EquALLity wrote:
Well, did you mostly just watch his Justin Bieber videos?
No.
EquALLity wrote:
Well, like I said, it’s his job. And it’s not like most of his videos are like that.
He still has tons of videos on his channel with meaningful content (at least IMO).
I know I didn’t bring this up before, but another thing to note is that his audience (according to him) pushed him to make videos about Justin Bieber. So getting a part time job wouldn’t necessarily make a difference.
He chose to make it his job and be financially dependent on views. If he had a part time job, he could ignore his audience when they ask for stupid things, and improve the quality of his videos if he chose to do so.
I feel like most of his videos are generally like that; vapid and inflammatory. Including those on theism. His arguments are really poor.
EquALLity wrote:How is that a strawman?
Because the real issues associated with that video are free-will, spiritual gnosis, and the theism of rationalists who believe the truth of God can be derived through reason (it can't be). He won't address those because he's anti-intellectual. He makes a number of false assertions in addition to completely missing the point, although I don't like to do Apologists' work for them.
He either does not understand theism, or deliberately represents theology in order to mock it more easily.
EquALLity wrote:He made the “Why does God send good people to Hell?” argument.
That's not an argument, that's a question. It's also one which theology has answered in a number of ways. It's almost the equivalent of Christians asking "If man came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" as if that debunks evolution.
TJ either does not understand the issues, or he is misrepresenting them deliberately (maybe for his audience). Either way, I see nothing of intellectual value there.
He has such a large audience, there are bound to be a few rare examples (although that was somebody who had already lost faith, and apparently it was a question only Hitchens could address).
The issue, however, is more of efficacy. In order to get the people who need to realize it to realize it, you have to get theists to laugh at themselves and their own beliefs; that requires a certain element of diplomacy, rather than ranting and offending the people whose minds you need to change (they need to be offended a little to be exposed to other ideas and desensitized, but I don't think enough theists really watch his videos to make that very effective either).
TJ is, as they say, 'preaching to the choir'. If he was actually helping people develop better intellectual arguments, that would be one thing, but he's not. He's a clown (and he knows it), and that's fine if that's what he wants to do, but I don't think it's very useful, and I don't find it compelling or entertaining.
I'll have to respond to that a little later.
EquALLity wrote:Well, maybe he was lying. There’s no way either of us could know either way, though.
But, even if he makes no effort, to think TJ is anti-intellectual because of this, you would also have to think Richard Dawkins is.
Did Dawkins lie about doing something when he doesn't?
Anyway, TJ is anti-intellectual because that is his general attitude. It's the kind of 'arguments' he makes, and how he responds to criticism.
Dawkins is an intellectual. If you could reach him with some solid criticism, he would respond in a very different way.
EquALLity wrote:I think it was CNN.
Oh, probably so. They had some ignorant theists on there, so I automatically assumed it was Fox. He did a good job in that interview (although it was short).
It makes me think he chooses to be anti-intellectual and ranting as part of a character, and if that's how he wants to make money that's his choice, but I don't have to like it or respect it as a profession. It's the equivalent of yellow journalism.
If TJ is a closet intellectual, he should drop the bad clown act and start being himself. Yes, he would lose money and have to get a part time job, but he would gain a bit of dignity and respect.
