Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Bionic Dance's comments on her Atheist Starving video
All comments (90)
Share your thoughts
Top comments
Stream
Conversation removed.
Dismiss
BionicDance7 hours ago
Reply
·
4
Derekswearsalot Pratticurse
4 hours ago
The only mental deficiency going on is the indoctrinated religizombie's ability to process logical thought and reasoning.
Reply
·
5
gothatfunk5 hours ago
what a condescending prick.
Reply
·
8
Hide replies
BionicDance
5 hours ago
Yes, yes...but what do you think of the guy I was responding to? ;)
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
5 hours ago
+BionicDance Actually your kitty des not worship you. Your kitty demands YOUR worship. Its a Cat thing.
Reply
·
1
gothatfunk
5 hours ago
+BionicDance
i would never use male genitalia to describe you. that'd just be rude.
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
5 hours 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
·
3
TheMudbrooker6 hours ago
This guy is just a fountain of christian humility, ain't he?
Reply
·
7
BionicDance
6 hours ago
Everybody knows that I'm the most humble here!
Reply
·
4
VinnyMonster1
5 hours ago
The way he talks reminds me of how the Nazis justified their treatment of the Jews.
Reply
·
Inannalu4 hours 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
Skavar40001 hour 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
·
BionicDance
1 hour 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
·
1
Ryan Swanson
1 hour 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
·
AcanLord3 hours ago
That last star fighter tattoo is fucking epic.
Reply
·
VGatheist5 hours 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
BohemianBlasphemy5 hours ago
You just now realized fundamentalists are just god geeks?
Their obsessions are so incredibly similar to ours. The super important differences are two, in my case at east: I know the Daleks aren't real and I have accepted the painful fact that I'll never hang out with any member of Pretty Cure, and I don't condemn or judge those who don't know or like or care about my enthusiasms.
Dear Princess Celestia, may the Force be long and prosper, Amen.
Reply
·
1
Achenar123 hours ago (edited)
Now that I think about it, Christian Talour's beliefs come close to presuppositionalists' arguments.
Reply
·
markedfang5 hours 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 Dav6 hours 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
·
6
Hide replies
yadabub
6 hours 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
6 hours ago
Maybe we're all descendant from the Pharaoh whose heart god hardened?
Reply
·
P Dav
5 hours 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)
Read more
Reply
·
Mglosk2 hours 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
COEXISTential6 hours ago
A classic case of Christian Projection.
Reply
·
3
EPrimeify1 hour ago
Uhh Kate...I can't watch the video with THAT PLANET IS COMING TOWARDS YOU
Reply
·
Hide replies
BionicDance
1 hour ago
No, no,, you've got it all wrong...I'm going towards it! :D
Reply
·
EPrimeify
1 hour ago
+BionicDance You're floating while talking? Cooooooooll
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 hour ago
+EPrimeify Why do you think I keep calling everybody, "Fellow Spacetravellers"? ;)
Reply
·
EPrimeify
1 hour ago
You got like...... Hover boots?
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 hour ago
+EPrimeify I'm a Space Ranger. :)
Reply
·
themplar6 hours ago
So basicly i guy that cries "i'm special,i'm special because my mommy said so" what a complete tool.
Reply
·
2
crazyinsane5005 hours ago
Chris Benoit started religions when the earliest humans saw cave drawings of him wrestling dinosaurs.
Reply
·
fr rf6 hours ago
Lul, can he even derive?
Reply
·
1
cmdstraker6 hours ago
Oh boy, that irony. You see the thing about complex calculus is that it can and should be logically constructed from first principles. No gods, no magic ferrys. That's what seperates the toddlers from adults
Reply
·
2
Show more
All comments (90)
Share your thoughts
Top comments
Stream
Conversation removed.
Dismiss
BionicDance7 hours ago
Reply
·
4
Derekswearsalot Pratticurse
4 hours ago
The only mental deficiency going on is the indoctrinated religizombie's ability to process logical thought and reasoning.
Reply
·
5
gothatfunk5 hours ago
what a condescending prick.
Reply
·
8
Hide replies
BionicDance
5 hours ago
Yes, yes...but what do you think of the guy I was responding to? ;)
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
5 hours ago
+BionicDance Actually your kitty des not worship you. Your kitty demands YOUR worship. Its a Cat thing.
Reply
·
1
gothatfunk
5 hours ago
+BionicDance
i would never use male genitalia to describe you. that'd just be rude.
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
5 hours 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
·
3
TheMudbrooker6 hours ago
This guy is just a fountain of christian humility, ain't he?
Reply
·
7
BionicDance
6 hours ago
Everybody knows that I'm the most humble here!
Reply
·
4
VinnyMonster1
5 hours ago
The way he talks reminds me of how the Nazis justified their treatment of the Jews.
Reply
·
Inannalu4 hours 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
Skavar40001 hour 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
·
BionicDance
1 hour 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
·
1
Ryan Swanson
1 hour 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
·
AcanLord3 hours ago
That last star fighter tattoo is fucking epic.
Reply
·
VGatheist5 hours 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
BohemianBlasphemy5 hours ago
You just now realized fundamentalists are just god geeks?
Their obsessions are so incredibly similar to ours. The super important differences are two, in my case at east: I know the Daleks aren't real and I have accepted the painful fact that I'll never hang out with any member of Pretty Cure, and I don't condemn or judge those who don't know or like or care about my enthusiasms.
Dear Princess Celestia, may the Force be long and prosper, Amen.
Reply
·
1
Achenar123 hours ago (edited)
Now that I think about it, Christian Talour's beliefs come close to presuppositionalists' arguments.
Reply
·
markedfang5 hours 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 Dav6 hours 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
·
6
Hide replies
yadabub
6 hours 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
6 hours ago
Maybe we're all descendant from the Pharaoh whose heart god hardened?
Reply
·
P Dav
5 hours 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)
Read more
Reply
·
Mglosk2 hours 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
COEXISTential6 hours ago
A classic case of Christian Projection.
Reply
·
3
EPrimeify1 hour ago
Uhh Kate...I can't watch the video with THAT PLANET IS COMING TOWARDS YOU
Reply
·
Hide replies
BionicDance
1 hour ago
No, no,, you've got it all wrong...I'm going towards it! :D
Reply
·
EPrimeify
1 hour ago
+BionicDance You're floating while talking? Cooooooooll
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 hour ago
+EPrimeify Why do you think I keep calling everybody, "Fellow Spacetravellers"? ;)
Reply
·
EPrimeify
1 hour ago
You got like...... Hover boots?
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 hour ago
+EPrimeify I'm a Space Ranger. :)
Reply
·
themplar6 hours ago
So basicly i guy that cries "i'm special,i'm special because my mommy said so" what a complete tool.
Reply
·
2
crazyinsane5005 hours ago
Chris Benoit started religions when the earliest humans saw cave drawings of him wrestling dinosaurs.
Reply
·
fr rf6 hours ago
Lul, can he even derive?
Reply
·
1
cmdstraker6 hours ago
Oh boy, that irony. You see the thing about complex calculus is that it can and should be logically constructed from first principles. No gods, no magic ferrys. That's what seperates the toddlers from adults
Reply
·
2
Show more
All comments (138)
Share your thoughts
Top comments
Stream
BionicDance1 day ago
Reply
·
8
Hide replies
Russell Liston
1 day ago
I was a Christian for 5 years from 18 to about 23-24. When I was a Christian the only argument I could make was well this is what the bible says. I left the faith because didn't want to vote republican and hate homosexuals like I was being told to.As I left the faith all I could use to justify being a believer was that god damn book.
I love mythology. Christianity is a mythology. However, in good conscience I could not justify any ounce of spiritual truth in that religion. I see that same misguided argument's in that guy. Well the bible says this. I tell Christians I believed. I never saw god. All that changed was I quit believing in 2000 year old stories. I'm not an atheist because I want to argue with dim-bulbs like that. I'm that way because a 2000 year old mythology does not need to dictate my life.
Show less
Reply
·
9
Robert Roman
1 day ago
I can see why you were unsure if he is a fake or what ever . He definitely is smug , and his arguments are really stupid . I checked out his channel to see for myself if he was for real, he say`s that sex is the original sin that babies are little demons . His body language is very strange and it is hard to tell if he is being honest.
Reply
·
5
Bruce Wayne
1 day ago
But aren't the overwhelming amount of scientists are atheists/ agnostics?
And why does god need to hide? what is he he a cowerd?
Reply
·
klhcc
18 hours ago
+Bruce Wayne God has a small willy. Wouldn't you hide if you were omnipotent but only possessed a teeny winkle?
Peace.
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
16 hours ago
Babies are evil molesting murderers? Explains all these pre school gang wars.
Reply
·
1
Templetonq
15 hours ago
That's the thing with believers. If you don't believe exactly as they do you can't care about truth.
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
12 hours ago
+snarf3456 So are most republicans and so are the vast majority of inmates in America prisons.
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
12 hours ago
+snarf3456 My comment was made to yours because I felt your comment about most Democrats being Christian in a predominantly Christian country like the United States as largely pointless. Thinking on it further, maybe I should have refrained from posting it. peace.
Reply
·
Russell Liston
9 hours ago
Snarf3456. I Know that. I didn't say all Christians are bigots, or republicans or whatever. That was part of my reasoning because I attended a very conservative church which is all I had growing up in a small town. That was one reason. Another was reading various atheist blogs on the Net and coming to my own conclusions based on different things on my own personal journey. I was in a place where I was being told to think one way and I rejected that. I have no ill will towards some of those people. Some are still friends.
I was being told to feel a certain way and I rejected it. That was not the only reason I left Christianity. The vlog bionicdance was commenting on made me think of those kinds of people. My change from being a christian to an atheist now started in 2004. I'm fine with whatever political party or faith one chooses to follow or lack thereoff. I simply rejected a certain set of values that didn't work for me. As time has gone on and I Have evolved as a person I find atheism to be the only option when coming to matters of faith. I'm not a democrat by the way. Maybe I should have clarified that a bit better and I apologize if I didn't. The person in the video reminded me of people who I have encountered.
Show less
Reply
·
1
John Maddin
9 hours ago
Love the vids but i think this guy is either a Poe or even more deluded than the usual members of the God squad but me thinks Poe.
Reply
·
John Maddin
9 hours ago
+Russell Liston Plenty of Christians believe in evolution and the Big Bang, hell the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre and the father of modern genetics was Catholic monk Gregor Mendel but every Christian church and its followers believe only they are the real Christians and so you get groups like Ham and other fundamentalists talking as if they represent all Christian views when in reality they represent only a small but very vocal fringe group of extremists. You know a church is bad when even the Catholic church look semi rational lol.
Show less
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
9 hours ago
+Russell Liston First of all, I don't think you have anything to apologise for. Second of all, reaching your own conclusions about something that has been a profound part of your life and accepting any ugly truths about it is something worthy of respect. Especially something as powerful as religion. Therefore you have my respect.
Reply
·
2
dimbulb23
8 hours ago
Ever wonder if believers ever notice that the strategy they use is identical to the methods used by billions which only led to false gods. All the dead religions were once populated with people who came to their beliefs with lots of faith and no credible evidence. They had their priests, prophets, demons and books too. What is really different about the way Christians convince themselves? .... faith, preachers, prophets, story books..... same.... same. Inanity (not a misspelling) is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Show less
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
8 hours ago
+dimbulb23 I think it's a combination of human arrogance, fear of death and the inability to grasp non existence.
Reply
·
2
dimbulb23
8 hours 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.
Show less
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
7 hours ago
+dimbulb23 Yeah, Christianity is one of those religions based on fear and guilt.
Reply
·
gothatfunk7 hours ago
god is hiding? lol, who knew god was a scaredy cat?
Reply
·
1
Hide replies
BionicDance
7 hours ago
Maybe he's just waiting for us to finish counting to 100.
Reply
·
2
Ezio Realta
5 hours ago
He better hide, bitch owes me money
Reply
·
3
Tiwaking Tiwaking
2 hours ago
I thought he was hiding in Russell's Teapot
Reply
·
BionicDance
2 hours ago
No...that's Schrodinger's Cat. ;)
Reply
·
WildwoodClaire121 hours ago
I can't tell either but I tend toward "poe," or at least desperate attention seeker.
Reply
·
4
Hide replies
BionicDance
21 hours ago
Those two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, of course...
Reply
·
WildwoodClaire1
21 hours ago
+BionicDance True. Poes are, by definition, seeking attention.
Reply
·
Robert Nugent
17 hours 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
12 hours ago
+WildwoodClaire1
By that definitions, we are all poes when you think about it.
Reply
·
117Jorn1 hour 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
·
Hide replies
BionicDance
1 hour ago
That's a Paddlin'
Season 6, Episode 21: "The PTA Disbands".
Reply
·
117Jorn
1 hour ago
+BionicDance
THANK YOU! I've been wondering what the heck that was since I started watching your videos!
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 hour ago
+117Jorn *grin* I'll be honest, I coulda sworn everybody knew that particular reference. :)
Reply
·
GreatPirateSolomon5 hours ago
Sorry Chase, its not your words we feed on, its your sweet delicious tears.
Reply
·
Chris Cunningham1 day ago
This guy's a trip. XD
Reply
·
Dakota Graftt7 hours ago
Your videos are so retro... I love it.
Reply
·
BionicDance
7 hours ago
I'm an 80s kid to the very core. :)
Reply
·
1
Robert Wallace7 hours ago
That guy is funny, it's like he thinks religion is all we have...
Reply
·
1
Kate Hoover4 hours 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
·
uncleanunicorn14 hours ago
Because Christian babies taste the sweetest.
Reply
·
DeHerg
9 hours 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
·
rebbyra13 hours ago
Much doubt in this one I sense. Yeesssssss.
Reply
·
Bunto Skiffler12 hours ago (edited)
He kinda looks like a GI-joe doll.... good hair.
Reply
·
1
al m17 hours 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 Wagner10 hours ago
Poe or no, a clown is a clown.
Reply
·
mikeyvester13 hours ago
The bottom line is science is a lot of hard work, religion is lazy.
Reply
·
Shay C17 hours ago
Love your message.
Reply
·
1
Hide replies
Shay C
17 hours ago
This guy should be neutered.
Reply
·
2
MAKELOVENOTWAR1231
15 hours 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
15 hours 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
14 hours ago
+Shay C That was so beautifully said I couldn't agree more live and let live ;) well said lol
Reply
·
2
TB Tabby18 hours ago
If you renounce Jesus, don't say anything.
Reply
·
Brandi Williams
1 second ago
People who renounce their belief in Jesus as being the Son of Yahweh and the Savior of humankind have the right to say what they want just like you do, dear.
Reply
·
Justin Atheist20 hours ago
Now I am hungry for baby.......
Reply
·
DoctorScarlet
13 hours ago
Your profile pic makes it hard to doubt that.
Why do you do this?
Reply
·
Justin Atheist
12 hours ago
Because I can.
Reply
·
2
Griffin985723 hours ago
The only 100% proof I can show evidence for, comes in a glass bottle.
Reply
·
1
Hide replies
BionicDance
23 hours ago
*sad trombone*
Reply
·
2
Griffin9857
23 hours ago
You love it :P
Reply
·
BionicDance
23 hours ago
+Griffin9857 If'n yer gunna steal my lines, at least get 'em right, girlie!
Reply
·
Griffin9857
22 hours ago
Not your line. Neener.
Reply
·
BionicDance
22 hours ago
+Griffin9857 Is too.
Reply
·
Griffin9857
22 hours ago
+BionicDance Prove it. :P
Reply
·
BionicDance
22 hours ago
+Griffin9857 Do you really want me to post our Skype and Facebook chats here on YouTube? *raised eyebrow*
Reply
·
Griffin9857
22 hours ago
+BionicDance Erm.... No.
Reply
·
BionicDance
22 hours ago
+Griffin9857 I didn't think so. ;)
Reply
·
Griffin9857
21 hours ago
+BionicDance You're just sore that you didn't come up with my line :P
Reply
·
BionicDance
21 hours ago
+Griffin9857 Yeah...cuz you're the one who always says that when people think a joke is groan-worthy. :P
Reply
·
Griffin9857
21 hours ago
+BionicDance What? The sad trombone? Pffft.
Reply
·
BionicDance
21 hours ago
+Griffin9857 No..."You know you love it."
That.
Reply
·
Griffin9857
21 hours ago
+BionicDance Oh well :)
Reply
·
Show more
All comments (138)
Share your thoughts
Top comments
Stream
BionicDance1 day ago
Reply
·
8
Hide replies
Russell Liston
1 day ago
I was a Christian for 5 years from 18 to about 23-24. When I was a Christian the only argument I could make was well this is what the bible says. I left the faith because didn't want to vote republican and hate homosexuals like I was being told to.As I left the faith all I could use to justify being a believer was that god damn book.
I love mythology. Christianity is a mythology. However, in good conscience I could not justify any ounce of spiritual truth in that religion. I see that same misguided argument's in that guy. Well the bible says this. I tell Christians I believed. I never saw god. All that changed was I quit believing in 2000 year old stories. I'm not an atheist because I want to argue with dim-bulbs like that. I'm that way because a 2000 year old mythology does not need to dictate my life.
Show less
Reply
·
9
Robert Roman
1 day ago
I can see why you were unsure if he is a fake or what ever . He definitely is smug , and his arguments are really stupid . I checked out his channel to see for myself if he was for real, he say`s that sex is the original sin that babies are little demons . His body language is very strange and it is hard to tell if he is being honest.
Reply
·
5
Bruce Wayne
1 day ago
But aren't the overwhelming amount of scientists are atheists/ agnostics?
And why does god need to hide? what is he he a cowerd?
Reply
·
klhcc
18 hours ago
+Bruce Wayne God has a small willy. Wouldn't you hide if you were omnipotent but only possessed a teeny winkle?
Peace.
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
16 hours ago
Babies are evil molesting murderers? Explains all these pre school gang wars.
Reply
·
1
Templetonq
15 hours ago
That's the thing with believers. If you don't believe exactly as they do you can't care about truth.
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
12 hours ago
+snarf3456 So are most republicans and so are the vast majority of inmates in America prisons.
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
12 hours ago
+snarf3456 My comment was made to yours because I felt your comment about most Democrats being Christian in a predominantly Christian country like the United States as largely pointless. Thinking on it further, maybe I should have refrained from posting it. peace.
Reply
·
Russell Liston
9 hours ago
Snarf3456. I Know that. I didn't say all Christians are bigots, or republicans or whatever. That was part of my reasoning because I attended a very conservative church which is all I had growing up in a small town. That was one reason. Another was reading various atheist blogs on the Net and coming to my own conclusions based on different things on my own personal journey. I was in a place where I was being told to think one way and I rejected that. I have no ill will towards some of those people. Some are still friends.
I was being told to feel a certain way and I rejected it. That was not the only reason I left Christianity. The vlog bionicdance was commenting on made me think of those kinds of people. My change from being a christian to an atheist now started in 2004. I'm fine with whatever political party or faith one chooses to follow or lack thereoff. I simply rejected a certain set of values that didn't work for me. As time has gone on and I Have evolved as a person I find atheism to be the only option when coming to matters of faith. I'm not a democrat by the way. Maybe I should have clarified that a bit better and I apologize if I didn't. The person in the video reminded me of people who I have encountered.
Show less
Reply
·
1
John Maddin
9 hours ago
Love the vids but i think this guy is either a Poe or even more deluded than the usual members of the God squad but me thinks Poe.
Reply
·
John Maddin
9 hours ago
+Russell Liston Plenty of Christians believe in evolution and the Big Bang, hell the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre and the father of modern genetics was Catholic monk Gregor Mendel but every Christian church and its followers believe only they are the real Christians and so you get groups like Ham and other fundamentalists talking as if they represent all Christian views when in reality they represent only a small but very vocal fringe group of extremists. You know a church is bad when even the Catholic church look semi rational lol.
Show less
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
9 hours ago
+Russell Liston First of all, I don't think you have anything to apologise for. Second of all, reaching your own conclusions about something that has been a profound part of your life and accepting any ugly truths about it is something worthy of respect. Especially something as powerful as religion. Therefore you have my respect.
Reply
·
2
dimbulb23
8 hours ago
Ever wonder if believers ever notice that the strategy they use is identical to the methods used by billions which only led to false gods. All the dead religions were once populated with people who came to their beliefs with lots of faith and no credible evidence. They had their priests, prophets, demons and books too. What is really different about the way Christians convince themselves? .... faith, preachers, prophets, story books..... same.... same. Inanity (not a misspelling) is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Show less
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
8 hours ago
+dimbulb23 I think it's a combination of human arrogance, fear of death and the inability to grasp non existence.
Reply
·
2
dimbulb23
8 hours 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.
Show less
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
7 hours ago
+dimbulb23 Yeah, Christianity is one of those religions based on fear and guilt.
Reply
·
gothatfunk7 hours ago
god is hiding? lol, who knew god was a scaredy cat?
Reply
·
1
Hide replies
BionicDance
7 hours ago
Maybe he's just waiting for us to finish counting to 100.
Reply
·
2
Ezio Realta
5 hours ago
He better hide, bitch owes me money
Reply
·
3
Tiwaking Tiwaking
2 hours ago
I thought he was hiding in Russell's Teapot
Reply
·
BionicDance
2 hours ago
No...that's Schrodinger's Cat. ;)
Reply
·
WildwoodClaire121 hours ago
I can't tell either but I tend toward "poe," or at least desperate attention seeker.
Reply
·
4
Hide replies
BionicDance
21 hours ago
Those two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, of course...
Reply
·
WildwoodClaire1
21 hours ago
+BionicDance True. Poes are, by definition, seeking attention.
Reply
·
Robert Nugent
17 hours 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
12 hours ago
+WildwoodClaire1
By that definitions, we are all poes when you think about it.
Reply
·
117Jorn1 hour 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
·
Hide replies
BionicDance
1 hour ago
That's a Paddlin'
Season 6, Episode 21: "The PTA Disbands".
Reply
·
117Jorn
1 hour ago
+BionicDance
THANK YOU! I've been wondering what the heck that was since I started watching your videos!
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 hour ago
+117Jorn *grin* I'll be honest, I coulda sworn everybody knew that particular reference. :)
Reply
·
GreatPirateSolomon5 hours ago
Sorry Chase, its not your words we feed on, its your sweet delicious tears.
Reply
·
Chris Cunningham1 day ago
This guy's a trip. XD
Reply
·
Dakota Graftt7 hours ago
Your videos are so retro... I love it.
Reply
·
BionicDance
7 hours ago
I'm an 80s kid to the very core. :)
Reply
·
1
Robert Wallace7 hours ago
That guy is funny, it's like he thinks religion is all we have...
Reply
·
1
Kate Hoover4 hours 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
·
uncleanunicorn14 hours ago
Because Christian babies taste the sweetest.
Reply
·
DeHerg
9 hours 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
·
rebbyra13 hours ago
Much doubt in this one I sense. Yeesssssss.
Reply
·
Bunto Skiffler12 hours ago (edited)
He kinda looks like a GI-joe doll.... good hair.
Reply
·
1
al m17 hours 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 Wagner10 hours ago
Poe or no, a clown is a clown.
Reply
·
mikeyvester13 hours ago
The bottom line is science is a lot of hard work, religion is lazy.
Reply
·
Shay C17 hours ago
Love your message.
Reply
·
1
Hide replies
Shay C
17 hours ago
This guy should be neutered.
Reply
·
2
MAKELOVENOTWAR1231
15 hours 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
15 hours 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
14 hours ago
+Shay C That was so beautifully said I couldn't agree more live and let live ;) well said lol
Reply
·
2
TB Tabby18 hours ago
If you renounce Jesus, don't say anything.
Reply
·
Brandi Williams
1 second ago
People who renounce their belief in Jesus as being the Son of Yahweh and the Savior of humankind have the right to say what they want just like you do, dear.
Reply
·
Justin Atheist20 hours ago
Now I am hungry for baby.......
Reply
·
DoctorScarlet
13 hours ago
Your profile pic makes it hard to doubt that.
Why do you do this?
Reply
·
Justin Atheist
12 hours ago
Because I can.
Reply
·
2
Griffin985723 hours ago
The only 100% proof I can show evidence for, comes in a glass bottle.
Reply
·
1
Hide replies
BionicDance
23 hours ago
*sad trombone*
Reply
·
2
Griffin9857
23 hours ago
You love it :P
Reply
·
BionicDance
23 hours ago
+Griffin9857 If'n yer gunna steal my lines, at least get 'em right, girlie!
Reply
·
Griffin9857
22 hours ago
Not your line. Neener.
Reply
·
BionicDance
22 hours ago
+Griffin9857 Is too.
Reply
·
Griffin9857
22 hours ago
+BionicDance Prove it. :P
Reply
·
BionicDance
22 hours ago
+Griffin9857 Do you really want me to post our Skype and Facebook chats here on YouTube? *raised eyebrow*
Reply
·
Griffin9857
22 hours ago
+BionicDance Erm.... No.
Reply
·
BionicDance
22 hours ago
+Griffin9857 I didn't think so. ;)
Reply
·
Griffin9857
21 hours ago
+BionicDance You're just sore that you didn't come up with my line :P
Reply
·
BionicDance
21 hours ago
+Griffin9857 Yeah...cuz you're the one who always says that when people think a joke is groan-worthy. :P
Reply
·
Griffin9857
21 hours ago
+BionicDance What? The sad trombone? Pffft.
Reply
·
BionicDance
21 hours ago
+Griffin9857 No..."You know you love it."
That.
Reply
·
Griffin9857
21 hours ago
+BionicDance Oh well :)
Reply
·
Show more
All comments (226)
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.
Read more
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
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days ago
Finally! Someone who gets it!
Thank you!
Reply
·
Jason Kay
6 days ago
+BionicDance
it really isnt a difficult concept. Why +gambleor is having such a hard time with it is quite baffling, honestly.
Reply
·
BionicDance
6 days ago
He had to be trolling; nobody can be that stupid and still log onto the internet.
Reply
·
Jason Kay
6 days 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
6 days ago
I appreciate that, thanks! :)
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
4 days ago
+BionicDance Is it me, or did you just PWN Santa Claus's Redneck cousin?
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
4 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
4 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
4 days ago
+Jason Kay Sounds like he thinks he can win a debate merely by tiring his opponent.
Reply
·
1
BionicDance
3 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
3 days ago
+BionicDance That is behaviour I'd normally only associate with a kindergarten bully
Reply
·
1
BionicDance
3 days ago
Welcome to the internet, where civility, maturity, and courtesy are suspended as a matter of course.
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
3 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
3 days ago
Oh, you have to piss me off pretty bad before I start losing it.
Like acting like a brick wall, where logic, reason, and evidence bounce right the hell off of someone. Or not letting what other people say affect what they're going to say next; you don't have to agree, but don't be a damned broken record.
Basically, if you decide to be frustrating, yeah, I might just unload on you. Or just block your ass.
But if you decide to have a rational, reasonable, and open-minded, back-and-forth, two-way discussion, you will never incur my wrath.
Show less
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
3 days ago
+BionicDance One of the many reasons I subscribe to your channel.
Reply
·
1
Charlie sc5 days ago
Good video.
Reply
·
gothatfunk1 week ago
"you can't play that ignorance role..."
says the guy playing the ignorant role.
Reply
·
22
eire138
1 week ago
problem is...I doubt he was playing a role...
Reply
·
15
Dragnauct Sylvas6 days ago
A theist conflating terms for their own use and strawman'ing our positions? Never.
Reply
·
Bunto Skiffler6 days ago
BD, absolutely serious here. Next time you do vid like this... use simple diagrams for him. Just saying
Reply
·
Hide replies
BionicDance
6 days 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
5 days ago
+BionicDance I have a feeling he realises he is wrong, but he's gone too far down the rabbit hole to turn back and admit his defeat.
Reply
·
BionicDance
4 days ago
+Charlie sc I think that's likely, yes.
There is no greater enemy to rational discussion than excessive ego and endangered dignity.
Reply
·
Robert Wallace1 week ago
It's Atheist Baby season !
Reply
·
View all 12 replies
BionicDance
1 week ago
+Robert Wallace Right on the button.
Reply
·
Robert Wallace
1 week ago
=D
Reply
·
anthonyg59911 week ago
Have you ever addressed the kalam cosmological argument?
Reply
·
View all 13 replies
Anthony Gloria
1 week ago
Would you accept acts of impossibilities concerning causal or logical connections as evidence?
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
+Anthony Gloria Can these "impossibilities" be shown objectively and tested in a lab?
Reply
·
Charles Kunkle1 week ago
now I just love this guy's argument... I misunderstand the English language, and do not even know how to look up the meanings of words, so everyone has to use my incorrect definitions for things.
Reply
·
3
lec06211 week ago
I think I just heard someone storm off and call us names. Forget this jerk. He's as dishonest as the day is long...maybe longer. Don't wrestle with pigs....
Reply
·
BrianJ19621 week ago
"Ignorance of belief in God" would be, in a broad sense, ig-theism and be closer to reflecting babies than any option requiring some understanding of the deity concept and making a decision regarding acceptance, or dismissal of that concept. But we've had that discussion before - lol - and I'm not going to re-open that particular can-o-worms. So I'll attempt your new angle on atheist / theist bi-polarism...
As for a word to describe the concept "the number of gods believed in is zero", this would only be of 'use' in such a bi-polar sense - and, if used as a mechanism to bolster demographic numbers, absolutely meaningless - as many of those babies designated "atheist" would, upon eventual cogitation of the concept, actually turn out to be "theist" - thereby kinda invalidating the 'utility' of the resulting demographic with regards actual, cognitive 'opinion' in discussions on any topic...
Unless, of course, there is some 'value' in the inclusion of the pre-supposed 'opinion' of those inherently without an opinion on any specific topic matter when it comes to discussion of said topic?
The only other 'utility' I can see, is a means to insinuate oneself into a 'default' position - thereby absolving oneself of any onus to substantiate one's decision-making process when it comes to discussion of the reasons "why" one holds the position one does on any given topic / concept - essentially halting any 'dialogue' beyond establishing an "I don't have to prove anything; but let's discuss you" 'beachhead' from which to speak...
Surely it's the "why do you think this?" discussions that holds more 'value' than a simple evaluation of the concept one adheres to?
If there are other 'motivations' for "needing" formalisation of this concept in society, or 'utility' in the application of it for demographic evaluation purposes - please enlighten us? But in essence, if that is the concept you "need a word for", then I agree - you are going to have to come up with a new one in order to prevent re-defining something already in common usage.
Read more (27 lines)
Reply
·
1
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
Star Laughter1 week ago (edited)
I'm sorry this is off topic, but every time I watch your video's I desperately want to reach out and tuck your hair behind your ears! I have always had long hair, and find it uncomfortable to feel hair in my face. Hell, I did it at least once to a wisp that got blown by my air-con during this sentence :)
"Let you have the word atheism, but we're going to need another word"
Love that idea! Of course they would hijack and misrepresent any position we took, as it threatened to push an iota of reason into the equation.
Here's an "ism" that I think aptly describes this bloke.... "egocentrism".
"Every baby is ignorant"
Yep, and for nearly 200 thousand years of human life (or more) humans were all ignorant to the Judeo-Christian God. Isn't that more evidence that he isn't much of a God more than him being a loving God who wants a personal relationship with someone?
I have to say, BD, it has been pleasant to not only grow myself through my years on YT arguing and debating with others, but I have seen that in you too. You used to be a lot more hot-headed and insulting to these types of believers (as I was) and now you are much more calm. It's easier for them to respond thoughtfully I think when they're not on the defensive (I'm sure you know), but I still have trouble not just making a passing remark about their lack of intelligence some days :D
Anywho, good video, thanks.
Read more (22 lines)
Reply
·
2
Hide replies
BionicDance
1 week ago
Hey, I like my hair like this! :D
Anyway, yeah, you're right...I used to be a lot crankier about all this. I think there is a double standard, though, because some of the most popular channels when this all began were really snarky and sarcastic...but apparently I'm not allowed to be. Ah, well.
I've started going for reasonable-and-occasionally-funny instead; it seems to be werkin' fer me. :)
Read more
Reply
·
Star Laughter
1 week ago
+BionicDance Just don't be offended if every now and then a random hand comes slowly towards your face :D
I agree, this sort of approach seems much more effective (especially towards the undecided agnostic sorts) than the old name and shame type stuff.
Having said that, sometimes they say something so silly that it seems deserving of nothing less than utter ridicule, but this usually has a negative effect on me 8(
Read more
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
+Star Laughter Well, I have to admit, I had to reeeeeeeaaaaally hold back when he made those comments about atheists thinking they're smarter, and the should-have-been-a-psychiatrist line. Egad...talk about just handing it to someone, neh?
What I have to remember is that I'm not just talking to the person I'm responding to; I'm trying to convince all the people watching, as well.
Show less
Reply
·
1
Inannalu1 week ago
Maybe he's conflating "atheist" with "apostate" (one who denounces a faith previously adhered to). Many atheists are indeed apostates, but one does not need to be an apostate in order to be an atheist.
Reply
·
7
Matthew Bannock
1 week ago
I think that you are correct.
Reply
·
Red Cloud1 week ago
I agree with you, in every part, except one, and for me, this is a big one, and causes Much frustration. Ignorance is Not a derogatory term, and only people who take offence, are those who literally don't know better, and the only people who Use the term in a derogatory manner are those too Stupid to understand. There Is NO shame in ignorance, there's Nothing wrong with not knowing an answer to a question, however being unable, or unwilling to take and/or comprehend new information Does incur that something is wrong with You. That is Stupidity, a lack of ability or willingness to learn, Ignorance is merely a lack of information, or education, and they are Very different. See what I mean about labels? They've become so muddled, so incorrectly used, so confused...I Know we can do better, and so can damn near everyone else, some people just don't know they can, and so it's our responsibility to show them through example.
Read more
Reply
·
6
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
adir mugrabi1 week ago
i wish that NO ONE used the word Atheist!
Reply
·
Hide replies
Jesse Sisolack
1 week ago
Would it not be great if the idea never even mattered? I never even thought about Atheism until I moved to the South East and was attacked by crazy religious nuts.
Reply
·
1
oscargordon
1 week ago
As BD said, what word should be use to describe people who are not theists? Why did you capitalized the word "Atheist"? It is either a noun or an adjective, but not a proper noun. Or is it that what you are trying to say is that you wish everybody had an imaginary friend?
Reply
·
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
i really do NOT wish that people will believe in stupid imaginary friends.
what i do want, is that people will describes them self by what they are, and NOT what they are not!
i capitalized the A to show that its the point of my comment. its as dumb as saying that all babies are non-stamp collectors.
there is no need to say what you are not.
Show less
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
+adir mugrabi Actually it can be quite necessary to describe what you are not sometimes. We have entire courts of law which are built around people trying to prove what they're not.
Or how about: "The earthquake is over...are you hurt?"
"No, I'm not; go help people who really need it!"
And in a world were a stupid-huge number of people believe in sky-fairies, in a world where that;s just plain ludicrous, describing yourself by what you're not also becomes necessary, lest people make assumptions about you, and in order to convince people of your position on the matter.
Show less
Reply
·
oscargordon
1 week ago
+adir mugrabi Well then, I am still waiting, what should we call people who are not a member of the group "theist". If someone asks me if my child collects stamps, what is wrong with me saying no, she is a non-stamp collector? I never bring up the subject of religion, nor do I go around telling people "I'm an atheist", however I do know lots of people that are constantly letting me know that they are a Christian. If somebody asks me what my religion is or goes on about their faith, what word do I use to describe to them that I am not a member of their group?
Show less
Reply
·
1
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
+oscargordon we will not "call" them. Since there is no such group!
And will you really say she is a non stamp collector? Or will you say that she doesn't collect stamps.
There is a difference between "not a theist" and "a non theist".
Just like: "I'm not a kid". Isn't the same as; "I'm a non kid"
+BionicDance just say that you're not theist. Than describe what you really are.
I, for example, am an anti theist. I believe that religion is harmful and anyone who practice it is moronicly dumfucked.
Yes, I'm also not a theist. But so is my fart. My fart is not a theist, since he has no faith in any God. There for my fart is an atheist.
Stop calling yourself by what you are not!
Show less
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
"Not a theist" and "atheist" are the same damn thing. I know you don't like that--clearly--but it's the truth.
And changing the word won't change or stop the argument.
So this is pointless, unless you have something ELSE to say.
Reply
·
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
+BionicDance i know that they mean the same thing. i am just saying that its wrong to use it.
since it makes people think that it describes them.
you would lough at someone who answers:
"i'm a non-sports fan" when asked fo favorite team.
an atheist is anyone or anything who believes in 0 gods.
and since there isn't a real definition of the word God. everyone are atheists!
god = something that created the universe?
no! Afrodita was a god. and had nothing to do with it.
supernatural?
no since that would make magicians, into gods.
something that is being worshiped?
like pop singers?!
the concept of God is ill defined, there for the concept of theism is the worship of something that ill defined. and atheism is not that^.
Show less
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
Well, I'm sorry, but it's not wrong to use it...because your way, we have no words to use in order to convey the concept. And, like it or not, this topic keeps coming up, so we need that word.
Otherwise, we'll be forever using clunky-ass expressions like, "Well, as one who does not, in fact, believe in any god(s)..." instead of just being able to say "atheist".
So...do please kindly get over it. Because this is a very pointless argument, one that seems more rooted in ideology than any desire to communicate easily with people.
Show less
Reply
·
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
well my reason is that, as you know TOO MANY IDIOTS GETS IT WRONG!
but if you say you not theist, they will ask for what you really are, instead of assuming something stupid!
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
So? This isn't gonna make it any better.
Reply
·
oscargordon
1 week ago
+adir mugrabi So I think I might be starting to understand where you are coming from. As BD pointed out in her vid, we regularly stick an "a" in front of a word to indicate that something is not a part of a particular group. We have a perfectly good word that is clearly defined in any modern dictionary to indicate that you are not a part of the group that believes in the existence of gods. What I am seeming to hear you say is that you object to the word because of the "idiot" in this video trying to tortuously redefine it. Let me clue you in. People like this guy most likely believe that if you don't worship the same god that they do, you must therefore worship and be in league with the devil and have certain sets of beliefs and rituals, such as eating babies, and since all babies are atheists.... So really, isn't it all about the babies?
Show less
Reply
·
1
Robert WLester1 week ago
Stiggy, a.k.a. bruce, is a guy i have avoided debating because he is a convertee and made it his crutch, but i don't mind you responding to him, he needs the attention to think out of the box.
the baby thing is lame, all babies argument is irrelevant, since the debate is between those with thought in mind beyond food or nappy changes ;)
I do agree largely, semantics divide us in some ways, however i would prefer greater discussion on the huge difference between fundy nutbags and lesser believers, or indeed liberal versions of Christianity, I only state this thought because painting the debate black and white is playing to the fundies, in a way.
i like how you state "agnostic atheist", many fundies can't understand this concept, so bruce will not accept it as valid until he grows up(maybe never).
Show less
Reply
·
2
View all 10 replies
Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)
If you can convince people to drink poison, you can convince them of anything. Remember, 50% of people are below average intelligence.
Reply
·
sogghartha
1 week ago
+Jacob Williams And they get to vote! :O
;)
Reply
·
Merit Coba1 week ago (edited)
We do not mind the be called anything they like as long as we get the discount. A cat is a cat... no matter what. Nya.
Reply
·
1
rohanwotan21 week ago
He should have been a psychiatrist? Sheesh, I think he needs to SEE a psychiatrist.
Reply
·
5
View all 5 replies
Robert WLester
1 week ago
actually he does, he got religion when he stopped being addict, i think.
Reply
·
Jesse Sisolack
1 week ago
+BionicDance Yes, but you know we were all thinking it, and you could not have been thinking it any louder, haha.
Reply
·
jiberish0011 week ago
At 5:02
ARRRRG!!!
NO, BRUCE!
It is A-Theism. It is NOT Athe-ism!
Reply
·
1
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
·
Show more
All comments (226)
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.
Read more
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
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days 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
6 days ago
Finally! Someone who gets it!
Thank you!
Reply
·
Jason Kay
6 days ago
+BionicDance
it really isnt a difficult concept. Why +gambleor is having such a hard time with it is quite baffling, honestly.
Reply
·
BionicDance
6 days ago
He had to be trolling; nobody can be that stupid and still log onto the internet.
Reply
·
Jason Kay
6 days 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
6 days ago
I appreciate that, thanks! :)
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
4 days ago
+BionicDance Is it me, or did you just PWN Santa Claus's Redneck cousin?
Reply
·
VinnyMonster1
4 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
4 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
4 days ago
+Jason Kay Sounds like he thinks he can win a debate merely by tiring his opponent.
Reply
·
1
BionicDance
3 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
3 days ago
+BionicDance That is behaviour I'd normally only associate with a kindergarten bully
Reply
·
1
BionicDance
3 days ago
Welcome to the internet, where civility, maturity, and courtesy are suspended as a matter of course.
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
3 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
3 days ago
Oh, you have to piss me off pretty bad before I start losing it.
Like acting like a brick wall, where logic, reason, and evidence bounce right the hell off of someone. Or not letting what other people say affect what they're going to say next; you don't have to agree, but don't be a damned broken record.
Basically, if you decide to be frustrating, yeah, I might just unload on you. Or just block your ass.
But if you decide to have a rational, reasonable, and open-minded, back-and-forth, two-way discussion, you will never incur my wrath.
Show less
Reply
·
1
VinnyMonster1
3 days ago
+BionicDance One of the many reasons I subscribe to your channel.
Reply
·
1
Charlie sc5 days ago
Good video.
Reply
·
gothatfunk1 week ago
"you can't play that ignorance role..."
says the guy playing the ignorant role.
Reply
·
22
eire138
1 week ago
problem is...I doubt he was playing a role...
Reply
·
15
Dragnauct Sylvas6 days ago
A theist conflating terms for their own use and strawman'ing our positions? Never.
Reply
·
Bunto Skiffler6 days ago
BD, absolutely serious here. Next time you do vid like this... use simple diagrams for him. Just saying
Reply
·
Hide replies
BionicDance
6 days 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
5 days ago
+BionicDance I have a feeling he realises he is wrong, but he's gone too far down the rabbit hole to turn back and admit his defeat.
Reply
·
BionicDance
4 days ago
+Charlie sc I think that's likely, yes.
There is no greater enemy to rational discussion than excessive ego and endangered dignity.
Reply
·
Robert Wallace1 week ago
It's Atheist Baby season !
Reply
·
View all 12 replies
BionicDance
1 week ago
+Robert Wallace Right on the button.
Reply
·
Robert Wallace
1 week ago
=D
Reply
·
anthonyg59911 week ago
Have you ever addressed the kalam cosmological argument?
Reply
·
View all 13 replies
Anthony Gloria
1 week ago
Would you accept acts of impossibilities concerning causal or logical connections as evidence?
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
+Anthony Gloria Can these "impossibilities" be shown objectively and tested in a lab?
Reply
·
Charles Kunkle1 week ago
now I just love this guy's argument... I misunderstand the English language, and do not even know how to look up the meanings of words, so everyone has to use my incorrect definitions for things.
Reply
·
3
lec06211 week ago
I think I just heard someone storm off and call us names. Forget this jerk. He's as dishonest as the day is long...maybe longer. Don't wrestle with pigs....
Reply
·
BrianJ19621 week ago
"Ignorance of belief in God" would be, in a broad sense, ig-theism and be closer to reflecting babies than any option requiring some understanding of the deity concept and making a decision regarding acceptance, or dismissal of that concept. But we've had that discussion before - lol - and I'm not going to re-open that particular can-o-worms. So I'll attempt your new angle on atheist / theist bi-polarism...
As for a word to describe the concept "the number of gods believed in is zero", this would only be of 'use' in such a bi-polar sense - and, if used as a mechanism to bolster demographic numbers, absolutely meaningless - as many of those babies designated "atheist" would, upon eventual cogitation of the concept, actually turn out to be "theist" - thereby kinda invalidating the 'utility' of the resulting demographic with regards actual, cognitive 'opinion' in discussions on any topic...
Unless, of course, there is some 'value' in the inclusion of the pre-supposed 'opinion' of those inherently without an opinion on any specific topic matter when it comes to discussion of said topic?
The only other 'utility' I can see, is a means to insinuate oneself into a 'default' position - thereby absolving oneself of any onus to substantiate one's decision-making process when it comes to discussion of the reasons "why" one holds the position one does on any given topic / concept - essentially halting any 'dialogue' beyond establishing an "I don't have to prove anything; but let's discuss you" 'beachhead' from which to speak...
Surely it's the "why do you think this?" discussions that holds more 'value' than a simple evaluation of the concept one adheres to?
If there are other 'motivations' for "needing" formalisation of this concept in society, or 'utility' in the application of it for demographic evaluation purposes - please enlighten us? But in essence, if that is the concept you "need a word for", then I agree - you are going to have to come up with a new one in order to prevent re-defining something already in common usage.
Read more (27 lines)
Reply
·
1
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
Star Laughter1 week ago (edited)
I'm sorry this is off topic, but every time I watch your video's I desperately want to reach out and tuck your hair behind your ears! I have always had long hair, and find it uncomfortable to feel hair in my face. Hell, I did it at least once to a wisp that got blown by my air-con during this sentence :)
"Let you have the word atheism, but we're going to need another word"
Love that idea! Of course they would hijack and misrepresent any position we took, as it threatened to push an iota of reason into the equation.
Here's an "ism" that I think aptly describes this bloke.... "egocentrism".
"Every baby is ignorant"
Yep, and for nearly 200 thousand years of human life (or more) humans were all ignorant to the Judeo-Christian God. Isn't that more evidence that he isn't much of a God more than him being a loving God who wants a personal relationship with someone?
I have to say, BD, it has been pleasant to not only grow myself through my years on YT arguing and debating with others, but I have seen that in you too. You used to be a lot more hot-headed and insulting to these types of believers (as I was) and now you are much more calm. It's easier for them to respond thoughtfully I think when they're not on the defensive (I'm sure you know), but I still have trouble not just making a passing remark about their lack of intelligence some days :D
Anywho, good video, thanks.
Read more (22 lines)
Reply
·
2
Hide replies
BionicDance
1 week ago
Hey, I like my hair like this! :D
Anyway, yeah, you're right...I used to be a lot crankier about all this. I think there is a double standard, though, because some of the most popular channels when this all began were really snarky and sarcastic...but apparently I'm not allowed to be. Ah, well.
I've started going for reasonable-and-occasionally-funny instead; it seems to be werkin' fer me. :)
Read more
Reply
·
Star Laughter
1 week ago
+BionicDance Just don't be offended if every now and then a random hand comes slowly towards your face :D
I agree, this sort of approach seems much more effective (especially towards the undecided agnostic sorts) than the old name and shame type stuff.
Having said that, sometimes they say something so silly that it seems deserving of nothing less than utter ridicule, but this usually has a negative effect on me 8(
Read more
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
+Star Laughter Well, I have to admit, I had to reeeeeeeaaaaally hold back when he made those comments about atheists thinking they're smarter, and the should-have-been-a-psychiatrist line. Egad...talk about just handing it to someone, neh?
What I have to remember is that I'm not just talking to the person I'm responding to; I'm trying to convince all the people watching, as well.
Show less
Reply
·
1
Inannalu1 week ago
Maybe he's conflating "atheist" with "apostate" (one who denounces a faith previously adhered to). Many atheists are indeed apostates, but one does not need to be an apostate in order to be an atheist.
Reply
·
7
Matthew Bannock
1 week ago
I think that you are correct.
Reply
·
Red Cloud1 week ago
I agree with you, in every part, except one, and for me, this is a big one, and causes Much frustration. Ignorance is Not a derogatory term, and only people who take offence, are those who literally don't know better, and the only people who Use the term in a derogatory manner are those too Stupid to understand. There Is NO shame in ignorance, there's Nothing wrong with not knowing an answer to a question, however being unable, or unwilling to take and/or comprehend new information Does incur that something is wrong with You. That is Stupidity, a lack of ability or willingness to learn, Ignorance is merely a lack of information, or education, and they are Very different. See what I mean about labels? They've become so muddled, so incorrectly used, so confused...I Know we can do better, and so can damn near everyone else, some people just don't know they can, and so it's our responsibility to show them through example.
Read more
Reply
·
6
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
adir mugrabi1 week ago
i wish that NO ONE used the word Atheist!
Reply
·
Hide replies
Jesse Sisolack
1 week ago
Would it not be great if the idea never even mattered? I never even thought about Atheism until I moved to the South East and was attacked by crazy religious nuts.
Reply
·
1
oscargordon
1 week ago
As BD said, what word should be use to describe people who are not theists? Why did you capitalized the word "Atheist"? It is either a noun or an adjective, but not a proper noun. Or is it that what you are trying to say is that you wish everybody had an imaginary friend?
Reply
·
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
i really do NOT wish that people will believe in stupid imaginary friends.
what i do want, is that people will describes them self by what they are, and NOT what they are not!
i capitalized the A to show that its the point of my comment. its as dumb as saying that all babies are non-stamp collectors.
there is no need to say what you are not.
Show less
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
+adir mugrabi Actually it can be quite necessary to describe what you are not sometimes. We have entire courts of law which are built around people trying to prove what they're not.
Or how about: "The earthquake is over...are you hurt?"
"No, I'm not; go help people who really need it!"
And in a world were a stupid-huge number of people believe in sky-fairies, in a world where that;s just plain ludicrous, describing yourself by what you're not also becomes necessary, lest people make assumptions about you, and in order to convince people of your position on the matter.
Show less
Reply
·
oscargordon
1 week ago
+adir mugrabi Well then, I am still waiting, what should we call people who are not a member of the group "theist". If someone asks me if my child collects stamps, what is wrong with me saying no, she is a non-stamp collector? I never bring up the subject of religion, nor do I go around telling people "I'm an atheist", however I do know lots of people that are constantly letting me know that they are a Christian. If somebody asks me what my religion is or goes on about their faith, what word do I use to describe to them that I am not a member of their group?
Show less
Reply
·
1
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
+oscargordon we will not "call" them. Since there is no such group!
And will you really say she is a non stamp collector? Or will you say that she doesn't collect stamps.
There is a difference between "not a theist" and "a non theist".
Just like: "I'm not a kid". Isn't the same as; "I'm a non kid"
+BionicDance just say that you're not theist. Than describe what you really are.
I, for example, am an anti theist. I believe that religion is harmful and anyone who practice it is moronicly dumfucked.
Yes, I'm also not a theist. But so is my fart. My fart is not a theist, since he has no faith in any God. There for my fart is an atheist.
Stop calling yourself by what you are not!
Show less
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
"Not a theist" and "atheist" are the same damn thing. I know you don't like that--clearly--but it's the truth.
And changing the word won't change or stop the argument.
So this is pointless, unless you have something ELSE to say.
Reply
·
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
+BionicDance i know that they mean the same thing. i am just saying that its wrong to use it.
since it makes people think that it describes them.
you would lough at someone who answers:
"i'm a non-sports fan" when asked fo favorite team.
an atheist is anyone or anything who believes in 0 gods.
and since there isn't a real definition of the word God. everyone are atheists!
god = something that created the universe?
no! Afrodita was a god. and had nothing to do with it.
supernatural?
no since that would make magicians, into gods.
something that is being worshiped?
like pop singers?!
the concept of God is ill defined, there for the concept of theism is the worship of something that ill defined. and atheism is not that^.
Show less
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
Well, I'm sorry, but it's not wrong to use it...because your way, we have no words to use in order to convey the concept. And, like it or not, this topic keeps coming up, so we need that word.
Otherwise, we'll be forever using clunky-ass expressions like, "Well, as one who does not, in fact, believe in any god(s)..." instead of just being able to say "atheist".
So...do please kindly get over it. Because this is a very pointless argument, one that seems more rooted in ideology than any desire to communicate easily with people.
Show less
Reply
·
adir mugrabi
1 week ago
well my reason is that, as you know TOO MANY IDIOTS GETS IT WRONG!
but if you say you not theist, they will ask for what you really are, instead of assuming something stupid!
Reply
·
BionicDance
1 week ago
So? This isn't gonna make it any better.
Reply
·
oscargordon
1 week ago
+adir mugrabi So I think I might be starting to understand where you are coming from. As BD pointed out in her vid, we regularly stick an "a" in front of a word to indicate that something is not a part of a particular group. We have a perfectly good word that is clearly defined in any modern dictionary to indicate that you are not a part of the group that believes in the existence of gods. What I am seeming to hear you say is that you object to the word because of the "idiot" in this video trying to tortuously redefine it. Let me clue you in. People like this guy most likely believe that if you don't worship the same god that they do, you must therefore worship and be in league with the devil and have certain sets of beliefs and rituals, such as eating babies, and since all babies are atheists.... So really, isn't it all about the babies?
Show less
Reply
·
1
Robert WLester1 week ago
Stiggy, a.k.a. bruce, is a guy i have avoided debating because he is a convertee and made it his crutch, but i don't mind you responding to him, he needs the attention to think out of the box.
the baby thing is lame, all babies argument is irrelevant, since the debate is between those with thought in mind beyond food or nappy changes ;)
I do agree largely, semantics divide us in some ways, however i would prefer greater discussion on the huge difference between fundy nutbags and lesser believers, or indeed liberal versions of Christianity, I only state this thought because painting the debate black and white is playing to the fundies, in a way.
i like how you state "agnostic atheist", many fundies can't understand this concept, so bruce will not accept it as valid until he grows up(maybe never).
Show less
Reply
·
2
View all 10 replies
Jacob Williams
1 week ago (edited)
If you can convince people to drink poison, you can convince them of anything. Remember, 50% of people are below average intelligence.
Reply
·
sogghartha
1 week ago
+Jacob Williams And they get to vote! :O
;)
Reply
·
Merit Coba1 week ago (edited)
We do not mind the be called anything they like as long as we get the discount. A cat is a cat... no matter what. Nya.
Reply
·
1
rohanwotan21 week ago
He should have been a psychiatrist? Sheesh, I think he needs to SEE a psychiatrist.
Reply
·
5
View all 5 replies
Robert WLester
1 week ago
actually he does, he got religion when he stopped being addict, i think.
Reply
·
Jesse Sisolack
1 week ago
+BionicDance Yes, but you know we were all thinking it, and you could not have been thinking it any louder, haha.
Reply
·
jiberish0011 week ago
At 5:02
ARRRRG!!!
NO, BRUCE!
It is A-Theism. It is NOT Athe-ism!
Reply
·
1
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
·
Show more
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment