Thoughts on this guy?

Thoughts on this guy?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    edgy pseud #2335123 you found on YT I'm guessing

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      His arguments are actually very well formulated

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He'd be taken more seriously if he didn't dress like the spergiest sperg who ever sperged.

      Man who dress up like that can be only absolutely based or absolutely cringe

      His cringyness made me leave atheism.

      >zero argument, just ad hominem
      Typical Christian moronation.

      The most I've seen of him was a debate a while back where he was supposed to defend naturalism, but he basically didn't even try actually defending naturalism at all. Instead he just attacked supernaturalism because he didn't appear to understand that supernaturalism being false doesn't automatically make naturalism true. He just seems like a typical american who left his childhood fundamentalist religion after the blinders went off, and he probably happened into being able to make a living off being an activist for atheism. Seemed like a chill guy though, kinda weird ogre-like vibe with how he dresses and presents himself though.

      >The most I've seen of him was a debate a while back where he was supposed to defend naturalism, but he basically didn't even try actually defending naturalism at all. Instead he just attacked supernaturalism
      Google burden of proof.

      >supernaturalism being false doesn't automatically make naturalism true
      moron.

      >He just seems like a typical american who left his childhood fundamentalist religion after the blinders went off, and he probably happened into being able to make a living off being an activist for atheism.
      >zero argument, just ad hominem
      Typical Christian moronation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >zero argument
        I wasn't trying to make an argument moron, I was making fun of him.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for proving me right.

          >Google burden of proof.
          The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, if he's in a situation in which he has to defend his naturalistic worldview, he has the burden of proof, debunking your opponent's worldview doesn't automatically make your correct, you still have to make a positive case.

          >The burden of proof is on the person making the claim
          And who's making claims about magic israelites, talking snakes and floating zoos? The naturalistic side???????????

          what's his argument for atheism?

          That you have the burden of proof, have had 2000 years to meet it and never did.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The naturalistic side???????????
            The narutalistic side has the burden of proof of proving naturalism.
            >That you have the burden of proof
            If atheists make their atheism a positive claim, they do have a burden of proof.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The narutalistic side has the burden of proof of proving naturalism.
            No. You have the burden to prove that 3 =1 and that le magic israelite exists no matter how hard it makes you seethe.

            >If atheists make their atheism a positive claim, they do have a burden of proof.
            "But I can make my floating zoos and my second coming a positive claim and I never have a burden of proof because... I DON'T OKAY NOW SHUT UP AND AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY AND GIVE 10%OF YOUR INCOME TO THE PEDOS"

            [...]
            Aronra talks like this. You're doing a good impression. He's wasting his time though, the cart is being driven before the horse.

            So you don't have one good reason to believe?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No.
            Yes.
            >"But I can make my floating zoos and my second coming a positive claim and I never have a burden of proof because... I DON'T OKAY NOW SHUT UP AND AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY AND GIVE 10%OF YOUR INCOME TO THE PEDOS"
            Who are you quoting?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Who are you quoting?
            You.

            >So you don't have one good reason to believe?
            No I don't. He's wasting his time trying to shortcut the spiritual journey of everyone across from him, one at a time, when his talents are better suited to mass communication.

            >getting people to stop believing moronic and dangerous shit that hurts society is a waste of time
            Spoken like a true civilization destroyer (i.e. Christian).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >getting people to stop believing. . . is a waste of time
            not what I said moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >getting people to stop believing. . . is a waste of time
            not what I said moron

            and really that would be my rebuttal, in the adversarial style to one of my personal heroes ARONRA. I would say no one perspective can grasp all the nuances of all the arguments. Humility is a great lesson of faith because it's a more honest and rational way of seeing the world than belief in a non-existent personal certainty. His science videos are wonderful, and we all agree with the atheism in broad strokes. But the reason everyone abandoned YouTube atheism had nothing to do with arguments. It has to do with new believers being born every minute, through a million different factors. ARONRA can never defeat time as a sole knight, though somebody has to try. In my ideal world, he goes back to his greatest success as a science edutainer. I'm sure if I spoke to the man he'd be 100% deathly committed to atheism, it is what it is.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So you don't have one good reason to believe?
            No I don't. He's wasting his time trying to shortcut the spiritual journey of everyone across from him, one at a time, when his talents are better suited to mass communication.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Google burden of proof.
        The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, if he's in a situation in which he has to defend his naturalistic worldview, he has the burden of proof, debunking your opponent's worldview doesn't automatically make your correct, you still have to make a positive case.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what's his argument for atheism?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the christian gospels
          the israeli torah
          the quran of islam
          the kitab-i-aqdas of baha'ullah
          the mahabharata's baghivad gita
          the hindu vedas
          the avestas of zarathustra
          the book of mormon
          AND the urantia book
          are all proclaimed to be the absolute truth and the revealed word of the one true god, and believers of each say the others are deceived. The only logical possibility is that they all are, at least in some degree.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not mutually exclusive, but to a high-IQ are actually complimentary. Only low-IQ morons believe and propagate they idea they are mutually exclusive. What fedoras fail to realize is that just because most religious people are moronic doesn't mean the religious ideas are also moronic. Of course they refuse to look into this because they'd have to let go their superiority complex.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Google burden of proof.
        >supernaturalism being false doesn't automatically make naturalism true
        >moron.
        Are you stupid? Naturalism is a claim, and to say the only options are either Naturalism or Supernaturalism is a false dichotomy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for proving me right.

        [...]
        >The burden of proof is on the person making the claim
        And who's making claims about magic israelites, talking snakes and floating zoos? The naturalistic side???????????

        [...]
        That you have the burden of proof, have had 2000 years to meet it and never did.

        Aronra talks like this. You're doing a good impression. He's wasting his time though, the cart is being driven before the horse.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Google burden of proof.
        I bet you think you can't prove a negative.

        what's his argument for atheism?

        Calling you a "moron" if you don't goosestep in line with the state religion of atheism and its creation superstition of evolutionism which contradicts science, history, math, logic, and reason. Oh, and shifting burden of proof, semantics, childish tantrums, and special pleading. They go around proclaiming "there is no God" but they can never and refuse to try proving it.

        Literally never grew out of his 16 year old edgemaster phase. Kinda based in a way.

        >Literally never grew out of his 16 year old edgemaster phase.
        That's every atheist ever, and it's not "based" to act like a child.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, he's on Youtube. But, also yes to

      His arguments are actually very well formulated

      . The guy's no slouch. He's definitely done his homework.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is that a wyatt mann

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He'd be taken more seriously if he didn't dress like the spergiest sperg who ever sperged.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Man who dress up like that can be only absolutely based or absolutely cringe

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The most I've seen of him was a debate a while back where he was supposed to defend naturalism, but he basically didn't even try actually defending naturalism at all. Instead he just attacked supernaturalism because he didn't appear to understand that supernaturalism being false doesn't automatically make naturalism true. He just seems like a typical american who left his childhood fundamentalist religion after the blinders went off, and he probably happened into being able to make a living off being an activist for atheism. Seemed like a chill guy though, kinda weird ogre-like vibe with how he dresses and presents himself though.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    His cringyness made me leave atheism.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    TERRIFYING WORGS FROM THE MIOCENE

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like Keith Preston yes

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jonny Depp has let himself go.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not gonna lie, IRL cringelords are extremely based.

    >literally give no fricks about how you appear to others
    >refuse to further elaborate

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like he hunts vampires

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cringe that gen W sixty year old man is an intellectual leader on youtube. but then again, it's time they stepped up. He clearly lacks a good moral project like his whole generation post 2000

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He should drop the religion bs, that's obviously making him angry, and instead become a scientist or a teacher or something and use his head, for something useful for once.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine looking at america in 2024 and coming to the conclusion that the religious right is the biggest problem.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't he just some e-celeb on youtube or something?

      The problem for them is ultimately God since they want to live in sin and not be reminded that they're enemies of God for it.

      [...]

      Define "leftism" schizo.

      [...]

      Murdering innocent unborn children is evil.

      You're evil.

      You just want a life of prostitutedom, prostitute mongering, and convenience. You don't want to be inconvenienced by the consequences of your actions, even your own children, you'd rather murder them in the womb where they're the most vulnerable. You go off on rants and use all this language to posture, but there's no "emergency stabilizing care" when you rip a child limb from limb in the womb. Children who've committed no crime against man's laws nor sin against God's laws, and you want them to be killed in the womb for their "crime" of inconveniencing his or her parents.

      Baby-killing psychopaths like you should be in straight jackets.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Define "leftism"
        Black folk and trannies

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        just a youtuber. I guess it's here because religion?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can't murder an already dead fetus you fricking moron.
        And it isn't murder to kill something that is putting your life in danger.

        And, this is not a fricking baby.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          At what point does it become a baby?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The guy unironically was defeated in a street debate by a muslim.

    ?si=g2ZLITrMv1351n9O

    ?si=L8DLhr33qer6_5jf

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >pride satanism flag in thumbnail
      Holy cringe. Do atheists really?

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean I think his content and activism is ok. I haven't really paid attention to him since I first became an atheist though.
    I'm not really sure what Christians have against him specifically other than his major fedora vibes.

    I don't really like to watch atheist and religious arguments shit anymore because now that content has been rehashed a million times and isn't intellectually stimulating.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't really like to watch atheist and religious arguments shit anymore because now that content has been rehashed a million times
      Religion vs atheism debates were very 2000s and I agree, it's been done to death. Flat earth debates are fresh and have the same energy but get more into science. Ironically flerfs are some of the most skilled debaters online and globers get annihilated almost every time. Modern day debate covers both topics.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        are you serious? What level of naturalism does flat earth even accept? I myself can see the horizon and stuff going over it on the ocean.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Undertaker was always my favorite wrestler, I thought his badass biker persona was cool

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty cringe to not outgrow atheism at that age but he's pretty respectful in debates and more reasonable than most atheists online. However, he is defending a bad position which inherently leads to weak arguments. That's not a flaw of his approach, it's just inevitable.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there are great defenders of every spiritual position. He gets lost in the weeds but it feels like somebody has to act that way, autistically thorough.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't seen a huge amount of him but my impression is intellectually, he's a midwit and culturally, he's a relic of a hyperbolic and hotheaded style of YouTube atheism that's declined in favor of mellower people like Paulogia or Genetically Modified Skeptic.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      midwit is way too broad a category when talking about academics. If the scale is shitwit, nitwit, dimwit, midwit, and wit, most fall into the mid block but there's a huge variation.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look at that massive fedora lmfao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't help that the one you have in the pic is a trilby.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    youtube atheism died when everyone dunked so hard on creationists that the two sides retreated into separate media bubbles. also the film Sunshine (2007) was a uniquely destructive event because the film, with top-of-the-line visuals and actors, was clumsily damaged by an attempt to capitalize on the atheism trend. Seeing our scifi future ripped away by youtube atheism, ironically since it was supposed to show the opposite, signaled a new era that would take some years to fully arrive. Incidentally and speaking of new eras, this is also the film where Chris Evans says the prototypical "LITERALLY".

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally never grew out of his 16 year old edgemaster phase. Kinda based in a way.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *