I especially agree with the last part ... even if you could objectively prove the existence of a God, the BEST you could do was sway me to the deist point of view. There would be no way to convice me to get down on bended knee, or to get me to adopt the tenets of their outdated religion. Particularly the Abrahamic ones.
prove that a supreme deity exists through science. There is zero evidence of a god that exist and manipulates my life. I prefer debatable information like the fact that what region of the world i am born into will determine if I go to this awesome place after I die or if I burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity. I choose to not believe in something that claims to hold the keys to my eternal soul on something as arbitrary as the region of the world that I was born into.
Just read through the whole thread of comments and boy my head is spinning! We never really reach the core of a debate because both sides can never agree on the definitions and context of certain words and idea's. I especially liked the argument about applying science to prove that thoughts exist. Thought processes aren't categorized by the same standards that I hold a god. It doesn't matter to me that science can't prove emotions and thought processes. It makes me an atheist that we can't
@LLiimmzz Oh, wow! What a convincing argument. You've really brought me around to your way of thinking. Whatever that is. Excuse me while I go off and laugh now.
I absolutely would at least,admit to the existence of a divine being in the face of empirical proof.I have no problem being wrong once it is objectively proven.
Why do you expect theists to be intellectually honest? They need dishonesty to support and validate their beliefs. They are aware of it, and happily accept that dishonesty, because it goes with their territory. They don't want to be part of a legitimate discussion. That's a large part of what they are. A+ for this vid, Keight, and I hope to see many more just like it. Keep up the good work.
I agree with you too. I would love to have my belief structures to be analysed and subjected through logic and observation instead of ignorant and arrogant criticism.
To be heard and considered instead of treated like a fool or be viewed as a threat.
Keeping in mind, of course, that AFTER being heard and considered, one might end up being treated like a fool or a threat ANYWAY if it's warranted by the conclusions drawn from the investigation.
Then that would make the critic a hypocrit because they expect to be viewed as intellegent by treating others as stupid for having thier experiences. The dishonesty would continue on and on for both the theist and the athiest. It comes down to respect and integrity for ALL views. Only then, we all become intelligent.
Some views are not worthy of respect because they run contrary to the facts; I'll respect a view of integrity even if I disagree with it, but there is no reason to respect a view that's basically full of shit.
In fact, respecting THAT view is the opposite of intelligent.
Some views are not worthy of respect? Are you joking? What authority do you have to state such an arrogant statement. That just makes you no different from those you oppose who also treat different ideas and views as threatening. What about being open minded? Or putting other peoples experiences into consideration. Gravity is a FACT but when in space, gravity isn't always a fact. A fact is no different then a point of view.
OK so you based your understanding on reality, but Science itself have proven that reality isn't as real as one may observe it. One may see a table and assume it to be a table. But the truth is, its just lose particles of atoms floating in space. Charge with electrical currents. How do you know is a brown eyed person sees green like a blued eyed person. Or if the corpse is filled with living bacteria and germs, or if god is real but refuse to be proven or their existence to too much for humans?
Yes you made it perfectly clear: You are set in your ways and there is no need to be provoked. I respect both Theists and Atheists and only hope that this childish bickering would come to an end. I'm sorry I couldn't open your mind. Perhaps I would have better luck with others then I would with you. Good luck in your quest for knowledge, and god bless you....just joking.
What kind of fact are you looking for? FACTS isn't everything. Science is only one of many truths that exists. And by favoring one over another is pure ignerance. You are just so set in your ways that revealing anything else isn't worth showing you. Just as those Christians that you resent so much, you are no different then they are. I value wisdom and recent those that can't even understand. What does Facts have to do with experience or observation or consideration? you just being cold hearted.
What about Love, or Friendship. theres no facts about love. Theres no proof of the Big Bang Theory. And for not being full of shit, I suggest you lay off from the laxetives. Unless you enjoy being a Pain in the Ass. Facts isn't everything and they don't qualify for intelligents or wisdom.
Are you human, I meen seriously. Or am I just bitching to a machine? Compute!!!
Cause I be damn to be talking to some Borg or some Android or another fucking computer. Did you date Data? or something? Neurological processes? Are you serious?
Thats just the thing, you are so wrapped up in this "reality" that you fail to realize or even consider what is beyond the physical world. You ignore your hopes, your dreams, your intuition, your faith... the things that makes us human in favor for a cold world of facts and measurements. Trusting your left brain and denying your right brain. For a building to be built, it first must be created in your mind.
I write fiction, I have a webcomic, I've worked in four video stores and as a video game artist; imagination is HUGE in my life.
I just don't take that love of imagination and apply it to scientific inquiry, I don't let it color my perception of reality. I don't play Make-Believe™ with myself and then try to claim that it's real.
You know, your right. I give up. Ill just take the advise from a Roman and leave you alone. Im not trying to convence you of anything, Im just trying to score some Karmic Points. Good luck in your life.
@BionicDance Woah! Hold on there. If someone disagrees with me on an issue, i can respect their opinion, that doesn't mean that i have to agree with it. i can agree to disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and it takes all kinds, even theists. :-) Keep up the good works.
@boyceps You're entitled to your own opinion...you're NOT entitled to your own FACTS. It's possible to be just plain WRONG, and when you are, you really ought to correct that, don'cha think?
I can think of many things that would convince me that God (of some sort) exists. Perhaps not a God worthy of worship, but a God that exists.
If any one of them were to happen, I would cease to be an atheist. Instantly.
Because I consider it virtually impossible that any of those things will happen, I am a positive atheist. Pigs will fly, first, and I'll believe in the flying pig god.
What if I can prove to you that the gods exist and that no human, including myself, can not control or speak on Thier behalf? What if I can tell you that you and everyone else was born by two of these gods. One you take from every second of your life and the other you see during the day. The truth is too much for one soul to embrace that it can make you a stronger athiest or a recovering polytheist. Care to take the risk? or wait to watch pigs fly.
The existence of anything is a scientific question? How does science address metaphysical questions like the existence of logic? Science presupposes logic, hence if science addresses the topic it is immediately annular. The existence of science itself is much the same. How is the existence of beauty a scientific question? Why is it that atheists are continually stymied by the limits of science?
Ah, the typical theist tactic of "pick something intangible like a thought process and claim that it exists," despite being fully aware that it's a strawman argument.
So this is an example of direct answering? LOL you seem to have some awareness of one form of logical fallacy and continually misapply it. The whole point of the original post was that science isn't equipped to handle those questions, and your above non-answer appears to concede that fact. Yes? Does logic exist? If not science is a lost cause. Does science exist? Prove it with science please. I'll wait.
You are making a category error with your question, and rather than revising your question when this is pointed out to you, you do the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LALALALALALALA...!"
I directly answered your question you have failed to do the same, and now you are getting upset that I am pointing it out. Your original rule was that the existence of "anything" is a scientific question. logic falls within the realm of "anything" There was no categorical error. Were you meaning to say that the existence of any material thing was a scientific question?
Not all questions are worth answering. You could ask me, "What does the color blue taste like?", but that doesn't mean it's a question that needs an answer because it addresses a false issue.
Your question is like that; it's utterly meaningless because much like how "blue" and "taste" don't go together, "exist" and "logic" don't go together the way that you're trying to equate them. You're trying to play semantic games to win points, rather than being intellectual honest yourself.
Ok, if existence and logic, have a relationship like blue and taste as you imagine it. Show that relationship via science. I have learned from you that if it aint science its probably wrong. So go ahead.
Okay, once again, STOP trying to play semantic games in order to win points; there is no scoreboard and you don't get a prize at the end for coming in first.
Either start discussing this issue honestly, with the intent of UNDERSTANDING rather than engaging in text-based mortal combat, or be thoroughly ignored.
Listen, I am calling you to task on one of your points and I have demonstrated that it is incorrect manifestly. Your best attempts at refutation have involved not answering the question and calling the question not worth answering. There are a great many things that one is rationally justified in believing that science cannot verify or even speak to.
No. You haven't. You've made a category error, you are trying to compare two things which are not equivalent and you're doing it solely through semantic sleight-of-hand.
You're trying to apply "existence" to something which is an idea or a system of thought, and then comparing it to the kind of existence which an empirically existing thing has; this is a category error.
if you want to get into absolute terms, logic must be processed in the brain and is thus a by-product of biological brain activity--or electronic activity in the case of computers--but you obviously expect "Logic" to be some intangible force out there somehow.
Yes but that it exactly it! The existence of any material thing is a science question, things that are not material are not. You were trying to sustain that science would determine the existence of this immaterial thing (God) but that is manifestly not true. The best it could hope to show is the effects of the cause. As you yourself called it a category error. Hence that particular rule was a category error.
And THAT'S exactly the category error I was trying to prevent you from making.
According to nearly every holy text, this alleged god-creature has interfered in the universe, both creating it initially AND interacting with it physically, from chatting with the inhabitants to making it rain and flooding the Earth, etc, etc.
If it is having such empirical effects, then the existence this god-thing IS A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
God is not an IDEA or a concept like logic; that's a category error.
So God is immaterial, but because He has had effects on the material, this non material being is withing the purview of science? Firstly find any respected scientist who believes that God himself falls within the power of the scientific method. Secondly have logic and other "categorical errors" had effects on the material (think natural laws)? This is special pleading. Science can study material things but has no explanatory power over immaterial beings one way or another.
No, this ISN'T special pleading, you're just compounding your category errors with MORE of them.
First of all, this "god is immaterial" thing is BULLSHIT, because you're trying to equate an allegedly sentient, self-aware being with an IDEA like logic, and THAT'S a category error of--forgive me--biblical proportions.
Next, yes, anything which has a direct and manifestly physical and empirical effect on the universe falls under the purview of science, like it or not.
Ok produce the body of scholarship that say that the study of materials (science) can adequately define the immaterial. You will find that you are quite alone here.
No I am saying that God is not made of atoms like logic and numbers and other things like that. And that science is in too deep waters once that realm is visited.
Logic and numbers are IDEAS, not beings which interact with the universe of their own accord.
You are making a category error; unless god is just an imaginary idea, the product of a human mind, then god is manifestly NOT "like" numbers and logic.
Logic is not just an idea we know that because it comports with reality. The plane made utilizing logic flies, the one made not utilizing it crashes. Ideas themselves are weighed against standards of truth to determine whether or not they are correct. Logic is one of those standards. IE logic is a standard or a measuring stick, not an idea. Hence it is a thing that exists.
No. That last line is EXACTLY wrong. Logic is not a "THING", not in the sense of being something which actually interacts with the physical world. Logic is JUST an idea, a methodology which can be employed to solve problems. It is not a thing, not the way you claim god is.
Logic has no mind, does not interact on a personal level, does not interact even on a physical level as god is claimed to have done.
Logic and god are NOT equivalent, and comparing the two is invalid.
Logic is not an idea anymore than the measuring stick is the thing being measured. Logic weighs ideas like a scale weighs grams and kilos.You have a real problem confusing categories and umbrella quantification here. Logic and God are both immaterial but they are not identical anymore than water and people are identical. Water and people are both material but they are different within that category.
Well, you're trying to put god under this umbrella category and in doing so you are being intellectually dishonest; god and logic are NOT comparable, and I'm simply not going to agree to treating them as such. We've gone through message after message after message on this...when are you going to get the hint? I'm not letting you get away with that, so either start discussing the subject HONESTLY by being more specific, or fuck off. I'm sick of this.
LOL. So people and water are comparable inasmuch as they are both material objects, even though they are different under the subcategories. Much like logic (and other standards and immaterial objects) are comparable to God inasmuch as they are immaterial objects, but different under subcategories.
Ok. Lets see if we can agree on something. Lets leave God aside lets say that there is a immaterial mountain someplace. Describe how science could examine it.
"First of all, this "god is immaterial" thing is BULLSHIT" But I thought that I was supposed to be the one defining my position? And I (and about every other theist and holy book) define God as immaterial. If you are trying to define my position (regarding the stuff God is made of) aren't you issuing a straw man?
Lets put it like this If I am an immaterial being and I somehow use my powers to effect a rock, how does science follow me back into immateriality? Its the equivalent of a cold trail. How does science pierce that veil. Diagram that for me.
Prove to me that there is such a thing as an "immaterial being" and how you can POSSIBLY know that such a thing exists in the first place. Prove to me that your question is even meaningful, and THEN I'll consider answering it.
Something which can be tested and checked, independently verified, peer reviewed. Something which does not require faith or holding a specific point of view, but rather something which would be admitted by even the most staunch skeptic because they've been convinced by the evidence not by mere persuasion.
It's up to YOU to provide it; I can't be expected to tell you which qualities I expect to see beyond what I've outlined above since YOU'RE the one claiming to know this thing's nature!
Of course not because what you are truly saying is that you want scientific evidence to prove that a thing cannot be proved via science. Why do you want to avoid saying this? Because you are being circular. You demand evidence that a thing cannot be shown scientifically , and then demand scientific evidence t show it. You have effectively insulated yourself from having to delve into the logical waters.
Religion claims that god has had something to do with the universe, even this world and its people directly.
BY DEFINITION, this means that god's existence is a scientific question. You have this weird idea that science cannot investigate something which is immaterial...BULLSHIT. Science studies MANY things which are intangible, but which leave detectable effects behind in their wake, and god has allegedly left behind a hell of a lot of effects.
Excellent. What Immaterial things does science study and explain how specifically they are studied. Moreover define science briefly for me and show me where things that are not material are included.
No. Science isn't on trial here; god is. Answer MY challenge:
Prove to me that there is such a thing as an "immaterial being". Show me how you can even know that such a creature exists, what evidence you have of it.
Let me ask you a question: What are you? Do you think that just because the cells in your body are working in concert, that this somehow makes you separate from the universe, that you are not a part of it, just walking around inside it?
You ARE your effect on the universe, as part of it. Your body is made up of pieces OF the universe, and part of your identity IS your effect on the rest of it around you. Part of what you are is that as well. And god has allegedly affected the universe.
I acknowledge that I am part of the universe and that our atoms are are made of the same stuff that the rest of the universe is but it doesn't follow that we are what we do. Are you arguing that if we study a piece of wood we are studying the same stuff as if we were studying our own bodies so it follows that studying the wood is studying us?
The problem is that what you said is incoherent pseudo philosophy (no offense). You are made up of the same stuff that the universe is so you are your effect doesn't follow at all. Even remotely. I was just looking for clarification.
Your direct questions are fallacious, and I am beginning to understand why you love negative atheism as much as you do. I am not sure that you would be able to hold your own as a positive atheist (again not meant as an insult).
The direct questions are NOT fallacious, and even if they ARE, you should be able to bloody answer them. You've chosen instead to try and challenge MY position while not defending your own.
Until you start answering questions yourself, this conversation is over.
They're NOT fallacious questions, you just THINK they are. And YOUR questions actually HAVE been fallacious, drawing all kinds of false equivalencies and then expecting me to render an opinion on those, essentially complete strawman arguments.
Either attempt to answer my questions or fuck off; I won't have a completely one-sided conversation with you.
Bullshit. My position is in reference TO yours; I've already told you that.
My position is that yours is bullshit. You don't like that this is the only content in my position, obviously. You want me to take a broader position that god doesn't exist. Tough shit.
My position is only that I have never heard a convincing reason, backed by evidence, to believe in a god, and therefore I do not.
Exactly what about that HAVEN'T I been defending, hmm?
Don't avoid direct questions? Isn't that what negative atheism is all about? Simply critiquing the other side's arguments and never feeling it necessary to supply your own? You admit as much in the video regarding Veritas48 yes? Intellectual dishonesty?
Critiquing someone else's argument and then not supplying your own in place of it is not avoiding direct questions. Avoiding a direct question would be if someone asked you a question and then you didn't answer it.
What you're talking about is more like not taking a position on a matter about which you genuinely feel is irrelevant.
If the direct question is "supply evidence for your position" it is. And no "I don't have to......." is not a direct answer. IE. you are ignoring direct questions. It pretty obvious that the whole position is a concoction to position you in such a way as to render you a film critic when you should be taking on some directorial responsibilities.
But the atheist position is that theist positions FAIL. We don't believe in a god because you theists haven't convinced us that such a creature exists, and if it weren't for you TELLING us about a god, we wouldn't even have to render THAT opinion because we'd never come up with the notion on our own.
So the evidence for our position is that YOUR position is bullshit.
You obviously want MORE than that. But that's just tough shit, cuz THAT'S our position: god claims fail and so we don't believe!
LOL. Like I said, intellectual dishonesty. Your position is so weak and ineffectual that you can but criticize the other side. Way to violate your own rules. Moreover you would never come up with the notion? Perhaps, atheists have never been a creative lot, but not likely. All civilizations have and as far as we know, so did all ancient people.
Intellectual dishonesty? That seems to be your catch-all phrase for an argument you just can't HANDLE, but there is nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
What...do you think I have to declare that there is no god and I can prove it to be an atheist? Bullshit! All I have to do is not be convinced by your story and not believe in it. That's all it takes to be an atheist: not believing in god.
You obviously want a position that you can assail, but my position is a REACTION to yours!
No I want you to leave the child like state of suspended belief and join your more adult brothers and sisters in the more honest form of atheism. Babies lack beliefs because they lack information, presumably you have some. Leave the nursery and take a couple of exploratory step out. I swear I will not bite. It should be the goal of all serious thinkers to gravitate into some position when evidence is presented.
I wish that were true, it would save me from countless sighs of regret over the cognitive dissonance involved. But I have learned that if I CAP SOME OF MY WORDS IT ENHANCES MY ARGUMENTS. But on a cheerful note, I have subscribed to your videos and am a big science fiction fan myself. I have been published in Assimov's science fiction mag. So we should have something to agree on.
I've thought about binding it into a book and selling it, yes. Perhaps one day I will.
If you're asking about the resolution of the comic, I'm sure you can figure that out yourself; I'll assume you're asking how many pages I've got. It's slightly over 100 pages so far, and counting.
In essence, yeah. It's a continuous story, a narrative.
I like to think of it as being the crew and ship from "Firefly", with "Star Trek's" mission, in a "Star Wars" style universe, with a "Babylon 5" style plot arc, all glossed over with a NASA-meets-"The Jetsons" look and feel...if I were to put it in movie pitch terms, anyway.
BionicDance, I don't the source of the issue here, but I understand your comments and agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I do not allow others to try and define my stance on any issue and glad to hear you don't either. From most of my watchings on the Tube, most non-atheists probably do know exactly what atheism means, but choose to try and define it themselves to try and bolster their worldview that we are al monsters, etc., etc. Keep up the good work! :-)
You've pretty much described my motivation; I've had my fair share of theists try to define my position FOR me, rather than letting me tell them where I'm coming from.
This video WAS prompted by a specific incident, but I'd intended it to apply generally.
saying, "All thiests are Christians." thiest and athiest just says belief, or lack of belief in a god. Nothing more nothing less, because it's what is beyond that, that defines who they are.
heh well it depends, if a definition is the one most understand it by, then it's the correct one not self serving. Plus it's not self serving if I definet myself as X because thats what I am. Thiests usually try to define what a athiest believes, regardless of what the indivudal believes, we get this, "Athiest must have no morals, or believe X or Y because thats what it leads too." athiesm is simply a lack of belief in god, a thiest believes in god. Saying athiests all believe X be like
On a side note, Bio do you have any examples of AT's getting out of line? I'd find your statements a lot more compelling if you illustrated the specific behavior.
To me it was really his trying to define Atheisim in a bizzare way that to me was self serving, his entire argument hinged around that definition, and was trying to use that to shift the burdeon off of himself when we asked for evidence for god, it really came down to him constantly dodging the questions, and trying to tell US what we believed and where the burdeon is. I was trying to get him to skip over the mind game and get to the point. But as usual the mind game was more important to hm.
There's a link in the sidebar. And I can't speak for BD, but the exchange with califoniania in which AT kept harping on the number 2000 was probably the point where I'd lose patience. Mind you it's hard to tell when that was, thanks to youtube's "unique" comment system.
(At least they're free of copycats. I mean, I can't imagine anyone copying this comment structure. Not on purpose, at least.)
Go look for yourself; it's all on my last vid. I have no interest in cut-and-pasting for you, especially since you can't post proper links in YouTube comments.
Besides, demands like yours always smack to me of someone deliberately trying to put the other side on the defensive, as opposed to any genuine argument.
Wolfwing1 got me the link. I'm curious what part of my statement seemed like a demand to you. I think it was a fairly reasonable request. Mind you I'm still reading.
"And this nicely sums up the arguments of astoundingtheist and john fredricksen who were banned, yesterday."
From what I saw, this is not their arguments. What I saw was they were telling BionicDance what she thought, and BionicDance was telling them that she did not think that. There is a big difference.
Definitions of words are very important, but once one understands the viewpoint of another, then the words used to relay that concept now mean less than the idea itself.
I'll take on all HONEST comers, meaning those who will actually listen to what their opponent has to say and take it on its own terms.
But what AstoundingTheist--and, frankly, now YOU--have essentially said is, "Your argument does not fit my worldview, so I won't deal with it; I'll only debate with you if your side conforms to my expectations."
...and I have NO idea how that doesn't sound like cheating to you. But that's precisely what it is, and I'll only deal with the intellectually HONEST.
You don't seem willing to listen or tow understand. All the answers you need are right here in this video.
But that seems to be pretty common with you religious types; everything AstoundingTheist needed to know was in the video she replied to, but she wouldn't even listen to it when I was responding DIRECTLY TO HER.
Why are you people so unable to bloody listen and understand basic points when they're right there in front of you? *raised eyebrow*
"The root of AT's disagreement with you was that you and others like you have come up with a clearly self serving defintion of atheism that does not acknowledge your prior beliefs and attitudes and is done so solely to gain the high ground in a debate."
How is defining atheism as "a lack of belief in a god" self serving?
I also don't agree that the definition must acknowledge prior beliefs. Why should you have to define prior beliefs if you just want to say what you believe right now?
Not to mention if you look at their definition theirs is definetly self serving as it's made up and tries to win the argument by making it something new.
I try to avoid an us vs. them stance as much as possible, however this kind of defining what atheism means does create a rift.
What I saw in the discussion was that AstoundingTheist was not only trying to have a semantic argument, she was also trying to tell BD what BD believed.
Even if BD is lying about what she does or doesn't believe (even though I'm certain BD isn't lying), no one can tell BD that she believes otherwise. To do so is dishonest at best.
Well plus the definition of atheism wich ever side is meaningless to the question of what she believed. His entire point behind it was to A) make her disprove god, B) make his point more attenable. Wich to me was dishonest, he was arguing from definition for his benefit there.
Well, I DON'T. In fact, I see it as exactly the opposite.
I see her as trying to redefine atheism to be closer to her own beliefs in an attempt to artificially level the playing field, instead of taking the argument on its own terms.
And part of the problem is that, as you say, she wanted to debate MY atheism...and not atheism as a whole, not atheism as a concept. No two atheists have the same basis for their atheism, and she wouldn't acknowledge that SOME atheists are so out of ignorance.
What would be proof of deities? Seriously, I cannot think of anything that wouldn't have a simpler explanation.
Even meeting a god in the flesh wouldn't be certain, because if you accept a world where such things are possible, you must also accept the possibility of beings which could impersonate them.
From the ideas that believers have shown me, and the impression of religion that I have built, super-powered aliens would seriously be far more plausible that any god. Clarke's 3rd law applies.
Well, that IS a sticky point, isn't it? Not merely because proving a being is god seems next to impossible (at least, for 100% certainly; "beyond reasonable doubt" seems like a possibility), but also because theists don't have a consistent view of what god is. They go all metaphorical and poetic on us instead of giving a concrete description of god's attributes.
The inconsistency shows that they're making it up, really.
Monotheists have an absolute dictator, while old China had an imperial court under rule of law. Mesopotamia had cruel terrible gods, while Egypt had benevolent, if dysfunctional ones. And was that thunderstorm because the splinter in Thor's head moved, or because Tlaloc got his child sacrifice?
Meanwhile, a geologist, an anthropologist, and a botanist working separately on 3 different continents find a global event in the distant past.
Bionicdance "And part of the problem is that, as you say, she wanted to debate MY atheism...and not atheism as a whole, not atheism as a concept. No two atheists have the same basis for their atheism, and she wouldn't acknowledge that SOME atheists are so out of ignorance."
Biodance "but also because theists don't have a consistent view of what god is."
I'll admit I stumbled across this but am I the only one who sees the irony in these statements?
I especially agree with the last part ... even if you could objectively prove the existence of a God, the BEST you could do was sway me to the deist point of view. There would be no way to convice me to get down on bended knee, or to get me to adopt the tenets of their outdated religion. Particularly the Abrahamic ones.
dingledodie77 5 months ago
prove that a supreme deity exists through science. There is zero evidence of a god that exist and manipulates my life. I prefer debatable information like the fact that what region of the world i am born into will determine if I go to this awesome place after I die or if I burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity. I choose to not believe in something that claims to hold the keys to my eternal soul on something as arbitrary as the region of the world that I was born into.
08zx6r 6 months ago
Just read through the whole thread of comments and boy my head is spinning! We never really reach the core of a debate because both sides can never agree on the definitions and context of certain words and idea's. I especially liked the argument about applying science to prove that thoughts exist. Thought processes aren't categorized by the same standards that I hold a god. It doesn't matter to me that science can't prove emotions and thought processes. It makes me an atheist that we can't
08zx6r 6 months ago
aaaaah souless
BrittRQ27 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCK YOU
LLiimmzz 8 months ago
@LLiimmzz Yeah...that was constructive. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 8 months ago 5
@BionicDance your so sweet :) thanks
LLiimmzz 8 months ago
@LLiimmzz Oh, wow! What a convincing argument. You've really brought me around to your way of thinking. Whatever that is. Excuse me while I go off and laugh now.
LadyNightthorn 8 months ago
@LadyNightthorn What ever floats your boat hun
LLiimmzz 8 months ago
Comment removed
Ledwix 1 year ago
@Ledwix Science is not a thing that exists, it's a methodology for discovering things. But nice try.
BionicDance 1 year ago 13
@Ledwix LOL you're full of shit.
hangguy209 9 months ago
@hangguy209 Yeah, I know exactly what you mean by that..
Ledwix 9 months ago
Wow this women is badass!!! love the video!!
wachnathan 1 year ago
Thank you. You pointed out one of my faults of which i was unaware, i'll have to work on that :-)
boyceps 1 year ago
thank you thank you thank you i love your videos!!!!
831Chelsea 1 year ago 2
@831Chelsea Well, I do what I can. :)
Thanks for watching!
BionicDance 1 year ago 2
I absolutely would at least,admit to the existence of a divine being in the face of empirical proof.I have no problem being wrong once it is objectively proven.
lovebanditt 1 year ago 8
Why do you expect theists to be intellectually honest? They need dishonesty to support and validate their beliefs. They are aware of it, and happily accept that dishonesty, because it goes with their territory. They don't want to be part of a legitimate discussion. That's a large part of what they are. A+ for this vid, Keight, and I hope to see many more just like it. Keep up the good work.
thereforeithought 1 year ago 2
@thereforeithought I'm scripting a new vid as we speak. :)
Thanks for watching!
BionicDance 1 year ago
no REALLY this is the way christians are taught to be
thetanplzer 2 years ago
is your name thetan plzer like a scientologist or are you the tan plzer like a sunbathing enthusiast?
johnnythesailorman 2 years ago
@johnnythesailorman neither. If really care to know ask me in a message.
thetanplzer 2 years ago
I agree with you too. I would love to have my belief structures to be analysed and subjected through logic and observation instead of ignorant and arrogant criticism.
To be heard and considered instead of treated like a fool or be viewed as a threat.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
Keeping in mind, of course, that AFTER being heard and considered, one might end up being treated like a fool or a threat ANYWAY if it's warranted by the conclusions drawn from the investigation.
Just sayin'...
BionicDance 2 years ago
Then that would make the critic a hypocrit because they expect to be viewed as intellegent by treating others as stupid for having thier experiences. The dishonesty would continue on and on for both the theist and the athiest. It comes down to respect and integrity for ALL views. Only then, we all become intelligent.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
No.
Some views are not worthy of respect because they run contrary to the facts; I'll respect a view of integrity even if I disagree with it, but there is no reason to respect a view that's basically full of shit.
In fact, respecting THAT view is the opposite of intelligent.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Some views are not worthy of respect? Are you joking? What authority do you have to state such an arrogant statement. That just makes you no different from those you oppose who also treat different ideas and views as threatening. What about being open minded? Or putting other peoples experiences into consideration. Gravity is a FACT but when in space, gravity isn't always a fact. A fact is no different then a point of view.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
If someone holds up a blue circle and says, "My view is that this is a pink square!" ...should you respect that view? No, you shouldn't.
If someone holds up a corpse and says, "This man is alive!" ...should you respect that view? No, you shouldn't.
If someone says, "I KNOW god exists!" and then they can't prove it, should you respect that view? No, you shouldn't.
Because NONE of these views are based in fact. No, not all views should be respected; some are just WRONG.
BionicDance 2 years ago
OK so you based your understanding on reality, but Science itself have proven that reality isn't as real as one may observe it. One may see a table and assume it to be a table. But the truth is, its just lose particles of atoms floating in space. Charge with electrical currents. How do you know is a brown eyed person sees green like a blued eyed person. Or if the corpse is filled with living bacteria and germs, or if god is real but refuse to be proven or their existence to too much for humans?
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
Now you're just prevaricating.
Bottom line is this: if you cannot back up your assertions, I am under no obligation--nor do I have any inclination--to respect your point of view.
Do I have to make it any clearer than that?
BionicDance 2 years ago
Yes you made it perfectly clear: You are set in your ways and there is no need to be provoked. I respect both Theists and Atheists and only hope that this childish bickering would come to an end. I'm sorry I couldn't open your mind. Perhaps I would have better luck with others then I would with you. Good luck in your quest for knowledge, and god bless you....just joking.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
Oh, please...being open-minded is great, but you shouldn't be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
I'm open to anything fact-based, anything which can be proven; I'm NOT open to made-up bullshit.
Can you come up with a reasonable and logical reason why I SHOULD be open to made-up bullshit that has no factual basis?
BionicDance 2 years ago
What kind of fact are you looking for? FACTS isn't everything. Science is only one of many truths that exists. And by favoring one over another is pure ignerance. You are just so set in your ways that revealing anything else isn't worth showing you. Just as those Christians that you resent so much, you are no different then they are. I value wisdom and recent those that can't even understand. What does Facts have to do with experience or observation or consideration? you just being cold hearted.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
Facts ARE everything; show me something that can be PROVED to be so without using facts.
The only thing you'll find is mathematics.
And I'd rather be cold-hearted than FULL OF SHIT.
BionicDance 2 years ago
What about Love, or Friendship. theres no facts about love. Theres no proof of the Big Bang Theory. And for not being full of shit, I suggest you lay off from the laxetives. Unless you enjoy being a Pain in the Ass. Facts isn't everything and they don't qualify for intelligents or wisdom.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
Of COURSE there are facts about love; love is a by-product of evolution coupled with neurological processes; you're just romanticizing it.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Are you human, I meen seriously. Or am I just bitching to a machine? Compute!!!
Cause I be damn to be talking to some Borg or some Android or another fucking computer. Did you date Data? or something? Neurological processes? Are you serious?
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
What...you think love is magical or mystical, that it DOESN'T originate in our biology?
Sorry, but just because you can maintain a romantic notion about an emotion doesn't mean that I have to ignore REALITY.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Thats just the thing, you are so wrapped up in this "reality" that you fail to realize or even consider what is beyond the physical world. You ignore your hopes, your dreams, your intuition, your faith... the things that makes us human in favor for a cold world of facts and measurements. Trusting your left brain and denying your right brain. For a building to be built, it first must be created in your mind.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
Bullshit.
I write fiction, I have a webcomic, I've worked in four video stores and as a video game artist; imagination is HUGE in my life.
I just don't take that love of imagination and apply it to scientific inquiry, I don't let it color my perception of reality. I don't play Make-Believe™ with myself and then try to claim that it's real.
...which, apparently, you do.
BionicDance 2 years ago
You know, your right. I give up. Ill just take the advise from a Roman and leave you alone. Im not trying to convence you of anything, Im just trying to score some Karmic Points. Good luck in your life.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
May the Force be with you. :D
BionicDance 2 years ago
@BionicDance Woah! Hold on there. If someone disagrees with me on an issue, i can respect their opinion, that doesn't mean that i have to agree with it. i can agree to disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and it takes all kinds, even theists. :-) Keep up the good works.
boyceps 1 year ago
@boyceps You're entitled to your own opinion...you're NOT entitled to your own FACTS. It's possible to be just plain WRONG, and when you are, you really ought to correct that, don'cha think?
BionicDance 1 year ago 2
I am a theist, but agree with you & would argue that you make great, thorough videos. 5 stars on this one & I think I'll subscribe.
ChadTheBerean 2 years ago
Right on, thanks! :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
I can think of many things that would convince me that God (of some sort) exists. Perhaps not a God worthy of worship, but a God that exists.
If any one of them were to happen, I would cease to be an atheist. Instantly.
Because I consider it virtually impossible that any of those things will happen, I am a positive atheist. Pigs will fly, first, and I'll believe in the flying pig god.
bdf2718 2 years ago
What if I can prove to you that the gods exist and that no human, including myself, can not control or speak on Thier behalf? What if I can tell you that you and everyone else was born by two of these gods. One you take from every second of your life and the other you see during the day. The truth is too much for one soul to embrace that it can make you a stronger athiest or a recovering polytheist. Care to take the risk? or wait to watch pigs fly.
AstroMen2911 2 years ago
What if, AstroMen.
If you can prove any of those things I would become a theist. You haven't. Want to try? I'm game. But my guess is you're talking bullshit.
Give it your best shot. No qualifications. Just fucking do it. Right fucking now. Or fuck off and die.
bdf2718 2 years ago
The existence of anything is a scientific question? How does science address metaphysical questions like the existence of logic? Science presupposes logic, hence if science addresses the topic it is immediately annular. The existence of science itself is much the same. How is the existence of beauty a scientific question? Why is it that atheists are continually stymied by the limits of science?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Ah, the typical theist tactic of "pick something intangible like a thought process and claim that it exists," despite being fully aware that it's a strawman argument.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So this is an example of direct answering? LOL you seem to have some awareness of one form of logical fallacy and continually misapply it. The whole point of the original post was that science isn't equipped to handle those questions, and your above non-answer appears to concede that fact. Yes? Does logic exist? If not science is a lost cause. Does science exist? Prove it with science please. I'll wait.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
You are making a category error with your question, and rather than revising your question when this is pointed out to you, you do the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LALALALALALALA...!"
BionicDance 2 years ago
Comment removed
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I directly answered your question you have failed to do the same, and now you are getting upset that I am pointing it out. Your original rule was that the existence of "anything" is a scientific question. logic falls within the realm of "anything" There was no categorical error. Were you meaning to say that the existence of any material thing was a scientific question?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Not all questions are worth answering. You could ask me, "What does the color blue taste like?", but that doesn't mean it's a question that needs an answer because it addresses a false issue.
Your question is like that; it's utterly meaningless because much like how "blue" and "taste" don't go together, "exist" and "logic" don't go together the way that you're trying to equate them. You're trying to play semantic games to win points, rather than being intellectual honest yourself.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ok, if existence and logic, have a relationship like blue and taste as you imagine it. Show that relationship via science. I have learned from you that if it aint science its probably wrong. So go ahead.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Okay, once again, STOP trying to play semantic games in order to win points; there is no scoreboard and you don't get a prize at the end for coming in first.
Either start discussing this issue honestly, with the intent of UNDERSTANDING rather than engaging in text-based mortal combat, or be thoroughly ignored.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Listen, I am calling you to task on one of your points and I have demonstrated that it is incorrect manifestly. Your best attempts at refutation have involved not answering the question and calling the question not worth answering. There are a great many things that one is rationally justified in believing that science cannot verify or even speak to.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No. You haven't. You've made a category error, you are trying to compare two things which are not equivalent and you're doing it solely through semantic sleight-of-hand.
And I'm not letting you get away with it.
Nor am I taking your bait. But nice try.
BionicDance 2 years ago
There is no category error. You made a claim that encompassed "anything" how is there any category at all?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
You're trying to apply "existence" to something which is an idea or a system of thought, and then comparing it to the kind of existence which an empirically existing thing has; this is a category error.
if you want to get into absolute terms, logic must be processed in the brain and is thus a by-product of biological brain activity--or electronic activity in the case of computers--but you obviously expect "Logic" to be some intangible force out there somehow.
...as if this would prove ANYTHING
BionicDance 2 years ago
Yes but that it exactly it! The existence of any material thing is a science question, things that are not material are not. You were trying to sustain that science would determine the existence of this immaterial thing (God) but that is manifestly not true. The best it could hope to show is the effects of the cause. As you yourself called it a category error. Hence that particular rule was a category error.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
And THAT'S exactly the category error I was trying to prevent you from making.
According to nearly every holy text, this alleged god-creature has interfered in the universe, both creating it initially AND interacting with it physically, from chatting with the inhabitants to making it rain and flooding the Earth, etc, etc.
If it is having such empirical effects, then the existence this god-thing IS A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
God is not an IDEA or a concept like logic; that's a category error.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So God is immaterial, but because He has had effects on the material, this non material being is withing the purview of science? Firstly find any respected scientist who believes that God himself falls within the power of the scientific method. Secondly have logic and other "categorical errors" had effects on the material (think natural laws)? This is special pleading. Science can study material things but has no explanatory power over immaterial beings one way or another.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No, this ISN'T special pleading, you're just compounding your category errors with MORE of them.
First of all, this "god is immaterial" thing is BULLSHIT, because you're trying to equate an allegedly sentient, self-aware being with an IDEA like logic, and THAT'S a category error of--forgive me--biblical proportions.
Next, yes, anything which has a direct and manifestly physical and empirical effect on the universe falls under the purview of science, like it or not.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ok produce the body of scholarship that say that the study of materials (science) can adequately define the immaterial. You will find that you are quite alone here.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
See, you keep saying, "the immaterial" as if this were a description of one single category of thing, and as if your god automatically fits into it.
Again, that's a category error. Are you saying that god is ONLY a concept or an idea the way logic is?
BionicDance 2 years ago
No I am saying that God is not made of atoms like logic and numbers and other things like that. And that science is in too deep waters once that realm is visited.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Logic and numbers are IDEAS, not beings which interact with the universe of their own accord.
You are making a category error; unless god is just an imaginary idea, the product of a human mind, then god is manifestly NOT "like" numbers and logic.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Logic is not just an idea we know that because it comports with reality. The plane made utilizing logic flies, the one made not utilizing it crashes. Ideas themselves are weighed against standards of truth to determine whether or not they are correct. Logic is one of those standards. IE logic is a standard or a measuring stick, not an idea. Hence it is a thing that exists.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No. That last line is EXACTLY wrong. Logic is not a "THING", not in the sense of being something which actually interacts with the physical world. Logic is JUST an idea, a methodology which can be employed to solve problems. It is not a thing, not the way you claim god is.
Logic has no mind, does not interact on a personal level, does not interact even on a physical level as god is claimed to have done.
Logic and god are NOT equivalent, and comparing the two is invalid.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Logic is not an idea anymore than the measuring stick is the thing being measured. Logic weighs ideas like a scale weighs grams and kilos.You have a real problem confusing categories and umbrella quantification here. Logic and God are both immaterial but they are not identical anymore than water and people are identical. Water and people are both material but they are different within that category.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Well, you're trying to put god under this umbrella category and in doing so you are being intellectually dishonest; god and logic are NOT comparable, and I'm simply not going to agree to treating them as such. We've gone through message after message after message on this...when are you going to get the hint? I'm not letting you get away with that, so either start discussing the subject HONESTLY by being more specific, or fuck off. I'm sick of this.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Are people and water comparable?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Irrelevant, and unspecific.
Fuck off.
BionicDance 2 years ago
LOL. So people and water are comparable inasmuch as they are both material objects, even though they are different under the subcategories. Much like logic (and other standards and immaterial objects) are comparable to God inasmuch as they are immaterial objects, but different under subcategories.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Again with this fixation on "immaterial".
What did I tell you about trying to win semantic points rather than actually discussing the genuine topic with an eye toward understanding?
Seriously, if all you're out to do is "win the thread", go fuck yourself.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ok. Lets see if we can agree on something. Lets leave God aside lets say that there is a immaterial mountain someplace. Describe how science could examine it.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No. That's yet another category error.
God allegedly interacts with the universe; a mountain is an inanimate object. The two are not equivalent.
Try again.
BionicDance 2 years ago
OK say that I am an immaterial man who farts in the material world. Now describe how science examines me. Not my fart, but me.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
"First of all, this "god is immaterial" thing is BULLSHIT" But I thought that I was supposed to be the one defining my position? And I (and about every other theist and holy book) define God as immaterial. If you are trying to define my position (regarding the stuff God is made of) aren't you issuing a straw man?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
You're allowed to define your own position; you're NOT allowed to declare that it is true and immune from criticism.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Lets put it like this If I am an immaterial being and I somehow use my powers to effect a rock, how does science follow me back into immateriality? Its the equivalent of a cold trail. How does science pierce that veil. Diagram that for me.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Prove to me that there is such a thing as an "immaterial being" and how you can POSSIBLY know that such a thing exists in the first place. Prove to me that your question is even meaningful, and THEN I'll consider answering it.
BionicDance 2 years ago
What kind of proof would you accept?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Something which can be tested and checked, independently verified, peer reviewed. Something which does not require faith or holding a specific point of view, but rather something which would be admitted by even the most staunch skeptic because they've been convinced by the evidence not by mere persuasion.
It's up to YOU to provide it; I can't be expected to tell you which qualities I expect to see beyond what I've outlined above since YOU'RE the one claiming to know this thing's nature!
BionicDance 2 years ago
Of course not because what you are truly saying is that you want scientific evidence to prove that a thing cannot be proved via science. Why do you want to avoid saying this? Because you are being circular. You demand evidence that a thing cannot be shown scientifically , and then demand scientific evidence t show it. You have effectively insulated yourself from having to delve into the logical waters.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Bullshit.
Religion claims that god has had something to do with the universe, even this world and its people directly.
BY DEFINITION, this means that god's existence is a scientific question. You have this weird idea that science cannot investigate something which is immaterial...BULLSHIT. Science studies MANY things which are intangible, but which leave detectable effects behind in their wake, and god has allegedly left behind a hell of a lot of effects.
God is a scientific question. Period.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Excellent. What Immaterial things does science study and explain how specifically they are studied. Moreover define science briefly for me and show me where things that are not material are included.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No. Science isn't on trial here; god is. Answer MY challenge:
Prove to me that there is such a thing as an "immaterial being". Show me how you can even know that such a creature exists, what evidence you have of it.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Prove it using science?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Show me evidence.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Material evidence?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Empirical, falsifiable evidence.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Comment removed
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
LOL Read: I want scientific evidence of this non scientific phenomenon. You are hopelessly annular in your argument here
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Hardly. I've already SHOWN you how god is a perfectly scientific phenomenon, or at the VERY least can be detected by scientific methods.
Prove to me that such a creature exists and has interacted with the world or admit you're just makin' shit up.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Hold on how does science detect God again. Not his effects but the entity Himself.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
The two are not separate.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So ones effects are one himself? The painting is the painter?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Let me ask you a question: What are you? Do you think that just because the cells in your body are working in concert, that this somehow makes you separate from the universe, that you are not a part of it, just walking around inside it?
You ARE your effect on the universe, as part of it. Your body is made up of pieces OF the universe, and part of your identity IS your effect on the rest of it around you. Part of what you are is that as well. And god has allegedly affected the universe.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I acknowledge that I am part of the universe and that our atoms are are made of the same stuff that the rest of the universe is but it doesn't follow that we are what we do. Are you arguing that if we study a piece of wood we are studying the same stuff as if we were studying our own bodies so it follows that studying the wood is studying us?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No, I'm not saying that at all.
And you'd KNOW that if you were capable of taking what I'd said in context.
I'm sick of having to lead you by the hand and I'm sick of your CONSTANT misinterpretation; it's starting to come off as deliberate.
Which are you, jackass or dipshit? *raised eyebrow* Pick one.
Go back and re-read the thread; see if you can puzzle out what I might have meant. It should be OBVIOUS in context.
BionicDance 2 years ago
The problem is that what you said is incoherent pseudo philosophy (no offense). You are made up of the same stuff that the universe is so you are your effect doesn't follow at all. Even remotely. I was just looking for clarification.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
No. You simply haven't understood what you've been told. At all.
Seriously; you saying it in your own words like that indicates that you really have misunderstood. BADLY.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Or that you have no idea what you have said and would rather strut about as if you did.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Keep telling yourself that.
...but that won't make it true.
BionicDance 2 years ago
A simple question. Why do we have "cause and effect" if they are indistinct?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
That question makes no sense at all.
And I see no reason to answer your challenges when you keep side-stepping mine.
BionicDance 2 years ago
You haven't posed a challenge. You have simply put two concepts together in such a way that it doesn't follow. Clarification?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I've posed you SEVERAL challenges over the course of this conversation, and you've avoided answering each.
BionicDance 2 years ago
one challenge was circular, and the others were non-sequiturs, with an ad hominen or two thrown in. All I've asked is clarification.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
When you start answering direct questions, I'll start answering yours. But not before.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Your direct questions are fallacious, and I am beginning to understand why you love negative atheism as much as you do. I am not sure that you would be able to hold your own as a positive atheist (again not meant as an insult).
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
The direct questions are NOT fallacious, and even if they ARE, you should be able to bloody answer them. You've chosen instead to try and challenge MY position while not defending your own.
Until you start answering questions yourself, this conversation is over.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So I should have to answer fallacious questions that you pose before you will answer legitimate questions about science that I pose?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
They're NOT fallacious questions, you just THINK they are. And YOUR questions actually HAVE been fallacious, drawing all kinds of false equivalencies and then expecting me to render an opinion on those, essentially complete strawman arguments.
Either attempt to answer my questions or fuck off; I won't have a completely one-sided conversation with you.
BionicDance 2 years ago
You've chosen instead to try and challenge MY position while not defending your own. Sounds a bit like what negative atheists do.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Bullshit. My position is in reference TO yours; I've already told you that.
My position is that yours is bullshit. You don't like that this is the only content in my position, obviously. You want me to take a broader position that god doesn't exist. Tough shit.
My position is only that I have never heard a convincing reason, backed by evidence, to believe in a god, and therefore I do not.
Exactly what about that HAVEN'T I been defending, hmm?
BionicDance 2 years ago
That question makes no sense at all.
Ok. Science recognizes cause and effect "X doing thus causes Z". If we are our effect, why bother making a distinction between the two?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I see no reason to answer your challenges when you keep side-stepping mine.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Don't avoid direct questions? Isn't that what negative atheism is all about? Simply critiquing the other side's arguments and never feeling it necessary to supply your own? You admit as much in the video regarding Veritas48 yes? Intellectual dishonesty?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Critiquing someone else's argument and then not supplying your own in place of it is not avoiding direct questions. Avoiding a direct question would be if someone asked you a question and then you didn't answer it.
What you're talking about is more like not taking a position on a matter about which you genuinely feel is irrelevant.
BionicDance 2 years ago
If the direct question is "supply evidence for your position" it is. And no "I don't have to......." is not a direct answer. IE. you are ignoring direct questions. It pretty obvious that the whole position is a concoction to position you in such a way as to render you a film critic when you should be taking on some directorial responsibilities.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
But the atheist position is that theist positions FAIL. We don't believe in a god because you theists haven't convinced us that such a creature exists, and if it weren't for you TELLING us about a god, we wouldn't even have to render THAT opinion because we'd never come up with the notion on our own.
So the evidence for our position is that YOUR position is bullshit.
You obviously want MORE than that. But that's just tough shit, cuz THAT'S our position: god claims fail and so we don't believe!
BionicDance 2 years ago
LOL. Like I said, intellectual dishonesty. Your position is so weak and ineffectual that you can but criticize the other side. Way to violate your own rules. Moreover you would never come up with the notion? Perhaps, atheists have never been a creative lot, but not likely. All civilizations have and as far as we know, so did all ancient people.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Intellectual dishonesty? That seems to be your catch-all phrase for an argument you just can't HANDLE, but there is nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
What...do you think I have to declare that there is no god and I can prove it to be an atheist? Bullshit! All I have to do is not be convinced by your story and not believe in it. That's all it takes to be an atheist: not believing in god.
You obviously want a position that you can assail, but my position is a REACTION to yours!
BionicDance 2 years ago
No I want you to leave the child like state of suspended belief and join your more adult brothers and sisters in the more honest form of atheism. Babies lack beliefs because they lack information, presumably you have some. Leave the nursery and take a couple of exploratory step out. I swear I will not bite. It should be the goal of all serious thinkers to gravitate into some position when evidence is presented.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
You clearly don't understand my position AT ALL.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I wish that were true, it would save me from countless sighs of regret over the cognitive dissonance involved. But I have learned that if I CAP SOME OF MY WORDS IT ENHANCES MY ARGUMENTS. But on a cheerful note, I have subscribed to your videos and am a big science fiction fan myself. I have been published in Assimov's science fiction mag. So we should have something to agree on.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Read my webcomic. Link in the sidebar.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Just went to that link. Have you ever though about publishing? How big is the comic BTW?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I've thought about binding it into a book and selling it, yes. Perhaps one day I will.
If you're asking about the resolution of the comic, I'm sure you can figure that out yourself; I'll assume you're asking how many pages I've got. It's slightly over 100 pages so far, and counting.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So a graphic novel?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
In essence, yeah. It's a continuous story, a narrative.
I like to think of it as being the crew and ship from "Firefly", with "Star Trek's" mission, in a "Star Wars" style universe, with a "Babylon 5" style plot arc, all glossed over with a NASA-meets-"The Jetsons" look and feel...if I were to put it in movie pitch terms, anyway.
BionicDance 2 years ago
BionicDance, I don't the source of the issue here, but I understand your comments and agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I do not allow others to try and define my stance on any issue and glad to hear you don't either. From most of my watchings on the Tube, most non-atheists probably do know exactly what atheism means, but choose to try and define it themselves to try and bolster their worldview that we are al monsters, etc., etc. Keep up the good work! :-)
jsrail 2 years ago
You've pretty much described my motivation; I've had my fair share of theists try to define my position FOR me, rather than letting me tell them where I'm coming from.
This video WAS prompted by a specific incident, but I'd intended it to apply generally.
Thanks for watching! :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
You must be very young, all I can say is stay of Topix;0)
Albtraumen 2 years ago
Actually, I'm 34...but hey, I'm way young at heart.
BionicDance 2 years ago
2:45
No. It's a tautological fact.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
saying, "All thiests are Christians." thiest and athiest just says belief, or lack of belief in a god. Nothing more nothing less, because it's what is beyond that, that defines who they are.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
heh well it depends, if a definition is the one most understand it by, then it's the correct one not self serving. Plus it's not self serving if I definet myself as X because thats what I am. Thiests usually try to define what a athiest believes, regardless of what the indivudal believes, we get this, "Athiest must have no morals, or believe X or Y because thats what it leads too." athiesm is simply a lack of belief in god, a thiest believes in god. Saying athiests all believe X be like
wolfwing1 2 years ago
Bah! Stupid fidgeting. Treat the 4 stars you got from me as 5. :(
DFCDude 2 years ago
Well put young lady, well put.
gazza667 2 years ago
On a side note, Bio do you have any examples of AT's getting out of line? I'd find your statements a lot more compelling if you illustrated the specific behavior.
ApostateltsopA 2 years ago
To me it was really his trying to define Atheisim in a bizzare way that to me was self serving, his entire argument hinged around that definition, and was trying to use that to shift the burdeon off of himself when we asked for evidence for god, it really came down to him constantly dodging the questions, and trying to tell US what we believed and where the burdeon is. I was trying to get him to skip over the mind game and get to the point. But as usual the mind game was more important to hm.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
Can you direct me to the argument? Did it go poof with the bans?
ApostateltsopA 2 years ago
There's a link in the sidebar. And I can't speak for BD, but the exchange with califoniania in which AT kept harping on the number 2000 was probably the point where I'd lose patience. Mind you it's hard to tell when that was, thanks to youtube's "unique" comment system.
(At least they're free of copycats. I mean, I can't imagine anyone copying this comment structure. Not on purpose, at least.)
odwin8 2 years ago
Go look for yourself; it's all on my last vid. I have no interest in cut-and-pasting for you, especially since you can't post proper links in YouTube comments.
Besides, demands like yours always smack to me of someone deliberately trying to put the other side on the defensive, as opposed to any genuine argument.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Wolfwing1 got me the link. I'm curious what part of my statement seemed like a demand to you. I think it was a fairly reasonable request. Mind you I'm still reading.
ApostateltsopA 2 years ago
"And this nicely sums up the arguments of astoundingtheist and john fredricksen who were banned, yesterday."
From what I saw, this is not their arguments. What I saw was they were telling BionicDance what she thought, and BionicDance was telling them that she did not think that. There is a big difference.
Definitions of words are very important, but once one understands the viewpoint of another, then the words used to relay that concept now mean less than the idea itself.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
I'll take on all HONEST comers, meaning those who will actually listen to what their opponent has to say and take it on its own terms.
But what AstoundingTheist--and, frankly, now YOU--have essentially said is, "Your argument does not fit my worldview, so I won't deal with it; I'll only debate with you if your side conforms to my expectations."
...and I have NO idea how that doesn't sound like cheating to you. But that's precisely what it is, and I'll only deal with the intellectually HONEST.
BionicDance 2 years ago
You don't seem willing to listen or tow understand. All the answers you need are right here in this video.
But that seems to be pretty common with you religious types; everything AstoundingTheist needed to know was in the video she replied to, but she wouldn't even listen to it when I was responding DIRECTLY TO HER.
Why are you people so unable to bloody listen and understand basic points when they're right there in front of you? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 years ago
Get over yourself.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Okay, now you're just being an asshole. I never said that and you know it.
Try again.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"The root of AT's disagreement with you was that you and others like you have come up with a clearly self serving defintion of atheism that does not acknowledge your prior beliefs and attitudes and is done so solely to gain the high ground in a debate."
How is defining atheism as "a lack of belief in a god" self serving?
I also don't agree that the definition must acknowledge prior beliefs. Why should you have to define prior beliefs if you just want to say what you believe right now?
DavinCreed 2 years ago
Not to mention if you look at their definition theirs is definetly self serving as it's made up and tries to win the argument by making it something new.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
I try to avoid an us vs. them stance as much as possible, however this kind of defining what atheism means does create a rift.
What I saw in the discussion was that AstoundingTheist was not only trying to have a semantic argument, she was also trying to tell BD what BD believed.
Even if BD is lying about what she does or doesn't believe (even though I'm certain BD isn't lying), no one can tell BD that she believes otherwise. To do so is dishonest at best.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
Well plus the definition of atheism wich ever side is meaningless to the question of what she believed. His entire point behind it was to A) make her disprove god, B) make his point more attenable. Wich to me was dishonest, he was arguing from definition for his benefit there.
wolfwing1 2 years ago
No, it's completely UNreasonable. Because it means that if I don't define atheism EXACTLY AS SHE DOES, then I'm not allowed to debate.
That's 100% UNreasonable, it's intellectually dishonest.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Well, I DON'T. In fact, I see it as exactly the opposite.
I see her as trying to redefine atheism to be closer to her own beliefs in an attempt to artificially level the playing field, instead of taking the argument on its own terms.
And part of the problem is that, as you say, she wanted to debate MY atheism...and not atheism as a whole, not atheism as a concept. No two atheists have the same basis for their atheism, and she wouldn't acknowledge that SOME atheists are so out of ignorance.
BionicDance 2 years ago
What would be proof of deities? Seriously, I cannot think of anything that wouldn't have a simpler explanation.
Even meeting a god in the flesh wouldn't be certain, because if you accept a world where such things are possible, you must also accept the possibility of beings which could impersonate them.
From the ideas that believers have shown me, and the impression of religion that I have built, super-powered aliens would seriously be far more plausible that any god. Clarke's 3rd law applies.
odwin8 2 years ago
Well, that IS a sticky point, isn't it? Not merely because proving a being is god seems next to impossible (at least, for 100% certainly; "beyond reasonable doubt" seems like a possibility), but also because theists don't have a consistent view of what god is. They go all metaphorical and poetic on us instead of giving a concrete description of god's attributes.
Hardly seems fair, frankly.
BionicDance 2 years ago
The inconsistency shows that they're making it up, really.
Monotheists have an absolute dictator, while old China had an imperial court under rule of law. Mesopotamia had cruel terrible gods, while Egypt had benevolent, if dysfunctional ones. And was that thunderstorm because the splinter in Thor's head moved, or because Tlaloc got his child sacrifice?
Meanwhile, a geologist, an anthropologist, and a botanist working separately on 3 different continents find a global event in the distant past.
odwin8 2 years ago
Bionicdance "And part of the problem is that, as you say, she wanted to debate MY atheism...and not atheism as a whole, not atheism as a concept. No two atheists have the same basis for their atheism, and she wouldn't acknowledge that SOME atheists are so out of ignorance."
Biodance "but also because theists don't have a consistent view of what god is."
I'll admit I stumbled across this but am I the only one who sees the irony in these statements?
ApostateltsopA 2 years ago