Why It's Unreasonable To Dismiss Brief Disrespectors as Edgelords.

 ​ 

To be fair, I found this video to be good and reasonable; albeit very basic. 
 
However, I noticed a comment.
And then I noticed the channel owner responding to that comment. 

That exchange went like this:

@Youttubeuser20932

6  

It’s all studying nonsense in different flavors.

@abhbible

6 hours ago

 @Youttubeuser20932  I remember being an edgy teenager.

--- My thoughts about those comments: Even if we allow room for (or assume) that some people are really communicating and "in a relationship" with an actually-existing, autonomously sentient, self-aware, pre-ancient, super-powered being, .. who randomly picks a smattering of humans to *Incompetently* and *irresponsibly* relay messages through (a claim which, in-and-of-itself, is nonsensical; but which is intrinsic to all religions), ... We should (I think) pay close attention to the boots we're licking; if we're going to lick any. Moral-authoritarians religions (the only kind of "religion" there is; if we're going to limit ourselves to a useful and fair definition) don't merely lick god-boot. They also insist that everyone lick theirs. And that's exactly what we're doing when we come to their defense. Now, I don't happen to enjoy licking any boots. However, since I'm not here to kink-shame, I would, at the very least, advise some standards.

Christians can say that all rival factions *of* Christianity are nonsense. In fact, their religion insists that's the case. Christians can also say that all rival religions in rival religious categories are nonsense. Again, in fact, their religion insists that's the case. Christians can also say that all other rival (mutually exclusive) spiritual beliefs (even the kinds which are not technically a "religion") ... are nonsense. Once again, in fact, their religions insists that's the case. They also say the same about deists, resolute agnostic/lacktheists, and antitheists. They also say the same (or worse) about anyone who disagrees with them about any facet or expression of human sexuality. Muslims are guilty of the same. So are Judaic theists. As would be the case with all literal and personal, moral authoritarian religions. Now, if "Youtubeuser" had taken the time to articulate his case, like perhaps "Mister Deity" (Brian Keith Dalton) does on a regular basis, would we still dismiss him as an edgelord?

Brain Keith Dalton rationally and rightly mocks anyone who claims to tell us what a literal deity thinks, feels, or demands. The late Christopher Hitchens did the same. To quote a relevant statement from Hitchens, "Religions is NOT the belief that a god exists. No. Religion is the belief that a god tells you what to do."

Worse yet, religion doesn't stop there. It presumes to know what a "God" thinks, feel, and demands ... of every human. Within that context, it really is fully reasonable for someone to decry all such projects as nonsense. In fact, it's dangerous nonsense.

So then the question remains. Ought we dismiss such critics as edgelords? If so, on what basis? Are we assuming that anonymous Youtuber either can't or shouldn't make his case? Also, why should anyone gift a bubble of respect to religions, even being defensive on their behalf, when such religions refuse to grant that same respect to anyone outside of their respective bubbles? In fact, many such religions say much worse about everyone outside of their bubble. Some even going so far as to say none of us deserve to even exist 'lest we join them'; or unless we spend our existence writhing in unimaginable and "well deserved" agony for the rest of eternity. From where I sit, whenever I see someone (anyone) defending any part (worse yet, the whole) of what *is mostly* a psychologically violent, socially and societally divisive, authoritarian, largely criminal, counterfactual, habitually gaslighting, and willfully unreasonable ideological ecosystem, ... I'm not sure how I could defend that choice. In response to "Youtubeuser", I would have said something like: "There is a thick layer of nonsense for many popular and fringe religions. In fact, if we use Christopher Hitchens' definition of "religion" (which we could certainly justify), then all "religions" are predicated on dangerous nonsense. However, if we throw the widest possible net, with the broadest definitions for "religion", then I think we'd discover some of them are pretty reasonable, some others are moderately reasonable, while others are heavily nonsensical. And yet, even with the most unreasonable religions, we're not merely "studying nonsense". We're studying the underlying social physics. And that matters because: Physics is not nonsense. Even when physics generate chaotic and destructive systems, it's a fully rational endeavor to study what's driving that chaos. This way, we can better understand the human experience. Gradually, we become better equipped to reshape our systems so that they produce healthier effects for everyone. " I think this would be a better response. I think this should be an *educator's* response; rather than turning a potential student's challenge into a fleeting contest of egos.