I don't think atheists should join under the banner of "Atheism", but rather Science.
The true danger of religion is halt of technological advancement given by science.
I am all for a united front against Creationism and Intelligent Design, I am however not for a united front against Religion in general.
People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, for as long as their ideals don't hurt humans, scientific advancement and especially medical science.
@BenitoraSan See I would say/argue that religion - by it's very nature - hinders advancement and harms human beings simply because it relies on the supernatural (i.e. the unprovable and therefore unquestionable "truth").
To elaborate further on my points, religion is and will always be a danger to scientific advancements due to religious ethics (IE, Stem cell research).
But how can you remove that without being all "warlike" about it.
It seem wholly aggressive don't you think?
Maybe just me being optimistic and unrealistic in thinking like this, but as things are looking now, it seems like Religion will become a non-issue in the foreseeable future, meaning not destroyed, just no longer a issue.
I want humans to move past the foolishness of shouting nonsense at each other, trying to twist facts and history for their own benefit of belief.
But I don't think that can be achieved by "Going to war" against religion.
Continue teaching the facts, continue to show people how foolish the Creationists/Intelligent Design people are, for as well religious fanatics, and maybe the world will be like Scandinavia, a place where your personal faith does not change facts.
@themanofearth More over, this goes beyond personal choice. Once you've reached a point in your education where critical thinking is ubiquitous in your thought process and you've applied it to your beliefs, you fall under the banner. Now, I think naming anyone a general is silly. What we have is outspoken atheists and quiet ones. But if we want to make rationalist thinking the rule and not the exception in this society we must be organized. Chaos doesn't generally effect change.
@themanofearth I have to start by saying that I'm not familiar with the whole dispute or division in the atheistic community. However, I'd like to point out that atheism by itself is not the real threat to religion. Anyone with a loud voice can denounce anything, including god. More than that it's rationalist thinking that really poses a threat and a community standing united under that premise is more a philosophical movement than a religion.
So, let's see if I can recap: division is a strength, and the only reason that thunderf00t's messages are taken to heart by people is because, wait a moment, he has a larger base of people who . . . what's that word . . . oh, yeah, agree with him. It's a simple game of numbers and strategy - no one's saying put on a robe and forgo thinking. But he is making a rather elementary point: numbers matter, and the reason you aren't making the impact he is through sheer numbers. Yet you say he's wrong
@integralmath *sigh* No. You're straw manning my point. I didn't say "division is a strength" I said that our differences and our willingness and our ability to debate/argue those differences is our strength. We are unified BY our differences and our willingness to debate/argue them. The appearance of our "division" is an illusion brought about by the rather puerile view that two people debating/arguing a subject must be enemies in every way. And he's not making that point: Description box.
@themanofearth: then I am profoundly confused by your video. Our differences are what unite us, but we only appear divide in some kind of illusion or something?
I'm aware you're saying thunderf00t isn't making that point; I disagree with you. The example of homogeneity to which he cited is an exemplar of that which he meant. People still disagreed, and debated, but were largely working on the same sets of goals. Now it's just petty fighting for its own sake, and is unhelpful.
@integralmath We're united by our desire to be intellectually honest with ourselves and others, to not be hypocritical and know as much of the truth as is possible. We're also united by our desire to know ourselves and know the enemy through creating heat through argument and debate that generates the light by which we see ourselves and others which reveals our hypocrisy and hopefully brings us closer to whatever the truth is.
@themanofearth: I've read what you've asked me to. I fail to see an explanation there. I see a position you profess to hold and assertions you've made. These do no work as explanations. I understand disagree (strongly even). Your passion doesn't relieve you of your burden to support your claims in a proper fashion. You've yet to point to a single case that is simultaneously the following: in the realm tf00t delineated, not petty, and helpful. Your proposition requires all three of those.
@integralmath Wtf are you talking about? You read, "...he (Thunderf00t) blames Coughlan specifically for creating the divide while saying that we shouldn't criticize "each-other" brings the truth of the matter into VERY sharp relief. Coughlan's videos to Thunderf00t are not empty name calling nor was Coughlan responsible for the "porn pasting" directly or indirectly." (continued...)
@themanofearth: I am sorry to point this out as it will, no doubt, simply confirm in your mind that you've bested my intellect (after all, pointing out that you've not met your burden means I don't understand somehow or another), but nothing you've said here meets the three necessary conditions earlier raised. Saying that you've failed to meet that burden is something you translate into my not understanding. Or it could mean the features you delineate fail to be sufficient to the task.
@integralmath Continuation... "They have substance and instead of either admitting his mistake, ignoring the porn stuff and/or defending his views to generate the heat that forces change, Thunderf00t has declared himself to be above such matters. And, he's now openly dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him as (more or less) a rebel in a civil war." And you don't understand the point?
@themanofearth: incidentally, no one is saying he's our general. He's even said he's not our "leader". But he's aware of the impact he has when he speaks - when he makes a video, tens of thousands of people start discussing that video. When I make a video, like 5 people have a conversation.
There is no homogeneity with respect to everyone believing the same politics and that jazz; it's just the wise, hey, um, stop shooting your teammates over minutia. As he has said himself. To make it clear.
@Dudeamis Who are the "real bad guys?" If you say, "religious people" I'm gonna hit the "WRONG!" buzzer. As far as the "think like me" thing I'd say look up a short conversation I had with the user lIThorIl on this thread.
@Dudeamis There that and there's the ignorance itself. We're literally fighting a culture of acceptable and even desirable ignorance. We're fighting against everything that the methodological naturalism (science) is not.
true that is rather annoying, I suppose it was my own constant quest for information that eventually led me out of Christianity, that and the emotional brainwashing that took place during basic training eventually wore off.
@themanofearth Good video. I think this can apply to anything, atheists, theists, Marxists, Libertarians, democrats, or republicans. Much variability exists within all of these groups, and that is good for the group because it spreads the intellectual discourse within that group to higher levels. I don't know why "atheists" and "theists" are "warring?" It sets the debate up as a false dichotomy and turns the debate into a "black or white," thinking situation.
Yet despite all this atheists form organizations, camps, even churches through which they declare their intellectual superiority, bash outsiders & spread their "non" worldview, all premised on false conflicts & dichotomies between religion/science, faith/reason. It seems to escape them that many great scientific minds have been religious, ie Francis Collins, & that "reason," in atheists’ hands, has been used to justify persecution & genocide of such outsiders, ie. French Revolution, USSR, etc.
This is funny. It is like two generals argueing over war tactics. T00t is wanting to rally an army, while this guy wants guerilla tactics used against the enemy.
In this metaphor 9not to get lost in it) the enemy is an established empire, so history shows the guerilla tactics would be best.
One organised, one almost anarchist.
I personally love T00t's for his science videos. The new ones on alkali metals are great. That and his videos on false DMCA's.
Thunderf00t is amazing at Physics. I have no doubt that he could trounce me in a mathematics contest. But when he talks about social science topics, he seems ignorant indeed.
are you trying convince a 45 years old living his dorm who thinks he is a scientist and the leader of atheists with an ID synonymous to douchebag when googled and featured by white supremisists with the wise words of Sun Tze?
Great videos!!! Three thumbs up! (That should confuse christians for a bit.)
I really like these two videos very much. Favd. Will put on Facebook.
Free thinking atheists and the way they rebuke/refute each other, are very much like scientists. Scientists are the reason humanity/this world evolved forward as will be free thinking atheists.
Divide and conquer. Religious wars have no place in the modern world, I have watched many of thunderf00ts vids, have never seen him as any sort of general, I just thought he was a dude that knew a fair bit about physics and science, I dont even know if Im an atheist or some sort of agnostic, but I will grind my teeth to the gums on some of the points the creationists seem to have faith in. Be flexible like water, and flow down from the high places.
I feel like your just creating a caricature of his comment. Some poeple recently have just not got along with Thunder and have made a point to make these kinds of videos which really have almost no meaningful content what so ever, just nit picking his comment. He did not at all mean we all share the same dogmatic love of ice cream or really any other facet of lives, what he meant is that the strategies atheist used where similar and there where not all these crybabies harping on him. QQ more.
What you are saying reminds me very much of Aikido, at least the dojo where I took it, in that the white belts had just as much to contribute as the black belts because they had a fresh perspective. Atheism/freethought is a deeply internal process that has little to do with following leaders. For political activism, groups are great. But as far as following a cult of personality is concerned, the appeal will be short lived.
I've been on Youtube for a while now (over 5 years) in one capacity or another. The "atheist community" evolved a lot during that time. When I first got involved here, at least from my perspective, the religious nuts seemed to rule the segment of Youtube that argued about logic, philosophy, science, faith, etc. But along came Thunderf00t, AronRa, and people like that.
I've lost a lot of my interest in this stuff since Thunderf00t became a "leader".
I find it amusing that you read from The Art of War and then suggest such tactics that if translated into a military context would lead to a massacre of your own forces.
@SirDeathDark If that's your assessment then you've not read The Art of War closely enough nor do you know yourself (or your enemy depending on which side of the culture war you're on) or earth.
What happens if you send a series of uncoordinated lone people against a fortress? Those lone people will die. Now, what happens if you gather those people and give them a battle plan and a solid goal to fight for? You just might be able to pull off a victory, but that's dependent on other factors.
@SirDeathDark ou're assuming that the culture war is based on one army vs another army. That's not at all how it's being waged nor how it should be waged IMHO.
Who (i.e. What leader should order what general etc.) is (or should be) doing the sending against what fortress? For that matter The Art of War states "...the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided." And it can be.
And you don't seem to be aware that Christianity, no just about every religion, is a walled city to be assaulted. Their defenses (commonly ignorance) are profound.
More to the point, you seem strongly opposed to any idea of organization, as if being a number of bands of warring tribes will somehow help us defeat a common enemy we can't find time to fight because we're still fighting each other.
@SirDeathDark "Christianity, no just about every religion, is a walled city to be assaulted" No. It seems you don't know the enemy either. Christianity is not a walled city. Christianity (along with every other religion and dogma) is made up of its adherent's minds. The "walled city" in any religion is its scripture which they care a great deal about. You can avoid assaulting it by making them come out and defend it by attacking something else e.g. undermining its foundations with science edu.
It is you who does not understand his enemy. Or have you not dealt with the blindly believing? The ones who discard all you have to say because you're the enemy. This is our enemy as well. With statements like "I hope you don't try to change my mind because you're wasting your time," they have walled themselves in. They won't all take the bait and come out to fight you on your grounds.
@SirDeathDark And those people are the ones who will be effected the most by the advancement of science as a whole and when others do come out, and they do and will continue to, those who "wall themselves in" will not count in the end. They have excluded themselves from the debate which only needs to be pointed out to nullify their position. Additionally, pointing out that those people don't count, it will draw others out in their defense there by engaging others that may not have engaged before
@SirDeathDark By the way (minor ego prods aside) I must say that I'm enjoying our conversation so far. I always enjoy it when an opponent allows you to test and further the understanding my understanding and strength of my own position. I truly hope that you continue.
It's a bit of a hobby. I enjoy the back-and-forth, and it exposes the flaws in my own arguments. If my stance is true, I should be able to patch the holes. If not, meddling with them will cause the flaws to widen, and eventually tear the argument apart.
Trying to remain open is sometimes a challenge, though.
@SirDeathDark WOW that was a bad entry... should have been "I always enjoy it when an opponent allows ME the opportunity to test and further strengthen and understand or discard my position. I truly hope you'll continue."
@SirDeathDark I'm not against organization but "new atheism" (as in the act of opposing religion for whatever reason) is a self-organized phenomena driven by human nature, our need (or unquenchable desire) to understand the world and the direct opposition that religion poses to that understanding. It needs no organizer.
A roach does not need its head to live. At least not for a span of time. What something needs and what it can afford to have are two different things.
Thunderf00t has simply asked we stop fighting each other. This "new atheism" of yours may be self-organized, but it fighting itself still hurts its goal.
@SirDeathDark Your analogy is faulty for the simple fact that we're not dealing with a single entity we're dealing with multiple.
The only reason it is self-organized is BECAUSE of dogmatic principals causing problems. If one of the self proclaimed members of this self-organized phenomena openly espouses principals toward dogmatism that can be challenged, they must be challenged for the phenomena to retain its structure.
@SirDeathDark I don't think it's a question of optimization I simply think it's a question of time. The organization of this thing religious people have dubbed "new atheism" will work itself out. I see it as a force of human nature, like a hurricane building strength over warm water that is already causing major problems and it hasn't even made landfall yet.
@SirDeathDark Let me ask you this, would science become stronger if scientists stopped criticizing each other and just worked towards strengthening the current consensus?
The criticizing is part of the process and the organization not working against it.
Yes, but science has no "enemy." The goal of science is to discover.
My qualm is that Thunderf00t intends an approach you disagree with. However, varying approaches are sometimes necessary to achieve a goal, especially when dealing with religious people, whose goals and beliefs vary widely. I was able to be salvaged simply by reigniting my logical spark, though others would take a complete breakdown.
@SirDeathDark Part of the reason "new atheism" exists is because of the opposition (which is as close to an enemy as I can come up with) to science posed by religion and dogmatic thinking.
Science also has no end save the hypothetical end of knowing everything. Once religion no longer poses a threat and invoking god is as embarrassing as invoking Zeus as an explanation/reason in general conversation, "new atheism" will no longer exist same with science if we do know everything.
@SirDeathDark Oh i agree with that statement but I'm not talking about an end to religion. I could give a rat's ass if it's still around. But if it's private (as I and many others, including some religious people, think it should be) who cares if it still exists?
I don't think we'll ever rid ourselves of religion entirely but I think we can remove it from any meaningful conversation.
This may also be a stretch. Religion fills the "feel good" shoes for the downtrodden and gives a crutch to the unintellectual. If it can be out-trended, then perhaps. Perhaps we can.
@SirDeathDark "whose goals and beliefs vary widely." This is why special interest organizations are necessary like FFRF, MRFF, Secular Student Alliance, etc. Atheism cannot be a special interest unless we're talking about a special interest group like American Atheist (which I have some serious problems with) who's main goal should not be promoting atheism (How do you promote something that has no principals by definition?) but protecting non-religious people from discrimination.
And imagine if the public, the Church, saw these groups fighting. The credibility of them would be shattered; their goals would be debased.
I don't intend that the YouTube atheist community should be complacent with what everyone else does, no the proper interaction between them is key, similar to the scientific community (as you pointed out earlier). However, things like attacking each other have no real place in this, not matter how much you disagree with someone's opinions.
@SirDeathDark But these are special interest organizations with few overlapping internists or points of conflicting (for lack of a better word) jurisdiction. That's why special interest groups are desirable they allow people to oppose religion on key issues in an organized way without actually organizing the entire movement against religion and dogmatic thought. It also compartmentalizes so if one actually DOES fall prey to religion or dogmatic thinking, nothing else is harmed.
@SirDeathDark Also an individual is not an organization. Individuals can be replaced in an organization and the organization can continue on. "New atheism" is self-organized around the force exerted by religion. It moves, shapes itself and self corrects according to that force. One immovable thing (a leader, a mission statement, a rigid organizational structure, etc.) be attacked and damaged. As it stands, attacking "new atheism" is like shooting arrows into a hurricane. More debris anyone? :-P
An individual is still an important part of an organization. It's a series of individuals that creates the organization.
And while groups like Anonymous are highly organized with no individual voice and no leader, the "new atheist" community doesn't seem to be that fluid within themselves. At least from what I've seen, though I may not have been looking hard enough (or at all).
@SirDeathDark Again, we run into a problem because who can (or even has the right to) kick a member of "new atheism" out to retain the self-organized structure?
While Anonymous is kinda similar, Anonymous is still a sort of special interest group not focused on any one particular thing. They get into religious stuff, political, freedom for the internet, etc. New atheism only exists and is only a tangible thing because of religious influence. Hell it was even given its name by religious people.
The group has a power to exile a member of the group. Discontent grows in the group, the group discusses within itself the merit of the member, and then decides to remove contact with that person, or whatever actions would cause the person seclusion from the group. Much like what people are trying to do now to Thunderf00t, though I doubt Thunderf00t cares whether to be part of this "new atheism" movement.
And how do you not view New Atheism as a special interest group?
@SirDeathDark "The group has a power to exile a member of the group." True but that's not how it works with this. You can stop listening to them but that's not "exile" or removing someone from a group any more than a Christian detesting a Christian serial killer stops that serial killer from being Christian.
A special interest group is a hierarchical organization dedicated to one task. For example: MRFF legally represents soldiers that have been religiously discriminated against.
Can't a special interest group be a group that specializes in a particular interest as is implied by the name? Wikipedia gives it as "a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to effect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences." Does this "new atheism" not fit this definition?
@SirDeathDark "Can't a special interest group be a group that specializes in a particular interest as is implied by the name?" Well yes but you're on the border of making an equivocation fallacy. You're using "group" as in "any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation" which is the general sense of the word and I'm using "group" to mean an organization but I digress.
A group may also be a operation and a set that under the operation is closed, has an identity, and each member has an inverse, but that's rather discrete and abstract.
@SirDeathDark "new atheism" does fit that definition however you cannot limit what "cooperation" is in this situation. In "new atheism" criticizing members of your own group is part of what makes it stronger. It has a honing effect on the entire group when criticism is dealt out to any one member.
@SirDeathDark Also this thing has no leader and IMHO shouldn't have one. It allows the "group" to remain virtually immune to damage even self-inflicted. If it has a leader it provides a target that could end up damaging the whole group (if not actually in spirit) and if the leader agrees with something within group it has a tenancy to become "law" and you have to fight an uphill battle to change it.
To the original point, you are admitting a degree of organization amongst these "new atheists," which you spoke out against in your video. And while you may not appreciate Thunderf00t as a leader, it can easily be seen that he does have a certain following of people.
He doesn't have to be your leader of the group that you are specifically in, but I doubt that he'd be trying to completely take over a movement essentially developed and named by his enemy.
@SirDeathDark I never spoke out against organization, I view "new atheism" as needing no enforced organization because it organizes itself based upon religion's cultural force. In a way it parasitises religion's rigid organization.
On Thunderf00t as a leader: Don't confuse popularity/fame/celebrity/symbol for or as leader. A following he has, an army/organization/command he has not. At best he has a rabble of mindless orks who would obey him as soldiers. Not much to lead.
"Our unity under the banner of ATHEISM is not required," says you in your video. While this actually provides a neutral view instead of a view against organization, claiming that unity is not required isn't exactly for organization. If I take a bunch of balls and toss them into a box, they will all be in the same box, but they won't be organized (excluding statistical anomalies). Similarly, simply having a number of people uniting under one flag doesn't create an organized unit
But that's not necessarily your point, and at this point in the debate, I'm having difficulty what stances we were both originally taking and what the argument is truly about. Thusly, I have been unable to determine any of this and am beginning to think we just burnt a lot of our time on this.
So, I hope you'll pardon me as I kind of let this dwindle. I wish you well in your new atheism ideals and such.
What context? What words? In your responses to me, you've said... absolutely nothing! No, not literally 'absolutely nothing.' What I mean by 'absolutely nothing' is that you've written nothing of consequence or nothing to bite on to or resonate with. You haven't said WHY you think TF is a defender of truth, or WHY he's an advocate for... you know. Or WHY you think he has 'clearly done nothing but try to resonote or defend truth.' OR ANYTHING. None.
Yet another case of idiots running around in a panic over some imagined enemy, in this case "in-fighting". Eventually enough of them will run off the cliff for others to take notice. Meanwhile the rest of us will get on with our lives and trying to become less wrong.
I agree that the cat herd of atheism has no business in attempting to unite.
As a "community" we simply exist. Claiming any atheist agenda, outside of a mutual respect, in our desires to attain and/or maintain our own person autonomies, is blockheaded.
If we individuals wish to raise any banner, it must be beyond atheism, inclusive to activist atheists, and to non atheists, who cherish responsible personal autonomy for all.
Also on a less important note concerning if TF is a community leader. He most certainly is. He has a large number of followers and people regularly seek his advice. He is also one of the first faces of the free-thinking community that people see. Whether or not you like it if the free-thinking community was a city TF would be one of the leaders. That doesn't mean he is a dictator but he does has a large influence and many followers.
I watched that interview his "homogeneity" was not concerning us all doing things the same thing and acting as a centralized group. It was concerning the fact that a division has occurred in the Free-thinking community over the differences you mentioned such as, method, talents, and maturity. He isn't saying we shouldn't have the differences but rather that we should not be fighting over them and that doing such reduces our ability to promote free-thinking.
What a bunch of bullshit butchering a Sun Tzu quote..
Since you're such a Sun Tzu scholar then where does he actually say "in order to project strength to your enemy you have to draw other of your supposed allies as porn stars and completely focus on fighting among the ranks"...
I couldn't disagree more, we need to stop disagreeing and start agreeing on things, or we'll never be in agreement about the we currently disagree about...
Please open your mind to the possibility that TF is an advocate for the 'religion' of objective truth without any agenda, just the fervent and humble search for TRUTH via knowledge and education!
I think TF gave the 'atheist community' way too much credit when he imagined them as a homogenous force to advance truth, knowledge and education. His obvious mistake is explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
When has he clearly done anything else other than trying to resonate or defend truth?
I think Tim Minchin said it best quoting someone else who said it best, "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out."
When has he clearly done anything else other than trying to resonate or defend truth? Look. From this I can deduce three things: 1) you haven't watched his recent videos, 2) you watch his videos but don't listen to what he says or 3) you watch his videos, listen to what he says, but don't CARE *WHAT* he says. Either way you seem to be misinformed.
You mean *I* have to provide specific examples of your ridiculous claims, while you get away scot free? No, it doesn't work like that. If you're adamant about this view, I *know* it's either of those three options. If you watch his videos about Muslims, you'd know he's not a "defender of truth." If you watch his videos about his critics, you'd know he's not "an advocate for the 'religion' of objective truth without any agenda." If you had, you'd know- know!- he's become a prat.
@Pitchguest I made no such claims, please read again. I merely suggested possibilities for consideration. My only assertion was in agreement that TF made a mistake in his assumption of atheist homogeneity.
And I'm sorry to say I'm literate enough to have read your words clearly stating that I am 'misinformed' and I simply challenge you to back up your empty assertions with specific details.
...I just provided you with examples of material for you to watch to back up my 'empty assertions.' Watch his Muslim videos. ALL of them. Watch his videos about his critics. Listen carefully where he calls them 'parasites' among other things. Then do me a favour and watch his critics' videos because it'd give you a bigger picture. If you (can) do this, you'd prove you're not just a sheep.
Now quid pro quo, Clarice. Show me where (recently) he's being a "defender of truth."
@Pitchguest Thank you for providing examples of material I've already watched (TF videos). I've also watched many of his critics but I'm sure I haven't seen each and every one.
Oh? now I'm a 'sheep'? Yet another empty assertion.
I never said he's a defender of truth I suggested he's 'trying' to defend truth as he see's it. I know this implies nuance that is beyond your level of comprehension, sorry.
I'll give 2 examples of what truth I think he's trying to defend, knowledge and education.
If you've watched his videos about Muslims where he completely denegrates an entire demographic into people who fly planes into skyscrapers, burn down embassies, murder, and take such offense to drawings they'll kill people, and agree that those depictions are not subjective, you're a sheep. If you agree that his claims about his critics are subjective, calling them parasites, detractors, and "causing a civil war in the 'atheist community'," you're a sheep.
@Pitchguest You are straw-maning TF's words and you're making an enormously false assumption that I support all of TF's actual opinions. I'm done with you, you're not even trying to engage in honest dialogue about legitimate facts. Bye bye ;)
Yeah if strawmanning is quoting the man's words verbatim, then I'm strawmanning. You're right. I don't know what opinions of TF's you support, because you never actually said. However, you did make the initial blunder of saying he's trying to defend truth and being an "advocate for an objective 'religion' without any agenda." Except when you watch his Muslim videos, you would know that's complete poppycock. But if you wish to bow out without clarifying your position, feel free.
Actually, now that I took the liberty to look at your profile, I can see you clearly DO support Thunderf00t's position about Muslims. Since you've actually mirrored two of his videos critical of Muslims. So you were lying when you said you didn't agree with that kind of behaviour? And you favoriting a video where he burned the Qu'ran, which isn't peurile in the least, is it? Yes, no "agenda" there. Or am I strawmanning again? You seem to be prone using that particular word.
@Pitchguest I might consider responding to you IF you can focus your mind enough to make any honest argument based in reality. It seems you're either a troll or a prat. Why not try finding something honest to say and I may consider replying.
Here's a hint, your track record is one of complete failure to understand reality or to even read or comprehend words at a grade school level.
When you say I'm 'prone' to using the (word?) 'straw manning' I assume you mean phrase and I used it one time.
Look- I might consider to take you seriously if it weren't for the fact that I've had several of the same variety as you cite the same thing (blah blah defender of truth blah blah you're misrepresenting him blah blah taking his words out of context). Basically religious type stuff. What I've not been doing is straw man his position (yes, phrase, not word) but QUOTE HIS WORDS VERBATIM. If you still want to believe he's a 'defender of truth,' (your words, not mine) then go ahead.
@Pitchguest Dude, you fail! forget TF - can you f'ing READ?
I'm not the apex of truth, but you have consistently failed to grasp my simple words in the language of English, you fail over and over, you cannot be taken seriously.
Question? Are you a Troll? or are you a Prat?
I'm sorry to say that your history is a matter of record (sucks to be you).
Hang on. You claim TF is a 'defender of truth' and something about an 'advocate for an objective 'religion' of truth(iness)' and when someone (meaning me) thinks that's clearly bullshit (considering his recent videos) and call you out on it (maybe even calling you a sheep), you claim I'm misrepresenting you, don't actually outline any of your opinions, claim I'm straw manning you and TF and now you resort to ad hominen?
@Pitchguest show me, umm… please show me, please embarrass me with facts and truth, show when and where I said what you claim!
I know your very small, myopic and simplistic (black and white) world is one where it's easy and compulsory to falsely categorize each and everything without ever listening to or understanding any nuance of it.
In risk of straw manning again, I suppose this is where you dance around the issue in hopes of deflecting from answering my questions, by flinging incredibly bland insults?
'What you claim' would mean when you said Thunderf00t was trying to be a defender of truth and an advocate for a 'religion' of objective truth, I take it? Or was it when I called you a sheep for believing he was? I didn't actually say you said anything, but... no matter. Literacy says I must be semantic.
Read? I can read perfectly fine. You said some bullshit about TF, and then you've not actually clarified your position or elaborated on what you meant. Yeah, I might have called you a sheep, but then it's maybe because you cannot seem to find any worthy criticism about TF. Or have I really, really misunderstood you? And did I call you a prat, or did I call TF a prat?
@Pitchguest what? Are you now typing more illiterate moronic gibberish? Wow, those of us that went to school are amazed and transformed by your very cogent argument for your position of… what?
*facepalm* Illiterate? Honestly. That's what you want to get me for? Illiteracy? Yes, I have no command of the English language nor of my own, nor have I command of grammar, spelling and proper use of punctutation. But I'm glad you were here so you could school me on THAT. Nice going. Kudos. Of course I've already outlined MY position, yours however is still unclear. But then it seems you've abandoned the discussion to call me a prat and a troll, so maybe I shouldn't bother.
Trying to defend, but failing miserably at it. I'm assuming what you mean is past tense, yes? Because the Thunderf00t of today (despot) is not the Thunderf00t of yester year (WDPLAC, free speech agent, science and education). Why is it that people cannot come to terms with this? He's not being objective, he's not being polite, he's not being humble. In his blogtv with DLandonCole he channeled his inner Glenn Beck. You remember that one? He made a chart. A chart of bullshit.
@Pitchguest I humbly step back and suspend any further rule of spelling or grammar.
We are all in AWE awaiting your genius thesis!
Please educate us without regard for spelling or grammar, just please make your arguments and thesis partially intelligible with words of aborigine, or the barks of wolves.
This wold has many problems and we all await your genius (minus spelling or grammar). Please, pretty please with sugar on top!
Yes, well, I suppose when you call someone who's clearly literate ILLITERATE, you kindly would have to step back and think for a moment, wouldn't you? See, this is what I'm talking about. You call me a troll. Me. Trying to have a conversation with you. Trying to probe you into having a conversation with me. But I'm the troll. Me. Yet you do shit like this. Is this a double standard with you or something? Has the whole world gone crazy? That's WORLD, by the way. With an r.
Ah, there it is. I should've known. I seriously need to learn to call you when I see you. But no, I have to do the common sensical thing and give you the benefit of the doubt. I really should learn to stop doing that, but almost every time it turns out they're nothing but baiting, nepotistic morons. But for the sake of argument, I trust you have evidence for that 'record' of mine or are just making shit up? People like you. People like you. *sigh*
'Many reasons' which you cannot cite. And look, as your true face starts to emerge, your literacy seems to digress. As it seems to do with every one of you. I wonder if there's a connection to be had there with your blind defense of TF, or if it's merely a coincidence.
Also, for the last time, *you haven't actually said anything beyond your initial comment which I CALLED YOU OUT ON.* So what else should I read to 'understand' your position, poindexter?
Jesus. This is getting nowhere. You've told me nothing. You've clarified... nothing. How is it you think nothing means everything in your world? Since you have a record handy, maybe you could copy and paste that too? That would be nice. Thanks in advance.
Sorry to bring it up again, but you make no sense. You call MY writing 'illiterate.' No. Worse. You call it illiterate 'moronic gibberish.' Moronic gibberish. And then you go ahead and write whatever it was you just wrote. I despair. There is no irony to be had here. It cannot get more sadder than that. *shakes head*
No, I don't get it. I don't get this imaginary 'record' of yours. I don't get it because you're a fucking idiot. Yes, a *fucking idiot.* Even though I never actually called you a prat, nor a troll for that matter, I start calling people how I see them *when I see them.* Since I'm a genius who writes theses for a living I can pretty much tell who's a fucking idiot and who's not and you, sir, are *it.* And if you think that's elitist, then frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
You cannot simply attribute random words to me and claim it true, you need actual basis. 'Schizoid' does nowhere near apply the nature of my posts. Mainly due to the fact that *trying to engage in a conversation is the opposite of schizoid.* You imbecile.
@Pitchguest more genius, more thesis, more genius please!
It's amazing how smart you are, I now trust you more than any scientist that has humbly devoted his life to objective truth… wow… your fluctuating and unstable views are the foundation of the truth we all seek…
Please tell us all so much more!
..unless you're like me, and you admit that you don't know everything and you are truly humble in an objective search for objective truth.
'Genius.' You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Ok, I have honestly no idea what the fuck you are on about. Yes, ever in this discussion have I said I know everything there is to know about everything. What?
Because you try to deny and pretend that you did not say and do not believe the insane bullshit that you have forced upon this channel, but your delusions are a matter of record.
And I can't stop laughing!
Do you need evidence?
Do you need me to copy and paste the insane shit you said?
Yes! Please! Please copy and paste the 'insane shit' I said, and in return actually outline what the fuck you are on about for a change? Because as I know you're aware, copying and pasting 'insane shit' goes both ways, and what you posted about Thunderf00t was definitely if not insane shit, then at least delusional and borderline nepotistic.
What the hell does 'a matter of record' even mean? What the *hell* are you talking about?
THe thing about all this that gets me is, are majority of thunderdrones, none video makers? maybe I'm wrong, but it seems everyone I end up subscribing too at the least ddisagree with his methods.
I'm over thundertard... why does he get so much attention? Is it because some YT atheists are disappointed to discover that he's an ignorant blowhard when it comes to politics, society and culture? Their demigawd has disappointed them, and revealed his flawed humanity? He's a socially inept dimwit. Consensus isn't necessarily something that promotes critical thinking or imagining better alternatives. If he can't see that, than he's ignorant of History *and* human nature.
Same thing Pat Condell still has subscribers: denial. Also that people agree with them, but that's another matter. To be honest, it's a bit scary to look at Pat Condell's videos and then look at his subscribers. Enough that Pat doesn't have any power over who subscribes to him or not, but he should at least screen them or remove them as subscribers. The amount of racist, white power, neo-nazis subscribed to him is astounding. Some, too, to TF as well. It's a train wreck.
Can anyone explain how Thunderfoot is more popular than Potholer54? Potholer's videos stand head and shoulders above anything on Youtube in terms of information, writing and production values. Thunderfoot just rambles about Muslims and sounds like his mouth produces too much saliva.
I get your point but I get Tfoots too. We need to unite around the things we can unite about. We should debate. I dont see why everyone is so mad at Tfoot right now. I guess when you are a movement of authority haters its easy to see someone as an authority and hate them. Oh well, keep it up both of you!
Only criticism i can give is that i'd argue the religious do and always have known what to focus on, uncertainties. where did it all come from? that and other questions that come into conflict with their beliefs that can't be answered with 100% certainty. And the resurgence of atheism is a result of people's new found ease at accessing new information and opposing view points. religion preys on community cohesion. with the advent of the internet, its become harder and harder to ignore critics.
@B1ackHayabusa This is true however most atheists/non-religious people are becoming more and more comfortable with "uncertainties". In so doing they've come to the realization that in asking things like "where did it all come from?" as a way of attempting to counter criticism, religious people expose themselves to yet another counter attack because they don't know either. Posing God as the answer solves nothing.
Indeed, but unfortunately it seems that many religious people are comforted by unprovable assertions expressed with absolute certainly, at least when it comes to questions relating to the origin of life and subjects like morality. many just want a nice simple answers that require very little inquiry, investigation or effort to understand. ignorance is both a weakness, and the life blood of religion. where there's intellectual laziness and unanswered questions, religion thrives.
@FranksVoice WOW! A Christian apologist who actually used one of the correct definitions of atheism in a comment. Amazing! But I DID say that it's not an actual definition so... Your comment makes little to no sense.
(...continued) It must be painful for him (TF00t) to put so much effort into trying to promote science and reason, and then to see so much puerile behaviour and hate thrown at him. I would agree that Thunderf00t isn't perfect, but he deserves better than what he's getting. He has shown that he is worthy of respect IMHO. His main thrust (summed up generally as more knowledge/reason, less ignorance please) would improve the human race.
Oh, but it must be painful for him. Oh boo hoo. You reap what you sow. It's like when before Pat Condell began making videos about Islam and his support for UKIP (a nationalist party). His videos about Christianity, in his manner of speaking, was good. Funny. Made good arguments. I even use some of them still when attempting to reason with Christians. But as soon he made videos about Muslims, the shit hit the fan. Maybe you need to come to terms that TF is not who he once was.
I kinda agree/disagree.
I don't think atheists should join under the banner of "Atheism", but rather Science.
The true danger of religion is halt of technological advancement given by science.
I am all for a united front against Creationism and Intelligent Design, I am however not for a united front against Religion in general.
People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, for as long as their ideals don't hurt humans, scientific advancement and especially medical science.
BenitoraSan 6 months ago
@BenitoraSan See I would say/argue that religion - by it's very nature - hinders advancement and harms human beings simply because it relies on the supernatural (i.e. the unprovable and therefore unquestionable "truth").
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth
Probably. But it's hard to say: All Religion should be removed.
It's not a realistic future for humans. As long as different cultures exist, some kind of religion will exist.
If you want to remove religion, you will most likely have to unite humans under one banner.
That in itself is today impossible. Not saying it will impossible in the future, but as of now, I don't see it happening.
It's a hard subject to discuss after all. I am not sure on how to balance it out.
BenitoraSan 6 months ago
@themanofearth
To elaborate further on my points, religion is and will always be a danger to scientific advancements due to religious ethics (IE, Stem cell research).
But how can you remove that without being all "warlike" about it.
It seem wholly aggressive don't you think?
Maybe just me being optimistic and unrealistic in thinking like this, but as things are looking now, it seems like Religion will become a non-issue in the foreseeable future, meaning not destroyed, just no longer a issue.
BenitoraSan 6 months ago
@themanofearth
I want humans to move past the foolishness of shouting nonsense at each other, trying to twist facts and history for their own benefit of belief.
But I don't think that can be achieved by "Going to war" against religion.
Continue teaching the facts, continue to show people how foolish the Creationists/Intelligent Design people are, for as well religious fanatics, and maybe the world will be like Scandinavia, a place where your personal faith does not change facts.
My 2 cents.
BenitoraSan 6 months ago
@themanofearth More over, this goes beyond personal choice. Once you've reached a point in your education where critical thinking is ubiquitous in your thought process and you've applied it to your beliefs, you fall under the banner. Now, I think naming anyone a general is silly. What we have is outspoken atheists and quiet ones. But if we want to make rationalist thinking the rule and not the exception in this society we must be organized. Chaos doesn't generally effect change.
Figaera69 7 months ago
@themanofearth I have to start by saying that I'm not familiar with the whole dispute or division in the atheistic community. However, I'd like to point out that atheism by itself is not the real threat to religion. Anyone with a loud voice can denounce anything, including god. More than that it's rationalist thinking that really poses a threat and a community standing united under that premise is more a philosophical movement than a religion.
Figaera69 7 months ago
So, let's see if I can recap: division is a strength, and the only reason that thunderf00t's messages are taken to heart by people is because, wait a moment, he has a larger base of people who . . . what's that word . . . oh, yeah, agree with him. It's a simple game of numbers and strategy - no one's saying put on a robe and forgo thinking. But he is making a rather elementary point: numbers matter, and the reason you aren't making the impact he is through sheer numbers. Yet you say he's wrong
integralmath 7 months ago
@integralmath *sigh* No. You're straw manning my point. I didn't say "division is a strength" I said that our differences and our willingness and our ability to debate/argue those differences is our strength. We are unified BY our differences and our willingness to debate/argue them. The appearance of our "division" is an illusion brought about by the rather puerile view that two people debating/arguing a subject must be enemies in every way. And he's not making that point: Description box.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth: then I am profoundly confused by your video. Our differences are what unite us, but we only appear divide in some kind of illusion or something?
I'm aware you're saying thunderf00t isn't making that point; I disagree with you. The example of homogeneity to which he cited is an exemplar of that which he meant. People still disagreed, and debated, but were largely working on the same sets of goals. Now it's just petty fighting for its own sake, and is unhelpful.
integralmath 7 months ago
@integralmath We're united by our desire to be intellectually honest with ourselves and others, to not be hypocritical and know as much of the truth as is possible. We're also united by our desire to know ourselves and know the enemy through creating heat through argument and debate that generates the light by which we see ourselves and others which reveals our hypocrisy and hopefully brings us closer to whatever the truth is.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@integralmath "Now it's just petty fighting for its own sake, and is unhelpful." Sorry but I couldn't disagree with you more.
See the comment I placed at the bottom of the description box to learn why.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth: I've read what you've asked me to. I fail to see an explanation there. I see a position you profess to hold and assertions you've made. These do no work as explanations. I understand disagree (strongly even). Your passion doesn't relieve you of your burden to support your claims in a proper fashion. You've yet to point to a single case that is simultaneously the following: in the realm tf00t delineated, not petty, and helpful. Your proposition requires all three of those.
integralmath 7 months ago
@integralmath Wtf are you talking about? You read, "...he (Thunderf00t) blames Coughlan specifically for creating the divide while saying that we shouldn't criticize "each-other" brings the truth of the matter into VERY sharp relief. Coughlan's videos to Thunderf00t are not empty name calling nor was Coughlan responsible for the "porn pasting" directly or indirectly." (continued...)
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth: I am sorry to point this out as it will, no doubt, simply confirm in your mind that you've bested my intellect (after all, pointing out that you've not met your burden means I don't understand somehow or another), but nothing you've said here meets the three necessary conditions earlier raised. Saying that you've failed to meet that burden is something you translate into my not understanding. Or it could mean the features you delineate fail to be sufficient to the task.
integralmath 7 months ago
@integralmath Continuation... "They have substance and instead of either admitting his mistake, ignoring the porn stuff and/or defending his views to generate the heat that forces change, Thunderf00t has declared himself to be above such matters. And, he's now openly dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him as (more or less) a rebel in a civil war." And you don't understand the point?
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth: incidentally, no one is saying he's our general. He's even said he's not our "leader". But he's aware of the impact he has when he speaks - when he makes a video, tens of thousands of people start discussing that video. When I make a video, like 5 people have a conversation.
There is no homogeneity with respect to everyone believing the same politics and that jazz; it's just the wise, hey, um, stop shooting your teammates over minutia. As he has said himself. To make it clear.
integralmath 7 months ago
I don't know if its so much that Thunderf00t is saying "think like me" as he is saying "quit stirring up shit and lets focus on the real bad guys"
Dudeamis 7 months ago
@Dudeamis Who are the "real bad guys?" If you say, "religious people" I'm gonna hit the "WRONG!" buzzer. As far as the "think like me" thing I'd say look up a short conversation I had with the user lIThorIl on this thread.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth
the real bad guys are the guys spreading bad information to keep people ignorant and ready to digest whatever they're pedaling.
Dudeamis 7 months ago
@Dudeamis There that and there's the ignorance itself. We're literally fighting a culture of acceptable and even desirable ignorance. We're fighting against everything that the methodological naturalism (science) is not.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth
true that is rather annoying, I suppose it was my own constant quest for information that eventually led me out of Christianity, that and the emotional brainwashing that took place during basic training eventually wore off.
Dudeamis 7 months ago
@themanofearth Good video. I think this can apply to anything, atheists, theists, Marxists, Libertarians, democrats, or republicans. Much variability exists within all of these groups, and that is good for the group because it spreads the intellectual discourse within that group to higher levels. I don't know why "atheists" and "theists" are "warring?" It sets the debate up as a false dichotomy and turns the debate into a "black or white," thinking situation.
natedaug1 7 months ago
This was amazing!! Liked and subed :)
gsusreloded 7 months ago
Yet despite all this atheists form organizations, camps, even churches through which they declare their intellectual superiority, bash outsiders & spread their "non" worldview, all premised on false conflicts & dichotomies between religion/science, faith/reason. It seems to escape them that many great scientific minds have been religious, ie Francis Collins, & that "reason," in atheists’ hands, has been used to justify persecution & genocide of such outsiders, ie. French Revolution, USSR, etc.
ChristianMission 8 months ago
This is funny. It is like two generals argueing over war tactics. T00t is wanting to rally an army, while this guy wants guerilla tactics used against the enemy.
In this metaphor 9not to get lost in it) the enemy is an established empire, so history shows the guerilla tactics would be best.
One organised, one almost anarchist.
I personally love T00t's for his science videos. The new ones on alkali metals are great. That and his videos on false DMCA's.
Create heat, but dont melt the forge...
Silentsam7532 8 months ago
Thunderf00t is amazing at Physics. I have no doubt that he could trounce me in a mathematics contest. But when he talks about social science topics, he seems ignorant indeed.
RakaTheTenacious 8 months ago
are you trying convince a 45 years old living his dorm who thinks he is a scientist and the leader of atheists with an ID synonymous to douchebag when googled and featured by white supremisists with the wise words of Sun Tze?
As a Chinese, I am offended!
Sorry for the run-on sentence
edwardtang1977 8 months ago
Great videos!!! Three thumbs up! (That should confuse christians for a bit.)
I really like these two videos very much. Favd. Will put on Facebook.
Free thinking atheists and the way they rebuke/refute each other, are very much like scientists. Scientists are the reason humanity/this world evolved forward as will be free thinking atheists.
Gott Mit Uns, so said the evil atheist.
ReligiousJezta 8 months ago
Divide and conquer. Religious wars have no place in the modern world, I have watched many of thunderf00ts vids, have never seen him as any sort of general, I just thought he was a dude that knew a fair bit about physics and science, I dont even know if Im an atheist or some sort of agnostic, but I will grind my teeth to the gums on some of the points the creationists seem to have faith in. Be flexible like water, and flow down from the high places.
BraniusBalki 9 months ago
I can't be an atheist until the theist clearly defines a God before adding attributes.
LictorCrotch 9 months ago
@LictorCrotch Ignosticism. I can respect that.
themanofearth 9 months ago
I feel like your just creating a caricature of his comment. Some poeple recently have just not got along with Thunder and have made a point to make these kinds of videos which really have almost no meaningful content what so ever, just nit picking his comment. He did not at all mean we all share the same dogmatic love of ice cream or really any other facet of lives, what he meant is that the strategies atheist used where similar and there where not all these crybabies harping on him. QQ more.
UponGiantsShoulders 9 months ago
@UponGiantsShoulders I addressed a very similar comment earlier addressed to lIThorIl. You can find it below.
themanofearth 9 months ago
atheist community is like a pub that sells coffee and everbody knows your name , watch?v=xvRGh2NEjSU
jmm1233 9 months ago
The more educated someone is the more likely that they wont be religious.
And statistically people are getting more educated. So we do not even have to point out there bad logic(that doesn't work anyway).
jomonkey27 9 months ago
Thunderf00t just thinks he's the Jesus of the community, the anointed leader who must lead atheists to the promised land.
Naturally, they all have to accept him as their lord and saviour first.
ProphetTenebrae 9 months ago
What you are saying reminds me very much of Aikido, at least the dojo where I took it, in that the white belts had just as much to contribute as the black belts because they had a fresh perspective. Atheism/freethought is a deeply internal process that has little to do with following leaders. For political activism, groups are great. But as far as following a cult of personality is concerned, the appeal will be short lived.
GodDiscussion 9 months ago
@GodDiscussion Thanks Deborah. You should check out one of my earlier videos. I've been saying that kinda thing for a while. ;-)
Atheido - Aikido Atheism
themanofearth 9 months ago
Excellent!!
brklynusa 9 months ago
great video
BillKiernan 9 months ago
Great video.
I've been on Youtube for a while now (over 5 years) in one capacity or another. The "atheist community" evolved a lot during that time. When I first got involved here, at least from my perspective, the religious nuts seemed to rule the segment of Youtube that argued about logic, philosophy, science, faith, etc. But along came Thunderf00t, AronRa, and people like that.
I've lost a lot of my interest in this stuff since Thunderf00t became a "leader".
Hockeygod98 9 months ago
I find it amusing that you read from The Art of War and then suggest such tactics that if translated into a military context would lead to a massacre of your own forces.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark If that's your assessment then you've not read The Art of War closely enough nor do you know yourself (or your enemy depending on which side of the culture war you're on) or earth.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
That's a lot of assumption going on there.
What happens if you send a series of uncoordinated lone people against a fortress? Those lone people will die. Now, what happens if you gather those people and give them a battle plan and a solid goal to fight for? You just might be able to pull off a victory, but that's dependent on other factors.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark ou're assuming that the culture war is based on one army vs another army. That's not at all how it's being waged nor how it should be waged IMHO.
Who (i.e. What leader should order what general etc.) is (or should be) doing the sending against what fortress? For that matter The Art of War states "...the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided." And it can be.
Assumption confirmation: Ain't it grand?
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
Yes, I've not read the Art of War.
And you don't seem to be aware that Christianity, no just about every religion, is a walled city to be assaulted. Their defenses (commonly ignorance) are profound.
More to the point, you seem strongly opposed to any idea of organization, as if being a number of bands of warring tribes will somehow help us defeat a common enemy we can't find time to fight because we're still fighting each other.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark "Christianity, no just about every religion, is a walled city to be assaulted" No. It seems you don't know the enemy either. Christianity is not a walled city. Christianity (along with every other religion and dogma) is made up of its adherent's minds. The "walled city" in any religion is its scripture which they care a great deal about. You can avoid assaulting it by making them come out and defend it by attacking something else e.g. undermining its foundations with science edu.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
It is you who does not understand his enemy. Or have you not dealt with the blindly believing? The ones who discard all you have to say because you're the enemy. This is our enemy as well. With statements like "I hope you don't try to change my mind because you're wasting your time," they have walled themselves in. They won't all take the bait and come out to fight you on your grounds.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark And those people are the ones who will be effected the most by the advancement of science as a whole and when others do come out, and they do and will continue to, those who "wall themselves in" will not count in the end. They have excluded themselves from the debate which only needs to be pointed out to nullify their position. Additionally, pointing out that those people don't count, it will draw others out in their defense there by engaging others that may not have engaged before
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark By the way (minor ego prods aside) I must say that I'm enjoying our conversation so far. I always enjoy it when an opponent allows you to test and further the understanding my understanding and strength of my own position. I truly hope that you continue.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
It's a bit of a hobby. I enjoy the back-and-forth, and it exposes the flaws in my own arguments. If my stance is true, I should be able to patch the holes. If not, meddling with them will cause the flaws to widen, and eventually tear the argument apart.
Trying to remain open is sometimes a challenge, though.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark You're not kidding. :-P
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark WOW that was a bad entry... should have been "I always enjoy it when an opponent allows ME the opportunity to test and further strengthen and understand or discard my position. I truly hope you'll continue."
Sorry about that. :-P
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark I'm not against organization but "new atheism" (as in the act of opposing religion for whatever reason) is a self-organized phenomena driven by human nature, our need (or unquenchable desire) to understand the world and the direct opposition that religion poses to that understanding. It needs no organizer.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
A roach does not need its head to live. At least not for a span of time. What something needs and what it can afford to have are two different things.
Thunderf00t has simply asked we stop fighting each other. This "new atheism" of yours may be self-organized, but it fighting itself still hurts its goal.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Your analogy is faulty for the simple fact that we're not dealing with a single entity we're dealing with multiple.
The only reason it is self-organized is BECAUSE of dogmatic principals causing problems. If one of the self proclaimed members of this self-organized phenomena openly espouses principals toward dogmatism that can be challenged, they must be challenged for the phenomena to retain its structure.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
Is this the optimal state?
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark I don't think it's a question of optimization I simply think it's a question of time. The organization of this thing religious people have dubbed "new atheism" will work itself out. I see it as a force of human nature, like a hurricane building strength over warm water that is already causing major problems and it hasn't even made landfall yet.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Let me ask you this, would science become stronger if scientists stopped criticizing each other and just worked towards strengthening the current consensus?
The criticizing is part of the process and the organization not working against it.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
Yes, but science has no "enemy." The goal of science is to discover.
My qualm is that Thunderf00t intends an approach you disagree with. However, varying approaches are sometimes necessary to achieve a goal, especially when dealing with religious people, whose goals and beliefs vary widely. I was able to be salvaged simply by reigniting my logical spark, though others would take a complete breakdown.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Part of the reason "new atheism" exists is because of the opposition (which is as close to an enemy as I can come up with) to science posed by religion and dogmatic thinking.
Science also has no end save the hypothetical end of knowing everything. Once religion no longer poses a threat and invoking god is as embarrassing as invoking Zeus as an explanation/reason in general conversation, "new atheism" will no longer exist same with science if we do know everything.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
In a day and age where religions can be invented and survive (Scientology), assuming the eventual end of religion altogether may be a stretch.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Oh i agree with that statement but I'm not talking about an end to religion. I could give a rat's ass if it's still around. But if it's private (as I and many others, including some religious people, think it should be) who cares if it still exists?
I don't think we'll ever rid ourselves of religion entirely but I think we can remove it from any meaningful conversation.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
This may also be a stretch. Religion fills the "feel good" shoes for the downtrodden and gives a crutch to the unintellectual. If it can be out-trended, then perhaps. Perhaps we can.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Perhaps.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark "whose goals and beliefs vary widely." This is why special interest organizations are necessary like FFRF, MRFF, Secular Student Alliance, etc. Atheism cannot be a special interest unless we're talking about a special interest group like American Atheist (which I have some serious problems with) who's main goal should not be promoting atheism (How do you promote something that has no principals by definition?) but protecting non-religious people from discrimination.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
And imagine if the public, the Church, saw these groups fighting. The credibility of them would be shattered; their goals would be debased.
I don't intend that the YouTube atheist community should be complacent with what everyone else does, no the proper interaction between them is key, similar to the scientific community (as you pointed out earlier). However, things like attacking each other have no real place in this, not matter how much you disagree with someone's opinions.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark But these are special interest organizations with few overlapping internists or points of conflicting (for lack of a better word) jurisdiction. That's why special interest groups are desirable they allow people to oppose religion on key issues in an organized way without actually organizing the entire movement against religion and dogmatic thought. It also compartmentalizes so if one actually DOES fall prey to religion or dogmatic thinking, nothing else is harmed.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Also an individual is not an organization. Individuals can be replaced in an organization and the organization can continue on. "New atheism" is self-organized around the force exerted by religion. It moves, shapes itself and self corrects according to that force. One immovable thing (a leader, a mission statement, a rigid organizational structure, etc.) be attacked and damaged. As it stands, attacking "new atheism" is like shooting arrows into a hurricane. More debris anyone? :-P
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
An individual is still an important part of an organization. It's a series of individuals that creates the organization.
And while groups like Anonymous are highly organized with no individual voice and no leader, the "new atheist" community doesn't seem to be that fluid within themselves. At least from what I've seen, though I may not have been looking hard enough (or at all).
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Again, we run into a problem because who can (or even has the right to) kick a member of "new atheism" out to retain the self-organized structure?
While Anonymous is kinda similar, Anonymous is still a sort of special interest group not focused on any one particular thing. They get into religious stuff, political, freedom for the internet, etc. New atheism only exists and is only a tangible thing because of religious influence. Hell it was even given its name by religious people.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
The group has a power to exile a member of the group. Discontent grows in the group, the group discusses within itself the merit of the member, and then decides to remove contact with that person, or whatever actions would cause the person seclusion from the group. Much like what people are trying to do now to Thunderf00t, though I doubt Thunderf00t cares whether to be part of this "new atheism" movement.
And how do you not view New Atheism as a special interest group?
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark "The group has a power to exile a member of the group." True but that's not how it works with this. You can stop listening to them but that's not "exile" or removing someone from a group any more than a Christian detesting a Christian serial killer stops that serial killer from being Christian.
A special interest group is a hierarchical organization dedicated to one task. For example: MRFF legally represents soldiers that have been religiously discriminated against.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
Can't a special interest group be a group that specializes in a particular interest as is implied by the name? Wikipedia gives it as "a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to effect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences." Does this "new atheism" not fit this definition?
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark "Can't a special interest group be a group that specializes in a particular interest as is implied by the name?" Well yes but you're on the border of making an equivocation fallacy. You're using "group" as in "any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation" which is the general sense of the word and I'm using "group" to mean an organization but I digress.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
A group may also be a operation and a set that under the operation is closed, has an identity, and each member has an inverse, but that's rather discrete and abstract.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark "new atheism" does fit that definition however you cannot limit what "cooperation" is in this situation. In "new atheism" criticizing members of your own group is part of what makes it stronger. It has a honing effect on the entire group when criticism is dealt out to any one member.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark Also this thing has no leader and IMHO shouldn't have one. It allows the "group" to remain virtually immune to damage even self-inflicted. If it has a leader it provides a target that could end up damaging the whole group (if not actually in spirit) and if the leader agrees with something within group it has a tenancy to become "law" and you have to fight an uphill battle to change it.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
To the original point, you are admitting a degree of organization amongst these "new atheists," which you spoke out against in your video. And while you may not appreciate Thunderf00t as a leader, it can easily be seen that he does have a certain following of people.
He doesn't have to be your leader of the group that you are specifically in, but I doubt that he'd be trying to completely take over a movement essentially developed and named by his enemy.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark I never spoke out against organization, I view "new atheism" as needing no enforced organization because it organizes itself based upon religion's cultural force. In a way it parasitises religion's rigid organization.
On Thunderf00t as a leader: Don't confuse popularity/fame/celebrity/symbol for or as leader. A following he has, an army/organization/command he has not. At best he has a rabble of mindless orks who would obey him as soldiers. Not much to lead.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
"Our unity under the banner of ATHEISM is not required," says you in your video. While this actually provides a neutral view instead of a view against organization, claiming that unity is not required isn't exactly for organization. If I take a bunch of balls and toss them into a box, they will all be in the same box, but they won't be organized (excluding statistical anomalies). Similarly, simply having a number of people uniting under one flag doesn't create an organized unit
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@themanofearth
But that's not necessarily your point, and at this point in the debate, I'm having difficulty what stances we were both originally taking and what the argument is truly about. Thusly, I have been unable to determine any of this and am beginning to think we just burnt a lot of our time on this.
So, I hope you'll pardon me as I kind of let this dwindle. I wish you well in your new atheism ideals and such.
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark LOL! X-) Fair enough.
themanofearth 9 months ago
And also, because of our willingness to debate and dispute things, we become better as a whole. That is, after all, how science works.
ootdega 9 months ago
@ootdega indeed. :-)
themanofearth 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
What context? What words? In your responses to me, you've said... absolutely nothing! No, not literally 'absolutely nothing.' What I mean by 'absolutely nothing' is that you've written nothing of consequence or nothing to bite on to or resonate with. You haven't said WHY you think TF is a defender of truth, or WHY he's an advocate for... you know. Or WHY you think he has 'clearly done nothing but try to resonote or defend truth.' OR ANYTHING. None.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
Yet another case of idiots running around in a panic over some imagined enemy, in this case "in-fighting". Eventually enough of them will run off the cliff for others to take notice. Meanwhile the rest of us will get on with our lives and trying to become less wrong.
DeJach 9 months ago
I agree that the cat herd of atheism has no business in attempting to unite.
As a "community" we simply exist. Claiming any atheist agenda, outside of a mutual respect, in our desires to attain and/or maintain our own person autonomies, is blockheaded.
If we individuals wish to raise any banner, it must be beyond atheism, inclusive to activist atheists, and to non atheists, who cherish responsible personal autonomy for all.
It should be a banner of anti-theocracy.
DonQuixotedeKaw 9 months ago in playlist A-4-F
I hope neither of those messages sounded mean as it was not the intent if they did.
frostedpornflakes 9 months ago
@frostedpornflakes You're cool. Thank you for your comments. :-)
themanofearth 9 months ago
Also on a less important note concerning if TF is a community leader. He most certainly is. He has a large number of followers and people regularly seek his advice. He is also one of the first faces of the free-thinking community that people see. Whether or not you like it if the free-thinking community was a city TF would be one of the leaders. That doesn't mean he is a dictator but he does has a large influence and many followers.
frostedpornflakes 9 months ago
I watched that interview his "homogeneity" was not concerning us all doing things the same thing and acting as a centralized group. It was concerning the fact that a division has occurred in the Free-thinking community over the differences you mentioned such as, method, talents, and maturity. He isn't saying we shouldn't have the differences but rather that we should not be fighting over them and that doing such reduces our ability to promote free-thinking.
frostedpornflakes 9 months ago
Knock off the goddamned air quotes.
indignant99 9 months ago
What a bunch of bullshit butchering a Sun Tzu quote..
Since you're such a Sun Tzu scholar then where does he actually say "in order to project strength to your enemy you have to draw other of your supposed allies as porn stars and completely focus on fighting among the ranks"...
SquirrelFromGradLife 9 months ago
Yes. A thousand times yes.
whistlingdust 9 months ago
I couldn't disagree more, we need to stop disagreeing and start agreeing on things, or we'll never be in agreement about the we currently disagree about...
Urm what are we disagreeing about again?
ultrademigod 9 months ago
Please open your mind to the possibility that TF is an advocate for the 'religion' of objective truth without any agenda, just the fervent and humble search for TRUTH via knowledge and education!
I think TF gave the 'atheist community' way too much credit when he imagined them as a homogenous force to advance truth, knowledge and education. His obvious mistake is explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
When has he clearly done anything else other than trying to resonate or defend truth?
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
I think Tim Minchin said it best quoting someone else who said it best, "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out."
When has he clearly done anything else other than trying to resonate or defend truth? Look. From this I can deduce three things: 1) you haven't watched his recent videos, 2) you watch his videos but don't listen to what he says or 3) you watch his videos, listen to what he says, but don't CARE *WHAT* he says. Either way you seem to be misinformed.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest
…um, ok… please outline how and where I'm 'misinformed' with specific examples and not just, oh, I don't know, empty assertions?
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
You mean *I* have to provide specific examples of your ridiculous claims, while you get away scot free? No, it doesn't work like that. If you're adamant about this view, I *know* it's either of those three options. If you watch his videos about Muslims, you'd know he's not a "defender of truth." If you watch his videos about his critics, you'd know he's not "an advocate for the 'religion' of objective truth without any agenda." If you had, you'd know- know!- he's become a prat.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest I made no such claims, please read again. I merely suggested possibilities for consideration. My only assertion was in agreement that TF made a mistake in his assumption of atheist homogeneity.
And I'm sorry to say I'm literate enough to have read your words clearly stating that I am 'misinformed' and I simply challenge you to back up your empty assertions with specific details.
..Oh, the irony of you using the term 'prat'.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
...I just provided you with examples of material for you to watch to back up my 'empty assertions.' Watch his Muslim videos. ALL of them. Watch his videos about his critics. Listen carefully where he calls them 'parasites' among other things. Then do me a favour and watch his critics' videos because it'd give you a bigger picture. If you (can) do this, you'd prove you're not just a sheep.
Now quid pro quo, Clarice. Show me where (recently) he's being a "defender of truth."
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest Thank you for providing examples of material I've already watched (TF videos). I've also watched many of his critics but I'm sure I haven't seen each and every one.
Oh? now I'm a 'sheep'? Yet another empty assertion.
I never said he's a defender of truth I suggested he's 'trying' to defend truth as he see's it. I know this implies nuance that is beyond your level of comprehension, sorry.
I'll give 2 examples of what truth I think he's trying to defend, knowledge and education.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
If you've watched his videos about Muslims where he completely denegrates an entire demographic into people who fly planes into skyscrapers, burn down embassies, murder, and take such offense to drawings they'll kill people, and agree that those depictions are not subjective, you're a sheep. If you agree that his claims about his critics are subjective, calling them parasites, detractors, and "causing a civil war in the 'atheist community'," you're a sheep.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest You are straw-maning TF's words and you're making an enormously false assumption that I support all of TF's actual opinions. I'm done with you, you're not even trying to engage in honest dialogue about legitimate facts. Bye bye ;)
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Yeah if strawmanning is quoting the man's words verbatim, then I'm strawmanning. You're right. I don't know what opinions of TF's you support, because you never actually said. However, you did make the initial blunder of saying he's trying to defend truth and being an "advocate for an objective 'religion' without any agenda." Except when you watch his Muslim videos, you would know that's complete poppycock. But if you wish to bow out without clarifying your position, feel free.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Actually, now that I took the liberty to look at your profile, I can see you clearly DO support Thunderf00t's position about Muslims. Since you've actually mirrored two of his videos critical of Muslims. So you were lying when you said you didn't agree with that kind of behaviour? And you favoriting a video where he burned the Qu'ran, which isn't peurile in the least, is it? Yes, no "agenda" there. Or am I strawmanning again? You seem to be prone using that particular word.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest I might consider responding to you IF you can focus your mind enough to make any honest argument based in reality. It seems you're either a troll or a prat. Why not try finding something honest to say and I may consider replying.
Here's a hint, your track record is one of complete failure to understand reality or to even read or comprehend words at a grade school level.
When you say I'm 'prone' to using the (word?) 'straw manning' I assume you mean phrase and I used it one time.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Look- I might consider to take you seriously if it weren't for the fact that I've had several of the same variety as you cite the same thing (blah blah defender of truth blah blah you're misrepresenting him blah blah taking his words out of context). Basically religious type stuff. What I've not been doing is straw man his position (yes, phrase, not word) but QUOTE HIS WORDS VERBATIM. If you still want to believe he's a 'defender of truth,' (your words, not mine) then go ahead.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest Dude, you fail! forget TF - can you f'ing READ?
I'm not the apex of truth, but you have consistently failed to grasp my simple words in the language of English, you fail over and over, you cannot be taken seriously.
Question? Are you a Troll? or are you a Prat?
I'm sorry to say that your history is a matter of record (sucks to be you).
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Hang on. You claim TF is a 'defender of truth' and something about an 'advocate for an objective 'religion' of truth(iness)' and when someone (meaning me) thinks that's clearly bullshit (considering his recent videos) and call you out on it (maybe even calling you a sheep), you claim I'm misrepresenting you, don't actually outline any of your opinions, claim I'm straw manning you and TF and now you resort to ad hominen?
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest show me, umm… please show me, please embarrass me with facts and truth, show when and where I said what you claim!
I know your very small, myopic and simplistic (black and white) world is one where it's easy and compulsory to falsely categorize each and everything without ever listening to or understanding any nuance of it.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
In risk of straw manning again, I suppose this is where you dance around the issue in hopes of deflecting from answering my questions, by flinging incredibly bland insults?
'What you claim' would mean when you said Thunderf00t was trying to be a defender of truth and an advocate for a 'religion' of objective truth, I take it? Or was it when I called you a sheep for believing he was? I didn't actually say you said anything, but... no matter. Literacy says I must be semantic.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Read? I can read perfectly fine. You said some bullshit about TF, and then you've not actually clarified your position or elaborated on what you meant. Yeah, I might have called you a sheep, but then it's maybe because you cannot seem to find any worthy criticism about TF. Or have I really, really misunderstood you? And did I call you a prat, or did I call TF a prat?
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest you ignore words, you ignore reality, you ignore the text and context of responses to you. Congratulations! You're a troll!
You've been accepted into the embarrassing world of pathetic and lonely morons, you should be proud!
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@Pitchguest wait for it…
wait for it…
yes, that's the familiar sound of laughter you're hearing...
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@Pitchguest what? Are you now typing more illiterate moronic gibberish? Wow, those of us that went to school are amazed and transformed by your very cogent argument for your position of… what?
…of…
…of…
what???
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
*facepalm* Illiterate? Honestly. That's what you want to get me for? Illiteracy? Yes, I have no command of the English language nor of my own, nor have I command of grammar, spelling and proper use of punctutation. But I'm glad you were here so you could school me on THAT. Nice going. Kudos. Of course I've already outlined MY position, yours however is still unclear. But then it seems you've abandoned the discussion to call me a prat and a troll, so maybe I shouldn't bother.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Trying to defend, but failing miserably at it. I'm assuming what you mean is past tense, yes? Because the Thunderf00t of today (despot) is not the Thunderf00t of yester year (WDPLAC, free speech agent, science and education). Why is it that people cannot come to terms with this? He's not being objective, he's not being polite, he's not being humble. In his blogtv with DLandonCole he channeled his inner Glenn Beck. You remember that one? He made a chart. A chart of bullshit.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest I humbly step back and suspend any further rule of spelling or grammar.
We are all in AWE awaiting your genius thesis!
Please educate us without regard for spelling or grammar, just please make your arguments and thesis partially intelligible with words of aborigine, or the barks of wolves.
This wold has many problems and we all await your genius (minus spelling or grammar). Please, pretty please with sugar on top!
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Yes, well, I suppose when you call someone who's clearly literate ILLITERATE, you kindly would have to step back and think for a moment, wouldn't you? See, this is what I'm talking about. You call me a troll. Me. Trying to have a conversation with you. Trying to probe you into having a conversation with me. But I'm the troll. Me. Yet you do shit like this. Is this a double standard with you or something? Has the whole world gone crazy? That's WORLD, by the way. With an r.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest you forget your words are a matter of record, as you pretend and lie… hahaha…
thanks for the laugh.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Ah, there it is. I should've known. I seriously need to learn to call you when I see you. But no, I have to do the common sensical thing and give you the benefit of the doubt. I really should learn to stop doing that, but almost every time it turns out they're nothing but baiting, nepotistic morons. But for the sake of argument, I trust you have evidence for that 'record' of mine or are just making shit up? People like you. People like you. *sigh*
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest sorry, I retract my 'troll' comments…
I've now realized that you're deeply delusional (not a troll).
how?
why?
many reasons…
Lets try re - reading my words from the beginning and count how many times you ignored the obvious reality of my clear words.
Common, you can do it!
Give us the number, common!
You can do it!
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
'Many reasons' which you cannot cite. And look, as your true face starts to emerge, your literacy seems to digress. As it seems to do with every one of you. I wonder if there's a connection to be had there with your blind defense of TF, or if it's merely a coincidence.
Also, for the last time, *you haven't actually said anything beyond your initial comment which I CALLED YOU OUT ON.* So what else should I read to 'understand' your position, poindexter?
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest yes, I cannot cite words you have already written and recorded here, I'm so wrong.
I've held your retarded hand and told you why your claim of what you think I said is wrong..
just put it in text now and I may respond in the next 3 days…
sorry, but I have a life and it's late on the East coast of the USA and I'm going to bed and will be busy, but please build a case to embarrass me.
Please stop embarrassing yourself as an idiot.
BTW, If you 'call me out' give words please.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Jesus. This is getting nowhere. You've told me nothing. You've clarified... nothing. How is it you think nothing means everything in your world? Since you have a record handy, maybe you could copy and paste that too? That would be nice. Thanks in advance.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Sorry to bring it up again, but you make no sense. You call MY writing 'illiterate.' No. Worse. You call it illiterate 'moronic gibberish.' Moronic gibberish. And then you go ahead and write whatever it was you just wrote. I despair. There is no irony to be had here. It cannot get more sadder than that. *shakes head*
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest it's a matter of record, yet you don't get it.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
No, I don't get it. I don't get this imaginary 'record' of yours. I don't get it because you're a fucking idiot. Yes, a *fucking idiot.* Even though I never actually called you a prat, nor a troll for that matter, I start calling people how I see them *when I see them.* Since I'm a genius who writes theses for a living I can pretty much tell who's a fucking idiot and who's not and you, sir, are *it.* And if you think that's elitist, then frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest the real "record' is the reality past and present here of your posts (including this new post).
If you are unaware of the schizoid nature of your posts then let me again step back and laugh.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
( o _o)
You cannot simply attribute random words to me and claim it true, you need actual basis. 'Schizoid' does nowhere near apply the nature of my posts. Mainly due to the fact that *trying to engage in a conversation is the opposite of schizoid.* You imbecile.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest go back and read!…
Oh! I'm sorry! Was that Elitist??? Forgive me!!
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@Pitchguest more genius, more thesis, more genius please!
It's amazing how smart you are, I now trust you more than any scientist that has humbly devoted his life to objective truth… wow… your fluctuating and unstable views are the foundation of the truth we all seek…
Please tell us all so much more!
..unless you're like me, and you admit that you don't know everything and you are truly humble in an objective search for objective truth.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
'Genius.' You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Ok, I have honestly no idea what the fuck you are on about. Yes, ever in this discussion have I said I know everything there is to know about everything. What?
Pitchguest 9 months ago
it's a matter of record…
why do I smile and laugh?
Because you try to deny and pretend that you did not say and do not believe the insane bullshit that you have forced upon this channel, but your delusions are a matter of record.
And I can't stop laughing!
Do you need evidence?
Do you need me to copy and paste the insane shit you said?
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass let me humbly step back and offer this channel the chance to defend truth in front of the world.
InternalCompass 9 months ago
@InternalCompass
Yes! Please! Please copy and paste the 'insane shit' I said, and in return actually outline what the fuck you are on about for a change? Because as I know you're aware, copying and pasting 'insane shit' goes both ways, and what you posted about Thunderf00t was definitely if not insane shit, then at least delusional and borderline nepotistic.
What the hell does 'a matter of record' even mean? What the *hell* are you talking about?
Pitchguest 9 months ago
@Pitchguest reality and humor!
Thank you for the entertainment!
InternalCompass 9 months ago
I am a Thunderf00t fan.
But I think you are right in this statement.
I like what Thunderf00t is doing and saying.
But he is not always right.....and not always understood.
Sometimes he's to cryptic, meaning the one....and (mis)understood the other.
I think he says repeatedly.
Don't believe me blind, but research it yourself and form your own opinions and thoughts
SO! Don't believe and follow (Thunderf00t) blindly, form your own opinions and thoughts
TheEricthunder 9 months ago
the video reply was my thoughts and response to all this.
wolfwing1 9 months ago
THe thing about all this that gets me is, are majority of thunderdrones, none video makers? maybe I'm wrong, but it seems everyone I end up subscribing too at the least ddisagree with his methods.
wolfwing1 9 months ago
I'm over thundertard... why does he get so much attention? Is it because some YT atheists are disappointed to discover that he's an ignorant blowhard when it comes to politics, society and culture? Their demigawd has disappointed them, and revealed his flawed humanity? He's a socially inept dimwit. Consensus isn't necessarily something that promotes critical thinking or imagining better alternatives. If he can't see that, than he's ignorant of History *and* human nature.
FantasmaBAnco 9 months ago
@FantasmaBAnco
Same thing Pat Condell still has subscribers: denial. Also that people agree with them, but that's another matter. To be honest, it's a bit scary to look at Pat Condell's videos and then look at his subscribers. Enough that Pat doesn't have any power over who subscribes to him or not, but he should at least screen them or remove them as subscribers. The amount of racist, white power, neo-nazis subscribed to him is astounding. Some, too, to TF as well. It's a train wreck.
Pitchguest 9 months ago
Great Points!
ONESPECIES 9 months ago
Can anyone explain how Thunderfoot is more popular than Potholer54? Potholer's videos stand head and shoulders above anything on Youtube in terms of information, writing and production values. Thunderfoot just rambles about Muslims and sounds like his mouth produces too much saliva.
morrowrail 9 months ago
Ah Ger. Anyways. This is a good example of why I talk to people and stay the hell away from youtube now. It's just. Ick now.
happysplodie 9 months ago
Agreed on all points. It seems to me that Thunderfoot is becoming more and more like a religious leader.
1. Not addressing criticisms
2. Unable to apologize for ANYTHING
3. Basically telling everyone to ignore his fallacious arguments and focus on the enemy(and he calls himself a Scientist).
He might as well be the Pope of Atheism
Dusty341 9 months ago
Atheists are hiding in your closet, under your bed, behind your mom... You can never tell where we'll be next.
On a more serious note, I really did like this video.
AndroBubbles 9 months ago
I get your point but I get Tfoots too. We need to unite around the things we can unite about. We should debate. I dont see why everyone is so mad at Tfoot right now. I guess when you are a movement of authority haters its easy to see someone as an authority and hate them. Oh well, keep it up both of you!
jfraas1 9 months ago
Only criticism i can give is that i'd argue the religious do and always have known what to focus on, uncertainties. where did it all come from? that and other questions that come into conflict with their beliefs that can't be answered with 100% certainty. And the resurgence of atheism is a result of people's new found ease at accessing new information and opposing view points. religion preys on community cohesion. with the advent of the internet, its become harder and harder to ignore critics.
B1ackHayabusa 9 months ago
@B1ackHayabusa This is true however most atheists/non-religious people are becoming more and more comfortable with "uncertainties". In so doing they've come to the realization that in asking things like "where did it all come from?" as a way of attempting to counter criticism, religious people expose themselves to yet another counter attack because they don't know either. Posing God as the answer solves nothing.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@themanofearth
Indeed, but unfortunately it seems that many religious people are comforted by unprovable assertions expressed with absolute certainly, at least when it comes to questions relating to the origin of life and subjects like morality. many just want a nice simple answers that require very little inquiry, investigation or effort to understand. ignorance is both a weakness, and the life blood of religion. where there's intellectual laziness and unanswered questions, religion thrives.
B1ackHayabusa 9 months ago
@B1ackHayabusa Agreed.
themanofearth 9 months ago
@FranksVoice WOW! A Christian apologist who actually used one of the correct definitions of atheism in a comment. Amazing! But I DID say that it's not an actual definition so... Your comment makes little to no sense.
themanofearth 9 months ago
(...continued) It must be painful for him (TF00t) to put so much effort into trying to promote science and reason, and then to see so much puerile behaviour and hate thrown at him. I would agree that Thunderf00t isn't perfect, but he deserves better than what he's getting. He has shown that he is worthy of respect IMHO. His main thrust (summed up generally as more knowledge/reason, less ignorance please) would improve the human race.
Your response to him was very respectful BTW.
LAnonHubbard 9 months ago 2
@LAnonHubbard Thank you for your comment. :-)
themanofearth 9 months ago
@LAnonHubbard
Oh, but it must be painful for him. Oh boo hoo. You reap what you sow. It's like when before Pat Condell began making videos about Islam and his support for UKIP (a nationalist party). His videos about Christianity, in his manner of speaking, was good. Funny. Made good arguments. I even use some of them still when attempting to reason with Christians. But as soon he made videos about Muslims, the shit hit the fan. Maybe you need to come to terms that TF is not who he once was.
Pitchguest 9 months ago