it does link to a few studies though

long story about a tire, that I felt the need to link for some reason https://jalopnik.com/how-goodyear-hid-evidence-of-the-worst-tire-made-in-his-1822200424

I'll read that tomorrow :P

The only real point I have in regards to religion being so closely tied to the ideals of some of the conservative youtube commentators, is that secular, liberal ideals has lead to objetively better societies than those that have given too much influence to religious dogma, and these commentators have yet to present a worthwhile argument as to why I should think any different. That's why I don't usually watch conservative american youtubers.

Should other dogmatics, like those of the SJW's be allowed to take over the role that religion once held in society, then it will come with it's own slew of problems, as we've seen in some of the political movements in the US and Britain. The conservatives are a common enemy to SJW ideals, but the religious conservatives are not necessarily an ally to a liberal society.

So I'll simply not watch those youtubers a lot, because I don't find their arguments interesting, when they're the same ones that religious people have been repeating ad nauseam, and as stated earlier, I'd rather be entertained than annoyed when watching youtube "politics".

So because they're religious youtubers, they can't have good opinions?

How intellectual.

Don't think I said that

just don't care to watch their videos on a regular basis, if they keep bringing up their religious views as some kind of argument for why certain policies should be implemented

(I'm watching the SOTU, don't take it personal for ignoring you for a while.)

no worries, I will probably be going to bed soon

It's perfectly possible to have conservative opinions without appealing to religious arguments. In fact, if the opinion can't stand on secular arguments alone, it's probably a bad one. Just because there's *also* a religious moral that agree with it doesn't invalidate it. A lot of what ended up in religious texts and traditions is precisely things that were recognized to work across multiple generations since pre-historic times.

JBP's lectures on the Biblical Stories are incredibly insightful, specially if you're close-minded enough to think the Bible is a pile of rubbish.

He doesn't appeal to any theological argument, never assumes that God exists; only assumes that the characters in the stories, and the people who wrote the stories, legitimately believed in the **idea of God**. That's all you need, to make an honest evaluation of the text. There's where people like Hitchens or Dawkins show their intellectual deficiencies.

Then there's also the argument on whether Judaism and Christianity forged our moral values. The fact that other cultures just failed to develop similar values and remained uncivilized until modern times even, should be proof enough that our western values aren't as universal and self-evident as anti-theists like to claim.

Hitchens liked to talk about how people didn't need God to tell them killing was wrong, "everyone understands killing is wrong." Yet, Indians were burning widows until Britain enforced their filthy Christian traditions of "killing is a crime" to stop them. Natives across all of America were doing human sacrifices. Muslims are still happy to consider not all human life worth the same, with their religious text describing many situations where people should be killed.

Crowder's argument for pro-life stance boils down to: if we can't specify exactly when life starts (because "life" is an abstract concept), we can define boundaries. It can't be "life" if a cell only contains half of the chromosomes. So the earliest is at the time of full DNA mixing. At some point, from that moment to the moment of birth, the baby is alive. Until we can come up with a better definition of what deserves to be considered alive, conception is the earliest, safest point to start defending what could be "life".

Perfectly secular, and I think entirely reasonable. Unless of course you think no life deserves to be preserved. Or that only life that can fight back deserves to be preserved.

👌🏿 some pretty solid stuff

Oh, and regarding that "if you believed Jesus is the way to save one's immortal soul, why wouldn't you insist on converting people" comment. First, insisting isn't exactly the most effective way. It's definitely an effective way to turn people away. And also, it's funny, because many of the apostles died doing exactly that.
* Peter got crucified upside down for not rejecting Christ.
* Andrew got threatened with torture and execution unless he rejected Christ. He didn't, got whipped and tied to a cross. He kept preaching, for two days, until he died.
* James got persecuted and executed by Herod; he managed to convert his unnamed accuser, which asked to be executed together with James.
* Philip converted the wife of the proconsul of Hierapolis, got crucified upside down with his brother, and continued preaching; he convinced the crowd to save his brother, but asked to not be saved himself.
* Bartholomew managed to convert the king of Armenia, so the king's brother ordered his execution. We don't know if he was crucified or skinned alive then beheaded.
* Thomas got speared for angering local authorities in India.
* Matthew got backstabbed in Ethiopia for criticizing the King's morals.
It's important to point out, they died in various places of the world, very publicly. The conspiracy theory that none of them existed has to account for the Catholic Church being able to fabricate traditions, from England to India, and somehow found numerous non-catholic churches that were erected on their preaching paths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCsnykY_PM

@DanielKO didn't read until just now, but you're spot on
I agree with Crowder and his stance on many things, but I'm not a conservative, nor a christian
same with Peterson
the idea that if you hold similar beliefs to someone therefore you are in the same group as someone is absurd

of course, nobody could explain that to @✿ Mittens ✿ because the retard calls anyone left of mao a conservative

meanwhile

I've found the best comic about migrant crisis and I'm not even sure it's what the author intended

https://i.imgur.com/KmuVbDc.png

Yes, it's possible to be conservative and hold religious opinions. I am not trying to conflate conservativism and religiosity, but have found that the two are often connected in the youtube commentators I have personally bumped into - which is why I don't watch them, and I believe that's really what started this whole "argument", my youtube preferences, lol.

A lot of what ended up in religious texts was also complete and utter hogwash, yet some people claim all of it is divine truth and should be followed to the letter. I don't personally need some ancient text to tell me it's bad to kill people, but that it's also bad to eat lobsters, because GAWHD.
That there are grains of truth in the bible, does litte to allieviate the fact that its vagueness, and influence can be used to justify atrocities, and the awful behaviours of people like the jehova's witnesses (refusing blood transfusion, exclusion and disowning family), or similar christian movements.

It feels just slightly arrogant to call both Dawkins and Hitchens "intellectually deficient", just because you disagree with them. That reminds me, I'd like to hear Jordan Peterson or even Crowder's attempt to answer that challenge Hitch made once. Could be interesting to hear, I guess.
Christians had their fair share of murderous behavior, so it doesn't seem like their belief in god was what stopped them from killing people. Taking matters into their own hands and deciding who deserves to live or die, based on their intrepretations of their own delusional beliefs, yeah, not related to religion at all I'm sure. Witch hunts were a thing last I checked, and not just in catholicism, it was big in lutheranism too.

As to Crowder's view on abortion, he's free to hold whatever view he wishes. That being said, I'm sure it has nothing to do with him believing in a soul, and it magically appearing at conception, like the catholic church ammended its view on ensoulment to fit with accepted scientific knowledge.

My point about proselytizing, was that I consider inaction to be somewhat questionable, and borderline immoral, if you believed that everyone who does not believe in whatever it is you believe, will suffer an eternity of torment if they do not convert. It was a bit of a taunt, on my part, and I'm sure that if you just consign yourself to it being god's infallible plan that billions of people are destined to burn in hell, it's probably easier to sleep at night for the people who aren't actively trying to convert

I don't think I'll be watching more conservative or christian youtubers just yet, though. <:ResidentSleeper:353173793830731786>

well you are from Denmark you gave up Valhalla and the Norse Gods a long time ago

they were replaced by the effeminate god of lesser men

for political reasons

Non Christians killed more than Christians, if we're going to go comparing numbers and ignore context.

Lobsters i wonder why 🤔

Maybe it is because when some people eat shell fish their throat closes up and die 🤔

All hail red lobster

nobody is ignoring numbers or context

Also, the reformation wasn't a change in their core beliefs, it was a change in how they were respecting the core beliefs. Which is one of the reasons Islam can't be reformed, it's murderous in its source material; while the Church, with the help of the state, was allowing corruption to take hold.

something I'm not really arguing against

I'm sure there was probably some contextual reason for lobsters and carrion eaters being pointed out in the bible, possibly ancient political reasons, or in the case of carrion eaters it might be because of the diseases that you risk contracting if you eat those

but to claim this has much (if any) value in a modern context, I'm going to have to call into question