people like abby don't hold responsibility for all of the dickishness of Christianity, just like how I don't hold responsibility for some of what Stalin did.
I'm sorry but didn't you say in "Atheist Baggage Claim" that Atheism/Theism was a conflict, indicating there ARE sides and you're either on one side or the other and that, by saying you were an agnostic, you were just trying to get 'out of the fight'? So, according to this video, atheists aren't playing the religion game, but 4 months ago you said that atheism was in a conflict with theism (or at least that's how it came across). I think this is a tad contradictory.
The not-a-Star-Wars-fan analogy doesn't quite work. According to you, it would mean that everything ever done by a Star Wars fan, in the name of Star Wars, would automatically be the responsibility of all other Star Wars fans.
Even with this clarification, everyone who believes that evolution is true must therefore be responsible for the actions of everyone else who believes that evolution is true.
Or will you make a magic exception for scientific theories, etc?
@Macaii Believing in evolution doesn't make you part of a group, it doesn't give you an allegiance. Religion does; religion expects your loyalty, expects you to join as a spiritual footsoldier.
@BionicDance Not all religion is organized. There are plenty of people who just happen to believe that the Bible is the Word of God but don't even go to church or anything of the sort. By your logic, that person is responsible for the actions of Adolf Hitler because Hitler, too, was a Christian. Indeed, believing something does make you part of a group by your understanding.
@Macaii No, just believing in something is NOT enough to make you part of a group by my understanding. YOU have misunderstood my point with regard to that; please re-evaluate your assessment of my position.
@BionicDance So now you add a new limitation: only organized religion? Is that correct? This would mean that Catholics are responsible for what the Vatican does, but not responsible for what the Russian Orthodox Church does, since these are two separate institutions.
@Macaii If you have a formal affiliation/connection to a group, if you give them monetary, moral, or political support, you are culpable to a degree; what's done by that church is done in your name, with your tacit support.
Seriously, is it REALLY this difficult to figure out? Really? *raised eyebrow*
@BionicDance I tend to believe individuals, and individuals alone, are responsible for individual actions. A catholic or lutheran or calvinist is, still, an individual whose actions are their own. Not the church's. Religious affiliation is PART of an individual, it is not THE individual.
Atheism per se is not an allegiance, but Internet Famous™, loud-mouthed Atheists who bleat about how much more rational they are than religious people, but don't have any really substantial command of scientific issues, seems to be becoming an allegiance...
@odenskrigare I looked for that group you mentioned because it sounded interesting. Turns out there isn't a self-described group of loud-mouthed atheists that bleat about rational they are, or whatever. It would seem it's just a sweeping generalization you made of people or things you've apparently encountered. I doubt this would fit anyone's definition of allegiance. Also, does being rational require "substantial command of scientific issues"? That's what I was interested in.
I've never met a single atheist who was not disgusted by the killings and atrocities of the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. As atheists we have NO PROBLEM, condemning these killings and calling them wrong.
To contrast, where is the Christian or Jew that will stand up and condemn the killings allegedly commanded in God's name in their scriptures:
Go attack the Amalekites... put to death men, women, children, infants and cattle.' [1 Samuel 15:2-4]
Reading some of the comment threads here, it has become a discussion about definition differences between affiliation and association. Also about levels of individual responsibility to the group.
Since God does not exist, I am therefore opposed to the belief that it does, that makes me anti-theist. That is my group and I am responsible for what is done in the name of anti-theism.
Tribalism is what is really being discussed here. Whether it's the jewish, christian, muslim, or anti-theist tribes.
2. Since the dawn of man, tribalism is central. Having said that though, atheism is different. It is non tribal. Atheism is not a group with any of the consistent requirements to be deemed a tribe. It is the simple answer to a specific question. Therefore, no atheist is responsible for what any other atheist does.
Until the atheist becomes anti-theist he/she is free from responsibility of tribal consequence.
"I will not join any club that would have me as a member" said the atheist.
I think most people strawman BD here, nowhere did she say, that this "responsibility" means, that every christian is responsible for what any christian does, i think, it's rather like the catholic church, where catholics should reconsider their membership in the criminal organisation, that is called "the church".
The degree, how much someone can be responsible for actions of similar beliefs, depends on every specific case and is most of the time rather limited.
Huh? Few religious folk enlist in "all for one, one for all" teams, fewer yet carry any weight in one, and most of the really awful shit ever done in the name of religion took place as some religious jerkwads tried to force others to tow a line-as an obligation of their religion!
As HUMANS, we are all equally obligated. We all have a duty to react to the same shit, whoever's doing it to whomever-it's REALLY dimwitted for me as a humanist to treat religious ppl like camps with special rules.
At least the person used Stalin and not Hitler. An argument I often hear from my theistic friends is that the bible is against homosexuality, but they (as individuals) are not actively persecuting anyone in the LGBT community. I try to point out that even holding the same beliefs as a member of the group that does the persecuting is in effect supporting it by propagating acceptance of the belief. I think that goes along with what you were saying.
I can see why you would hold someone responsible for supporting an organization that does something wrong, but having a particular religious affiliation is not the same as joining an organization. Atheists can be judged by the actions of Stalin because are not supporting Stalin's regime. Modern Christians can be judged by the actions of witch burners or medieval inquisitors because they aren't taking part in or supporting witch burnings or inquisitions.
if you BLINDLY believe in a religion without doing research or checking to see if what you believe in is true, THEN YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR "ALL" RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE!! THERE, "I" SAID IT! This blind belief helps spread the belief, until an idiot does the right thing....the idiot listens to the book, ex: kill gays ...They go kill gays! This was spread to the idiot by meanns of transportation from blind believers who may have stopped it by research and common sense!!!
Rational adults are responsible for their own actions regardless of what they've been told to do by an organization. Granted, if the organisation tells people to do immoral actions it should be criticized, but if it doesn't and a person within it just happens to perform an immoral action, then the organisation shouldn't be criticised unless they claim to make all adherents very moral people.
Haha! I actually new it was pointless to say only that but at the same time it's so obviously flawed ! I'm an atheist and I feel like you're right, but we have to stay reasonnable. By your logic, you're responsible, as an american, for the killings of millions of innocent people in the middle east, all done by your government. I agree that atheism is not a group that could be considered for guilt by association or whatever but we are all part of many ''groups''
@659851 As an American, I AM partly responsible; my tax dollars--and possibly even my votes, depending on the decisions made by those I'd voted for--are at least partially responsible for these things.
That's why I protest, that's why many people protest the things done in their name.
@BionicDance That is why some Catholics protest against the decisions made by the Vatican as well. To them, including me, the Vatican does not represent Catholicism.
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones See, I agree up until your last sentence. They protest because the Vatican DOES represent Catholicism, and they don't like what's being done in their name.
that can render us guilty of thing we oblviously don't agree. The thing is, if you disavowe every single group that has done something wrong, you're gonna have to go live on an island. So if this distinction can be maid for nationalism, it should be made for religion also.. That does'nt mean that I think it makes sense to be a believer or to associate yourself to such a disgusting organiation.
But I think that, on this one, the simple minded, often very good, religious person diserves a break ! For this argument ! But you made a legitimate stab at it ... I just think that you might not have though the subject throuh before exposing your argument !
But hey, at least you have the ''balls'' to put your opinion out there for the critisism and for that, I'll have a drink to you tonight !
The whole thing about, "The Theists are acting up again, it's "Religious misbehavior". It just sounds dumb whether you read it to yourself, listen to it, or say it to yourself. It's giving in to an us vs. them mentality and ignorance.
So all Atheists have in Common is mo belief in God. The only thing Theists neccessarily have in Common is a belief, some of them haven't even thought about it that much, they just believe whatever they were raised to believe, not that it isn't a problem. It's just ridiculous though that they're all suppose to be responsible for each other somehow, religious people aren't one group, not even one particular religion is a group that you can characterize this way. It's just anti theist rhetoric.
@DarkFantasyvids "The only thing theists have in common is a belief"...? Horseshit. They have dogma in common, holy days in common, holy buildings in common, leaders in common, values in common. They are more than just people with a single belief in common, and you should know that without my having to tell you.
@BionicDance Haha.. So you've studied all the religions of the world and they all have those things in common hugh. Wow. lol Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity.. Every subsection of the 20 or so major religions not including all the different smaller tribal ones all have the same dogma, all build huge holy buildings, etc. Sounds like your mostly comparing the big three western religions, Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, that doesn't = "Relgion", so Wrong again.
@DarkFantasyvids *rolls eyes* You're ignoring the principle to focus on semantics and details that don't affect it. And I'm done talking to you, since it's obvious that all you're here to do is WIN WIN WIN, even if it means intellectual dishonesty. Glory over truth and reality, that's your game. And I'm not gonna play.
@BionicDance My comment was a respectful and has plenty of substance as far as youtube comments go. I disagree with something you have to say, I think your the one showing intellectual dishonesty by engaging in sabre rattling generalizations and rhetoric. I think your smart enough to know what your doing also. You obviously have no good response for my comment, I will take that as a win, but what did I win? lol Nobody ever wins these arguments. I understand that, unlike some.
@DarkFantasyvids The fact that you're FOCUSING on generalizations instead of addressing the principle of the message is the problem, kiddo. You're taking it as a win in a fight only YOU were having. *rolls eyes*
@BionicDance "a fight only YOU were having. *rolls eyes*' This conversation/argument must be a figment of my imagination then. :-p It's just a conversation where people don't agree, big deal. A couple of people had a very similiar argument/response to similiar things you've been saying like this in videos I've watched. I'd bet plenty of others in the comments said similiar things also.. I would agree with a lot of what you say if you didn't generalize so much.
@DarkFantasyvids And being specific will bog down the message; YOU need to stop being so pedantic, missing the forest for the trees. Other people were capable of getting the point without being mired in details they didn't explicitly get.
@BionicDance Many very smart people don't think it's being trivial or pedantic to make the distinction between fundamentalists who want to force they're ways on other people and all religious people. It's pretty much the same thing Pat Condell does with Muslims. It's an important specification, not a trivial one. It's the difference between the message being sabre rattling kind of rhetorical relgious like preaching to rally people together vs. saying what the truth actually is.
@BionicDance "Glory over truth and reality, that's your game. And I'm not gonna play." You stole the thoughts right out of my brain as soon as I got done watching your video. ;-)
So when someone who happens to classify themselves as a Christian advocates against rights for gay people, etc. That's "Relgious misbehaviour" and all believers in god are somehow responsible for that because they're all on the same team somehow. That's just silly, it's a silly, simplified, generalized way of looking at the situtation.
@BionicDance I think individuals are responsible for themselves, that's what I think. I don't believe in guilt by association, and that's all this argument really is. Plus, maybe I didn't hear it in the video but I didn't hear you clarify "from whatever sect". I just heard you lump all religious people together and sabre rattle against "the religious" because "they're acting up" or something like that. Maybe I heard it wrong, idk.
You know not everyone who classifies themselves as "Christian", "Jewish", whatever, joined that religion and are allies with each other. Most Christians are no more responsible for Jerry Fawell and the crusades than atheists are for Stalin. A lot of people are born into relgion, they don't join. More people of all kinds of different groups, politically organized, etc. need to call out they're own more."People who believe in god are responsible for other believers actions" That's a bullshit.
@DarkFantasyvids So there are smaller categories; the point is still relevant and intact. People who've joined a religion or a church are PART OF SOMETHING, they've pledge allegiance to something, they have knit themselves into a group...and are responsible for that group.
Besides, if they're RIGHT, and there is a god, they've all allied themselves to that god.
No matter how you look at it, religion makes you part of a group, and responsible for its members' actions, and they for yours.
Yeah, I don't hold theists accountable for everything their fellow theists of the same stripe do. I do, however, point out that atrocities are sometimes committed in the name of deities, which tends to undermine the claim that religion is the source for morality. Mostly, though, I'm just happy when the religious don't try to shove those beliefs down others' throats. :)
Come on BD, in this video you sound like those Muslim bashing xenophobes who blame all Muslims for the extremism of the minority and then shout at the top of their lungs that the moderates must decry every single negative act or else they're condoning it. They may all have a belief in the same thing, but our actions are our responsibility alone. Theists don't have to condemn everything overtly to not like what other theists are doing, they don't have to answer to you.
@StanMarsh1 So committing an atrocity in the name of a group to which you are affiliated does NOT make the group responsible? Really? How do you figure? How does this not throw the doors open wide to deliberately committing atrocities if you can maintain plausible deniability?
@BionicDance How is it fair to tarnish the reputation of someone with being responsible for an atrocity that they had nothing to do with, except for sharing the same beliefs as the guilty? If they didn't do anything, they are NOT responsible. They are only responsible for what THEY do.
@StanMarsh1 They do MORE than just "share the beliefs". Surely you know that.
They pay tithes, they give moral and political support. They ADVOCATE. They're members of a group, members of a team, an organization. It goes so far beyond simply having values or beliefs in common.
@BionicDance I'm surprised that you think if one Lutheran blew up a hospital every other Lutheran would bear some responsibility even if they abhor the idea. Plus, not everyone pays tithes, and just because they may advocate for their own particular theistic beliefs that doesn't mean they share anything else with extremists.
Personal responsibility. Extremists are alone or with small groups, they have ideas way outside of most groups doctrines and they do not speak for all of them
@StanMarsh1 What would you think of a Lutheran who DIDN'T stand up and say, "That person who did that...I do not oppose them. I do not renounce them. What they've done in our name is NOT approved by the Lutheran church"...?
Would that not be tacit approval? Would that not be tacit culpability? Because I think it would. You cannot simply ignore what's done in your name just because you don't approve of it.
What do foreign dictators that promote atheism + their ideology have to do with the validity of atheism? Exactly atheists have come out! It is the future.
"And if one of your number commits an atrocity in your name, it's your responsibility to police your own, or you ALL accept the blame." That's how it SHOULD work, but it never does. Their "We are better than you" position would be undermined.
I think Bionicdance should make another video further elaborating the point. This is a brilliant topic but I feel people might be missing the more subtle points of the argument that she is making. Example: the Finnish during WW2 allied with the Nazis but they themselves cannot be help accountable for the crimes of the Nazis because it was only an alliance of necessity. Were as Nazis sympathizers in say the Catholic church are somewhat responsible for the crimes of the Nazis.
@thesparitan I think you got this perfectly right. Yes, if we endorse we give subtle support and cover to something and that incurs some albeit often negible levels of responsibility.
@socrates856 I think I can agree with that. Now that if a faction of a group does something that goes against the creed of the group that someone is apart of then the group as a whole is not responible, but say if the creed says "all red heads should die" but no one takes it seriously until a faction breaks off and starts killing red heads, than I cannot see how the main group has no blame what so ever.
Ex: I am an America and responsible for the harm my country has done to say Iraqis.
@thesparitan See, the moral imperative is about what you do and can do. If you are part of a club and something bad happens that you indeed had no choice over, you are not responsible. But then choices to open. Do you stay in a club where this happens? What do you do with it.
@thesparitan But let's take Iraq. I do think that US citizen have some responsibility, but that responsibility is scaled. A member of congress who voted affirmatively has a different level of responsibility than a person who actively protested in the streets against it. A person who packed up and moved to canada has a different responsibility than someone who cheer-leaded the war and welcomed the deaths. But it is always tempting to blanket deny any form of responsibility.
@socrates856 You put it better than me. I am in full agreement with everything you just wrote. I posted almost the same comment on themeliandialogue video "I pledge allegiance, to the cult ...". Great minds think alike. LOL.
God I love the atheist youtube community. This is how groups of people should act; just as critical of each other as they are too the other side. This is a very healthy behavior and while it isn't pleasant I would argue that this gives the skeptical community a shape advantage when it comes to the pursuit of true.
@BionicDance Agreed. I personally believe that they more we are "not playing the game" as you say in regards to religion, the better we become because we do not have conflict when the tribe and truth are at adds. If dogma is a virus, the antibody is rigorous critical thought regardless of who or what is making the argument. I believe we extend the idea of not playing the game in regards to all groups and positions. Tribal mentality is the problem if it gets in the way of truth.
@KCKatheist Very true, which is way if there was a god and it was just, atheist would be gods chosen people. I personally feel very happy I associate with people who would rip my head of if I make an argument or use evidence they don't find compelling.
I have no idea why this video is drawing controversy. I guess I must be in a club I never joined, yet people who agree to have a shared and positively affirmed belief cannot be pointed out to the joint fallacy that entails? Yeah I'm not in the not-yankee fan club. Someone could make a club that is about not-being-a-yankee-fan, but I sure as heck wouldn't join.
@BionicDance Well perhaps it's because I have actually seen forms that asked for religious affiliation and there was one non-religious option that read "no affiliation". But "no affiliation" is an affiliation too now, and we are NOT responsible for the clubs we actively join and maintain at all of course. Tihi.
So, they want to hold you responsible for all the horrible things Stalin did. I guess by their "logic" that means they should be held responsible for all the inhumane atrocities "god" and his followers performed in the old testament?
@mattzer0 The problem is the difference between association and affiliation; atheists have joined nothing, but theists have essentially sworn fealty. Therein lies the crucial difference.
@BionicDance True. I can't stand when I hear religious people talk about atheism like it's a cult or religion. It's so hard to get the simple concept through their thick skulls that it's an ABSENCE of religion. You'd think something so simple would register in pretty much anyone's brain :/
@Anghellik9 Because they're both part of the christian religion, and Pat Robertson is giving their organization a bad rap by using christianity as a reason to be a bigot.
Oh, they can accept the association and be thought as much of a asshole for their association...or they can actually speak up, tell Robertson to shut the fuck up, and show us that christianity DOESN'T turn you into the dick-hole Robertson is.
@BionicDance Interesting, seeing as the majority of secularists in America are actually Christians, including the head of Americans United For Seperation of Church and State.
Can I expect to see you make a video about everything bad that America has done in the last 200 years? If not, do you accept the stigma of being American, as you still live there?
@Anghellik9 Actually, I speak out about a fair amount of the shit America does and has done in past. Perhaps not on YouTube as much--I tend to use YouTube for my atheism and animation stuff--but in person and on Facebook. Though I DID put videos about the Occupy Movement on here a while back.
It's called taking responsibility. And there are DEFINITELY times when I'm not particularly proud of being American because of what this country has done in my name.
@BionicDance Yeah, and I know plenty of Christians that are in the same boat. Yet here we are, discussing how Christians have to shout it from the rooftops. When some random atheist does something insane, I shouldn't have to make a video saying "oh by the way, I condemn that guys actions" and religious people shouldn't be put on some higher standard.
@Anghellik9 Atheism is not an organization. Atheism is not an affiliation. Atheism is the LACK of affiliation with religion. Nothing more. "Atheist" is not a description of one's alliance, it's a description of one's stance on religion. Like it or not, it's DIFFERENT from being in a religion.
When someone in a religion goes bonko, the religion is responsible for the clean-up. When someone NOT in a religion goes bonko, they did it on their own. All atheists are alone with regard to religion.
Do Lutherans have to clean up the mess of Southern Baptists?
Why is a Christian sect that is opposed (sometimes violently so) asked to apologise for the actions of every Christian? I don't understand your assertion that someone saying "I believe in Jesus" suddenly makes them partially responsible for someone going bonko. Does this work for secular groups as well? I'm a Rammstein fan. If some other Rammstein fan does something mental, do I have to apologise?
@Anghellik9 Are they not all christians? Hell, even if you want to break it up even finer than that, do Lutherans not have to clean up after other Lutherans?
Don't groups have a responsibility to clean up after bad shit done in their name?
And I see part of the problem is that you don't see the difference between actually being AFFILIATED...and just being loosely associated.
Unaffiliated Rammstein FANS are not responsible for others...but members of a fan CLUB are. See the difference?
@BionicDance If I'm part of, say, Lesbians United but NOT a member of LGBT Out, and LGBT Out does something horrible, it's NOT my responsibility, even though I know people who are in LGBT Out. I'm associated with 'em, sure, being LGBT myself...but I'm not a MEMBER Not affiliated.
@BionicDance I can't control what others whether I'm affiliated with them or not. Why should I have to take the blame? It's not my responsibility, I say it's more so the responsibility of the viewer to not foolishly generalize.
@CaptainOmarful Actually, you CAN control others, or at least the group your affiliated with can. I've certainly been in club or organizations where we've seen one of our number start to misbehave and, dammit, we policed our own, got them to knock it off, to quit giving us a bad name.
So, yes, you CAN control what others do, and SHOULD if you're in a group and some of your number begin to act badly.
@BionicDance You can influence them, but you can't control them. And what do you mean "policing"? What am I gonna shut them up or threaten them? How do you kick somebody out of a religion? Like I said before, I figure it's more so up to the viewer to not be ignorant and realize that if someone is giving us a bad name by doing something we're vocally against, then they should realize that that type of behavior isn't a part of our group.
@CaptainOmarful "How do you kick someone out of a religion"...? Are you SERIOUS? Look up the word "excommunication"! *rolls eyes*
And, no, it is NOT up to the viewer; it is up to a group to make sure their image is reasonable, to keep members from making them look bad. Affiliation and responsibility come together, kiddo.
@BionicDance Really? So I have the power to excommunicate some 13 year old kid being racist or something of that sort? I mean cmon, you don't have to be in a club to say "yeah I believe in so and so." So many people believe and rarely go to a church or a mosque, nor do they even require "membership" to get in. You can't police a belief or ideology like this.
@CaptainOmarful Religion is more than just "I believe in so-and-so"...it's ALIGNING yourself with a god. Putting yourself under that god's banner, joining that god's team.
And that makes you all responsible for each other.
@BionicDance I'm more of an agnostic theist and I don't even agree with that. Just because you're part of an organization that believes in something and you're apart of that belief/religion does not make you responsible for everyone else that happens to be on that same belief pattern. If someone killed in the name of the christian god doesn't mean all christians are responsible for that killer, it just means your religion happens to of brought that killer up.
@BionicDance Okay so are all fans of a sports team responsible when a small group of them respond to a big game by flipping cars? Is anybody who advocates for science in general responsible for biological weapons being developed?
@OrdinaryHumon *rolls eyes* Being a fan of something and being on a team are NOT the same thing.
Now, if all the members of a single FAN CLUB--an organization to which each person has become an official member--commit and atrocity of some kind, NOW we're talkin'. But just LIKING something is quite different.
And you SHOULD have been able to make that distinction on your own.
@BionicDance "Rolls eyes" much harder. Fans advocate, it's what they do. I used the point because you could make the argument that mass fandom by its irrational nature feeds the destructive side of what occurs. What you don't seem to understand is that different interpretations of religions validly condemn BECAUSE OF their interpretation of that religion what others do to because their own interpretation demands it.If that reality escapes you you're not insightful enough to comment.
@OrdinaryHumon And you CONTINUE to completely fucking miss the point.
The issue is about ALLEGIANCE. Are you ALLIED to a group? Have you JOINED something? Are you an OFFICIAL MEMBER of an affiliation?
If you're just someone who enjoys something, YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF A GROUP. If you've joined a fan club, YOU ARE a member of a group.
What is preventing you from seeing this distinction? You're not one of those people who insists on changing the subject in order to be right, are you?
@BionicDance It's the stupidity of the distinction leaves my unimpressed. If the matter of signing up officially to something is really you point of distinction is every member of a celebrity fan club responsible for the member that becomes a stalker. Do you see how absurd that is? As for changing the topic you could have focused on the much longer part of my comment that addressed what you're saying much more directly.
@OrdinaryHumon I see no reason to focus on ANYTHING you're saying until the part you're getting horribly wrong is corrected. Especially since the whole point UTTERLY DEPENDS on your understanding THIS point.
And you continue to not understand the point being made. I'm talking about people who are affiliated with each other, people who are knit together as a group. We're talking about an all-for-one-and-one-for-all scenario, here. Like, say, a church.
@BionicDance My entire point is that the the groups you're assigning universal blame to are not as nearly "knit together" as you claim and your position demands. What the hell do you think I'm "DELIBERATELY dodging" here?
@OrdinaryHumon How about the fact that there ARE groups that ARE knit together in this way? Because there ARE, and you fucking well know it. But instead, you're dodging the point as hard as you can, like you don't care about the truth or the reality...it's more like you're trying to WIN THE ARGUMENT, even if you're wrong. *rolls eyes*
@BionicDance Of course there are, what I'm saying is that "joining a religion" is not the same thing as joining a fundamentalist sub sect of that religion. If you're not arguing the contrary then we don't disagree, but since from other comments your clearly not, accusing me of dodging question is pressing the concept of irony past a point of absurdity that is little more than silliness.
@OrdinaryHumon "what I'm saying is that "joining a religion" is not the same thing as joining a fundamentalist sub sect of that religion"
This is a semantic argument that misses my point. If you think I was trying to make an explicit distinction between "joining a religion" and "joining a sub sect of a religion", you're wrong...and arguing against my point on that basis, as i say, missing the message ENTIRELY.
@BionicDance For christ's sake I was saying you weren't making that distinction, a very important one as is what I've been saying, repeatedly. At this point I'm just assuming you're drunk or something. I'm done.
@OrdinaryHumon It's not an important distinction for the point. Not to the degree to which you were insisting upon it. You were getting a bee in your bonnet over SEMANTICS instead of dealing with the principle of the point. And wouldn't move on when I refused to play along, like if I didn't concede your point, you somehow lost face or something. *rolls eyes*
@BionicDance I'm such a fucking masochist so one last one. You're the one that refused to debate the actual point at hand at every turn, honestly look back. Who do you think I'm afraid to lose face in front of? You? Youtube at large? Sorry, that's not how I function. If you had bothered to make an actually argument at any point that I would have genuinely appreciated it but I was mucking out horse stalls this morning and this pile is what turns up my nose.
@OrdinaryHumon No, YOU'RE the one not debating the ACTUAL point. MY video, MY point...and you're dodging it. And nothing I did or said seemed capable of dragging you BACK to it.
@BionicDance Okay lets take this in baby steps. You're assertion is that all members of a religion are responsible for the actions of it's members with regards to acts motivated by that religion and viewing people separately in regards to sub sects within that religion is invalid. Is that correct?
@OrdinaryHumon I'm sorry, but I have no intention of going by your wording; I've walked into too many linguistic traps that way. I'm going to word this MY way, so there are at least FEWER places where I might be saying I mean something I don't actually intend.
My assertion is that people who have formally aligned, allied, or associated themselves with a group are responsible for what's done as a function of or in the name of that group.
@BionicDance Sorry, I was only trying to clarify things, in no way did I intend to lay any linguistic traps, quite to the contrary. I'm just trying to confirm that our contention is that you believe there is no appropriate reason to discriminate in culpability between of all members of a religion and sub classifications of that religion for acts done in that religion's name, and I disagree. Does that work?
@OrdinaryHumon You just used too many perspective-flipping words to keep track of: "trying to confirm that OUR contention that YOU believe there is NO..." It's like trying to answer one of those, "Are you not saying that you didn't deny that you won't be going..." kinna questions.
Lemme put it this way: I'm very specifically limiting this to explicitly connected people and groups, and NOT specifying how broad a category that group may be, because it's the EXPLICIT CONNECTION that matters.
@OrdinaryHumon Regardless, let me reiterate: I'm very specifically limiting this to explicitly connected people and groups, and NOT specifying how broad a category that group may be, because it's the EXPLICIT CONNECTION that matters.
You're trying to get me to commit to applying this concept too globally, without regard to context, and I'm telling you no.
@BionicDance No, I'm trying to ask you with this view where your delineations lay. Though more to the point if they matter, which you seem to argue they don't.
@OrdinaryHumon And I'm telling you that I'm not committing myself on that front. I'm giving you the general guidelines of how to figure out for yourself who is and isn't culpable according to this philosophy, that's it.
people like abby don't hold responsibility for all of the dickishness of Christianity, just like how I don't hold responsibility for some of what Stalin did.
TheRepublicOfUngeria 1 month ago
I'm sorry but didn't you say in "Atheist Baggage Claim" that Atheism/Theism was a conflict, indicating there ARE sides and you're either on one side or the other and that, by saying you were an agnostic, you were just trying to get 'out of the fight'? So, according to this video, atheists aren't playing the religion game, but 4 months ago you said that atheism was in a conflict with theism (or at least that's how it came across). I think this is a tad contradictory.
LiamJR24 1 month ago
The not-a-Star-Wars-fan analogy doesn't quite work. According to you, it would mean that everything ever done by a Star Wars fan, in the name of Star Wars, would automatically be the responsibility of all other Star Wars fans.
TalkingWigHead 1 month ago
Even with this clarification, everyone who believes that evolution is true must therefore be responsible for the actions of everyone else who believes that evolution is true.
Or will you make a magic exception for scientific theories, etc?
Macaii 1 month ago
@Macaii Believing in evolution doesn't make you part of a group, it doesn't give you an allegiance. Religion does; religion expects your loyalty, expects you to join as a spiritual footsoldier.
That's the difference.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Not all religion is organized. There are plenty of people who just happen to believe that the Bible is the Word of God but don't even go to church or anything of the sort. By your logic, that person is responsible for the actions of Adolf Hitler because Hitler, too, was a Christian. Indeed, believing something does make you part of a group by your understanding.
Macaii 1 month ago
@Macaii No, just believing in something is NOT enough to make you part of a group by my understanding. YOU have misunderstood my point with regard to that; please re-evaluate your assessment of my position.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance So now you add a new limitation: only organized religion? Is that correct? This would mean that Catholics are responsible for what the Vatican does, but not responsible for what the Russian Orthodox Church does, since these are two separate institutions.
Macaii 1 month ago
@Macaii If you have a formal affiliation/connection to a group, if you give them monetary, moral, or political support, you are culpable to a degree; what's done by that church is done in your name, with your tacit support.
Seriously, is it REALLY this difficult to figure out? Really? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I tend to believe individuals, and individuals alone, are responsible for individual actions. A catholic or lutheran or calvinist is, still, an individual whose actions are their own. Not the church's. Religious affiliation is PART of an individual, it is not THE individual.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 1 month ago
Comment removed
Macaii 1 month ago
Atheism per se is not an allegiance, but Internet Famous™, loud-mouthed Atheists who bleat about how much more rational they are than religious people, but don't have any really substantial command of scientific issues, seems to be becoming an allegiance...
odenskrigare 1 month ago
@odenskrigare I looked for that group you mentioned because it sounded interesting. Turns out there isn't a self-described group of loud-mouthed atheists that bleat about rational they are, or whatever. It would seem it's just a sweeping generalization you made of people or things you've apparently encountered. I doubt this would fit anyone's definition of allegiance. Also, does being rational require "substantial command of scientific issues"? That's what I was interested in.
mercury1321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercury1321
"Turns out there isn't a self-described group of loud-mouthed atheists that bleat about rational they are, or whatever."
Yes there is, go to this site called "Freethought Blogs".
"Also, does being rational require 'substantial command of scientific issues'?"
Maybe, maybe not, but bragging about how your point of view is "scientific" does.
odenskrigare 1 month ago
I question to what extent most people actually choose their religion.
DLandonCole 1 month ago
@BionicDance:
I've never met a single atheist who was not disgusted by the killings and atrocities of the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. As atheists we have NO PROBLEM, condemning these killings and calling them wrong.
To contrast, where is the Christian or Jew that will stand up and condemn the killings allegedly commanded in God's name in their scriptures:
Go attack the Amalekites... put to death men, women, children, infants and cattle.' [1 Samuel 15:2-4]
Why is killing babies for God ok?
exodus21v20 1 month ago 2
@exodus21v20 See? YOU understand. :)
Thank you.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Reading some of the comment threads here, it has become a discussion about definition differences between affiliation and association. Also about levels of individual responsibility to the group.
Since God does not exist, I am therefore opposed to the belief that it does, that makes me anti-theist. That is my group and I am responsible for what is done in the name of anti-theism.
Tribalism is what is really being discussed here. Whether it's the jewish, christian, muslim, or anti-theist tribes.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago 2
2. Since the dawn of man, tribalism is central. Having said that though, atheism is different. It is non tribal. Atheism is not a group with any of the consistent requirements to be deemed a tribe. It is the simple answer to a specific question. Therefore, no atheist is responsible for what any other atheist does.
Until the atheist becomes anti-theist he/she is free from responsibility of tribal consequence.
"I will not join any club that would have me as a member" said the atheist.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago 2
Another divisive video by BD. Glad I unsubbed a while back.
SickMouth 2 months ago
I think most people strawman BD here, nowhere did she say, that this "responsibility" means, that every christian is responsible for what any christian does, i think, it's rather like the catholic church, where catholics should reconsider their membership in the criminal organisation, that is called "the church".
The degree, how much someone can be responsible for actions of similar beliefs, depends on every specific case and is most of the time rather limited.
MardasMan 2 months ago
@MardasMan THANK you. Someone else who gets it!
BionicDance 2 months ago
Huh? Few religious folk enlist in "all for one, one for all" teams, fewer yet carry any weight in one, and most of the really awful shit ever done in the name of religion took place as some religious jerkwads tried to force others to tow a line-as an obligation of their religion!
As HUMANS, we are all equally obligated. We all have a duty to react to the same shit, whoever's doing it to whomever-it's REALLY dimwitted for me as a humanist to treat religious ppl like camps with special rules.
geodgereturns 2 months ago
@geodgereturns agreed. Just b/c someone is in a religion doesn't mean they aren't all different too.
GirlonFilm1969 2 months ago
I see that passive aggressive drunkyard Fifi has it bad for you.
Well you must have done something to him 15 or 18 months back, unintentionally, that hurt his massive mangina. Think back..
But,Yes you are right.
People have a collective responsibility for the actions of groups they proscribe to, affiliate with or advocate for.
Nazis share collective moral responsibility for the atrocities of the system they were all part of or advocated.
Stalinists the same, Al quidas etc etc etc.
AmetReloads 2 months ago
@AmetReloads I assume that by "drunkyard Fifi", you mean Rith...?
BionicDance 2 months ago
At least the person used Stalin and not Hitler. An argument I often hear from my theistic friends is that the bible is against homosexuality, but they (as individuals) are not actively persecuting anyone in the LGBT community. I try to point out that even holding the same beliefs as a member of the group that does the persecuting is in effect supporting it by propagating acceptance of the belief. I think that goes along with what you were saying.
TheRavensGhost 2 months ago
I can see why you would hold someone responsible for supporting an organization that does something wrong, but having a particular religious affiliation is not the same as joining an organization. Atheists can be judged by the actions of Stalin because are not supporting Stalin's regime. Modern Christians can be judged by the actions of witch burners or medieval inquisitors because they aren't taking part in or supporting witch burnings or inquisitions.
tmowlee 2 months ago
could we not just stretch this to 'all humans' this is not one of your better arguments. it amounts to an argument of guilt by association.
jimthepleb 2 months ago
@jimthepleb Oh, come now. We're talking about people who are explicit affiliated with a group, not just people with a trait in common.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance i'm not convinced that the gullibility to believe in religious crap isnt a trait meself;)
jimthepleb 2 months ago
@jimthepleb Oh,it may well be, but that's not the point.
BionicDance 2 months ago
if you BLINDLY believe in a religion without doing research or checking to see if what you believe in is true, THEN YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR "ALL" RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE!! THERE, "I" SAID IT! This blind belief helps spread the belief, until an idiot does the right thing....the idiot listens to the book, ex: kill gays ...They go kill gays! This was spread to the idiot by meanns of transportation from blind believers who may have stopped it by research and common sense!!!
thereligioussnitch 2 months ago
@thereligioussnitch
Indeed
Katalyzt 2 months ago
Rational adults are responsible for their own actions regardless of what they've been told to do by an organization. Granted, if the organisation tells people to do immoral actions it should be criticized, but if it doesn't and a person within it just happens to perform an immoral action, then the organisation shouldn't be criticised unless they claim to make all adherents very moral people.
moyga 2 months ago
That's an impressive piece of failed logic...
Cheers
659851 2 months ago 12
@659851 Because you've said it doesn't make it so. How about actually making a genuine argument?
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
Haha! I actually new it was pointless to say only that but at the same time it's so obviously flawed ! I'm an atheist and I feel like you're right, but we have to stay reasonnable. By your logic, you're responsible, as an american, for the killings of millions of innocent people in the middle east, all done by your government. I agree that atheism is not a group that could be considered for guilt by association or whatever but we are all part of many ''groups''
659851 1 month ago
@659851 As an American, I AM partly responsible; my tax dollars--and possibly even my votes, depending on the decisions made by those I'd voted for--are at least partially responsible for these things.
That's why I protest, that's why many people protest the things done in their name.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance That is why some Catholics protest against the decisions made by the Vatican as well. To them, including me, the Vatican does not represent Catholicism.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 1 month ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones See, I agree up until your last sentence. They protest because the Vatican DOES represent Catholicism, and they don't like what's being done in their name.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
that can render us guilty of thing we oblviously don't agree. The thing is, if you disavowe every single group that has done something wrong, you're gonna have to go live on an island. So if this distinction can be maid for nationalism, it should be made for religion also.. That does'nt mean that I think it makes sense to be a believer or to associate yourself to such a disgusting organiation.
659851 1 month ago
@BionicDance
But I think that, on this one, the simple minded, often very good, religious person diserves a break ! For this argument ! But you made a legitimate stab at it ... I just think that you might not have though the subject throuh before exposing your argument !
But hey, at least you have the ''balls'' to put your opinion out there for the critisism and for that, I'll have a drink to you tonight !
Happy new year !
Cheers !
659851 1 month ago
Well said!
linuxman48858 2 months ago
You are responsible for everything that happened in Russia in the 1930s. You may as well admit it.
foxlake02 2 months ago 7
The whole thing about, "The Theists are acting up again, it's "Religious misbehavior". It just sounds dumb whether you read it to yourself, listen to it, or say it to yourself. It's giving in to an us vs. them mentality and ignorance.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
So all Atheists have in Common is mo belief in God. The only thing Theists neccessarily have in Common is a belief, some of them haven't even thought about it that much, they just believe whatever they were raised to believe, not that it isn't a problem. It's just ridiculous though that they're all suppose to be responsible for each other somehow, religious people aren't one group, not even one particular religion is a group that you can characterize this way. It's just anti theist rhetoric.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@DarkFantasyvids "The only thing theists have in common is a belief"...? Horseshit. They have dogma in common, holy days in common, holy buildings in common, leaders in common, values in common. They are more than just people with a single belief in common, and you should know that without my having to tell you.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Haha.. So you've studied all the religions of the world and they all have those things in common hugh. Wow. lol Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity.. Every subsection of the 20 or so major religions not including all the different smaller tribal ones all have the same dogma, all build huge holy buildings, etc. Sounds like your mostly comparing the big three western religions, Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, that doesn't = "Relgion", so Wrong again.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@DarkFantasyvids *rolls eyes* You're ignoring the principle to focus on semantics and details that don't affect it. And I'm done talking to you, since it's obvious that all you're here to do is WIN WIN WIN, even if it means intellectual dishonesty. Glory over truth and reality, that's your game. And I'm not gonna play.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance My comment was a respectful and has plenty of substance as far as youtube comments go. I disagree with something you have to say, I think your the one showing intellectual dishonesty by engaging in sabre rattling generalizations and rhetoric. I think your smart enough to know what your doing also. You obviously have no good response for my comment, I will take that as a win, but what did I win? lol Nobody ever wins these arguments. I understand that, unlike some.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@DarkFantasyvids The fact that you're FOCUSING on generalizations instead of addressing the principle of the message is the problem, kiddo. You're taking it as a win in a fight only YOU were having. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance "a fight only YOU were having. *rolls eyes*' This conversation/argument must be a figment of my imagination then. :-p It's just a conversation where people don't agree, big deal. A couple of people had a very similiar argument/response to similiar things you've been saying like this in videos I've watched. I'd bet plenty of others in the comments said similiar things also.. I would agree with a lot of what you say if you didn't generalize so much.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@DarkFantasyvids And being specific will bog down the message; YOU need to stop being so pedantic, missing the forest for the trees. Other people were capable of getting the point without being mired in details they didn't explicitly get.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Many very smart people don't think it's being trivial or pedantic to make the distinction between fundamentalists who want to force they're ways on other people and all religious people. It's pretty much the same thing Pat Condell does with Muslims. It's an important specification, not a trivial one. It's the difference between the message being sabre rattling kind of rhetorical relgious like preaching to rally people together vs. saying what the truth actually is.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@BionicDance "Glory over truth and reality, that's your game. And I'm not gonna play." You stole the thoughts right out of my brain as soon as I got done watching your video. ;-)
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
So when someone who happens to classify themselves as a Christian advocates against rights for gay people, etc. That's "Relgious misbehaviour" and all believers in god are somehow responsible for that because they're all on the same team somehow. That's just silly, it's a silly, simplified, generalized way of looking at the situtation.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@DarkFantasyvids it WOULD be a silly, simplified, generalized way of looking at the situation...good thing it's not what I'm saying. *rolls eyes*
I didn't SAY that ALL believers in god are somehow responsible...but CERTAINLY members of whatever sect you're in share some responsibility.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I think individuals are responsible for themselves, that's what I think. I don't believe in guilt by association, and that's all this argument really is. Plus, maybe I didn't hear it in the video but I didn't hear you clarify "from whatever sect". I just heard you lump all religious people together and sabre rattle against "the religious" because "they're acting up" or something like that. Maybe I heard it wrong, idk.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
You know not everyone who classifies themselves as "Christian", "Jewish", whatever, joined that religion and are allies with each other. Most Christians are no more responsible for Jerry Fawell and the crusades than atheists are for Stalin. A lot of people are born into relgion, they don't join. More people of all kinds of different groups, politically organized, etc. need to call out they're own more."People who believe in god are responsible for other believers actions" That's a bullshit.
DarkFantasyvids 2 months ago
@DarkFantasyvids So there are smaller categories; the point is still relevant and intact. People who've joined a religion or a church are PART OF SOMETHING, they've pledge allegiance to something, they have knit themselves into a group...and are responsible for that group.
Besides, if they're RIGHT, and there is a god, they've all allied themselves to that god.
No matter how you look at it, religion makes you part of a group, and responsible for its members' actions, and they for yours.
BionicDance 2 months ago
How would you feel if Stalin was actually subscribed to you?
BeautifulTruthShow 2 months ago
@BeautifulTruthShow Surprised, given that he's been dead for more than 50 years.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance He's not dead, he changed his name to Mario and moved to Italy to become a plumber...
BeautifulTruthShow 2 months ago
WAIT! Are you telling me that when I paid for my Forces of Atheism Guild (FAG) membership on-line, I got ripped off?!
WildwoodClaire1 2 months ago 3
@WildwoodClaire1 FAG! ;)
BionicDance 2 months ago
Comment removed
bubbamickmac 2 months ago in playlist More videos from BionicDance
@bubbamickmac I haven't paid attention to him since the Hoover Administration. He's a drunkard and an idiot.
BionicDance 2 months ago
Yeah, I don't hold theists accountable for everything their fellow theists of the same stripe do. I do, however, point out that atrocities are sometimes committed in the name of deities, which tends to undermine the claim that religion is the source for morality. Mostly, though, I'm just happy when the religious don't try to shove those beliefs down others' throats. :)
badnewsBH 2 months ago
Come on BD, in this video you sound like those Muslim bashing xenophobes who blame all Muslims for the extremism of the minority and then shout at the top of their lungs that the moderates must decry every single negative act or else they're condoning it. They may all have a belief in the same thing, but our actions are our responsibility alone. Theists don't have to condemn everything overtly to not like what other theists are doing, they don't have to answer to you.
StanMarsh1 2 months ago 3
@StanMarsh1 So committing an atrocity in the name of a group to which you are affiliated does NOT make the group responsible? Really? How do you figure? How does this not throw the doors open wide to deliberately committing atrocities if you can maintain plausible deniability?
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance How is it fair to tarnish the reputation of someone with being responsible for an atrocity that they had nothing to do with, except for sharing the same beliefs as the guilty? If they didn't do anything, they are NOT responsible. They are only responsible for what THEY do.
StanMarsh1 2 months ago
@StanMarsh1 They do MORE than just "share the beliefs". Surely you know that.
They pay tithes, they give moral and political support. They ADVOCATE. They're members of a group, members of a team, an organization. It goes so far beyond simply having values or beliefs in common.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I'm surprised that you think if one Lutheran blew up a hospital every other Lutheran would bear some responsibility even if they abhor the idea. Plus, not everyone pays tithes, and just because they may advocate for their own particular theistic beliefs that doesn't mean they share anything else with extremists.
Personal responsibility. Extremists are alone or with small groups, they have ideas way outside of most groups doctrines and they do not speak for all of them
StanMarsh1 2 months ago
@StanMarsh1 What would you think of a Lutheran who DIDN'T stand up and say, "That person who did that...I do not oppose them. I do not renounce them. What they've done in our name is NOT approved by the Lutheran church"...?
Would that not be tacit approval? Would that not be tacit culpability? Because I think it would. You cannot simply ignore what's done in your name just because you don't approve of it.
BionicDance 2 months ago
I have to disagree with you keight. I don't hold all members of a team accountable to each other.
SephieRothe 2 months ago
What do foreign dictators that promote atheism + their ideology have to do with the validity of atheism? Exactly atheists have come out! It is the future.
Antdog5 2 months ago
"And if one of your number commits an atrocity in your name, it's your responsibility to police your own, or you ALL accept the blame." That's how it SHOULD work, but it never does. Their "We are better than you" position would be undermined.
thereforeithought 2 months ago
I think Bionicdance should make another video further elaborating the point. This is a brilliant topic but I feel people might be missing the more subtle points of the argument that she is making. Example: the Finnish during WW2 allied with the Nazis but they themselves cannot be help accountable for the crimes of the Nazis because it was only an alliance of necessity. Were as Nazis sympathizers in say the Catholic church are somewhat responsible for the crimes of the Nazis.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan I think you got this perfectly right. Yes, if we endorse we give subtle support and cover to something and that incurs some albeit often negible levels of responsibility.
socrates856 2 months ago
@socrates856 I think I can agree with that. Now that if a faction of a group does something that goes against the creed of the group that someone is apart of then the group as a whole is not responible, but say if the creed says "all red heads should die" but no one takes it seriously until a faction breaks off and starts killing red heads, than I cannot see how the main group has no blame what so ever.
Ex: I am an America and responsible for the harm my country has done to say Iraqis.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan See, the moral imperative is about what you do and can do. If you are part of a club and something bad happens that you indeed had no choice over, you are not responsible. But then choices to open. Do you stay in a club where this happens? What do you do with it.
socrates856 2 months ago
@thesparitan But let's take Iraq. I do think that US citizen have some responsibility, but that responsibility is scaled. A member of congress who voted affirmatively has a different level of responsibility than a person who actively protested in the streets against it. A person who packed up and moved to canada has a different responsibility than someone who cheer-leaded the war and welcomed the deaths. But it is always tempting to blanket deny any form of responsibility.
socrates856 2 months ago
@socrates856 You put it better than me. I am in full agreement with everything you just wrote. I posted almost the same comment on themeliandialogue video "I pledge allegiance, to the cult ...". Great minds think alike. LOL.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan :)
socrates856 2 months ago
nice vid and u know complements are rare from me
scheme86 2 months ago
I am definitely down with some Star Wars
AvatarOfAvatar 2 months ago
God I love the atheist youtube community. This is how groups of people should act; just as critical of each other as they are too the other side. This is a very healthy behavior and while it isn't pleasant I would argue that this gives the skeptical community a shape advantage when it comes to the pursuit of true.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan Well, that IS the problem, innit...the religious aren't AFTER "true". Alas.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Agreed. I personally believe that they more we are "not playing the game" as you say in regards to religion, the better we become because we do not have conflict when the tribe and truth are at adds. If dogma is a virus, the antibody is rigorous critical thought regardless of who or what is making the argument. I believe we extend the idea of not playing the game in regards to all groups and positions. Tribal mentality is the problem if it gets in the way of truth.
thesparitan 2 months ago
atheits are more prone to excessive fapping and consuming of cheeseburgers
CantWeedThis 2 months ago
@CantWeedThis ...sorry, am I supposed to be seeing a problem with that? ;)
BionicDance 2 months ago
Efforts to get atheists together for the sake of "association" or "affiliation" would be a lot like trying to herd cats.
KCKatheist 2 months ago
@KCKatheist Very true, which is way if there was a god and it was just, atheist would be gods chosen people. I personally feel very happy I associate with people who would rip my head of if I make an argument or use evidence they don't find compelling.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@KCKatheist True.
BionicDance 2 months ago
I have no idea why this video is drawing controversy. I guess I must be in a club I never joined, yet people who agree to have a shared and positively affirmed belief cannot be pointed out to the joint fallacy that entails? Yeah I'm not in the not-yankee fan club. Someone could make a club that is about not-being-a-yankee-fan, but I sure as heck wouldn't join.
socrates856 2 months ago
@socrates856 See...? YOU get it. Why can't others? *boggle*
Thanks for watching!
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Well perhaps it's because I have actually seen forms that asked for religious affiliation and there was one non-religious option that read "no affiliation". But "no affiliation" is an affiliation too now, and we are NOT responsible for the clubs we actively join and maintain at all of course. Tihi.
socrates856 2 months ago
Religion Definition 4:
Obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
mrfilthyrags 2 months ago
So, they want to hold you responsible for all the horrible things Stalin did. I guess by their "logic" that means they should be held responsible for all the inhumane atrocities "god" and his followers performed in the old testament?
mattzer0 2 months ago
@mattzer0 The problem is the difference between association and affiliation; atheists have joined nothing, but theists have essentially sworn fealty. Therein lies the crucial difference.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance True. I can't stand when I hear religious people talk about atheism like it's a cult or religion. It's so hard to get the simple concept through their thick skulls that it's an ABSENCE of religion. You'd think something so simple would register in pretty much anyone's brain :/
mattzer0 2 months ago 4
@mattzer0 Oh, I'm sure they understand it...it's just inconvenient to their point, so they ignore it.
BionicDance 2 months ago 4
So, you believe in guilt by association?
Anghellik9 2 months ago
@Anghellik9 Not by association...by affiliation.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Is it synonym day?
Anghellik9 2 months ago
@Anghellik9 Those aren't synonyms. Affiliation is explicit, conscious association, but association itself is not necessarily deliberate.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Affiliation: the act of affiliating; state of being affiliated or associated.
Why does a liberal Christian who is cool with same sex marriage and similar issues have to answer for Pat Robertsons insanity?
Anghellik9 2 months ago
@Anghellik9 Because they're both part of the christian religion, and Pat Robertson is giving their organization a bad rap by using christianity as a reason to be a bigot.
Oh, they can accept the association and be thought as much of a asshole for their association...or they can actually speak up, tell Robertson to shut the fuck up, and show us that christianity DOESN'T turn you into the dick-hole Robertson is.
...or they can live with the stigma. Either one.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Interesting, seeing as the majority of secularists in America are actually Christians, including the head of Americans United For Seperation of Church and State.
Can I expect to see you make a video about everything bad that America has done in the last 200 years? If not, do you accept the stigma of being American, as you still live there?
Anghellik9 2 months ago
@Anghellik9 Actually, I speak out about a fair amount of the shit America does and has done in past. Perhaps not on YouTube as much--I tend to use YouTube for my atheism and animation stuff--but in person and on Facebook. Though I DID put videos about the Occupy Movement on here a while back.
It's called taking responsibility. And there are DEFINITELY times when I'm not particularly proud of being American because of what this country has done in my name.
So, nice try, but no hit, kiddo.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Yeah, and I know plenty of Christians that are in the same boat. Yet here we are, discussing how Christians have to shout it from the rooftops. When some random atheist does something insane, I shouldn't have to make a video saying "oh by the way, I condemn that guys actions" and religious people shouldn't be put on some higher standard.
Anghellik9 2 months ago 3
@Anghellik9 Atheism is not an organization. Atheism is not an affiliation. Atheism is the LACK of affiliation with religion. Nothing more. "Atheist" is not a description of one's alliance, it's a description of one's stance on religion. Like it or not, it's DIFFERENT from being in a religion.
When someone in a religion goes bonko, the religion is responsible for the clean-up. When someone NOT in a religion goes bonko, they did it on their own. All atheists are alone with regard to religion.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Why?
Do Lutherans have to clean up the mess of Southern Baptists?
Why is a Christian sect that is opposed (sometimes violently so) asked to apologise for the actions of every Christian? I don't understand your assertion that someone saying "I believe in Jesus" suddenly makes them partially responsible for someone going bonko. Does this work for secular groups as well? I'm a Rammstein fan. If some other Rammstein fan does something mental, do I have to apologise?
Anghellik9 2 months ago 2
@Anghellik9 Are they not all christians? Hell, even if you want to break it up even finer than that, do Lutherans not have to clean up after other Lutherans?
Don't groups have a responsibility to clean up after bad shit done in their name?
And I see part of the problem is that you don't see the difference between actually being AFFILIATED...and just being loosely associated.
Unaffiliated Rammstein FANS are not responsible for others...but members of a fan CLUB are. See the difference?
BionicDance 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BionicDance If I'm part of, say, Lesbians United but NOT a member of LGBT Out, and LGBT Out does something horrible, it's NOT my responsibility, even though I know people who are in LGBT Out. I'm associated with 'em, sure, being LGBT myself...but I'm not a MEMBER Not affiliated.
See the difference yet?
BionicDance 33 minutes ago
Anghellik9 2 months ago
@BionicDance I can't control what others whether I'm affiliated with them or not. Why should I have to take the blame? It's not my responsibility, I say it's more so the responsibility of the viewer to not foolishly generalize.
CaptainOmarful 2 months ago
@CaptainOmarful Actually, you CAN control others, or at least the group your affiliated with can. I've certainly been in club or organizations where we've seen one of our number start to misbehave and, dammit, we policed our own, got them to knock it off, to quit giving us a bad name.
So, yes, you CAN control what others do, and SHOULD if you're in a group and some of your number begin to act badly.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance You can influence them, but you can't control them. And what do you mean "policing"? What am I gonna shut them up or threaten them? How do you kick somebody out of a religion? Like I said before, I figure it's more so up to the viewer to not be ignorant and realize that if someone is giving us a bad name by doing something we're vocally against, then they should realize that that type of behavior isn't a part of our group.
CaptainOmarful 2 months ago
@CaptainOmarful "How do you kick someone out of a religion"...? Are you SERIOUS? Look up the word "excommunication"! *rolls eyes*
And, no, it is NOT up to the viewer; it is up to a group to make sure their image is reasonable, to keep members from making them look bad. Affiliation and responsibility come together, kiddo.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Really? So I have the power to excommunicate some 13 year old kid being racist or something of that sort? I mean cmon, you don't have to be in a club to say "yeah I believe in so and so." So many people believe and rarely go to a church or a mosque, nor do they even require "membership" to get in. You can't police a belief or ideology like this.
CaptainOmarful 2 months ago
@CaptainOmarful Religion is more than just "I believe in so-and-so"...it's ALIGNING yourself with a god. Putting yourself under that god's banner, joining that god's team.
And that makes you all responsible for each other.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I'm more of an agnostic theist and I don't even agree with that. Just because you're part of an organization that believes in something and you're apart of that belief/religion does not make you responsible for everyone else that happens to be on that same belief pattern. If someone killed in the name of the christian god doesn't mean all christians are responsible for that killer, it just means your religion happens to of brought that killer up.
xScriosxX 2 months ago
@BionicDance Okay so are all fans of a sports team responsible when a small group of them respond to a big game by flipping cars? Is anybody who advocates for science in general responsible for biological weapons being developed?
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon *rolls eyes* Being a fan of something and being on a team are NOT the same thing.
Now, if all the members of a single FAN CLUB--an organization to which each person has become an official member--commit and atrocity of some kind, NOW we're talkin'. But just LIKING something is quite different.
And you SHOULD have been able to make that distinction on your own.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance "Rolls eyes" much harder. Fans advocate, it's what they do. I used the point because you could make the argument that mass fandom by its irrational nature feeds the destructive side of what occurs. What you don't seem to understand is that different interpretations of religions validly condemn BECAUSE OF their interpretation of that religion what others do to because their own interpretation demands it.If that reality escapes you you're not insightful enough to comment.
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon And you CONTINUE to completely fucking miss the point.
The issue is about ALLEGIANCE. Are you ALLIED to a group? Have you JOINED something? Are you an OFFICIAL MEMBER of an affiliation?
If you're just someone who enjoys something, YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF A GROUP. If you've joined a fan club, YOU ARE a member of a group.
What is preventing you from seeing this distinction? You're not one of those people who insists on changing the subject in order to be right, are you?
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance It's the stupidity of the distinction leaves my unimpressed. If the matter of signing up officially to something is really you point of distinction is every member of a celebrity fan club responsible for the member that becomes a stalker. Do you see how absurd that is? As for changing the topic you could have focused on the much longer part of my comment that addressed what you're saying much more directly.
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon I see no reason to focus on ANYTHING you're saying until the part you're getting horribly wrong is corrected. Especially since the whole point UTTERLY DEPENDS on your understanding THIS point.
And you continue to not understand the point being made. I'm talking about people who are affiliated with each other, people who are knit together as a group. We're talking about an all-for-one-and-one-for-all scenario, here. Like, say, a church.
You seem to be DELIBERATELY dodging this.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance My entire point is that the the groups you're assigning universal blame to are not as nearly "knit together" as you claim and your position demands. What the hell do you think I'm "DELIBERATELY dodging" here?
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon How about the fact that there ARE groups that ARE knit together in this way? Because there ARE, and you fucking well know it. But instead, you're dodging the point as hard as you can, like you don't care about the truth or the reality...it's more like you're trying to WIN THE ARGUMENT, even if you're wrong. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Of course there are, what I'm saying is that "joining a religion" is not the same thing as joining a fundamentalist sub sect of that religion. If you're not arguing the contrary then we don't disagree, but since from other comments your clearly not, accusing me of dodging question is pressing the concept of irony past a point of absurdity that is little more than silliness.
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon So in other words, you've missed the point completely in order to have a semantic argument that's completely irrelevant.
Way to go, there, champ.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance How so?
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon did you even read the whole comment?
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon "what I'm saying is that "joining a religion" is not the same thing as joining a fundamentalist sub sect of that religion"
This is a semantic argument that misses my point. If you think I was trying to make an explicit distinction between "joining a religion" and "joining a sub sect of a religion", you're wrong...and arguing against my point on that basis, as i say, missing the message ENTIRELY.
So get off that; you're off-topic.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance For christ's sake I was saying you weren't making that distinction, a very important one as is what I've been saying, repeatedly. At this point I'm just assuming you're drunk or something. I'm done.
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon It's not an important distinction for the point. Not to the degree to which you were insisting upon it. You were getting a bee in your bonnet over SEMANTICS instead of dealing with the principle of the point. And wouldn't move on when I refused to play along, like if I didn't concede your point, you somehow lost face or something. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I'm such a fucking masochist so one last one. You're the one that refused to debate the actual point at hand at every turn, honestly look back. Who do you think I'm afraid to lose face in front of? You? Youtube at large? Sorry, that's not how I function. If you had bothered to make an actually argument at any point that I would have genuinely appreciated it but I was mucking out horse stalls this morning and this pile is what turns up my nose.
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon No, YOU'RE the one not debating the ACTUAL point. MY video, MY point...and you're dodging it. And nothing I did or said seemed capable of dragging you BACK to it.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance You actually see it that way, don't you? Almost impressive in way.
OrdinaryHumon 2 months ago
@OrdinaryHumon Then show me where you actually DID address the principle point I was making instead of getting hung up on peripheral details.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance Okay lets take this in baby steps. You're assertion is that all members of a religion are responsible for the actions of it's members with regards to acts motivated by that religion and viewing people separately in regards to sub sects within that religion is invalid. Is that correct?
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon I'm sorry, but I have no intention of going by your wording; I've walked into too many linguistic traps that way. I'm going to word this MY way, so there are at least FEWER places where I might be saying I mean something I don't actually intend.
My assertion is that people who have formally aligned, allied, or associated themselves with a group are responsible for what's done as a function of or in the name of that group.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Sorry, I was only trying to clarify things, in no way did I intend to lay any linguistic traps, quite to the contrary. I'm just trying to confirm that our contention is that you believe there is no appropriate reason to discriminate in culpability between of all members of a religion and sub classifications of that religion for acts done in that religion's name, and I disagree. Does that work?
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon Actually, I have no idea what the hell you just said.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Oh, I don't know what else to do. Sorry, I'm bad at human :(
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon You just used too many perspective-flipping words to keep track of: "trying to confirm that OUR contention that YOU believe there is NO..." It's like trying to answer one of those, "Are you not saying that you didn't deny that you won't be going..." kinna questions.
Lemme put it this way: I'm very specifically limiting this to explicitly connected people and groups, and NOT specifying how broad a category that group may be, because it's the EXPLICIT CONNECTION that matters.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance The difference being my statement was logical.
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon But no less tangled, making interpretation quite difficult.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance For humans, adorable humans.
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon Regardless, let me reiterate: I'm very specifically limiting this to explicitly connected people and groups, and NOT specifying how broad a category that group may be, because it's the EXPLICIT CONNECTION that matters.
You're trying to get me to commit to applying this concept too globally, without regard to context, and I'm telling you no.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance No, I'm trying to ask you with this view where your delineations lay. Though more to the point if they matter, which you seem to argue they don't.
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon And I'm telling you that I'm not committing myself on that front. I'm giving you the general guidelines of how to figure out for yourself who is and isn't culpable according to this philosophy, that's it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Does a crystal necklace come with that?
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon ...huh?
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance yup
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon I like cheese.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I suppose that's American whit, how seemingly there ;P
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon Humans look funny without their skin.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance You've noticed that aw well, eh? Makes me feel better about my shot as the only prob comic at the next open mic.
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago
@OrdinaryHumon When nobody's looking, do you try to fit your elbow into your nose?
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance That presupposes at some pint I would care about who's looking.
OrdinaryHumon 1 month ago