1. Youtube Atheists Suck at Philosophy of Religion
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Famed youtube atheist Phil Mason thunderf00t thinks he understands the Kalam Cosmological Argument when he actually misquoted it. Another moronic atheist who think he can school religion and Christianity. Typical. This video is part of the Youtube Atheists Suck playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-0zpu2toenbcs_Sso2pZX1OQ5jxvs_4y
Comments
-
Let's assume, that the real argument is correct. The following problem come to mind, when you try to use it as an argument for the existence of a deity:
As of right now humanity cannot confirm, that the observable universe is the biggest conceivable object in existence, so the possibility that something other than a deity outside the observable universe created the observable universe without a mind of its own still exists. -
A response to the suggestions put forth in this video:
It seems that the main point of this video is to claim that thunderf00t "misquoted" the Kalam Cosmological Argument and that in doing so he showed himself to be dishonest - with the implicit suggestion that as a scientist thunderf00t should be held to higher standards of honesty than the typical person.
Firstly, in regards to the accusation of "misquoting" the Kalam Cosmological Argument - so far as I can tell from this video, thunderf00t never sought to make the claim that he was directly quoting the argument. What he was doing was paraphrasing the argument, and in doing so he did not mischaracterise it, he simply used different terminology to restate the original argument.
The maker of this video actually gives his own example of a paraphrasing/restatement of the argument while making his case against thunerf00t doing exactly the same thing! William Lane Craig boils the Kalam Cosmological Argument down to it's elemental form just as thunderf00t did, the only difference being that Craig used the same terminology as is in the translation of the original that is shown in the video - both men even use the same number of bullet-points. Supporters of this video may argue that because is relies on the same terminology as the original, Crag's version is therefore more honest than thunderf00t's, but I dispute this. Despite using his own terminology thunderf00t has not mischaracterised or misrepresented the argument in any way, the essence of the original remains unadulterated by thunderf00t's restatement of it.
If one is going to make the claim that boiling the original argument down to an elemental form is dishonest then one would then have to point the finger at William Lane Craig as well as at thunderf00t, because both of them so for their own purposes. Why not deride Craig as dishonest for paraphrasing the argument and say that as a philosopher and a theologian he should be held to a higher standard of honesty that the average person, just as thunderf00t should be as a scientist? The crucial difference here though, is that thunderf00t is not arguing science here, he has stepped into the world of theology, and as such he is as much a laymen as the next man and, as such, he should not be held to a standard of honesty or accuracy that is any different to that expected of any other average Joe. However, Craig on the other hand, is a philosopher and a theologian, this is his area of expertise and therefore, according to the logic used in criticising thunderf00t, Craig should be held to the highest standards of honesty, which, by this logic, he has breached!
However, despite the argument that can be made against Craig when using the logic employed in the accusation against thunderf00t, I will not lower my own standards of honesty by suggesting that such an argument would be valid. Paraphrasing or restating an argument, whether for the purpose of criticising it or supporting it, is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thing to do so long as the essence of the original remains unadulterated. As argued above, both Craig's and thunderf00t's representations of the original Kalam Cosmological Argument are acceptable approximations of the original.
In conclusion both the argument that thunderf00t "misquoted" the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the reasoning for the implicit suggestion that he should be held to a higher standard of honesty are invalid - There was no misquote and he did not misrepresent the original, therefore there was no dishonesty AND even if this were a misrepresentation of the argument, it was made by someone who is not, and has never claimed to be, an expert in the field to which the argument applies. Therefore, that person should be held to the same standards as any other non-expert. -
It makes no fucking difference. If he used the proper argument actually used by Craig, his video would still be relevant. The argument structured slightly different, that doesn't void the entire video.
-
How literal can you be.
It is satirically meant.
The core of the story is that since everything must have a cause to begin with you must have a god that started the universe.
I will elaborate:
Than who started god? God always existed.
That is special pleading. If you first premise is that everything has a cause but not god. Then who says there could not also be another thing that has no cause? -
Because any action that happened before the beginning of space and time is un-observable by those constrained within space and time, any opinion concerning the mechanism by which that beginning catalyzed would be un-provable by direct observation and thus a belief according to their definition; the only proper response should be "I have no way of knowing". Since that is not the position atheists presume, atheism is a faith based system. This causes irrational apologetic arguments at times. I like thunderfoot and have watched a lot of his videos, but it is quite obvious that he is reacting to theology emotionally rather than with critical observation.
-
He looks like a neanderthal to!
-
Go to hell !
-
Your channel should be called, "Bullshit, Philosophy, and Science." The Kalam is garbage. What do think it means when an argument has been around for centuries, and still fails to convince anyone who doesn't already believe??? It's called failure. Not to mention, it was already shown to be fallacious hundreds of years ago. Wake up. You suck at logic
-
What's sadder than grown man with ponytail shooting himself with a toy gun filming himself during daytime. He needs to get a real job
-
im confused, "thunderf00t thinks he understands the Kalam Cosmological Argument when he actually misquoted it" i dont think he said he was quoting it, though in general he said the same thing just shorter. is the hilarious objection over the usage of "object" instead of "being"?
im honestly curious, i really dont understand
the musics funny
i feel sad that the comments on "Evidence from Molecular Anthropology for an Historical Adam and Eve - Fazale Rana, PhD" video were disabled, it was good to hear especially in the setting it was in. it might have actually created some intelligent conversation -
No kidding!
-
watch out for this channel,this guy thinks homosexuality is not a sin!
he thinks its like eating wrong foods in the old testament,he is fooled and follows the world.
part of the great falling away in my opinion! -
Thunderf00t's knowledge has made many mistake before in the past, another one would be where he claimed that William Lane Craig made a mistake in a comment he made then he claimed the same comment towards the end of the video, poor Thunderf00t, doesnt understand when he comes into agreement with a theist.
-
The funny thing now is that there is more satire of atheists. Well deserved and earned too :)
-
what i cant stand is people who claim to be Christian but they follow false beliefs like,we all pray to the same GOD,prosperity preaching and people who fight for sodomites,then you are fighting for sin!
you should make a video about this. -
He is a clear example why atheists not only have problem with God, they also have problem with ancient history.
-
keep up the good work!
-
Aron Ra's an exception.
P.S. Shame the satirical video of Potholer54's "Suck on this,atheists!" shows up on the right hand side of this video. -
Haha
-
atheists are at odds with reality in that "god" is creation... and to believe the design not to be intelligent would be to denying that we are sentient... atheists by there own definition are not sentient and there for beasts to be subject
2m 26sLenght
113Rating