Nothing wrong with swearing or satire. As for abandoning intellectual crutches, intelligence is really the best thing that atheism has going for it. If I may use ironic yet appropriate video game terminology, intelligence and science unlock atheism's "God Mode." Why give up this beautiful cheat code?
Also, there should be another category called "The Charismatic Genius Atheists." It would include TheoreticalBullshit and DasAmericanAtheist. Their arguments are what convinced me, personally.
On categorizing athiests: "They fell into this group (that I myself have created) without any help on my part" = not an intelligent statement. And on the 'nanny nanny boo boo' ending, it's just plain hypocritical in regards to your own definition of "wise athiests". Just some thoughts to be openly considered. Make it a wonderful day! :)
Every person featured in this video seem wiser then the person who created it....except Billy Connolly. I hate Billy Connolly! He is the most unfunny comedian that I can possibly think of. I particularly remember the "get on with it" Ken Bigley joke. One of the most poor ignorant things I've ever heard come from someone's mouth. I love how all the women fit into the "naive" category. I think you may be sexist as well as arrogant but you may just not realize it...or you choose to ignore it.
@LeVoixNoire The people are in the naive category because they don't know much and have a mindset which prevents them from knowing much. Xiagui shows the most promise from the group, but even that clip showed naivety in my opinion (I won't explain why, but it wasn't in what she said)
I would have thought this video was tongue in cheek from the first couple of minutes. But since it is supposedly serious, I would suggest that category six be more properly named Pompous. No atheist, just Pompous.
@Blackmark52 This is exactly my sentiments. Perfectly said. The arrogance is this video is amazing. I've just watched a few videos by Kev Solway and Men of the infinite and I've seen nothing that would show wisdom.
@Irbeth "Intellectual crutches", not intellectual tools. The crutches are things we don't need and which we lean on because we have no faith in ourselves, and in our own reason.
@doireallyneed1 No, I can't recommend any other users who fall into the "wise" category. I haven't seen any wise atheists on youtube. That's how rare they are. JasperAvi would be one of the "most human", which has potential for wisdom.
@ruirodtube - You haven't shown much in the way of intelligent insight thus far, frankly. And I am not Kevin Solway (who is only an occasional contributor to my channel). And I am not a Buddhist. Perhaps you'd like to watch my vid "Am I a Buddhist?".
Atheists did nothing for the bulding of this country (US) and are worthless pieces of shit riding the coattails of the christians....
Atheisms is a fuckin disease that I like to spit on, fuck atheists and all that follow that cult that does not respect authority and follows a science that can't even put man on mars yet LOL PATHETIC
@MenoftheInfinite Wisdom is obvious to people. It doesn't need declaration by the wise himself. It is unwise to declare one's wisdom, thus diluting whatever wisdom one could have. Only unwise people don't see it this way. If you were really wise you'd know this. But lacking this wisdom you don't understand the principle and the workings of the concept and therefore feel the urge to declare yourself wise! Proof you're not really wise.
@MenoftheInfinite "Generally speaking a person who was wise would have little reason to state such a thing, but there may be circumstances where it is useful or just appropriate" = FALSE! It is ALWAYS UNWISE to be a self-proclaimed wise. It is wiser to let people come to the conclusion that you're wise. Because wisdom is obvious. It is self-demonstrating. If you can't demonstrate wisdom then you don't have it, and need to declare it instead! In which case you're exposed as a liar and unwise.
@MenoftheInfinite No fireman is self-proclaimed! He becomes a fireman once he passes the training and succeeds the tests imposed by the authority. Bad example!
Once someone declares himself wiser or superior it indicates that he isn't. The wise need not to declare themselves, because their wisdom is obvious thus needing no declaration.
The fool, on the other hand, needs to auto-proclaim himself wise because none see it, for a good reason!
@KevinSolway On what grounds do you base your claim of superiority? One can be intellectually superior (a genius), physically superior (an athlete), morally superior (like Ghandi), technologically superior (NASA), financially superior (Bill Gates), artistically superior (Mozart), etc. I don't see you being superior in any of the above categories when compared to the other Atheists of YouTube. Perhaps I'm wrong. Prove it.
@ruirodtube In answer to your question we claim wisdom as our superiority. Wisdom and rationality. Those things also include morality. We're not trying to prove anything, but proof can be found in the material we release to the web, including the videos on this channel.
@KevinSolway So, you claim to have a superior kind of wisdom. How so?
I'm a sceptic. I obviously question your claim but I don't dismiss it yet. Present evidence to support it and I'll study it. I'm going to watch the rest of the material you've released on the web to see if they substantiate your claims.
By the way, you contradicted yourself: If you're not trying to prove anything then you wouldn't have released the materials, otherwise you ARE trying to prove something. Stay rational...
@ruirodtube We are only trying to make the world a better place by speaking the truth. We aren't doing it with the motive of making ourselves look good or wise. We're only concerned about conveying the truth. That is, we are trying to prove the truth of our ideas rather than trying to prove we are wise. There is also my book "Poison for the Heart" available through a google search.
@KevinSolway After I asked for evidence you moved the goal post. That's not the way to lead a rational conversation.
So, let's go back: in the video "Youtube Atheist Evolutionary Tree" you claim that MenoftheInfinite is on a separate category which is superior to the other Atheists. Where is the truth in that? That's my question! And you're avoiding to respond to it.
If I bluntly state that I'm FAR better than you, is that the truth, or should I prove it? Don't make empty claims. Prove them!
@ruirodtube The truth of our superiority is the truth alright, and I present all the material I've posted to the web, including all the videos on this channel, as proof (not that I'm trying to prove superiority). Our superiority is in our knowing more things of significance about reality and about life, and being able to put into practice what we know.
@KevinSolway Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and study the materials you've posted on YouTube and I'll get back to you.
So far, I must admit, you've started off on the wrong foot with this video. Put MenoftheInfinite at the bottom of the list, along with everyone else, and quit labelling him "wise atheists". Rather call him "moralist atheist". The judgement of wisdom is up to me to make, not anyone else instead of me.
@ruirodtube A "moralist" sounds like someone who talks about morality, but is not actually moral themselves. So I wouldn't put myself in that category. The judgement of wisdom is also up to me to make - and I have made the judgement. I don't expect anyone to believe what I say, but I put forwards what I believe to be true because I can't see any reason not to.
@KevinSolway Ok, call it "moral atheist" then. And please remove it from the side and put it below.
Sure, you can judge yourself wise, but so can any crazy fool. How can you tell if you're correct or delusional?
I've watched 4 of your videos in chronological order, and I'm poking holes in everyone of them. It's a mix of truth and gibberish, much like the one you'd expect from a fool talking in the streets. What makes you believe you're not one of them?
@ruirodtube It's important to have values and to judge "better" and "worse". If we don't do that then we have no values at all and are therefore on a level with rocks. The only way a person can correctly judge themselves to be wise is if they are wise. An unwise person incorrectly judges themself to be wise.
As for your "poking holes", I'm sure I can poke holes in your poking holes.
This video is a mix of interesting & lame. It's interesting to know there are many Atheists on YouTube, each with a different approach & style. The lame is the separate category that MenoftheInfinite created for himself as if he was special or superior. Turn the list 90 degrees anticlockwise and look: he comes on top! All the others are below him! And how pretentious to label oneself "WISE"! One more thing: the last time I heard "I have a secret but I can't tell" was in primary school! Grow up.
This is a pathetic waste of time...It just show the religious mind's ability to compartmentalize information and objectify others...When would ANY two atheists fit into ANY category, except the ones in your head? One could be a Fascist another a Marxist. They may disagree on everything except their disbelief in God...But you've got them all pegged down into a hierarchy of disbelief....How much fail is there in that?
@rogan71 You are yourself categorizing atheists into those who have a "religious mind" and those who don't. You are also categorizing all atheists into the same category.
@rogan71 Since the makers of this video are atheists, and you are categorizing them as having a "religious mind" then you are categorizing different groups of atheists.
@KevinSolway - Maker of this video...I wouldn't categories atheism at all. Not in any respect. Even belief is hard to categorize, as what a person really believes in their heart never falls perfectly into a system, but categorizing non-belief would be like putting someone who doesn't believe in astrology in the same camp with someone who doesn't believe in fairies...And yes, this concept is so off the mark I mistakenly thought this was a theist video...
@KevinSolway - So for you all people have a niche...A label to be conveniently fixed and a box for them to be placed? How do you categorize belief, let alone lack of belief? Categories only work in so far as making crass generalizations, but are fairly useless beyond that
@rogan71 All things can be categorized, and that includes people. Things are categorized according to their characteristics. Generalizations are not necessarily "crass". Many generalizations are excellent, and are extremely useful. If generalizations were not useful we would not use them all the time.
@KevinSolway - Well I see what you're saying, but I believe it's a very counter-productive approach...As with all ideology, it clouds how a person thinks. A liberal has to think liberally, religious religiously and so on...This kind of holds up the evolution of ideas. We have many universal truths and more or less agree on right and wrong....It's ideology that filters this through a bureaucracy of the mind...Religion is a perfect example of willing refusal to recognize facts.
@rogan71 Generalizations are not necessary a result of ideology. Through generalizations we are able to make sense of the world around us and communicate ideas. But we need to be in control of our categories rather than the other way around.
What an arrogant piece of shit thinks we all should aspire to be like him. You're a boring old man with to few friends. Why should I aspire to be like that.
Tell the truth. You made this video to make yourself feel grander than the rest. Especially the so called naive atheist. Especially FactVsReligion.
I personally agree that my channel need not have been mentioned in that final category. It could have just stood as the ideal that it's supposed to be. But this vid is not an exercise in pwnage or anything like that. It's making a specific point about what there is to aspire to and aim for.
@MenoftheInfinite Is this a satire? Is this YouTube's candid camera? Your channel is the ideal? The other Atheists are supposed to "aspire and aim" for your level? What a load of pretentiousness! You're acting like a wannabe god! And what a lame ending for the video: "we can't tell you how we do it because we would loose our advantage"! I would say: egotistic and pretentious. NOTHING WISE about that!
P.S. Notice that the GROUP of Wise Atheists (plural) is composed of only ONE!
All this video does is place people in categories with no explanation and then place the creator of those categories above everyone else with no exposition as to how or why.
Without exposition it is pointless.
Claiming that you are better then the other posters and this this should be self evident (not requiring exposition) is extraordinarily arrogant.
If you think the video was bad you should check out how this 'argument' has developed.
I enjoyed the 'Daniel Dennett: Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?' video in your channel.
One and a half hours and it was pretty heavy going but I think he did a fairly reasonable job of showing how free will still exists within a deterministic world view.
However, I don't tend to like semantic arguments and he did use a lot of word play to make his case.
Omniwoof, I explained why the scientific category was inferior, and also why the philosophic category was problematic, and it is obvious what the problem is with the naive and swearing categories. I think all that is very constructive.
Kev, you described the the scientific category as 'boring' and thats is it. That is not explaining how or why that category is 'inferior' it's just your opinion - not constructive.
The philosophical category you say, 'Has potential to reach much higher than the other groups but there is no guarantee that it will.'. This also doesn't explain why this group is problematic.
Furthermore you do not explain why being 'wise' is superior, you certainly do not explain why you qualify as 'wise'.
Omniwoof, you'll also recall that I said that those in the scientific group rarely become philosophers, and even more rarely become wise. That's a serious problem in my view. When those in the philosophic category don't become wise it's usually because of attachment to women and other drugs. They will fail when they value happiness more highly than truth. "Wise" is only superior if one values truth. What wisdom is, is explained in all our other videos (eg, see the links at the end of this vid).
I didn't actually ask what wisdom is I asked why you believe you qualify as wise.
However stating that those groups rarely become wise is not explaining why that is the case. You require that this is self evident for all the groups.
In fact the only 'evidence' you provide to support these claims is that you are in the wise group and you declare yourself wise.
Like a theist claiming that god is real because it's in the bible and that the bible is correct about this because god wrote the bible.
Omniwoof, I consider myself wise because I have understood the core truths of reality, and am able, for the most part, to live in accordance with them. This means not having my thoughts swayed by emotions, etc. The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments - which are made throughout all the videos on this channel. If my arguments were wrong, then I wouldn't be wise.
Omniwoof, I don't agree with your second point. People who understand reality as I do couldn't possibly disagree with me, which makes your point wrong. And I do not make that point myself, so it's not my argument. Therefore you're only arguing with another argument of your own creation.
But if you could disprove any argument which I myself make, rather than one which you have created, then you might be able to prove me to be unwise.
Omniwoof, your point 2, in the argument you presented in your earlier comment, is not my position at all. Therefore the argument is not mine. It's that simple. I do not argue that.
I said that "The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments". I certainly didn't say that those same people can disagree with me. To the contrary, it is conceivable for someone prove my arguments to be wrong - if they were wrong.
It's certainly possible for someone to critique my arguments. If my logic is incorrect then someone could point out the error in my logic (eg, I might be arguing that A is not A). On the other hand, if my logic is correct then nobody can point out my error. That's the reason I say that anyone who understands me cannot disagree with me.
But your pont "B" is incorrect, since I *do* hold that any logical errors in what I say can be detected by others.
Omniwoof, there is no contradiction. Both points 1. and 4. are simple statements of fact. That is, both statements are 100% true, independently of the other.
Regarding point 4., it would be impossible for a person to validate my arguments if they didn't understand them, since they wouldn't be able to know if there was a logical error. It would be like trying to validate that 1+1 = 2, without knowing what was meant by the symbols.
Omniwoof, if the two statements are both independently true then they can't possibly contradict one another - because they are independent.
I have said that I can only be proven wrong if I am wrong. That is significantly different from "I can be proven wrong". You are ignoring the context.
If I'm not wrong then I can't possibly be proven wrong.
Omniwoof, A equals B CANNOT be true at the same time that A does not equal B. So they are NOT independent. The one automatically invalidates the other.
Judging by what you have said, you are incapable of basic logic.
By contrast my two statements are truly independent, since they have nothing to do with one another, and so they cannot possibly contradict one another.
Independently true does not require them to be 'independent'.
Also I have no idea what you mean by 'truly independent'. I believe you are just inventing new terminology in a effort to try and weasel your way out of your obvious errors.
However I'll humor you: It sounds like you are trying to assert that your statements have a magical property that means they have no context and it is wrong to place them in the context of an argument.
Omniwoof, a statement which is true, independent of another statement is "independently true". It is called "independent" because its truth doesn't depend on the truth or falsity of the other statement. That's what I mean by "independent".
All of my statements have a context, but you can't just mix my statements up randomly to create an argument that suits you. If you want to try to defeat my arguments then you should find out what my arguments are, then try to defeat them.
"Omniwoof, I consider myself wise because I have understood the core truths of reality, and am able, for the most part, to live in accordance with them. This means not having my thoughts swayed by emotions, etc. The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments - which are made throughout all the videos on this channel. If my arguments were wrong, then I wouldn't be wise"
Omniwoof, what you quoted is indeed my argument. You will note that I never argued that no-one could ever find fault my arguments - if my arguments were faulty. If my arguments were faulty, then others could indeed find fault with them.
Except of course when you said this: "People who understand reality as I do couldn't possibly disagree with me."
If the only people who can find fault with your arguments are the people who already agree with your arguments then it is impossible by that reasoning for you to accept that there could be a fault with your argument.
Omniwoof, it doesn't follow from the statement "People who understand reality as I do couldn't possibly disagree with me" that the only people who can find fault with my arguments are those who already agree with them. It doesn't logically follow. That is, your statement has nothing remotely to do with what I said.
If there were logical errors in my arguments then others could detect the errors, and I would then be able to learn from those errors.
Omniwoof, to the contrary, anyone can see that there is no logic to your argument. The problem is that you are not tackling my argument at all. You believe that I'm arguing that "the only people who can find fault with my arguments are those who already agree with them". But this is only a figment of your imagination.
I have already given examples independently true statements so you don't score any points by explaining something I've already demonstrated that I understand.
What do you mean by 'truly independent'? How can you make several statements in the context of an argument and then claim that they are 'truly independent' of each other and do not create a logical fallacy?
I maintain that this is not good reasoning and you are trying to weasel out of your errors.
Omniwoof, if "A equals B" and "A does not equal B" were independent of each other then they would both be able to be true at the same time. But they can't. So your example is fallacious.
Can you tell us where your atheism arises from? Can you tell us where you stand amongst these atheists? How you are different? The 500 character comment of you tube is certainly not enough for CLARIFYING YOUR STANCE. Please make a VIDEO whenever possible.
Also the video is labeled evolutionary tree. Can you point out where the atheist "evolution" is and why the above classification is a "tree"? A true evolutionary tree has convergence or divergence or both(represented by a graph).
The video "God and purpose" explains why I don't believe in a God-being. If "God" is anything at all then it must be "the All", and therefore is not a conscious being. That is, it is not the traditional Christian God.
The categorization is evolutionary in that people can change from one type to another. And it is a "tree" in the crude sense that it has a lower part and a higher part.
This video is to be understood as a work of poetry, and isn't meant to be taken literally.
Haha ... "I can't tell you how we do that. If we do we will lose our advantage." This single statement is enough to tell me that your intentions are not honest. You do not want to distinguish yourself because you will "lose your advantage"? I liked the video up to that point. Maybe you need to tell others why you are different. I simply do not have the time to go through all your other videos and see where you stand with respect to other.
How are you different then? Labeling yourself as wise does not really tell you how you are different. And labeling the "scientific atheists" as boring does not mean anything. Are you suggesting science is boring? Science and philosophy is not meant to be interesting. It is just reasoning based on accepted axioms. In the case of science the axioms come from the observations in the physical reality.
Ok, here's a short version of why we're different. Firstly, the rejection of theism is an extremely small part of what we do. Generally speaking atheists replace the delusions of theism with other delusions (eg, love, power, hate, greed, group-think, etc). We don't do that so much, although we're far from perfect. Yes, science is boring unless it is underpinned by good philosophy. Philosophy isn't boring when it's done properly. Academic "philosophy" gives philosophy a bad name.
I don't know what your first point was about. You say rejection of theism(a delusion) is replaced by some other delusion. So your classification is based on what each atheist replaces the delusion of theism with?
Your second point is meaning less. Science and philosophy having are the pursuit of truth. They have nothing to do with interesting or boring, which are emotions that arise in us humans. The only thing giving science, reason and philosophy a bad name is your "philosophy".
While it's true that different people have different delusions, my classification doesn't specifically address which delusions each type of atheist has. It is simply a useful classification of types.
Science and philosophy pursue different things, and that's why they have different names. Science doesn't pursue *absolute* truth, and isn't designed to pursue it.
"God and Purpose", "Genius". "The curse of unconsciousness", "Enlightenment", "Determinism and indeterminism", "What is the Infinite", and "The Nature of existence".
How could you be so blind..You love Quog unconditionally and he more or less promises not to pull your arms off. He is the almighty ruler of the universe. Merciful (by monkey standards) all knowing and most disinterested. He gave us the free will to to anything he tells us, he gave us opposable thumbs and provided guidance through Benji the talking chimp.
As for your comment about your other videos that describe a wise athiest, I apologize for jumping to conclusions, I'll be sure to browse through those videos.
Also do you think it is accurate to put athiests into these catagories? For example do you know for sure that the swearing athiests don't have an understanding of the science of evolution? What do you mean by advantage? An argument or philosophy has an advantage when it has demonstrated itself to be a superior alternative to its competitors. Therefore as of now the "wise athiest" is at a disadvantage. By that I mean no wise person in the conventional sense would take the concept seriously.
This video was very tongue-in-cheek, and I had to try very hard not to kill myself laughing while I was making it.
However, I also intended this video to speak many truths, and to stimulate thought.
Yes indeed, the swearing atheists contains some philosophical-minded people, artists, materialists, comedians, and even non-swearers, but I thought it was a good category in any case. (more)
(cont'd) I finished with the comment I did for a number of reasons: 1. To continue my tongue-in-cheek theme. 2. I couldn't be bothered explaining in the time left. 3. I want people to watch our other videos for the answer. and 4. It is an allusion to the Taoist teaching, "The Way that can be told is not the eternal Way". That is, there's no simple, concrete way to convey the idea. It is profound. You can't just hand it to someone like you would hand them a book.
what about athiests like the ones at godisimaginary who critisize the specific nonsensical aspects of various religious texts, as well as make thoughtful arguments against the likelyhood of the existance of god
Regarding the atheists at godisimaginary, it's difficult to tell without reading a lot of their stuff. They may be philosophical, or, at first glance are more likely to be mostly scientific. Or they might require another category I couldn't fit on the screen. My categories weren't intended to be an exhaustive, "final solution", so to speak. They are intended to stimulate thought. The category I am most pleased with was the "naive" category. Just perfect!
The athiests at godisimaginary have videos that are devoted to critiquing the senselessness of the old and new testaments. I apologize for not listing them. I also apologize for assuming your list was exaustive. A youtube search for "Proving that nobody can get into heaven" takes you to a good example of a godisimaginary critique of a religious text.
There is absolutely no evidence that Jesusophile is a satirical atheist, just a silly assumption by many. I think he's just an inarticulate Christian.
Reading my comment again, my sincerest apologies for my rude outburst/namecalling. I just get irritated when people claim to have knowledge others cannot attain. Exclusive gnosticism or the like. Makes my blood boil.
Genius. You've found some atheists channels that focus on mainly science and called them "Scientifc atheists". You also found some that swear and I see you labeled them "Swearing atheists". A few people that I have seen disagreeing with you are labeled "Navie", then you have the satrical atheists and the philosophical atheists (hmm, I wonder what their videos mainly consist of?).
But of course, then we have you and your mock philosophies. Please explain, in what way does any of this nonsensical, egotistical, classification system relate to evolution? Any context will do. Thanks in advance.
That doesn't explain anything, it's just a statment. Evolution is change, simple to complex. Are you postulating that atheists generally start from a point of, let's say, naivety? Then through study and understanding they can reach your superhuman style of wisdom and intellect? Anyway this is nonsense, I think I may be taking you too seriously. Is this a joke? If not I'd like to see you debate someone.
Naivety is a state of animal unconsciousness, and wisdom is developed consciousness. It is indeed possible to go from one to the other. You're welcome to debate any of our ideas on the appropriate videos, or you could make a video response, or you could go to the discussion forum listed on the channel page.
By "naive" I mean both lacking worldly experience and understanding, as well as lacking sophistication and critical judgment. This can be summarized as a lack of *depth*. It is commonly recognized as an immediacy, or a living in the moment, and putting emphasis on feelings rather than deeper understanding.
By "lacking worldly experience" I mean lacking experience of causes and consequences - lacking the experience of lessons learned. This is not necessarily a factor of age, since those in the naive category often lack the capacity to learn from experience.
I am a little disappointed that there was not so much an evolutionary tree - a look at the changes in atheism and atheist output on youtube - which the title suggested. Instead you opt for a classification into six categories and do not seem to have even watched some peoples videos.
I still stand by that classification, even now, seven months later. Although I now wouldn't doubt for a second that ghostofdayinperson is in the naive category.
The "swearing atheists" category was of course very tongue-in-cheek. Inmendham (Donotgod) is in fact somewhat of a philosopher.
@KevinSolway - the six classifications could be useful except the last one - which I took as a joke. The problem is that you can have more than one characteristic - you can be a philosophical and swearing atheist for example - these categories are labels - part of a field guide to contemporary atheists on youtube - my peeve is the idea that the classifications which you did have anything to do with evolutionary trees - there is no tree and evolutionary trees need time.
The main purpose of this video, as with all of the videos on this channel, is to stimulate thought. I think I made it clear in this video that I was just making up the categories as I went along. You are quite right - all of those categories are fluid, and aren't mutually exclusive. We are all naive to some degree, and probably swear to some degree as well. I think the "wise atheists" category is good category, since most atheists aren't wise, but some are. (more)
Of course, there's the implication that those in the lower categories can "evolve" into something better, and eventually become wise. So nobody is stuck in their category.
as I don't see a hierarchy (interestingly a word that meant rule by priests) in the categories - people can aspire to be as funny as coughlin666, can aspire to be as philospohical as tooltime etc.
It is hard to become naive, I suppose, but that is a function of 'being naive' it is a state that is lost and even Picasso who tried to recapture it in his later art never managed to do so. I am not sure that wise is an exclusive area separate from others. You can be a wise swearing atheist.
Respect the work of other atheists, such as dprjones, who are here for very nobel reasons: to advocate atheism, to educate with science and to promote secular atheism, with charity work including.
When you get 70K subscribers rating your videos 5 star constantly, then you may be qualified as a wise man.
Conquer compliments to yourself, do not demand them by giving yourself titles...
70K impletecates popularity not wiseness. Furthermore, such popular Youtubers are more likely to become complacent, and thus produce crap videos, when they know they have an army of subscribers 5 staring all the way.
Nothing wrong with swearing or satire. As for abandoning intellectual crutches, intelligence is really the best thing that atheism has going for it. If I may use ironic yet appropriate video game terminology, intelligence and science unlock atheism's "God Mode." Why give up this beautiful cheat code?
Also, there should be another category called "The Charismatic Genius Atheists." It would include TheoreticalBullshit and DasAmericanAtheist. Their arguments are what convinced me, personally.
ProfessorJoke 7 months ago
On categorizing athiests: "They fell into this group (that I myself have created) without any help on my part" = not an intelligent statement. And on the 'nanny nanny boo boo' ending, it's just plain hypocritical in regards to your own definition of "wise athiests". Just some thoughts to be openly considered. Make it a wonderful day! :)
GiffyPooh 9 months ago
Every person featured in this video seem wiser then the person who created it....except Billy Connolly. I hate Billy Connolly! He is the most unfunny comedian that I can possibly think of. I particularly remember the "get on with it" Ken Bigley joke. One of the most poor ignorant things I've ever heard come from someone's mouth. I love how all the women fit into the "naive" category. I think you may be sexist as well as arrogant but you may just not realize it...or you choose to ignore it.
Phurman 1 year ago
I think that the group 6. should be categorized as a split from group 5, and called "Sophical atheists".
Nylonbeast 1 year ago
I thought the atheist evolutionary tree looked like a DNA chain???
drjackflash 1 year ago
you never explain why u put people in the naive category. i dont think that video example showed any naivety.
LeVoixNoire 1 year ago
@LeVoixNoire The people are in the naive category because they don't know much and have a mindset which prevents them from knowing much. Xiagui shows the most promise from the group, but even that clip showed naivety in my opinion (I won't explain why, but it wasn't in what she said)
KevinSolway 1 year ago
I would have thought this video was tongue in cheek from the first couple of minutes. But since it is supposedly serious, I would suggest that category six be more properly named Pompous. No atheist, just Pompous.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52 This is exactly my sentiments. Perfectly said. The arrogance is this video is amazing. I've just watched a few videos by Kev Solway and Men of the infinite and I've seen nothing that would show wisdom.
Phurman 1 year ago
Deeming the abandonment of emotion and intellectual tools as wise....doesn't seem that wise.
Irbeth 1 year ago
@Irbeth "Intellectual crutches", not intellectual tools. The crutches are things we don't need and which we lean on because we have no faith in ourselves, and in our own reason.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
Could you recomend any other users that would fall into the "Wise Atheist" category?
doireallyneed1 1 year ago
@doireallyneed1 No, I can't recommend any other users who fall into the "wise" category. I haven't seen any wise atheists on youtube. That's how rare they are. JasperAvi would be one of the "most human", which has potential for wisdom.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway hey what about me!
jupta00 1 year ago
All right! I just received confirmation from Kevin Solway that this channel is about Buddhist apologetics. They are not Atheists. They are Buddhists.
So MenoftheInfinite and Kevin Solway (which are probably the same person), I have a clear message for you:
DON'T MESS WITH ATHEISTS, WE'RE SMARTER THAN YOU!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube Why are you lying? Is this how you want to represent atheists, by lying? I have said no such thing.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@ruirodtube - You haven't shown much in the way of intelligent insight thus far, frankly. And I am not Kevin Solway (who is only an occasional contributor to my channel). And I am not a Buddhist. Perhaps you'd like to watch my vid "Am I a Buddhist?".
MenoftheInfinite 1 year ago
@ruirodtube what? wow. Just wow.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@ruirodtube
Atheists did nothing for the bulding of this country (US) and are worthless pieces of shit riding the coattails of the christians....
Atheisms is a fuckin disease that I like to spit on, fuck atheists and all that follow that cult that does not respect authority and follows a science that can't even put man on mars yet LOL PATHETIC
Angelsword135 1 year ago
@Angelsword135 I see your enjoying the fruits of modern technology. Irony........so sweet.
porkYcain 1 year ago
@Angelsword135 loltroll
PaperShishigami 8 months ago
@MenoftheInfinite Wisdom is obvious to people. It doesn't need declaration by the wise himself. It is unwise to declare one's wisdom, thus diluting whatever wisdom one could have. Only unwise people don't see it this way. If you were really wise you'd know this. But lacking this wisdom you don't understand the principle and the workings of the concept and therefore feel the urge to declare yourself wise! Proof you're not really wise.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@veilen Isn't that a wonderful piece of logic? I loved it too. The last time I heard that type of argument I was probably in primary school.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@MenoftheInfinite "Generally speaking a person who was wise would have little reason to state such a thing, but there may be circumstances where it is useful or just appropriate" = FALSE! It is ALWAYS UNWISE to be a self-proclaimed wise. It is wiser to let people come to the conclusion that you're wise. Because wisdom is obvious. It is self-demonstrating. If you can't demonstrate wisdom then you don't have it, and need to declare it instead! In which case you're exposed as a liar and unwise.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@MenoftheInfinite No fireman is self-proclaimed! He becomes a fireman once he passes the training and succeeds the tests imposed by the authority. Bad example!
Once someone declares himself wiser or superior it indicates that he isn't. The wise need not to declare themselves, because their wisdom is obvious thus needing no declaration.
The fool, on the other hand, needs to auto-proclaim himself wise because none see it, for a good reason!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@KevinSolway On what grounds do you base your claim of superiority? One can be intellectually superior (a genius), physically superior (an athlete), morally superior (like Ghandi), technologically superior (NASA), financially superior (Bill Gates), artistically superior (Mozart), etc. I don't see you being superior in any of the above categories when compared to the other Atheists of YouTube. Perhaps I'm wrong. Prove it.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube In answer to your question we claim wisdom as our superiority. Wisdom and rationality. Those things also include morality. We're not trying to prove anything, but proof can be found in the material we release to the web, including the videos on this channel.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway So, you claim to have a superior kind of wisdom. How so?
I'm a sceptic. I obviously question your claim but I don't dismiss it yet. Present evidence to support it and I'll study it. I'm going to watch the rest of the material you've released on the web to see if they substantiate your claims.
By the way, you contradicted yourself: If you're not trying to prove anything then you wouldn't have released the materials, otherwise you ARE trying to prove something. Stay rational...
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube We are only trying to make the world a better place by speaking the truth. We aren't doing it with the motive of making ourselves look good or wise. We're only concerned about conveying the truth. That is, we are trying to prove the truth of our ideas rather than trying to prove we are wise. There is also my book "Poison for the Heart" available through a google search.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway After I asked for evidence you moved the goal post. That's not the way to lead a rational conversation.
So, let's go back: in the video "Youtube Atheist Evolutionary Tree" you claim that MenoftheInfinite is on a separate category which is superior to the other Atheists. Where is the truth in that? That's my question! And you're avoiding to respond to it.
If I bluntly state that I'm FAR better than you, is that the truth, or should I prove it? Don't make empty claims. Prove them!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube The truth of our superiority is the truth alright, and I present all the material I've posted to the web, including all the videos on this channel, as proof (not that I'm trying to prove superiority). Our superiority is in our knowing more things of significance about reality and about life, and being able to put into practice what we know.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and study the materials you've posted on YouTube and I'll get back to you.
So far, I must admit, you've started off on the wrong foot with this video. Put MenoftheInfinite at the bottom of the list, along with everyone else, and quit labelling him "wise atheists". Rather call him "moralist atheist". The judgement of wisdom is up to me to make, not anyone else instead of me.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube A "moralist" sounds like someone who talks about morality, but is not actually moral themselves. So I wouldn't put myself in that category. The judgement of wisdom is also up to me to make - and I have made the judgement. I don't expect anyone to believe what I say, but I put forwards what I believe to be true because I can't see any reason not to.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway Ok, call it "moral atheist" then. And please remove it from the side and put it below.
Sure, you can judge yourself wise, but so can any crazy fool. How can you tell if you're correct or delusional?
I've watched 4 of your videos in chronological order, and I'm poking holes in everyone of them. It's a mix of truth and gibberish, much like the one you'd expect from a fool talking in the streets. What makes you believe you're not one of them?
Present evidence, not just gibberish.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube It's important to have values and to judge "better" and "worse". If we don't do that then we have no values at all and are therefore on a level with rocks. The only way a person can correctly judge themselves to be wise is if they are wise. An unwise person incorrectly judges themself to be wise.
As for your "poking holes", I'm sure I can poke holes in your poking holes.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway
You said: "An unwise person incorrectly judges themself to be wise." That's exactly what you're doing. BINGO!
If not, then present evidence!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube The evidence is already presented. You have yet to find fault with any of it.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway You obviously ignore what evidence means and I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
Go back to school. Read, learn and come back here to talk some more.
Bye bye.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
This video is a mix of interesting & lame. It's interesting to know there are many Atheists on YouTube, each with a different approach & style. The lame is the separate category that MenoftheInfinite created for himself as if he was special or superior. Turn the list 90 degrees anticlockwise and look: he comes on top! All the others are below him! And how pretentious to label oneself "WISE"! One more thing: the last time I heard "I have a secret but I can't tell" was in primary school! Grow up.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
the
TheLoveMaker232 1 year ago
This is a pathetic waste of time...It just show the religious mind's ability to compartmentalize information and objectify others...When would ANY two atheists fit into ANY category, except the ones in your head? One could be a Fascist another a Marxist. They may disagree on everything except their disbelief in God...But you've got them all pegged down into a hierarchy of disbelief....How much fail is there in that?
rogan71 1 year ago
@rogan71 You are yourself categorizing atheists into those who have a "religious mind" and those who don't. You are also categorizing all atheists into the same category.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway - What?
rogan71 1 year ago
@rogan71 Since the makers of this video are atheists, and you are categorizing them as having a "religious mind" then you are categorizing different groups of atheists.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway - Maker of this video...I wouldn't categories atheism at all. Not in any respect. Even belief is hard to categorize, as what a person really believes in their heart never falls perfectly into a system, but categorizing non-belief would be like putting someone who doesn't believe in astrology in the same camp with someone who doesn't believe in fairies...And yes, this concept is so off the mark I mistakenly thought this was a theist video...
rogan71 1 year ago
@rogan71 I disagree with you. Atheists can be categorized just as easily as any other people, and categories are not necessarily bad things.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway - So for you all people have a niche...A label to be conveniently fixed and a box for them to be placed? How do you categorize belief, let alone lack of belief? Categories only work in so far as making crass generalizations, but are fairly useless beyond that
rogan71 1 year ago
@rogan71 All things can be categorized, and that includes people. Things are categorized according to their characteristics. Generalizations are not necessarily "crass". Many generalizations are excellent, and are extremely useful. If generalizations were not useful we would not use them all the time.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
@KevinSolway - Well I see what you're saying, but I believe it's a very counter-productive approach...As with all ideology, it clouds how a person thinks. A liberal has to think liberally, religious religiously and so on...This kind of holds up the evolution of ideas. We have many universal truths and more or less agree on right and wrong....It's ideology that filters this through a bureaucracy of the mind...Religion is a perfect example of willing refusal to recognize facts.
rogan71 1 year ago
@rogan71 Generalizations are not necessary a result of ideology. Through generalizations we are able to make sense of the world around us and communicate ideas. But we need to be in control of our categories rather than the other way around.
KevinSolway 1 year ago
What an arrogant piece of shit thinks we all should aspire to be like him. You're a boring old man with to few friends. Why should I aspire to be like that.
Tell the truth. You made this video to make yourself feel grander than the rest. Especially the so called naive atheist. Especially FactVsReligion.
insightnew 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but Laura simply isn't that important in the scheme of things, but your dedication is noted.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
@insightnew
So you don't think it's arrogant for you to think you know what other people's motives are? That's a very arrogant belief.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
@insightnew Don't theists do exactly that?
Luigi84289 1 year ago
It would've been more wise to leave your this channel out of the mix (bias or not). And I must say this is a very interesting way to pwn someone...
samuraispacemonkey 2 years ago
I personally agree that my channel need not have been mentioned in that final category. It could have just stood as the ideal that it's supposed to be. But this vid is not an exercise in pwnage or anything like that. It's making a specific point about what there is to aspire to and aim for.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
LOL! "Making a point about what there is to aspire to and aim for" is exactly why it is pwnage. ;)'
samuraispacemonkey 2 years ago
Hmm, maybe. I guess I've been at YT too long to see pwnage that way. I've been corrupted.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
@MenoftheInfinite Is this a satire? Is this YouTube's candid camera? Your channel is the ideal? The other Atheists are supposed to "aspire and aim" for your level? What a load of pretentiousness! You're acting like a wannabe god! And what a lame ending for the video: "we can't tell you how we do it because we would loose our advantage"! I would say: egotistic and pretentious. NOTHING WISE about that!
P.S. Notice that the GROUP of Wise Atheists (plural) is composed of only ONE!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
I transcend all categories...
proudfootz 2 years ago
Pointless, arrogant and distinctly unwise.
All this video does is place people in categories with no explanation and then place the creator of those categories above everyone else with no exposition as to how or why.
Without exposition it is pointless.
Claiming that you are better then the other posters and this this should be self evident (not requiring exposition) is extraordinarily arrogant.
Posting arrogant and pointless videos publicly?
That is clearly unwise.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Well said.
blackchimp99 2 years ago
Thanks for the support BC99.
If you think the video was bad you should check out how this 'argument' has developed.
I enjoyed the 'Daniel Dennett: Is Science Showing That We Don't Have Free Will?' video in your channel.
One and a half hours and it was pretty heavy going but I think he did a fairly reasonable job of showing how free will still exists within a deterministic world view.
However, I don't tend to like semantic arguments and he did use a lot of word play to make his case.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, I explained why the scientific category was inferior, and also why the philosophic category was problematic, and it is obvious what the problem is with the naive and swearing categories. I think all that is very constructive.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Kev, you described the the scientific category as 'boring' and thats is it. That is not explaining how or why that category is 'inferior' it's just your opinion - not constructive.
The philosophical category you say, 'Has potential to reach much higher than the other groups but there is no guarantee that it will.'. This also doesn't explain why this group is problematic.
Furthermore you do not explain why being 'wise' is superior, you certainly do not explain why you qualify as 'wise'.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, you'll also recall that I said that those in the scientific group rarely become philosophers, and even more rarely become wise. That's a serious problem in my view. When those in the philosophic category don't become wise it's usually because of attachment to women and other drugs. They will fail when they value happiness more highly than truth. "Wise" is only superior if one values truth. What wisdom is, is explained in all our other videos (eg, see the links at the end of this vid).
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I didn't actually ask what wisdom is I asked why you believe you qualify as wise.
However stating that those groups rarely become wise is not explaining why that is the case. You require that this is self evident for all the groups.
In fact the only 'evidence' you provide to support these claims is that you are in the wise group and you declare yourself wise.
Like a theist claiming that god is real because it's in the bible and that the bible is correct about this because god wrote the bible.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, I consider myself wise because I have understood the core truths of reality, and am able, for the most part, to live in accordance with them. This means not having my thoughts swayed by emotions, etc. The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments - which are made throughout all the videos on this channel. If my arguments were wrong, then I wouldn't be wise.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Can you learn how to pronounce "xiao gui" correctly then
I mean I don't even like chongers but seriously your pronunciation made me cringe
odenskrigare 2 years ago
How is "xiao gui" supposed to be pronounced?
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Circular reasoning:
1) You are wise because you claim to understand reality and be dispassionate.
2) Only people who understand reality as you do and agree with you are able to disagree with you and say you are not wise.
3) You cannot be wise and present a wrong argument.
This circular argument is flawed/wrong - it proves nothing.
I do not qualify as 'wise' (by your terms) and I have proven your argument to be fundamentally incorrect.
By your own definition you cannot be wise.
QED.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, I don't agree with your second point. People who understand reality as I do couldn't possibly disagree with me, which makes your point wrong. And I do not make that point myself, so it's not my argument. Therefore you're only arguing with another argument of your own creation.
But if you could disprove any argument which I myself make, rather than one which you have created, then you might be able to prove me to be unwise.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
You are underestimating your potential readership if you believe that argument holds any water.
Yet more arrogance and foolishness.
I stand by what I say and when I am wrong I admit it.
Claiming that the argument is not yours, ergo it is not your mistake, is a particularly callow stance to take.
When you present an argument in a debate - even if you did not develop the argument - you are still using it to demonstrate YOUR point.
Be a man of the finite for a moment and own your words.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Omniwoof, your point 2, in the argument you presented in your earlier comment, is not my position at all. Therefore the argument is not mine. It's that simple. I do not argue that.
I said that "The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments". I certainly didn't say that those same people can disagree with me. To the contrary, it is conceivable for someone prove my arguments to be wrong - if they were wrong.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
A. You believe that anyone who understands your point of view cannot disagree with you.
B. You believe that no-one can criticize your 'wisdom' unless they understand your point of view.
By that logic it is impossible for someone to critique your wisdom.
My second point is perfectly valid and perfectly correct:
"Only people who understand reality as you do and agree with you are able to disagree with you and say you are not wise."
You are making my case for me.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
@Omniwoof
It's certainly possible for someone to critique my arguments. If my logic is incorrect then someone could point out the error in my logic (eg, I might be arguing that A is not A). On the other hand, if my logic is correct then nobody can point out my error. That's the reason I say that anyone who understands me cannot disagree with me.
But your pont "B" is incorrect, since I *do* hold that any logical errors in what I say can be detected by others.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Except that isn't what you are actually saying.
1. If my logic is incorrect then someone could point out the error in my logic.
2. If my logic is correct then nobody can point out my error.
3. Anyone who understands me cannot disagree with me.
By that logic anyone who disagrees with you does not understand you, which leads us back to:
4. The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments.
Point 4 directly contradicts point 1.
They are mutually exclusive.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, there is no contradiction. Both points 1. and 4. are simple statements of fact. That is, both statements are 100% true, independently of the other.
Regarding point 4., it would be impossible for a person to validate my arguments if they didn't understand them, since they wouldn't be able to know if there was a logical error. It would be like trying to validate that 1+1 = 2, without knowing what was meant by the symbols.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
This continues to be pointless.
You have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand logic and you continue to repeat the same mistakes.
The individual statements may be correct independently but that doesn't make your argument correct.
If the statements within an argument contradict each other - as yours do - then that invalidates the argument.
To paraphrase you are saying, 'I can be proved wrong' and in the next breath saying 'I cannot be proved wrong.'
This is not rocket science.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, if the two statements are both independently true then they can't possibly contradict one another - because they are independent.
I have said that I can only be proven wrong if I am wrong. That is significantly different from "I can be proven wrong". You are ignoring the context.
If I'm not wrong then I can't possibly be proven wrong.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Wow.. Just wow..
You failure you grasp simple logic is astounding.
Two independently true statements: - A equals B - A does not equal B
Both independently true.
Then we present an argument:
A equals B and A does not equal B.
This argument is clearly untrue. The two statements are mutually exclusive.
Your argument is invalid. The validity of the individual statements is irrelevant when the statements within the argument contradict each other.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, A equals B CANNOT be true at the same time that A does not equal B. So they are NOT independent. The one automatically invalidates the other.
Judging by what you have said, you are incapable of basic logic.
By contrast my two statements are truly independent, since they have nothing to do with one another, and so they cannot possibly contradict one another.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
My logic is sound I assure you.
Independently true does not require them to be 'independent'.
Also I have no idea what you mean by 'truly independent'. I believe you are just inventing new terminology in a effort to try and weasel your way out of your obvious errors.
However I'll humor you: It sounds like you are trying to assert that your statements have a magical property that means they have no context and it is wrong to place them in the context of an argument.
How is that? And why?
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, a statement which is true, independent of another statement is "independently true". It is called "independent" because its truth doesn't depend on the truth or falsity of the other statement. That's what I mean by "independent".
All of my statements have a context, but you can't just mix my statements up randomly to create an argument that suits you. If you want to try to defeat my arguments then you should find out what my arguments are, then try to defeat them.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
P.S. You could just say, "Is this your argument?, before you proceed" Then I could say yay or nay. That would save a lot of time.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PS: Why should I do that?
You made your argument. I'll quote it unedited:
"Omniwoof, I consider myself wise because I have understood the core truths of reality, and am able, for the most part, to live in accordance with them. This means not having my thoughts swayed by emotions, etc. The only people who are able to validate my wisdom are those who understand my arguments - which are made throughout all the videos on this channel. If my arguments were wrong, then I wouldn't be wise"
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, what you quoted is indeed my argument. You will note that I never argued that no-one could ever find fault my arguments - if my arguments were faulty. If my arguments were faulty, then others could indeed find fault with them.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Except of course when you said this: "People who understand reality as I do couldn't possibly disagree with me."
If the only people who can find fault with your arguments are the people who already agree with your arguments then it is impossible by that reasoning for you to accept that there could be a fault with your argument.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, it doesn't follow from the statement "People who understand reality as I do couldn't possibly disagree with me" that the only people who can find fault with my arguments are those who already agree with them. It doesn't logically follow. That is, your statement has nothing remotely to do with what I said.
If there were logical errors in my arguments then others could detect the errors, and I would then be able to learn from those errors.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
All this and more has already been asked and answered. I have laid out my argument clearly you are just ignoring the evidence.
I've made it as simple as I can for you, if you can't see the fault in your reasoning then I am not to blame.
I believe that most who read this will reach the same conclusion.
I will not be discussing this with you further because you have shown yourself to be irrational, unreasonable, foolish and arrogant.
You have demonstrated this far better than I ever could.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Omniwoof, to the contrary, anyone can see that there is no logic to your argument. The problem is that you are not tackling my argument at all. You believe that I'm arguing that "the only people who can find fault with my arguments are those who already agree with them". But this is only a figment of your imagination.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
That is not an answer to my questions.
I have already given examples independently true statements so you don't score any points by explaining something I've already demonstrated that I understand.
What do you mean by 'truly independent'? How can you make several statements in the context of an argument and then claim that they are 'truly independent' of each other and do not create a logical fallacy?
I maintain that this is not good reasoning and you are trying to weasel out of your errors.
Omniwoof 2 years ago
Omniwoof, if "A equals B" and "A does not equal B" were independent of each other then they would both be able to be true at the same time. But they can't. So your example is fallacious.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Comment removed
Princesssamari 2 years ago
dont you think this video is a little arrogant?
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
No, but I think it's understandable that it might be perceived that way.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Can you tell us where your atheism arises from? Can you tell us where you stand amongst these atheists? How you are different? The 500 character comment of you tube is certainly not enough for CLARIFYING YOUR STANCE. Please make a VIDEO whenever possible.
Also the video is labeled evolutionary tree. Can you point out where the atheist "evolution" is and why the above classification is a "tree"? A true evolutionary tree has convergence or divergence or both(represented by a graph).
nmaheshp 2 years ago
I have 70 videos.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
@nmaheshp
The video "God and purpose" explains why I don't believe in a God-being. If "God" is anything at all then it must be "the All", and therefore is not a conscious being. That is, it is not the traditional Christian God.
The categorization is evolutionary in that people can change from one type to another. And it is a "tree" in the crude sense that it has a lower part and a higher part.
This video is to be understood as a work of poetry, and isn't meant to be taken literally.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Haha ... "I can't tell you how we do that. If we do we will lose our advantage." This single statement is enough to tell me that your intentions are not honest. You do not want to distinguish yourself because you will "lose your advantage"? I liked the video up to that point. Maybe you need to tell others why you are different. I simply do not have the time to go through all your other videos and see where you stand with respect to other.
nmaheshp 2 years ago
You should see that final statement as a joke, because it was.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
How are you different then? Labeling yourself as wise does not really tell you how you are different. And labeling the "scientific atheists" as boring does not mean anything. Are you suggesting science is boring? Science and philosophy is not meant to be interesting. It is just reasoning based on accepted axioms. In the case of science the axioms come from the observations in the physical reality.
nmaheshp 2 years ago
@nmaheshp
Ok, here's a short version of why we're different. Firstly, the rejection of theism is an extremely small part of what we do. Generally speaking atheists replace the delusions of theism with other delusions (eg, love, power, hate, greed, group-think, etc). We don't do that so much, although we're far from perfect. Yes, science is boring unless it is underpinned by good philosophy. Philosophy isn't boring when it's done properly. Academic "philosophy" gives philosophy a bad name.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I don't know what your first point was about. You say rejection of theism(a delusion) is replaced by some other delusion. So your classification is based on what each atheist replaces the delusion of theism with?
Your second point is meaning less. Science and philosophy having are the pursuit of truth. They have nothing to do with interesting or boring, which are emotions that arise in us humans. The only thing giving science, reason and philosophy a bad name is your "philosophy".
nmaheshp 2 years ago
oops pardon me for my grammatical mistakes. I did not review my comments before I posted them.
nmaheshp 2 years ago
@nmaheshp
While it's true that different people have different delusions, my classification doesn't specifically address which delusions each type of atheist has. It is simply a useful classification of types.
Science and philosophy pursue different things, and that's why they have different names. Science doesn't pursue *absolute* truth, and isn't designed to pursue it.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
.....If I told you I'd have to kill you
Sheesh I have to remember to avoid the "wise" atheists. Hey Kev can I get my 8 minutes back?
hamnose 2 years ago
Hamnose, the answer is to be found in all the other videos on the site, so don't despair!
KevinSolway 2 years ago
The answer may be there but what is the question?
Please don't kill me.
hamnose 2 years ago
@hamnose
Surely the question is "What is wise?"
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Well that's nice.
hamnose 2 years ago
would you mind giving me a few examples of your videos that best illustrate the understandings of a wise athiest?
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
Here are a few I would suggest:
"God and Purpose", "Genius". "The curse of unconsciousness", "Enlightenment", "Determinism and indeterminism", "What is the Infinite", and "The Nature of existence".
KevinSolway 2 years ago
How could you be so blind..You love Quog unconditionally and he more or less promises not to pull your arms off. He is the almighty ruler of the universe. Merciful (by monkey standards) all knowing and most disinterested. He gave us the free will to to anything he tells us, he gave us opposable thumbs and provided guidance through Benji the talking chimp.
MRQuog 2 years ago
As for your comment about your other videos that describe a wise athiest, I apologize for jumping to conclusions, I'll be sure to browse through those videos.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
Also do you think it is accurate to put athiests into these catagories? For example do you know for sure that the swearing athiests don't have an understanding of the science of evolution? What do you mean by advantage? An argument or philosophy has an advantage when it has demonstrated itself to be a superior alternative to its competitors. Therefore as of now the "wise athiest" is at a disadvantage. By that I mean no wise person in the conventional sense would take the concept seriously.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
@DerrickBlank
This video was very tongue-in-cheek, and I had to try very hard not to kill myself laughing while I was making it.
However, I also intended this video to speak many truths, and to stimulate thought.
Yes indeed, the swearing atheists contains some philosophical-minded people, artists, materialists, comedians, and even non-swearers, but I thought it was a good category in any case. (more)
KevinSolway 2 years ago
(cont'd) I finished with the comment I did for a number of reasons: 1. To continue my tongue-in-cheek theme. 2. I couldn't be bothered explaining in the time left. 3. I want people to watch our other videos for the answer. and 4. It is an allusion to the Taoist teaching, "The Way that can be told is not the eternal Way". That is, there's no simple, concrete way to convey the idea. It is profound. You can't just hand it to someone like you would hand them a book.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
what catagory do they fall under?
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
what about athiests like the ones at godisimaginary who critisize the specific nonsensical aspects of various religious texts, as well as make thoughtful arguments against the likelyhood of the existance of god
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
@DerrickBlank
Regarding the atheists at godisimaginary, it's difficult to tell without reading a lot of their stuff. They may be philosophical, or, at first glance are more likely to be mostly scientific. Or they might require another category I couldn't fit on the screen. My categories weren't intended to be an exhaustive, "final solution", so to speak. They are intended to stimulate thought. The category I am most pleased with was the "naive" category. Just perfect!
KevinSolway 2 years ago
The athiests at godisimaginary have videos that are devoted to critiquing the senselessness of the old and new testaments. I apologize for not listing them. I also apologize for assuming your list was exaustive. A youtube search for "Proving that nobody can get into heaven" takes you to a good example of a godisimaginary critique of a religious text.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
There is absolutely no evidence that Jesusophile is a satirical atheist, just a silly assumption by many. I think he's just an inarticulate Christian.
deathfuckinghaze 2 years ago
What in the world was this crap about??
You'll lose your "advantage"? What exactly is your agenda you jackass???
MyTuppenceWorth 2 years ago
"The Way that can be told is not the eternal Way" - The Tao Te Ching
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Reading my comment again, my sincerest apologies for my rude outburst/namecalling. I just get irritated when people claim to have knowledge others cannot attain. Exclusive gnosticism or the like. Makes my blood boil.
MyTuppenceWorth 2 years ago
Our goal is to stimulate thought. More often than not it stimulates anger.
The categories were framed as an "evolutionary tree", where people change from one thing into another.
I didn't want to go into too much detail in this video as I want people to watch our other videos.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Well, to be honest your use of the phrase "we'll lose our advantage" just rubbed me off the wrong way.
Not unlike other esoteric ideologies that strive to keep 'enlightenment' minimal, or controlled for their own benefit.
But I can understand that you wanted to refer people to your videos, its just that it could have been communicated better.
Peace.
MyTuppenceWorth 2 years ago
Genius. You've found some atheists channels that focus on mainly science and called them "Scientifc atheists". You also found some that swear and I see you labeled them "Swearing atheists". A few people that I have seen disagreeing with you are labeled "Navie", then you have the satrical atheists and the philosophical atheists (hmm, I wonder what their videos mainly consist of?).
blackchimp99 2 years ago
But of course, then we have you and your mock philosophies. Please explain, in what way does any of this nonsensical, egotistical, classification system relate to evolution? Any context will do. Thanks in advance.
blackchimp99 2 years ago
Blackchimp99, there is an evolution, through the philosophical atheists, to wise atheists.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
That doesn't explain anything, it's just a statment. Evolution is change, simple to complex. Are you postulating that atheists generally start from a point of, let's say, naivety? Then through study and understanding they can reach your superhuman style of wisdom and intellect? Anyway this is nonsense, I think I may be taking you too seriously. Is this a joke? If not I'd like to see you debate someone.
blackchimp99 2 years ago
Naivety is a state of animal unconsciousness, and wisdom is developed consciousness. It is indeed possible to go from one to the other. You're welcome to debate any of our ideas on the appropriate videos, or you could make a video response, or you could go to the discussion forum listed on the channel page.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
As I thought, i'm taking you too seriously.
blackchimp99 2 years ago
I go in to category 6. :)
rednecktrucker1969 2 years ago
I'd like some clarification, please. What do you mean by "naive atheists"? You mentioned who's in the category, but you forgot to even define it.
Gesmehod 2 years ago
@Gesmehod
By "naive" I mean both lacking worldly experience and understanding, as well as lacking sophistication and critical judgment. This can be summarized as a lack of *depth*. It is commonly recognized as an immediacy, or a living in the moment, and putting emphasis on feelings rather than deeper understanding.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
What do you mean by "worldly experience"?
jupiviv 2 years ago
By "lacking worldly experience" I mean lacking experience of causes and consequences - lacking the experience of lessons learned. This is not necessarily a factor of age, since those in the naive category often lack the capacity to learn from experience.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Well by that definition, most of those atheists would be "naive."
jupiviv 2 years ago
Yes, it's all a matter of degree. The video wouldn't have been quite so interesting if I put them all in the same category.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
On the contrary, it probably would've been more interesting. ;-)
jupiviv 2 years ago
I was hoping that *wasn't* what you meant. Forget I asked. :\
Gesmehod 2 years ago
I am a little disappointed that there was not so much an evolutionary tree - a look at the changes in atheism and atheist output on youtube - which the title suggested. Instead you opt for a classification into six categories and do not seem to have even watched some peoples videos.
Did I miss the point of the video?
johncrwarner 2 years ago
The point, really, is to encourage atheists to strive for something more complete and idealistic than just mundane atheism; namely, wisdom.
MenoftheFinite 2 years ago
So it is badly titled then - it should be more "Menoftheinfinite's classification of current atheist youtubers"?
johncrwarner 2 years ago
Well, it's not my video, as such. It's Kevin Solway's. I wouldn't have actually done it myself. I agree the title could have been better.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
@Menoftheinfinite - so the title could be "Kevin Solway's classification of atheist youtubers in 2009"?
johncrwarner 2 years ago
I claim poetic license.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
@johncrwarner
I still stand by that classification, even now, seven months later. Although I now wouldn't doubt for a second that ghostofdayinperson is in the naive category.
The "swearing atheists" category was of course very tongue-in-cheek. Inmendham (Donotgod) is in fact somewhat of a philosopher.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
@KevinSolway - the six classifications could be useful except the last one - which I took as a joke. The problem is that you can have more than one characteristic - you can be a philosophical and swearing atheist for example - these categories are labels - part of a field guide to contemporary atheists on youtube - my peeve is the idea that the classifications which you did have anything to do with evolutionary trees - there is no tree and evolutionary trees need time.
johncrwarner 2 years ago
The main purpose of this video, as with all of the videos on this channel, is to stimulate thought. I think I made it clear in this video that I was just making up the categories as I went along. You are quite right - all of those categories are fluid, and aren't mutually exclusive. We are all naive to some degree, and probably swear to some degree as well. I think the "wise atheists" category is good category, since most atheists aren't wise, but some are. (more)
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Of course, there's the implication that those in the lower categories can "evolve" into something better, and eventually become wise. So nobody is stuck in their category.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
as I don't see a hierarchy (interestingly a word that meant rule by priests) in the categories - people can aspire to be as funny as coughlin666, can aspire to be as philospohical as tooltime etc.
It is hard to become naive, I suppose, but that is a function of 'being naive' it is a state that is lost and even Picasso who tried to recapture it in his later art never managed to do so. I am not sure that wise is an exclusive area separate from others. You can be a wise swearing atheist.
johncrwarner 2 years ago
Yes, I could imagine a wise person swearing sometimes, but I don't think they would swear a lot.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Why not? I swear all the time when I'm with my friends.
jupiviv 2 years ago
There are people who speak almost entirely in swear words. That's what I mean by "a lot".
KevinSolway 2 years ago
if you are trying to be funny, you failed.
You come across as nothing more than a arrogant twat.
Samakain 2 years ago
There's nothing wrong with being arrogant when you're right, is there?
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Im reel glad that you has rited abowt what type athists thier is so that I can crewsade aginst them beter.
By way you aint wise becuz you is athist so commy and quoir probly Catholic Jew.
ClickPanic 2 years ago
You come across as wise as you are modest..
ProcInc 2 years ago
Respect the work of other atheists, such as dprjones, who are here for very nobel reasons: to advocate atheism, to educate with science and to promote secular atheism, with charity work including.
When you get 70K subscribers rating your videos 5 star constantly, then you may be qualified as a wise man.
Conquer compliments to yourself, do not demand them by giving yourself titles...
vrcota 2 years ago
Sorry, substitute "secular atheism" with "secular humanism".
vrcota 2 years ago
70K impletecates popularity not wiseness. Furthermore, such popular Youtubers are more likely to become complacent, and thus produce crap videos, when they know they have an army of subscribers 5 staring all the way.
TruthBeyond 2 years ago
Sorry friend, although you seem like having good points against religion, you made yourself useless to the youtube atheist community.
The great majority of the youtubers you've mentioned are here not for the fame, nor the money, as it seems you are.
You need an advantage for what? For getting a greater number of subscribers? For making money with adsense?
vrcota 2 years ago