not your line. Neener.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 Is too.



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance Prove it. :P



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 Do you really want me to post our Skype and Facebook chats here on YouTube? *raised eyebrow*



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance Erm.... No.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 I didn't think so. ;)



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance You're just sore that you didn't come up with my line :P



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 Yeah...cuz you're the one who always says that when people think a joke is groan-worthy. :P



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance What? The sad trombone? Pffft.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 No..."You know you love it."
That.



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance Oh well :)



Reply
 · 









frdbSteamer2 days ago







If god is perfectly hidden, then who is to blame that we can't find him?

Reply
 · 
1

















Tom Rogers
1 day ago


And why did he stop gallivanting all over the ME and interacting his ass off with his creations? Somewhere in the timeline god got tired of it all, and he hasn't been seen since. 



Reply
 · 
2



Show more





































All comments (141)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance2 days ago









Reply
 · 
9







View all 18 replies








dimbulb23
1 day ago


+VinnyMonster1  I see what you're saying but I'd say it's a little more complex.  Christianity preaches that we are dirt, crap from birth and only god can save us.  It's a funny kind of arrogance that would swallow that.  It's only later that the arrogance blooms from the desperation planted by the religion itself which is later replaced by the belief that they have overcome a sinful nature that they never actually had....   In my case, I think it was my own arrogant belief that I should trust my own judgment and make up my own mind that led me to reject the nonsense from the beginning.
Read more

Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+dimbulb23 Yeah, Christianity is one of those religions based on fear and guilt. 



Reply
 · 









gothatfunk1 day ago







god is hiding? lol, who knew god was a scaredy cat?

Reply
 · 
1







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Maybe he's just waiting for us to finish counting to 100.



Reply
 · 
2






Ezio Realta
1 day ago


He better hide, bitch owes me money



Reply
 · 
4






Tiwaking Tiwaking
23 hours ago


I thought he was hiding in Russell's Teapot



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
23 hours ago


No...that's Schrodinger's Cat. ;)



Reply
 · 
1







WildwoodClaire11 day ago







I can't tell either but I tend toward "poe," or at least desperate attention seeker. 

Reply
 · 
5







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Those two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, of course...



Reply
 · 








WildwoodClaire1
1 day ago


+BionicDance True. Poes are, by definition, seeking attention. 



Reply
 · 








Robert Nugent
1 day ago


Technically, it's a Poe if you can't tell the difference, not whether it's satirical or not. So if you have to ask, it's a Poe.



Reply
 · 
1






Justin Howlett
1 day ago


+WildwoodClaire1
 By that definitions, we are all poes when you think about it.



Reply
 · 









117Jorn22 hours ago







Okay... I didn't want to sound like and idiot asking this, but I gotta ask... What Simpsons Episode is that with the old guy, and what the heck is he saying? Its sounding like he's saying 'Its a Peddling'?

Reply
 · 









View all 5 replies








117Jorn
9 hours ago


+BionicDance
 Well, I never saw it until I started watching your videos. And I'm only recently starting to watch the Simpsons because my Parents never let me watch it when I was a kid.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
9 hours ago


+117Jorn You have my sympathies.
But at least it's all coming right in the end. :)



Reply
 · 









Chris Cunningham1 day ago







This guy's a trip. XD

Reply
 · 




















GreatPirateSolomon1 day ago







Sorry Chase, its not your words we feed on, its your sweet delicious tears.

Reply
 · 




















Dakota Graftt1 day ago







Your videos are so retro... I love it.

Reply
 · 



















BionicDance
1 day ago


I'm an 80s kid to the very core. :)



Reply
 · 
1







Robert Wallace1 day ago







That guy is funny, it's like he thinks religion is all we have...

Reply
 · 
1


















Kate Hoover1 day ago







He obviously thinks that "Atheist" is a job description. As if we had nothing better to do than debunking spiritual nonsense. We wouldn't starve without religious nutjobs - we'd just call it a day and go to bed. Sadly, some of us fire up YT - at the end of an honest days work - and are hit by utter spiritual bollocks.  Sadly, we consider it our duty, to enlighten the mentally challenged.  As pointless as it seems . . . 

Reply
 · 




















uncleanunicorn1 day ago







Because Christian babies taste the sweetest.

Reply
 · 



















DeHerg
1 day ago


you should try jewish baby, braised in sauce chasseur (with backed potatoes)
hhmmmmm le magnifique
after that you never gonna go back to christian



Reply
 · 









rebbyra1 day ago







Much doubt in this one I sense.  Yeesssssss.

Reply
 · 




















Bunto Skiffler1 day ago (edited)







He kinda looks like a GI-joe doll.... good hair.

Reply
 · 
1


















al m1 day ago







I've dealt with him before. His views are out there and he has nothing of substance to back himself up. He's a poe

Reply
 · 




















Philip Wagner1 day ago







Poe or no, a clown is a clown.

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester1 day ago







The bottom line is science is a lot of hard work, religion is lazy.

Reply
 · 




















Shay C1 day ago







Love your message.

Reply
 · 
1







Hide replies








Shay C
1 day ago


This guy should be neutered.



Reply
 · 
2






MAKELOVENOTWAR1231
1 day ago


+Shay C Lol I'm sure there in for a big supprise when they drop there body and there still alive looking down at themselves lol cheers shay siCs



Reply
 · 
1






Shay C
1 day ago


+MAKELOVENOTWAR1231 oh goodness! I didn't mean bionic dance should be neutered. I was referring to the judgmental person he was referring to. I personally believe live and let live. It doesn't bother me if you believed that a purple and green girraff came up from the middle of the earth and blessed you. As long as you are kind and don't harp on me about what I believe, we are good. :)



Reply
 · 
2






MAKELOVENOTWAR1231
1 day ago


+Shay C That was so beautifully said I couldn't agree more live and let live ;) well said lol



Reply
 · 
2







TB Tabby1 day ago







If you renounce Jesus, don't say anything.

Reply
 · 




















Justin Atheist1 day ago







Now I am hungry for baby.......

Reply
 · 



















DoctorScarlet
1 day ago


Your profile pic makes it hard to doubt that.
Why do you do this?



Reply
 · 








Justin Atheist
1 day ago


Because I can.



Reply
 · 
2







Griffin98571 day ago







The only 100% proof I can show evidence for, comes in a glass bottle.

Reply
 · 
1







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


*sad trombone*



Reply
 · 
2






Griffin9857
1 day ago


You love it :P



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 If'n yer gunna steal my lines, at least get 'em right, girlie!



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


Not your line. Neener.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 Is too.



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance Prove it. :P



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 Do you really want me to post our Skype and Facebook chats here on YouTube? *raised eyebrow*



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance Erm.... No.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 I didn't think so. ;)



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance You're just sore that you didn't come up with my line :P



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 Yeah...cuz you're the one who always says that when people think a joke is groan-worthy. :P



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance What? The sad trombone? Pffft.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
1 day ago


+Griffin9857 No..."You know you love it."
That.



Reply
 · 








Griffin9857
1 day ago


+BionicDance Oh well :)



Reply
 · 









frdbSteamer2 days ago







If god is perfectly hidden, then who is to blame that we can't find him?

Reply
 · 
1

















Tom Rogers
1 day ago


And why did he stop gallivanting all over the ME and interacting his ass off with his creations? Somewhere in the timeline god got tired of it all, and he hasn't been seen since. 



Reply
 · 
2



Show more




















































All comments (117)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 day ago









Reply
 · 
3

















Derekswearsalot Pratticurse
1 day ago


The only mental deficiency going on is the indoctrinated religizombie's ability to process logical thought and reasoning. 



Reply
 · 
6







gothatfunk1 day ago







what a condescending prick.

Reply
 · 
13







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Yes, yes...but what do you think of the guy I was responding to? ;)



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance Actually your kitty des not worship you. Your kitty demands YOUR worship.  Its a Cat thing. 



Reply
 · 
2






gothatfunk
1 day ago


+BionicDance
i would never use male genitalia to describe you. that'd just be rude.



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance I think the guy you were responding to is a closet Nazi.  He's using similar language the Nazis used to justify their final solution.  Either that or he has his brain up his arse. 



Reply
 · 
5







jay666KJ53 minutes ago







ironically enough ever since I became aware of this mental midget I've found him to be an example of a .....mental midget. Talk about projection! Here is one VERY simple way to disprove what he said...MOST ATHEIST WERE THEIST! They had religious experiences, just turns out that these experiences can be triggered in multiple ways, it doesnt come from god. There I just disproved what he said, what a mental midget....If he reads this, yes! I would define you as a mental midget, every single video I've seen of this guy is absolutely idiotic. Zero intellectual content what so ever.

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester3 hours ago







My cats are gnostic theists. They know they are gods and they know they exist.
Theists are incredibly intellectually lazy. Instead of going to the bother of learning, they would rather be spoon fed nonsense.  Most of them don't even bother reading their holy book.

Reply
 · 




















MsWannabeGamer7 hours ago







This is fucking hilarious. This guy calls us mentally challenged and unable to grasp simple concepts when he himself cannot grasp the scientifically proven concepts that disprove all religions.

Reply
 · 




















dimbulb2311 hours ago







 The path to every god is essentially the same. They all have their stories.  Pick one and if you try really, really hard... the faith and the feelings in your blood-pump  will come.  Truths (with the capital T) are a dime a dozen...  I know I feel the need to sacrifice a goat.      

Reply
 · 
1


















TheMudbrooker1 day ago







This guy is just a fountain of christian humility, ain't he?

Reply
 · 
10

















BionicDance
1 day ago


Everybody knows that I'm the most humble here!



Reply
 · 
8






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


The way he talks reminds me of how the Nazis justified their treatment of the Jews.



Reply
 · 
1







frdbSteamer21 hours ago








More than 80% of current atheists are former theists according to the atheist alliance. (Howgoodisthat.com). So, yeah, we know exactly what you're doing when you pray and call yourself spiritual. You're telpathically sending messages to the mental construct you've created from the nice parts of the bible and groovin on the feelings that excersize provides. Been there and done that.

Reply
 · 
1


















AlienPet1317 hours ago







BD... your Kitty may appear to worship you but that only means you have fallen into it's diabolical, psychological, feline trap! That's just what kitty wants you to believe!
There's an old saying... "Dogs have owners... Cats have staff members."
Heehee!! :P

Reply
 · 




















RoadRunnerLaser16 hours ago







Actually, it seems that pigeons are rather superstitious according to studies. Scientists have found that pigeons will repeat whatever activity they were doing when they were given food even if that is turning round and round in circles. Ritualistic behaviour in other animals? Certainly !

Reply
 · 




















Inannalu1 day ago (edited)







The sort of belief that this chap is possessed of is little better than that which considers atheists to be morally deficient.  Despite the fact that it's merely a hunch based on little more than bias and narcissism, all manner of atrocity could be justified and perpetuated via the proposition that "atheists, because atheist, must be mentally deficient".  Under that axiom, an acceptance of theism could become some kind of ass-backward litmus test to determine "fitness" for inclusion in the public sphere of intellectual dialogue.  Such would be TERRIFYING, were it not so laughably unlikely.

Reply
 · 
2


















Skavar400022 hours ago







Good vid... But why would we care about your amazon wish list? Or are you actually asking people to purchase these items for you?(Which would be a totally cheap ass slimey thing to do...)

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
22 hours ago


Dude...about half of YouTube posts their Wishlist.
*pshrug* You're under absolutely no obligation to do jack about it. Nobody is.
If you don't like it, ignore it.



Reply
 · 
3






Ryan Swanson
22 hours ago


If I thought there was even the slightest chance that people would buy me items if I had an Amazon wish list I'd do it in a second! Why not? No one's obligated to do shit. I'm sorry but that's just a strange thing to get peeved about to me.



Reply
 · 








IlGreven
10 hours ago


+BionicDance Eh, the only thing I care about is...North? Seriously?  Unless you're gonna riff it MST3K style, in which case I hope someone gets it to you posthaste.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
9 hours ago


+IlGreven I'm sorry, but I adore that movie. It's quirky.



Reply
 · 









AcanLord1 day ago







That last star fighter tattoo is fucking epic.

Reply
 · 




















VGatheist1 day ago







Never underestimate the powers of the force dear Bionic Dance. You can lift an entire Space ship with the force. Any rate I would have whipped out Sye Ten's argument. You see, if it was a mental deficiency that prevents us from knowing, then we would be with excuse on 'judgment day' we could say, well we just could not feel you due to our inability to detect you, thus you can not hold us accountable. This is why Sye would never use this argument.

Reply
 · 
3


















Achenar121 day ago (edited)







Now that I think about it, Christian Talour's beliefs come close to  presuppositionalists' arguments.

Reply
 · 
1


















markedfang1 day ago







Can we know anything? lol
I thought the smartest people in the world are still debating that. The people who know that knowledge is possible should start questioning their worldview.
And the nature of science, truth and the disconnection between reality and our perception of it.

Reply
 · 




















P Dav1 day ago (edited)







For the sake of argument, let's say us atheists WERE mentally unable to "experience" the spirituality of religion. Wouldn't that mean YOUR god, theists, would have created people unable to be religious and then condemning them to hell for eternal suffering because of the defect in what he created?

Reply
 · 
7







Hide replies








yadabub
1 day ago


That does actually seem like the sort of thing that the god described in the 'old testament' would do to people.



Reply
 · 
5






fr rf
1 day ago


Maybe we're all descendant from the Pharaoh whose heart god hardened? 



Reply
 · 








P Dav
1 day ago


+fr rf
Could be. I mean if god would harden Pharaoh's heart so he could unleash those plagues and murder innocent babies, then sending us to hell for his screw-up in creating us "mentally deficient" atheists would fit right in with god's character (pun intended- you know character like in qualities and also because god is a made up story character)
Show less

Reply
 · 









COEXISTential1 day ago







A classic case of Christian Projection.

Reply
 · 
3


















Mglosk1 day ago







If their "god" exists, and gave atheist a mental deficiency, well, that makes no sense.  But then it's not our fault and it's their god's and if we get sent to hell because of that, well, that makes their god immoral.  Which is a big ass contradiction towards their world view that god is all loving and caring and that we as atheist send ourselves to hell.  This guy pwns himself.  It's like we don't even need to do any work.  How considerate. 

Reply
 · 
1


















EPrimeify22 hours ago







Uhh Kate...I can't watch the video with THAT PLANET IS COMING TOWARDS YOU

Reply
 · 









View all 7 replies








DeHerg
8 hours ago


+BionicDance
so you basically got into its gravitational pull, I hope the entry into his atmosphere didnt hurt too much
(btw that talking in vacuum thing is a really neat trick)



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
8 hours ago


+DeHerg Aww, I'm just sitting in front of the window of my spaceship; you can't tell because of the camera angle.



Reply
 · 





Show more























































All comments (117)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 day ago









Reply
 · 
3

















Derekswearsalot Pratticurse
1 day ago


The only mental deficiency going on is the indoctrinated religizombie's ability to process logical thought and reasoning. 



Reply
 · 
6







gothatfunk1 day ago







what a condescending prick.

Reply
 · 
13







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Yes, yes...but what do you think of the guy I was responding to? ;)



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance Actually your kitty des not worship you. Your kitty demands YOUR worship.  Its a Cat thing. 



Reply
 · 
2






gothatfunk
1 day ago


+BionicDance
i would never use male genitalia to describe you. that'd just be rude.



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance I think the guy you were responding to is a closet Nazi.  He's using similar language the Nazis used to justify their final solution.  Either that or he has his brain up his arse. 



Reply
 · 
5







jay666KJ53 minutes ago







ironically enough ever since I became aware of this mental midget I've found him to be an example of a .....mental midget. Talk about projection! Here is one VERY simple way to disprove what he said...MOST ATHEIST WERE THEIST! They had religious experiences, just turns out that these experiences can be triggered in multiple ways, it doesnt come from god. There I just disproved what he said, what a mental midget....If he reads this, yes! I would define you as a mental midget, every single video I've seen of this guy is absolutely idiotic. Zero intellectual content what so ever.

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester3 hours ago







My cats are gnostic theists. They know they are gods and they know they exist.
Theists are incredibly intellectually lazy. Instead of going to the bother of learning, they would rather be spoon fed nonsense.  Most of them don't even bother reading their holy book.

Reply
 · 




















MsWannabeGamer7 hours ago







This is fucking hilarious. This guy calls us mentally challenged and unable to grasp simple concepts when he himself cannot grasp the scientifically proven concepts that disprove all religions.

Reply
 · 




















dimbulb2311 hours ago







 The path to every god is essentially the same. They all have their stories.  Pick one and if you try really, really hard... the faith and the feelings in your blood-pump  will come.  Truths (with the capital T) are a dime a dozen...  I know I feel the need to sacrifice a goat.      

Reply
 · 
1


















TheMudbrooker1 day ago







This guy is just a fountain of christian humility, ain't he?

Reply
 · 
10

















BionicDance
1 day ago


Everybody knows that I'm the most humble here!



Reply
 · 
8






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


The way he talks reminds me of how the Nazis justified their treatment of the Jews.



Reply
 · 
1







frdbSteamer21 hours ago








More than 80% of current atheists are former theists according to the atheist alliance. (Howgoodisthat.com). So, yeah, we know exactly what you're doing when you pray and call yourself spiritual. You're telpathically sending messages to the mental construct you've created from the nice parts of the bible and groovin on the feelings that excersize provides. Been there and done that.

Reply
 · 
1


















AlienPet1317 hours ago







BD... your Kitty may appear to worship you but that only means you have fallen into it's diabolical, psychological, feline trap! That's just what kitty wants you to believe!
There's an old saying... "Dogs have owners... Cats have staff members."
Heehee!! :P

Reply
 · 




















RoadRunnerLaser16 hours ago







Actually, it seems that pigeons are rather superstitious according to studies. Scientists have found that pigeons will repeat whatever activity they were doing when they were given food even if that is turning round and round in circles. Ritualistic behaviour in other animals? Certainly !

Reply
 · 




















Inannalu1 day ago (edited)







The sort of belief that this chap is possessed of is little better than that which considers atheists to be morally deficient.  Despite the fact that it's merely a hunch based on little more than bias and narcissism, all manner of atrocity could be justified and perpetuated via the proposition that "atheists, because atheist, must be mentally deficient".  Under that axiom, an acceptance of theism could become some kind of ass-backward litmus test to determine "fitness" for inclusion in the public sphere of intellectual dialogue.  Such would be TERRIFYING, were it not so laughably unlikely.

Reply
 · 
2


















Skavar400022 hours ago







Good vid... But why would we care about your amazon wish list? Or are you actually asking people to purchase these items for you?(Which would be a totally cheap ass slimey thing to do...)

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
22 hours ago


Dude...about half of YouTube posts their Wishlist.
*pshrug* You're under absolutely no obligation to do jack about it. Nobody is.
If you don't like it, ignore it.



Reply
 · 
3






Ryan Swanson
22 hours ago


If I thought there was even the slightest chance that people would buy me items if I had an Amazon wish list I'd do it in a second! Why not? No one's obligated to do shit. I'm sorry but that's just a strange thing to get peeved about to me.



Reply
 · 








IlGreven
10 hours ago


+BionicDance Eh, the only thing I care about is...North? Seriously?  Unless you're gonna riff it MST3K style, in which case I hope someone gets it to you posthaste.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
9 hours ago


+IlGreven I'm sorry, but I adore that movie. It's quirky.



Reply
 · 









AcanLord1 day ago







That last star fighter tattoo is fucking epic.

Reply
 · 




















VGatheist1 day ago







Never underestimate the powers of the force dear Bionic Dance. You can lift an entire Space ship with the force. Any rate I would have whipped out Sye Ten's argument. You see, if it was a mental deficiency that prevents us from knowing, then we would be with excuse on 'judgment day' we could say, well we just could not feel you due to our inability to detect you, thus you can not hold us accountable. This is why Sye would never use this argument.

Reply
 · 
3


















Achenar121 day ago (edited)







Now that I think about it, Christian Talour's beliefs come close to  presuppositionalists' arguments.

Reply
 · 
1


















markedfang1 day ago







Can we know anything? lol
I thought the smartest people in the world are still debating that. The people who know that knowledge is possible should start questioning their worldview.
And the nature of science, truth and the disconnection between reality and our perception of it.

Reply
 · 




















P Dav1 day ago (edited)







For the sake of argument, let's say us atheists WERE mentally unable to "experience" the spirituality of religion. Wouldn't that mean YOUR god, theists, would have created people unable to be religious and then condemning them to hell for eternal suffering because of the defect in what he created?

Reply
 · 
7







Hide replies








yadabub
1 day ago


That does actually seem like the sort of thing that the god described in the 'old testament' would do to people.



Reply
 · 
5






fr rf
1 day ago


Maybe we're all descendant from the Pharaoh whose heart god hardened? 



Reply
 · 








P Dav
1 day ago


+fr rf
Could be. I mean if god would harden Pharaoh's heart so he could unleash those plagues and murder innocent babies, then sending us to hell for his screw-up in creating us "mentally deficient" atheists would fit right in with god's character (pun intended- you know character like in qualities and also because god is a made up story character)
Show less

Reply
 · 









COEXISTential1 day ago







A classic case of Christian Projection.

Reply
 · 
3


















Mglosk1 day ago







If their "god" exists, and gave atheist a mental deficiency, well, that makes no sense.  But then it's not our fault and it's their god's and if we get sent to hell because of that, well, that makes their god immoral.  Which is a big ass contradiction towards their world view that god is all loving and caring and that we as atheist send ourselves to hell.  This guy pwns himself.  It's like we don't even need to do any work.  How considerate. 

Reply
 · 
1


















EPrimeify22 hours ago







Uhh Kate...I can't watch the video with THAT PLANET IS COMING TOWARDS YOU

Reply
 · 









View all 7 replies








DeHerg
8 hours ago


+BionicDance
so you basically got into its gravitational pull, I hope the entry into his atmosphere didnt hurt too much
(btw that talking in vacuum thing is a really neat trick)



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
8 hours ago


+DeHerg Aww, I'm just sitting in front of the window of my spaceship; you can't tell because of the camera angle.



Reply
 · 





Show more







































All comments (117)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 day ago









Reply
 · 
3

















Derekswearsalot Pratticurse
1 day ago


The only mental deficiency going on is the indoctrinated religizombie's ability to process logical thought and reasoning. 



Reply
 · 
6







gothatfunk1 day ago







what a condescending prick.

Reply
 · 
13







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Yes, yes...but what do you think of the guy I was responding to? ;)



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance Actually your kitty des not worship you. Your kitty demands YOUR worship.  Its a Cat thing. 



Reply
 · 
2






gothatfunk
1 day ago


+BionicDance
i would never use male genitalia to describe you. that'd just be rude.



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance I think the guy you were responding to is a closet Nazi.  He's using similar language the Nazis used to justify their final solution.  Either that or he has his brain up his arse. 



Reply
 · 
5







jay666KJ53 minutes ago







ironically enough ever since I became aware of this mental midget I've found him to be an example of a .....mental midget. Talk about projection! Here is one VERY simple way to disprove what he said...MOST ATHEIST WERE THEIST! They had religious experiences, just turns out that these experiences can be triggered in multiple ways, it doesnt come from god. There I just disproved what he said, what a mental midget....If he reads this, yes! I would define you as a mental midget, every single video I've seen of this guy is absolutely idiotic. Zero intellectual content what so ever.

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester3 hours ago







My cats are gnostic theists. They know they are gods and they know they exist.
Theists are incredibly intellectually lazy. Instead of going to the bother of learning, they would rather be spoon fed nonsense.  Most of them don't even bother reading their holy book.

Reply
 · 




















MsWannabeGamer7 hours ago







This is fucking hilarious. This guy calls us mentally challenged and unable to grasp simple concepts when he himself cannot grasp the scientifically proven concepts that disprove all religions.

Reply
 · 




















dimbulb2311 hours ago







 The path to every god is essentially the same. They all have their stories.  Pick one and if you try really, really hard... the faith and the feelings in your blood-pump  will come.  Truths (with the capital T) are a dime a dozen...  I know I feel the need to sacrifice a goat.      

Reply
 · 
1


















TheMudbrooker1 day ago







This guy is just a fountain of christian humility, ain't he?

Reply
 · 
10

















BionicDance
1 day ago


Everybody knows that I'm the most humble here!



Reply
 · 
8






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


The way he talks reminds me of how the Nazis justified their treatment of the Jews.



Reply
 · 
1







frdbSteamer21 hours ago








More than 80% of current atheists are former theists according to the atheist alliance. (Howgoodisthat.com). So, yeah, we know exactly what you're doing when you pray and call yourself spiritual. You're telpathically sending messages to the mental construct you've created from the nice parts of the bible and groovin on the feelings that excersize provides. Been there and done that.

Reply
 · 
1


















AlienPet1317 hours ago







BD... your Kitty may appear to worship you but that only means you have fallen into it's diabolical, psychological, feline trap! That's just what kitty wants you to believe!
There's an old saying... "Dogs have owners... Cats have staff members."
Heehee!! :P

Reply
 · 




















RoadRunnerLaser16 hours ago







Actually, it seems that pigeons are rather superstitious according to studies. Scientists have found that pigeons will repeat whatever activity they were doing when they were given food even if that is turning round and round in circles. Ritualistic behaviour in other animals? Certainly !

Reply
 · 




















Inannalu1 day ago (edited)







The sort of belief that this chap is possessed of is little better than that which considers atheists to be morally deficient.  Despite the fact that it's merely a hunch based on little more than bias and narcissism, all manner of atrocity could be justified and perpetuated via the proposition that "atheists, because atheist, must be mentally deficient".  Under that axiom, an acceptance of theism could become some kind of ass-backward litmus test to determine "fitness" for inclusion in the public sphere of intellectual dialogue.  Such would be TERRIFYING, were it not so laughably unlikely.

Reply
 · 
2


















Skavar400022 hours ago







Good vid... But why would we care about your amazon wish list? Or are you actually asking people to purchase these items for you?(Which would be a totally cheap ass slimey thing to do...)

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
22 hours ago


Dude...about half of YouTube posts their Wishlist.
*pshrug* You're under absolutely no obligation to do jack about it. Nobody is.
If you don't like it, ignore it.



Reply
 · 
3






Ryan Swanson
22 hours ago


If I thought there was even the slightest chance that people would buy me items if I had an Amazon wish list I'd do it in a second! Why not? No one's obligated to do shit. I'm sorry but that's just a strange thing to get peeved about to me.



Reply
 · 








IlGreven
10 hours ago


+BionicDance Eh, the only thing I care about is...North? Seriously?  Unless you're gonna riff it MST3K style, in which case I hope someone gets it to you posthaste.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
9 hours ago


+IlGreven I'm sorry, but I adore that movie. It's quirky.



Reply
 · 









AcanLord1 day ago







That last star fighter tattoo is fucking epic.

Reply
 · 




















VGatheist1 day ago







Never underestimate the powers of the force dear Bionic Dance. You can lift an entire Space ship with the force. Any rate I would have whipped out Sye Ten's argument. You see, if it was a mental deficiency that prevents us from knowing, then we would be with excuse on 'judgment day' we could say, well we just could not feel you due to our inability to detect you, thus you can not hold us accountable. This is why Sye would never use this argument.

Reply
 · 
3


















Achenar121 day ago (edited)







Now that I think about it, Christian Talour's beliefs come close to  presuppositionalists' arguments.

Reply
 · 
1


















markedfang1 day ago







Can we know anything? lol
I thought the smartest people in the world are still debating that. The people who know that knowledge is possible should start questioning their worldview.
And the nature of science, truth and the disconnection between reality and our perception of it.

Reply
 · 




















P Dav1 day ago (edited)







For the sake of argument, let's say us atheists WERE mentally unable to "experience" the spirituality of religion. Wouldn't that mean YOUR god, theists, would have created people unable to be religious and then condemning them to hell for eternal suffering because of the defect in what he created?

Reply
 · 
7







Hide replies








yadabub
1 day ago


That does actually seem like the sort of thing that the god described in the 'old testament' would do to people.



Reply
 · 
5






fr rf
1 day ago


Maybe we're all descendant from the Pharaoh whose heart god hardened? 



Reply
 · 








P Dav
1 day ago


+fr rf
Could be. I mean if god would harden Pharaoh's heart so he could unleash those plagues and murder innocent babies, then sending us to hell for his screw-up in creating us "mentally deficient" atheists would fit right in with god's character (pun intended- you know character like in qualities and also because god is a made up story character)
Show less

Reply
 · 









COEXISTential1 day ago







A classic case of Christian Projection.

Reply
 · 
3


















Mglosk1 day ago







If their "god" exists, and gave atheist a mental deficiency, well, that makes no sense.  But then it's not our fault and it's their god's and if we get sent to hell because of that, well, that makes their god immoral.  Which is a big ass contradiction towards their world view that god is all loving and caring and that we as atheist send ourselves to hell.  This guy pwns himself.  It's like we don't even need to do any work.  How considerate. 

Reply
 · 
1


















EPrimeify22 hours ago







Uhh Kate...I can't watch the video with THAT PLANET IS COMING TOWARDS YOU

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
22 hours ago


No, no,, you've got it all wrong...I'm going towards it! :D



Reply
 · 








EPrimeify
22 hours ago


+BionicDance You're floating while talking? Cooooooooll



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
22 hours ago


+EPrimeify Why do you think I keep calling everybody, "Fellow Spacetravellers"? ;)



Reply
 · 








EPrimeify
22 hours ago


You got like...... Hover boots? 



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
22 hours ago


+EPrimeify I'm a Space Ranger. :)



Reply
 · 








DeHerg
8 hours ago


+BionicDance
so you basically got into its gravitational pull, I hope the entry into his atmosphere didnt hurt too much
(btw that talking in vacuum thing is a really neat trick)



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
8 hours ago


+DeHerg Aww, I'm just sitting in front of the window of my spaceship; you can't tell because of the camera angle.



Reply
 · 





Show more












































All comments (117)







Share your thoughts












Top comments









Stream







BionicDance1 day ago









Reply
 · 
3

















Derekswearsalot Pratticurse
1 day ago


The only mental deficiency going on is the indoctrinated religizombie's ability to process logical thought and reasoning. 



Reply
 · 
6







gothatfunk1 day ago







what a condescending prick.

Reply
 · 
13







Hide replies








BionicDance
1 day ago


Yes, yes...but what do you think of the guy I was responding to? ;)



Reply
 · 
1






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance Actually your kitty des not worship you. Your kitty demands YOUR worship.  Its a Cat thing. 



Reply
 · 
2






gothatfunk
1 day ago


+BionicDance
i would never use male genitalia to describe you. that'd just be rude.



Reply
 · 








VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


+BionicDance I think the guy you were responding to is a closet Nazi.  He's using similar language the Nazis used to justify their final solution.  Either that or he has his brain up his arse. 



Reply
 · 
5







jay666KJ53 minutes ago







ironically enough ever since I became aware of this mental midget I've found him to be an example of a .....mental midget. Talk about projection! Here is one VERY simple way to disprove what he said...MOST ATHEIST WERE THEIST! They had religious experiences, just turns out that these experiences can be triggered in multiple ways, it doesnt come from god. There I just disproved what he said, what a mental midget....If he reads this, yes! I would define you as a mental midget, every single video I've seen of this guy is absolutely idiotic. Zero intellectual content what so ever.

Reply
 · 




















mikeyvester3 hours ago







My cats are gnostic theists. They know they are gods and they know they exist.
Theists are incredibly intellectually lazy. Instead of going to the bother of learning, they would rather be spoon fed nonsense.  Most of them don't even bother reading their holy book.

Reply
 · 




















MsWannabeGamer7 hours ago







This is fucking hilarious. This guy calls us mentally challenged and unable to grasp simple concepts when he himself cannot grasp the scientifically proven concepts that disprove all religions.

Reply
 · 




















dimbulb2311 hours ago







 The path to every god is essentially the same. They all have their stories.  Pick one and if you try really, really hard... the faith and the feelings in your blood-pump  will come.  Truths (with the capital T) are a dime a dozen...  I know I feel the need to sacrifice a goat.      

Reply
 · 
1


















TheMudbrooker1 day ago







This guy is just a fountain of christian humility, ain't he?

Reply
 · 
10

















BionicDance
1 day ago


Everybody knows that I'm the most humble here!



Reply
 · 
8






VinnyMonster1
1 day ago


The way he talks reminds me of how the Nazis justified their treatment of the Jews.



Reply
 · 
1







frdbSteamer21 hours ago








More than 80% of current atheists are former theists according to the atheist alliance. (Howgoodisthat.com). So, yeah, we know exactly what you're doing when you pray and call yourself spiritual. You're telpathically sending messages to the mental construct you've created from the nice parts of the bible and groovin on the feelings that excersize provides. Been there and done that.

Reply
 · 
1


















AlienPet1317 hours ago







BD... your Kitty may appear to worship you but that only means you have fallen into it's diabolical, psychological, feline trap! That's just what kitty wants you to believe!
There's an old saying... "Dogs have owners... Cats have staff members."
Heehee!! :P

Reply
 · 




















RoadRunnerLaser16 hours ago







Actually, it seems that pigeons are rather superstitious according to studies. Scientists have found that pigeons will repeat whatever activity they were doing when they were given food even if that is turning round and round in circles. Ritualistic behaviour in other animals? Certainly !

Reply
 · 




















Inannalu1 day ago (edited)







The sort of belief that this chap is possessed of is little better than that which considers atheists to be morally deficient.  Despite the fact that it's merely a hunch based on little more than bias and narcissism, all manner of atrocity could be justified and perpetuated via the proposition that "atheists, because atheist, must be mentally deficient".  Under that axiom, an acceptance of theism could become some kind of ass-backward litmus test to determine "fitness" for inclusion in the public sphere of intellectual dialogue.  Such would be TERRIFYING, were it not so laughably unlikely.

Reply
 · 
2


















Skavar400022 hours ago







Good vid... But why would we care about your amazon wish list? Or are you actually asking people to purchase these items for you?(Which would be a totally cheap ass slimey thing to do...)

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
22 hours ago


Dude...about half of YouTube posts their Wishlist.
*pshrug* You're under absolutely no obligation to do jack about it. Nobody is.
If you don't like it, ignore it.



Reply
 · 
3






Ryan Swanson
22 hours ago


If I thought there was even the slightest chance that people would buy me items if I had an Amazon wish list I'd do it in a second! Why not? No one's obligated to do shit. I'm sorry but that's just a strange thing to get peeved about to me.



Reply
 · 








IlGreven
10 hours ago


+BionicDance Eh, the only thing I care about is...North? Seriously?  Unless you're gonna riff it MST3K style, in which case I hope someone gets it to you posthaste.



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
9 hours ago


+IlGreven I'm sorry, but I adore that movie. It's quirky.



Reply
 · 









AcanLord1 day ago







That last star fighter tattoo is fucking epic.

Reply
 · 




















VGatheist1 day ago







Never underestimate the powers of the force dear Bionic Dance. You can lift an entire Space ship with the force. Any rate I would have whipped out Sye Ten's argument. You see, if it was a mental deficiency that prevents us from knowing, then we would be with excuse on 'judgment day' we could say, well we just could not feel you due to our inability to detect you, thus you can not hold us accountable. This is why Sye would never use this argument.

Reply
 · 
3


















Achenar121 day ago (edited)







Now that I think about it, Christian Talour's beliefs come close to  presuppositionalists' arguments.

Reply
 · 
1


















markedfang1 day ago







Can we know anything? lol
I thought the smartest people in the world are still debating that. The people who know that knowledge is possible should start questioning their worldview.
And the nature of science, truth and the disconnection between reality and our perception of it.

Reply
 · 




















P Dav1 day ago (edited)







For the sake of argument, let's say us atheists WERE mentally unable to "experience" the spirituality of religion. Wouldn't that mean YOUR god, theists, would have created people unable to be religious and then condemning them to hell for eternal suffering because of the defect in what he created?

Reply
 · 
7







Hide replies








yadabub
1 day ago


That does actually seem like the sort of thing that the god described in the 'old testament' would do to people.



Reply
 · 
5






fr rf
1 day ago


Maybe we're all descendant from the Pharaoh whose heart god hardened? 



Reply
 · 








P Dav
1 day ago


+fr rf
Could be. I mean if god would harden Pharaoh's heart so he could unleash those plagues and murder innocent babies, then sending us to hell for his screw-up in creating us "mentally deficient" atheists would fit right in with god's character (pun intended- you know character like in qualities and also because god is a made up story character)
Show less

Reply
 · 









COEXISTential1 day ago







A classic case of Christian Projection.

Reply
 · 
3


















Mglosk1 day ago







If their "god" exists, and gave atheist a mental deficiency, well, that makes no sense.  But then it's not our fault and it's their god's and if we get sent to hell because of that, well, that makes their god immoral.  Which is a big ass contradiction towards their world view that god is all loving and caring and that we as atheist send ourselves to hell.  This guy pwns himself.  It's like we don't even need to do any work.  How considerate. 

Reply
 · 
1


















EPrimeify22 hours ago







Uhh Kate...I can't watch the video with THAT PLANET IS COMING TOWARDS YOU

Reply
 · 









Hide replies








BionicDance
22 hours ago


No, no,, you've got it all wrong...I'm going towards it! :D



Reply
 · 








EPrimeify
22 hours ago


+BionicDance You're floating while talking? Cooooooooll



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
22 hours ago


+EPrimeify Why do you think I keep calling everybody, "Fellow Spacetravellers"? ;)



Reply
 · 








EPrimeify
22 hours ago


You got like...... Hover boots? 



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
22 hours ago


+EPrimeify I'm a Space Ranger. :)



Reply
 · 








DeHerg
8 hours ago


+BionicDance
so you basically got into its gravitational pull, I hope the entry into his atmosphere didnt hurt too much
(btw that talking in vacuum thing is a really neat trick)



Reply
 · 








BionicDance
8 hours ago


+DeHerg Aww, I'm just sitting in front of the window of my spaceship; you can't tell because of the camera angle.



Reply
 · 





Show more