Prescribing vs Describing. Hot Dogs are sandwiches? Sneak Peak: Babies aren't Atheist.

#atheism #theist #theism
This is just a sneak peak on looking at atheism being define as just lack of belief.
NOTE: THIS IS A WORKING TITLE.

[@DeconvertedMan]

This isn't going to go well for you...
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) describes a sandwich as “a meat or poultry filling between two slices of bread, a bun, or a biscuit.” By that definition, sure, a hot dog is a sandwich.
The state of New York actually defines a hot dog as a sandwich in its tax system.
A sandwich can be as simple as a buttered bagel or roll, or as elaborate as a six-foot, toasted submarine sandwich” (Department of Taxation and Finance). The official sandwich list offered by the NYSDTF includes “hot dogs and sausages on buns, rolls, etc” (Pomeranz, 2013)
So even in this WILD TANGENT.... you are wrong once again.
*sigh*
So this is going to be red haring and an appeal to and from analogy and apples to oranges fallacy at the very least.

[@JCOJourney]

How is this not going well if you are doing exactly what I stated in the video?😅

[@PreachTh3Truth]

@@JCOJourneyikr. He is picking the definition based on description.
Of course, one can debate which definition is more valid/appropriate for a discussion but that doesn’t mean you and another person can’t have different definitions

[@JCOJourney]

@PreachTh3Truth At this point, I think a lot of individuals made their mind up and want to say I’m wrong just because. I have had some productive conversations but it seems a lot are trying to “prove the theist wrong”. Right now, I only got 15 min of the video edited maybe about a quarter of the way done.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@JCOJourney I'm pointing out that in regards to the hot dog "debate" that its purely subjective and up to the whim of people to decide what is or is not a sandwich, and it has even become law that hot dog is treated as sandwich in new york (for tax since its sold at street venders). Thus, to use it as an example of why "not" to do this - is wrong, as clearly people do this, and will keep on doing it and there is no way to fix natural language your stuck with it.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@PreachTh3Truth you got it. In the context of the conversation(s) that happen between the theist and non-theist, the version of atheism that is correct is... (fill in the blank) ((fill in the second blank))

[@MothachadhNadurrach]

... so you made a video to state that anyone is free to prescribe any description to a thing they see fit. Which is exactly why, to further a conversation, one needs to be aware of how the other party describes the thing. Then again "however" implies you don't agree, but you don't state why not.
Tangentially related... Way back when Chekpoint Charlie was the main tourist entrance beyond The Wall one could find around Alexanderplats small booths selling vodkashots and sausages between two stale pieces of flat white bread, with mustard as the only condiment. They used to call those hot dogs.

[@JCOJourney]

You can call a hotdog a sandwich. You can call atheism a lack of belief. I can call atheism a belief there is a god and theism as the neutral position since it’s a lack of belief there is no god. You can prescribe labels however you want.

[@MothachadhNadurrach]

@@JCOJourney _I can call atheism a belief there is a god_
LOL well that's the one thing I'd assume any theist and atheist of any sort would agree to be a no-go :-D

[@MothachadhNadurrach]

@@JCOJourney _You can call a hotdog a sandwich._
... I'm pretty certain I've said nothing of the sort, just so we're clear...

[@JCOJourney]

@Mo-Nads did I say you said that? Or just the texts states what it said, you can call a hotdog a sandwich.

[@MothachadhNadurrach]

​@@JCOJourney And where did I say you did? Say I said that, I mean.
"You can call a hotdog a sandwich." - seems quite clear you allow others define hotdog a sandwich, on the same go allowing others define atheism "lack of belief". This far I've been careful not to state my personal stance. '
Are you maybe interpreting my words in a way not intended?
A video about "you can use any definitions you want" seems a bit pointless to me, unless you're backing down on the "Atheism has to be defined..." position.