Comments by "0x777" (@0x777) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

  1.  @mohammadazraazriazhar2170  I easily believe you anything that doesn't affect me. If you tell me you had cereal for breakfast, I don't insist in pumping your stomach to get proof of it. Mostly because there are few things I could care less about. If you want to propose something is true that does affect me, like saying that some being put down some laws that you want me to uphold, then I do insist in proof. First of all that the being exists and second that the laws are actually from aforementioned being. Else, why bother upholding them? Furthermore, do you have any sources for whatever Muhammad did that aren't in any way related to the faith he invented? Because, well, according to ancient Egyptian sources, Ramses II was the greatest troop leader of all times and according to North Korean sources, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il invented pretty much everything there is. And guess what, neither is true.
    1
  2.  @mohammadazraazriazhar2170  First, please try to get your answers into one reply. It's easier to answer and it's less likely that I miss one. Why I follow man made rules? Because I don't want to pay fines or go to jail. And unlike gods, these laws created by humans can and do get executed. Gods are pretty weak when it comes to this, they usually needs humans to do their dirty work. Concerning the biography of your prophet: Do you have any sources besides islamic sources? Because if not, it's about as good as a biography of Harry Potter. Some book, written by someone, telling the story about some character. Concerning believing: Your point is that I first have to believe something, then everything else can be believed. By that logic, I can as well believe any kind of story that establishes its own reality, and within that reality everything works out. That works for every (decent) fictional universe ever created, from Discworld to Star Trek. And I hope we can agree that neither Discworld nor Star Trek have anything to do with reality. Concerning the life of Muhammad: Again, the first problem is that we have very little unbiased sources for this to actually have been the case. But even assuming that it is true it means fairly little. A lot of myths and folk tales talk about people getting visited by gods or gaining messages from them which caused them to perform all sorts of feats, often at great personal sacrifice. The christian bible has such a story about Paul, a noble Roman who had an epiphany and converted to christianity, dedicating his life to spreading the faith and eventually dying for the faith. Does that mean that he was visited by christ? Sorry. This is no proof for anything. It means that some human had some sort of experience that they attributed to a divine being. Not that such a being exists. Concerning the quote (and pretty much any quote from a holy book): Meaningless to someone who doesn't believe that book. To give you an idea what this means to me, you could have quoted Harry Potter and it would be about as convincing. Someone wrote something in a book at some point in time. There is exactly nothing that points to anything of this actually having any meaning in reality.
    1
  3.  @mohammadazraazriazhar2170  Concerning laws: My country defines laws negatively. As in you're allowed to do what is not explicitly forbidden. I prefer laws that can be adjusted to events on the world and development of science, morals and ethics. Since no divine almighty being ever came down to rule, instead we had OCD freaks with power fantasies pretending to speak for such beings, I can't really say whether a divine benevolent being would be a better way to rule something. What I can say, from experience, both historic as well as current, is that theocracies are more like the playground for aforementioned control freak fantasies than some divine, sublime and perfect places. The world you describe here, where some control freak dictates what I can eat, drink, wear and do is hell. Literally hell. If that's what your god offers, please keep him as far away from me as possible. I don't want to be subjected to the whims of such a petty deity.
    1
  4.  @mohammadazraazriazhar2170  Any rule that limits what people can or cannot do that does not harm any other person is an unjust one. Give me a sensible reason not to eat pork or to fuck a guy in the ass. As long as I'm not that guy, I fail to see how it's in any way my business. Laws are supposed to order a society. Not to fulfill some random ramblings from days past.
    1
  5. Poe's Law is strong in this one. Honestly can't tell if sarcastic.
    1
  6. Why is he coming back? Was god (you know, immortal, eternal, all powerful and all that good shit) unable to do it right the first time? sigh You had one job, Jesus...
    1
  7. Any monotheistic god would suck as a scientist anyway. No peer review is accepted and they usually don't work well with colleagues.
    1
  8. Actually, life most likely began much, much more simple than a cell. A cell is already a pretty complex organizational unit. What you had most likely before was free floating organic material. In a reducing atmosphere, which the earth had back then, this can actually form complex molecules that are even capable of replication. The details are currently not yet know, but that doesn't mean that we jump from "I don't know" to "Sky faery did it".
    1
  9. When you learned the basics of biology we'll continue the talk.
    1
  10. We can continue this conversation in German or French, I'm more fluent in those languages.
    1
  11. Again, it depends on the atmosphere you're in whether replicating molecules can work out or whether they break down due to being oxidized. But even if this wasn't how life came into existence it does not verify your faery tale at all.
    1
  12. Again, just because "I don't know" is not an answer you like, going "Sky fairy did it" isn't the logical conclusion.
    1
  13. Reading this more and more resembles two kids bickering over who has the cooler imaginary friend.
    1
  14.  Dank Dose  Interesting. The Christian said the same about his god. And that loonie over there about aliens.
    1
  15.  @filipstellberg8280  Was there a guy named Mohammed in the region around 640 AD? That's like asking whether there is a Thomas today in New York. OF COURSE there was some guy with that name, and given that it was hardly an uncommon name, I'm fairly sure it should be trivial to find a few people who will qualify for all the other attributes that prophet supposedly had. Same with Jesus, Jerusalem and 2000 years ago, by the way.
    1
  16. How old are you?
    1
  17. Probably the same way a lot of other cultures found out, by observing that dead bodies lose a lot of water in one way or another?
    1
  18. "Laws are laws" is the attitude that makes dictatorships possible. "I was just following orders" didn't impress the judges back in Nuremberg too much.
    1
  19.  @europeansovietunion7372  Screw this. How serious can you take a god that needs mortals to do his dirty work?
    1
  20. Wow, what prediction! You keep claiming bullshit story after bullshit story after bullshit story, and finally you predict that people will not believe it. Guess what: You'll be right! At least this one time.
    1
  21.  @fghfghggffghv612  Well, they don't blow up buildings... unless it's an abortion clinic.
    1
  22.  @bettytigers  And some people believe in protecting existing life instead of some that might be.
    1
  23. A possible way to peace is simply the elimination of everyone that could be in conflict with you...
    1
  24. With good reason. If you want me to learn something from you, the least I'd expect is you to be able to teach me.
    1
  25. The fallacy here is that you assume there are only two choices. But considering the amount of religions, that's by far not true. Since all religions are also kinda mutually exclusive and you can't mix and match as you please, which one is the right one? Also, considering that you have to waste considerable time and effort to appease whatever deity you believe in, it's also not correct that the believer in a religion doesn't lose anything. Depending on the religion he loses a lot of freedoms, time and potentially possessions.
    1
  26. In my experience, the flat-earth proponents and the hardcore religious are two groups that have a lot of overlap, to the point that I'd dare to say that the former is a subgroup of the latter. At least I do not know a single flat earther that doesn't at the end of their video present some religious texts to "prove" their point.
    1
  27. This is pretty much grasping at grass blades now. Seriously...
    1
  28. I will vote if you give me a choice.
    1
  29.  @rithytim1  Look at what the middle east was like in medieval times. Back when Europe was dragging through the dark medieval ages, they developed mathematics, chemistry, medicine and other sciences, if you wanted to learn something you looked at the Arab world. Then we somehow traded places where we became the scientifically minded and they became the religious nutjobs.
    1
  30. That's the bit I never really understood. How omnipotent and great can a god be that needs mere humans to do his dirty work?
    1
  31.  @Elite7555  Saudi Arabia, the last country on this planet that doesn't even have a proper name.
    1
  32. In other words, the system is faulty.
    1
  33. It's basically a rehash from older religious texts. Much like the texts it cribs. If copyright had been a thing 1500 years ago, quite a few popular religions of today would be in seriously hot water.
    1
  34.  @spaghettispoon8680  Probably the same omnipotent god that needs humans to do his dirty work.
    1