Look Who it Was Random video

For Noel Plum: A general theory on the dickishness of theists.

1,793 views · Published 26 July 2010 · 7:51 · Indexed 17 October 2026

Channel: zarkoff45 · 2010 · People & Blogs

Watch on YouTube

Noel Plum made a video, "Evil: Whose Problem is it Anyway?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0Cj9Aj6y0

It was a response to a Sami Zaatari's video "Atheism's Problem: Evil"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtw5eWY1TZ0

I respond to this video from Sami:
Atheists Make No Sense! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgS1NxE2JoM
 
Noel, in the introductory remarks in his underbar, said a few nice things about Sami, even that he was a good youtuber. So, I went to Sami's site and checked him out. What I found instead of a good youtuber (whatever that is) was a total dick. It was a dickishness that I've seen in a lot of theistic youtubers (and apologists in general, like William Lane Craig); hyper smug, undeservedly intellectually arrogant, inappropriately emotionally detached from their subject of discourse, uncomprehending and blind to the real meaning of most atheistic arguments, etc..

Contrast that with Noel's approach, overly animated and emotional dialog, bending over backwards to present his arguments on the distorted turf of the theists he argues with, so non-dickish he is almost a pussy.

Why this difference? I now have a tentative theory, the general theory of theistic dickishness.

Let's consider a reformulation of the argument from evil that does not use the word evil, one that capture's its limited scope, we will call this "the problem of dickishness":

Premise 1: If God exists and He has the powers that certain believers claim, then he must be able to cure cancer, rid the world of ebola, malaria, and other diseases, cure the psychosis of serial killers or at least disable them from killing, feed the starving, etc..

Premise 2: Cancer is not always cured, even in innocent children. Ebola and malaria still exist, as do psycho-killers and starving people.

Premise 3: Not helping starving and dying people when you have the power to do so can be called "being a dick" or "dickish" (a word the religious can never redefine or claim as their own because of its sexual connotations).

Conclusion: We can call God a total dick because He allows the awful things that He does, like cancer in children.

This argument from dickishness naturally becomes the theory of general theistic dickishness by adding 2 more premises:

Premise 4: Non-dickish people will be more inclined to be bothered by God's dickish behavior and are thus more likely to become atheists, pagans, agnostics, etc..

Premise 5: After enough non-dickish people leave a religion the religion will be dominated by total dicks.

========

SUPPORT LINKS

OgreTheKid hit the nail on the head concerning Sami:
The Atheist Strikes Back Part 1 of 2! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81RE5ub43o

Richard Dawkins - The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwz6B8BFkb4

'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

More from this channel