Dawah Films is Back

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

He's since posted another link with the same data. After some reading and investigating they BOTH link back to a sensationalist book by Michael Booth. Of course how dare we point out he's using terrible sources to make some pretty offensive claims. You know, it's up to us to prove his claims are wrong.

It's up to him to cite the page number(s) as evidence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Steelmage99]

He also handily side-steps the reasons why Denmark felt a need to make specific laws outlawing bestiality.

For the longest time the existing laws on animal cruelty had been sufficient, but due to increased sex-tourism (where people overused the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it) it was necessary to make specific laws restricting bestiality.
Notice how the problem occurred because non-Danish went to Denmark to make use of the (lax) laws there.

Also, he neglegts to mention that the only data available (which is very little) suggests that 3-8% of any given population has had some sexual experience in connection with animals.
This puts Denmark (with its 5% estimate) smack-dap in the middle of the expected range, meaning that that data-point cannot honestly be pressed into service as an argument against Denmark and its atheistic leanings.


While I am at it.......

(Rant incoming)

I am sick to death of people in general, and apologists specifically, out of hand dismissing criticisms of individual arguments and points because it supposedly "misses the main point being made".

SHUT THE HELL UP!

All I hear when people say that is; "You are not allowed to argue against my premises, because then you are missing my conclusion."

Yes, you morons. That is how intelligent discourse works!

Pant. Pant.

OK. I am done.

 

[Bango Skank]

There was a google survey released some years ago that showed over half of top 10 searches for bestiality to be muslim countries.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think that's just illliteracy. They were trying to find the best Italian in their area... :mrgreen:

 

[JRChadwick]

The entire remark about Denmark is pointless. It would not even matter if Denmark did have a higher than normal level of bestiality. He would have to find evidence to correlate it with atheism.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The entire remark about Denmark is pointless. It would not even matter if Denmark did have a higher than normal level of bestiality. He would have to find evidence to correlate it with atheism.

When the cause is clearly Carlsberg.

 

[DawahFilms]

I've been watching this little forum exchange with some interests give the following: (1) It's entertaining and (2) It confirms just about everything I believe regarding discussing with the majority of atheists on the internet.

First, I find it odd and a matter of childish whining that I should take seriously a person -- Collecmall -- who's first comment on a video where I discuss atheism is "Do you condemn terrorism and the punishment for apostasy?", and when I point out the irrelevancy of that comment and the fact that I find it offensive that anyone would open up a conversation like that, he responds by stating that I must be in support of it because I didn't answer the tasteless question! So not only am I being interrogated on a video lecture series not even talking about either, but Im being accused of supporting terrorism and am an "extremist" based on an ad ignorantium fallacy. Then he wonders why I find his comments a matter of trolling:

"Now he's upset that you posted a video about atheism on a forum catering to mostly skeptics and GASP! one of us posted there. Oh the horror! I've seen some pretty thin skin but he's reaching."​

Wow.

Then Steelmage and others are suggesting Im "totally misrepresenting atheism" without any hint as to how in the comments section (or here) and the entire discussion has now degenerated into an off-cuff remark I made about Sweden and some statistics on beastiality -- which seems to be the only thing of concern for any of you.

JR Chadwick -- the comment meant for Denmark has nothing to do with atheism directly -- I making a remark on how the defining factors of "happiness" made by the international community, which are based mainly on materialistic criteria -- are at odds with what actual happiness should be represented by. I made, aong other comments, one regarding the sexual practices of denmark to insinuate that a country with such mental issues, low work ethic, etc. should not be considered one of the "happier" nations.

Asking over and over again "what does this have to do with atheism" when the context of the comment is right there in the video itself shows that you are ether (1) Not listening or (2) are cherrypicking so much of the presentation just to find things to complain about.

And Steelmage, Im perfectly fine with being critqued and I don't mind it at all, but it is the case that if you're going to complain about such minor details and ignore the substance of the presentation -- you know...ATHEISM, perceptions on science, logical arguments, etc -- then I really don't know the point of you even trying to have a discussion. Its like going to a conference on climate control and focussing your attention on a speakers comment about how the local sports team did that night and not caring for anything else. Everyone will look at you wondering what your issue is and why you can't seem to focus on the meat of the presentation.



So let me summarize again why I find your posting of my video a matter of "trolling" rather than serious intellectual discussion:

1) You don't mention anything of substance regarding the substance of my presentation

2) You nitpick minor points and then proclaim Im not worth listening to as a result

3) You come to my videos and downvote them all because of the above


So there you have it.

 

[JRChadwick]

1) I asked you several direct and relative questions regarding your first video and you ignored them.

2) Mentioning Denmark in the context of a discussion of atheism (which you described as a "rising problem") in which you source a tabloid article to imply that atheism causes bestiality or unhappiness or whatever justification you want to claim make it a relevant point to discuss and not simply "nitpicking".

3) I watched your video fully, then I down thumbed it because it sucked the big one!

I would love to see your justification for believing we don't actually watch your videos before disliking them.

 

[JRChadwick]

What does the happiness of a country have anything to do with atheism? "Gee, I feel kinda depressed. I guess I better pretend in an imaginary friend who will burn me for ever if I don't grow a beard and force women to cover all of their skin."

It doesn't matter how reality makes me feel. My acceptance of reality is contingent on reality! It has nothing to do with how reality makes me feel. I believe what is proven to me. That is the ONLY honest position it is possible to have.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

1) You don't mention anything of substance regarding the substance of my presentation

Here is what I think about it. I failed to see that you made any point to begin with.
You spent a majority of the presentation doing an expose on why the atheism is "a problem" because it is rising even in muslim countries, and then self congratulating yourself on how you are going to be a champion against atheist. You do your expose about what your perspective of what atheism is. At this the only thing that vaguely resembles a point is actually an appeal to ridicule, you are like:
"Hey listen to this, this is what atheists believe, isn't that ridiculous?", you don't explain why it is ridiculous, you just expect your audience to just accept it. You present a quote from Sam Harris, if he rather get rid of rape or religion he chose get rid of religion, you just point and say, "oh look how this disgusting this atheists are".
As the dude would put it

You then go on to present some arguments that "atheists" make, giving you an opportunity to critique them, but no... you just go on to claim what atheists believe.

You completely fucked up history by claiming that Galileo was killed, when he was in fact imprisoned for life. He was not sentenced so because he insulted the pope, but on the accounts of heresy and forced to deny in court that the earth goes around the sun in exchange for life in prison instead of execution.

Come the end you claim that you have this argument that stumped atheists for age and have yet to see it addressed, you self congratulate on how good you are for having made it, you claimed you would share that piece of wisdom come next presentation. Come next presentation, I watch the entire fucking thing, and nothing. I was disappointed there was not even a mention of it, although I must confess that in hindsight of-course you would fail to deliver.

You are not so good that you are beyond criticism, you are actually so bad and irrelevant that you have nothing to critique.

2) You nitpick minor points and then proclaim Im not worth listening to as a result

You don't even have points. Your don't make an argument. You are just a waste of time.

 

[JRChadwick]

You completely fucked up history by claiming that Galileo was killed, when he was in fact imprisoned for life. He was not sentenced so because he insulted the pope, but on the accounts of heresy and forced to deny in court that the earth goes around the sun in exchange for life in prison instead of execution.

Ha! I can't believe I forgot about that! That made me laugh.

 

[DawahFilms]

1) I asked you several direct and relative questions regarding your first video and you ignored them.

2) Mentioning Denmark in the context of a discussion of atheism (which you described as a "rising problem") in which you source a tabloid article to imply that atheism causes bestiality or unhappiness or whatever justification you want to claim make it a relevant point to discuss and not simply "nitpicking".

3) I watched your video fully, then I down thumbed it because it sucked the big one!

I would love to see your justification for believing we don't actually watch your videos before disliking them.

1) None were relevant

2) Mentioning Denmark in context of "happiness index" on the basis of secular prejudices was related to the position that "secular nations are happier, therefore less religion is better"

Im sure you understand basic English, no?

 

[DawahFilms]

1) You don't mention anything of substance regarding the substance of my presentation

Here is what I think about it. I failed to see that you made any point to begin with.
You spent a majority of the presentation doing an expose on why the atheism is "a problem" because it is rising even in muslim countries, and then self congratulating yourself on how you are going to be a champion against atheist. You do your expose about what your perspective of what atheism is. At this the only thing that vaguely resembles a point is actually an appeal to ridicule, you are like:
"Hey listen to this, this is what atheists believe, isn't that ridiculous?", you don't explain why it is ridiculous, you just expect your audience to just accept it. You present a quote from Sam Harris, if he rather get rid of rape or religion he chose get rid of religion, you just point and say, "oh look how this disgusting this atheists are".
As the dude would put it

You then go on to present some arguments that "atheists" make, giving you an opportunity to critique them, but no... you just go on to claim what atheists believe.

You completely fucked up history by claiming that Galileo was killed, when he was in fact imprisoned for life. He was not sentenced so because he insulted the pope, but on the accounts of heresy and forced to deny in court that the earth goes around the sun in exchange for life in prison instead of execution.

Come the end you claim that you have this argument that stumped atheists for age and have yet to see it addressed, you self congratulate on how good you are for having made it, you claimed you would share that piece of wisdom come next presentation. Come next presentation, I watch the entire fucking thing, and nothing. I was disappointed there was not even a mention of it, although I must confess that in hindsight of-course you would fail to deliver.

You are not so good that you are beyond criticism, you are actually so bad and irrelevant that you have nothing to critique.

2) You nitpick minor points and then proclaim Im not worth listening to as a result

You don't even have points. Your don't make an argument. You are just a waste of time.

Then it's obvious you're not very intelligent, now is it?

I made the very argument near the end of the second presentation after mentioning George Smith.

"You're a waste of time" which translated just means "Im too uneducated and lazy to understand you so Im going to mischaracterize everything you say and keep my superiority complex"

Good job.

I think we're done here

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

1) I asked you several direct and relative questions regarding your first video and you ignored them.

2) Mentioning Denmark in the context of a discussion of atheism (which you described as a "rising problem") in which you source a tabloid article to imply that atheism causes bestiality or unhappiness or whatever justification you want to claim make it a relevant point to discuss and not simply "nitpicking".

3) I watched your video fully, then I down thumbed it because it sucked the big one!

I would love to see your justification for believing we don't actually watch your videos before disliking them.

1) None were relevant

2) Mentioning Denmark in context of "happiness index" on the basis of secular prejudices was related to the position that "secular nations are happier, therefore less religion is better"

Im sure you understand basic English, no?

But therein lies the problem, DawahFilms.

If you're citing made-up statistics in support of your (counter-)argument, that renders your (counter-)argument invalid.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

3) You come to my videos and downvote them all because of the above.

3) I watched your video fully, then I down thumbed it because it sucked the big one!

I would love to see your justification for believing we don't actually watch your videos before disliking them.

I see this rationalization from theists a lot on YouTube. They would rather deflect that fault and justify why it is happening to them, instead of using it as a critique and helping make their videos/arguments better.

 

[Collecemall]

But therein lies the problem, DawahFilms.

If you're citing made-up statistics in support of your (counter-)argument, that renders your (counter-)argument invalid.

Kindest regards,

James

James it's worse than that. It's that he doesn't even know what his sources are. They are from a book he hasn't even read by Michael Booth. Which in itself doesn't source the outrageous claims. So he's repeating a third hand sensationalization that isn't cited anywhere. I was able to figure this out in less than 10 mins. If he didn't do that much research on what was a key point for his second hour of his lecture what else is he pulling from his ass? Boo fucking hoo that I pointed that out. And he want's to talk about someone whinning? Pfft.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

But therein lies the problem, DawahFilms.

If you're citing made-up statistics in support of your (counter-)argument, that renders your (counter-)argument invalid.

Kindest regards,

James

James it's worse than that. It's that he doesn't even know what his sources are. They are from a book he hasn't even read by Michael Booth. Which in itself doesn't source the outrageous claims. So he's repeating a third hand sensationalization that isn't cited anywhere. I was able to figure this out in less than 10 mins. If he didn't do that much research on what was a key point for his second hour of his lecture what else is he pulling from his ass? Boo fucking hoo that I pointed that out. And he want's to talk about someone whinning? Pfft.

I'm familiar with the article and book, which is why I want him to cite where either actually say what he claims they say.

Clearly, he can't - which leaves me with the impression that he made up the Danish bestiality statistic to bolster his (counter-)argument.

As I said, this renders his (counter-argument) invalid.

QED.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Let's assume for a second that the claim, "there is a strong correlation between secularism and bestiality" is actually true.

Is this really the best argument you can come up with for why secularism and / or atheism is dangerous?

Can you find any other measurement of societal heath for which any Scandinavian country would score lower than any highly-religious country?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I've been watching this little forum exchange with some interests [sic] give [sic] the following: (1) It's entertaining and (2) It confirms just about everything I believe regarding discussing with the majority of atheists on the internet.

Yes, but you're a fuckwit, so regardless of what we posted, it would confirm what you believe, because that's how fuckwittery works, you moron.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

[Declares rebuttal, does not present it, declares victory]
I think we're done here

I think we are.