Added: 5 months ago
From: BionicDance
Views: 2,343
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (439)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • So if i think that religion is evil then i am an anti-thiest not an atheist?

    (not that i would remove someones right to worship, but when you hurt others, thats where my tolerance ends.) And hurting others includes making it harder to research things.anti |ˈanˌtī; ˈantē|

    preposition

    opposed to; against : I'm anti the abuse of drink and the hassle that it causes.theism |ˈθēˌizəm|

    noun

    belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe.

  • really don't think you should talk about 'the theists' as if all theists were fundamentalists. Many theists are absolutely in favour of homosexual equality including marriage equality including faith groups here in the UK that have asked for the freedom to marry same sex couples with the same legal standing as het couples.  Plus there can be no beating about the bush on genital mutilation

  • @scarletharlot69 Genital mutilation applies to males as well as females, don't forget. Mutilation of body parts without the express consent of the person is a travesty.

  • @storekeeper80 I agree. I feel rather attached to my foreskin..... :-)

  • @scarletharlot69 Cool, me too! - not yours, mine!

  • It seems that many are in dire need of a Semantics & Discourse class.

  • 6:14 to 6:24 That's a pretty strong claim your making. It couldn't just be that that is the CLASSICAL definition of atheism, nope, it's opposition. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

    Also, I have made a responce to your video. It may be a bit late, but hey, better late than never.

  • @TheVodkaHaze Have you ever looked up the etymology? Because if you do so, it's VERY clear that it was used not in a literal sense of the word, but as a pejorative, used by religious people to admonish others. The definition of the word is THOROUGHLY biased, and there is no other word out there to indicate having no belief in gods.

    Seriously, look it up.

  • @BionicDance Yes, I have looked it up. And according to Online Etymology Dictionary, the etymology of the word leads us to a belief, not lack of belief. It's because the suffix -ism is added to atheos (without Gods). It's etymology wasn't based on adding a onto theism (which would get the definition you use). Atheism wasn't used as a lack of belief until Antony Flew started using it in that way.

    Also, ever heard of a word called "Non-theism"?

  • @TheVodkaHaze And did you read WHY it "leads us to a belief"...? Because RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SAID SO! They used the term as a pejorative against people who weren't on board with THEIR point of view.

    ...which is a weapons-grade BIAS, like I said.

    And "non-theism" is just a pansy way of saying "atheism"; the LITERAL definition of atheism is "not theism"; if you take the components of the word and put them together, that's what you get, not this "belief god doesn't exist" bullshit.

  • @BionicDance Where does it say that calling someone an atheist would have been an insult? Please provide sources. Also, you're saying that definition is inept because religious people said it (or, at least, people who don't consider themselves atheists)? OK, but that means you can't use faith as "belief without evidence" because that's not how the Christian would define it. Not to mention there are atheists out there that do say atheism is a belief (I don't care which definition you use). (P1)

  • @TheVodkaHaze Yanno...I fucking HATE IT when people tell me to cite my sources AFTER they get done telling me that, yeah, they've looked it up for themselves. Did you fucking READ what you looked up, kiddo? *raised eyebrow*

    Lemme quote WIkipedia at you: "The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society."

  • @TheVodkaHaze And it doesn't matter HOW theists define faith; what matters is what they DO, not what they SAY they do, and they DEFINITELY believe without evidence. If they don't want to CALL that faith, fine...but that's still what they're doing.

    Fact is, you're employing the worst of all possible debating techniques, here, and I'm pretty FUCKING close to not talking to you anymore. Either stop [playing games and be rational and reasonable, or be ignored. Pick one.

  • @BionicDance I looked up Online Etymology Dictionary, which didn't mention anything of the sort. You just assumed I used Wikipedia.

    I'm done with you as well, so I'll probably choose the ignore option, thank you.

  • @BionicDance Regardless, you need to brush up on your etymology:

    Atheism =/= a + theism

    Atheism = athe(os) + -ism

    Because every time I look up the etymology of this word, that's what I get. It was only until the 2nd half of the 20th Century that atheism became a lack of belief. I don't mind if you use that definition, but your reasoning is flawed.

  • @TheVodkaHaze And, again, it was used that way SPECIFICALLY to use the word as a pejorative.

    Seriosously, I'm done talking to you...I've had enough. You can spew out individual facts, but you seem unable--or is it UNWILLING--to string them together into a coherent whole, to see the larger picture. There is simply no point talking to you if you cannot actually argue from a position of logic and reason, instead trying to win at all costs, truth be damned.

  • check out my video response. its a diagram/ explination of a diagram showing ways to better identify what you are.

    i made it before seeing this video btw.

  • Understood, and agreed because the concept of breaking down descriptive words etymologically occurs in every aspect of vocabulary. Some people are just too close minded to be open to the possibility of a descriptive term such as atheist, theist, monotheist, agnostic theist, so on, having more subtle nuance in themselves.

  • One quick point, you seem to be confusing the terms 'understanding' with 'agreeing' many, myself included completely understand your argument, we just do not agree.

  • Last night I was talking about hard core Rock music. I mentioned Korn & Rob Zombie, and a girl said "yeah, I heard theyre atheists! They're all into that kinda shit". A diest friend of mine (surprisingly) asked her wtf that even means. I mentioned that one of the Korn members is a hardcore Christian. Neither of them knew Im an atheist but the deist friend of mine corrected her implications that atheists are devil worshippers. I should have been offended, but instead I just pitied her ignorance.

  • Zim.

    That is all.

  • Having grown up in the church, I can't tell you the number of times I was told from the pulpit that atheism is an untenable position because it requires that you know with certainty that no god exists, therefore anyone who claims such knowledge must possess godly powers of omnipotence, thus the position negates itself. It's part of the big-ol-bag-of-pat-answers they load you up with. I think that's the real reason we have to keep going over this territory of what atheism ACTUALLY means.

  • The best definition that fits your kind is a secularist or a bright, maybe even a humanist.  Atheist is to general of a term to say it is only a lack of belief as demonstrated below.

  • The problem is simply that the definition its too vague and can mean just about anything. Atheism to be a lack of belief can be applied to at least three other definitions. 1.) strong atheist 2.) Agnostic 3.) Anti theist

    Strong atheist Lack belief in God (Since they deny the idea completely)

    Anti Theist Lack belief in God (Since they don't have a belief)

    Agnostics Lack belief in God (Since after all they don't know God)

    My point is all three of these other definition lack belief too.

  • @Onetruthrgv Almost right. Strong atheists are atheists by definition. Agnostics may or may not be theists - there are those who don't know for sure there's a god, yet believe in one anyway (it's what they call faith, I think). Those people are theists, as are antitheists who believe in a real god but think he's malevolent. Antitheism could mean against theism, or it could be used in the sense against theos - against god.

  • @jaycee69 I agree but my point was simply put that saying Atheism in a general term means a Lack of belief is a little dishonest since that applies to many different camps of definitions. Now to say weak atheist is a little more honest or at lease agnostic atheist. Now the reason I said bright is because I think that definition shows that the person was someone who remained without God or Became without God on an intellectual decision while the other one means a rock or even a cat is an atheist.

  • @Onetruthrgv It's not dishonest to say atheism is a broad term that encompasses many different positions. It's actually honest. That's what the word means. Yes, you can clarify your position further with other words. And yes, a cat and a rock and anything else that isn't a theist is strictly an atheist. Congratulations.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri ...Wait, except for the agnostic part. The prefix "A" attached to gnostic simply means "without knowledge". Without knowledge of what, exactly? Agnostic is an adjective, not a position on theism.

  • I feel that anti-theist is a perfect word. If you are anti-drugs, you choose not to use drugs. I choose not to use religion.

  • @Zmblover Well, no, actually...if you're anti-drugs, you're AGAINST drugs, not just not using them.

  • @BionicDance Just being against drugs? That is just silly. If drugs just sat around and did nothing, there would be no problem. Being Anti-drug, is being against the use of them. This is how I equate it with Anti-theist. I am against the use and practice of religion. To me this is smart, 'cause only a true idiot would get into an argument about the existence of something unseen.

  • @Zmblover But being an anti-theist is not simply choosing not to engage in theism; it's more than that.

  • @BionicDance Why does it have to be more? 'Cause you look to be about 10 years young than I, and it wasn't much more when I decided to adopt this opinion. But now, in the times of everything having many different meanings--to suit each individual--and a million more ironies, it has to be more. Nothing is harmed by my definition. If there are churches and religions out there, let them do what they wish. I am fine without.

  • @Zmblover Because that's what the word means, that's why.

    "A-" is without.

    "Anti-" is against.

    That's just what they mean.

  • @BionicDance But can't I be against it for myself? This is where you seem to have lost me. You make it seem like to be without is for the solitary and being against is for the masses. I am against myself taking part in religion. Therefore, by your definition, I am an anti-theist. Wow, you are just as tricky as a religions person, with your conversation. You sure you're an atheist? :P Putting this much energy and faith into your beliefs seem pretty reminiscent. Just uh... don't go to church.

  • @Zmblover No, the individual vs society has nothing to do with it. You're just getting the words wrong, is all; this is a semantic problem you're having, not a philosophical one.

  • Anti-theist, I have been using it for years.

  • i agree with this statement, and this has been my belief on what the meaning of atheism has been for at least 2 years now. ever since i saw a very old video by qualiasoup that stated that agnosticism does not address the belief factor of atheism and theism.

  • Is it just me or does it seem like this whole label thing is caused by either not reading a dictionary, or simply refusing to accept what words mean?

  • So you're saying connotations are totally fine as long as you realize the baggage you're attaching? Because that's not what it sounded like, I just know if I say that in the form of a comment rather than a question you'll be all like, duh peachdica, use your gulliver and listen.

  • Where's my "Let's do this!"?

  • BoinicDance, Great Job representing my conscience and being my voice in support of humanity needing change in the acquisition of freedom. When one persons freedoms are unnecessarily curtailed, the minds of all endure slavery.

  • For the last time, Atheism's etymology is atheos- ism not a- theism.

    But you don't care what the truth is. No matter how many facts people give you, you just ignore it. You are dogmatic, close minded, irrational.... and just plain silly.

  • BoinicDance, Great Job being my inner voice

  • liberal outcast of God here. ouch genital mutilation, holding crotch, beam me up Scotty!!! I am an atheist and I support gay marriage!!! there I've come out. Yes, agnostics are atheists too

  • Theist gone atheist, i still am open to a reality based God revealing its self to me in a manner, observable to others also. I do not want to be the nut driving everyone mad by trying to convince myself more than others in debating God is real when God is only real in my imaginations. Furthermore, those imaginations do not match the biblical God of Moses; my morality does not include slavery, misogyny, or bigotry to name a few.

  • this whole fucking war on words is blurring the whole issue that started this whole argument. We need non-believers to stand up and grow a pair. everyone seems to be stuck on what word means what to who. who the fuck cares. I dont care what you call yourself. if you dont believe in god, have some ballz and say so

  • I used to be a live and let live Atheist and all the theist seemed to want to step on my rights.

    Now I an working to make people ashamed to admit they believe in an invisible friend.

  • Hence the need for the weak/strong distinction, because the word "atheism" itself can be taken to mean either the weak or the strong version logically.

  • i disagree with your semantic argument re: the "a" prefix. think about how the meaning changes depending on how you group the other 2 parts of the word. your argument holds if you think of it as (a)+(the+ism) but not if you think of it as (a+the)+(ism).

  • @aviindub But anybody thinking it's the latter is a fucking moron.

  • @aviindub

    Except that "a" as a prefix is not used in the manner you are proposing. It is a negation of a word. When you see "a" as a prefix, it should be assumed that "a" is a negation of the entire word it is attached to unless the context of the sentence proves otherwise.

    BD is right. Anyone who is thinking (a+the) +(ism) is a moron, because that is not how the root words are used. A correct interpretation of root words would lead to the exact conclusion that BD proposes.

  • @aviindub The English language has rules like mathematics, but not like algebraic bullshit where shifting parenthesis gets you your answer. It doesn't work like that. Everything stems from the root word. Prefixes and suffixes are after the fact.

  • coming? I was under the impression the Culture War had been ongoing for some time now

  • @SHIMMERingWarlock Not really...the atheist side has yet to truly bring it.

  • i'll make you a deal=D ill trade u the ninja turtle shirt for your zim shirt=D

  • If it's a culture war against the fundies you're worried about, then agnostics are already on your side. Agnostics, skeptics, brights, rational Christians (what DonExodus2 used to be before he went atheist), pearlists, whatever they happen to call themselves. (Heck, even the general term "liberal" will do in some cases)

    As for the "a-" syllable: Not sure, what about "asocial"? That doesn't just mean "not very social" it means "anti-social".

  • @Mithcoriel Actually, it doesn't; asocial means "introverted", really.

    Someone who is anti-social HATES society.

  • @BionicDance Actually, someone who is antisocial in the psychological sense of the term neither hates nor opposes society or socialization - they lack empathy. Antisocial is basically a synonym for psychopath or sociopath. Argue all you like that psychologists are misusing the word, but that's what they mean when they say it.

  • @Mithcoriel sombody who is asocial will will in general not take steps to involve themself in a social situation. anti-social however means they are taking actions which discourage social behaviours or interaction.

  • @QCreyton Well it doesn't seem entirely clear-cut. Merriam-webster dictionary lists anti-social as a synonym of asocial. Also, I'm sure we usually say "fundies trying to prevent gay marriage are acting asocial."

  • @Mithcoriel I have never in my life heard someone say "asocial" for any reason. The prefix "A" means "without". Period. The prefix "Anti" means "against or opposed to". Period. That is the law of the English language. If you don't like it, learn to speak another language, but it will have rules too. Linguistics are very much like mathematics in that there are rules and laws that simply are what they are.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri Why do you have to take the aggressive stance that I "don't like it", as if this debate was on personal preferences rather than light linguistic discussions?

    Anyway, maybe I got it mixed up with German, where we say "Asozial/asocial" all the time (and antisozial isn't really used.) (So much for learning another language btw). It's still kind of relevant though, cause it's the same greek prefix. Plus, germans will also wonder wether to call themselves Atheist or Agnostiker.

  • @Mithcoriel In English the prefixes "A" and "Anti" do NOT mean the same thing. "A" means "without" while "Anti" means "against". English is one of the most bastardized languages with some of the hardest to grasp concepts of all languages. That said, there are rules for any language and not using the proper prefix violates those rules and destroys the entire mening.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri Yes, I know. And it's not like I just randomly use "a" and "anti" interchangeably. I was just pointing out that in that one instance it seemed to fit.

  • Like your Invader Zim shirt. :D

  • Are budists technicaly weak atheists?

  • @poltimepol Most are atheist. Some are weak theist.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri

    How do you know?

    Do you know a lot of budists?

  • @poltimepol I know a few. Largely, Buddhism is atheistic.

  • @poltimepol I've studied Martial Arts for ~20 years. Its hard NOT to meet a few along the way.

  • @poltimepol Maybe? They don't have a deity, but they worship Buddha as one, even though he isn't. There are also the arguments which state buddhism isn't a religion, just a philosophy. Buddhism is one of those quasi-we-don't-know-what-they-­are because of the definition, which states it is a religion and philosophy.

  • I completely agree and actually have been considering making a video of my own on this subject for a while.

    It's annoying to see so many people get these basic definitions wrong.

  • @BionicDance Also, what do you mean by "inherent to the words"? Are you saying that the meaning of a word is inherent to it and not a matter of social/cultural agreement?

  • @BionicDance Dictionaries give usage, not definitions. The fact is that "atheist" is used as a synonym for "anti-theist" very widely, as you clearly know since you feel the need to make these videos, so until your video campaign succeeds in changing that it remains correct for dictionaries to include that usage of the word.

  • @Yiab Wrong. Those dictionaries that equate Atheist with Antitheist are WRONG and were obviously put together by christians in an attempt to cause this problem in the first place.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri If you're being sarcastic I'd like to remind you that sarcasm doesn't come across well online.

    If you're serious, are you denying that people use the word "atheist" as if it meant "antitheist"? I'm not making a comment about correctness of usage, merely prevalence of usage.

  • @Yiab Any dictionary that defines atheist as antitheist is FUCKING WRONG. Is English not your first language? Do you understand what prefixes are and how they work in our language?

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri Yes I understand how prefixes and suffixes work in English, and I understand how they work in this particular case in the Greek from which this word originates. English is my first language and semantics is obviously not your strong suit.

    Is the meaning of a word a fixed objective fact not dependent on culture or minds? If you answered yes to this question, please explain how to determine what the true meaning of a word is, if no explain how it's simply FUCKING WRONG.

  • @Yiab AGAIN, for the dimwitted: The prefix "A" simply means "without". The prefix "Anti" means "against or opposed to". That's it. It's simple. If you can't get it, then I can't help you anyway because you don't WANT to learn. You want to make language all philosophically wishy-washy. I am done with this conversation. It's over. Call yourself whatever the fuck you want, but: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri You may notice that I haven't been arguing about what a correct definition is for this word; I have been arguing about what is and isn't appropriate for a dictionary to include. Dictionaries give usage. Many people use "atheist" to mean "antitheist". Therefore it is correct for dictionaries to include this as it is used. Note: I am not saying it is correct for people to use it this way.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri Now, as to the point you insist I address even though I haven't disputed it.

    There are three (3) parts to the word "atheist"

    "a": prefix denoting negation, absence or opposition

    "the": from the Greek "theos" referring to god or gods

    "ist": suffix denoting belief in or support of

    hence we have two distinct etymologies for "atheist", namely:

    a(theist): not a theist

    (athe)ist: a believer in the absence of a god/gods, or opposer of a god/gods.

    Why is the second one incorrect?

  • @Yiab No. "A" denotes absence. "Anti" denotes opposition. That's why we have multiple prefixes so schmucks can get the proper meanings of words in a conversation. "(athe)ist: a believer in the absence of a god/gods, or opposer of a god/gods." Wrong. You are forcing a definition onto a word for which it does not belong. Language has rules like mathematics. You do not get to make them up as you go for your own selfish interests. Now leave me alone. I'm done with you.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri Interesting you bring up mathematics because that is exactly where the bracketing I used comes from - concatenation is not associative with respect to meaning. The rules of language are nowhere near as strict as those of math. Even so, discarding the "opposition" part, explain why

    (athe)ist: a believer in the absence of god/gods

    is incorrect.

    As for selfish interests - projecting much? I am an atheist, antitheist mathematician who has an interest in using precise language.

  • @Yiab STFU and leave me alone.

  • @Yiab Dictionary (noun): A book that lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning, or that gives the equivalent words in a different language. Some, such as student dictionaries, will give the usage, but they don't, by necessity, give the usage. An antitheist is always an atheist, but an altheist is not always an antitheist. Atheist don't believe in deities. Antitheists are actively opposed.

  • @HimesInu Yes, that's the definition Google gives. Now let's look at the Wikipedia entry under "General Dictionaries":

    "In a general dictionary, each word may have multiple meanings. Some dictionaries include each separate meaning in the order of most common USAGE while others list definitions in historical order, with the oldest USAGE first." (emphasis mine).

    Dictionaries give usage, not definitions. People use atheist to mean antitheist, therefore dictionaries should include that.

  • @Yiab Then you aren't using a dictionary to what it was meant to be used, and that's to find it's usage, the definition, its background, so on and so forth. I don't know what dictionary you use, but every dictionary I've used has given the definition of the words within the covers.

  • @HimesInu Really? What dictionary do you use, and how do you tell the difference between a proposed definition and a reported usage just from reading it?

  • I'm more against worship than anything else.

  • Keep doing what you're doing toots, awareness is the key. So many people have never even heard arguments against religion or the harm it causes. I remember the first time someone said "I am an atheist" to me and I was horrified at the thought of standing in the presence of this immoral monster, or so I thought he was. At that time I was a skeptic and an atheist, just hadn't realized what the definition of my position was.

  • Hehe, it was interesting meeting american christians, upon hearing "yeah, I'm an atheist, is there...":

    -"You liberal commie hippie-treehugger!"

    I was like: whaaa?? whoa nelly...

    BAGGAGE indeed!

  • my recent video "my woman" taught me in brutal awareness that even simple words, or terms, can carry a lot of baggage, depending on who is saying it, how it was said, and who is hearing it.

  • @gothatfunk Yes. Yes, they do.

    But to have a rational discussion, one must consciously turn off the baggage as much as possible in order to properly communicate...it seems very few people are capable of this, never mind willing.

    Alas.

  • I wonder what the top 3 qualities people assume are inherent in an atheist; it's all stereotyping, an assumption, a bias.

  • @RevSpike there's really only one that is, though - lack of belief in any gods.

  • @doaftheloaf exactly. but it seems to me that everyone else must believe that there are some other qualities in being an atheist, and that for those reasons/assumptions/associatio­ns (if they can even articulate them) they are not 'comfortable" with the idea of being labeled an atheist.

  • @RevSpike Not an "excuse", but a "reason". (Two very different things). I want to find out what those nebulous reasons are.

  • Wow. This video Is the downstream!

  • 2 min in -- the reason that a-theism is an exception is that theists have demonized the word and lumped everyone of similarity together. It's not just anti-theists who are asses - it's also atheists. It's similar to how philosophical anarchists (which have now become called anti-statists) have been lumped in with violent idiot anarchists, and so the philosophy is assumed to be bunk and for chaos right off the bat. You'll find insecurity at the basis of this polarization.

  • In the past, wasn't atheist also used for ppl that branch off from a particular religious sect. So it didn't always mean no belief in god(s). But today it means strictly a-theist. Language has a way of changing the meaning of words.

  • I think the root of the problem is that society confuses atheism as being anti-theism when in fact it' merely the disbelief, not as if they are against it. That's where the baggage comes from.

  • This is where conversations about changing the language helps. Like how male homosexuals went from being called Introverts to Gay.

  • @RomeoCo Being introverted has nothing to do with being gay. Where in the fucking hell did you get that? That's one of the goofiest things I've heard all day.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri Seeing as adrim18 already posted my initial reaction let me clarify.

    Introvert was what people called gay men back in the 1800s. Look it up.

  • did you know that being gay has nothing to do with homosexual?

    words change thier meaning over time

  • @adirm18 It's not that the word "gay" meaning has changed, it's gained another meaning. One word can have different meanings dependent on the context it is used, gay can still mean happy. But using your correlation to the word atheist is wrong as the meaning of atheist has not changed or gained another meaning. Certain religious types just want the word to mean something else to give it a negative connotation, as if it is wrong or bad so people wont want to associate themselves with the label.

  • @krustofskie True. But the use of the word introvert to describe homosexuals basically... doesnt exist. And in a couple generations gay meaning happy wont exist. Gay actually once upon a time refereed to a womanizer. Words really do change.

  • This dead horse bores me.

  • @jebus6kryst Me too, sorta. But the "no learners" infuriate me!

  • well I think most people don't want someone to dogmatically tell them what their "label" is...they prefer to choose their own. I also think its better to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I don't believe there will be a "war"....the change will happen gradually...as it already has over many years.Don't you think that being called "non-religious" would really bring more people together? If you look at surveys, the percentages are about double of those who choose the "atheist" moniker.

  • @squirrly001 And the cause of this is the negative connotation created by the theists. As for the war question, it has already started. Maybe not the war you are thinking of, but a war nnetheless, and the battles have been fought for years now. The problem with the "non-religious" category is that you can be "non-religious" and still believe in a deity the same way you can be religious and not believe in a deity. The "non-religious" moniker just creates more confusion.

  • @HimesInu how can you be religious and non-religious? Personally, i see no confusion. I reiterate, people have the right to choose their own label. I don't care about the negative connotation,....if I felt so inclined I would claim the atheist label. I don't. ...yet. I don't see any 'baggage' with it because it would not impact my world to say I am an atheist. To me, this dogmatic insistence on people labelling themselves is divisive.Its does not help "the cause".

  • @squirrly001 You can't be religious and non-religious at the same time but you can be a religious atheist or a non-religious theist. And you may not care about the negative connotation, and I commend you for that, but there are a lot of people who are atheist who do care about the connotation. And people like Keight and I are so adament about people admitting they are atheist so theists are forced to see the truth instead of tainted image and more people will feel comfortable wearing the moniker

  • @HimesInu do you really think theists will be forced to see "the truth" if more people say they are atheists?? It doesn't work that way. Forcing people to choose labels is counter productive. Some people will always be theists...there's no hope for those folks. Then there are those rational people out there that are open to alternative ideas. Give those people a break and let them choose. They are probably sick of religious dogma....so why be dogmatic about a damn label?

  • @squirrly001 The facts will be out there more readily. And I'm not forcing labels on anyone. The labels are already there. I'm saying people need to accept them and wear them proudly. A perfect example is that I am, by definition, a bastard. my parents were never married. And everytime someone calls me a bastard, I smile and tell them proudly I am. And I'm being harsh because the more theists run our lives, the more they are going to want to take. Look at Bachmann and Perry if you need examples.

  • @squirrly001 Well said, squirrly001! I've been unsure about this whole debate but your comment opened my eyes and I agree with ya :)

  • @squirrly001 You don't choose your label; it's assigned to you based on the traits you possess.

  • @BionicDance sure you choose your labels. Think about all the labels people have assigned to you? Do you agree with them?

  • @squirrly001 I agree with the ones that match reality, even if I don't like them.

  • @BionicDance and that reality is based on your opinion....ie. subjective.

  • @squirrly001 No, it's based on FACTS. Otherwise I wouldn't agree.

  • @BionicDance somethings you can call facts....eg. black is black and white is white....I don't believe you can call this a black and white fact. Belief, lack of belief, not knowing what to believe in...is a grey area. Why force people to be pigeon holed? How does this help the cause?

  • @squirrly001 Did you know that nigger means human now? Well, David believes it. Who are you to say he's wrong?

  • @BionicDance yes you do choose your label. You don't choose which person respects your label or not. You can't tell anyone "you're not a lesbian (or whatever), I think you're a __????__". It's like ripping their "Hello my name is" tag where they've written their name and tell them yu don't look like a Susan to me, you look more like a Jessica, and write that on their name tag and expecting them to wear it. I'd rather respect whatever they refer to themselves as, ask questions & learn about them.

  • @squirrly001 So... what you are saying is, you should not accept the terms of something as they are shown to you? Basically Agnostics should still call themself Agnostic instead of what they really are; which is Agnostic-Atheist. Its not that hard to explain, you are either an atheist or a Theist there isn't any in-between even if you are non-religous you are still atheist because you don't have a religion and therefor you don't believe in a god, that makes you atheist.

  • @squirrly001 This is precisely the disconnect between atheists, who are atheist because of rational choice, and theists. You try to think through the issue and see things outside of yourself, about labeling and inclusion. Problem is, thats not how people generally work. They generally identify with what they are given, not what they choose (see Stanford Prison Experiment). People are also generally xenophobic which is exclusive, not inclusive. Emotional attachment to given labels is very high.

  • Holy shit... your demeanor is soooo much more improved in this thank you... you really communicated what you want to get across very well in this

  • It's really not so bad. Chances are you'll never see Conservapedia assemble a list of agnostic YouTube channels, or hear Pastor Mike Stahl suggest a National Christian Registration of Agnostics list.

  • I use to think the word Atheist means that we believe their is nothing after death, no matter what. Agnostic's will believe in god with proof. (so do we) The word Atheist has been tainted to them in that way. That is where the confusion is.

  • @meratche And that's why people like Keight, and to an extint myself, do videos like this.

  • @HimesInu But that's not what she is getting at , when you think Atheist believe nothing at all happens after death, that statement is wrong. Some may very well think that but with proof I any Atheist would have to be theists. We don't just deny god, Atheist will believe if shown proof. Not that all will follow, but that's another subject.

  • @meratche Actually, if there was proof of a deity, I'd be an antitheist. I would actively deny that god as MY god, and would not believe him or her as a god. And she never said that atheists believe that nothing happens after death. I have never heard her say that, and I've watched quite a few of her videos.

  • Is it possible, POSSIBLE, miss Dance, that words can start with A without meaning "not-something"? Does the word "antitheism" mean "not-ntitheism"?

    You've got the etymology of atheism wrong. You've been informed of this many times.

  • @TheLaughingOut ..."not nitheism"? *raised eyebrow*

    I really, REALLY hope you're joking, and that it's just difficult to tell in text without smilies.

  • @BionicDance I'm not saying it means that. I'm pointing out that not EVERY word that starts with A means "not something"

    Perhaps atheism is one of those words.

  • @TheLaughingOut So atheism means "not theism"?

    I agree.

  • @BionicDance Are you just trolling me?

  • @TheLaughingOut That's what *I* suspect of YOU...you're not making any sense.

  • @BionicDance I'm saying that atheism MAYBE doesn't mean "not theism" in the same way that antitheism does NOT mean "not ntitheism." America does not mean "not merica," apple doesn't mean "not pple," attorney does not mean "not ttorney," etc.

  • Comment removed

  • @TheLaughingOut You can't just make up your own rules when it comes to what words mean. You are wrong, and if you understood how prefixes worked you'd know that.

  • @LordSitri The A is not a prefix. Atheism comes from the word atheos, which means "without god" or "godless." Adding "ism" to the end of that is the suffix meaning belief. Thus the etymological meaning of the word is "godless belief."

    Again, I have no problem with people using the word in this newer way. My problem is when they claim it is etymological when it is not.

  • @TheLaughingOut The root word of "atheism" is "theo". So, broken down, it would be "a-theo-ism". You'd just take out the "o". Take it from an English major.

  • @HimesInu Cool, I will take it from you.

    As far as I'm aware (and it's fine if I'm wrong) the word "atheo (a + theo)" was around to describe godlessness or something similar. Correct? Because if we start from there (atheo = godless) that would mean that "ism" was added onto that word later. Thus creating a new word meaning "godless (atheo) belief (ism)."

  • @TheLaughingOut Yes, but you, if I have been reading your posts correctly, have been stating that "atheo" is the root word. This is just not the case. Also, "a" meaning not only applies when "a" is a prefix, and that is not always the case, such in the words "atmosphere", where "atmos" and not "a" is the prefix, or "atom", where the "a" isn't used as a prefix at all.

  • @HimesInu I guess I'm wording my thoughts poorly. My original point is exactly that A is not always a prefix, such as in the word "antitheist" or "apple."

    I suppose I have learned that in the word a-theo-ism, the A is a prefix, but I think my point still stands that in the construction of that word, "a-theo" was combined with "ism" to originally mean "godless belief."

    In that way, BD's perception of the etymology is incorrect, no?

  • @TheLaughingOut Keight's perception is correct because the "a" is a prefix. If it weren't I'd agree with you.

  • @HimesInu I'm sorry, I'm confused (I'm not an English major after all). Isn't the "a" the prefix to "theo" and then the "ism" is the suffix to "atheo"? Perhaps it does not work like that?

  • @TheLaughingOut Yes, "a" is the prefix in the word, but I'm saying you are incorrect in assuming Keight is using the etymology incorrectly.

  • @HimesInu But then wouldn't the etymological definition's evolution look like this:

    a + theo = atheo, meaning no god (godless)

    atheo + ism = atheism, meaning godless (the first half of a 2 part word) belief (the second half).

    Or does the order not matter in etymology?

  • @TheLaughingOut Order always matters. But the basis of your argument, that Keight is using the etymology wrong, is incorrect. She never said that "a" always means "not". She is saying that "a" always means "not" when used as a prefix. That's where the confusion, I believe, came in.

  • @HimesInu I should have been more clear because I didn't actually mean to imply that she was claiming that "a" always means "not." I just meant to state as a matter of fact that "a" does not always mean "not" and that this might be the case with "atheism."

    For clarity, do you agree that the etymological meaning of the word "atheism" when it was first conceived, was in fact "godless belief"?

  • @TheLaughingOut But the "a" in atheism has always meant "not". Never in the history of the word was it not a prefix and just part of the root word. And the Greek translation is "without god".

  • @TheLaughingOut The order matters. Atheos means without god, it suggests nothing about belief until you add the ism. Then the burden of proof comes into play. Theists make the positive claim. Atheism = lack of belief in god(s). It's that simple. About a dozen people tried here to turn the word "atheist" directly into "antitheist" and that's where half the fighting came from. They want to covertly slide in Igtheist which is actually an insult to ones intelligence; "Ig" is condescending.

  • @bamboo4tameshigiri I don't much care about what others are fighting over. Atheism is not antitheism. I also don't see what's wrong with igtheism. The more I learn about it, the more I consider myself to be an igtheist. Theists (or atheists for that matter) have not yet provided a coherent definition of the word "god" and therefore I can't possibly take a position about my belief in it. This only works though when you consider atheism to be a position instead of a lack of position.

  • @TheLaughingOut Before you make more of a complete ass of yourself and show just how ignorant you are of the laws of the English language stop. Please.

  • @TheLaughingOut Except that this is PRECISELY what atheism means, not merely given the etymology of the word, but also how it is used.