i can see humans ,but im a humAntheist ,instead of 1+1 =bomb,id rather go for 0+0=faith in my future ,waiting for someone to stop ignorance ,what is worst than a GOD not shoing him her or whwtever self ,is a good peice of meat standing up and saying '',i dont need HELL '' i got power and destruction ,so behave ...its a fact that both want the same '''our determination to survive as a free individual,with a blast ,we can all cry of tortured feelings (,not to deads) ,but the ones left behind
to be fair, you're always somewhat confined by your culture. secular christian, secular jew, secular muslims etc. may celebrate christmas or radaman and so on. their "christian" cultured or whatever, but their atheist.
@BionicDance thats the best you've got? Atheism is the belief in no GOD or any other higher power other than human. Atheism definition is a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
thats a belief system and a Religion in itself why do you reject this fact?
@faron27 No, see, you're wrong about the definition of atheism. You're insisting that I defend a position I do not hold. You are engaging in a strawman argument.
Atheist: a-theist. Not a theist. The syllable 'a-' negates '-theist'. An atheist is anybody who is not a theist, who does not have god belief. THAT'S IT. anything more is just extra baggage attached by foolish humans who don't know what they're talking about.
You WANT atheism to be a belief system, but that doesn't make it one.
@BionicDance OK I see your definition of Atheism is right and Britannica and every other source is wrong... you can have your own opinion but cant make up your facts. Atheism makes up about 2% of the human population I guess everyone else is wrong and you are right... I don't mean any harm or malice I wish only to have a meaningful conversation / Debate.
@faron27 Numbers don't mean shit, kiddo; there was a time when the entire human population believed the sun went around the Earth and not the other way 'round.
FACTS are what matter, and they're simply not on your side.
@BionicDance numbers mean everything... facts? I just shed some on you and this is your reply truly are you serious? there was a time when the entire population was able to create things that modern humans can't replicate today and this is your answer? GOD the creator is on my side as well as the facts :}
as I stated in my previous comment I am not looking for a fight may light finds it way to you.
@faron27 You can't PROVE god is the creator using facts. You can't prove god EXISTS using facts! Religion demands FAITH, demands BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, and provides no facts at all. You've bought into the bullshit, kiddo.
Until and unless you can PROVE god exists, you're just talking out of your ass.
@BionicDance my comment was atheism is a religion and look how far off corse you have to go?
just because you refuse to believe in anything bigger than yourself is not my problem it's yours.
I don't believe in BS I believe GOD and that is my choice and all I wanted was a meaningful debate but I can see with you that may be impossible. may light find its way too you
@faron27 To you, "a meaningful debate" means that YOU get to dictate the terms and refuse to listen to the other side, refuse to admit you might be wrong. A meaningful debate IS impossible, but it's YOUR doing.
@BionicDance how is that have I ever once said I can't be wrong? have I personally insulted you as you have me? you are confused about a great many things... most people who use harsh language and insults can't back up anything they say or believe with facts you do know that right?
@faron27 You're refusing to allow me to define my own position, you're refusing to change your own position in the face of contradictory facts, and you've been both dismissive and condescending.
...and you wonder why I'm not treating your dumb butt with respect? Until you can play fair, you can fuck off.
@BionicDance those are your words not mine and anyone can see I haven't refused anything, and you made the video so you've had your say these are comments to the video. you are such a child may light find its way too you.
@faron27 No, you stupid fuck, you most emphatically HAVE been dismissive and refused. You come in here, convinced atheism is a religion, and when you're showed why it isn't, you completely ignore it, instead telling me that I'M the one ignoring YOU, when in fact I've REFUTED you. You're attached to your own ideas and won't listen to what ANYBODY else has to say.
There is simply no point talking to you. At all. Your mind is closed...if you have one at all. Fuck off.
@BionicDance ya ever think ur god enough to know there isn't one? - the theists are SO LOSING the debate that they not only disclaim they are religious but they also want to tag the atheists with it AND that we practice faith - they know both words are weak and forms of lying so to attach credibility to their "ideas" (fantasy gullible wishful thinking and non religious personal relationship with god) they reject faith as well? or just like we smarter science worshipers as faith practicers also?
@BionicDance mark twain said, FAITH IS BELIEVING WHAT U KNOW AINT SO
- religio is a latin root, to relink is the idea; with a god, that is religion, so i don't even know why they try to reject they are practicing religion if they knew this underlying definition... but to say we atheists practice a faith based religion is just amazing, truly last gasp desperation... a kind of misery likes company i've often wondered... they want to feel we are just as stupid as they are... AT LEAST
@Bionic god really does exist, as a word, an idea, a thought of sorts, an imaginary father figure, a non explanatory explain all for the universe... infinite, timeless, omni this and that 4 times over, static, and whatever the rest of the laundry list WILLIAM LANE CRAIG says applies... so i think god really exists at least in terms of what our explanation of the reason why people use the word god, not that we could possibly know one exists... god exists as a measure of our ignorance, a short cut
Also, is there a DEROGATORY word for atheists? DAMNED atheist! Damn right. Devil-worshiper! If I don't believe in a god, I sure as hell don't believe in a devil. Godless! Yes. Nonbeliever! Yes. I mean is there a word describeing atheists that we hate to be called. Like the N-word for African Americans?
I understand what you are saying, but then you have to be sure that you do not complain when theists describe God as "atemporal" and "immaterial", because, based on what you said, these are valid descriptors (which they are, but they tell us so little as to be useless as the sole descriptors)
@jbiemans77 I won't bitch because they were used as descriptors; I'll complain because such things are cannot be proved and are damned unlikely to exist.
LOL i was taling to a "believer" today, well, yesterday acutally and i said that i was an athiest and that i believe in no gods and went on to mention Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Thor, Aphroditie, etc. and later on they asked if i believed in the other gods. i told her that i believe in NO gods, it doesn't matter if it's the Egyptian, Roman, Greek or any of the gods that were thought up through the history of the human race.
Sure the world changes because I have a preference! When it was hot as hell, I said "I prefer it would be cooler!" And it will get cooler! Of course, in December, I'll prefer it will be warmer, and it will, of course, get warmer. In April. =p
When people ask whether I believe in god or not I say I'm general an atheist who will become an anti-theist when confronted by fundamentalist dipshits.
Misunderstanding of terminology and fear of the negative connotation that comes with the label are the main reasons for people calling themselves agnostic, freethinker, etc without explicitly defining themselves as atheists. I personally prefer to be honest with myself and others by calling myself what I am, agnostic atheist.
If I had to be a theist, I'd be a Beetheist because Bees are fricken' evil and the only way they could coexist with a deity is if that deity was also a Bee.
In the real life here god and religion hardly ever come up then again I am a technician and in the 20 or so years as one I have never worked with any that had strong religious belief. Now when I do talk with religious folk for some reason Atheism often equals god hater and this is due to their brainwashing to them anyone questioning their god must hate him. It amazes me here on youtube how fast christians will block you if you question anything they say. IMO just shows how weak there side is
@BrianJ1962 In case #1 that person is still an atheist. They just pretending and going through the motions for no logical reason.
In case #2 that person is still an atheist. They still just have some cultural/religious baggage. I am sure most of us that were once religious still have much of that.
@TheAnubisDrake "Pretending"? Really? Try saying that to a Buddhist, or Nezperce, Taoist or someone else who's spiritual beliefs do not fall into the nice, neat re-definition of "athe(os)-ist" to "a-theist"...
My 'issue' here is getting over the notion that it is a "binary set" - it's not.
Case in point: "Igtheism" (or "ignosticism") holds the position that all other stances (including agnosticism AND atheism) assume too much about the concept of God to even pose the question of existance.
@BrianJ1962 I made an assumption that you were talking about the monotheistic faiths. My bad.
If those people don't have a deity though they are atheists as well as Buddhists (etc).
As for Igtheism. It doesn't take even one assumption to show that the gods being presented are not real. We have only to compare the descriptions of those gods and their supposed affects on the world to show that they are not real. The only type of atheism it might stand up against is "strong."
@TheAnubisDrake No worries; although the argument is presented as "inclusive of all"; not just monotheism.
However, I think you missed the point - the main thrust of the igtheist argument, is that: "until one can come up with a coherent/definitive description/definition of 'what constitutes a God', then one cannot even begin to posit whether one exists or not".
The fact we do not have such a definition is implicit in the exact point you made - which, ironically, 'validates' this 3rd position ;-)
@BrianJ1962 We have hundreds if not thousands of definitions for what people thought/think god was/is. Those are what we refute. We don't refute the concept that there may be some inexplicable being beyond our universe that began it all.
We refute the definitions put to us by the believers.
Again this 3rd position is flawed in that the only form of atheism it has any chance of debunking is "strong atheism" only. I don't even know any strong atheists. That position is as indefensible as theism.
@BrianJ1962 It does not. We listen to each religions definition of what they think god is, then we dissect their definition to see if it fits with reality. If it does not it is false. If it does then it is (at least tacitly) true. Since no one has ever come up with an irrefutable definition of god then atheism is the proper stance until someone does.
Yes, I understand that this is your opinion on the matter (not knowing the specific, unified "we" you refer to), but simply making the statement does not invalidate other, perfectly legitimate stances available.
And, once again, you miss the whole point that I am making: it isn't the claimed "binary set". There are those who claim specifics, those debunking specifics, those who believe without specifics & those holding the question itself meaningless.
@BrianJ1962 The term "We" would include "weak atheists" like myself. I'll switch to "I" to be more personal. I don't claim there is no god. I claim that the gods presented thus far do not exist.
Those that believe in a god without specifics, such as Deists, are theists. They believe in a god, regardless of how well defined that god is.
Those holding the question as meaningless would qualify as atheists. They do not believe in a god.
lmao - "fight it as you like" - sorry, but again - lmao
I, actually, have nothing to 'defend' - the claim "this is a binary set" has been made - I have shown this not to be the case; not just with one, but with several permutations that break the set.
At least one of those permutations (de-conversion ambivelence), Keight has, previously, conceded 'valid' (ie breaks the set).
Also igtheism, despite your assertions, holds the question meaningless = NO 'stance' taken either way.
Furthermore - even if, as you assert, the "only type of atheism it might stand up against is 'strong'", the fact that there IS a 'position' it can be seen as 'in opposition to', is in itself 'proof' that these positions exist.
Even the seperation between 'strong' atheism ("there is no god") and 'weak' ("I don't believe there is a god") are, in themselves, 2 distinct stances on this issue.
@BrianJ1962 "the claim "this is a binary set" has been made - I have shown this not to be the case; not just with one, but with several permutations that break the set."
I agreed to no such thing. As a matter of fact I neatly cubby-holed every other position you put forward into the binary set. Did you not read anything I wrote?
Igtheists don't believe in a god do they?
ATHEIST
Do I have to repeat it again? Haha, an appeal to authority. I don't care what BD said. I make up my own mind.
Yes, I read all your replies - & responded to the attempt to "cubby-hole".
The one thing you don't seem to be getting from my responses, tho, is the "neither nor" aspect of an igtheist position.
If one doesn't even concede the validity of a question, neither side can 'claim' such a person to hold their position concerning any proposed answer. By definition they hold to neither.
"Authority"? I mention it merely to show previous concession on 'ambivelence'; also breaking the claim.
I don't believe in true ambivalence aside from a split personality disorder or sever brain damage separating the right and left hemispheres of the brain. I've never once heard a person holding both the opinion that there is and is not a god simultaneously except in the above two circumstances when they are both.
I am not claiming Igtheists as atheists. They simply are. Regardless of whether they think the question is invalid or not. If you do not believe in god(s) you are an atheist.
"I don't believe in true ambivalence" (thanks for correcting my spelling, btw) in that very statement you used personal belief to discredit all those caught between conflicting thought processes & beliefs during de-conversion.
Re 'ambivalence' itself - consider a child's "Xmas at Gran's": on 1 hand, "yes, want new bike" Vs "no, don't want to eat fruit cake".
The meaning of "igtheist" is, intrinsically, "neither nor" by definition. So you're simply wrong. I suggest you look it up.
@BrianJ1962 Already read several pages including those by Igtheists themselves. I had admittedly never heard that term before you brought it up. The roots of a word do not always define its meaning in use when those roots are put together into one word. The simple fact is they do not believe in a deity.
None of my steps on the way to de-conversion were conflicted. I received new information, integrated it and moved on. I've yet to meet anyone that was actually ambivalent during the process.
@BrianJ1962 Cont... Besides the term ambivalence used in psychology is itself a very fuzzy term. It is often used in conjunction with the love-hate relationship. Love and hate are not opposites. They are two different emotions, like red and blue on a color spectrum.
True ambivalence would require prolonged inner conflict over the specific topic. Everyone I have ever know has been conflicted only in opening up about their de-conversion, not about the D-con itself.
Ok, forget the term as used in psychology - let's look at a political/legal usage of the term.
Concerning the death penalty - there are those who are ambivalent due to there being, what they consider, 'valid' reasons to both sides of the proposal. These would result in an abstention vote when polled.
Considering the potentially overwhelming nature of "what happens when I die?", there will be those both for & against "afterlife", as well as those ambivalent, apathetic & undecided.
@TheAnubisDrake "The simple fact is they do not believe in a deity."
If you think that "simple fact" derived from the definition of atheism applies to igtheism, then you simply don't understand that igtheism's definition directly addresses the definition of atheism and in that way must be considered primarily. If you use atheism to describe an Igtheist, no matter the definition, you are already wrong. Until a coherent definition of god is agreed upon, Igtheists are not atheist nor theist.
a) "...roots of a word don't always define its meaning in use when those roots are put together into one..." - same is true of "a-theism"
b) "...fact they do not believe in..." - you've spoken to them all? I know of at least 2 you haven't ;-)
c) "None of my steps...have yet to meet..." - do you watch Shayrah here on YouTube? She was (ask her yourself, or watch her response to BD earlier this year) - so your personal experience isn't definitive.
@BrianJ1962 Yes I had seen that back and forth with Shayra and BD. What she and others are describing is not ambivalence. It is a process. These people are theists until the point they decide they are not. I went thorough this same process. You only hold a belief until you don't. Many people begin that process and turn back around part way through. Those people may have questioned, but that does not make it some mystical middle ground.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on Igtheism.
Yeah, it is a "process". However, if you actually talk to Shayrah about that process, she will tell you (as she has me, BD and in her video) that she did, at times during that process, hold to conflicting beliefs. Your personal view of their 'process' in comparing it to yours, invalidates neither their testimony, nor evaluation of the experience.
As for Igtheism, sure, we can agree to disagree (as with the above) - but you'll actually be at odd with the definition itself; not me.
@BrianJ1962 I think the Igtheist position is wrong anyhow. So I don't mind being at odds with their definition.
Waiting for some mystical all encompassing definition for something, that may or may not be know as god, to present itself before even considering the questions already on the table is absurd and almost denialist.
@TheAnubisDrake That's fine - deciding to believe any position other than yours is "wrong" is perfectly understandable & I have no problem with that whatsoever - lol - it's kinda what human beings do (whatever the topic under discussion). Claiming such a position doesn't exist, however, is closer to "denial" ;-)
"Mystical" definition? lol - I think you'll find that any 'mystical' definition is probably as likely to be dismissed by an igtheist as it would any atheist & many 'moderate' theists ;-)
@BrianJ1962 I never said I thought that the Igtheist position was wrong because I hold a conflicting belief, I also never said Igtheists position doesn't exist. They are wrong because they are waiting for something that will never come. There is no all encompassing definition of 'god' unless that being/whatever does exist and provides that definition. There are only those that have been present by people.
I said 'mystical' because that is the only source that could provide such a definition.
@TheAnubisDrake Ok, so now you're just playing semantics. If you think igtheism is "wrong", however you wish to phrase it, you think it's "wrong" & hold a "conflicting position". By its very definition, igtheism equates to "neither/nor" - so neither theist, nor atheist can claim "common belief".
Likewise "mystical": if, as you say, God were to show up - would that be "mystical" or "definitive"?
Finally the term "Binary set" itself implies "only 2 exist" - which further implies others non-extant.
@BrianJ1962 They may claim neither/nor but since they do not have the clear definition they seek, they do not believe in a theistic god they are by default atheists. All that is required is a lack of belief, not active belief in atheism, to be an atheist.
Not believing in the descriptions of God put forward (so far) does not, automatically, resolve to "don't believe in god, or gods, period". Claiming that this makes someone "atheist" when they specifically define themselves as "neither atheist NOR theist" is both logically invalid and ascribes them to a position they explicitly exclude.
Not only is this intellectually dishonest, but it also asserts a singular definition of "atheist" - a strawman debunked simply using a dictionary.
You've been banging on at me for the last week because you can't (or don't want) to accept the definition of an ideology that clearly breaks the "theist/atheist" dichotomy provided by a (recently amended) definition of "atheist" - and you want me to leave *you* alone?
Simply stating "I'm right" doesn't make it so - especially in the face of a definition that explicitly excludes the premis you are advocating.
The "binary set" claim has been debunked; by a dictionary (not me).
Or the "Igtheist" (see response to TheAnubisDrake or Google the term)?
As I've maintained throughout this entire 'debate' - this topic cannot be simply boiled down to the claimed "binary set" - that's the only point I'm trying to make here - and I've provided cases in point (both now & previously).
Isn't the deliberate ignoring of 'evidence' contradictory to one's opinion considered "automatic thinking" and/or "dogmatic"?
I think describing yourself by what your not is the nonsensical part. saying I'm a metaphysical naturalist says a whole lot more about me then just saying not a theist. but if you're right and its not nonsensical to describe yourself by stuff you are not, then from now on I am and shall be addressed as: recyard, the non asian, non indian, not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a plant, not smaller than a breadbox, atheist. see its easier just to say what you are, then what you are not
@BionicDance there is a whole host of philosophies that include atheist. Pick on that bests suits you. Then if someone follows up with well do you believe in a god, you can just say no. But if they already know that you're a skeptic and what a skeptic means, then they don't even need to ask about god. because atheist is really just the answer to one question, and is in no way a philosophy or any usefull label by itself. IMHO. Because what can we tell about someone who claims to be atheist?
@recyard12x Sorry, no; a skeptic DOES NOT mean a non-believer. A skeptic who has found evidence is a believer; you cannot take it for granted that a skeptic is an atheist.
@BionicDance ok forget skeptic then, come join me in Metaphysical naturalism. It clearly says what I believe and if you know what metaphysical naturalism is, you can just skip the do you believe in god question. It also lets you make correct assumptions about my views of the world. Where does stating your an atheist lead? No where. then we get into so you're an atheists, are you a budists? scientologist? evolutionist? and you have to go down the list of all the labels that include atheists.
@recyard12x I'm someone who does not believe in a god due to lack of evidence for one. That's it.
Got a word for that? Oh, right..."atheist".
I'm sticking with it; it gets the job done without all this hoop-jumping and getting-it-from-context you seem to be insisting on. Remember the principle of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
@BionicDance but its really just over complicating things. it just leads to a whole new bunch of questions. like, so what do you believe in? are you a budists? are you a scientologist? do you need words to say your not part of those groups either? they're atheists to. is atheist really your whole outlook on how the world works? Whereas if you just state clearly what you do believe, then you don't need the 100 follow up questions, and if they don't know what it is, they can google it.
@recyard12x Atheism is an ASPECT of who you are, not the totality, of course. But the fact is that if your atheism comes from nothing BUT skepticism, nothing but a lack of evidence, and not with some doctrine or dogma attached to it, the only way you CAN tell someone this without multiple paragraphs is to say you're an atheist and leave it at that.
@BionicDance were just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. All atheism is, is that you answered no to one question, or you never heard the question. I wouldn't call that an aspect, especially for the ones who've never heard of god. Because if we are going to label ourselves we should try to use as few labels as possible that are the most descriptive. IMHO saying your an atheist is no more revealing about you than saying you're not a ant.
@recyard12x Well, THERE'Z the problem: you've got your values all screwed up. I say we use the MOST labels in order to be as precise as possible. I am a left-handed, adopted, multi-racial, lesbian, atheist, skeptical, freethinking CGI-artist and Star Wars fan who hangs out with Goths and listens to pop-punk and 80s music.
I've probably left something out, but you can get a pretty damn good idea of my character from that.
@BionicDance your being redundant as well. freethinker includes atheists, and also leads to the assumption you are rejecting god (check the online definition). It might be what you are, but not so much who you are. I'm honest, compassionate, pacifist, Metaphysical naturalist, doctor who fan, and likes 80's rock, and my values are just fine. see I list who I am in 5 words, and nothing I'm not. And from what I list you can come to realistic conclusions about me. what traits do all lefties have?
@BionicDance but do you see my point now? that you can describe yourself clearly by what you are. I should have asked if you read our two lists of descriptors, and yours was describing some unknown person, and think of the stereotypes associated with both, Who would you think is more likely to save a cat, help a old lady across a street? who agrees with evolution, the scientific method, or the war in iraq? will all assumptions be right? of course not, but which list is more descriptive?
@BionicDance its not a preference though, its how we describe things. we describe things by what they are. if you're not a theist, then your just not a theist. Its only over this theist/atheist where this problem even comes up. think of any other instance where you describe things by what they are not. It doesn't happen.
@recyard12x We ALSO describe things by what they're NOT. Sometimes that's significantly more efficient than sticking to ONLY describing what things are. We can describe more with fewer words that way, and it's nonsensical to abandon that methodology simply because you don't like it...which is basically what you're doing here.
@BionicDance its not that i don't like it, its just wrong to do. and it never takes fewer words to describe something by what its not. like the earth, its not square, not triangular, not a circle, not flat, not hexagonal, not octagonal, not cubed, etc etc. its an oblate spheroid. And if you think it works for atheist, then you should also clarify non budist, non scientologist, non bon, non Confucianist, and all the other types of beliefs that don't have gods, but are like religions.
@recyard12x No, it ISN'T wrong to do; that's where your preferences are coming in.
There are times where describing what something isn't helps narrow the field when there are multiple choices or many things which are very similar. For example: "It's the one WITHOUT the sticky tape on the back; bring me that one!".
Point is, describing what something isn't is a useful tool that's not to be abandoned for what basically amounts to tradition, one of those, "It's just not done!" sort of things.
@BionicDance /watch?v=kiyNYWGL-yg. Its the one what without sticky tape? brings you a beer, no sticky tape on the back of it. well its not early, so i'm going to call it a not day. have a not bad not day.
@recyard12x So what? "Atheism" is BOTH, a label AND an answer to a specific question. So it defines a negative and not a positive...I ask again: SO WHAT?
@BrianJ1962 Someone who doesn't believe in a god, but still believes in a god? I'm sorry, but what else could you mean by theology? If you mean the pratices of the religion... then I guess you could call them a secular (religion) or perhaps a social (religion). It's a small catagory though, without a name.
For your second one... that's called "It's complicated." It's a transitional state, they're usually too hard to sum up. Again, it's another thing we don't really have a word for.
Actually, in the first case, we'd be talking about Buddhists, Taoists, most Native American spiritual traditions & others - not a "nameless small group" by far...
For the second, yes, "it's complicated" is a fair & accurate analogy (for which we actually do have a word: "ambivelence") - but the existence of those with ambivelent belief-systems (including those who 'compartmentalise' their spiritual life from the daily) in itself breaks this, so claimed, "binary set" on belief systems.
Actually, in the first case, we'd be talking about Buddhists, Taoists, most Native American spiritual traditions & others - not a "nameless small group" by far...
For the second, yes, "it's complicated" is a fair & accurate analogy (for which we actually do have a word: "ambivelence") - but the existence of those with ambivelent belief-systems (including those who 'compartmentalise' their spiritual life from the daily) in itself breaks this, so claimed, "binary set" on belief systems.
I had somebody that confused atheist with anti-theist. I told him that I was an atheist and they said that I said that God didn't exist. No matter how many times I said that I didn't know they were still saying the same thing.
Just one minor quibble, and I'm just not sure it's clear in the vid.
If a person chooses not to apply a label to themselves, such as atheist, then no-one else has the right to force them to use that label on themselves, even if said label undeniably applies. Someone who has Irish ancestry could, for instance, comment on tensions in Northern Ireland from a perspective independent of their Irish origins, just as a person who is an atheist could comment on religion independent of said atheism.
@BionicDance So a black geneticist should always have to consider themselves black when presenting scientific papers countering people like HeyRuka/LibertarianRealist/MrHerrIQ, instead of simply presenting their information as a geneticist?
That is how you sound to me -- you must use the label if it applies. Please do clarify if I'm misunderstanding.
I'm NOT saying s/he should be explicitly HIDE their ethnicity, but nor is it necessary to explicitly use the label, either.
@firefly4f4 Well, if that's how I sound to you...YOU'RE GETTING IT COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG.
This isn't about what you CALL yourself on a day-to-day basis, it's about not LYING to yourself about reality.
We're talking about a black geneticist not admitting they're black, trying to call themselves something OTHER than black simply because they don't like the term or what it implies. It doesn't mean they have to use the label in EVERYTHING, they just have to admit its accuracy and not deny it.
@BionicDance "it's about not LYING to yourself about reality." Honestly, that was not clear to me -- don't ask me why; sometimes my mind is like that. Thank you for clarifying.
I will state, though, I actually do think there is a state where you're really not sure if you believe in a god or not, and hence neither theist nor atheist applies. I was there myself. If I recall, you never have believed, so it may be hard to relate. If you disagree, then we'll just have to disagree.
@BionicDance IMO, they are not. The best analogy I can think of, and perhaps as a super-taster you may understand, is the concept of acquired tastes in food. Certain foods I was entirely unsure if I liked them or not until I had them a few more times. During that in between time, I was honestly unable to say if I liked those foods or not. My belief in god was a lot like that for about 10 years. Just as I could not say if I liked or disliked those foods, I couldn't say if I believed or not.
@BionicDance I had to leave this a bit, because in all honesty I was quite angry when I first read this. It's almost as if you're were saying you know what I'm thinking better than I do.
Keight, I have some respect for you, but you do not know what's going on in my head. Belief -- even in the faith context -- is not a black or white, you have it or you don't concept. Very, very little about the human mind works that way. And no, I'm not confusing belief with knowledge here.
@firefly4f4 Except that it IS black or white: you believe or you don't. Unless belief is positively asserted, then you fall in the "do not believe" category. It's that simple. This isn't about what you're thinking, it's about categorizing properly; we're talking Venn Diagrams here.
@BionicDance And I am telling you, having been there myself, that that is not the case. Have you actually spoken to a psychologist about this matter to confirm this statement of yours -- ie, that belief is either a do or don't thing?
It is NOT that simple. Very little in the human mind, and human thinking, is.
@firefly4f4 See, once again, I think you're just simply looking at this from an angle that I'm not. YOU'RE talking human mind, I'M talking categorization. I'm talking about how to CLASSIFY what the human mind is DOING.
This time, ACTUALLY LISTEN, instead of running what I'm saying through a filter: Unless belief is positively asserted, it cannot be said that one believes. Either you believe or you don't; being wishy-washy about it leaves you in the "not believe" category until you get certain.
@BionicDance What I'm saying is that you're trying to classify states of the mind, and that does NOT work the way you're trying to do it. To go back to my food analogy, if I'm not sure I like a food, does that mean automatically that I dislike it? No -- it just means, "I don't know".
Going from belief to non-belief doesn't just happen with the flick of a switch in the brain (ok, probably sometimes it does, but not always) -- "I don't know" is a VALID classification. (cont)
@firefly4f4 But, see, you're classifying incorrectly. The choices are NOT, "Like or dislike", the choices are "Like or don't like," where "don't like" includes things like "neutral" and "don't know".
The choices are not "believe" and "DISbelieve", the choices are "believe" and "without belief".
Like I said, you're classifying incorrectly; "I don't know" falls in the "does not believe" category...unless you want to explain to me how "I don't know" is belief.
@BionicDance I honestly don't see how, "I'm not sure" qualifies as "without" either -- same logic applies, at least as I see it.
To be clear -- I am talking about someone fully cognisant of what the concept in question is. I'd fully accept that someone not aware of the concept is without the belief.
BTW, I do appreciate this discussion. It could very well just come down to you and I having different perspectives on this, and at least as far as I'm concerned, that's fine too.
@BionicDance I could really ask the same of you with how "I don't know" means "I don't believe", although I think I see the crux of where this disagreement is now. To go back to my food analogy, if I don't know if I like a food, I cannot be said to be a fan of it (belief), and therefore part of the non-fan group (without belief), even if I could become a fan later.
I just don't agree with this strict classification. Honestly, for me, as crazy as this sounds (I think I need a vid here -- cont)
@firefly4f4 "I don't know" is a lack of belief, and lacking belief is all that's required ot be an atheist. Atheism means "not a theist"; it does NOT mean "Positively asserted disbelief". The choices are theist and atheist; either you're a theist or you're an atheist, either you're a believer or you're not.
"I don't know" is not "I don't believe", it's "I am without belief"--a fine distinction, but an irrelevant one--which makes the "I don't know" guy an atheist, a not-a-theist.
@BionicDance Perhaps "not a theist" in the not practising a god worshipping religion I'd accept -- I had discarded the specific deities mentioned in them at that point. I really do need to do a vid my experiences here -- I'll forward it to you when I'm done, if you don't mind. In it, I'll try to explain why the atheist label/classification does not apply to people who are in the state of mind I was. If you've never believed in a personal, caring deity, though, it might be difficult to grasp.
@firefly4f4 I both believed and did not believe simultaneously -- hence, "I don't know". They sound like the should conflict, I know, but cognitive dissonance is a VERY weird phenomenon. I'm not really sure I can explain properly what was going on in my head unless you've actually had it happen.
@firefly4f4 Labels are just words used to convey meaning. It doesn't matter if you don't want to be labeled "human". You are free to choose never to call yourself human, but it doesn't change the fact that you ARE human and that it is correct to use that word to describe you.
@abemore What I was trying to convey there is that even if the label is accurate, it doesn't negate anything relevant I say on a related subject. That is, even if I AM an atheist (which I do not deny, and is actually a label I personally use), I can still comment on related topics as an individual, not as an atheist; I should not have to explicitly use the label for my comments to be considered.
As I stated in a further reply after BD clarified, I did misunderstand her point, though.
If I haven't concluded that there is sufficient evidnece to believe in any of the purported gods, then not only does that mean that I am an atheist, but it should also say something about my opinion of those who believe yet have seen the same evidence or lack of it as I have. And if I didn't maintain that then it would say something not so great about myself. Have some bravery, people. Sitting on the fence hurts your ass.
@scheme86 Oh, and how old are you? 12? Brat. Only a child thinks 35 is old. And she's not a bitch, she's a brilliant woman with something to contribute to the world, something more than hiding behind a computer screen calling people old and a bitch to entertain herself. I still say you can f off, Keight is awesome and interesting!! ^_^
@scheme86 Oh you did NOT just diss the comic books!!! Her videos are great and help the cause of Atheism, contributing so that one day little brats like you may be able to live in a world where reason dominates over ignorance. She probably also has a job and pays taxes, which I'd bet is more than you can say.
@LotusPhoenix93 all of that sounds really mundane and uninteresting. reason doesn't need help some humans r capable of it and some are not. lol u sound like i just insulted ur profit lol.
@scheme86 I think you mean prophet, and I would react the same to anybody calling someone I like a "bitch". Normally I avoid saying anything to trolls though, but in this case I also got to say good things about keight, so win win. ^_^
@scheme86 How is that a joke? How was that funny? I'm going to get serious here for a minute: It's not a joke when you say things like that. I know bionicdance is too cool to get upset by it, but there are people out there who have killed themselves over stuff like that. It's not a joke to go around trying to insult people that way, and if you think it is then you really need to straighten up, and grow up.
i can see humans ,but im a humAntheist ,instead of 1+1 =bomb,id rather go for 0+0=faith in my future ,waiting for someone to stop ignorance ,what is worst than a GOD not shoing him her or whwtever self ,is a good peice of meat standing up and saying '',i dont need HELL '' i got power and destruction ,so behave ...its a fact that both want the same '''our determination to survive as a free individual,with a blast ,we can all cry of tortured feelings (,not to deads) ,but the ones left behind
papaspride101 1 month ago
to be fair, you're always somewhat confined by your culture. secular christian, secular jew, secular muslims etc. may celebrate christmas or radaman and so on. their "christian" cultured or whatever, but their atheist.
richotim 3 months ago in playlist Atheism
@Higherd1 True.
BionicDance 3 months ago
Atheism is a Religion itself :}
faron27 4 months ago in playlist Atheism
@faron27 No, it isn't. Atheism is the LACK of religion. Atheism is the not-having of god-belief.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance Atheism is a belief system is it not?
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 It is not.
Atheism is the not-having of god-belief, nothing more. Atheism is nothing more than not being a theist.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance thats the best you've got? Atheism is the belief in no GOD or any other higher power other than human. Atheism definition is a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
thats a belief system and a Religion in itself why do you reject this fact?
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 No, see, you're wrong about the definition of atheism. You're insisting that I defend a position I do not hold. You are engaging in a strawman argument.
Atheist: a-theist. Not a theist. The syllable 'a-' negates '-theist'. An atheist is anybody who is not a theist, who does not have god belief. THAT'S IT. anything more is just extra baggage attached by foolish humans who don't know what they're talking about.
You WANT atheism to be a belief system, but that doesn't make it one.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance OK I see your definition of Atheism is right and Britannica and every other source is wrong... you can have your own opinion but cant make up your facts. Atheism makes up about 2% of the human population I guess everyone else is wrong and you are right... I don't mean any harm or malice I wish only to have a meaningful conversation / Debate.
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 Numbers don't mean shit, kiddo; there was a time when the entire human population believed the sun went around the Earth and not the other way 'round.
FACTS are what matter, and they're simply not on your side.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance numbers mean everything... facts? I just shed some on you and this is your reply truly are you serious? there was a time when the entire population was able to create things that modern humans can't replicate today and this is your answer? GOD the creator is on my side as well as the facts :}
as I stated in my previous comment I am not looking for a fight may light finds it way to you.
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 You can't PROVE god is the creator using facts. You can't prove god EXISTS using facts! Religion demands FAITH, demands BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, and provides no facts at all. You've bought into the bullshit, kiddo.
Until and unless you can PROVE god exists, you're just talking out of your ass.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance my comment was atheism is a religion and look how far off corse you have to go?
just because you refuse to believe in anything bigger than yourself is not my problem it's yours.
I don't believe in BS I believe GOD and that is my choice and all I wanted was a meaningful debate but I can see with you that may be impossible. may light find its way too you
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 To you, "a meaningful debate" means that YOU get to dictate the terms and refuse to listen to the other side, refuse to admit you might be wrong. A meaningful debate IS impossible, but it's YOUR doing.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance how is that have I ever once said I can't be wrong? have I personally insulted you as you have me? you are confused about a great many things... most people who use harsh language and insults can't back up anything they say or believe with facts you do know that right?
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 You're refusing to allow me to define my own position, you're refusing to change your own position in the face of contradictory facts, and you've been both dismissive and condescending.
...and you wonder why I'm not treating your dumb butt with respect? Until you can play fair, you can fuck off.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance those are your words not mine and anyone can see I haven't refused anything, and you made the video so you've had your say these are comments to the video. you are such a child may light find its way too you.
faron27 4 months ago
@faron27 No, you stupid fuck, you most emphatically HAVE been dismissive and refused. You come in here, convinced atheism is a religion, and when you're showed why it isn't, you completely ignore it, instead telling me that I'M the one ignoring YOU, when in fact I've REFUTED you. You're attached to your own ideas and won't listen to what ANYBODY else has to say.
There is simply no point talking to you. At all. Your mind is closed...if you have one at all. Fuck off.
BionicDance 4 months ago
@BionicDance ya ever think ur god enough to know there isn't one? - the theists are SO LOSING the debate that they not only disclaim they are religious but they also want to tag the atheists with it AND that we practice faith - they know both words are weak and forms of lying so to attach credibility to their "ideas" (fantasy gullible wishful thinking and non religious personal relationship with god) they reject faith as well? or just like we smarter science worshipers as faith practicers also?
glorp896 4 months ago
@BionicDance mark twain said, FAITH IS BELIEVING WHAT U KNOW AINT SO
- religio is a latin root, to relink is the idea; with a god, that is religion, so i don't even know why they try to reject they are practicing religion if they knew this underlying definition... but to say we atheists practice a faith based religion is just amazing, truly last gasp desperation... a kind of misery likes company i've often wondered... they want to feel we are just as stupid as they are... AT LEAST
glorp896 4 months ago
@Bionic god really does exist, as a word, an idea, a thought of sorts, an imaginary father figure, a non explanatory explain all for the universe... infinite, timeless, omni this and that 4 times over, static, and whatever the rest of the laundry list WILLIAM LANE CRAIG says applies... so i think god really exists at least in terms of what our explanation of the reason why people use the word god, not that we could possibly know one exists... god exists as a measure of our ignorance, a short cut
glorp896 4 months ago
Also, is there a DEROGATORY word for atheists? DAMNED atheist! Damn right. Devil-worshiper! If I don't believe in a god, I sure as hell don't believe in a devil. Godless! Yes. Nonbeliever! Yes. I mean is there a word describeing atheists that we hate to be called. Like the N-word for African Americans?
rayraydude1 4 months ago
Im an ATHEIST and Proud!
rayraydude1 4 months ago in playlist Atheism
I could care less if you are a Christian. No time out of my Sunday morning sleeping in until noon.
richardpweiss 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
I think I'm missing the part where anyone gives a shit if you're an atheist or not.
Me? I'm actually a Christian. Does anyone care?
blackwingangel04 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lacking evidence is worst than lacking belief, or so I'm told. -_-
realigiousrayne 5 months ago
I understand what you are saying, but then you have to be sure that you do not complain when theists describe God as "atemporal" and "immaterial", because, based on what you said, these are valid descriptors (which they are, but they tell us so little as to be useless as the sole descriptors)
jbiemans77 5 months ago
@jbiemans77 I won't bitch because they were used as descriptors; I'll complain because such things are cannot be proved and are damned unlikely to exist.
BionicDance 5 months ago
LOL i was taling to a "believer" today, well, yesterday acutally and i said that i was an athiest and that i believe in no gods and went on to mention Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Thor, Aphroditie, etc. and later on they asked if i believed in the other gods. i told her that i believe in NO gods, it doesn't matter if it's the Egyptian, Roman, Greek or any of the gods that were thought up through the history of the human race.
boyceps 5 months ago
And this is why I'd take Bionic Dance over PZ "I'm the self-proclaimed god of atheists everywhere" Meyers any day of the week.
lovecraftslovechild 5 months ago in playlist More videos from BionicDance
"[Y]our preferences don't take precedence over etymology"
Well said, but these dimwits don't seem to understand that their preferences do do not supersede ANYTHING about the real world.
If we could all realize that we need to deal with reality on reality's terms (and NOT ours), this world just might be a better place.
steveb0503 5 months ago
As Popeye Say's,I Yam' what I Yam!
Wallabytrack 6 months ago
Sure the world changes because I have a preference! When it was hot as hell, I said "I prefer it would be cooler!" And it will get cooler! Of course, in December, I'll prefer it will be warmer, and it will, of course, get warmer. In April. =p
LeksServices 6 months ago
When people ask whether I believe in god or not I say I'm general an atheist who will become an anti-theist when confronted by fundamentalist dipshits.
HimesInu 6 months ago 2
. . . unless you're a rich white dominionist! hahaha *cry*
whisperingdoom 6 months ago
Misunderstanding of terminology and fear of the negative connotation that comes with the label are the main reasons for people calling themselves agnostic, freethinker, etc without explicitly defining themselves as atheists. I personally prefer to be honest with myself and others by calling myself what I am, agnostic atheist.
jdf088 6 months ago
1) A hypocrite and an enabler
2) Willfully ignorant
destronia123 6 months ago
"The world isn't going to change for your prefrence"
*Awaits the trolls saying "THE WORLD DOESN'T CHANGE FOR SEXUAL PREFRENCE EITHER!"*
DragonGreenFire 6 months ago
If I had to be a theist, I'd be a Beetheist because Bees are fricken' evil and the only way they could coexist with a deity is if that deity was also a Bee.
ZetoTarken 6 months ago
@ZetoTarken are you not getting confused with WASPS?
ibitron1 5 months ago
In the real life here god and religion hardly ever come up then again I am a technician and in the 20 or so years as one I have never worked with any that had strong religious belief. Now when I do talk with religious folk for some reason Atheism often equals god hater and this is due to their brainwashing to them anyone questioning their god must hate him. It amazes me here on youtube how fast christians will block you if you question anything they say. IMO just shows how weak there side is
Xatasha6611 6 months ago
Hay bionidance i'm an A-theist :P
Gemeni3insane 6 months ago
I really don't want to do this again, so let me just ask you a couple of questions...
1) How would you define someone who doesn't believe; yet still follows a theology?
2) Or one who still holds vestiges of their belief during de-conversion (ie ambivalent)?
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BrianJ1962 In case #1 that person is still an atheist. They just pretending and going through the motions for no logical reason.
In case #2 that person is still an atheist. They still just have some cultural/religious baggage. I am sure most of us that were once religious still have much of that.
TheAnubisDrake 6 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake "Pretending"? Really? Try saying that to a Buddhist, or Nezperce, Taoist or someone else who's spiritual beliefs do not fall into the nice, neat re-definition of "athe(os)-ist" to "a-theist"...
My 'issue' here is getting over the notion that it is a "binary set" - it's not.
Case in point: "Igtheism" (or "ignosticism") holds the position that all other stances (including agnosticism AND atheism) assume too much about the concept of God to even pose the question of existance.
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BrianJ1962 I made an assumption that you were talking about the monotheistic faiths. My bad.
If those people don't have a deity though they are atheists as well as Buddhists (etc).
As for Igtheism. It doesn't take even one assumption to show that the gods being presented are not real. We have only to compare the descriptions of those gods and their supposed affects on the world to show that they are not real. The only type of atheism it might stand up against is "strong."
TheAnubisDrake 6 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake No worries; although the argument is presented as "inclusive of all"; not just monotheism.
However, I think you missed the point - the main thrust of the igtheist argument, is that: "until one can come up with a coherent/definitive description/definition of 'what constitutes a God', then one cannot even begin to posit whether one exists or not".
The fact we do not have such a definition is implicit in the exact point you made - which, ironically, 'validates' this 3rd position ;-)
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BrianJ1962 We have hundreds if not thousands of definitions for what people thought/think god was/is. Those are what we refute. We don't refute the concept that there may be some inexplicable being beyond our universe that began it all.
We refute the definitions put to us by the believers.
Again this 3rd position is flawed in that the only form of atheism it has any chance of debunking is "strong atheism" only. I don't even know any strong atheists. That position is as indefensible as theism.
TheAnubisDrake 6 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake But that's the whole point - the lack of a coherent definition renders the actual question "is there a god" meaningless...
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BrianJ1962 It does not. We listen to each religions definition of what they think god is, then we dissect their definition to see if it fits with reality. If it does not it is false. If it does then it is (at least tacitly) true. Since no one has ever come up with an irrefutable definition of god then atheism is the proper stance until someone does.
TheAnubisDrake 6 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
Yes, I understand that this is your opinion on the matter (not knowing the specific, unified "we" you refer to), but simply making the statement does not invalidate other, perfectly legitimate stances available.
And, once again, you miss the whole point that I am making: it isn't the claimed "binary set". There are those who claim specifics, those debunking specifics, those who believe without specifics & those holding the question itself meaningless.
Only the dead know for sure.
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BrianJ1962 The term "We" would include "weak atheists" like myself. I'll switch to "I" to be more personal. I don't claim there is no god. I claim that the gods presented thus far do not exist.
Those that believe in a god without specifics, such as Deists, are theists. They believe in a god, regardless of how well defined that god is.
Those holding the question as meaningless would qualify as atheists. They do not believe in a god.
It is a binary set. Fight it as you like.
TheAnubisDrake 6 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
lmao - "fight it as you like" - sorry, but again - lmao
I, actually, have nothing to 'defend' - the claim "this is a binary set" has been made - I have shown this not to be the case; not just with one, but with several permutations that break the set.
At least one of those permutations (de-conversion ambivelence), Keight has, previously, conceded 'valid' (ie breaks the set).
Also igtheism, despite your assertions, holds the question meaningless = NO 'stance' taken either way.
QED
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
Furthermore - even if, as you assert, the "only type of atheism it might stand up against is 'strong'", the fact that there IS a 'position' it can be seen as 'in opposition to', is in itself 'proof' that these positions exist.
Even the seperation between 'strong' atheism ("there is no god") and 'weak' ("I don't believe there is a god") are, in themselves, 2 distinct stances on this issue.
So, once again QED
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 "the claim "this is a binary set" has been made - I have shown this not to be the case; not just with one, but with several permutations that break the set."
I agreed to no such thing. As a matter of fact I neatly cubby-holed every other position you put forward into the binary set. Did you not read anything I wrote?
Igtheists don't believe in a god do they?
ATHEIST
Do I have to repeat it again? Haha, an appeal to authority. I don't care what BD said. I make up my own mind.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
Yes, I read all your replies - & responded to the attempt to "cubby-hole".
The one thing you don't seem to be getting from my responses, tho, is the "neither nor" aspect of an igtheist position.
If one doesn't even concede the validity of a question, neither side can 'claim' such a person to hold their position concerning any proposed answer. By definition they hold to neither.
"Authority"? I mention it merely to show previous concession on 'ambivelence'; also breaking the claim.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962
I don't believe in true ambivalence aside from a split personality disorder or sever brain damage separating the right and left hemispheres of the brain. I've never once heard a person holding both the opinion that there is and is not a god simultaneously except in the above two circumstances when they are both.
I am not claiming Igtheists as atheists. They simply are. Regardless of whether they think the question is invalid or not. If you do not believe in god(s) you are an atheist.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
"I don't believe in true ambivalence" (thanks for correcting my spelling, btw) in that very statement you used personal belief to discredit all those caught between conflicting thought processes & beliefs during de-conversion.
Re 'ambivalence' itself - consider a child's "Xmas at Gran's": on 1 hand, "yes, want new bike" Vs "no, don't want to eat fruit cake".
The meaning of "igtheist" is, intrinsically, "neither nor" by definition. So you're simply wrong. I suggest you look it up.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 Already read several pages including those by Igtheists themselves. I had admittedly never heard that term before you brought it up. The roots of a word do not always define its meaning in use when those roots are put together into one word. The simple fact is they do not believe in a deity.
None of my steps on the way to de-conversion were conflicted. I received new information, integrated it and moved on. I've yet to meet anyone that was actually ambivalent during the process.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 Cont... Besides the term ambivalence used in psychology is itself a very fuzzy term. It is often used in conjunction with the love-hate relationship. Love and hate are not opposites. They are two different emotions, like red and blue on a color spectrum.
True ambivalence would require prolonged inner conflict over the specific topic. Everyone I have ever know has been conflicted only in opening up about their de-conversion, not about the D-con itself.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
Ok, forget the term as used in psychology - let's look at a political/legal usage of the term.
Concerning the death penalty - there are those who are ambivalent due to there being, what they consider, 'valid' reasons to both sides of the proposal. These would result in an abstention vote when polled.
Considering the potentially overwhelming nature of "what happens when I die?", there will be those both for & against "afterlife", as well as those ambivalent, apathetic & undecided.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake "The simple fact is they do not believe in a deity."
If you think that "simple fact" derived from the definition of atheism applies to igtheism, then you simply don't understand that igtheism's definition directly addresses the definition of atheism and in that way must be considered primarily. If you use atheism to describe an Igtheist, no matter the definition, you are already wrong. Until a coherent definition of god is agreed upon, Igtheists are not atheist nor theist.
AgentOfDoubt 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
a) "...roots of a word don't always define its meaning in use when those roots are put together into one..." - same is true of "a-theism"
b) "...fact they do not believe in..." - you've spoken to them all? I know of at least 2 you haven't ;-)
c) "None of my steps...have yet to meet..." - do you watch Shayrah here on YouTube? She was (ask her yourself, or watch her response to BD earlier this year) - so your personal experience isn't definitive.
Invalidating the question is valid.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 Yes I had seen that back and forth with Shayra and BD. What she and others are describing is not ambivalence. It is a process. These people are theists until the point they decide they are not. I went thorough this same process. You only hold a belief until you don't. Many people begin that process and turn back around part way through. Those people may have questioned, but that does not make it some mystical middle ground.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on Igtheism.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
Yeah, it is a "process". However, if you actually talk to Shayrah about that process, she will tell you (as she has me, BD and in her video) that she did, at times during that process, hold to conflicting beliefs. Your personal view of their 'process' in comparing it to yours, invalidates neither their testimony, nor evaluation of the experience.
As for Igtheism, sure, we can agree to disagree (as with the above) - but you'll actually be at odd with the definition itself; not me.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 I think the Igtheist position is wrong anyhow. So I don't mind being at odds with their definition.
Waiting for some mystical all encompassing definition for something, that may or may not be know as god, to present itself before even considering the questions already on the table is absurd and almost denialist.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake That's fine - deciding to believe any position other than yours is "wrong" is perfectly understandable & I have no problem with that whatsoever - lol - it's kinda what human beings do (whatever the topic under discussion). Claiming such a position doesn't exist, however, is closer to "denial" ;-)
"Mystical" definition? lol - I think you'll find that any 'mystical' definition is probably as likely to be dismissed by an igtheist as it would any atheist & many 'moderate' theists ;-)
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 I never said I thought that the Igtheist position was wrong because I hold a conflicting belief, I also never said Igtheists position doesn't exist. They are wrong because they are waiting for something that will never come. There is no all encompassing definition of 'god' unless that being/whatever does exist and provides that definition. There are only those that have been present by people.
I said 'mystical' because that is the only source that could provide such a definition.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake Ok, so now you're just playing semantics. If you think igtheism is "wrong", however you wish to phrase it, you think it's "wrong" & hold a "conflicting position". By its very definition, igtheism equates to "neither/nor" - so neither theist, nor atheist can claim "common belief".
Likewise "mystical": if, as you say, God were to show up - would that be "mystical" or "definitive"?
Finally the term "Binary set" itself implies "only 2 exist" - which further implies others non-extant.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 They may claim neither/nor but since they do not have the clear definition they seek, they do not believe in a theistic god they are by default atheists. All that is required is a lack of belief, not active belief in atheism, to be an atheist.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake
Not believing in the descriptions of God put forward (so far) does not, automatically, resolve to "don't believe in god, or gods, period". Claiming that this makes someone "atheist" when they specifically define themselves as "neither atheist NOR theist" is both logically invalid and ascribes them to a position they explicitly exclude.
Not only is this intellectually dishonest, but it also asserts a singular definition of "atheist" - a strawman debunked simply using a dictionary.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 Who is quibbling over semantics now?
If you do not believe in a theistic god then you are an 'agnostic/weak atheist' by that terms definition.
Now can you leave me alone. I'm tired of your word play, that all ends in me being right anyway.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@TheAnubisDrake lmao
You've been banging on at me for the last week because you can't (or don't want) to accept the definition of an ideology that clearly breaks the "theist/atheist" dichotomy provided by a (recently amended) definition of "atheist" - and you want me to leave *you* alone?
Simply stating "I'm right" doesn't make it so - especially in the face of a definition that explicitly excludes the premis you are advocating.
The "binary set" claim has been debunked; by a dictionary (not me).
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 Ok, then I'll end it. Peace.
TheAnubisDrake 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 1) that person is an athiset even though that person studys god.
2) that person is still an athiest. Def for atheist. A person who has a lack or no beleave in god.namaste dude.
Gemeni3insane 6 months ago
@Gemeni3insane
And the Deist (ie no theology, or "blind faith")?
Or the "Igtheist" (see response to TheAnubisDrake or Google the term)?
As I've maintained throughout this entire 'debate' - this topic cannot be simply boiled down to the claimed "binary set" - that's the only point I'm trying to make here - and I've provided cases in point (both now & previously).
Isn't the deliberate ignoring of 'evidence' contradictory to one's opinion considered "automatic thinking" and/or "dogmatic"?
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BrianJ1962 1) An idiot.
2) Ditto.
BionicDance 6 months ago 10
@BionicDance LMAO - and the Igtheist?
BrianJ1962 6 months ago
@BionicDance May I second that? Or would that be a third?
richardpweiss 6 months ago
@BionicDance
I think describing yourself by what your not is the nonsensical part. saying I'm a metaphysical naturalist says a whole lot more about me then just saying not a theist. but if you're right and its not nonsensical to describe yourself by stuff you are not, then from now on I am and shall be addressed as: recyard, the non asian, non indian, not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a plant, not smaller than a breadbox, atheist. see its easier just to say what you are, then what you are not
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x If I want to say that god-belief is not part of my psyche, that's an important data point, and worth expressing...
...but to do it, I have to describe myself by what I'm not. It's not nonsensical, it's the only reasonable and succinct way to do it.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance there is a whole host of philosophies that include atheist. Pick on that bests suits you. Then if someone follows up with well do you believe in a god, you can just say no. But if they already know that you're a skeptic and what a skeptic means, then they don't even need to ask about god. because atheist is really just the answer to one question, and is in no way a philosophy or any usefull label by itself. IMHO. Because what can we tell about someone who claims to be atheist?
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x Sorry, no; a skeptic DOES NOT mean a non-believer. A skeptic who has found evidence is a believer; you cannot take it for granted that a skeptic is an atheist.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance ok forget skeptic then, come join me in Metaphysical naturalism. It clearly says what I believe and if you know what metaphysical naturalism is, you can just skip the do you believe in god question. It also lets you make correct assumptions about my views of the world. Where does stating your an atheist lead? No where. then we get into so you're an atheists, are you a budists? scientologist? evolutionist? and you have to go down the list of all the labels that include atheists.
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x I'm someone who does not believe in a god due to lack of evidence for one. That's it.
Got a word for that? Oh, right..."atheist".
I'm sticking with it; it gets the job done without all this hoop-jumping and getting-it-from-context you seem to be insisting on. Remember the principle of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance but its really just over complicating things. it just leads to a whole new bunch of questions. like, so what do you believe in? are you a budists? are you a scientologist? do you need words to say your not part of those groups either? they're atheists to. is atheist really your whole outlook on how the world works? Whereas if you just state clearly what you do believe, then you don't need the 100 follow up questions, and if they don't know what it is, they can google it.
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x Atheism is an ASPECT of who you are, not the totality, of course. But the fact is that if your atheism comes from nothing BUT skepticism, nothing but a lack of evidence, and not with some doctrine or dogma attached to it, the only way you CAN tell someone this without multiple paragraphs is to say you're an atheist and leave it at that.
And that's perfectly valid.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance were just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. All atheism is, is that you answered no to one question, or you never heard the question. I wouldn't call that an aspect, especially for the ones who've never heard of god. Because if we are going to label ourselves we should try to use as few labels as possible that are the most descriptive. IMHO saying your an atheist is no more revealing about you than saying you're not a ant.
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x Well, THERE'Z the problem: you've got your values all screwed up. I say we use the MOST labels in order to be as precise as possible. I am a left-handed, adopted, multi-racial, lesbian, atheist, skeptical, freethinking CGI-artist and Star Wars fan who hangs out with Goths and listens to pop-punk and 80s music.
I've probably left something out, but you can get a pretty damn good idea of my character from that.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance your being redundant as well. freethinker includes atheists, and also leads to the assumption you are rejecting god (check the online definition). It might be what you are, but not so much who you are. I'm honest, compassionate, pacifist, Metaphysical naturalist, doctor who fan, and likes 80's rock, and my values are just fine. see I list who I am in 5 words, and nothing I'm not. And from what I list you can come to realistic conclusions about me. what traits do all lefties have?
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x We're all left-hand dominant. Duh. :P
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance but do you see my point now? that you can describe yourself clearly by what you are. I should have asked if you read our two lists of descriptors, and yours was describing some unknown person, and think of the stereotypes associated with both, Who would you think is more likely to save a cat, help a old lady across a street? who agrees with evolution, the scientific method, or the war in iraq? will all assumptions be right? of course not, but which list is more descriptive?
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x No, sorry...you haven't managed to make a relevant point yet regarding using "atheist" as a descriptor.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance really? wow, i think your just running on automatic for this one. have you even fully read and considered anything i've typed?
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x All you're doing is telling me your preferences; that'll NEVER change my mind.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance its not a preference though, its how we describe things. we describe things by what they are. if you're not a theist, then your just not a theist. Its only over this theist/atheist where this problem even comes up. think of any other instance where you describe things by what they are not. It doesn't happen.
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x We ALSO describe things by what they're NOT. Sometimes that's significantly more efficient than sticking to ONLY describing what things are. We can describe more with fewer words that way, and it's nonsensical to abandon that methodology simply because you don't like it...which is basically what you're doing here.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance its not that i don't like it, its just wrong to do. and it never takes fewer words to describe something by what its not. like the earth, its not square, not triangular, not a circle, not flat, not hexagonal, not octagonal, not cubed, etc etc. its an oblate spheroid. And if you think it works for atheist, then you should also clarify non budist, non scientologist, non bon, non Confucianist, and all the other types of beliefs that don't have gods, but are like religions.
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x No, it ISN'T wrong to do; that's where your preferences are coming in.
There are times where describing what something isn't helps narrow the field when there are multiple choices or many things which are very similar. For example: "It's the one WITHOUT the sticky tape on the back; bring me that one!".
Point is, describing what something isn't is a useful tool that's not to be abandoned for what basically amounts to tradition, one of those, "It's just not done!" sort of things.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance /watch?v=kiyNYWGL-yg. Its the one what without sticky tape? brings you a beer, no sticky tape on the back of it. well its not early, so i'm going to call it a not day. have a not bad not day.
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x *rolls eyes* Yes, that's right...point out absurd examples without EVER touching on the useful ones. That's a really fair argument.
Quit engaging in bias, kiddo.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance i haven't seen a useful example yet. was more of a joke than a argument, I thought it was funny :D later
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x Think simple. Like, "I'm not busy."
"I'm not annoyed with you."
"I'm not a believer in god(s)."
We use it ALL THE TIME.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance those are just answers to specific questions though, not labels. Are you busy? Are you annoyed with me? do you believe in god?
recyard12x 5 months ago
@recyard12x So what? "Atheism" is BOTH, a label AND an answer to a specific question. So it defines a negative and not a positive...I ask again: SO WHAT?
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 Someone who doesn't believe in a god, but still believes in a god? I'm sorry, but what else could you mean by theology? If you mean the pratices of the religion... then I guess you could call them a secular (religion) or perhaps a social (religion). It's a small catagory though, without a name.
For your second one... that's called "It's complicated." It's a transitional state, they're usually too hard to sum up. Again, it's another thing we don't really have a word for.
Sines314 6 months ago
@Sines314
Actually, in the first case, we'd be talking about Buddhists, Taoists, most Native American spiritual traditions & others - not a "nameless small group" by far...
For the second, yes, "it's complicated" is a fair & accurate analogy (for which we actually do have a word: "ambivelence") - but the existence of those with ambivelent belief-systems (including those who 'compartmentalise' their spiritual life from the daily) in itself breaks this, so claimed, "binary set" on belief systems.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sines314
Actually, in the first case, we'd be talking about Buddhists, Taoists, most Native American spiritual traditions & others - not a "nameless small group" by far...
For the second, yes, "it's complicated" is a fair & accurate analogy (for which we actually do have a word: "ambivelence") - but the existence of those with ambivelent belief-systems (including those who 'compartmentalise' their spiritual life from the daily) in itself breaks this, so claimed, "binary set" on belief systems.
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
@BrianJ1962 1) Hypocrite, 2) Hypocrite., see also BionicDance reply.
Mglosk 5 months ago
@Mglosk Nice - lol ;-)
BrianJ1962 5 months ago
I swear, sometimes you intentionally want people's heads to explode.
Darkfirebrand 6 months ago 3
@Darkfirebrand ...well, DUH! ;)
BionicDance 6 months ago 6
@BionicDance This is why I'm glad you are a psyker. more a psychout....
Darkfirebrand 6 months ago
Now let's not start this again.
jebus6kryst 6 months ago
nothing new under the sun...
girlpalooza 6 months ago
I had somebody that confused atheist with anti-theist. I told him that I was an atheist and they said that I said that God didn't exist. No matter how many times I said that I didn't know they were still saying the same thing.
lautz73 6 months ago
Just one minor quibble, and I'm just not sure it's clear in the vid.
If a person chooses not to apply a label to themselves, such as atheist, then no-one else has the right to force them to use that label on themselves, even if said label undeniably applies. Someone who has Irish ancestry could, for instance, comment on tensions in Northern Ireland from a perspective independent of their Irish origins, just as a person who is an atheist could comment on religion independent of said atheism.
firefly4f4 6 months ago
@firefly4f4 No, I disagree. Accuracy is accuracy.
This isn't about feelings, it's about being accurate; if the label applies then the label applies, whether they want it or not. Cope.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance So a black geneticist should always have to consider themselves black when presenting scientific papers countering people like HeyRuka/LibertarianRealist/MrHerrIQ, instead of simply presenting their information as a geneticist?
That is how you sound to me -- you must use the label if it applies. Please do clarify if I'm misunderstanding.
I'm NOT saying s/he should be explicitly HIDE their ethnicity, but nor is it necessary to explicitly use the label, either.
firefly4f4 6 months ago
@firefly4f4 Well, if that's how I sound to you...YOU'RE GETTING IT COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG.
This isn't about what you CALL yourself on a day-to-day basis, it's about not LYING to yourself about reality.
We're talking about a black geneticist not admitting they're black, trying to call themselves something OTHER than black simply because they don't like the term or what it implies. It doesn't mean they have to use the label in EVERYTHING, they just have to admit its accuracy and not deny it.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance "it's about not LYING to yourself about reality." Honestly, that was not clear to me -- don't ask me why; sometimes my mind is like that. Thank you for clarifying.
I will state, though, I actually do think there is a state where you're really not sure if you believe in a god or not, and hence neither theist nor atheist applies. I was there myself. If I recall, you never have believed, so it may be hard to relate. If you disagree, then we'll just have to disagree.
firefly4f4 6 months ago
@firefly4f4 Not being sure is also not believing. Until and unless you believe, you're an atheist. Those are the only choices.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance IMO, they are not. The best analogy I can think of, and perhaps as a super-taster you may understand, is the concept of acquired tastes in food. Certain foods I was entirely unsure if I liked them or not until I had them a few more times. During that in between time, I was honestly unable to say if I liked those foods or not. My belief in god was a lot like that for about 10 years. Just as I could not say if I liked or disliked those foods, I couldn't say if I believed or not.
firefly4f4 6 months ago
@firefly4f4 If you can't say you believe, then you don't.
BionicDance 6 months ago
@BionicDance I had to leave this a bit, because in all honesty I was quite angry when I first read this. It's almost as if you're were saying you know what I'm thinking better than I do.
Keight, I have some respect for you, but you do not know what's going on in my head. Belief -- even in the faith context -- is not a black or white, you have it or you don't concept. Very, very little about the human mind works that way. And no, I'm not confusing belief with knowledge here.
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 Except that it IS black or white: you believe or you don't. Unless belief is positively asserted, then you fall in the "do not believe" category. It's that simple. This isn't about what you're thinking, it's about categorizing properly; we're talking Venn Diagrams here.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance And I am telling you, having been there myself, that that is not the case. Have you actually spoken to a psychologist about this matter to confirm this statement of yours -- ie, that belief is either a do or don't thing?
It is NOT that simple. Very little in the human mind, and human thinking, is.
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 See, once again, I think you're just simply looking at this from an angle that I'm not. YOU'RE talking human mind, I'M talking categorization. I'm talking about how to CLASSIFY what the human mind is DOING.
This time, ACTUALLY LISTEN, instead of running what I'm saying through a filter: Unless belief is positively asserted, it cannot be said that one believes. Either you believe or you don't; being wishy-washy about it leaves you in the "not believe" category until you get certain.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance What I'm saying is that you're trying to classify states of the mind, and that does NOT work the way you're trying to do it. To go back to my food analogy, if I'm not sure I like a food, does that mean automatically that I dislike it? No -- it just means, "I don't know".
Going from belief to non-belief doesn't just happen with the flick of a switch in the brain (ok, probably sometimes it does, but not always) -- "I don't know" is a VALID classification. (cont)
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 There is nothing wishy-washy about this either.
"The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is, "I do not know"."
Yes, it's a Star Trek quote, but it's applicable.
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 But, see, you're classifying incorrectly. The choices are NOT, "Like or dislike", the choices are "Like or don't like," where "don't like" includes things like "neutral" and "don't know".
The choices are not "believe" and "DISbelieve", the choices are "believe" and "without belief".
Like I said, you're classifying incorrectly; "I don't know" falls in the "does not believe" category...unless you want to explain to me how "I don't know" is belief.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance I honestly don't see how, "I'm not sure" qualifies as "without" either -- same logic applies, at least as I see it.
To be clear -- I am talking about someone fully cognisant of what the concept in question is. I'd fully accept that someone not aware of the concept is without the belief.
BTW, I do appreciate this discussion. It could very well just come down to you and I having different perspectives on this, and at least as far as I'm concerned, that's fine too.
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 Explain to me how "I don't know" means "I believe".
Until and unless you can do that, "I don't know" qualifies as lacking belief and therefore atheism.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance I could really ask the same of you with how "I don't know" means "I don't believe", although I think I see the crux of where this disagreement is now. To go back to my food analogy, if I don't know if I like a food, I cannot be said to be a fan of it (belief), and therefore part of the non-fan group (without belief), even if I could become a fan later.
I just don't agree with this strict classification. Honestly, for me, as crazy as this sounds (I think I need a vid here -- cont)
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 "I don't know" is a lack of belief, and lacking belief is all that's required ot be an atheist. Atheism means "not a theist"; it does NOT mean "Positively asserted disbelief". The choices are theist and atheist; either you're a theist or you're an atheist, either you're a believer or you're not.
"I don't know" is not "I don't believe", it's "I am without belief"--a fine distinction, but an irrelevant one--which makes the "I don't know" guy an atheist, a not-a-theist.
BionicDance 5 months ago
@BionicDance Perhaps "not a theist" in the not practising a god worshipping religion I'd accept -- I had discarded the specific deities mentioned in them at that point. I really do need to do a vid my experiences here -- I'll forward it to you when I'm done, if you don't mind. In it, I'll try to explain why the atheist label/classification does not apply to people who are in the state of mind I was. If you've never believed in a personal, caring deity, though, it might be difficult to grasp.
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 I both believed and did not believe simultaneously -- hence, "I don't know". They sound like the should conflict, I know, but cognitive dissonance is a VERY weird phenomenon. I'm not really sure I can explain properly what was going on in my head unless you've actually had it happen.
firefly4f4 5 months ago
@firefly4f4 Labels are just words used to convey meaning. It doesn't matter if you don't want to be labeled "human". You are free to choose never to call yourself human, but it doesn't change the fact that you ARE human and that it is correct to use that word to describe you.
Your desire to not be labelled is irrelevant.
abemore 6 months ago
@abemore What I was trying to convey there is that even if the label is accurate, it doesn't negate anything relevant I say on a related subject. That is, even if I AM an atheist (which I do not deny, and is actually a label I personally use), I can still comment on related topics as an individual, not as an atheist; I should not have to explicitly use the label for my comments to be considered.
As I stated in a further reply after BD clarified, I did misunderstand her point, though.
firefly4f4 6 months ago
If I haven't concluded that there is sufficient evidnece to believe in any of the purported gods, then not only does that mean that I am an atheist, but it should also say something about my opinion of those who believe yet have seen the same evidence or lack of it as I have. And if I didn't maintain that then it would say something not so great about myself. Have some bravery, people. Sitting on the fence hurts your ass.
StabbyRaccoon 6 months ago
dam ur 35???? old bitch
scheme86 6 months ago
@scheme86 Richard Dawkins says it best please watch this: watch?v=2Wfzk9zBSGw
Keight is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f off. :)
LotusPhoenix93 6 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 interesting 4 an old bitch
scheme86 6 months ago
@scheme86 Oh, and how old are you? 12? Brat. Only a child thinks 35 is old. And she's not a bitch, she's a brilliant woman with something to contribute to the world, something more than hiding behind a computer screen calling people old and a bitch to entertain herself. I still say you can f off, Keight is awesome and interesting!! ^_^
LotusPhoenix93 6 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 contribute what? atheist videos and shitty online comic books? lol
scheme86 6 months ago
@scheme86 Oh you did NOT just diss the comic books!!! Her videos are great and help the cause of Atheism, contributing so that one day little brats like you may be able to live in a world where reason dominates over ignorance. She probably also has a job and pays taxes, which I'd bet is more than you can say.
LotusPhoenix93 6 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 all of that sounds really mundane and uninteresting. reason doesn't need help some humans r capable of it and some are not. lol u sound like i just insulted ur profit lol.
scheme86 6 months ago
@scheme86 I think you mean prophet, and I would react the same to anybody calling someone I like a "bitch". Normally I avoid saying anything to trolls though, but in this case I also got to say good things about keight, so win win. ^_^
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 yeah any1 who disagrees wit u is a troll
scheme86 5 months ago
@scheme86 Anyone who attempts to call a person names for no good reason is a troll.
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
@scheme86 But again you're showing me that you're just some stupid kid behind a computer screen that thinks they're being smart.
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 smart? all i did was tell a joke and ur pantys got in a bunch. listen if this old bitch gets u moist then more power 2 u.
scheme86 5 months ago
@scheme86 How is that a joke? How was that funny? I'm going to get serious here for a minute: It's not a joke when you say things like that. I know bionicdance is too cool to get upset by it, but there are people out there who have killed themselves over stuff like that. It's not a joke to go around trying to insult people that way, and if you think it is then you really need to straighten up, and grow up.
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 u mad bro?
scheme86 5 months ago
@scheme86 Annoyed would be a better word. If I've raised someone's consciousness though today, it's worth it.
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 shut up ur mad
scheme86 5 months ago
@scheme86 -shrugs- if you say so??
LotusPhoenix93 5 months ago
@LotusPhoenix93 she has a manly face doesn't she?
scheme86 5 months ago
@scheme86 ...Yeah, I've noticed that.
meteosurreal 5 months ago
@scheme86 ...Yes.
meteosurreal 5 months ago