October 29, 2020

The Council

Proclaiming the truth to the world.

Skylar Fiction is an old-face from the group of youtube atheist. He is your rather prototypical village atheist and lives to make pathetic videos about his senseless opinions(a lesser version of “The Talk” or “The View”). Dialogue with him is like talking to a woman going through PMS. Skylar is no different from any other atheist of the New Atheist movement devoid of actual serious argument. He plays on the emotional heartstrings of village atheist. Skylar’s game is 90% deceptive rhetoric and 10% self-defeating statements. Skylar appeared on Vocabs show and I’m not going to comment on everything that was said. Skylar was just being obnoxious and passive aggressive the entire time. That was expected for the most part and he lived up to expectations.

1. Skylar commits himself to two different arguments. At some points he’s providing an internal critique of Christianity at other points he’s implementing an external critique. He often mixes the two confusing them. Why would we expect any precision in a discussion? Skylar complains about the Bible’s ethics constantly while admitting that he isn’t doing any rational activity by doing so since he thinks ethical discussions are reduced to human emotions. That said I wasn’t a fan of the arguments provided against moral anti-realism. The argument should’ve turned epistemological. Why should we trust human minds that are evolved to hold many illusions of such significance? If our minds are just producing illusions that humans have intrinsic worth and are morally relevant beings, why trust it? Another question is why we ought to believe what Skylar is saying is true? It is difficult where and how Skylar can square the normativity of epistemic norms with his anti-realism.

Skylar pretends to be giving village atheist hope by helping them escape the God of the Bible by turning them to nihilism. Take for example Skylar states that Christians have to say it’s morally acceptable for God to command the slaughter of infants. He doesn’t state it but he is implying his view is better. But given his view, the only reason he doesn’t murder his family in the most violent ways possible is that he just doesn’t feel like it. It just so happens that Skylar feels the way he does but at any moment he could torture his family and murder them merely for feeling like it. In truth, Skylar believes he is ultimately just a lazy Hitler. How is that really superior? He cares for sodomites one day and could on a whim choose to be a Nazi. So, from an intelligent perspective, Skylar is just sound and fury signifying nothing.

Skylar states you could have a Deist God that’s simply amoral. This is something he states rather than showing. Given his old claims to be a Deist he’s probably fond of it as a counterexample to presuppositionalism. The issue with it is that it is clearly false. An amoral deist God could return at any moment and choose to be indifferent on the world. He may have returned and he’s deceiving us. He could be choosing to manipulate our minds and so forth. A deist God is no better than an infinite deceiver. Skylar is wrong once again.

2. Another issue was discussed whether God loves every child. I’m of a narrow group of individuals that maintains God only loves the elect. So, this isn’t really an issue for my position. Furthermore, I’d be fine with even an appeal of theological paradox about the issue. Skylar would have to show that the move is unwarranted.

3. In passing he mentions slavery. The very issue my friend Tyler Vela kindly informed him on those issues a couple years ago.


4. Skylar references 1 Sam. 15:3 as something he doesn’t like. Some like Dr. Paul Copan have argued that the genocide passages carry a hyperbolic element to them and maintain that ANE embellishment is occurring here:


Even if it weren’t the case, I think God is still justified. God has the right to take and give life. Infants on Christian worldview are fallen in Adam and nobody deserves life. Skylar thinks the better view is just to state that babies have no intrinsic value and that they have no cosmic value. In Skylar’s worldview, killing babies is just as morally significant as loving babies. How does Skylar’s position have any significant advantage? Maybe Skylar should encourage people to reject his position for safety purposes.

There was a slight discussion about David’s son and the Mosaic code about children not bearing the punishment of the Father. Vocab correctly pointed out that those statements Skylar is speaking about are in terms of the Mosaic law code:


5. Some discussion of original sin occurred:


Also, discussion occurred of war brides happened:


6. Skylar is against Christianity because it is a “dangerous” religion. He even had to puzzle about whether it was more dangerous than Islam. His reasons for encouraging people not to be Christians also implies he should encourage people shouldn’t become atheists. Since atheism is consistent with any activity people generally call immoral. Furthermore, atheistic secular governments slaughtered how many innocent people? The truth is Skylar’s emotional issues are products of his hate towards the God that made him.