I do consider myself a part of the anti-theist / new atheist / whatever movement, and I DO feel responsible for others in said movement. Ultimately I chose to consider myself a part of it because I agree with what it does. I then feel it is quite important to point out very clearly those things I do not agree with, because I would expect people to figure I agree with them, having said I am an atheist... Same goes for every group I join.
The whole line of argument is stupid. I expect *everybody* to speak out for doing what's right and against doing what's wrong. Leave religion/atheism out of it. We all need to eliminate double standards, especially geopolitical double standards, where we pretend "if you do it on behalf of your team it's bad but if we do it on behalf of our team it's good." Nuff said.
I think accountable is the wrong word. I think people have a moral obligation to speak out against the positions that their "groups" hold, or appear to hold, that they disagree with. For example a Christian who is silent on the gay marriage issue is tacitly supporting the anti-gay marriage perception of Christianity.
Also in a sense all Christians who believe the all powerful creator of the universe thinks abortion is murder, or all Muslims who think said same all powerful creator believes jihad is acceptable to defend Islam are in a sense justifying the killing of abortion doctors, or crashing planes into buildings. Those Christians, and Muslims might be able to argue that the response to these things are wrong, but not the motivation.
@TheNakedAtheist I think the issue of having a moral obligation to speak out is redundant since many of them do speak out. There are several Christian bloggers at the Huffington Post for instance that criticize Christian fundamentalists all the time. There is no shortage of Christian critics (and even muslim critics) of extremism.
@smpunditz-There are several Christian bloggers at the Huffington Post for instance
Yes, but their words are hollow, and they're hypocrites. A Christian arguing that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual for example is rather like a member of the KKK arguing that all men are created equal. Their "Christian" label speaks louder than their words, or at a minimum dilutes them.
And the only real difference between a Muslim who believes jihad (a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty) is acceptable to defend Islam, and those who fly planes into buildings is a semantic argument about what constitutes an attack on Islam, and what exactly is the appropriate response.
I wanted to add that I would argue that the only way to separate yourself from giving at least some degree of support support the worst aspects of your religions dogma is to no identify yourself as a member of that religion, and I don't think we should let people off the hook simply because they condemn those aspects. Would we say it's OK to call yourself a member of the KKK, or a Nazi simply because you personally condemn the worst of their dogma?
@smpunditz-If you took the worse of KKK dogma what exactly would you be left with?
You'd be left with a name "KKK" that has extremely negative connotations. If the KKK announced tomorrow that they had 50 million members would you know, or would it matter that 49 million of them joined for no other reason than the fact that they like to get drunk, wear white robes, and burn crosses? Would it matter to politicians when their racist leaders wanted to donate millions to help elect them?
A certain percentage of every dollar that a Christians donates to his church is going directly, or indirectly to support so-called "Christian" causes, or elect politicians sympathetic with "Christian" issues.
@TheNakedAtheist you are talking about material support here and that is altogether different from simply being a Christian. Yes I would say if you are given an organization money and know they are engaging in unethical practices that makes you culpable.
I would say it gets a bit more complicated when your talking about the government or political parties but in the case of religious institutions I would agree.
@TheNakedAtheist I don't think very many people join the KKK solely for the purpose of getting drunk. In any case you illustrate my point in your first sentence. The KKK ceases to be what it is if it abandoned the extreme elements of it's dogma. That's why I say your analogy isn't comparable. Most religions have far more extensive beliefs than the KKK and removing parts of the whole don't cause most religions to cease to be what they are.
You're missing my point, and I think a significant percentage of Christians call themselves Christians for reason less significant reasons. If you ask most non-religious people to describe a Christian their response would be "evolution denying, abortion opposing, gay hating bigot", and that's a stereotype we should encourage. My mother, late in life, stopped calling herself a Christian, and ultimately became an atheist because she tired of being painted with that brush.
You're obviously not going to get the hard core to de-convert by shaming, or ridiculing them, but it does works on casual Christians who are the majority, but are helping to represent the minority view.
@TheNakedAtheist so just to clarify you are saying that we should implement a strategy of broad brushing Christians with stereotypes in the hopes that we can shame them into becoming atheists based on your anecdotal evidence?
No, I'm saying we (secularists/atheists) shouldn't engage in discouraging, or defending Christians from the stereotypes they've freely chosen to make themselves the targets of. If someone chooses to call themselves a Christian the onus is on them, not us, to convince others that they aren't "evolution denying, abortion opposing, gay hating bigots".
Belief systems evolve over time and become offshoots of one another. Religion is in a unique position in that they evolve like any other belief system but they give special credence to the original writings of their ideology. This creates problems of consistency as they attempt to modernize their beliefs. However it does not mean they are responsible for the actions of those who adhere to a stricter interpretation of the doctrine because they refuse to reject the doctrine outright.
They give credibility to the belief system by virtue of the self-proclaimed membership in the religion. Less than 20% of Americans for example "vigorously" oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution being taught in school, but the fact that 84% of Americans call themselves Christians give these positions far more traction than they would otherwise have. People who call themselves Christians share the responsibility for that fact.
I have to side with bionicdance here, when you belong to a religion (at least when I did) I was well aware of the chain of command and who was our network from the church to the pope. As an atheist I don meet and gather and know anyone, but I do have common goals and if I joined for example the FFRF or something I would hold the members of the FFRF accountable for their actions as a member myself and would choose to support or not depending on these actions.
@csosa1978 actually if you read what bionic dance says in the comment section of the video she reveals that she was speaking in much more general terms than she says in her clarification video.
She later 'changed' her position in her clarification video.
@csosa1978 I am just talking based on what I understood from her 1st video then your and her second one, maybe I just jumped to my conclusion because that was my stance to begin with.
1a. She seems to be saying that she's not a memeber of a group with a belief system. But she does seem to say she's a member of a group with a non-belief system. I've also met people who don't consider themselves members of any group because they can't account for the interpretations others make. I get the impression BD is trying to "rally the troups" in a war. 1st she says it's a declaration of non-membership, then id's herself as a member of a group, and what behaviour it must exhibit...
That makes no sense. Of course antitheists are responsible for their own, just like BD said for other ideologies, but "atheism" alone, seperated from antitheism, is not a group or affiliation. And BD specifically referred to "atheists", not to antitheists, because she responded to the question of Stalin and Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il and so on, who may have been atheists, but not necessarily antitheists.
The rest of my point was that atheist DON'T have this. Atheists mostly only band together in self-defense against the religious.
Yet the religious try to paint atheists as one big huge group, just like a religion, and they try to lay the blame on us for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and such. Yet we're no more affiliated with them than, say, a Jew was affiliated with the Spanish Inquisition.
THAT was my point, which you seem to have missing in your zeal to pwn.
I think antitheists can be as part of an ideology blamed for things antitheists did (an example: communist tries to make religion effectively go away as part of the communist ideology, that for the most part happened to be antitheist in a way too), just as proponents of eugenics have to be partly blamed for the things the nazis did. That doesn't mean, that the groups are the same, because the methods and beliefs vary, but in a minor way there are affiliations. A question of degree.
I have always had mixed feelings about this subject. While you can't (or shouldn't) blame all Christians (for example) for the evil committed by a few there does come a point when I wonder "Where are the sane Christians to answer these lunatics running for office in the republican party? Maybe Christians really ARE that full of hate?" No, it is not fair but it is not 100% unfair either. Know what I mean?
@prodigyat9 well there are plenty of Christians who have criticized the Republican Party. You don't have to look any further than the Huffington Post website for that.
I think it ultimately depends on the type of organization we're talking about and the level of commitment you have to it. I would say for instance being Roman Catholic doesn't make you in any way culpable for what the church does unless you actually give them money. Even than that doesn't mean you condone their actions.
While this is true there will still be a point where I wonder (or wondered) at the lack of R.C. voices against the church's support for criminal priests. Not to say there have not been some voices but at some point it just seems to few. And like I said mixed feelings.
@prodigyat9 I think that this just shows that Christianity itself is somewhat to blame. But individual christians who do not participate nor contribute money or whatever to an organization which includes the participators in the wrong are not to blame. It is not my responsibility if someone declares themself to share a trait with me and then does something wrong.
You miss the point ENTIRELY. Hell, you included the very points you're missing right in this video. In fact, you SAY the part you're missing yourself: you say "maybe not a formal organization"...well, I'm TALKING ABOUT formal organizations. That's MY POINT.
So you've missed it entirely; intentionally or not, you're strawmanning me, here. I'm talking about formal allegiances, and you think I'm NOT. You're wrong.
@BionicDance you made no such exceptions in your video and really it wouldn't matter if you did. You are formally a citizen of the US government. Does that make you responsible for everything it does?
@smpunditz Actually, YES. And that's why some of us who don't care for what our country is doing in our name protest, because we don't want to be a part of what's being done in our names.
@BionicDance if your argument is merely that someone of any organization should be opposed to any unethical practices of the organization they belong to than your video is beyond redundant.
The rest of my point was that atheist DON'T have this. Atheists mostly only band together in self-defense against the religious.
Yet the religious try to paint atheists as one big huge group, just like a religion, and they try to lay the blame on us for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and such. Yet we're no more affiliated with them than, say, a Jew was affiliated with the Spanish Inquisition.
THAT was my point, which you seem to have missing in your zeal to pwn
@BionicDance I find it ironic that you would suggest I have a 'zeal to pwn' or that you of all people would imply that having such zeal is a bad thing.
Furthermore when you say 'police your own' you are implying ownership of everyone's actions within a group not just the organizational leadership.
@smpunditz Yes, people who are in a group should take responsibility for the actions done in that group's name, whether by the leadership or just one person, even if only to protest and disavow those actions.
Furthermore, you continue to NOT draw the distinction between an explicit organization to which one has become officially affiliated, and a loose-knit group of people who share a trait in common.
@BionicDance well that's partly because many religious sects are not explicit organizations (probably most looking on a global scale), they are often just a group of very loosely affiliated persons connected by a certain doctrine but otherwise autonomous from one another. Protestantism would fall under this category as well as the subgroup evangelicalism. The terms sect and denomination do not even necessarily imply formal organizational structure but those are the terms you used in your video.
@BionicDance you could be referring to a group OR cause. An yes the word cause even finds it's way into merriam webster's dictionary so don't think you can throw that at me.
@smpunditz Well, I'm SPECIFICALLY referring to a formal organization or group to which one has explicitly become a member. That's what my video was about.
So I ask again...what's the problem? *raised eyebrow*
@BionicDance I find it interesting how your position has evolved from where it was originally. You think I did not read any of your comments in your original video?
Other person
'Why does a liberal Christian who is cool with same sex marriage and similar issues have to answer for Pat Robertsons insanity?'
you
'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.
You very much were originally talking about the entire religion and than in your clarification video' said you were talking about specific sects.
You than go on to say that Christians have to condemn what other Christians say in the name of Christianity but that is already happening so yes your video is redundant.
@smpunditz No, see, my position has NOT evolved, my position is exactly the same.
YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT has evolved. You thought I meant something that I didn't; I've corrected you. But now you think my position has changed because your understanding has changed; stop blaming me for the error YOU made.
If a Christian person MUST say, "We want nothing to do with Pat Robertson, we formally renounce him, he his not part of OUR religious sect despite the apparent connection to us."
'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?'
Notice how you ask 'are they not all Christians' and THAN you tell him fine if you want to break it up even finer than that you are still responsible for what members of your sect do.
It is you who don't understand the difference in significance of association. Not your detractors.
@smpunditz But, see, again, this is only HALF of my argument.
There are some who try to tell me that ATHEISM is a formal organization like the church is, and that atheists are culpable in the same way that the church is. And I'm sayin' no, atheists are NOT culpable because atheism is NOT a formal group the way a church is.
THAT'S why this came up in the first place; you're only seeing half the issue right now, and that's why you're asking these irrelevant questions.
@BionicDance we are arguing about what you claim you said now and in your follow up video versus what you actually said as clarified in the comment section of your original video.
When you were asked are Lutherans responsible for cleaning up for Southern Baptists your response was... 'aren't they all Christians'.
This clearly indicates that you were not only referring to formal organizations contrary to your new claim.
@smpunditz Then let me clarify...that was badly said. Point is, what I care about is formal affiliation, EXPLICIT membership in something. If the Lutherans were to point at other christians and say, "We formally renounce the crap they just pulled," I'd accept it, provided they genuinely behaved as if they were independent.
Is that a fag??
jpugh216 1 day ago
I do consider myself a part of the anti-theist / new atheist / whatever movement, and I DO feel responsible for others in said movement. Ultimately I chose to consider myself a part of it because I agree with what it does. I then feel it is quite important to point out very clearly those things I do not agree with, because I would expect people to figure I agree with them, having said I am an atheist... Same goes for every group I join.
tanekki 2 months ago
I am an American (US citizen).
I did not invade Iraq (even though I probably payed for a few bullets (under duress)).
Group membership, even with financial support does not entail responsibility.
I agree.
9mjb 2 months ago
a bad apple is still an apple. unless it becomes a banana. : )
ModernDeism 2 months ago
A little hard to read the bit at the beginning.
NoNamesLeft0102 2 months ago
getting atheists together in a group is like herding cats.
naturalistmind 2 months ago
Gotcha
The whole line of argument is stupid. I expect *everybody* to speak out for doing what's right and against doing what's wrong. Leave religion/atheism out of it. We all need to eliminate double standards, especially geopolitical double standards, where we pretend "if you do it on behalf of your team it's bad but if we do it on behalf of our team it's good." Nuff said.
geodgereturns 2 months ago
Well played sir.
RakaTheTenacious 2 months ago
I think accountable is the wrong word. I think people have a moral obligation to speak out against the positions that their "groups" hold, or appear to hold, that they disagree with. For example a Christian who is silent on the gay marriage issue is tacitly supporting the anti-gay marriage perception of Christianity.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
(cont)
Also in a sense all Christians who believe the all powerful creator of the universe thinks abortion is murder, or all Muslims who think said same all powerful creator believes jihad is acceptable to defend Islam are in a sense justifying the killing of abortion doctors, or crashing planes into buildings. Those Christians, and Muslims might be able to argue that the response to these things are wrong, but not the motivation.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist I think the issue of having a moral obligation to speak out is redundant since many of them do speak out. There are several Christian bloggers at the Huffington Post for instance that criticize Christian fundamentalists all the time. There is no shortage of Christian critics (and even muslim critics) of extremism.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz-There are several Christian bloggers at the Huffington Post for instance
Yes, but their words are hollow, and they're hypocrites. A Christian arguing that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual for example is rather like a member of the KKK arguing that all men are created equal. Their "Christian" label speaks louder than their words, or at a minimum dilutes them.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
(cont)
And the only real difference between a Muslim who believes jihad (a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty) is acceptable to defend Islam, and those who fly planes into buildings is a semantic argument about what constitutes an attack on Islam, and what exactly is the appropriate response.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
Continued...
I wanted to add that I would argue that the only way to separate yourself from giving at least some degree of support support the worst aspects of your religions dogma is to no identify yourself as a member of that religion, and I don't think we should let people off the hook simply because they condemn those aspects. Would we say it's OK to call yourself a member of the KKK, or a Nazi simply because you personally condemn the worst of their dogma?
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist I don't think your analogy is comparable. If you took the worse of KKK dogma what exactly would you be left with?
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz-If you took the worse of KKK dogma what exactly would you be left with?
You'd be left with a name "KKK" that has extremely negative connotations. If the KKK announced tomorrow that they had 50 million members would you know, or would it matter that 49 million of them joined for no other reason than the fact that they like to get drunk, wear white robes, and burn crosses? Would it matter to politicians when their racist leaders wanted to donate millions to help elect them?
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
Continued...
A certain percentage of every dollar that a Christians donates to his church is going directly, or indirectly to support so-called "Christian" causes, or elect politicians sympathetic with "Christian" issues.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist you are talking about material support here and that is altogether different from simply being a Christian. Yes I would say if you are given an organization money and know they are engaging in unethical practices that makes you culpable.
I would say it gets a bit more complicated when your talking about the government or political parties but in the case of religious institutions I would agree.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist I don't think very many people join the KKK solely for the purpose of getting drunk. In any case you illustrate my point in your first sentence. The KKK ceases to be what it is if it abandoned the extreme elements of it's dogma. That's why I say your analogy isn't comparable. Most religions have far more extensive beliefs than the KKK and removing parts of the whole don't cause most religions to cease to be what they are.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz
You're missing my point, and I think a significant percentage of Christians call themselves Christians for reason less significant reasons. If you ask most non-religious people to describe a Christian their response would be "evolution denying, abortion opposing, gay hating bigot", and that's a stereotype we should encourage. My mother, late in life, stopped calling herself a Christian, and ultimately became an atheist because she tired of being painted with that brush.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
Continued...
You're obviously not going to get the hard core to de-convert by shaming, or ridiculing them, but it does works on casual Christians who are the majority, but are helping to represent the minority view.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist so just to clarify you are saying that we should implement a strategy of broad brushing Christians with stereotypes in the hopes that we can shame them into becoming atheists based on your anecdotal evidence?
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz
No, I'm saying we (secularists/atheists) shouldn't engage in discouraging, or defending Christians from the stereotypes they've freely chosen to make themselves the targets of. If someone chooses to call themselves a Christian the onus is on them, not us, to convince others that they aren't "evolution denying, abortion opposing, gay hating bigots".
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
Continued...
I know I said above we should encourage it, but I meant we shouldn't discourage it.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
Belief systems evolve over time and become offshoots of one another. Religion is in a unique position in that they evolve like any other belief system but they give special credence to the original writings of their ideology. This creates problems of consistency as they attempt to modernize their beliefs. However it does not mean they are responsible for the actions of those who adhere to a stricter interpretation of the doctrine because they refuse to reject the doctrine outright.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz
They give credibility to the belief system by virtue of the self-proclaimed membership in the religion. Less than 20% of Americans for example "vigorously" oppose things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution being taught in school, but the fact that 84% of Americans call themselves Christians give these positions far more traction than they would otherwise have. People who call themselves Christians share the responsibility for that fact.
TheNakedAtheist 2 months ago
I hate BionicDance's stiff-as-a-board Captain Harlock hair.
SolomonKull 2 months ago
it's all bs man... just mouths spouting off, for no other reason than feeling superior. IMHO
gratex 2 months ago
I have to side with bionicdance here, when you belong to a religion (at least when I did) I was well aware of the chain of command and who was our network from the church to the pope. As an atheist I don meet and gather and know anyone, but I do have common goals and if I joined for example the FFRF or something I would hold the members of the FFRF accountable for their actions as a member myself and would choose to support or not depending on these actions.
csosa1978 2 months ago
@csosa1978 I still liked the video and I'm intrigued as to your other videos - subscribed -
csosa1978 2 months ago
@csosa1978 actually if you read what bionic dance says in the comment section of the video she reveals that she was speaking in much more general terms than she says in her clarification video.
She later 'changed' her position in her clarification video.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@csosa1978 I am just talking based on what I understood from her 1st video then your and her second one, maybe I just jumped to my conclusion because that was my stance to begin with.
csosa1978 2 months ago
2a. ...Sometimes I get the impression she's saying, "it's ok for us to do this cause we're the good guys.".
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
1a. She seems to be saying that she's not a memeber of a group with a belief system. But she does seem to say she's a member of a group with a non-belief system. I've also met people who don't consider themselves members of any group because they can't account for the interpretations others make. I get the impression BD is trying to "rally the troups" in a war. 1st she says it's a declaration of non-membership, then id's herself as a member of a group, and what behaviour it must exhibit...
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
That makes no sense. Of course antitheists are responsible for their own, just like BD said for other ideologies, but "atheism" alone, seperated from antitheism, is not a group or affiliation. And BD specifically referred to "atheists", not to antitheists, because she responded to the question of Stalin and Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il and so on, who may have been atheists, but not necessarily antitheists.
MardasMan 2 months ago
@smpunditz That was only HALF my point.
The rest of my point was that atheist DON'T have this. Atheists mostly only band together in self-defense against the religious.
Yet the religious try to paint atheists as one big huge group, just like a religion, and they try to lay the blame on us for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and such. Yet we're no more affiliated with them than, say, a Jew was affiliated with the Spanish Inquisition.
THAT was my point, which you seem to have missing in your zeal to pwn.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance
I think antitheists can be as part of an ideology blamed for things antitheists did (an example: communist tries to make religion effectively go away as part of the communist ideology, that for the most part happened to be antitheist in a way too), just as proponents of eugenics have to be partly blamed for the things the nazis did. That doesn't mean, that the groups are the same, because the methods and beliefs vary, but in a minor way there are affiliations. A question of degree.
MardasMan 2 months ago
I have always had mixed feelings about this subject. While you can't (or shouldn't) blame all Christians (for example) for the evil committed by a few there does come a point when I wonder "Where are the sane Christians to answer these lunatics running for office in the republican party? Maybe Christians really ARE that full of hate?" No, it is not fair but it is not 100% unfair either. Know what I mean?
prodigyat9 2 months ago
@prodigyat9 well there are plenty of Christians who have criticized the Republican Party. You don't have to look any further than the Huffington Post website for that.
I think it ultimately depends on the type of organization we're talking about and the level of commitment you have to it. I would say for instance being Roman Catholic doesn't make you in any way culpable for what the church does unless you actually give them money. Even than that doesn't mean you condone their actions.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz
While this is true there will still be a point where I wonder (or wondered) at the lack of R.C. voices against the church's support for criminal priests. Not to say there have not been some voices but at some point it just seems to few. And like I said mixed feelings.
prodigyat9 2 months ago
@prodigyat9 I think that this just shows that Christianity itself is somewhat to blame. But individual christians who do not participate nor contribute money or whatever to an organization which includes the participators in the wrong are not to blame. It is not my responsibility if someone declares themself to share a trait with me and then does something wrong.
Skillbus 2 months ago
You miss the point ENTIRELY. Hell, you included the very points you're missing right in this video. In fact, you SAY the part you're missing yourself: you say "maybe not a formal organization"...well, I'm TALKING ABOUT formal organizations. That's MY POINT.
So you've missed it entirely; intentionally or not, you're strawmanning me, here. I'm talking about formal allegiances, and you think I'm NOT. You're wrong.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance you made no such exceptions in your video and really it wouldn't matter if you did. You are formally a citizen of the US government. Does that make you responsible for everything it does?
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz Actually, YES. And that's why some of us who don't care for what our country is doing in our name protest, because we don't want to be a part of what's being done in our names.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance if your argument is merely that someone of any organization should be opposed to any unethical practices of the organization they belong to than your video is beyond redundant.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz That was only HALF my point.
The rest of my point was that atheist DON'T have this. Atheists mostly only band together in self-defense against the religious.
Yet the religious try to paint atheists as one big huge group, just like a religion, and they try to lay the blame on us for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and such. Yet we're no more affiliated with them than, say, a Jew was affiliated with the Spanish Inquisition.
THAT was my point, which you seem to have missing in your zeal to pwn
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I find it ironic that you would suggest I have a 'zeal to pwn' or that you of all people would imply that having such zeal is a bad thing.
Furthermore when you say 'police your own' you are implying ownership of everyone's actions within a group not just the organizational leadership.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz Yes, people who are in a group should take responsibility for the actions done in that group's name, whether by the leadership or just one person, even if only to protest and disavow those actions.
Furthermore, you continue to NOT draw the distinction between an explicit organization to which one has become officially affiliated, and a loose-knit group of people who share a trait in common.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance well that's partly because many religious sects are not explicit organizations (probably most looking on a global scale), they are often just a group of very loosely affiliated persons connected by a certain doctrine but otherwise autonomous from one another. Protestantism would fall under this category as well as the subgroup evangelicalism. The terms sect and denomination do not even necessarily imply formal organizational structure but those are the terms you used in your video.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz But I very SPECIFICALLY said affiliation and alliance. So what precisely do you THINK I was talking about? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance you could be referring to a group OR cause. An yes the word cause even finds it's way into merriam webster's dictionary so don't think you can throw that at me.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz Well, I'm SPECIFICALLY referring to a formal organization or group to which one has explicitly become a member. That's what my video was about.
So I ask again...what's the problem? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I find it interesting how your position has evolved from where it was originally. You think I did not read any of your comments in your original video?
Other person
'Why does a liberal Christian who is cool with same sex marriage and similar issues have to answer for Pat Robertsons insanity?'
you
'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.'
smpunditz 2 months ago
you go on to say this...
'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.'
smpunditz 2 months ago
You very much were originally talking about the entire religion and than in your clarification video' said you were talking about specific sects.
You than go on to say that Christians have to condemn what other Christians say in the name of Christianity but that is already happening so yes your video is redundant.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz No, see, my position has NOT evolved, my position is exactly the same.
YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT has evolved. You thought I meant something that I didn't; I've corrected you. But now you think my position has changed because your understanding has changed; stop blaming me for the error YOU made.
If a Christian person MUST say, "We want nothing to do with Pat Robertson, we formally renounce him, he his not part of OUR religious sect despite the apparent connection to us."
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance and who has ever suggested otherwise? Why would anyone want to be someone to believe they agree with someone they don't?
Let me show you talking again. Here you are even more explicit. (cont)
smpunditz 2 months ago
Other person
'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?'
smpunditz 2 months ago
'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?'
smpunditz 2 months ago
Notice how you ask 'are they not all Christians' and THAN you tell him fine if you want to break it up even finer than that you are still responsible for what members of your sect do.
It is you who don't understand the difference in significance of association. Not your detractors.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz But, see, again, this is only HALF of my argument.
There are some who try to tell me that ATHEISM is a formal organization like the church is, and that atheists are culpable in the same way that the church is. And I'm sayin' no, atheists are NOT culpable because atheism is NOT a formal group the way a church is.
THAT'S why this came up in the first place; you're only seeing half the issue right now, and that's why you're asking these irrelevant questions.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance I already explicitly stated in my video that I don't disagree with that notion.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz Then what the hell are we arguing about? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance we are arguing about what you claim you said now and in your follow up video versus what you actually said as clarified in the comment section of your original video.
When you were asked are Lutherans responsible for cleaning up for Southern Baptists your response was... 'aren't they all Christians'.
This clearly indicates that you were not only referring to formal organizations contrary to your new claim.
smpunditz 2 months ago
@smpunditz Then let me clarify...that was badly said. Point is, what I care about is formal affiliation, EXPLICIT membership in something. If the Lutherans were to point at other christians and say, "We formally renounce the crap they just pulled," I'd accept it, provided they genuinely behaved as if they were independent.
BionicDance 2 months ago
@BionicDance very well. I suppose the mature thing to do at this point would be to end the discussion regardless of our difference of opinion.
smpunditz 2 months ago
yeah, thinking for yourself is hard! But it's the only way. Then discuss it with others and find the best solution.
Let the theists make the mistakes and point it out to them and make them understand what you mean. If you can't, think again :)
Sorry, kinda off topic but ... haha!
aNdYmAtTeR 2 months ago
OK you are showing the fact that she is contradicting herself about not being a part of a group. I am a part of something as well.
halolIlmao0 2 months ago
Oh wait this isnt Philip Defranco...
fyourcouchnigga 2 months ago
First ! YES! LIFE VICTORY!
fyourcouchnigga 2 months ago
@fyourcouchnigga
Imagine; I was here to witness it!
prodigyat9 2 months ago
@prodigyat9
huh?
MudHut67 2 months ago
@MudHut67
I am sharing in fyourcouchnigga's glory. You know, like seeing your favorite team win.
prodigyat9 2 months ago
@prodigyat9
LOL
MudHut67 2 months ago