The Onto-Illogical Argument May 28, 2009

The Onto-Illogical Argument

By Guest Contributor
May 28, 2009

Apparently, I have a habit of linking to attractive atheist women on YouTube and saying as much.

You say you want fair and balanced.

Ok then.

I give you an attractive male, Scott Clifton (a.k.a. TheoreticalBullshit), a former actor on General Hospital and current actor on One Life to Live, explaining the problems with the ontological argument:

Can I go back to the pretty women now?

(Thanks to Aaron for the link!)

Previous Post
Rational Comedy for an Irrational Planet
Next Post
Rational Thinking and Facts!? Oh No!
"It is an option the entity can avail themselves of, or not, and change their ..."
Anri
Podcast Ep. 358: What Joe Biden’s ..."
"Well, Kate, in a way you were right, the four years of #45 most certainly ..."
CorporalKlinger
Here Are Preachers Predicting Trump’s Re-Election… ..."
"His god also punishes abortion by sending tornadoes thru the most anti abortion neighborhoods he ..."
Pennybird
Scott Lively: God Let Trump Lose ..."
"So atheists are fine with any gods as long as they don't have to see ..."
Joe DeCaro
A Christian Wants Norway to Stop ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • He is worth posting even if it was just an audio MP3 file. He has some good things to say. As long as someone has something good to say (or is relevant to atheism) post away.

  • Matt

    Thanks Hemant. Nice to see a pretty face I can relate to.

  • Infinite Monkey

    If I ask REALLY, REALLY nicely, would you post more “attractive males”…which seems so clinical, doesn’t it?

  • If I ask REALLY, REALLY nicely, would you post more “attractive males”…which seems so clinical, doesn’t it?

    Ha. Maybe… 🙂

    Just send the links to me since I probably won’t find them myself!

  • Epistaxis

    You’re still discriminating against ugly people. Post a video of me!

  • Reckless

    Smart AND pretty! Thanks, Hemant.

  • mspeir

    I downloaded it. Now I have to memorize it.

  • Siamang

    No fair! He’s too good looking to be so smart and well-spoken!

    I liked his post. Good stuff!

  • Very interesting. Well spoken and smart, to boot! Thanks for that.

  • bill

    this guys good, got a butt load of videos, very smart and avoids being harsh when putting forth his arguments.

  • beckster

    I’m sorry, what did he say?

  • Quinton

    Wow, its nice to see a really well based response to a tricky argument.

    Hes clearly done some reading.

  • Infinite Monkey

    No fair! He’s too good looking to be so smart and well-spoken!

    I liked his post. Good stuff!

    Yeah, he breaks it down like its hammer time.

  • Justin S

    “Tops on his list, at the moment, is the music of Matchbox 20… True to his Scottish/Irish heritage, he loves his Celtic music” (from his website). Dang, can this guy GET any better?

  • Zar

    Neat! I hope his outspoken atheism doesn’t hurt his career though.

  • medussa

    Wow, if men were always this pretty and smart, I’d be willing to reconsider the exclusiveness of my sexual orientation.
    But alas, men like this are a rarity.

  • kittycat

    I realize this must have been very hard for you. (sense the sarcasm)

    While you do come across as a pig (pervert is the word my boyfriend used) on your blog, I really wasn’t looking for this to make up for it. Well spoken atheist? yes. Feminist ally? resounding NO.

  • Feminist ally? resounding NO.

    You got to cut him some slack, he can’t help it if he’s male.

    (Sorry Hemant, the feminist lesbian in me just had to say it :p)

  • Heather

    I am so in love.

  • Tom

    Friendly Atheist “News”: Fair and Balanced

    🙂

  • You may not go back to pretty women now. We have to stay here for a few moments longer. 🙂

  • If I was gay, I’d do him!

    🙂

  • Oh, sweet Jebus. I just want to spread him on a biscuit. Dishy, funny, and off- the- hook smart and articulate? And an atheist? I think my place on the Kinsey scale just dropped by about a point. Damn.

    And kittycat, I must respectfully beg to differ. If openly drooling over dishy women makes you not a good feminist, then I am in big, big trouble. (Rachel Maddow… mmmm. More biscuits, please.)

  • Awesome! There’s only one thing better than solid logic: solid logic being delivered by good-looking people, be they actors or Romanian dancers. This is EXACTLY who we need more of.

  • AxeGrrl

    Greta Christina wrote:

    I think my place on the Kinsey scale just dropped by about a point. Damn.

    *teehee* the same here sister!

  • AnonyMouse

    Hmm… I dunno, Hemant. This might not quite make up for the months of looking at your scuzzy mug on the top banner. 😉

  • Evinfuilt

    He’s an excellent speaker, easy on the eyes doesn’t hurt. I just thought he came off very intelligent, and that he put a lot of thought into his video.

    Well done.

  • gribblethemunchkin

    Is this guy Dr Drake Remoraz?

    Seriously, excellent video. I’ve always known the ontological arguement was bunk, less through pulling it apart and more through my brain trying to force its way out of my skull whenever i heard it, but its great to hear a really solid critique delivered in an easy accessible and clearly presented fashion. In fact that was so good that parts could easily be repeated verbatim to the next dafty putting forth Anselms wordplay babble.

  • Anne

    Yummy. Brainy, too.

    More, please. 😉

  • Darryl

    He raises some good points of contention, but he makes a logical error himself. In analyzing the use of the term “greater” he says that to him the actions of the God of the Bible are not (morally) great actions in his opinion and that he could therefore conceive of a god that is greater than the God of the Bible.
    However, Anselm is trying to make an argument that does not refer to any specific God–Yahweh or otherwise, but to a generic god, the kind you need to make this argument. A specific god brings up all kinds of nasty problems that the apologist would rather not have to handle. Conceivably, someone who does not believe in the God of the three great monotheisms, but some other god, could adopt this argument. In that case, they argumenter could not be said to have the Biblical God in mind.
    This is why this argument is still around: it makes a case for the existence of God while not having to defend the God of the Bible, and all that other baggage that’s so hard for modern minds to stomach. This fellow shows why making that argument is so difficult, because unbelievers like him refuse to let Christians pull a fast one.