Comments by "Louie Berg" (@louieberg2942) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

  1. Even his basic rhetorical tricks suck. And yet...
    14
  2. I don't anger that easily, but this did upset me. There is no other explanation possible than Prager and company are unprincipled and immoral people. Claiming to be moral and claiming, as Christians or Jews, to have a unique access to morality... only to resort to this. Prager's principles are absolute, yet here he is tactically breaking the moral rules. That is the charitable reading, mind you. I assume they're genuine in thinking that their religion is a force for good. The cynical reading is thinking Prager power hungry and controlling, stopping at nothing to gain control.
    12
  3.  @union1st  I'm middle-left on the politcal spectrum, but I'm fairly sure this is just human behaviour. How one would judge the outcome of these biases is another thing, but finding facts to fit a narrative/bias/gut feeling is human behaviour. Jonathan Haidt is an interesting author in that regard, but I'm sure there's plenty of other work on it as well.
    6
  4.  @TheMilitantMazdakite  Middle road: Greek Polytheistic Mythology.
    5
  5. Don't lie to yourself. You know you want it.
    4
  6. You have to understand how many of these apologists view atheists: as arrogant hypocrites. So their first move is to convince the atheist that they're no different from the people with whom they argue. They claim the atheist is as dogmatic as the theist, while at the same time taking issue with dogmatism. They claim atheists take facts on faith, like theists do, while claiming taking matters on faith is untenable. It does seem to betray a fear that, were the atheist NOT taking things on faith or dogma, the atheist has a better epistemological postion. However, the theists "prove" the atheists don't, so the theist doesn't have to worry.
    3
  7. Take my money
    2
  8. With the infinite monkey metaphor: if you select and keep the correct letters, the monkey is very very likely to write shakespeare and quite quickly so.
    2
  9. Absolutely heinous behaviour on Prager's part, editing those articles like that.
    2
  10. I'll attempt to rephrase what I think Dawkin's question was: what makes gender mutable and race immutable. Underlying assumption: both are social constructs. I hve not read anything beyond what was presented in this video when it comes to Dawkins' previous opinions on these matters. I understand history, as well as modern context, does a lot of lifting here. Agnostic of all that, I think it is an interesting question. I'm aware that being "agnostic of all of that" is exactly where the issue and grounds for nuance lies.
    2
  11. Ugh, the pearl clutching. "A very vicious ad hominem attack", what nonsense.
    1
  12. You don't eat meat, therefore you are woke and therefore your views on political philosophy are false. Hurrrrrrrdduuurrrrr
    1
  13. Personally, I have always felt a draw towards being a construvtivist: there is a mode/process of thinking that will yield true statements. I'm not going to hide here that I'm much moved by Christine Korsgaard. She tickles both my Kantian and Virtue ethical nerve.
    1
  14. On a smaller scale, NY Mayor Adams did something similar recently: 'When we took prayers out of schools, guns came into schools'
    1
  15. I knew folks like the ones working at Daily Wire would start broadcasting this bilge.
    1
  16. Recipe for an Atheist: 1. See no sufficient reason to believe in the existence of a god 2. Be materialist 3. Be a social Darwinist 4. Be a relativist 5. Condone abortion and euthanasia By Jove! He actually got it all right rather than wrong!
    1
  17. 31:42 I largely agreed with Peterson's arguments, but started struggling when he introduced his religious veneer. Sam Harris has an issue as he tries to go from an "is" to an "ought". This does not require Sam to adopt any kind of religious thinking, but he might need to commit himself to a more constructivist mode of thinking along the lines of "in sofar as we're human (or perhaps rational beings), we're committed to X, Y and Z.". I understand Harris wants to claim more than this, being a natural realist... but I fear he cannot get there. (And yes... I am aware I am responding to a 4 year old video)
    1
  18. Matt Powell is almost offended by fun and joy. Just view some of his videos and he'll drop hints at feeling discomfort (or even an inability) to experience joy from fun. He may struggle with Debunked, as it is a game... he may not understand.
    1
  19. Just a comment on what Jordan Peterson is describing here: I've seen footrage of this. It's profoundly disturbing to watch. I did not make it through the video, because I could not fully separate it from human behaviour. It was as though I was looking at footage of war crimes being committed. And eventhough this video is 4 years old, and the quote to which I respond is older still, I would modify Weinberg's quote. It is not necessarily religion, it is tribalism. ANYthing that makes us see a fellow human as "not human" or "less human than I am" can have that effect. I cannot put into words how much I loathe tribal thinking.
    1
  20.  @BlueOceanBelow  In a variation of your response: It depends on where you want to go
    1
  21. God works in mysterious ways and God hates poor people. Gotcha. Theists need to ditch the omniscience+omnipotence or the omnibenevolence from their view of god, they cannot co-exist in one being AND be the architect of the world we inhabit. He's either willingly evil or he's kinda cosmically clueless with a good heart.
    1
  22. Kent thinks he is so funny and those toadies in the background reinforce it with their laughter. What they are really communicating, is that they haven't the foggiest idea of what is going on. Kent spouts claims no one is making and the others chuckle at all the "owning" that is taking place. I've miraculously lasted about an hour, but I gotta call it quits. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Kent and Matt are not worth anyone's time. They're either too stupid or too unwilling to engage in a decent debate about this. They either deliberately misrepresent the argument or are so stupid to misunderstand most arguments, that it's just pointless.
    1
  23. I do not understand why people think these linguistic moves are even remotely effective. It's a weird magical approach to words. The mere fact that the same word is used in different contexts, does not mean that the things described by that same word are in any way related. I'm heading in that direction has nothing to do with a news article.
    1
  24. 14:01 I'm a "flexitarian". I still eat meat on occasion, because I am moved mostly by environmental reasons. I always indicate I prefer not to eat animal products, or at least prefer not to eat meat. WhenI first started doing this 7 years ago, I was constantly defending my reasons. As time went on, and because I am surrounded by people whom I'd call reasonable, I no longer needed to defend myself. Rather, they adopted my thinking for themselves. It's a slightly braggy way of showng that social norms are very much an issue if you want to change your dietary habits. I had a somewhat welcoming environment and even I felt like I was being a whiny pain in the ass. I can only imagine what it is like for people in a different context.
    1