Forget you, #MikeLee aka #ReligiousAntagonist, for (partially) stealing my idea!

Notice how I said, “forget you,” as if this were a dubbed-for-family-TV movie? So why am I belting out the fake rage at poor Mike?

Arg. I was gonna do almost this exact same thing. Almost. I wasn’t gonna preach to street preachers. I was gonna 1. read from the awesome bits of the Bible, like Leviticus 20:13 or any of the other “stoning” passages, or the ones in which God commands his people to kill babies (Deuteronomy 2:34), or any number of other verses or 2. preach the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Either way, I was gonna street preach, shoot it, and post it myself.

Stupid Mike!

Now if I do it, I’m just copying him! It’s just like how for years I was gonna do a rap video of the intro to the Canterbury Tales right up until, upon googling the words, I discovered a video that some guys had already done–and they’d done a great job, so no more need for me.

As I write this, though, maybe I’ll reconsider and I encourage anyone reading this to reconsider and go ahead and street preach rationalism. Or take them on and ask questions, make comments, etc.

5 Responses to “Forget you, #MikeLee aka #ReligiousAntagonist, for (partially) stealing my idea!”

  1. […] instances of atheists actually taking on preachers, like Mike Lee aka The Religious Antagonist did here, and in most cases, it’s more or less become an argument on topics that aren’t […]

  2. ha ha, Mike Lee makes athesists look ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who knows a thing about logic. Move away from Ad Hominem arguing Lee.

    • Anton A. Hill Says:

      Hey Robyn,

      Thanks for dropping by. Funny you say that as I’d say the exact same thing about any religious person and logic. What, specifically, makes you say that? I don’t actually remember seeing Mike argue anything. Are you saying he’s used ad hominems? if so, when?



  3. Crab Bear Says:

    I loved the video and to respond to Robyn;
    The use of Logic appears to be growing with those who like to argue religion. I’ve bantered back and forth, ad naseum, in religious debates. Many people are not well versed in logic (logic arguments) so the trend with religious arguments is to try to argue something that people cannot (or may not be well versed enough to) counter argue.

    What makes Mike look ridiculous? Mike never said “don’t judge” but the preacher is making a statement that Mike is judging after he said not to judge, which is not true. The Preacher goes on to state his argument is “committing suicide upon itself”, yes at that point in a “logic” argument, I would tell someone that they have no idea what they are talking about.

    The other preacher states something about the laws of contradiction. of course you can’t tell by the video what he is making that reference to.

    The other Preacher makes reference to Mike stating the rules of logic are insane, to which Mike corrected him stating he thought his book was insane.

    • Anton A. Hill Says:

      I can’t speak for Robyn, but I suspect her only real problem with Mike is that he antagonizes. She’s cited his arrogance, but, per our correspondence, hasn’t made a strong case for it.

      In this video’s case, I think Mike’s doing a great thing. Street preachers are obnoxious and think that they have a right to preach on a public street without ever being challenged.

      Enter Mike. And then when he does challenge them, they can’t take it. So get off the fucking street, assholes!

      And since when did this whole “don’t judge” bullshit come about? Everyone judges everyone else all the time. It’s part of human existence. To evaluate that which stands before us, usually as it relates to our own survival.

      And yet constantly the religious whine about being judged. Well, you say stupid shit, you get judged. Take a three minute glance at politics and you’ll see what I mean.

      It’s kind of like the religious plea for “open mindedness” or the alleged “subjective evidence.” The religious always appeal to an open mind and for subjective evidence, but never apply the former to themselves and make up the latter so they don’t have to be scrutinized for objective evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: