You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
It involves Richard Dawkins, the ghost of Charles Darwin, creepy porn music, a random monkey, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster… and I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to turn me into a Christian.
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
It sounded like the rolling stone ‘fool to cry’ but I could be wrong. I’m not sure what I just saw…
That scared me
Side note: The next video “Bill O’Reilly POWNS Richard Dawkins” How exactly do you POWN someone? Is that some kind of Christian slang? Are they trying to say pwn?
I also saw that and thought it was hilarious that the insecure-of-his-own-faith owner of the video blocks comments, dislikes, and edits out everything Dawkins says. Definitely shows something about religious people hate uncovering their eyes and ears…
They edited the shit out of the O’Reilly video.
Edited it very very badly. If I was going to edit it to change the meaning, I would want to do it better. It’s like a bad photoshop disaster.
But not all of it. There was plenty of shit left.
Well yeah. They’d have had to take O’Reilly out entirely to get rid of all of it.
Nice play on words.
I noticed that too. I rolled my eyes the entire time
I saw he also has a video with Twilight Sparkle in it. So maybe what you saw was a My Little Pwny?
Better yet, why did you inflict it on the rest of us?
Well, that’s over a minute of my life that I’ll never get back….Seriously WTF was that?
Maybe some qwazy xtian parody? Makes no sense…
lol, schedule my baptism.
Let’s not visit this poor imbecile youtube channel. There are over 500 videos and no real content to speak of beside his claim that he is being “dismantled”.
There is really nothing for us to see and while he claims he is a bastion of free speech (as if we needed his permission) but the ratings are off and there isn’t a single post aginst the video.
That kind of bastion.
I’d say save the views for something more worthy.
He has to approve comments and ratings is disabled. Why am I not surprised.
I don’t know why you folks don’t get this. I made me renounce atheism and swear fealty to some god, somewhere. _Very_ persuasive. Or something.
I thought it was hilarious. I mean, I didn’t agree, at any level, but that was some funny shit. I think any time I see the finger in the ear tongue waggle I laugh. I may just have low standards.
Does Dawkins know he washed his underwear with his red shirt?
“You stop that right meow.”
I’m betting that the guy who made this video wears a Canadian Tuxedo.
That guy is such a moron. He’s blocked me from commenting on his videos after I said stuff he didn’t agree with a while ago… and he’s turned on moderating comments on this video. Cowards.
yeah, exactly. I always find it hilarious that you can pretty much always tell which side a video about theism/atheism is going to support by looking at the comments policy- open commenting? almost always a atheist video. locked down comments? pretty much always theist. this guy is especially funny though, since he claims that his channel is a “stronghold of free speech”
I’ve noticed that a lot of atheist pages on Facebook will delete any comments they disagree with and immediately block people. There are cowards on both sides.
Sure, but how many of them say
My channel is Youtube’s foremost stronghold of free speech — anyone and everyone can comment freely on all of my Presuppositional Apologetics videos.
It’s one thing to either not allow comments, or to delete comments you don’t like. But it’s quite another to insinuate that all comments are welcome, when what you actually mean is that anyone who you have’t already blocked can make a comment, but it won’t last very long if it doesn’t kiss your ass.
Really? Which ones? I hope you’re making a distinction between banning trolls vs blocking anyone who disagrees. It’s kind of an important difference.
True, but there are big differences in numbers, as well as who, what, when, where, and why.
typical- I commented on that video, and he immediately blocked me, even though he claims that his channel is a stronghold of free speech. laughable.
I … that was … um … whuh?
Have to fight back that piece of cuca with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
What in Darwin’s name is presuppositionalism?
It’s terrifying, by the way.
In addition to the link by @Feminerd:disqus, I’ll suggest the episode of the Magic Sandwich Show (YouTube) on which Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind discussed and tried to defend presuppositionalism. That, alone, is more of it than anyone should ever witness.
This is my (from my own personal knowledge) answer to the question and is in no way a fact but it’s just my opinion.
A presuppositionalist is a christian who is so blinded by his belief in god that he makes an assumption that humans could not posses any knowledge without the existence of god and that he, the sinner, can not rely upon his knowledge until he knows god.
His argument, basically, goes like this:
1) Knowledge exists or knowledge has always existed
2) the ultimate resource for knowledge is the bible
3) the bible is the written word of god
4) therefore all knowledge stems from god
5) god and knowledge are the same, therefore god has always existed.
6) the sinner (Atheist) can not reliably count upon his knowledge because sin corrupts the sinners mind.
7) by trying to argue against the presuppositionalist’s argument the sinner is actually proving the truth of his argument because of 6)
The presuppositionalist denies a natural explanation for knowledge. Even if he could accept evolution he would still assert that humans were sinners before the bible was written and that god has always attempted to bestow his knowledge upon mankind. I would bet he would also assert that all religions were just attempts by god to bestow his knowledge dating back to when humans first became self aware. I have even heard an argument that god sent the devil back in time to corrupt human minds with pagan religions so that christians could justify their presuppositional argument. Time travel exist but only the devil can do it.
This ultimately ends in a circular argument.
presuppositionalist apologetics (PA) goes like this:
“You can’t argue against the existence of Teapot, because you would have to had “first imagined” that Teapot existed.” To make this point though the PA has to ascertain whether you could accept that all of your knowledge could be unreliable. Many a Decafinist would fall for this kind of questioning but I think most Espressorians would not even blink an eye at it. The PA will then go onto state that your imaginary Teapot is Teapot’s knowledge passed onto you via the, very old and not so well greased dumb-waiter that existed prior to the mansion being built. In other words, you don’t really know that you know about Teapot but Teapot’s knowledge was passed unto you any-ways. (Are you feeling violated yet?) Apparently this occurs in an episode of stargate, where the wormhole encounters a massive stellar ejection and the gate at the other end opens to a time on earth before pre written history, SG-1 then enters, unaware that one of the team members (yellow shirt guy) is carrying a Gideon’s Book of Teapottery, just in case there is a motel at the beginning of pre written history. (or was that a diner, well what ever.) So the yellow shirt guy gets killed (go figure) and accidentally drops the G. B. of Teapottery thus placing Teapot’s knowledge right at the beginning of pre written history. Some might call this the First Cause of Presupposition.
(I’m not even drinking tonight)
Now here is the crux: If you object to this theory of Teapottery, by positively asserting that you are a Coffeeist and have no knowledge of teapotterism, the PA will explain to you that coffeeism and teapottery are the same things and that you are contradicting your lack of knowledge of teapotterism by assuming you know something about coffeeism. The assumption of knowing of Coffeeism validates the assumption of Teapottery. Or, one could not assert the truth of the assumption of coffeeism as valid – unless one – asserts the truth of the assumption of Teapottery as equally valid. (Still following me?) He will then continue by explaining how sugar, cream and lemon (sin) corrupts the mind and how that corruption blinds you from currently receiving, via a modern, automated, and shiny stainless steel dumb-waiter, the knowledge of Teapottery.
PA is an argument against, arguing against Teapotteryism. It is a bait and switch argument, by convincing you that your knowledge of anything, including soda pops and spirits is and always has been knowledge of Teapot. It is based upon an assumption that Teapot’s knowledge is the only knowledge that exists and that all other knowledge held, with the exception of born again teacups, is false. Unless you choose to become a born again teacup, during the argument against arguing against Teapotteryism. Only then will you know the sweet taste and smell of the tea within teapot.
In short: Presuppositional Apologist’s assert that Atheism is part of god’s plan. In my opinion Presuppositionalism is the beginnings of a new doctrine of terrorism against non-believers.
Those godly paragons of religious ‘virtue’, The Rolling Stones doing “Fool to Cry” are the soundtrack. Good choice godbots.
That’s why they call it dope.
Worst. Xtian. Commercial. Ever.
Gurgle. Gurgle flurb bweee’p. Flur flirbasweep. Lol.
Thanks for transcribing it! Looks like you got it about right.
I’ve never taken LSD but that’s exactly what I imagine it’s like.
Heh… LSD was the first thought I had while watching… Bad Acid Trip!
I think the official term is ‘projection’
Icing on the cake: the description just says “Self-explanatory”. Maybe it would make more sense if the words were audible? I doubt it, but there’s a chance…
I had the same reaction, but I think I was doing it wrong. I was completely sober when I watched it.
Whoever made this is unbalanced.
If it’s a Poe, it’s deliciously brilliant. Otherwise it’s one of those things the cat plunks down on the porch- particularly the first few seconds when you’re not sure what it is except that it’s mutilated and twitching…
That’s not creepy porn music, that’s the Rolling Stones “Fool to Cry” from 1974′s Black and Blue, although this guy has a distorted-sounding version. Here’s a much better version:
Noooo! It’s gone, someone post a mirror please!
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.