What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
Post Reply
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: He was using this argument against people who claim that atheists can't prove there is no God.
But atheists can prove there's no god; you just have to tailor the proof to the particular theology.

You can also make a semantic proof against it, based on the definition, and reject other usages.
EquALLity wrote: It's true, in the sense that we can't disprove the deistic God.
You can disprove that one too.
EquALLity wrote: But TJ's point is that you can come up with tons of preposterous things that cannot be falsified, just like the deistic God, and that the burden of proof is on the people who make the claim a God exists.
Burden of proof is a very bad argument to make. It's not very convincing, and is usually just a way to avoid engaging in a real discussion or brush something off -- and most theists know that.
EquALLity wrote: He has, really? How do you know that?
You'll have to look at response videos, or cross search some of the top theists on youtube with TJ.

I can't get lost in youtube right now. ;)

But there are some smart theists who make names for themselves by debunking people like TJ.

EquALLity wrote: Hm, good point. I don't know, do they really do this, though?
They do. When they have a crisis of faith, that's the first place they go. If they take a good argument with them, the crisis is likely to get worse when the preacher can't offer a good response. If they take TJs arguments... not so much.
EquALLity wrote: Theologians are the arbiters of interpretations of scripture in their religions?
Yes, withing their denominations and for their followers. They're usually the people who went to seminary school, but there are also some theistic "philosophers" there who do independent study.
EquALLity wrote: I never saw them as such when I was religious. Why do you think they are?
Because they know the canon for their religions. As a catholic, you believe the catholic canon, or your beliefs are heretical by definition. As a Lutheran, you believe in the Lutheran canon, or your beliefs are heretical. Etc.

There is some disagreement and heresy within any denomination, but it's kind of like politics. You know how the Democratic and Republican parties have certain official platforms?
EquALLity wrote: Evolution isn't really up for interpretation like religion.
Catholicism isn't up for interpretation. The Pope's word is god's word.

This is the case in most denominations. It's only outside of denominations where you find a lot of variation in belief. The independents. When independents are challenged, they'll tend to look for answers in different denominations, or they'll form their own theology, and be able to answer the questions themselves, having become educated in the process.

EquALLity wrote: Why do you think they all just accept what their preachers tell them? There are liberal Christians who take the Bible metaphorically.
There are also Christians who don't believe in god, or that Jesus existed. You can call yourself whatever you want. Nobody has much of a claim on the world "Christian". You have to look to a denomination to find a canon, or a particular theologian with a following who has formally answered these questions in the past.
EquALLity wrote: The edge? So it surrounds the Universe?
In time, not within the three dimensions of "space".
EquALLity wrote: Hm. What is this based off of? I'm not familiar with it.
Not sure what you mean. The universe as we experience it is four dimensional, three space and one time. From a fifth dimensional perspective (see Flatland), you can plot time as another dimension of space. Of course, being outside of time, you can't do anything anymore, or think. But it's a useful thought experiment to visualize time as a dimension.
EquALLity wrote: Like where? I've never walked into Target and seen some evolution posters. ;)
Public education for one. The television is full of science programs too. As a creationist; they'll tell you they feel assaulted by evolution propaganda constantly. We don't really notice it, because we're not offended by it. Instead we notice the religious nonsense everywhere (which they don't see).

EquALLity wrote: And still he doesn't change his actions, while understanding eating meat is wrong.
Correct. This doesn't make him intellectually dishonest, this just makes him a bad person who admits he's a bad person, instead of a bad person who is delusional about it and pretends to be a good person (which is intellectually dishonest).
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by EquALLity »

But atheists can prove there's no god; you just have to tailor the proof to the particular theology.

You can also make a semantic proof against it, based on the definition, and reject other usages.
He was referring to the deistic god.
You can disprove that one too.
You can? In what way?
Burden of proof is a very bad argument to make. It's not very convincing, and is usually just a way to avoid engaging in a real discussion or brush something off -- and most theists know that.
They know that? I'm still doubting whether or not it's true.

How is it a bad argument to make? It's perfectly reasonable. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

There are an infinite amount of things I can make up that can't be proven wrong. Like dragons, for example.

Can you prove that dragons don't exist in some other Universe?

And if I point out that the lack of one being able to disprove dragons is not a logical basis to believe in them, how am I avoiding discussion?
You'll have to look at response videos, or cross search some of the top theists on youtube with TJ.
Unfortunately, YouTube got rid of the reply video feature.

LOL, I don't watch any theists on YT. The YT theists are too crazy from what I've seen. Have you seen The Vigilant Christian?

Who are the ones you are talking about?
They do. When they have a crisis of faith, that's the first place they go. If they take a good argument with them, the crisis is likely to get worse when the preacher can't offer a good response. If they take TJs arguments... not so much.
Well, how do you know?
Because they know the canon for their religions. As a catholic, you believe the catholic canon, or your beliefs are heretical by definition. As a Lutheran, you believe in the Lutheran canon, or your beliefs are heretical. Etc.
Oh, really? I did not know that. How do you know, though?
There is some disagreement and heresy within any denomination, but it's kind of like politics. You know how the Democratic and Republican parties have certain official platforms?
Are you saying both parties have a common official platform, and then generally disagree on certain issues, and that it's the same with religion?

Or are you saying that each party has its own official platform, but that there are individual republicans/democrats who have differing views than the majority of their parties?
In time, not within the three dimensions of "space".
So, the big bang is a place in time that surrounds the Universe's edge in time? :?
Not sure what you mean. The universe as we experience it is four dimensional, three space and one time. From a fifth dimensional perspective (see Flatland), you can plot time as another dimension of space. Of course, being outside of time, you can't do anything anymore, or think. But it's a useful thought experiment to visualize time as a dimension.
I was asking why people think all of this.
Public education for one. The television is full of science programs too. As a creationist; they'll tell you they feel assaulted by evolution propaganda constantly. We don't really notice it, because we're not offended by it. Instead we notice the religious nonsense everywhere (which they don't see).
Don't they still teach creationism in some schools along with evolution?

I actually looked up evolution on my T.V. not too long ago, and there weren't any results of science programs.
I guess that's just anecdotal, though. What evolution programs do you know of?

Anyway, even if they do just ignore the information, it makes sense, because they believe they have it right. They can't force themselves to question their beliefs until they are open-minded enough to accept evidence, and some of them just can't be, because they are so faithful.
Correct. This doesn't make him intellectually dishonest, this just makes him a bad person who admits he's a bad person, instead of a bad person who is delusional about it and pretends to be a good person (which is intellectually dishonest).
Ok, fair enough, it doesn't. Although they both seem to have some cognitive dissonance about it (not sure if that counts as intellectual dishonesty).

Dawkins says what he does is immoral, presumably wants to be moral, and yet doesn't change his actions.
TJ says it's immoral, presumably wants to be moral, and yet doesn't change his actions either.

Why do you think TJ is intellectually dishonest? Couldn't he just have cognitive dissonance about it?
He realizes factory farms are bad, but doesn't make the connection that he is bad (not necessarily as a whole, but pertaining to this) for supporting them unnecessarily.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: You can? In what way?
The deistic god still created existence. Therein lies a fundamental contradiction.
EquALLity wrote: They know that? I'm still doubting whether or not it's true.
It's more or less intuitive.

The burden of proof is more of an extra rule of rhetoric tacked on to certain discussions, it's not an inherent logical principle in the way that contradiction is. Yes, it is more proper to back up your claims than to ask other people to prove them wrong, but you don't really have to (it's just kind of rude in some circles).

The only case where theists are making a logical mistake is where they explicitly make a logical fallacy, which is the argument from ignorance. That's something to call out.

"God exists!"
"Nuh uh."
"Then prove me wrong."

That's valid rhetoric.

So is:

"God exists!"
"Prove it."
EquALLity wrote: How is it a bad argument to make? It's perfectly reasonable. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
No, it lies on whoever wants to persuade the other person of something. Unless they have both agreed that the burden of proof lies on those who make claims; but then you're left with defining what a claim is, and what the "default" position it. It's more of a semantic dance to place the claim upon somebody at that point.
EquALLity wrote: There are an infinite amount of things I can make up that can't be proven wrong. Like dragons, for example.

Can you prove that dragons don't exist in some other Universe?
This deals with the argument from unfalsifiability, and defining things into existence. This isn't necessarily a logical flaw.

If dragons are defined such that they are legitimately possible creatures (not just apparently possible), then yes, dragons do exist somewhere in some possible universe.

The issue is whether a thing is possible or not, and moreover, empirically, whether that thing (if possible) exists in THIS universe.
EquALLity wrote: And if I point out that the lack of one being able to disprove dragons is not a logical basis to believe in them, how am I avoiding discussion?
If something is actually possible, and there is no empirical evidence available to make it improbable, then it is not necessarily irrational to believe that thing exists provided you don't assert undue certainty,

However, this is a misunderstanding of theists' arguments. They don't simply believe that their god is possible; they believe that their god is logically necessary, as an innate part of the universe like some mathematical essentiality. To them, god is to the universe as π is to cirlces.
EquALLity wrote: Unfortunately, YouTube got rid of the reply video feature.
I did not know that. When did this happen?
EquALLity wrote: Who are the ones you are talking about?
I don't know their names, sorry, I've just seen a few videos. They used to be linked as response videos to atheist channels.
EquALLity wrote: Well, how do you know?
Because the preachers are specifically educated in these responses. They're basic catechism. You don't go through seminary without learning that any more than you become a Chemist without knowing the periodic table.
EquALLity wrote: Oh, really? I did not know that. How do you know, though?
It's how dogma works?
That's one of the big points of criticism of organized religion.
EquALLity wrote: Are you saying both parties have a common official platform, and then generally disagree on certain issues, and that it's the same with religion?

Or are you saying that each party has its own official platform, but that there are individual republicans/democrats who have differing views than the majority of their parties?
Both.

If you deviate, then on that point you aren't towing the party line anymore/ you are no longer espousing the beliefs of your religion.

In religion, it's a matter of canon.
EquALLity wrote: So, the big bang is a place in time that surrounds the Universe's edge in time? :?
Yes, close enough. But it's all bendy... so, imagine a sphere. Now, you turn that sphere inside out so all the outside is inside, and the inside is now all outside.
Now, take "outside" and squish it down into an infinitesimal point, so all there is, is the sphere, and a singularity that's made up of the boundary all squished down to a single point- there is no longer an 'outside', there is only inside, and that point at the beginning of things.
EquALLity wrote: I was asking why people think all of this.
You can visualize it anyway you want that helps you understand it. Any visualization that is equally accurate is equally true.
EquALLity wrote: Don't they still teach creationism in some schools along with evolution?
Depends on the country.
EquALLity wrote: I actually looked up evolution on my T.V. not too long ago, and there weren't any results of science programs.
I guess that's just anecdotal, though. What evolution programs do you know of?
Most shows about dinosaurs deal with evolution, and the evolutionary time-scale. Look for anything with dinosaurs in it.
Also, anything about geology or biology or genetics.

There aren't shows about evolution, but it comes up in most shows about science.
EquALLity wrote: Anyway, even if they do just ignore the information, it makes sense, because they believe they have it right.
They actively block out the information, and get angry at it, because they don't like to be challenged in their beliefs.
Christians make like they're much more certain than they really are, particularly when a growing body of people are educated on evolution.

The information is available. It's a choice to listen to it on the chance you might be wrong, or block it out, still knowing you could be wrong.
Christians who really believe they have nothing to fear from the information because they're right and others are wrong have no problem learning the information in order to debunk it better... incidentally, they generally become atheists.
EquALLity wrote: They can't force themselves to question their beliefs until they are open-minded enough to accept evidence, and some of them just can't be, because they are so faithful.
That's a choice.
EquALLity wrote: Why do you think TJ is intellectually dishonest? Couldn't he just have cognitive dissonance about it?
He realizes factory farms are bad, but doesn't make the connection that he is bad (not necessarily as a whole, but pertaining to this) for supporting them unnecessarily.
Cognitive dissonance comes from intellectual dishonesty.

He chooses to ignore that connection. That's his cognitive dissonance; it's why he's intellectually dishonest.

Dawkins seems to admit, unequivocally, that it makes him a worse person. TJ rationalizes it and attempts to justify it or ignore it in various ways.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by EquALLity »

Oh wow, it's almost been a month. Sorry.
The deistic god still created existence. Therein lies a fundamental contradiction.
Isn't that what the big bang did also?
No, it lies on whoever wants to persuade the other person of something.
What is an example of a scenario where the person trying to convince isn't making a claim?
It's more or less intuitive.
I find it counterintuitive.

So I can just pull ideas out of the air and demand people to prove me wrong while having no evidence, and if they fail, I win the argument?
If dragons are defined such that they are legitimately possible creatures (not just apparently possible), then yes, dragons do exist somewhere in some possible universe.
How do you know?
However, this is a misunderstanding of theists' arguments. They don't simply believe that their god is possible; they believe that their god is logically necessary, as an innate part of the universe like some mathematical essentiality. To them, god is to the universe as π is to cirlces.
I don't know if this applies to all theists, but it does seem so to me based off of the interactions I've had. I'm assuming there are exceptions, though.
I did not know that. When did this happen?
I don't know exactly when, but if you look it up, you'll see that they have been discontinued. Most of the talking about it seems to have been in 2013.
I don't know their names, sorry, I've just seen a few videos. They used to be linked as response videos to atheist channels.
I can probably find them. I'll get back to you on this.
Because the preachers are specifically educated in these responses. They're basic catechism. You don't go through seminary without learning that any more than you become a Chemist without knowing the periodic table.
I see.
It's how dogma works?
That's one of the big points of criticism of organized religion.
Well, I was just kind of iffy on the 'matter-of-canon' thing.
If you deviate, then on that point you aren't towing the party line anymore/ you are no longer espousing the beliefs of your religion.

In religion, it's a matter of cannon.
Ah, ok.
Yes, close enough.
What, was there something wrong with that?
But it's all bendy... so, imagine a sphere. Now, you turn that sphere inside out so all the outside is inside, and the inside is now all outside.
Now, take "outside" and squish it down into an infinitesimal point, so all there is, is the sphere, and a singularity that's made up of the boundary all squished down to a single point- there is no longer an 'outside', there is only inside, and that point at the beginning of things.
What do you mean by that point at the beginning of things?
Depends on the country.
I was referring to the U.S.
Most shows about dinosaurs deal with evolution, and the evolutionary time-scale. Look for anything with dinosaurs in it.
Also, anything about geology or biology or genetics.
Unfortunately, all the search results for dinosaurs are fiction shows/movies.

I'm sure I can find something.
They actively block out the information, and get angry at it, because they don't like to be challenged in their beliefs.
Christians make like they're much more certain than they really are, particularly when a growing body of people are educated on evolution.

The information is available. It's a choice to listen to it on the chance you might be wrong, or block it out, still knowing you could be wrong.
Christians who really believe they have nothing to fear from the information because they're right and others are wrong have no problem learning the information in order to debunk it better... incidentally, they generally become atheists.
Ok, I can accept that.
That's a choice.
It's not really a choice to have been indoctrinated.
Cognitive dissonance comes from intellectual dishonesty.

He chooses to ignore that connection. That's his cognitive dissonance; it's why he's intellectually dishonest.

Dawkins seems to admit, unequivocally, that it makes him a worse person. TJ rationalizes it and attempts to justify it or ignore it in various ways.
I know he admits it; I never denied that.

But he still wants to be a good person, understands that it's bad to fund factory farming, and yet continues to do so.

If having cognitive dissonance makes you intellectually dishonest, Dawkins seems to have it also, then.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Isn't that what the big bang did also?
No. That would be like saying the ripples in the pond caused the rock to be dropped into the water.

Talking about the universe being created as an event is incoherent. It's not an event; the big bang is just the state of things at the extreme temporal edge of the universe as far as we can see it.

You might be able to argue that a quantum fluctuation caused the matter in the universe, but quantum fluctuations themselves are uncaused (and they aren't the deistic god).

Causation of the universe is logically incoherent if you're referring to time as part of the universe.
EquALLity wrote: What is an example of a scenario where the person trying to convince isn't making a claim?
If you're trying to convince somebody of something, you're making a claim. But just because you're making a claim, doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to convince anybody.

Everybody is making implicit claims all of the time.
EquALLity wrote:I find it counterintuitive.

So I can just pull ideas out of the air and demand people to prove me wrong while having no evidence, and if they fail, I win the argument?
No. You can't demand people do something. But you can maintain that you are rational for provisionally believing it unless somebody proves you wrong.

If the idea is logically consistent, then yes, you win that argument.
EquALLity wrote:How do you know?
All possible universes exist, from an objective point of view, as much so as does our own. All possible things exist, as much so as we do.

The trouble is that not everything you think is possible is actually possible.

All universes that you think are possible do NOT exist. Only those universes that are actually possible. There's a huge difference.
In religion, it's a matter of cannon.
That was a typo, but sometimes it's a matter of cannons too. If they shoot them at you for not believing in their god.
EquALLity wrote:What, was there something wrong with that?
I don't know what you're referring to anymore.
EquALLity wrote:What do you mean by that point at the beginning of things?
It's like the foundation of a house. Even though the house is built, you can go find the foundation.
Now imagine if instead of in space, the house existed across time. So, there was the foundation, then the frame, then the walls, and as time passed the earlier parts seemed to disappear. They're 'still' there, they're just in another time rather than in another place.
EquALLity wrote:I was referring to the U.S.
In private schools they can teach whatever they want. It is not legal to do so in public schools. Some teachers, who are particularly evil Christians, still do it against the law. Those teachers are criminals, violating the constitutional rights of their students and tax payers in their districts, and misappropriating tax dollars for their ignorance fueled criminal endeavors.
EquALLity wrote:It's not really a choice to have been indoctrinated.
It's not a choice to be raped either, but it is illegal to rape people. The "teachers" who are indoctrinating students and denying them education on evolution are comparable to rapists.

There may be some children being intellectually raped by these evil Christian fundamentalists, but as adults they have access to other information, and the ability to learn beyond what they were indoctrinated with.
When they turn 18, it's a choice. They certainly know about evolution, even if they have been misinformed, and they have the ability to learn the right information (it's all around them), if they aren't choosing to avoid challenging themselves just to confirm their own dogma.

People make the choice to learn or remain ignorant.
EquALLity wrote:But he still wants to be a good person, understands that it's bad to fund factory farming, and yet continues to do so.
Does he think he's a good person?

Wanting to be and thinking you are already; these are two very different things.

Somebody isn't intellectually dishonest for wanting to quit smoking but not doing it. That's a deficit in will power.
They are dishonest if they believe they're engaging in a healthy lifestyle, and yet continue to smoke.

Wanting vs. believing you already are. Very different things.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:No. That would be like saying the ripples in the pond caused the rock to be dropped into the water.

Talking about the universe being created as an event is incoherent. It's not an event; the big bang is just the state of things at the extreme temporal edge of the universe as far as we can see it.

You might be able to argue that a quantum fluctuation caused the matter in the universe, but quantum fluctuations themselves are uncaused (and they aren't the deistic god).

Causation of the universe is logically incoherent if you're referring to time as part of the universe.
Oh, ok.
brimstoneSalad wrote:If you're trying to convince somebody of something, you're making a claim. But just because you're making a claim, doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to convince anybody.

Everybody is making implicit claims all of the time.
I don't see how this explains anything being wrong with my original statement:
I wrote:The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
brimstoneSalad wrote:No. You can't demand people do something. But you can maintain that you are rational for provisionally believing it unless somebody proves you wrong.

If the idea is logically consistent, then yes, you win that argument.
This seems to contradict that quote you showed me before (Actually, you were addressing miniboes, but that doesn't matter.):
The bolded point contradicts your claim. If people are ignorant, then they are wrong. They are wrong to believe what they believe, even if they're accidentally right, because they do not believe it for rational reasons. You don't get points for guessing -- that's something very important to understand.

If I said there's a civilization of mole people living underground, I am wrong to say that, and I'm wrong to believe it -- it is irrational of me to do so.
It may actually be true, coincidentally, and there may be a civilization of mole people underground. But I'm still wrong to say and believe that. Why? Because I don't know that. I don't have evidence, or a rational train of thought leading to that conclusion.

If you can not adequately defend your beliefs with reason, then you are wrong to hold them, even if you are accidentally right.

Understand?

So no, there is no case in this world where somebody is right to believe something, yet can not defend it rationally.
If they can not defend it rationally, it is an irrational belief, and they are wrong to hold it.
brimstoneSalad wrote:All possible universes exist, from an objective point of view, as much so as does our own. All possible things exist, as much so as we do.

The trouble is that not everything you think is possible is actually possible.

All universes that you think are possible do NOT exist. Only those universes that are actually possible. There's a huge difference.
Ok, but how do you know they all do?
brimstoneSalad wrote:That was a typo, but sometimes it's a matter of cannons too. If they shoot them at you for not believing in their god.
Hahaha!
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't know what you're referring to anymore.
Ok, before,
I wrote:So, the big bang is a place in time that surrounds the Universe's edge in time? :?
And
You wrote:Yes, close enough.
Close enough? Was there something wrong with that?
brimstoneSalad wrote:It's like the foundation of a house. Even though the house is built, you can go find the foundation.
Now imagine if instead of in space, the house existed across time. So, there was the foundation, then the frame, then the walls, and as time passed the earlier parts seemed to disappear. They're 'still' there, they're just in another time rather than in another place.
Are you saying parts of the Universe are disappearing and moving somewhere else? Or we just can't see the big bang because it's at the edge of the Universe?
brimstoneSalad wrote:It's not a choice to be raped either, but it is illegal to rape people. The "teachers" who are indoctrinating students and denying them education on evolution are comparable to rapists.

There may be some children being intellectually raped by these evil Christian fundamentalists, but as adults they have access to other information, and the ability to learn beyond what they were indoctrinated with.
When they turn 18, it's a choice. They certainly know about evolution, even if they have been misinformed, and they have the ability to learn the right information (it's all around them), if they aren't choosing to avoid challenging themselves just to confirm their own dogma.

People make the choice to learn or remain ignorant.
You don't think there are people who are just too in with their beliefs to see through it all?

There are things stopping them, like, "But what if I go to Hell for being a non-believer?" and "But this can't be wrong I have a personal connection."
brimstoneSalad wrote:Does he think he's a good person?

Wanting to be and thinking you are already; these are two very different things.

Somebody isn't intellectually dishonest for wanting to quit smoking but not doing it. That's a deficit in will power.
They are dishonest if they believe they're engaging in a healthy lifestyle, and yet continue to smoke.

Wanting vs. believing you already are. Very different things.
Hm, good point. Either way, it's pretty disappointing.

Dawkins either thinks he is good and yet does bad things for no good reason, or he wants to be good, but doesn't actually make change.

Alright, I concede on that point: TJ must be intellectually dishonest. But that's just one issue (that he rarely talks about), so I don't think you should just dismiss him because of it.

He has some good criticisms of religion from a moral perspective (I think he makes good points about how religion harms the world. I could show you a video, if you're up for it, but I've made you watch like 10 videos by him, so you might not be up for that. ;) ), and I think he has some good insights on political issues (That reminds me, I have to respond to your refutation of his video on the government shutdown.).
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: I don't see how this explains anything being wrong with my original statement:
I wrote:The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Everybody is making a claim. In practice it's the one trying to convince others who has the burden of proof in the conversation, but only because nobody has to listen to other people's assertions.

Burden of proof is usually a bad argument, founded on rhetoric. If you follow the principle strictly, everybody should have the burden of proof, which basically means nobody does, and the whole idea is incoherent.

If I walk into a church and try to convince Christians to stop being Christians, in actual practice in our reality, I have the burden of proof, because I have to accept it in order to make progress, despite that they're all claiming that god exists constantly.
The one trying to convince another of something, at a particular moment, has taken upon his or herself the burden of proof in that discussion by necessity.
EquALLity wrote: This seems to contradict that quote you showed me before (Actually, you were addressing miniboes, but that doesn't matter.):
It's the difference between a belief which is based on reason alone (which is easy to prove wrong), and one of an empirical nature (which is potentially unfalsifiable).

If I have done my maths homework, and answered the question:

3 + 3 = 9

And I believe that to be correct, based on my reasoning, then it is reasonable to believe that provisionally (until) somebody corrects my reasoning.
That is, I believe I have answered the questions on my maths homework correctly until I get the grade back.

As it turns out, my reasoning was mistaken, but I couldn't have known that without being corrected.

1. It's easy to be corrected on these points.
2. This is a subject where you can absolutely correct somebody with the logic of mathematics.

Now, if I did my geography homework, and I guessed that the Capital of Mexico was Paris, I am not being reasonable in believing that to be true. It's only as wrong as 3+3=9, but the problem is the latter question is an empirical one, and I didn't have access to that information (while I do have access to reasoning skills, and my reasoning skills are the best ones I have access to; ones I need to provisionally trust on matters until corrected).

It's the difference between reasoning to a wrong conclusion, and guessing the wrong conclusion.
You can not, without external evidence, reason that the capital of Mexico is Paris. You had NO basis for believing that. You had some basis for believing 3+3=9 (based perhaps on a misunderstanding of mathematics, but you used some reasoning to get there).

Does that help?

Trusting the conclusions of your reason UNTIL somebody demonstrates them to be wrong is reasonable.
Trusting a random assumption about empirical reality without evidence is unreasonable.

Now, it depends on the theist, and upon the theology, but for rationalist theists (mainly apologists), they often believe they have reasoned themselves to belief in god as a necessary property of the universe.
These people believe what they do, or think they believe what they do, because of reason (mistaken though it may be), and they will attempt to defend it with reason.

Read the rest of my post you quoted, and the context of the discussion for more.
EquALLity wrote: Ok, but how do you know they all do?
It's logically necessary.

How do you know 1 - 1 = 0? What if it's just really really close to zero, so nobody noticed?
EquALLity wrote:
I wrote:So, the big bang is a place in time that surrounds the Universe's edge in time? :?
And
You wrote:Yes, close enough.
Close enough? Was there something wrong with that?
Words are ambiguous. It's close enough, within the margin of error of the meanings and interpretations of English words.
EquALLity wrote: Are you saying parts of the Universe are disappearing and moving somewhere else? Or we just can't see the big bang because it's at the edge of the Universe?
It's at the edge in the time direction, not in the space direction.

Have you read flatland?

Imagine you're a 2d being. The big bang is in the third direction, a direction you can't see in because you're not a 3d being.
EquALLity wrote: You don't think there are people who are just too in with their beliefs to see through it all?
Sure, there are people who choose to be so engaged in their own beliefs that they choose to block out and ignore things around them, and choose to not be curious enough to look.
EquALLity wrote: There are things stopping them, like, "But what if I go to Hell for being a non-believer?" and "But this can't be wrong I have a personal connection."
If they choose to be stopped by those things, sure. They choose to fear hell and not overcome it with reason, and they choose to rationalize.
EquALLity wrote: or he wants to be good, but doesn't actually make change.
This one. Yes, it's disappointing. But not intellectually dishonest.
EquALLity wrote: He has some good criticisms of religion from a moral perspective (I think he makes good points about how religion harms the world. I could show you a video, if you're up for it, but I've made you watch like 10 videos by him, so you might not be up for that. ;) ), and I think he has some good insights on political issues (That reminds me, I have to respond to your refutation of his video on the government shutdown.).
I disagree on both points.

A. He doesn't understand morality; he's making straw man arguments, and cherry picking things, mostly out of context, and constructing rhetoric rather than real arguments.

B. He has no insights. When he's right, he parrots other liberal commentators who had the insights for him, that he liked and copied.
If you want to make the argument that he's insightful on political matters, I will need to see two things:
1. He has come up with something that he didn't copy from somebody else -- an original political thought or insight -- that is also right. This is very rare.
2. His overall hit and miss ratio. Everybody is wrong sometimes, and everybody is right sometimes. Bill O'Reilly is right sometimes. What matters in these matters, like with weather forecast, is the ratio of hits and misses.

Hardly anybody is politically insightful. Most people are just saying whatever they feel, and guessing. You don't get credit for guessing, which is where point 2 comes in: Being right a statistically significant portion of the time compared to others.
knot
Master in Training
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:34 pm

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by knot »

MrRepzion -- ughhh, just one of the most annoying atheist youtubers. Like in this video where he calls veganism a religious ideology, lol :?
User avatar
Dizzy
Full Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:38 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by Dizzy »

RedAppleGP wrote:Yea so I have to fill in this space with something because a guy got banned and I had to be in charge of this topic. Regardless, I have a list of Youtube channels (in general, not relating to Veganism and Religion) that I find that are freaking terrible. This is a rushed list, as I just wanted to make a new topic. And it's in no particular order.

3. Smosh
Smosh is one note. Every single video follows the same formula, (retardeness, stupidity, and overall trying way to hard to be funny) and they get progressively worse every video! Then again, their main audience is between the ages of 8-11 years old, so why should I be surprised that they have almost 20 Million subs?

2. PewDiePie and Markipler
This one was a tie! 2 channels that do the exact same thing! Play scary games and overreact by screaming at the top of your lungs, and just playing video games with no redeeming quality or commentary whatsoever. Both of these Let's Players are just boring and never cease to amaze me with their terrible jokes, and it's just painful to watch at times! They also react to scary situations as if they were 10 year olds. I played both Five Nights At Freddy's and Slender without even flinching.

1. Tobuscus
I now want to kill my 10 year old me. HOW THE HELL DID I FIND THIS PERSON INTERESTING? He is the most unamusing (if that's a word) channel I have ever seen in my life, and I can't believe I actually saw this guy as an idle! Was I this retarded when I was in 5th grade! Ugh, thankfully, I have gained a wee bit of intelligence, just enough to know that this douchebag is a hack.

Well what about you? What are your least favorite YouTube channels?
VeganAtheist is the worst YouTube channel ever; Here are the reasons why:

1. He hates God (capitalized, sorry for any offence caused) so much that he pretends that he doesn't exist. Has he even read the Bible? What about how the universe was created? Can he explain
2. He is white. White people are always doing bad things (i.e. raping our women, killing our children, etc.)
3. He always criticizes Christianity and even Islam occasionally (I know right? I am also shocked, Atheists are usually too much of a pussy to criticize the muzzies) but never criticizes the Jews, even though they are probably the worst, and now EquALLity is going to call me a Nazi for this but how can I be a Nazi when I am black? I'm not even sure if the Holocause is even real or if the Holocaust was a lie made up by the Jews lol. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's worth noting though that Hitler was not A Christian, like Liberals claim, he was actually an Atheist.
4. He is obviously part of the Illuminati, the same people who enslaved black folks and got there puppet Abraham Lincoln to "free" us, so we could praise white people but still be technically enslaved by them, we are still slaves even though the Illuminati want as to claim we are free. They caused 9/11, they faked the Moon Landings, They are all Reptillians and Aliens keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. And they use there propaganda YouTube channels like VeganAtheist to brainwash them into hating God (capitalized, sorry for any offence caused) and even people who pretend to hate them like VigilantChristian are actually Illuminati, he is whiter then Frosty Snowman, so he can not claim that he is opressed by the Illuminati, he has been given so much privelege by Illuminati.
5. Whenever he does criticize Islam, he is very soft on it.
6. He is to much of a pussy to reveal his identity
7. I bet he is just a butthurt fedora wearing man who was crying when he found out Santa isn't real so he hated God and mocked him, he will sing a different song on judgement day.
8. He has a forum where you can make a signature but won't tell me how to make one, and nobody else will either because their all foggots.

So that is why VeganAtheist is the worst YouTube channel ever, he is a stupid Jew-Cock-Suckking Gay Faggot Bastard Muzzie-Loving God-Hating Blaspheming Feminist Porn-Loving Cunty Fucking piece of shit, I hate him, I can't wait to see his stupid white face when he is burning in hell. I, as a black man, have a much bigger willy then him. I dont think you should.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: What are the worst YouTube channels you have ever seen?

Post by Red »

@Dizzy keep quoting someone's entire post. I encourage it.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Post Reply