Two Theists for the price of one... What a sale!

[Elfavelita]

Me thinks the concept he doesn't understand is that babies ARE Atheist unconsciously Atheist but Atheist nonetheless.

[HappyAtheist76]

I asked Jack what he proposes is a better word than lack. No answer ;) lol

[HyldenHero]

Where does that Dawkins clip come from?

[AdmireAndDeride]

@HyldenHero Type "richard dawkins says fuck off" into the search bar and the clip should be the first one.

[DrFoofyMan]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Thanks fort fixing the dynamic range on your productions, mate. Everything sounds much more professional, now. I feel as if I, too, have influenced someone. :-)

[JasperAvi]

You've conveniently left mine out...

[TogetherForPeace]

@JasperAvi That would have made it "Two theists and one atheist for the price of ??? That wouldn't have flowed as well. :p Anyways no one wants to buy you.

[TogetherForPeace]

We all know babies are not going about formulating beliefs of the sort we're discussing. Therefore, to speak of some 'default position' as it relates to babies is senseless and only obfuscates the discussion.

[Christopholaes]

@TogetherForPeace Well to use the computer analogy (as a guide only), the default of computers is basic factory settings. A baby also has basic factory settings. The beliefs about the world are not part of these settings. Much like installing an operating system so a machine knows what to do with info, a baby must learn how to interact with the world. Religion, or any other external belief systems are installed like software, or forcefully like malware by parents/community etc.

(cont.)

[Christopholaes]

@TogetherForPeace So to say a baby has a 'default' position is to just point out religion is a learned/taught behaviour. Also it kinda kills dead the whole idea of god(s) being self evident as ridiculous. As then theism would be the only default conclusion available, yet the opposite is true!

And as I have tried to point out to many, language is ambiguous and fickle mistress. If your being honest a baby is 'a-theistic' in the technical sense, yet not an 'atheist'. Which does require knowledge.

[MichaelPayton67]

Wow, another talentless pwnage video from someone who can't respond to videos without making sarcastic comments and jump shots... this is getting really boring...

[TogetherForPeace]

@MichaelPayton67 agreed

[devchelle2]

@MichaelPayton67 wow... I am shocked by this comment.

[MichaelPayton67]

@devchelle2

Whaaaaaat? Too harsh?

[TBTabby]

I thought Matt Dillahunty summed it up nicely: Ask someone if they believe in a god, and any answer other than 'yes" makes them an atheist.

[Ninjaculation]

this is the best response I've seen to his video and on this topic. subbed.

[RationalRoundtable]

@FederalistFilms

I am glad to see you at least seemed to understand my point. It would appear that some seem to think that I am making the argument for 'atheism takes no thought' or 'rocks are atheists' when I was using them as examples of why one should not use this line of argumentation.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

"Besides, you actually think rocks and trees are technically atheist? really? even though you have a video featured on your channel that argues the contrary?"

Yes, I did say in the comments that rocks are atheist. You conveniently left out that I attached to the end of that that if the other side is going to attach (and I'll clarify further, even introduce) such pedantry to the argument, you don't have much of a position.

Further dishonesty! Nice, Michael. Real nice.

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

So the fact that I have a video featured on my channel that argues that rocks and trees aren't atheists because it's a level of childish pedantry that simply muddies an argument doesn't contradict my position at all; Yes, technically a rock or a tree does not believe in God, but I'm going to laugh at you if you even introduce the concept into the discussion... Which you have Michael.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

I am not being dishonest, I simply do not understand, if you honestly believe the "-ist" argument, should you not contradict any 'rocks are atheists' statement with a clarification of the "-ist" clarification rather than concede that rocks are atheists?

Wait... let me get this straight... you believe that rocks are not atheists, but you say that they are and then accuse me of being dishonest? Maybe we are using different meanings of 'dishonest.'

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

Maybe the confusion arises from the video featured on my channel. QualiaSoup does say the suffix -ist usually denotes a person, and I tend to be in agreement, insofar as this "if you aren't going to bring a level intelligence and maturity to the conversation, you won't be engaged as a serious adult."

Oh and again Michael, Bravo... You're attaching an argument to me I haven't actually used! I haven't used the "-ist" argument. I don't think I need to go as far as complete...

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

... grammatical accuracy to show how ridiculous this is to even bring up. I think I only need to go so far as pointing out that a phrase like "rocks and trees are atheists" is childish pedantry.

Seriously, check the comments section, and check my video. I didn't once use the "ist" argument.

But again, I think you know that... And I think you're being wifully dishonest in trying to attach that to me in a rather poor attempt to show that I'm somehow self contradicting...

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

Well for anyone else who's reading this exchange, here's what I said.

When prompted by a question in the comments to clarify the rocks and trees argument, I said "Rocks and trees technically don't believe in God.

Therefore, rocks and trees are technically atheist

(pay attention Michael; If you want to score points here, technically I'm wrong, because "ist" usually denotes a person)

BUT if you're going to be that childish and pedantic, your position isn't that strong."

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

This is what I said. Watch both my video, read the comments. Please Michael, give me a time stamp where I used the "ist" argument, or point me to the comments section where I said it.

You can't.

So, just to clarify, you're attaching an argument to me and attacking that, rather than what I actually said.

That's dishonest Michael. And it's not the first demonstration of such dishonesty from you.

So, when you say you're disappointed in me, I could not give a flying fuck....

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

...I could not give a flying fuck about the opinion of someone who's willing to be dishonest to win an argument over the internet. Maybe you think I'm being overly harsh with you, but I was told for a while that you were a magnificent religious apologist. When arguing with other theists, I actually sent people your way, hoping you'd set them straight.

But you've exhibited the same behaviours, strawmanning and dishonesty.

Be disappointed in me. I literally don't care.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

and again, what is my 'position' that is not that strong?

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

The argument you used, which was a) not that strong, and b) a rather dishonestly put "theism is better" argument, which runs thus:

1) Atheism is default.

2) Atheism requires no active thought.

3) Theism does require active thought.

4) Quod Erat Demonstrandum, theism is the better position because it requires active thought.

Now, my video and comments section ought to let you know that I and many others are not impressed with this. At the VERY BEST, it looks like a...

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

... rather pathetic attempt at point scoring. "See how silly the atheism as default argument is? It requires no thought!"

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

now who is strawmanning? I never made that argument...

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

"If I were still an atheist this would be the last argument I would make... That means by implication that theism is a position one can only take by thinking... Your world view requires no thought whatsoever, while the other people's world view does, and therefore our world view is... better..? Really?"

Are these not your words?

What else, then, is this argument supposed to imply if not that the argument that atheism as default is silly, requiring no thought?

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

It appears my friend that you cannot see the forest because of the trees, I will try once again to clarify, I was not suggesting that those arguments are true, only that using BD's extreme definition of atheism opens one up to such arguments. Do you understand yet? or are you going to continue to insist that I am lying to you?

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

I will accept that you were not being deliberately dishonest in bringing the argument up. I will accept that it was a very sarcastic comment on an argument that you think is pointless but still worth commenting on (bear in mind, I think the argument is pointless, but only because I think it's been resolved). So take this as a formal retraction of my previous statements to that effect. There was no deliberate deception here....

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

...HOWEVER...

You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that the introduction of such an argument, especially with the preceding qualifier "If I was still an atheist this would be tha last argument I would make" was not in some way a fairly low level of point scoring.

"how silly this argument is, and how silly for atheists to use it."

I get that you don't like it, but as absurd as it sounds to you, the argument bears weight; Atheism is a default position...

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

... all that is required of atheism is to not believe in a God. That can be a position held because you've not been introduced to the concept, or a position held because the concept has been rejected. The former position is the one held by babies... And the only reason this argument comes up at all (babies are atheists) is to prove one thing: Belief in a God or Gods must be learned. It is a learned behaviour.

So I'm still very irritated with the fact you made this argument....

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

... in the manner in which you made it. It's almost a shame tactic.

"C'mon, this sounds absurd... You don't want to sound absurd do you?"

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

fair enough, I can accept that the way I presented it was likely not the best. perhaps I should have done it more like this:

/watch?v=VprJC3QV6o4&lc=UqkoGF­VuxPwT2fkszzBJ6d0P-m07vZLK7fGO­onJdoF0&feature=inbox

[YY4Me133]

"All babies are atheists" was originally a response to christians who claim we're born with knowledge of their god. It was saying that, if humans were born with knowledge of the christian god, children wouldn't have to be taught to believe in it. As the phrase got repeated again and again, the original meaning was lost, which is not at all unusual. Many people have no idea why brides are "given away" by their fathers, or people say "knock on wood."

[Trips1103]

Doesn't someone have to claim there to be a God first, before anyone can state they do not believe in one?

[SoretaYuki]

@Trips1103

No, they don't.

I can guarantee that before this comment, you didn't believe in Bertha, the magical fraggle gimp badger that opened her meaty pocket and spewed forth the mucus that made the universe. You didn't need me to tell you about her for you not to believe in her. You were an A-bertha-ist before this comment. Now you'll take a more defined stance about Bertha, but you still didn't believe in her.

[Trips1103]

@SoretaYuki I don't see how you can actively not believe in something when you have no knowledge of the concept you are actively not believing in. I couldn't have been A-Bertha prior to knowing the concept of Bertha. If no one ever invented God, there would be no Atheists. Kind of like the whole tree falling in the woods concept ... except there first has to be such a thing as a tree in order to introduce the concept.

[SoretaYuki]

@Trips1103

Well that's a shame that you can't see it, but that doesn't change the fact that all you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in God/Gods. That's it. It's that simple.

"I couldn't have been A-Bertha prior to knowing the concept of Bertha"

Yes, you could have been. Quite simply because regardless of whether or not you were aware of the concept or of Bertha, you didn't believe in her.

Seriously, what's so difficult about this?

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

I suggest you watch this video by QualiaSoup: Lack Of Belief in Gods.

/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

[Christopholaes]

@Trips1103 'I don't see how you can ACTIVELY not believe in something' Well this may be the problem, not believing something is often not an active process at all. As in, if you have no concept of something not to believe in; no activity in the mind is required to not believe in said concept.

Though I do somewhat think this is taking the definition to the strictest possible sense of logical application.

The original point of the argument was to show the claim of god(s) is introduced to children.

[Trips1103]

@Christopholaes Well yes. Of course god or gods are introduced to children. The poor kids are nearly spammed to death by the time they are 3. In that I agree ... and I suppose we all would. So yes, agreed on original point. Interesting that it brought up a secondary thought experiment. It may have simply been the way the original argument was articulated or perceived.

[Christopholaes]

@Trips1103 Yeah as I pointed out, if you take 'atheist' to the nth degree of it's technical meaning then anything or anyone who does not believe in a god(s) is 'a-theistic'. Yet as you pointed out, if intellectually honest, to be an 'atheist' is a position one can only name oneself to be holding. Meaning you need yo know what you are rejecting.

Yet, many theists would use this as an admission of the position being a 'positive claim'. Hence why the original point about default views came up.

[SoretaYuki]

@allibyx

*sigh*

"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this."

About(dot)com talking about atheism.

So... One more time... What is the one thing an atheist have to do to be an atheist?

Ready?....

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

...Not. Believe. In. God.

How many more times?

It doesn't have to be an explicit statement.

Sorry, but this does get on my nerves... I could find a few online dictionaries that give the definition I've given, and we could play this back and forth all night... You're not going to get around the fact that all you have to do to be an atheist is not believe in God.

I'm sooper serial...

[tamc1337]

To answer the strawman around 4 minute mark: The same reason a lie detector works is because it takes more mental processes to think of a lie than it does for the truth. Just because it takes more thinking to be a theist (ironically) does not mean it's smarter to do so

[pwnz0rz0r]

watch the commentsection of their videos.

pwnd :)

[nightmathzombieethan]

All babies are non-zoroastrianists, for that matter all babies are also non-believers in Zeus and He-man, the Carebears and Unicorns. This guy's whole argument is semantics and word games, he's avoiding the obvious point of the "all babies are atheists" statement. Oh, and just to be catty: the cheesy hipster wannabe fedora and coat are just tooooo much; try a little harder dude.

[AttatBoomer]

I was greatly amused when the second guy said that we can't label rocks, trees, or babies because they can't engage in discussion, when we already have labels for them, which are, respectively: 'rocks', 'trees', and 'babies'.

[SoretaYuki]

@allibyx

Depends. Have you uploaded anything onto it?

[Krensharpaw]

Jack is a moron and RR seems to know somethings, while at the sametime, putting his foot in his mouth often.

[trevorhmason]

The song during the definition of lack, that was from Dimmu Borgir wasn't it?

[viridismonasteriense]

Skip to the End! Spaced fan perhaps?

[SoretaYuki]

@viridismonasteriense

Of course... :-)

[Swidhelm]

What is the song at the end of the vid?

[PaleoSteno]

I love "Hunger Strike" :D

Also, is it just me or did that second guy sound and look like a young George Carlin?

[socrates856]

@FederalistFilms I'm arguing for people only agreeing to well-formed hypothesis as something worth entertaining, and only accepting them with fitting evidence. That is not a position with respect to theism though, so theists will in turn label me atheist after they ask me "so you don't believe in god". Precisely why we dance this dance. It's trivial what I argue for. But theists don't want to hear it on those terms. Worse they want me to disprove their claims, as if I had access.

[socrates856]

@FederalistFilms Well you commented on people in his comment section agreeing that atheists don't have to think. No problem with that, and no reason to be worried about the majority of commenters agreeing.

And yeah RR is kinda wrong about this. Astrologists think about the zodiac a lot. Spinning made-up concepts in ones head has no particular merit. But sure if theists think that's a winning argument, they can have it.

[socrates856]

@FederalistFilms I wouldn't be scared about theists not getting it. That's not new. Yes not believing does not require activity of any kind. If we want to convey that, yeah perhaps it is worth it people making misguided arguments about who thinks more. One indeed does not need to think to be an atheist, but of course one doesn't need to think to be a theist either. Indoctrination is quite enough. So why worry about the argument? It's sound and honest.

[socrates856]

Well said. Yeah it's trivial to get but it's the crux of what believers don't get. Yes one can have a belief system that does lack stuff that another belief system does have. Socialists lack aspects of communist belief structures. Pure market libertarians lack a belief in the state issue that an anarcho-libertarian may push.

With atheism we have the label precisely because the theists push theirs everywhere, so lack of affirming that does need a label. Tough luck.

[Darkfirebrand]

so.... so many strawmen they made.... *gets out flamethrower*

[narutofan10036]

wow that was just sad how bad you crushed them

[Haradin32]

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC­K

[Haradin32]

mr yuki, I am tired.

[TheSeraphSlayer]

Superb analogy concerning the iPod.

[volound]

loved the dawkins splice.

[FractalMachine]

shit...so if i believe in the lord raiden then i'm not an atheist anymore?

oh well....

[FractalMachine]

you failed to respond to whether or not rocks and trees are atheist by default,and i would like to hear what you think about it.

if *anything* that has no prior requirement of having the capability to believe,can be called an atheist,then so are trees,rocks,and animals.

[SoretaYuki]

@FractalMachine

Are rocks and trees technically atheist?

Yup. And if the other side has to go to such a level of pedantry, then it doesn't say much for the strength of their position.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

and what 'position' would that be? Besides, you actually think rocks and trees are technically atheist? really? even though you have a video featured on your channel that argues the contrary? I am surprised (and disappointed) you did not go to the standard "-ist" argument.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

So glad to disappoint you when you used such a fallacious argument re: Atheism requires no thought therefore theism is better.

I know you were poking fun at the concept, but let's face it, you know that's not what we were arguing, and yet that's what you put forward.

I thought you were above strawmen. My mistake.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

obviously you misunderstood the point of my video if you honestly believe that I was trying to suggest that atheists are actually using that as an argument. I am sorry if I was not clear enough for you, however I will try to be more clear in the future.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

Sorry, Michael... Not good enough. In argument where the waters get muddied by people refusing to understand the other sides position on purpose (and yes, I'm talking about the theistic tendency to misrepresent atheists for ideological point scoring), even introducing such a pointless argument that we can and have tackled several times before is serving to do nothing except muddy the waters.

You know this Michael, and yet you were content to do it.

Again, Bravo.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

oh yeah in arguments where the waters get muddied by people refusing to understand the other sides position on purpose... like how you refuse to understand my position and simply assume the worst of me because I am a theist? Yeah I get it. 

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

You just get better!

I don't assume the worst of you because you're a theist.

I assume the worst of you because of

a) The behaviours you exhibited in your video.

b) The behaviours you exhibited in this comments section, namely the building of and the knocking down of strawmen arguments.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

lol... just lol...

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

And further to your accusation that I'm hostile to you just because you're a theist... A cursory glance at my videos and playlists would reveal an "atheism/islam" dialogue... Yeah, because people that resent other people for being theists do this all the time, right?

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

based on this video what on earth would I want to check out your other videos for? after all it is clear that you did not do the same for me.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

Is that really clear? Really? I don't think it is at all.

I'm subscribed to you.

So... Not that clear at all then really, is it?

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

honestly I am supprised, if you are subbed to me you should know how I feel about atheists already. For the most part I love you guys... I just get a bit ticked off when atheists start acting like fundies, as (IMHO) BionicDance does... for example in her recent video when she says "the reasons for your answer don't matter..."

[colourmegone]

Re TogetherForPeace's argument. Christians label babies all the time. They have them baptised long before they can understand anything and, Hey, Presto!, we now have a Christian baby. I'm sure TfP was labelled a Christian long before he had any understanding whatsoever. This is what makes the "all babies..." argument so relebant and why apologists spend so much hot air trying to refulte it.

[RationalRoundtable]

@colourmegone

I would point out that most Christians do not subscribe to infant baptism.

[colourmegone]

@RationalRoundtable Your ignorance on this subject is completely astounding. Infant baptism is a long standing tradition which has been practiced by the majority of Christians throughout history, including both the Catholic and Anglican churches, the Scottish kirks, etc.

Oh, but I suppose they aren't REAL Christians are they? Not like you and your narrow sect. I find that when I debate with Christians that the only REAL Christian is the one I'm talking to, all the rest are fakes.

[RationalRoundtable]

@colourmegone

obviously you have never seen my videos if you really believe this crap about me. Have fun with that.

[jimthepleb]

@RationalRoundtable a gentle tease nicely taken sir:)

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

Hopefully this comment will stop yours being marked as spam.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

you know how it is, sometimes when people (on BOTH sides) see something they disagree with they mark it as SPAM... kind of a shame really.

[Sabohaque]

That guy really shouldn't do videos at night. It just makes his stupid meandering even more boring and dull than it already is.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Sabohaque

sorry to disappoint.

[Sabohaque]

@RationalRoundtable no prob, bro. SoretaYuki's videos used to be unwatchable.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Sabohaque

Used to be?

[bossman103]

You misusderstand what Michael wa saying, He was saying that the argument is pointless and he was trying to make fun of it and rightly in my opinion. Michael is vey rational sometimes he can be flippant with stuff he sees as stupid but thats the way he is. Michal was just saying its an argument that holds no merit and does no give validity to either position

[SoretaYuki]

@bossman103

".... That means by implication, that Theism is a position that one can only take by thinking."

Nope. I didn't misunderstand him. He represented the argument dishonestly. Maybe he did that to make it flippant and to make fun of it, but he still misrepresented the argument.

So much for rational.

[bossman103]

@SoretaYuki He was saying that athe atheists he associates himself are thinking and he doesnt get why this is an argument at all to which I agfgree. I t doesnt makea atheism more true, rational or reasonable. He is ratioanl as he wants us to abandon it, its moot whewether babie are atheists are irrelvant to anything. I could say atheists are atheists become thesits are are barains are cogntiive structure to believe ina diety which they are. THats what michael was arguing against irrelvant poin

[SoretaYuki]

@bossman103

I'd rather he explain why he had to make the point so dishonestly with such an appeal to emotion (yes, he tried to "shame" us for using that argument...) rather than have his fan club do it for him. I'm sure he can speak for himself. Whether or not he can do it without misrepresenting our positions remains to be seen.

[bossman103]

@SoretaYuki He can just i think he was mocking a stupid argument something I dont think is helpful. He has admitted in his latest video why hes said they sort of miss understood each other this is why he is reational hes willing to admit wheres hes wrong bd isnt willing to do that. I am a friend of RRs not a fan boy or his gfan club,, I dont like seeing a friend being misunderstood

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

and I may have responded already had you posted this as a video response, or at least PM'ed me to let me know you had a strong opinion video on the subject. I will post a response to you tomorrow.

[RationalRoundtable]

@Part 2

oh, and for the record, bossman is not a member of my 'fan club' he is a friend.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

I don't need the response Michael. Go ahead and record it if you want, but if the video you're going to clarify is expositional of the sort of tactics you use in argument and debate, then I'm not interested in further dishonesty from you.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

dude, seriously... you are funny.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

Don't call me dude. You and I are not on friendly terms. In fact from this point onwards, I'm referring to you as RationalRoundtable, You're referring to me as Soreta. Your dishonesty lost you the rights to anything other than frostily polite interaction.

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

um.... whatever.... I did not know you had the ability to grant 'rights' to anyone... fairly impressive. You seem to have a lot of pent up hostility. You keep fabricating that I am being dishonest and even when I attempt to explain why I think you misunderstood me, you simply refuse to acknowledge that you might have taken me the wrong way. In many ways you are behaving much like the fundies you seem to detest so very much. There is a reason that many atheists on YT are my friends.

[RationalRoundtable]

@part 2

but for some reason you seem to have already drawn your conclusions about me based on a misunderstanding in one video. I do not know, nor do I care why you seem so hell bent on defending BD, I do not know nor do I care why you seem to be so emotional about all this, but seriously.. if you cannot see that I have been trying to help you understand my position in favor of delusions of some kind of plot to fool you, get help.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

Hell bent on defending bionic dance? What, because on this one issue I happen to agree with her?

Clutching at straws a little there, aren't we?

[ThePariahLivesOn]

Christian Playlist

Gimme that Christain side-hug, gimme that Christian side-hug

[Ravenpheonix73]

Whats wrong with a 3 and a half minute response as to how ridiculous the argument is?

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

If it's as ridiculous as he claims it is, then why address it at all? Why not just move the conversation forward to a topic in the theist/atheist debate that he thinks is actually worthwhile?

Now I think it's ridiculous too, but I have no problem addressing poor rebuttals like these... So that's exactly what I've done.

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki But its not a poor rebuttal. He has a point. It is a moot argument for both sides, the only real philosophical value I see here is how seriously you're all taking it. Oh and I didn't mean to thumbs down your comment, my finger slipped when clicking reply.

But case in point, as I said in my video. My default position was snow doesn't exist, but it does despite that. I can't see any value in the default position argument except trolling

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

"I can't see any value in the default position argument except trolling"

Really? Wow... Ok.

The default position argument has validity BECAUSE it makes the point that theism is a learned behaviour.

I'll say that again, theism is a learned behaviour. (you ought to have gotten this by watching the video, but whatever).

Theism is something you have to learn. Theism is something you have to be taught.

The same cannot be said of atheism.

I don't say this to point score...

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

... I say this because it is simply the truth.

When someone says something along the lines of "atheism is a belief system" we can say "no it isn't." And we can point to the fact that you have to learn to be a theist as proof of this.

And you know what? I agree... This argument is pointless... In a "well duh" way.

But I suppose me holding this opinion simply means I'm trolling, right? I couldn't possibly disagree with you without trolling, huh?

Ridiculous.

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki Okay let me turn your argument around

if the existence of god because the bible says it's true is a riduclous argument then why do we address it at all?

The reason is, because we must convince people not to use ridiculous argument as a form of education. I use that rule as much for atheism as I do for theism. And I'll make videos addressing pointless arguments until we all get the hint

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

I have no problem with people addressing ridiculous arguments... I say a couple of times in the video that it's a bit ridiculous. No the reason I bring it up with RationalRoundtable is that he makes such a big son and dance about how ridiculous the argument is, how foolish and below us addressing it is... And then addresses it.

See the problem? Or am I trolling again?

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki Did I accuse you of trolling? I said the argument is one of those storms in a teacup designed to cause the argument it has. and RRT made a 3 minute long video explaining why. You know sometimes it's take s long time to explain why something is irrelevant in order to move on. Some people require it, just like some people require a long explanation as to why Creationism is bunk. Sometimes that requires what you see as a song and dance.

[HulkSmashPunyHumans]

@Ravenpheonix73 I dont know about the whole rest of your accusation OR NOT about trolling but I would like to redender my defense of trolling.

Trolling is an art that takes some skill. I have trolled trolls on trollings. no lie. Trolling is harder than it used to be because many people on the internet know trolls. To make someone explode in anger just because of the words they dont have to read is straight gold!!!

I admit... I do it sometimes... but only to ppl who deserve it like nickbravo

[Ravenpheonix73]

@HulkSmashPunyHumans LOL your talking to a troll of trolls :p

[HulkSmashPunyHumans]

@Ravenpheonix73 Dude you don't even know who you are talking to. Self-proclaimed "professional trolls" have bowed down and called me master.

My skill with trolling is as superfluous as my skill with words in general. So let it be written SO LET IT BE SO! hahahha!

Ok maybe I'm bullshitting maybe I'm not but can you see the line?

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

Did you accuse me of trolling?

"I can't see any value in the default position argument except trolling"

At the very least, there's an implied accusation there, because hey, guess what? I do take the position of atheism as the default position.

Care to explain?

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki Yeah

As my video says. You been trolled. Want a three minute long explanation to explain the obvious?

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

So... BionicDance stating a position is trolling now, is it?

Thanks for clarifying precisely nothing. :-)

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki You're here making a big fuss over nothing aren't you?

Thanks for clarifying the denial :)

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

I'm sorry, you're original problem was that I pointed out that for someone who says the argument is completely pointless, RationalRoundtable devoted 3.34 to an argument he felt was completely beneath the discussion.

Your next problem is that any one of us holding the atheism as default position argument is in fact trolling.

Your comments and video responses have done precisely nothing towards clarifying your position.

And here's the kicker... You think this is a big...

[SoretaYuki]

@SoretaYuki

... fuss over nothing, yet here you are, commenting, calling others positions trolling and you've made two video responses to this big fuss over nothing.

I fail to see the merits of engaging you any further in discussion.

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki did RRT say that? Yep

Did he make a three minute video explaining why? Yep

Do you have an issue with this? Apparently.

Your comments have done nothing to clarify your position that your arguments are intellectually lazy at best.

Your comments have done nothing to clarfify your postion either, guess what, we think each other is wrong, wow fancy that. Do you have an issue with this?

Apparently. Me? I'm happy to harp on about how pointless this is till you get the point

[SoretaYuki]

@Ravenpheonix73

Gott In Himmel! Someone disagrees with me!

What. A. Fucking. Shame.

Go ahead and harp on about something you think is a non issue! You may do so unmolested.

"Your comments have done nothing to clarify your position that your arguments are intellectually lazy at best."

You think I'm intellectually lazy? OH NOES. I think you're a bit of a prat who's latched on to this idea that holding a position makes you a troll. Your words

Last word is all yours. Do enjoy!

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki Okay. I think creationism is anyone issue

it's still being fought over in our schools right?

I think intellectual laziness is a none issue

yet people like you seem intent on encouraging it for the sake of comfort.

Sorry buddy, but as angry as you may be about this, you are not exempt from intellectual laziness because it feels right. I hear that argument from theists everyday, whats your excuse?

[HulkSmashPunyHumans]

@Ravenpheonix73 now that's as hard as I've laughed in awhile. good job.

[Ravenpheonix73]

@HulkSmashPunyHumans I do my bit :D

what you understad and I understand is that rage makes people incoherent, even stubborn. Just trying to get Yuki here to see his comfort zone needs some expanding if he really wants to make a valid point.

which he does, 95% of the time.

[HulkSmashPunyHumans]

@Ravenpheonix73 That's cool I just realized who you are. Anyway thanks for the laughs. both us you guys. Hey lookit the internet is still WAY WAY WAY better than watching tv.

[Ravenpheonix73]

@SoretaYuki And yes the babies argument has been done to death. It only comes up when a bored YouTuber has nothing to talk about, and BionicDance is as big an attention whore as the rest of us. She knows this, I know this about myself. Thing is she knows how to get you talking with her as the focus. and she does it well, even with none issues.

In short, you were successfully trolled :). No shame in that, it's happened to the best of us, including me. Oh well

[HulkSmashPunyHumans]

@SoretaYuki holy fuck balls!

So Ravenpheonis73 makes videos? Make no mistake Hulk is a trolololololololo in the old school way. BUT this shit is classic!

[HulkSmashPunyHumans]

@SoretaYuki Rest peacefully SoretaYuki. For there is nothing here for you to fear.

[seonidh]

Babies want warmth, food, shelter and parents or someone to provide it. Thats it, no belief in god(s) he/she is quite frankly a blank slate no religion yet and no bias that comes later from the parents and the society the child grows up in.

[SuperMemzzz]

Just totally unrelated manner, loved hearing a tune from Dimmu Borgir lol

[ramio1983]

Babies are Agnostic. :-P ahha

[SoretaYuki]

@ramio1983

:-P

2 things:

1) Your poem was beautifully written

2) I've finally started writing a script for a video to you.

Excited?

[ramio1983]

@SoretaYuki Excited is an understatement. hahaha! Thanks man.

[zarkoff45]

RR claims to have questioned things, he says he was an atheist - then had a religious experience. Jack will ultimately claim a sort of religious experience also.

So, ultimately they have to agree that there was a change that turned them into Christians and so arguing about defaults - whatever the default was - it had to change to make them a Christian.

The question to ask is "What were you before you were a Christian?"

Then deal with answers like this:

watch?v=zahFKGVpQGg

watch?v=WYY1PIRZF8g

[RationalRoundtable]

@zarkoff45

I am disappointed in you zarkoff, when did I claim theism to be the default position? I don't. Although quite frankly I do not think that atheism is ether in the true sense of the terms involved (namely 'theist' and 'atheist')

[zarkoff45]

@RationalRoundtable "when did I claim theism to be the default position?"

When did I claim that you claimed theism to be the default position?

RE-read it. That's not what I wrote, I only said you have to agree that something changed you from whatever you were before into the Christian you are today. You made a video about having a religious experience where you were outside time or such. You admit you changed no matter what the default was before.

[RationalRoundtable]

@zarkoff45

My mistake, however I did not claim that to be a 'religious' experience,

[zarkoff45]

@RationalRoundtable "I did not claim that to be a 'religious' experience,"

It had religious importance to you, did it not?

[RationalRoundtable]

@zarkoff45

not really, more of a change of perspective about the nature of time.

[SoretaYuki]

@RationalRoundtable

And the point behind this irrelevant clarification? Re Read his comment again... Something changed you from the default. You went from being someone who lacked a belief, to someone who believes.

Wow... How were you touted as a magnificent religious apologist? You're no different to people I've dealt with before. You're not above stooping to strawmanning, you're not above deliberate mis-reading, and you're not above point scoring with an argument designed to shame.

*claps*

[RationalRoundtable]

@SoretaYuki

the specific event he was referring to did not 'change' my beliefs about God.

[finderfinder100]

Jack is best watched on mute--He does have a nice beard

[helios5868]

I getting a little confused, I thought the point of the argument was that religion was brainwashing and that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas.

[SoretaYuki]

@helios5868

That's a dimension of it, but that wasn't addressed in the poor rebuttals of these two... So I didn't need to address it.

I think one of the more important points about the argument (one of the very few) is that Atheism is a default: Religion is a learned behaviour. That to me is the only compelling part of the argument.

[helios5868]

@SoretaYuki I see. Thanks.

[ONESPECIES]

This is blown out of proportion by everyone. Babies are Atheists is the response to people falsely assigning the Religious belief of parents to their infants. Thats all. Outside that context, both sides are just kicking the wind.

[TruthBeyond]

Good vid.

[jimthepleb]

boy this is a dumb argument! the ipod analogy is excellent btw.

[SoretaYuki]

@jimthepleb

It is stupid. This twenty minute video is the only thing I'm going to say on the subject; It should be the only thing I should have to say. Fuck the backlash (which I'm sure will come...), this is my way of drawing a line in the sand.

[jimthepleb]

jack is a disingenuous bullshitter, i dont get why the atheists on youtube give him so much time, he's also really not as smart as he pretends to be. I refer you to his recent confusion over the meaning of the words literal/literary with reference to the bible.

RRT is neither rational nor a table, I'll grant him round.

[RationalRoundtable]

@jimthepleb

"RRT is neither rational nor a table, I'll grant him round."

lol!

[SunshineAgo]

Together for peace is an awkward fucker also Soreta you have one of the best musical libraries i've heard on youtube i fucking love the music in your vids

[BusinessIDBAI]

Very well presented! Glad I subscribed!