You may wonder how many idiots scientific communities have. Somehow those people believe having PhD automatically makes them competent in any kind of debate, sometimes they sincerelly believe they can't be wrong arguing with person without Phd.
What atheists fail to realize is that they need at least common knowledge of theology to debate anything worth the time. I have also noticed how they never try to challenge theologists.
there is not feeling ready for a relationship/just not wanting one, and then there's being an incel/cat lady. Not knowing how to interact with the opposite sex often plays a big role on why lolcows are lolcows, and thuderf00t is no exception.
There are plenty of women who aren't sjws,believers or PC obsessed, but when you lack empathy for heavy things like rape and you're so obsessed over hating feminism no wonder women don't want to date you
You may wonder how many idiots scientific communities have. Somehow those people believe having PhD automatically makes them competent in any kind of debate, sometimes they sincerelly believe they can't be wrong arguing with person without Phd.
What atheists fail to realize is that they need at least common knowledge of theology to debate anything worth the time. I have also noticed how they never try to challenge theologists.
Their biggest strategy is to only debate the fringe idealogues such as Ken Ham or Fred Phelps & Co. It is trivial to "win" a debate when the other person is easy to make a fool of. But you'll never see them debating any moderate theists, because there is a real threat they could get their ass handed to them. All the while they fail to realize that most of scientific progress was driven by religious men (Euler, Mendel, Newton, Lemaître, etc.). Mention that and they'll suddenly become very hesitant.
What atheists fail to realize is that they need at least common knowledge of theology to debate anything worth the time. I have also noticed how they never try to challenge theologists.
The most notable religious apologist that prominent atheists refuse to debate is William Lane Craig, and he generally does annihilate most who do debate him. But in fairness that's less to do with him making a plausible case for the existence of God and more to do with him playing logic games and employing high school debating tactics like always going first and throwing out a shitton of valid but unsound arguments, and then in his next go blasting his opponent for inevitably failing to refute every single one of his arguments because they take longer to refute than assert.
You may wonder how many idiots scientific communities have. Somehow those people believe having PhD automatically makes them competent in any kind of debate, sometimes they sincerelly believe they can't be wrong arguing with person without Phd.
What atheists fail to realize is that they need at least common knowledge of theology to debate anything worth the time. I have also noticed how they never try to challenge theologists.
I've known numerous people with Ph.D.s who are absolute fucking idiots. Some of them are just mediocre intellects at best, but at least have the positive of working hard, so they legitimately earned a Ph.D. and are competent within their sphere of knowledge, just more or less idiots outside it. Then there are people who just bullshitted their way into a Ph.D. in some bullshit field and are really just plain old idiots with Ph.D.s, and are not even competent in their own specialties.
I've known numerous people with Ph.D.s who are absolute fucking idiots. Some of them are just mediocre intellects at best, but at least have the positive of working hard, so they legitimately earned a Ph.D. and are competent within their sphere of knowledge, just more or less idiots outside it. Then there are people who just bullshitted their way into a Ph.D. in some bullshit field and are really just plain old idiots with Ph.D.s, and are not even competent in their own specialties.
Putting aside people who "earn" their PhDs through outright academic dishonesty or go through diploma mills, I find academic achievement boils down to primarily three factors:
-Intelligence (in a specific, narrow sense that relates to their discipline)
-Work ethic
-Agreement with instructors/willingness to kiss ass
Being "stronger" in any one of these categories compensates for the others to an extent.
At least in real academic fields, work ethic is probably the single most important of these.
You can tell a bullshit field where the scholarship is meaningless because ass-kissing becomes a lot more important, to the near elimination of the other two. Almost anything called X Studies is in this category.
I'm not sure if Phil qualifies as a lolcow, but I would put forward that the funniest thing about him is that a lot of his Anti feminism and anti SJW arguments are intellectually dishonest in really blatant ways. Combine that with his habit of bringing up unrelated topics, and his odd back and forth game with some of his views, and his "serious" videos become giggle fests.
The most notable religious apologist that prominent atheists refuse to debate is William Lane Craig, and he generally does annihilate most who do debate him. But in fairness that's less to do with him making a plausible case for the existence of God and more to do with him playing logic games and employing high school debating tactics like always going first and throwing out a shitton of valid but unsound arguments, and then in his next go blasting his opponent for inevitably failing to refute every single one of his arguments because they take longer to refute than assert.
Considering how few and far between internet athiests with a basic grasp of logic and what it does are, it's kind of cathartic watching them get beaten over the head with a logic hammer.
That sounds more like a crude version of pantheism than of the atheism I thought he was most noted for. Any chance that description is ironic, or flat out a troll?
What atheists fail to realize is that they need at least common knowledge of theology to debate anything worth the time. I have also noticed how they never try to challenge theologists.
Theology assumes the truth of the bible - there's no reason for an atheist to go there (unless you're into that kind of thing). Arguing theology is like arguing the merits of Spiderman's inner guilt or whatever. It's a red herring.
Philosophy of religion (which deals with the truth claims) is atheism's battleground.
Considering how few and far between internet athiests with a basic grasp of logic and what it does are, it's kind of cathartic watching them get beaten over the head with a logic hammer.
Eh, the thing is, William Lane Craig just comes across as incredibly disingenuous, like even he knows that he has dedicated his life to perfecting the best possible way of arguing for the existence of something that almost certainly doesn't exist. Watching him debate is like some weird piece of performance art that is supposed to satirize philosophy, formal logic and rules of debate by showing him completely trapping opponents, backing them into corners and twisting them into pretzels while ultimately still managing to not present any reasonably compelling reason to be persuaded by his position.
IMO it's unsatisfying and all he does is troll and fuck with people by being really pedantic and officious about rules of argumentation without ever making any arguments that would ever convert anyone to his side.
He's obviously an intelligent person but he has some ridiculous and idiotic beliefs and will always refuse to defend them on the grounds that "that isn't the subject of the debate" which he is always technically right about because he ensures the topics are defined narrowly enough to suit his purposes.
He makes pretty decent science videos I guess. His takedowns of pop sci crap like SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS are good and he should stick to that. Watching Lauren Southern destroy him in her video and call him autistic was great though.
Eh, the thing is, William Lane Craig just comes across as incredibly disingenuous, like even he knows that he has dedicated his life to perfecting the best possible way of arguing for the existence of something that almost certainly doesn't exist. Watching him debate is like some weird piece of performance art that is supposed to satirize philosophy, formal logic and rules of debate by showing him completely trapping opponents, backing them into corners and twisting them into pretzels while ultimately still managing to not present any reasonably compelling reason to be persuaded by his position.
IMO it's unsatisfying and all he does is troll and fuck with people by being really pedantic and officious about rules of argumentation without ever making any arguments that would ever convert anyone to his side.
He's obviously an intelligent person but he has some ridiculous and idiotic beliefs and will always refuse to defend them on the grounds that "that isn't the subject of the debate" which he is always technically right about because he ensures the topics are defined narrowly enough to suit his purposes.
As a Theist I really hate Craig since if you're not on the spot in debate with him you'll be able to pick him apart within a few moments. If anything he does an excellent job of arguing for Atheism by providing shitty arguements as the best.
On reflection live 'debate' isnt even a very good method to get to the truth, since on the spot wits, ability to manipulate and charisma will trump actual knowlague and intelligence. No wonder Thunderf00ts debate with captain bannana was such a farce.
Was bored, so I found and timestamped the bit where Thunderf00t actually gets owned by Kevin Logan, of all people, after asserting that it's not rape when a woman initially consents and then withdraws consent mid-sex but the guy finishes anyway.
Thunderf00t just realized he had gone a while without mentioning Anita Sarkeesian, and promptly set out to rectify that:
To be honest, once upon a time, on this very site, I half-heartedly defended TF's videos about Anita Sarkeesian on the grounds that they were mildly entertaining sometimes and she is indeed a con artist...but FFS, at this point, I hadn't heard anyone mention Sarkeesian in months, she hasn't been relevant in forever, and I have to question the sanity of anyone who still cares. He is indeed obsessed. I haven't even seen Davis Aurini mention her in quite some time.
He lost a bunch of subscribers after he chimped out over Brexit, I wouldn't be surprised if the Anita video isn't him trying to gain his old audience back. The anti-Anita videos are by far his most popular series, even moreso than the "why do people laugh at creationists" series that got him all his reputation ca. 2008.
how does one regress like this? he has a job as a moderately successful researcher in prague, but he's decided now to make a career out of putting out fucking youtube videos a-logging the trendiest and lowest hanging fruit imaginable. from anti-religion in '08-'09 to anti-sjw in '14-present it's like fucking clockwork.
look, academics are smart. some of them are well-spoken. some of them have knowledge outside of their areas of expertise. some of them can critically and insightfully analyze complex political and ethical issues in areas outside of their research topics. this guy? no. he's smug and entitled. that's it. i hate how he touts his science credentials like he's fucking Linus Pauling.
His publication track record is mediocre at best, but you wouldn't know that unless you consult his wikipedia page and find the claim that he's co-authored 34 papers, 20 of which he was the lead author of (unsourced, of course), or you actually search him in googlescholar and count all of his publications, since he doesn't have a link to his CV on his professional profile page at his institute. I'm not disputing that his name is on at least 34 different papers, but for all his bragging about his science creds you would think he'd be a bit more eager to maintain a fairly public and easy to access publication list. Maybe he doesn't because it's thoroughly mediocre. For example, his colleague, Lukasz Cwiklik, has 66 publications and 57 conference presentations since 2003, and he completed his PhD in 2005, while Phil has around half that and completed his PhD 8 years earlier.
his twitter is absolute cancer too. just look how fucking edgy he is:
"Lol look guise the internet is so edgy. oh the internet!"
"muh" check. "meme" check. "SALT" check x2. maybe you should try even harder to become a living meme since you're a mediocre fucking scientist.
i can't stand this guy but i'm not sure he's a cow. he's just a redditeur extraordinaire. the laughing witch thing was alright except for every video he made about it. he's a beta neckbeard sperg who's completely embraced the manosphere hopefully at the cost of his job when his research supervisor decides to hire someone more productive and who isn't wasting his time a-logging sjws.
how does one regress like this? he has a job as a moderately successful researcher in prague, but he's decided now to make a career out of putting out fucking youtube videos a-logging the trendiest and lowest hanging fruit imaginable. from anti-religion in '08-'09 to anti-sjw in '14-present it's like fucking clockwork.
Clicks are a powerful drug. Imagine being a loser, you post some shit about creationists and get in on that atheist revolution shit of 2005, you get treated like an idol AND you get that ad revenue. Then the clicks dry up instead you've got the feminist drama seeping in and taking your clicks away, but there's a new crowd that wants your clicks so you panders and pander and oh fuck you've just made something like 300 anti Anita videos!
