Responces Made To Nick Gisburne February 14, 2007
Posted by ejtower in Atheism, Editor´s Note, Islam, Koran, Nick Gisburne.trackback
Following the banning of Nick Gisburne from the YouTube community there has been a rash of re-posting of his videos by various people, and these re-postings have been met with some responses that you can watch here and comment about.
Taking this time to editorialize I have to comment first on this video…
Click More To See Embedded Video and Editorial…
Debate Not Hate
In this video the author lists a number of users who have re-posted Nick Gisburne’s video to YouTube and then asked the question “Why?” This is a fine question that I think deserves a more in depth answer than the unreasoned conjecture that the author of this video provided.
The author supposed that Nick Gisburne did it because he and other atheists hate Muslims. I do not know Nick Gisburne, but I have watched his videos in the past, and I would say that he does not hate Muslims. Instead I would say that like many Atheists, Including myself, he dislikes the faith based belief system by which they live their lives. He sees that belief system as dangerous and created videos to engage the world about the danger he saw. To quote Sam Harris: “I’m not being deliberately provocative, I’m simply worried.” Nick Gisburne was using YouTube for that which it should be used, to engage others, to worry aloud as he saw necessary.
The author of this video then goes on to say that Atheists are attempting to brain wash people on YouTube into thinking the way that they do, in the same manner that Christians and Muslims brainwash people into thinking the way that they do. Then the author goes on to ask for “more debate and less hate.” This easy to recite politically correct tag line, more debate and less hate, has always made me upset.
I know that there is a way to interpret that phrase so that it makes sense, but in this case it is being interpreted in a contradictory manner. In a sense the author of this video is saying that it is a good thing that Nick Gisburne is gone because he was a “hater”, but then they offer that tag phrase completely forgetting that a debate requires two sides, and ignoring that Nick Gisburne was attempting to engage in debate in the first place.
This next video responds to Nick Gisburne by saying that he has quoted the Koran out of context. It shows an example that I simply find amusing so here it is for you to watch.
BANNED FROM YOUTUBE-Re:Islamic Teachings Found in the Qur’an
It could be true that he was taking quotes out of context, but this response is irrelevant now because it is attempting to debate where no debate is possible. I am sure Nick Gisburne would have responded to this video, but rather than allowing people to engage in debate over issues, YouTube and Google have decided to play the interfering parents. What this interference has allowed to happen is, instead of allowing for a debate over the issue where two sides have equal chance to state their cases, to respond to one another; instead, it has allowed the people who disagree with Nick Gisburne to burn him down in his absence and amplify their messages without having to actually engage in debate.
Debate does not mean the other side has to say things that make you feel good. Debate means they will say things that make you angry, but that you will also be able to respond to them. Currently what is going on at YouTube is not debate, it is instead the same old story that the western world has been telling itself for the last five hundred years. Namely, that religion is beyond debate, unquestionable, and that those who question it should be censored.
There is no right to not be offended by what others say, it is true that in the YouTube terms of service there is such a rule that says you cannot offend others, but we must realize that that environment is not a Free Speech environment, and is therefore not an environment for debate.
Atheists desire debate, we desire debate because we have reason and logic on our side.
~EJTower. Jan 2007.
personally contact mr gisburne and his hatred for anyone who believes in a God will be crystal clear. its one thing to disagree with someone, its another to hate the person with the belief(and that goes for both sides).
if we could ever get to a point where one can debate an issue without defaming the other person, then maybe debate could result in everyone involved learning and growing.
also,
you say
“I know that there is a way to interpret that phrase so that it makes sense, but in this case it is being interpreted in a contradictory manner. In a sense the author of this video is saying that it is a good thing that Nick Gisburne is gone because he was a “hater”, but then they offer that tag phrase completely forgetting that a debate requires two sides, and ignoring that Nick Gisburne was attempting to engage in debate in the first place.”
i dont know the author of the video’s intentions, but he may feel the debate would be better served with someone from the atheist point of view who is not so hatefilled towards those who view the world differently(and i add that the same should be said for the opposing side as well).
i realize that this is an atheist forum and i wont hijack it with my beliefs on God, but as far as debate goes…we need two sides who are willing to adamantly present their worldview without resorting to juvenile namecalling and cursing and deathwishes.
if you beleive youre right on something, theres no need to get angry when someone doesnt agree with you. attempt to convince them and if unsuccesful, move on. all that is done by any more is personal frustration and a loss of credibility.
The problem is that religious views do not deserve respect of any kind. There is no supernatural entity that creates, manipulates or communicates in any way, shape or form. That would mean that humans were equipped with some sort of organ within their brains that acted as an interdimensional transceiver of some sort. Nobody has a soul, or spirit and human consciousness is the result of our large brain size and the threshold of complexity and the really big numbers of synaptic connections. There’s no difference between believing that Allah or Jehovah exists and the ancient Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses still do. Look at the Scientologists, I mean, what a crock. Yet, they exert influence and are given a modicum of respect. The whole Mormon thing? I mean, come on. And the Black Baptist churches are political entities, just as much as the mandrasses and mosques. There is no God that tells these folks to go blow themselves up along with innocent people; it’s their own religious leaders. Religion has been the biggest scam perpetrated on the human race. The first priests and mullahs were the shamans who convinced the others that they had some sort of special power that allowed them to communicate with the spirit world. That way, they didn’t have to participate in the hunt (and possibly get maimed or killed) and they were feared and respected, merely on the basis of acting crazy. Religion is a superstitious belief, against all evidence, that some sort of supernatural power can help restore health and win the Lottery, if only you do the rituals of begging right. If you don’t get what you asked for, why, it just means that you didn’t beg right, or that god is offended by something you did. So the conduits, the priests, the shamans, the mullahs, the whatever you want to call them will tell you, and they know, because they have been chosen by god. That’s the best scenario. The worst scenario plays out everyday: political leaders claiming divine guidance, or sending kids out to blow themselves up and take as many of the unbelievers with them. You never see the mullahs strap any bombs on, now do you? Religion has no place in our society. All churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc should be razed to the ground or preserved only on architectural merits. The day is rapidly coming when claiming divine guidance is going to cost you the election, and I, for one, cannot wait.