Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
2
-
@archive2500
"Yours is a claim either. "Christianity hasn't." "
You're right that I also made a claim. However, I challenged your first on your prior claim.
"Alright. I can back it up."
Good. But we'll see how well you do.
"There is no evidence of creation and flood mythology."
Hang on! Your evidence is a claim of a lack of evidence? Sorry, by itself at least, that's not evidence. Just because you don't know of any evidence doesn't mean that Christianity claimed nonsense.
Further, what do you even mean? That there is no evidence of creation and the flood? Or that there is no evidence of the mythology? Surely you're not claiming the latter, and yet if you're not, that word is completely superfluous. And if you're claiming no evidence of the things themselves, what's your evidence that there is no evidence? Because I know of plenty.
"Snakes aslo can not talk,..."
Christianity doesn't claim that they can.
"It is also impossible for a couple to reproduce up to arouns 8 billion today, there is a thing called inbreeding depression."
Not so. Do you know what the actual problem with inbreeding is? We all have two copies of our genes. When parents have children, each child gets one copy from each parent. If one of the genes is defective (thanks to a mutation), then typically the other gene can be used instead. The problem with inbreeding is that there is a much higher chance of getting the same defective gene from both parents, which means that the child has a problem. However, if both parents had no defects to start with, there is no problem! Adam and Eve were created without defects, so they were quite able to have been the progenitors of all the people around today.
"There is no evidence that humans came from dirt as well. "
Again you're citing a lack of evidence instead of actual evidence.
"It is impossible for all animals to survive after shoving each pair of them inside a single ... boat."
Why? For the same inbreeding reason? Because that has the same answer.
"These are all non-sense stories."
A claim that you have yet to demonstrate. Wrong claims and your claims of lack of evidence do not support your claim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@videogamers100 Yeah, how dare people in the richest country in the world expect...the government to give them homes, wages without having to work, luxury cars, and three cruises a year?
My point? Just because a country is the richest in the world (even assuming that's accurate) doesn't mean that it's people should expect X, where X could be anything you choose it to be. Rather, you have to make a case that X is a reasonable thing to expect. Further, it's rich because of the freedom to do your own thing; socialism suppresses that, and socialist countries are poor. No, I'm not saying that socialism is the same as a safety net, nor that safety nets are necessarily a bad thing, but that too-readily-given government handounts are socialist in nature. More discriminate safety nets may not be, however.
2
-
@beldiman5870
"It is part of the definition itself."
Where? You defined as society as an environment where people help each other, not as an environment where they have a right to be helped. That is, people help each other voluntarily out of love and care, not out of duty, which would be the case if the recipients can demand it as a right.
"So yes, I believe that in a modern, rich society, everyone deserves help and respect"
They deserve the respect of being people created in God's image. Beyond that respect is earned. And if you don't pull your weight, then you don't deserve help. A good society is where people help others a) voluntarily, not because it's a right to be helped, and b) where they don't deserve it.
This is one of the problems of the left. They turn gifts into required payments. Christianity started a trend of helping people simply because those needed help. They founded hospitals, charities, schools, etc. But then those roles were handed over to governments and they became a right that people then felt that they could demand rather than request or hope for.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@romany8125
"False? Just watch what the douche in the video says. Anyone who knows anything about physics would call him out on his bs."
And yet, although not a trained physicist (like you?), I know something about physics, and am not calling him out on anything related to physics. So clearly your comment is false.
"The argument of this kind: we don't know, therefore God - is a logical fallacy of the simplest kind, works only on children and, well, theists."
I know many theists that it doesn't work well on, and given that he's not using that argument, your side-tracking.
"Non-carbon based lifeforms are just unknown to us at this moment, not unlikely or improbable, so stop making things up."
I'm not making things up. I admittedly probably can't find anything readily on that at the moment, but I've seen articles explaining why non-carbon-based lifeforms are unlikely and improbably. By contrast, it appears you are simply speculating about things you don't know. You can imagine anything when you're not familiar with the limitations.
"And to talk about odds you would need to put aside the fairy tales book ..."
I'm not consulting a fairy-tales book. I've already mentioned that, but you ignore me.
"Than you would know that if the chances of life on the planet are one to a trillion (very debatable)..."
Definitely debatable. The chances are actually far lower. Sir Fred Hoyle, for example, calculated that the odds of a single functional protein coming together in a primordial soup are equivalent to the solar system being filled shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men with Rubik's cubes all coming to the solution at the same time. And that was just for a protein, not life.
In fact, the chances are zero, because nature is incapable of creating genetic information (or any such information, as would be needed for any form of life). According to Paul Davies, it's actually contrary to the laws of physics: "There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."
"...and the amount of planets is estimated as 70 quintillion"
Which includes inhospitable planets like Mercury and Jupiter. The vast majority of planets discovered so far are nothing like Earth.
"Put that in your pipe and smoke it..."
I don't smoke, and your claims are wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Yes if you are religious it just means you don't know enough science ..."
And yet, as pointed out in the video, it was Christians who founded modern science.
"or are to stubborn to acknowledge that there is no proof of a god."
As opposed to the atheists who claim that there is no proof or evidence, but who cannot provide evidence of their claim? What's the evidence for this claim of yours that there is no proof of a god?
"Many people are too afraid to confront the truth because they are used to believing in a god and don't want to disappoint family and friends as well as feel like they wasted their life preaching."
Many people are too afraid to confront the truth because they are used to believing in no god and don't want to disappoint family and friends as well as feel like they wasted their life not believing in God.
"If something came to me to tell me that they are god and did something to prove it so grand, I would still deny them as god ..."
So you'd reject evidence for God. Not surprising for an atheist. Their faith is stronger than the evidence.
"because by the logic of having a god, would mean that something made that god too"
You're assuming that God had a beginning. That is a faulty assumption, and therefore removes the basis of your conclusion.
"This can go on forever since the idea of god is a catch 22 and makes no sense to believe such small thinking stuff..."
Does this "small thinking" including assuming that God had a beginning, when the Bible and Christians don't teach that? Maybe it would be a good idea to actually understand the idea that you criticise before showing your ignorance of the topic.
"...people are not using logic to question why out of all the billions of galaxies, why did god only make Earth the only one with life ..."
Why do you think that's a valid question? We already know that God's purpose was to create man, and the Earth and the universe are simply a place for man to exist.
"why would people believe in stuff we proved to not have merit such as "the Earth is flat and the center of the universe"."
The church never believed in a flat earth. That was simply an atheist invention. And, it turns out, there is evidence that the Milky Way is close to the centre of the universe. Not that being the "centre" has to mean the physical centre as opposed to the centre of attention, but there you go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sam7559 That sounds good, and I'm quite tempted to agree, but I think I stand by my previous reply above:
----------
If they truly are questions from people wanting to learn, and not arguments to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with a child asking his parents why fathers are necessary. But when a journalist does it in the media, they are not doing it to learn; they are arguing for a contrary view, or at the very least arguing that a contrary view has merit, when, as educated people, they should already know why it's correct.
----------
In other words, it depends on their motive. Are they genuinely questioning, are they genuinely challenging to be certain that we're not just assuming, or are they trying to reshape society. Or, to put it another way, is this coming from a genuine desire to know, or from a worldview that rejects most of what is good?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blackriver2531
"transphobia isn't having an irrational fear of transgender people at all so you look pretty stupid there, "
What's your evidence for that, given that a "phobia" means having an irrational fear? I'm not wrong, nor do I look stupid, just because you say so.
"you can't treat trans kids horribly and then say you don't hate trans kids."
But I'm not treating them horribly. I'm simply disagreeing with something. Disagreeing does not equate to being horrible. You're disagreeing with me. So you must be treating me horribly (including saying that I look pretty stupid). So I guess that means that you hate me? Or do different rules apply to you?
"At the very least you hate happy children..."
More utter and offensive nonsense.
"Factually speaking bulimia and being transgender have NOTHING in common."
Factually speaking, that is complete nonsense. And given that I've already pointed out one thing that they have in common, that you have not refuted, then you are simply repeating an already-debunked claim by simply asserting an opinion. That's not an argument, and shows a lack of logic.
"So you don't understand words, definitions, or logic. That sucks."
No, that does not follow from what you said. So is more evidence of treating me horribly, so more evidence (by your logic) that you hate me.
"also try googling..."
No. The person making the claim is the one that has the onus to back it up. It's not my job to find evidence supporting your claims.
"There is no study that shows transition harms people."
If the transition involves surgery, which means removing healthy body parts, I would call that harm.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Evolution and creation is a silly debate, since evolution explains how not why."
Creation also explains how (God spoke it into existence), so you have a fail right there.
"They are not mutually exclusive, you can believe in both to an extent ..."
They are not mutually exclusive only if you have versions of each that are compatible. But evolution as understood by most scientists is necessarily naturalistic, without design, whereas creation is necessarily by design. Also, creation as described in the Bible (in six days, the earth before the sun, fruit trees before land animals, and much more) is absolutely incompatible with evolution.
"(majority of religious people believe in micro evolution for a start)."
Which is not actually evolution (the entire 'family tree' from the first organism to all that exist today), but just small changes without creating entirely new forms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ur__ghost
"You are definitely speaking with privilege."
What privilege is that? And what's your evidence that she is?
"Unlike you, people have weaker immune systems and do not have someone else to rely on."
Are you saying that she is not a person?
"There's men, women, and non binary people. Just bc you disagree with it doesn't make them disappear"
True (the second sentence). But just because you claim that doesn't make it true. And the first sentence is false. Both the creator and modern science agree that there are two sexes.
"People vary so much you can't just define them in those 2 categories."
You can choose to classify people in as many categories as you like. You can divide them by age, nationality, number of children, what jobs they do, how much they earn, or whatever. But if you categorise them by sex, there are only two categories.
"there's male and female in sex but not gender."
There is not male and female in gender??
"Gender is related to mentality and how you feel,..."
Yes, it's a matter of opinion. So why are others forced to accept those subjective opinions?
"...people differ so much there's bound to be someone who wants to be something that's not binary or opposite from their body."
What they want and what they actually are may therefore be two different things.
"He and she (and they sometimes) basically ment how you looked, because if you had long hair you were assumed to be a "she" and vice versa, so it basically was never used in the definitive context."
This is false. What you're really saying is that because long hair caused people to assume you were female, then in cases that they were actually males with long hair those people were mistaken. It doesn't mean that those males with long hair were actually female. Males remain males and females remain females, something that has it's physical basis in their DNA, and which cannot be changed.
1
-
@ur__ghost Numbering your points is a good idea that I should think to use more often myself.
1. I don't consider that to have been said in a judgmental and clueless manner, and don't see what that has to do with privilege.
2. You're right. I didn't really think that you didn't consider her a person. But the comment didn't make much sense anway, and/or presumes too much. But I wasn't really wanting to comment on her comment about covid; it's not something that I would have said.
3a. Yes, some people identify as being 'black' when they are not, or being older or younger than they really are. In all those cases the identification is wrong, so I'm not sure of your point.
3b. Yes, God is, by definition, the creator. But I'm not pushing anything onto you; I'm making a comment. I'm not trying to sell you on God; I'm simply using history and design as a basis for my comments. And if you're expecting me to leave God out of it, then you're 'pushing' your atheism onto me. So why the double standard?
3c. So you're saying that there are vast number of kinds of a particular made-up concept? What relevance does that have to the real world?
4. Numbering is good, as long as one can tell what it refers to. I don't know what you're referring to here. And I never said that you could define men and women on the basis of their job; I've always said that it's on the basis of their biology.
5. Again, you're right; I didn't think you meant that. It was, however, what you said, and that being the case, it was not clear what you did mean.
6a. You didn't call them opinions, but that's what they are.
6b. "No one's forcing anyone to accept anything..." That is so blatantly false I have to wonder how you could possibly believe that to be the case. Jordan Peterson came to prominence because he refused to accept his university employer requiring him to use the wrong pronouns. A father in Canada was last week jailed for not using the biologically-correct pronouns of his child. My employer requires me to use a trans person's preferred pronouns or fact the sack. They are just a few examples off the top of my head.
6c. What's the evidence of hate?
6d. "...or limit someone..." Like I am limited by my employer in what I can say? Again, why does this only work one way?
6e. "...people are going to get angry and DEFEND themselves." Like I am going to defend my right to use biologically-correct pronouns and argue the case that there are only two sexes (and that genders is a meaningless invention to get around that). So why is it okay for them to defend themselves but people who disagree with the trans agenda are criticised for it?
6f. I can identify as a four-year-old Asian girl, but it doesn't change the fact that I am an adult Australian man.
7. Being born a man or woman does define them as a man or a woman. Sure, it doesn't determine what jobs they will have, what clothes they will wear, what preferences they will have, but it does define them as being a man or a woman. Otherwise biological facts become meaningless.
8a. "Pronouns are based on personal preference" On the contrary, they are based on what sex you are. He, him, and his are used of males, and She, her and hers are used of females. Your claim is just factually wrong.
8b. But even if it was correct, my personal preference is to use biologically-correct pronouns when referring to people. So why is my preference not allowed? Again, double standards.
1
-
@ur__ghost
3a: You're correct, and as such have to fall back on gender being different to sex, which is an invention (in the worst sense of the word) that is meaningless.
3b: I didn't consider it rude; I'm used to comments like that. Apology accepted. Rather, I consider it useful to point out inconsistencies in people's arguments, which that was.
"that some people don't believe in god so the reasoning is meaningless to them". You're absolutely right. But part of my point is that what one believes about God will affect views on other things, such as transgenderism. In other words, it's an attempt to get the conversation away from superficial considerations and down to root causes.
4a. "I was referring to what стѣйшій Патріархъ керіллъ previously said". That would be in your comment before your previous comment, but in your previous comment, where you said "I don't know what you mean by this", you were referring to me; I didn't know which part of my comments you were referring to.
4b. "However I meant you cannot define women as the dishwasher and men the lumberjack" and "...previously said, "Men are masculine, strong and work, [snipped]"
I understand what you are getting at now. But to be fair, he didn't say that was a definition. He said " behaviours typically go hand in hand in every culture. Men are masculine...[snipped]"
6b. "Using the correct pronouns is easy..." I don't think so. For me to go against decades of correct use is not easy.
"and shows respect.". Being truthful with them shows respect.
"If a teacher (or other) does not respect a student (or person)..." The issue is not about whether one should be respectful (one should), but about what constitutes showing respect.
"It's harassment." No, it's being truthful, which can be done respectfully. Calling it harassment is merely an attempt to justify imposing a particular lie on people.
6e (new number). "Plus, teenagers with no income are left homeless because their parent refuses their identity (lgbt+)." First, one bad response (treating someone badly) does not justify another (forcing people to use incorrect pronouns). Second, while a child is living with their parents, their parents have a right to expect the child to follow their standards. The parents, not the children, are in charge.
6c. I know, you said "skipped some cuz idk how to respond". So you have no evidence of the hate you claimed. So why use the insulting term if you have no reason for using it?
6d. Doesn't change anything. The law in some places limits what critics of transgenderism can say. That my example was a (lawful) company policy doesn't change my point.
"Many countries it's legal to murder someone just for liking the same gender as themselves, or (not sure about this>) wanting to be a different gender."
Many? Yes, there are a few (probably not for "liking" but at least for acting on that desire). But if you're just talking about those sorts of countries, then that doesn't explain the anger from the transgender activists in the West, which I would have thought is what we were talking about.
8a. If he really is a guy, and is not deformed or had his testicles removed surgically, then yes, I AM sure. Why wouldn't I be? They are, of course, part of what being a man is.
"if someone dislikes the pronouns you refer to them as, they should be allowed to politely correct you"
But if I dislike the pronouns that they want me to refer to them by, why doesn't my preference count for my language? And if they want me to use pronouns that are incorrect, why shouldn't I be allowed to politely correct them? Yet again, this is an argument that is only used one way. And why should they be allowed to "correct" me when I'm not, in fact, incorrect?
8b. "Your "preference" hurts people." If you're talking about physical hurt, that's nonsense. If you're talking about hurt feelings, then they should learn to accept that not everyone agrees with them. And if you don't like that answer, then why don't you argue that their preference hurts me? Again, the argument is only used one way. That's hypocrisy.
"When someone refuses to see someone as something they are, they feel stuck and it hurts."
We're not talking about refusing to see someone as they are. We are talking about refusing to see someone as they are not. To put that completely differently, your statement is loaded, in that it assumes something (that a male can legitimately consider himself a female) that is the very point being contested. You (rightly) said that an argument based on God existing won't have any meaning for someone who doesn't believe in God, yet you are making an argument based on the idea that transgenderism is legitimate to someone who doesn't believe that.
"It's not that hard to ask "what're your pronouns?" "
It's pointless, if I can already tell what they are. And even the question is nonsensical. They are (in this case) pronouns that belong to the English language, not to that person. They are not "their" pronouns, but English pronouns. If we understand English, we know what the correct pronouns are. The question itself is pandering to nonsense.
I guess the numbering is not going too well.
1
-
@kiwi7872 So you're quoting three left-leaning sources as that is supposed to be definitive? Why?
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed."
That is, made-up.
"This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy,..."
Associated by who, and correctly or otherwise? The word "norms" kind of gives the game away. Sure, there are some characteristics that are more common in females than males, and some that are more common in males than females. But they are not definitive. So while some girls might like things that we typically associate with boys and vice versa, they don't mean that those persons are actually the other sex/gender. Because they are just norms, not infallible indicators.
"there are more than 2 genders (this one is from joshuakennon)"
Who is he that makes him an authority on this topic?
And I notice that in your quote of him, he doesn't name what those other genders are. Instead, he equivocates by switching to talking about chromosome abnormalities.
And that last point is the problem with SciAm too. They seem to think that genetic copying mistakes are definitive, rather than recognise them as the copying mistakes that they are.
The fact is that God created man (i.e. the man kind, or mankind ) male and female (Genesis 1:27). That's two sexes. But thanks to our rejection of Him, things have deteriorated since, so we are riddled with genetic copying mistakes (geneticists have counted about 100 or more being added for each generation), some of which involve additional chromosomes. But of course the religious views of SciAm and others (such as the view that we weren't created by God) colour their thinking.
1
-
@kiwi7872
"There is no such thing as left leaning sources..."
Yes, that is a known phenomenon where people of the left fail to realise their own bias, thinking that only other people have bias. As such, the claim is complete bunkum.
"...you say they are left leaning because it doen't fit your narrative..."
Not so. There are other claims that don't "fit my narrative" that I would not label as left-leaning.
"...if you will source some 'right leaning' sources, I'l be happy to debunk those)"
Of course. Because the left-leaning ones that you don't recognise as such reflect reality and everyone else is wrong. Not because of evidence, but because the left cannot be wrong.
"I have stated quotes from the literal world health organisation"
Yes, I saw that. That's why I dismissed that quote as being from a left-leaning organisation.
"...there is no such thing as chromosome abnormality..."
Because you say so? Or do you have some objective reason?
"...people who are intersex or androgynouse are not abnormal."
False in two respects. First, "abnormal" can simply mean different to normal, and it is simply a statistical fact that they are in a small minority, hence not "normal". Second, and if you want to use the word differently, their chromosomes are, as I mentioned, the result of a copying mistake. (And, I remind you, we all have copying mistakes, just not all the same copying mistakes).
"also don't use religion as a source for this (religion has biased sentiments)"
I wasn't using "religion" (depending on how you define that). I was using history and design. I was referring to how humans were designed, as related by historical records. But if you want to label that "religious", then your rejection of that can also be labelled "religious", which means that you're basing your rejection of my argument on your own "religious" views (that God did not create us that way, presumably).
"religion has biased sentiments"
We all have biases, including scientists. One common one in science is the bias that supernatural explanations must be rejected even if true.
"Give me sources that show there are only 2 genders..."
I already gave a source for there being only two genders. But your religious views caused you to dismiss that out of hand.
"...and that gender and sex are the same thing."
It's pretty obvious that it amounts to the same thing, when (a) we are expected to use sex-based pronouns as gender-based pronouns, and (b) we are expected to use "gender" to determine which sex-based team a sports person can play in or which sex-based toilets a person can use. It is blatantly obvious that "gender" is a replacement for "sex", with an invented, meaningless, distinction. I'm sure that I could find a source saying as much, but then you'd dismiss it as 'right-leaning' (which it no doubt would be), so I might as well just give you the logical argument above.
1
-
@kiwi7872 The source I mentioned is Genesis 1:27
From your previous comments I expected you to be atheist to some degree, so that's no surprise.
Most government bureaucracies are left-leaning, probably because the left, unlike conservatives, usually believes in big government, so left-leaning people go for government jobs. But in this case we are talking about the organisation that covered up the covid actions of communist China.
I don't follow what you're getting at with your comment about liberal views, and what distinction you might be trying to draw between liberalism and neo-liberalism.
Yes, I gathered that you don't think that people with more extra chromosomes (we all have more than two; the normal number (yes that word 'normal' is quite appropriate) is 46 (23 pairs)) are not abnormal, but that doesn't make it true. I meant no slur by the use of the word (they can't help how many chromosomes they have), but the simple fact is that 46 is normal in the sense of most common, but it's also the case that 46 is obviously how we were designed, and any more (or less) is not how we were designed. That could be analogous to a car that somehow (i.e. by accident) has an extra spare tyre (no much of a problem) or that somehow has square wheels (that is a problem). Things work best when they are as designed; when something has extra bits or missing bits (not by design), it typically causes problems.
I'm a Christian, and in line with that I'd be roughly Conservative politically, but I wouldn't consider myself fitting exactly with any particular political designation.
1
-
1
-
@ur__ghost "I said "all" things they're doing, like only looking at biased arguments that support themselves"
I'm not only looking at biased arguments that support my views. I also look at opposing views, to see what they have to say.
"(btw most of pro-trans that talk about real trans experience that I've seen look at both sides, and debunk your points, unlike anti-trans people who just seem baseless) "
Which is the complete opposite of my experience. Including in discussions with you.
"I say you have a superiority complex because I assume you feel you don't have the need to explain yourself when your response it just "you're wrong" or "that's false" or "that's made up" because you think your answer is right without knowing why"
I tend to only make those sort of comments without evidence or reason in response to someone else making assertions without evidence or reason. If they provide evidence or reason, I will in return. If they think it's okay to make bald claims, then why can't I do likewise?
"And I do not think I'm right, as I've stated I was never 100% sure about what I said..."
I never meant it in the sense of thinking I'm infallible. Rather, I sure enough I'm right to say what I say, which I presume is what you're doing too. If you're simply not that sure, then why make statements as though they are fact?
"however there's more evidence on the left side (that I can comprehend/take in) ..."
Well, that's what the left likes to think, but I beg to differ.
"so for now unless your side comes up with a convincing argument that's not exaggerated and doesn't dehumanize people, I'd rather be a left" "
In other words, unless my side does what your side often won't do, then you won't listen? It's the left that call us names, like transphobics, and worse, and tries to silence people on the other side rather than listen to them. That's why we have the term "cancel culture", because the left do this as a matter of routine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CliffBurton-py2jc Further, it's also based on a fallacy. Men and women typically or on average differ from each other (in ways other than the purely physical). But those differences are not defining ones, and there is a lot of overlap, with both men and women sharing the same characteristics to at lest some extent. Yet the trans activists treat them as defining. So if women typically take on more caring roles, for example, then a man that likes caring for others thinks that makes him a woman. (Yes, that's a gross simplification, but I'm illustrating the principle.) But caring for others is only typically done by women, not exclusively so. So a man that cares is not evidence at all of that man actually being a woman.
In fact, I'd like to know how to reconcile these two arguments, both put to me by the same person: a) Apart from some physical differences, there is no difference between men and women; b) a trans woman (for example) is a man who considers that he is really a woman in a man's body. But how can b) be true if a) is true? The two ideas are incompatible.
1
-
1