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

>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
You seem to be implying non-Christians don't kill. Or that Christianity is what caused Christian human beings to kill. Or is this the "bro, what about the Crusades?"

in the context of witch hunts, very much so.

are you trying to claim that religion had nothing to do with that?

Jesus said, nobody but God has the right to punish sins. That one statement removed the religious authority to anyone that would wish to oppress based on religious views. Doesn't mean said religious leaders respected it. But it's there in the source material.

I'm not implying that you need a religious motive for killing people, that is ridiculous to assume

Hitchens did.

pretty sure he didn't

but okay

His whole shtick was that religions turned good men into evil men.

so he claimed that you need religion to kill people

?

doubt it

And that justified his hyperbolic characterization of Bible as being "murderous from cover to cover", etc.

sure, I'll take your word for it

JBP openly stated that he would have loved to debate Hitchens, he thinks he was very wrong in some of his positions on Christianity.

I would have liked to see it

sadly that won't be possible

Maybe we can get interviewers to ask him to elaborate on his disagreement with Hitchens.

I suppose. There's enough material of Hitchen's out there

Would be interesting to hear Jordan's thoughts on whatever issues he had with Hitchen's views

Maybe some non-pleb can get a superchat in during the Rubin Report.

I saw Harris is having another talk with him at some point? I'd like one where it doesn't devolve into some weird debate about the definition of truth

but the live settings are kind of... meh...

a lot of pandering to the audience, it feels like. Which is fine, but doesn't really work for someone who isn't there, I feel

There's been an interesting Sam Harris vs Ben Shapiro recently.

yeah, I watched it, it was a good talk