Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "By the Numbers: More Americans identify as LGBT than ever before" video.

Thomas Mcintyre I'm sorry if you need some imaginary sky fairy to act kindly to other people. If God doesn't exist, then most of us have been kind to one another all along just by having a belief. We can embrace the truth of the world (by acknowledging that deities don't care about humans, or exist at all) and get along just fine. It's called humanism. I suggest you look into it.
18
Thomas Mcintyre I would argue we have been making up our own morals all along. And I'll say this: if we get our morals from the Bible, we are screwed. Just taking a peek at the Old Testament and the Pentateuch in particular would give one chills imagining that being the standard for morality in the world today. There's a reason Jefferson said that Christianity "is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." We can do so much better. If we design our laws based on the goal of minimizing human suffering, we have a workable philosophy. Much better, I contend, than arbitrarily cherry-picking from the Bible things we like and discarding those we don't. We also have so many other moral considerations than the peoples of the Bronze and Iron Ages that what was acceptable in their time (e.g. slavery) is an abomination to us now. We have to move on, one way or another. If you want to write a new holy book, and have it approved by a human rights council, then by all means go ahead. But the one we have now is an anachronism and we would be most imprudent to use it as a basis for fundamental morality in the modern world.
13
Thomas Mcintyre I'm surprised you haven't heard of evolution by now. Yes, as shocking as it is to someone who has been indoctrinated by Bronze Age theology, we share a common ancestor with all life on the planet today.
7
Thomas Mcintyre Nope. It was likely a rudimentary self-replicating Carbon-based molecule such as RNA, or even a progenitor of that, brought about by the turmoil of the early Earth (erupting volcanoes, lightning storms, and asteroid impacts) about 3.5 billion years ago.
7
@williammccroskey2433 Yes, sky fairy. Because that's as much credit as the god of any existing religion deserves. 🧚‍♂️
4
@auglybluething1995 Yeah, and you know what else Jesus said? He said to c*t off your limbs or g*uge out your eye if they cause you to "sin" (Matthew 5:28, Mark 9:43), or b*at some sl*ves more than others (Luke 12:46), or h*te your family (Matthew 10:34) and yourself (Luke 14:26), and b*rn anyone who disbelieves alive (John 15:16). Also, women can't exercise any authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11), and you should let those who steal from you or sue you have even more than what they take (Matthew 5:11). Finally, anyone who even questions the legitimacy of Jesus' s*crifice is sent to hell for eternity, with a "gnashing of teeth" and "wailing" (Matthew 13:41). Is this a good way to organize society? I wouldn't even raise my kids like this, let alone rally an entire society around this dogsh*t. We can find plenty of morality by embracing nature and deriving our "oughts" using a scientific approach, as we do in economics and modern medicine. There will always be disputes, because there are few (if any) moral absolutes, but if we can pull together we can get it done. And, I argue, we have been doing it all along, by applying faith rather than evidence. If you ask me, I find the latter to be far more convincing. Wow, apparently this is so bad that the algorithm keeps deleting this comment. Thanks YouTube, you're helping me prove my point
3
@defdrop9820 It's not preposterous at all. In fact, it's a perfectly viable explanation as to how life got started. Improbable? Sure. But out of 1 billion billion hospitable planets in the known universe, it's hardly a surprise that at least one of them is home to life.
2
Thomas Mcintyre Yes I can. Because the human race is capable of doing so much better. Based on your worldview, you can hardly say that the Taliban is immoral. Or ISIS. Or Al-Qaeda. We have been making up our own morality all along. If we listened to the Bible, we would still have sl*ves. Clearly some other moral force is at work. We invented God and based our "morals" around his phoniness. We can do the same thing with science, except much better. Stop recycling Frank Turek's arguments, you fatuous ignoramus.
1
@777JesusChristisLord We have been operating without a moral lawgiver this entire time. The only difference is under my worldview we wouldn't have faith, because there wouldn't be any need for it. We have science. I'm sorry if you need a magical sky fairy to behave kindly towards your fellow man, but I don't. And I don't think most other people do either. That's why I'm a humanist. We have government and the court system to decide what is right and wrong, not some Bronze Age genocidal megalomaniac deity that we're supposed to assume just "exists" because that's what we're taught as children.
1
@defdrop9820 P.S. Scientists are not pseudo-intellectuals. We actually assess the evidence before proposing something, rather than taking everything on faith and screaming when reality proves that you're wrong.
1
@gnar4614 Carbon was fused together after the dying of stars (supernova), which combine hydrogen to make helium. This is well-known even outside of astronomy circles. So when someone tell you that you are made of "stardust," it is 100% true. The heavier elements could only be formed by dying stars.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es Free Will is an illusion. No one has free will, scientifically speaking. Every decision we make is pre-determined based on a set of environmental factors. This is called determinism.
1
@auglybluething1995 Lol so you're telling me that a book in your Bible is a FORGERY? We're supposed to trust THAT? How many OTHER books were forged by authors claiming to be someone else? This "inspired word of God" isn't starting to look so authentic! You just shot yous*lf in the foot.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es I have no idea what you are talking about. Science doesn't assume the existence of metaphysical realities, it tries to explain them. This is called quantum physics. Perhaps you should look into the works of Richard Feynman or Lawrence Krauss if you're still confused.
1
@777JesusChristisLord I feel you brother. YouTube has some major issues because of a hypersensitive algorithm that deletes comments for no reason other than having a certain word or phrase. It's censorship of the highest order and frustrating as hell.
1
TheMightyZim26 That's the realm of philosophy, not religion. Religion asks everyone to accept certain "truths" based on faith for face punishments (shunning, excommunication, hell, stoning, etc.). Philosophy lays everything on the table and only selects that which makes the most sense or best corresponds to reality. I think I prefer that.
1
@One.Disgruntled.American Ah yes, I cherry-picked. However, there's a difference. I don't take this book to be the "infallible word of God." So I can pick and choose whatever I like, but the Christian has to accept ALL of it or otherwise he isn't a true Christian. Why should some parts of the Bible be emphasized more than others? Because you like them? I don't think God would be very pleased if you only obeyed the bits you liked and discarded the rest, now would He?
1
@One.Disgruntled.American I have. Multiple times. I am not off base at all.
1
@One.Disgruntled.American And whose fault is that? Oh yeah, religion.
1
@gnar4614 The Big Bang. Duh. This is taught even in middle schools now. All that exists began in a massive expansion. What's the problem here?
1
@gnar4614 I'm not a troll, I'm just being scientific. There's no conclusive answer to what started the Big Bang. There is currently speculation, however, that universes can arise from what is essentially nothing (i.e. no space or time) because of quantum gravity and that all energy contained within it equals out to zero. I highly recommend looking into the works of Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, and Lawrence Krauss (among others) if you wish to learn more about this topic. They are much more knowledgeable in this area than I am, obviously.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es Yet you have not explained what those fallacies are. Nice job. My main contention was that from a scientific perspective the notion of "free will" is untenable. There are no fallacies in making that statement. That does not mean that moral responsibility is irrelevant of course, because the fear of punishment itself is often a factor is deciding whether to break a certain law. But yes I think I have to agree with you that I don't think there are moral absolutes. We often have to consider our actions from a consequentialist and utilitarian perspective as well.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es First of all, I never said absolute truth can't exist. Of course it can. You're conflating my stance on truth with my stance on morality. I am a moral relativist. And if you knew anything about neurology you would understand that libertarian free will is near impossible to justify scientifically. FMRI scans have supported this. The most that can be justified scientifically is compatibilism, but to me even this is dubious. Sam Harris has written much about this topic, so if you still don't understand read some of his work about free will and why it's an illusion. The lack of free will does not preclude the ability to use logic and reason. That is NOT supported by any empirical data that I am aware of. You will have to show me the source on that. And by the way, I never said I was empiricist. I'm a rationalist, because I believe that deductive reasoning can lead to absolute truth statements just as relying on the senses can. So you're applying labels to me without any justification whatsoever. If you want to talk about fallacies, it doesn't get much worse than ad hominem.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es You have a better method? Or would you rather sit in your room whispering to yourself thinking that you're actually talking to something beyond the universe itself? Or believing that a bunch of flat-earthers in a superstitious and illiterate part of the Middle East 2,000 years ago unlocked all the answers to our existence? It doesn't get much more ridiculous than that.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es By the way, appealing to authority can NOT be a fallacy in and of itself. Is it a logical flaw to take the research of others and use it to support your argument, especially if they are professionals in that particular field? An individual cannot possibly be an expert in EVERYTHING, so the work of others will have to be cited to support your arguments if you argue outside your domain. And even within your domain often the topics are so vast that researchers rely upon one another to find the answers. Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Roger Penrose, Steven Weinberg, etc. just in the field of theoretical physics. Haven't you ever heard of the grade-school strategy "divide and conquer"? Apparently not. It's a foreign concept to you, and that should come as no surprise for someone as dimwitted as yourself.
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es Someone hasn't heard of the neocortex or the prefrontal lobe apparently 🙄
1
@BruceWayne-qp2es The entire left hemisphere of the brain carries out exactly the functions you just mentioned. Humans evolved to have a neocortex. What is the problem here?
1