thunderf00t, the intellectual chimera

[nemesiss]

Greetings,
It also begs the question that, if he has no time to watch Ryu's videos, from where does he get the time to make all of his??
Kindest regards,
James

You know, I actually called him up on that, since my last video responding to him, he's released a few more. I messaged him saying "Dude, what the hell? You just gonna ignore the evidence you so greatly plead for? Read an actual science book or go to a museum or just watch the videos that're being made solely for your own education."

Yeah....No reply, I don't think I'll expect one anymore either.

Edit: I also asked him about why he so fervently believes in the fundamentalist creationist belief, I got this answer;

I believe what I believe because of these following things
-Other Christians on YouTube
-My Christian upbringing
-A video testimony that I watched, a man in his 50's got bitten by a poisonous jellyfish and he claims that he saw Jesus
-My Christian friends
-Videos by christian scientists

I think anyone/everyone reading this can see how flawed his basis is. I sent him a reply question, about fossils and he said;

I think that one of the primary reasons we find fossils on earth today was because of an event called 'The Flood' which occured 4400 years ago.
Now let me make this clear: I have not done any research that confirms that the flood happened 4400 years ago, but I have seen some interesting documentaries.

He even states himself that he's not done any research into it, but that he's "seen some interesting documentaries"- It got me wondering, just what "Documentaries" would try and state that this Biblical Flood actually happened? And even if it did, all the dating methods which prove them to be much older? But yeah, anyway- after that reply from him, I didn't bother replying to him on those points.

i dub this; the Sarah Palin study method.
based on her remarks on forgeign relationships.

self-study is nice, but it only works if you have a (good) teacher keeping track of what you study so that you are learning the correct material. documentaries are nice additional study material, but not a good basis.
as for sources; that list is not sufficient, it needs to be more specific.
it's like writing down your source was google, which is an immediant F- !

 

[mandangalo18]

anyway click on my channel to see evolution refuted

lol do you have a PhD?

 

[Durakken]

Greetings,
It also begs the question that, if he has no time to watch Ryu's videos, from where does he get the time to make all of his??
Kindest regards,
James

You know, I actually called him up on that, since my last video responding to him, he's released a few more. I messaged him saying "Dude, what the hell? You just gonna ignore the evidence you so greatly plead for? Read an actual science book or go to a museum or just watch the videos that're being made solely for your own education."

Yeah....No reply, I don't think I'll expect one anymore either.

Edit: I also asked him about why he so fervently believes in the fundamentalist creationist belief, I got this answer;

I believe what I believe because of these following things
-Other Christians on YouTube
-My Christian upbringing
-A video testimony that I watched, a man in his 50's got bitten by a poisonous jellyfish and he claims that he saw Jesus
-My Christian friends
-Videos by christian scientists

I think anyone/everyone reading this can see how flawed his basis is. I sent him a reply question, about fossils and he said;

I think that one of the primary reasons we find fossils on earth today was because of an event called 'The Flood' which occured 4400 years ago.
Now let me make this clear: I have not done any research that confirms that the flood happened 4400 years ago, but I have seen some interesting documentaries.

He even states himself that he's not done any research into it, but that he's "seen some interesting documentaries"- It got me wondering, just what "Documentaries" would try and state that this Biblical Flood actually happened? And even if it did, all the dating methods which prove them to be much older? But yeah, anyway- after that reply from him, I didn't bother replying to him on those points.

-Other Christians on YouTube - Appeal to Popularity/Belief
-My Christian upbringing - Appeal to Tradition
-A video testimony that I watched, a man in his 50's got bitten by a poisonous jellyfish and he claims that he saw Jesus - Burden of Proof and Ignoring a Common Cause
-My Christian friends - Appeal to Popularity/Belief/Bandwagon
-Videos by christian scientists - Appeal to Popularity/Belief/Authority

I'm sure more could be listed.


"He even states himself that he's not done any research into it, but that he's "seen some interesting documentaries"- It got me wondering, just what "Documentaries" would try and state that this Biblical Flood actually happened?"

No documentary I know of even tries to remotely argue that Noah's flood, as in the global flood, actually happened... The ones that even remotely go that way are the ones that look for Noah's ark and never really cover the science or the background of what is believed but rather just accept the facts as presented because if Noah's ark did exist and it is still around you have to follow what it says to the letter... in other words it's a necessity that they don't cover the other areas in the video when they do that....

when they actually discuss the flood they discuss what may have actually happened and track back the story to Gilgamesh and a polytheistic origin of the story. I suggest watching http://www.youtube.com/user/ToddAllenGates He has a video where he reads the noah verses as polytheistic and montheistic...

 

[RyuOni1989]

Yeah, a lot of people on youtube think he's a Poe, but he's done a couple of things which make people think he's being serious about what he says. Censoring the comments, replying to particular comments in certain ways, actually [seeming to] make friends with other christian youtubers, etc. But it's alright, I don't think I'll pay him much attention anymore. If I do, it won't be overly thought out- cause he obviously doesn't think his ideas out either, but yeah.
Wash my hands of him. :facepalm:

 

[felix1049]

Well, here's a bit to laugh about. His first "why do people laugh at evolutionists?" video. I hope he will come back and read the refutations of his faulty argument. (Keep in mind that he defines "evolution" as "everything that evolves or grow bigger, stronger or faster")



One day I am going to make a video showing a physics simulation of particles attracting and condensing to spinning objects, not all of them spinning the same way although total angular momentum is conserved. I have the program, just need to put the video together.

If he's trying to disprove evolution, why's he talking about cosmology?

he doesn't seem to understand what it is he's arguing against....but I'll give him an A for having the intestinal fortitude to exhibit his jaw dropping stupidity for the entire world to see...big props I guess

 

[RyuOni1989]

I agree, it's like the ultimate world-wide "pants"-ing. And he did it himself. Gotta have guts for that.

 

[KnowledgeIsFirepower]

Well I wasn't going to watch Tf00t's latest videos but you convinced me to give them a go. Incidentally why don't you hang around more often there are plenty of people here who would love to discuss your ideas. Well here's the video for anyone who hasn't seen it.



This is why I think it is a waste of time for atheists to read the bible. Atheists don't believe it, and Christians all have their own interpretations. It just ends up being an exercise in pointlessness.

I just think its just a way to hit the christian beehive with a baseball bat. Of course some Christians have their own interpretation to fit their own life, and some Christians believe in the whole bible, but never read it. I think what ThunderF00t was shooting for was the modern day Christians or Worldly Bathtist instead of the young earth creationist who like to take I am living so I am a creation of god speech.

 

[Aught3]

I believe what I believe because of these following things
-Other Christians on YouTube
-My Christian upbringing
-A video testimony that I watched, a man in his 50's got bitten by a poisonous jellyfish and he claims that he saw Jesus (presumably a christian)
-My Christian friends
-Videos by christian scientists

Wow, way to broaden your horizons. He certainly has a narrow way of looking at the world.

 

[5810Singer]

I just think its just a way to hit the christian beehive with a baseball bat.

I disagree.
I keep hearing Christians justifying their views with the words "it's in the Bible", and yet those self same Christians frequently have no idea of what's actually in the Bible.

I imagine Tf00t's noticed the same thing and that's why he's made this video.

 

[nemesiss]

I just think its just a way to hit the christian beehive with a baseball bat.

I disagree.
I keep hearing Christians justifying their views with the words "it's in the Bible", and yet those self same Christians frequently have no idea of what's actually in the Bible.

I imagine Tf00t's noticed the same thing and that's why he's made this video.

i agree with this motion.
it hard to have a decent debate if most christians have no idea what is in the bible, except for a few tails, such as mozes and jesus.
if people only know those and claim they know and believe in the bible, then watching 15 minutes of a harry potter movie would be the same as claiming knowing what happened in all 7 books.

it is also a healthier discussion then dealing with creationists, in my opinion.
This is a position where christians have an honest chance of defending their religion, on their own turf.
if Thunderf00t made mistakes in interpertations, then they can tell us how it should be interpertated and more importantly , WHY!
there is no doubt that a portion of christians will be offended by his new series, but it gives them insight into their own religion and gives them the chance to learn something about their own religion in a way that they normally never would have.

in the end, there will be a lot of fighting, among all of us theists an non-theists... but we all will benefit from it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Sad to say that TF is - unintentionally, I'm sure and with all due respect to him - guilty of quote-mining.

This is why Catholics are urged not to do what Protestants - particularly American - tend to do: the Quote From The Bible Syndrome (QFTBS) .

Why? - Because there's the danger of it being taken out of context.

Catholics are advised to read whole chapters - not just a verse here or there - to understand it in its full context.

TF says : "...Jeshurun has just lost his faith in God...".

Er, not quite as it sounds.

If you read the whole of Deuteronomy 32 - from which TF quotes - you'll see that it isn't God speaking: it's Moses speaking what God has taught him - "The Song Of Moses" - which he was to teach to (the children of) Israel.

Israel, in this context, means the nation - not a person. It is referred to as "Jeshurun".

Deut 32 follows the previous chapter (31) where God has spoken to Moses (and Joshua) and told them that the Israelites will turn away from Him and become hedonistic after they've reached "The Promised Land" - it's at this point that he teaches Moses the words of the song, as a warning to the people what may/will happen if they do. They are to sing the song as a reminder to themselves not to turn away from God.

The full section comprising The Song Of Moses starts at the last verse of the previous chapter - Deut 31:30 - and runs until the end of chapter 32. The next chapter (33) comprises Moses' blessing of the tribes (which appears as if it were another song), followed by the death of Moses (chapter 34), which ends Deuteronomy.

See the danger of taking things out-of-context? To get the full meaning, you need to read Deut 31-34.

If I may give a quick guide on how to view the Bible - at least, how "normal" Christians view it(!)...

Think of the Bible as if you were watching a play at a theatre.

The New Testament is the action on the stage. [After all, this is on what Christians are supposed to be focussed!]

The Old Testament is the scenery - the back-drop against which the play unfolds. [The historical (tribal) context.]

[You can also see from this that the "Fundies" don't see it this way at all!]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Greetings,

Sad to say that TF is - unintentionally, I'm sure and with all due respect to him - guilty of quote-mining.

This is why Catholics are urged not to do what Protestants - particularly American - tend to do: the Quote From The Bible Syndrome (QFTBS) .

Why? - Because there's the danger of it being taken out of context.

Catholics are advised to read whole chapters - not just a verse here or there - to understand it in its full context.

TF says : "...Jeshurun has just lost his faith in God...".

Er, not quite as it sounds.

If you read the whole of Deuteronomy 32 - from which TF quotes - you'll see that it isn't God speaking: it's Moses speaking what God has taught him - "The Song Of Moses" - which he was to teach to (the children of) Israel.

Israel, in this context, means the nation - not a person. It is referred to as "Jeshurun".

[... edited for brevity...]

Kindest regards,

James

I think you make some good points here, James - points that "us" on the other side should take heed to.

We do indeed fall into the quote mining trap sometimes when debating theists.

However, there is a point to be made about how many theists don't actually know their own Bible.
And we do often see them telling us "You're just taking the Bible out of context" even when that may not be the case.

To them "context" becomes a vague concept, which often ends up meaning that if we point something out they don't like, well, it's out of context.

And their "context" might ultimately mean their entire understanding of the whole Bible, which will invariable be different from person to person, but will essentially boil down to just the core message of the Bible, which to them is salvation through Jesus.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Understood, Gnug215.

However I think you see the point that I was making - if TF (and other non-believers) wish to make a point about a holy book, they need to ensure that they get their facts (interpretations, if you wish) right.

Sadly, I can see that TF will be hung, drawn and quartered on this one - by the very people he may have been trying to reach. Never mind how the NephilimFree's of this world will treat him - all it will do is damage TF's reputation, unless he fact-checks first before posting such videos.

As was implied earlier - by Aught3 - non-believers tend to know as much about a religious book as "Literalists" know about Science and, as a result, fall into the same trap of showing their ignorance (or, at least, misinterpretation) as the latter.

Most Christians don't take the OT as anything more than the background story leading up to Jesus and his teachings. This may seem strange to atheists, given that - more often than not - the only people with whom they have contact are "Fundies" - who tend to pepper you with quotes from the OT, more than the NT. When they hear a Christian say that they don't take the Bible literally, in my experience, atheists don't seem to know what to think!

This is also why I pointed out, in my first topic here, that I haven't read the whole Bible - I was taught the main sections by priests in Religion class at school in Ireland (run by the Catholic church): at the time, Durakken couldn't understand how I could then discuss my beliefs with anyone if I hadn't read the whole Bible. But to Catholics, the OT isn't that important - it's the NT and particularly the message/interpretation which Jesus was teaching (not the whole NT) that's important to Catholics.

Only Fundamentalists and Creationists read everything and then pepper you with quotes.

In fact, that's how to deal with them.

If someone throws a quote from the Bible at you, read the whole chapter - to see it in it's context - and consult a "Commentary" (you can find them on-line at http://www.biblestudytools.com) to get a proper perspective/interpretation of the quote within the context of the chapter.

Then you can deconstruct the quoter.

That's what TF should have done before quoting from the Bible himself and posting a video about it.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Hi Dragan,


Yes, and you made a very good point. I agree that TF (and everyone who tried to do what he did) should have done his research better.
In fact, I think TF should stay away entirely from dealing with the Bible. It is much more a task for a student of the humanities, or well, just someone who's actully done the work for years. TF is a natural science guy, and it shows.

I agree that this will damage his reputation, and that he'll get slammed for it - and he might also, as you say, alienate some of the very people he's aiming for.

You bring up a number of other interesting topics in your post, too. The point about atheists not knowing what to do with someone who doesn't take the Bible literally is very a good one. Looking at YouTube and the debates that we usually see, it's all about the literalists and creationists. It is quite clear that many of us really don't know how to debate anyone else.
And one might ask: Should we? It is mostly the literalists and fundies that pose any "danger", as I see it. Sure, the moderates who make up the bulk of any religion might "validate/justify" the extremists, as has been suggested (by Harris, for one, I believe?), but it is clear that most of the arguments we do have are only usable against the fundies. The same goes for TF's vid. It is useless, and even detrimental, for anything else.

Good points.

 

[5810Singer]

First, well done to Dragan, because I've wanted to make a few of these points myself, but I couldn't find the right words.

You bring up a number of other interesting topics in your post, too. The point about atheists not knowing what to do with someone who doesn't take the Bible literally is very a good one. Looking at YouTube and the debates that we usually see, it's all about the literalists and creationists. It is quite clear that many of us really don't know how to debate anyone else.
And one might ask: Should we? It is mostly the literalists and fundies that pose any "danger", as I see it. Sure, the moderates who make up the bulk of any religion might "validate/justify" the extremists, as has been suggested (by Harris, for one, I believe?), but it is clear that most of the arguments we do have are only usable against the fundies. The same goes for TF's vid. It is useless, and even detrimental, for anything else.

Good points.

I think the problem is that it's only religious moderates who are prepared to genuinely debate. The fundies just want to harangue, quote-mine, proselytize, etc, etc.

So it's a "Catch 22" situation.

 

[Squawk]

I'll confirm the points Dragon made about catholicism. My Mum (RE teacher, Catholic etc) has always taught that much of what Jesus had to say was to explain that the authors of the old testament had things wrong and that God really is loving caring thingy. It's selective and it's bullshit, but it's what they believe so you have to attack it. Or not, as I don't bother trying to convert her.

I''m not entirely convinced your average religious moderate is better able to hold a debate than your typical fundie. Certain subjects, sure, but then you aren't likely to debate the validity of evolution with a moderate since they already accept it.

It sorta boils down to whether someone is religious via intent or training. That is, has a person decided to become religious though study, what you might call a natural religious person (As hitch refers to natural atheism), or have they been indoctrinated into it since childhood and never really thought about it. The latter is going to be much more open to debate.

 

[Aught3]

I have some examples that are even worse than generic Catholics, these are from...liberal Christians :shock: :shock:

1. In answer to the problem of evil: 'oh yeah that's just God being being evil, the dark side of God'.
2. A question about Jesus: 'I don't believe Jesus was a real person, that story is just a metaphor'.
(okay, I couldn't remember exactly what they said but you get the gist.)

Now in what sense these people can said to be Christians I don't know but they claim that they are. At this point their faith is so nebulous that no objection can possibly be launched against it. Even when sticking to arguments that I consider to be devastating against the Christian faith (problem of evil, historicity of Jesus, condoning of human sacrifice) there's always the option of interpreting the bible or your faith in a different way.

I accept that taking these books literally is probably the only way for atheists to proceed in order to criticise the bible. But the only people who will nod along with your analysis are other atheists, christians won't care a jot.

 

[nemesiss]

kudos to you dragon, for showing the proper way to respond.
i think our little runaway thruthfulchristian can take an example from you.

as others pointed out, its strange for thunderf00t who seems to have some academic background and has skills in research to make such fundamental flaws when it came to the first video.
for the second verse he chosen a milder one, in my opinion, where im curious if he made more mistakes.

i started to wonder why thunderf00t would chose that piece of the bible, and make such an error?
what i think is that its plausible he did it intentionally.
seriously, after that video... who didn't think "is that really whats in the bible?"
so he might have deliverately quote mined it, to start the conversation.
it is my opinion, that if he would have taken the whole piece... nobody would give a rats ass.
im pretty sure alot of christian after watching that video grabbed the nearest bible to fact check, and those without will most likely went to get one. so on the point of raising awareness, i say its a win, for both sides.
i will agree that if he indeed intentionally quote mined it, it is indeed a wrong action, even it it ultimately served a greater good.

either way, which one is the real answer (did he not do enough research or did he purposely quote mine?)...
a video response is in order to clerify what was done and where mistakes have been made.
we will see what the future holds for us.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you all - well, most - er, some...

Gnug215
Thank you.

Personally, I don't have a problem with TF - or anyone - doing a video on the Bible, whether giving their own interpretation or simply asking what believers actually believe. I just thought I'd best clarify that for you and everyone else here.

It's just that I was disappointed that he made such a error - if VFX had made the exact same error, TF would have been all over him like a rash, as he often was.

Your point about atheists' approach being geared towards - indeed, shaped by - "Fundies/Creationists" is also valid.

I think that "mainstream" atheists should make common cause with mainstream Christians, etc., and highlight the invalidity of the extreme views of the "Literalists".

This is also why I'm disappointed with Dawkins' stance, to some extent - he's providing grist to the mill of those who claim that atheists are as much "Fundamentalist" (ie, rabidly extreme) in their rejection (indeed, denigration) of those who believe in a God. I'm talking here of mainstream believers (not "Fundies") - who don't let their beliefs get in the way of everyday common sense.

I can understand why, though - as many reviewers of his "The God Delusion" book have mentioned, there are times when he appeared to be typing the book in fury at the sort of things Creationists, etc, believed - given how he's been targeted by them, it's not surprising.

As you point out, TF is just as much in danger of alienating the mainstream Christians with his latest video series.

[I've also seen some videos by DeistPaladin - particularly one where he, having quoted some offending verses, threw the Bible over his shoulder across the room. This is the same sort of thing I'm talking about - it alienates mainstream Christians and does nothing for the cause of justified objection to extreme beliefs.]

But I do think that we - here I mean mainstream believers and mainstream non-believers - need to find common cause against extreme beliefs.

Remember, mainstream believers are no more happy with "Literalists" than the average football fan is with "football hooligans".

5810Singer
Thank you.

Agreed - but if we join forces, as I suggest above, we can deal with this sort of thing together. After all, mainstream believers would know far better than non-believers where the fault-lines are in the "Literalists" beliefs.

Squawk
I'm not sure that I agree with your "selective/bullshit" summation, but that's only what I believe...

I agree with what you said in your second paragraph.

Again, I'm not sure I agree with your last.

The average "indoctrinated" believer will be open to debate - the "Fundie" will be harder to engage. Equally, someone who's become a believer due to "study" should be open to debate - after all, if they changed their mind once, they should be able to do so again (I'm thinking of Flew, here).

Aught3
The nebulosity of some believers' faith can be hard to fathom, I agree - but then, if Darwin's faith hadn't been of the Paleyian sort, would he have become Agnostic? Indeed, would he have begun to question things the way he did on reading Lyell's book on HMS Beagle, and from thenceforth, developed his theory? Not to say that we wouldn't have the theory of evolution - just that it would be named Wallacism. :facepalm: :lol:

The problem of evil - are you sure you're not talking (also) about the problem of suffering(?), for which read Ehrman's God's Problem - I think, is attributable to human nature: it's the conflict between our baser instincts ("passions", as Muslims call them) and our higher mind (reason and compassion, amongst other things). The latter strangely puts me in mind of the "self transcendence" to which another topic I started referred.

There are a number of respected scholars and historians who accept the historicity of Jesus - Sanders, Vermes, Freeman, etc.

By the reference to "condoning of human sacrifice", I think you may be referring to the story of Abraham and Isaac!? [The first four sections make interesting reading.]

Of course, it is a very old story from the earliest beginnings of the Hebrew faith, and so it may appear that that faith had not developed to the understanding of, say, the prophet Micah some fourteen hundred years later who could say that what God requires is not sacrifice even of animals, but to act justly, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with God. And it was a very long way, two thousand years away, from the compassionate God of Jesus spoke.

The problem with attempting to criticise the Bible by taking it literally is also where atheists fall into the same trap as "Fundies" - literalism!

What's the most common image one has when considering Jews attitude to scripture? Two Jews discussing their interpretations of the same passages.

And therein lies the problem - it's not all written in stone, it's mostly written in sand: it's all about interpretation.

nemesiss
Thank you.

Personally, I don't think - at least, I certainly hope not! - that TF is that mendacious.

He seems to have a sincere wish to ask what "Christians" believe - with which I don't have a problem, just that he doesn't seem to have researched his subject (or, at least, that chapter) very well.

Perhaps if he'd just asked whether Christians believed in the - apparent! - "Hellfire and brimstone" God of the OT or the "unconditionally compassionate" God of the NT...!?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I've just watched his second video...

Oh dear... :facepalm:

He makes a number of loose statements...

He says that "Jesus returned from the dead to talk to John" or words to that effect. He quotes from Revelations 4 - about Heaven and the strange beings and animals (covered all over with eyes, with six wings, seven lamps, etc) - and wonders if it's the result of a "bad trip", before asking is this what Christians really believe Heaven is like.

That's not what happens in this chapter. Again, this is due to it being taken out of context.

In The Book of Revelations, John declares that he "was in Spirit" - had a vision, for all intents and purposes - where he saw Heaven and spoke to God.

In order to understand it, you actually need to read from Revelations 1 onward - then you realise it's all symbolism, not a "bad trip".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Aught3]

The nebulosity of some believers' faith can be hard to fathom, I agree - but then, if Darwin's faith hadn't been of the Paleyian sort, would he have become Agnostic? Indeed, would he have begun to question things the way he did on reading Lyell's book on HMS Beagle, and from thenceforth, developed his theory? Not to say that we wouldn't have the theory of evolution - just that it would be named Wallacism.

If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying it's better to be a liberal Christian than a fundamentalist because a liberal Christian is more likely to lose their faith. I suppose that's a point in your favour but it's not much of one.

The problem of evil - are you sure you're not talking (also) about the problem of suffering(?), for which read Ehrman's God's Problem - I think, is attributable to human nature: it's the conflict between our baser instincts ("passions", as Muslims call them) and our higher mind (reason and compassion, amongst other things).

Yeah I usually phase it as the problem of suffering but it was presented as the problem of evil to the liberal Christian I was talking about. Btw, the problem of suffering doesn't really deal with human nature. I accept the apologetic that God can't interfere with the desires of humans. Although either these desires are removed or God does interfere once we get to heaven, not exactly the kind of deal I'd sign up for. The problem of suffering really deals with the excess suffering of all the creatures on Earth that is brought about by natural means rather than human passion.

By the reference to "condoning of human sacrifice", I think you may be referring to the story of Abraham and Isaac

No, I was talking about Jesus, the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Although condoned isn't really the right word, the celebrated human sacrifice in order to redeem those who were just doing what they were designed to do. Why anyone would make that a central part of their belief system is beyond me.