Thunderf00t

[Stygian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Na_wcvqUOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3nF69AHKcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9rmHfTQd5Y

Eh... this is probably a good example of someone who provides a counter argument, yet doesn't really advance atheism.

[Ivellious]

I have seen a few of his videos (though they were mostly dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church and other cult-like Christian groups). These three are somewhat interesting. I do agree that it is inane to suggest that murdering children is a blessing, and that it is horrible to suggest that "God" killed people when in fact people did. It's just my opinion, but regardless of circumstances, anyone who can kill children or justify butchering children is a monster, as pointed out in the first video.

The second video is just another free will debate thing, and to me you can make convincing arguments for and against the concept of free will.

The third was a sort of "revenge" video pointing out the hypocrisy of a "christian" group. Nothing new. Just like there are idiotic atheists on the web, there are plenty of idiotic theists, too.

[Stygian]

I have seen a few of his videos (though they were mostly dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church and other cult-like Christian groups). These three are somewhat interesting. I do agree that it is inane to suggest that murdering children is a blessing, and that it is horrible to suggest that "God" killed people when in fact people did. It's just my opinion, but regardless of circumstances, anyone who can kill children or justify butchering children is a monster, as pointed out in the first video.

These things are true, but he fails to consider the environment of the children in question; an anti-Christian one. So here you'd assume God is real. If these kinds grew up with anti-God sentiments, taking after their parents and former society (the Canaanites, seeming to be the most famous example), they would have certainly gone to hell if they died after they reached the age where they would be morally responsible for deciding between opposing or accepting God. Since the destruction of the wicked peoples was necessary for the survival of God's chosen people, God did not want the children to be responsible for their city's wickedness. I will agree that WLC's handling of the material (or at least what Thunderf00t showed in the video) was a little sloppy. This is simply my basic understanding of the topic.

The second video is just another free will debate thing, and to me you can make convincing arguments for and against the concept of free will.

The free will debate really has no meaning considering we cannot simply apply our understanding of logic to a being that is entirely different than the normal laws of of the universe would apply. All OUR laws of logic and free will, and our understanding of both, have to be applied to a God that is existent within far more dimensions than us, and therefore has attributes that are entirely impossible in our dimension (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...). Really, it's a nonsensical argument.

The third was a sort of "revenge" video pointing out the hypocrisy of a "christian" group. Nothing new. Just like there are idiotic atheists on the web, there are plenty of idiotic theists, too.

I'm just sick of the entire 'Lying for Jesus' accusation, as evidence was never modified to suit the other side (Haeckel's drawings). And I'm quite aware of stupidity on all sides. This is, after all, the world we live in.

[Beanybag]

While I generally hate posts like these, I'll say it anyway. "As an atheist.."

As an atheist myself, I find Thunderf00t to be entirely detestable. His ridicule of creationists through his series were fine if not a bit juvenile. There's a time and place for ridicule and the world should not have to make time for science denialists. At the same time, many of the criticisms he levels against theists as a whole can be wholly leveled back at himself. He blindly supports certain ontological views (scientific naturalism and model-dependent realities) and won't acknowledge that his epistemic values lack fully objective grounding (I actually found his struggles with Sye T. to be pretty amusing for that reason). He's fine at science, and I'm sure he's a good scientist himself, but he's a terrible philosopher. I wish these online atheists could be possibly more well-versed on philosophy before they attack these ideas. I think thunderf00ts attention-seeking behavior through episode after episode of melodramatic scandals and his inability to see those with opposing view points as anything less than inferior leave me wondering if he's intellectually capable of engaging with anyone outside of his field of science. He has no respect for other people's ideas and his attacks on the atheist feminist groups through the use of anecdotal justifications just hammered in the last nail on his title of 'blubbering hypocrite'. I wish he would just stop.

However.

These things are true, but he fails to consider the environment of the children in question; an anti-Christian one. So here you'd assume God is real. If these kinds grew up with anti-God sentiments, taking after their parents and former society (the Canaanites, seeming to be the most famous example), they would have certainly gone to hell if they died after they reached the age where they would be morally responsible for deciding between opposing or accepting God. Since the destruction of the wicked peoples was necessary for the survival of God's chosen people, God did not want the children to be responsible for their city's wickedness. I will agree that WLC's handling of the material (or at least what Thunderf00t showed in the video) was a little sloppy. This is simply my basic understanding of the topic.

I think his critique was a rather good one. I was pretty revolted myself by the argument WLC put forth. I wonder why he was even against abortion in the first place if aborted babies are the receivers of this infinite good. I wonder if people won't get the wrong ideas and think that it would be good of them to sacrifice their salvation in order to ensure the salvation of dozens of other children. Is it only God that can bestow salvation through killing people? Why does he choose only to kill a lucky few and bestow them with this infinite good? Why not just kill everyone? The whole thing just seemed a little unscrewed to me.