5 Answers

  1. Nevzorov's main aspiration is to destroy the stereotypes that are wrong from his point of view. Destroying, he creates, sometimes very talented, new concepts and takes on the role of ideologue of his audience. Having not a weak erudition, a desire for objectivity, he made not a small influence on my worldview, and, I believe, not only in mine. He's like a common sense missionary.

  2. Awareness in the mass of unnecessary facts and ignorance of the fundamental foundations of the world order. The excess of logical thinking in such cases almost always leads to primitive Satanism. In this he progresses rapidly…

  3. He doesn't say anything new. Nothing original. The very atheism that broke loose, which we have already eaten and heard everywhere. He chose too sharp a repertoire and, like any troll, feeds on the growth of conflict. In some places, it is frankly not objective, depriving the church and believers of all prerequisites for reason. In fact, he is a person with a deep inner psychochem on the subject of Christianity, which is a consequence of his own negative experience of being once among the servants of God. I myself am more of an atheist than a believer, and I rarely sympathize with Christians, but there is simply no reason to love militant atheists more than fanatics of Christianity. I do not like discussions of the level of market bickering and empty wordplay. For me, faith in God is just a matter of little interest. It is not at all clear how you can get carried away with criticizing this boring topic for years.

  4. Nevzorov is a wonderful nihilist and a great cynic. He is able to level the pathos and consider the problem or phenomenon critically, giving in to little emotion. In fact, if you describe many life phenomena and situations in simple everyday terms and words, a lot of things become clearer. And this is one of Nevzorov's ways to strive for objectivity.

  5. Sometimes it is entered in the chatterbox. It is as if typing 140 characters нес rushes to no one knows where. And at this point, I want to argue with him. As it is, he is very well-informed, cynical as a neurologist. But he's bored with the audience.� In my opinion, he has changed for the better with age.

Leave a Reply