Author Topic: Molyneux finds god . . .  (Read 1747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Molyneux finds god . . .
« on: April 20, 2018, 08:23:30 PM »
0
In the last few minutes of his latest video Molyneux all but says he's "switching sides" (from the evil atheist side to righteous Christianity) due to a godless universe being unfair or something (his reasoning isn't entirely clear) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-619G-sjz7E

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2018, 11:55:15 PM »
0
He's really going for that religious dollar hard now. I wouldn't be surprised if he puts out a video soon called "Why I'm Now A Christian" or something along those lines. That would leave his horribly argued secular ethics theory impotent, but he can always spin some moronic line of sophistry to make his new found religious morality fit in with it.

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2018, 05:47:33 AM »
0
He's really going for that religious dollar hard now. I wouldn't be surprised if he puts out a video soon called "Why I'm Now A Christian" or something along those lines.

He's slowly creeping towards that point.

That would leave his horribly argued secular ethics theory impotent, but he can always spin some moronic line of sophistry to make his new found religious morality fit in with it.

I suspect he'll just use his usual line of being the unsung hero of that group / movement, who had all the answers but who was cruely ignored . . . forcing him to abandon the group.

I gave the Libertarian movement all the answers . . . non-spanking will save the world . . . but they wouldn't listen to me.

I gave Trump all the answers . . . listen to your base . . . build the wall . . .  stay out of Syria . . . but he wouldn't listen to me.

I gave the secular world the answers they needed . . . . UPB . . . a rational proof of secular ethics . . .
but they wouldn't listen to me.

. . . . . . . .

I love the part around 6:15 where Molyneux describes the universe as amoral and terrifying, going on to say "I do not know how to rescue the world from [this amoral universe] without god" - in that was the tantalising glimpse of a future Molyneux mixing his NPD with religiosity . . . what an unbeatable team, Stefan Molyneux, his ego and the Christian god . . . . . should be fun ! : )
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 05:56:18 AM by Lupus »

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2018, 01:34:28 PM »
0
Right, he'll probably go for some of that proto-Jesus rhetoric, postulating himself as the would be savior. "I love the part around 6:15 where Molyneux describes the universe as amoral and terrifying, going on to say "I do not know how to rescue the world from [this amoral universe] without god" - in that was the tantalising glimpse of a future Molyneux mixing his NPD with religiosity . . . what an unbeatable team, Stefan Molyneux, his ego and the Christian god . . . . . should be fun ! : )"

Hehe, I found that amusing as well. Unsurprisingly, he's not giving any real, rigorous, arguments for why he's leaving atheism (if he ever really was an atheist), just saying he's, supposedly, so horrified now at this one example of a powerful person able to get away with a crime and otherwise bad behavior. Yet, he studied history and found no other examples of this in the past that would have caused him to think God is the only answer? Is this one instance worse than the crimes of Stalin or any other potentate of the 20th century and before? All very perplexing.

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2018, 02:43:37 AM »
0
Right, he'll probably go for some of that proto-Jesus rhetoric, postulating himself as the would be savior.

Absolutely, even without religion he sees himself as a saviour . . . . in numerous podcasts/videos he's stated that he's 'saving' western civilisation, 'saving' the world, 'saving' Europe and so on, when he asks for money it's so that he can “save the world”, and he's explicitly stated that "My express goal in starting this show is to save western civilisation". And more recently - as he's gravitated towards Christianity - he's said "I arm Christians with arguments against atheism that can really really save the world".

Most telling for me was in podcast FDR-3377 when he and a caller discused ‘saving’ others 'who haven’t listened' . . . this idea of having the 'truth' and that non-believers (those who 'haven’t listened') need to be 'saved' is about as close as you can get to a messiah complex without the wondering-around-your-local-shopping-mall-with-a-big-cross part.

Stefan Molyneux, The Humble Saviour . . . >>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVw9ONIP4c&t=6s&pbjreload=10

Hehe, I found that amusing as well. Unsurprisingly, he's not giving any real, rigorous, arguments for why he's leaving atheism (if he ever really was an atheist), just saying he's, supposedly, so horrified now at this one example of a powerful person able to get away with a crime and otherwise bad behavior.

Yep, I also thought his reasoning (such as it is) was bizarre . . . in essence it was . . .

a) Kennedy - as an example of privilege and power - escaped punishment for wrongdoing.
b) Therefore the universe is unjust.
c) Therefore Islam.

©2017 The Art of The Argument  ;D

Yet, he studied history and found no other examples of this in the past that would have caused him to think God is the only answer? Is this one instance worse than the crimes of Stalin or any other potentate of the 20th century and before? All very perplexing.

Yeah, but Kennedy was a Democrat, and as bad as both Stalin and Hitler were, at least they can say they never joined the Democrats.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 02:49:14 AM by Lupus »

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2018, 01:03:02 PM »
0




a) Kennedy - as an example of privilege and power - escaped punishment for wrongdoing.
b) Therefore the universe is unjust.
c) Therefore Islam.

©2017 The Art of The Argument  ;D

Oh, that's perfect haha. I thought, at first, that his attempts at logic were an act, and that he knew more than he let on in order to fit the world view he's selling to his audience. But the more I listen to his shows, the more it becomes clear he's truly limited, to put it charitably.


Yeah, but Kennedy was a Democrat, and as bad as both Stalin and Hitler were, at least they can say they never joined the Democrats.
[/quote]

You got me there. I forgot that the worst thing one could ever be is a Democrat. I suppose in his world, Ted Bundy would be an "overall nice guy with just a bit of a mean streak when it comes to women" if he called himself a Christian/Republican.

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2018, 07:28:17 AM »
0
Oh, that's perfect haha.


I mean . . . . that's basically his logic ! Lol ;D There's absolutely no reason why his "the universe isn't fair mommy" logic doesn't lead to Islam rather than to (unstated, but assumed) Christianity ?


I thought, at first, that his attempts at logic were an act, and that he knew more than he let on in order to fit the world view he's selling to his audience. But the more I listen to his shows, the more it becomes clear he's truly limited, to put it charitably.

Agreed, the more you listen to him, the more you suspect he's a good showman but an oddly limited thinker. This might seem like a trivial example, but it really highlighted Molyneux's limited thinking for me . . . a caller had put forward the idea that you can't reliably know whether you're dreaming or not (this was part of a broader conversation), Molyneux dismissed this idea using proofs that entirely relied on knowing that you were awake, for example you could set up a camera in your bedroom filming you as you sleep, and you would then have a record of when you where asleep and dreaming (the video would show you in bed) - and when you were awake (the video would show you were no longer asleep and had risen) . . . . now the obvious (and I mean painfully obvious) flaw here is that regardless of whatever tests you run, the tests themselves could have been within your dream, this is really basic stuff.

After listening to the show I put the same idea to my son (9 at the time), I suggested that one way we could know whether we're not dreaming would be to film when we are alseep and when we get up . . . without even looking up from Minecraft on his iPad he let out a little laugh and pointed out the obvious flaw. I've seen Molyneux do this on numerous occasions, on subjects as diverse as A.I. to freewill, he'll quickly arrive at unusually shallow answers to complex questions.


Anyhow, I'd stop and chat more, but I've just had my bicycle stolen - which to me is very unfair - so I'm off to my local synagogue to join up.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 07:31:53 AM by Lupus »

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2018, 07:39:55 AM »
0
P.S.

Another way to look at Molyneux's bizzare 'let's do god' thinking . . .


a) Kennedy escaped punishment for wrongdoing.
b) Kennedy was a dedicated Christian.
c) Therefore for some unspecified reason I should become a Christian.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2018, 09:33:50 AM by Lupus »

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2018, 01:20:10 PM »
0
Oh, that's perfect haha.


I mean . . . . that's basically his logic ! Lol ;D There's absolutely no reason why his "the universe isn't fair mommy" logic doesn't lead to Islam rather than to (unstated, but assumed) Christianity ?


I thought, at first, that his attempts at logic were an act, and that he knew more than he let on in order to fit the world view he's selling to his audience. But the more I listen to his shows, the more it becomes clear he's truly limited, to put it charitably.

Agreed, the more you listen to him, the more you suspect he's a good showman but an oddly limited thinker. This might seem like a trivial example, but it really highlighted Molyneux's limited thinking for me . . . a caller had put forward the idea that you can't reliably know whether you're dreaming or not (this was part of a broader conversation), Molyneux dismissed this idea using proofs that entirely relied on knowing that you were awake, for example you could set up a camera in your bedroom filming you as you sleep, and you would then have a record of when you where asleep and dreaming (the video would show you in bed) - and when you were awake (the video would show you were no longer asleep and had risen) . . . . now the obvious (and I mean painfully obvious) flaw here is that regardless of whatever tests you run, the tests themselves could have been within your dream, this is really basic stuff.

After listening to the show I put the same idea to my son (9 at the time), I suggested that one way we could know whether we're not dreaming would be to film when we are alseep and when we get up . . . without even looking up from Minecraft on his iPad he let out a little laugh and pointed out the obvious flaw. I've seen Molyneux do this on numerous occasions, on subjects as diverse as A.I. to freewill, he'll quickly arrive at unusually shallow answers to complex questions.


Anyhow, I'd stop and chat more, but I've just had my bicycle stolen - which to me is very unfair - so I'm off to my local synagogue to join up.

I came across a moment like that on a call-in show he had not that long ago. The caller raised the philosophical point that we all experience the world subjectively. Molyneux couldn't understand what that term meant and instead went to his go-to "thinking subjectively is stupid because feels over facts because liberals" rhetoric, painting himself as the world's most objective objectivist of course. In his most recent video https://youtu.be/SzYZdBMnybk,  he does a lot of the same when the caller brings up Kant and Hegel.

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2018, 12:55:18 PM »
0
I came across a moment like that on a call-in show he had not that long ago. The caller raised the philosophical point that we all experience the world subjectively. Molyneux couldn't understand what that term meant and instead went to his go-to "thinking subjectively is stupid because feels over facts because liberals" rhetoric, painting himself as the world's most objective objectivist of course.

I often think he employs that stuff simply to dominate, to remain in charge of the conversation, if he ever feels he's not in a commanding position - for example if the caller takes the lead on a philosophical point, or provides examples or references works or studies that Molyneux is unfamiliar with, the trick of halting the conversation with "opinions aren't philosophy" or "subjectively is stupid" gets pulled out of his bag of tricks.

On the 'feels over facts' point, he'll even pick up on 'feel' when it's used not literally, but as a turn of phrase, it's incredibly common to use 'feel' as a placeholder for 'think' . . . as in 'I don't feel that's the best use of your money' . . . literally everyone understands what this means, I suspect Molyneux also knows exactly what this means, but takes the opportunity to trip the caller up with a pointlessly literal interpretation . . . which he can then use segue to "thinking subjectively is stupid because feels over facts because liberals" . . . hilariously pointless stuff  ;D

In his most recent video https://youtu.be/SzYZdBMnybk,  he does a lot of the same when the caller brings up Kant and Hegel.

I liked it when Molyneux tried his 'so how are you feeling' stuff, when he asked the caller whether he was tired, the caller didn't bite and simply laughed off each of Molyneux's attempts to make the conversation about the caller's character, Molyneux was visably annoyed that he couldn't land his ad hominems  ;D ;D
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 01:03:56 PM by Lupus »

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2018, 01:32:01 PM »
0
That was one of those bizarre non sequitur moments that's so strange it's funny because it doesn't fit at all in the context of the talking points.

"I often think he employs that stuff simply to dominate, to remain in charge of the conversation, if he ever feels he's not in a commanding position - for example if the caller takes the lead on a philosophical point, or provides examples or references works or studies that Molyneux is unfamiliar with, the trick of halting the conversation with "opinions aren't philosophy" or "subjectively is stupid" gets pulled out of his bag of tricks."

Yes, I've heard him do that when he was talking to a woman who was studying to be a doctor. She cited some medical studies done by Johns Hopkins, if I remember correctly, and Molyneux just waved them away saying something to the effect of "well I never read those studies so they don't count" in order to keep command of the call. That's one reason he will never debate a caller that knows his tricks, how to counter them, and knows exactly what they are talking about and how to defend it intelligently.

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2018, 04:56:53 AM »
+3
That was one of those bizarre non sequitur moments that's so strange it's funny because it doesn't fit at all in the context of the talking points.

Yep, it seemed to come from absolutely nowhere, the conversation - at that stage - would seem to have been about the state of public schooling . . . but I think you can trace Molyneux's attempt to undermine the caller's character - rather than stick to the conversation - back to this . . . .

10:30 - Molyneux argues that . . . Hegel claimed that god chose certain nations to express a dominant will to power.

(on a side note it's worth pointing out that Molyneux seems to think that simply stating someone's argument in a silly voice, ending sarcastically with - in this case - 'that's going to work out super-great' is some form of argument . . . it's like if I wanted to argue against vegetarianism I wouldn't need to make a case based on vegetarianism's effects on human biology or agriculture or animal welfare or whatever, I'd just need to state - in a high-pitched sarcastic voice - 'oh sure, if we feed our kids on soy and lettuce and nothing else then they are going to grow up perfectly healthy, that's going to work out super-great' . . . )

10:45 - The caller points out that he's just written 12,000 words arguing that this view of Hegel is an oversimplification . . .

10:55 - Molyneux replies . . .

12:00 - The caller points out that Molyneux's characterization of Hegel in his reply is a misrepresentation of Hegel's views based not on what on Hegel actually thought but on Karl Popper's views of Hegel. The caller points out that Hegel didn't see an individual vs collectivism dichotomy, but that is was more reciprocal . . .

12:35 Molyneux jumps in with the facile "wait, he did not see that there was a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism . . . " - Molyneux breaks out into a smug grin that turns into a long silent laugh . . . this seems to be how Molyneux's brain works in these sorts of debates, point scoring is the goal.

Of course the caller never made the point that Hegel didn't see a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, but that he didn't see it as one versus the other, Molyneux, in his hurry to point score, missed this difference.

13:00 - Molyneux is clearly up against someone who knows Hegel - so he attempts to sweep away the subtleties of the debate and reduce it to . . "so, when it comes to whether the individual rights triumph the collective will, which did he say".

13:07 - The caller responds with - entirely reasonably given the subject - "No, it's not as simple as . . . " - Molyneux jumps straight back in with "No, it kinda' is, it kinda' is". The remainder of Molyneux's argument here is simply to dismiss Hegel's idea that the individual vs collectivism is a false dichotomy as 'bullshit' . . . Molyneux is clearly annoyed by caller at this stage.

Molyneux then deftly moves the conversation from the subject being discussed to being about the caller himself . . .

16:55 - Molyneux moves straight from 'the individual vs collectivism' to the more personal 'how much did all this cost you man' (the caller's education) . . .

The caller responds by saying that where he's from education is publicly funded.

Molyneux gets his first personal attacks in at this stage - "so the tax payers have paid for you to be indoctrinated or at least influenced by this stuff" . . ending with his typical grin of victory.

In one fell swoop Molyneux has labelled the caller 'indoctrinated' as well as dismissing his arguments on Hegel as 'this stuff'.

Molyneux then quickly moves the conversation on to the caller's character directly . . . even though the caller explains that it's very late at night, he's tired and his partner is unwell and asleep in the room next to him (so he's keeping his voice down) . . . Molyneux ignores all this and in the space of less than a couple of minutes labels him as . . .

Indoctrinated
Down
Not energetic
Not enthusiastic
Not happy
Lacking in energy
And 'sad' . . . and that he's attempting to blame his sick partner for all these shortcomings !

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It seems fairly obvious to me that this is Molyneux attempting 'revenge' on the caller for undermining his authority on the subject of Hegel.


 . . . . . 

I honestly think you can reduce the exchange to this . . . .

Molyneux: Hegel said collectivism
Caller: Hegel didn't quite say that
Molyneux: You're sad and indoctrinated and you hate your girlfriend and I'm the winner.

;D
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 05:09:36 AM by Lupus »

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2018, 01:17:22 PM »
0
Nice summation. Framed like that, it definitely seems like he was getting back at the caller and it highlights how petty he is. It was also an excellent example of how blunt his thinking is. For a man that frequently brings up i.q. and has outright stated numerous times how great of a thinker he is, every subject is either black or white. Notice that the caller's full question was never addressed, it just digressed more and more into how evil the modern university is.

 There was no exploration of what an education is, or what the role of university should be, just that it should all be done away with and "we should just spit in a goddam cup to find out what our i.q. is"--brilliant. I was expecting the caller to defend Hegel and philosophy vastly more than he did. It was odd that he just agreed to Molyneux's facile characterization of the individual vs. the collective, but maybe he was just too tired and wanted to get the call over with.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 11:49:14 PM by summa logicae »

Lupus

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +43
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2018, 05:07:03 AM »
+1
Nice summation. Framed like that, it definitely seems like he was getting back at the caller and it highlights how petty he is.


Yep, he really struggles with not being the absolute authority on whatever issue is being discussed with a caller - I would guess he takes it as a personal affront, or perhaps even an act of aggression for someone to question or challenge that authority, even if this 'challenge' is simply someone having a differing view.

It was also an excellent example of how blunt his thinking is. For a man that frequently brings up i.q. and has outright stated numerous times how great of a thinker he is, every subject is either black or white. Notice that the caller's full question was never addressed, it just digressed more and more into how evil the modern university is.


He does much the same with every question from a caller, every political scandal, every school shooting, every news event . . . it's all used as a vehicle for his world view, a caller could quite literally call in with a question about technology's threat to manual workers - and within 10 minutes you might find Molyneux rambling on about how women are evil and 'the left' want to kill your children . . . a caller could write in asking about the overuse of antibiotics in farming and within 10 minutes Molyneux will be ranting about how women are parasites and the British government are trying to enslave/kill/brainwash your children . . . even something as unrelated as a terrorist attack on the other side of the world could see Molyneux foaming at the mouth about parasitical women and evil universities. 

"every subject is either black or white"

Yep, everything is either black or white, people are either wholly evil or wholly virtuous, there are no shades of grey, Hegel was either an evil collectivist or a wholly virtuous individualist, no other options exist, if you are not on my side you are evil, if you disagree with me you are evil, if you question me you are "working for the forces of evil" . . . what psychologists call 'Splitting' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) - . . . probably a facet of Molyneux's NPD (in my amateur opinion).

There was no exploration of what an education is, or what the role of university should be, just that it should all be done away with and "we should just spit in a goddam cup to find out what our i.q. is"--brilliant.


Lol, I loved that bit, made me laugh, inside Molyneux's echo chamber university has gone from a place of learning - to a place simply to get certification - and certification has gone from proof of achievement to proof of IQ - and IQ has gone from a measure of human intelligence (including motivation, self-awareness, ability to learn, concept forming, reasoning, planning, problem solving, communication . . . etc) to a measure of biological markers . . . so a place of learning can be replaced with a sputum sample, 4 years learning engineering or doing a law degree, or 12+ years of medical trainning can be replaced with someone spitting into a cup. Brilliant !  ;D

Who would your prefer operating on your daughter's traumatic pneumothorax or ruptured liver, someone who has spent the majority of the past decade working with and learning from proffesors and specialists, with hundreds of hours of exhaustive testing and thousands of hours of study and clinical work overseen by highly trained instructors as well as half a decade in residency training . . . or someone who just spat in a cup and got a good score ?

« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 10:15:34 PM by Lupus »

money detonator

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • Respect: +755
Re: Molyneux finds god . . .
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2018, 06:24:25 PM »
+2
Ugh.  I feel so bad for the people who are victimized by this manipulator.   :'(  It's frustrating that there are online predators like him (and plenty of others), and no way to filter them out.  It's to social media what spam was to e-mail.