Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
@phillipstroll7385
"Pay special attention to that which is recorded to have been said by God and Jesus and not so much of what Paul says."
The entire Bible—including Paul's parts—were inspired by God. They are all God's words.
"I'm merely stating what is written..."
No, you're misrepresenting what's written. Some of it is sort of correct, but much isn't.
"...good looked down on all that which he created, every bird in the sky, every animal, every plant every being with disgust and decided to destroy it all. That was before the supposed sin of man."
Absolutely false. It was after sin. About 1600 years after.
"Also, whom exactly created sin? Man or God?"
Sin is rebellion against God. It's a bit like asking who created darkness, when darkness is not a "thing", but an absence of light.
"Just that I have no reason to believe there is one."
And yet there are many reasons. You either haven't looked or you've dismissed them for no good reasons.
"For example: morality was defined long before religion was even created. Any religion btw, not just the hewbraic one."
That conclusion is based on an atheist view of the history of the world, assuming that "religion was ... created" after morality was defined. What's your hard evidence for that? The "Hebraic" religion (Judaism) traces back through Moses to Joseph and Israel to Isaac to Abraham to Noah to Adam. And God. So no, "religion" did not came later. Belief in the creator God has been there from the very beginning.
"The same laws and commandments in the Bible along with every biblical story in the Bible predates the Bible by thousands of years."
According to what chronology? The biblical one or an atheist/secular one?
"Case in point. God is all for abortion. The Bible is very clear on this."
Utter rubbish. And I note that you don't cite anything in support.
"Neither God nor Jesus ever said anything about forgiveness of sins..."
What about where Jesus actually forgives sins Himself?
"People claim the ten commandments God spoke are invalid negate Jesus came in fulfillment."
Sorry, but that's barely coherent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The King of Nature
"PragerU failing at life advice we get stuff like Brad Wilcox telling you to marry and have kids extremely early without financial security, because some guy in the military ended up making 6 figures that way."
I take it you're referring to the video titled "Is Marriage Good for Men?"
The first issue I see with your claim is that you reckon he made his claim on the basis of one example. That is patently false.
"This means that all your freedom in career options is just gone,…"
It does? Since when?
"…your boss can exploit you however they want because you need to have a job or your wife and kids (yes this video is aimed at men specifically) will suffer the consequences."
That is an unjustified criticism. There is nothing (in principle, and it's principles that we are talking about here) stopping the person from leaving that job for another.
"The guy in the video also didn't have a useful degree or anything, he was extremely irresponsible and he got lucky."
The example case? That was just an example, as I've pointed out. The argument was NOT based on a single example.
"Telling people to start a family before you have the job security you need, one that you might not be able to afford and one where the wife doesn't work (which is implied) will probably backfire and give you a one way ticket into poverty."
Well, he's done the research. Where's yours to show he's wrong?
"…this kind of thinking will ensure that every problem without a personal solution, that won't solve itself is guaranteed to stay."
"ensure"? How so?
"PragerU supports socio-economically right wing policies…"
And there your bias is displayed. It's not their arguments that you disagree with, but their worldview. If they are "right wing", then they MUST be wrong.
"…as well as "personal responsibility"."
Yep. A characteristic of the Judeo-Christian ethic that underlies Western Civilisation that has made it the freest, most successful, civilisation the world has seen.
"So when something like global warming comes along, where personal solutions are only a small part of fixing the actual problem and the rest of it is about holding coorporations accountable,…"
Why isn't that a case of holding those individual corporations personally accountable?
"…it's not hard to see why PragerU's policies and climate change denial go hand in hand."
Are you saying that PragerU denies that the climate changes?
"They get one expert (Richard Lindzen) in the field of climate physics to agree with them,…"
Did he agree with them, or them with him? After all, if he's the expert, presumably they are his own views. And what's your point anyway? That they picked one when they could have picked many?
"…his sources for why climate change is not a big deal are obviously biased,…"
I completely agree with that. His sources are obviously biased towards the evidence and the truth, unlike the bias of the climate change alarmists who are not actually interested in climate change but in tearing down the basis of Western Civilisation.
"…sometimes literally just his own opinions…"
Okay, the opinions of experts don't count now?
"These are only two examples of PragerU giving advice…"
So I thought you were trying to say that they give bad advice? You haven't shown that. All you've done is present your own competing opinions.
"But that's the thing, I actually pick apart positions from my opponents."
You mean like I'm doing with yours?
"The videos where you can find these are titled "be a man, get married" "fix yourself" and "climate change, what do the scientists say"."
Now you tell me! Hang on while I check those ones out.
Oh, the first one is the one I watched, with a different title. So I've taken care of that one.
On the Peterson one, you have misrepresented him. The video is not about all the problems of the world, but the personal problems individuals have in their relationships. There is nothing in there that talks about how one should or should not tackle larger issues, nor that all issues can be solve by individuals. You're criticising it for what it doesn't say about things that it's not talking about!
On the climate change one, I see that PragerU (assuming that this represents their view) does NOT deny that the climate changes. Rather, the video talks about the non-scientists pushing the alarmism, plus the group of scientists who are part of that climate alarmism.
"That's how you can tell that none of these are strawmen."
You know, the nice thing about critics who get specific, such as mentioning an actual video, is that you can more readily check them out and potentially find out, as in this case, that they ARE actually straw-men.
"While you did the "the left does/says:" trick twice in this very discussion already."
What trick? You have misrepresented the videos, thereby supporting my comment. Which I made only once, by the way.
"For all I know, you're arguing against positions no one actually holds."
It seems that I was arguing against positions that you hold, so I guess you now know.
1
-
@The King of Nature
"…they value job security more from which it logically follows that they value financial freedom less."
It does? How? I'd think that the opposite follows. Financial freedom comes from having money to do what you want, not from being free to quit a job and be without work for a while.
"Because the ability to take financial risks is smaller."
When you don't have financial freedom.
"Starting a family before having the job security you need to sustain it isn't a one way ticket into poverty but it is a horrible and incredibly selfish descision regardless."
In your opinion. I don't believe that it follows.
"If you fail to get a stable high enough income, you didn't just screw over yourself but your spouse and children as well."
Living involves taking risks. I'm not disputing that there is a risk to it, but there's also a risk to not doing it. There being a risk doesn't mean that its "horrible and incredibly selfish".
"…you are talking about principle, I'm talking about moral/logical descision making. He can in principle abandon his family as well,"
My use of "in principle" did not mean "in theory", but more along the lines of a principled decision, i.e. moral. I equated it to "talking about principles ".) So no, your "in principle abandon his family" is not the equivalent of my use of it; you're using the word in a different way.
"…the issue is that he shouldn't, just like he shouldn't quit his job without a new one because that can horribly backfire on himself and other people."
Abandoning his family is morally wrong. Quitting his job without a new one may (or may not) be unwise, but it's not morally wrong. He may not have a definite new one, but likely prospects, or his family might agree that it's worth taking the risk. Or he might have some other fall-back plan.
"Well he says that we shouldn't look to fix the world, and only ourselves. He literally says "a proper way to fix the world isn't to fix the world"."
He does. But again, the focus of the video is on personal problems, so this is a side comment. Secondly, it doesn't follow that "every problem without a personal solution, that won't solve itself is guaranteed to stay". If everyone fixes themselves, then what problems remain?
"So anything that doesn't have a personal solution, we shouldn't attempt to solve, leaving the problem solving itself as our only remaining option."
I'll concede a minor point. But only minor. In other videos, I'm sure he says that you can fix other problem, once you're learned how to fix your own. And this video is not a comprehensive treatment of the topic, but just a quick look focusing on fixing personal problems. P.S. I've since noticed that you later agree that this is not a major point.
"…this single line is just a total blunder."
So it's just a single-sentence blunder, not evidence of PragerU not teaching life skills.
"Ah yes the good old assuming intent."
You're the one that brought up political position.
"It is an obvious fact that PragerU supports socio-economically right wing policies."
I'm sure that they also support eating breakfast and driving on the correct side of the road, and a whole host of things, but you chose to mention that one as though it was relevant. It wasn't just a random fact.
"They're ill-equipped to handle climate change due to their stances on not trying to solve larger problems and them being capitalists..."
What stance on not trying to solve larger problems? You've conceded that Peterson's line was just a blunder, not (apparently) a deliberate or key point. And capitalist societies have the best record on protecting the environment, so supporting capitalism does not mean that you're opposed to "handling" climate change.
"...but the biggest reason is that they're funded by oil billionaires so don't lecture me about bias."
Why not? What's wrong with being funded by oil billionaires? Why even mention that if not for bias against that sort of funding?
"Please cite the many experts who agree with Lindzen.."
No way am I going to try and track down a comprehensive list, but Peter Ridd, the late Bob Carter, and Ian Plimer (although I'm no fan of his), are among them. P.S. I just happened across some more: Lennart O. Bengtsson, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, and Nir J. Shaviv.
"That's the most childlike bastardisation of the climate debate I have ever seen."
Except that it's not.
"Do you have ANYTHING to back up these wild claims about the "alarmists" intentions,..."
Of course. Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden said:
“And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.”
But if you want to dismiss him as a crank or outsider, then this is what German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said:
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
"If the expert in question uses his own opinion as a source for his own opinion than he shouldn't be taken seriously."
What's your evidence that he's doing that rather than expressing an expert view?
"And a paper with "do not cite" written on every page but you're still casually ignoring that."
Your claim was vague. What paper? And what's your evidence as to why it has that?
"Yes this is subjective, "
So the claim is meaningless.
"Lindzens video doesn't imply that climate change isn't real. It implies that the damage won't be so bad..."
Which you misleadingly label as "climate changed denial"
" "sponsored by oil billionaires" ."
So? Is that worse than being sponsored by leftist governments? And some oil companies are on board with the climate alarmism, so simply being oil billionaires proves little. And at least they are spending their own money and not the taxpayers'.
"well to that you would reply "Okay, the opinions of experts don't count now?" "
No, I would point out that views are divided (plus a whole lot other things).
"But seriously are we just going to ignore his sources for saying all of this... again."
We shouldn't. But then we shouldn't ignore the sources of the alarmists either. Nor their biases, nor their funding, nor their failed predictions. Nor the non-empirical aspect of basing so much on computer models.
"…and one by Lawrence Solomon.... the executive director of Energy Probe which is another lobbying organisation."
And being involved with a lobbying organisation means that he can't know what he's talking about. Okay, I see the logic there.
"he rest of this source list is a disaster, see for yourself: "
What's disastrous about it? I see it includes Bjorn Lomborg and the IPCC. I forgot to mention Lomborg earlier.
"They're not the main points of the video's, but they're still claims within them (not strawmen)…"
Given that one was a blunder, and you've not shown I'm wrong on the others, then no, they are still strawmen.
"And any critic who doesn't get specific is no true critic, that's just debunking positions while not being sure if anyone actually holds them, what would be the point of that?"
I'd say "attempting to debunk" rather than "debunking", but otherwise yes, I agree with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JonGreen91
At first glance, that all sounds very reasonable. But looking a bit closer, I disagree.
First, I think a question here is what does "proven" mean? You can prove something logically, but that assumes the accuracy of the premises. Science doesn't do proofs, so we can discard that one. A criminal court attempts to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. A civil court attempts to prove things on the basis of which is more likely.
You have said "beyond reasonable doubt", implying that you're referring to something akin to criminal court proof. But criminal proof is deliberately biased. It's designed to allow the guilty to go free rather than convict the innocent.
So is that biased process really the type of proof that is reasonable here? Why not civil court proof?
Second, proof, in such cases, is a matter of being convinced by the evidence. A judge is supposed to be unbiased. Ideally, a jury is also unbiased, at least as a group. But are all of us? Is an atheist going to be convinced of the existence of God strictly on the basis of probabilities, or is he going to choose the biased 'beyond reasonable doubt' option? Or even a 'beyond all doubt' option? Because most atheists I talk to seem to want one of those last two options, because they are biased against the idea of God.
Third, we cannot each individually 'prove' all things. So we rely on trust, or faith. For example, there are thousands of peer-reviewed science papers published each year. We cannot personally 'prove' all of them, or even anything beyond a tiny fraction of them. Rather, we trust (or have faith in) the scientists and/or the publishers and the peer-review process. So we accept the outcomes as true. (Or not, if we don't have that faith.)
Fourth, facts are facts regardless of whether or not we are convinced of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NicolSD
You're incorrect. First, the concept of intelligent design was around well before that, although possibly used mainly used by creationists. The term itself also has a history long predating the 1989 Of Pandas and People. Second, there were books espousing the concept before Of Pandas and People. Books such as The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (1984) which, apparently, used the term. Then there was Denton's 1985 Evolution, a theory in crisis written by an evolutionist but which is considered a book in the ID camp. As a creationist, I bought that book around the time it it came out, but knowing full well it wasn't a creationist book (the author rejects the Genesis account).
Of Pandas and People probably gave the term and the concept a much wider audience, but it was NOT the first such book, as you claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unvoicedrocktx3739
"What's funny about 616,377 Dead Americans?"
I never said that it was funny. Rather the opposite, actually.
"The republickan party and their "dear leader" killed them with their corrupt and incompetent response to Covid-19."
Nonsense.
"There are currently just under 2000 Covid-19 deaths in South Korea, because South Korea didn't have donald trump leading their response."
Non-sequitur. A isn't the same as B, therefore X is the cause. But you haven't shown that.
"...a republickan party more interested in pleasing their "leader"..."
Given the amount of opposition to Trump from within the party, even that claim is quite disputable.
"South Koreans did the rational and responsible things to mitigate the spread of a pandemic on a personal level whenever they could... "
As did Trump. For one, he stopped flights from China, and was vilified by the left for doing so.
"Hmm... no national lock down,..."
Lock downs have been shown in various studies to have no effect, and Trump didn't have the power to do that anyway. America is a federation of states, and much of the power belongs to the states (which is probably unlike South Korea).
"...no national mask rule,..."
Again, he didn't have the authority. And of course Fauci originally said that they didn't work.
"...no self-quarantining if you're exposed to Covid-19, and you don't want a vaccination?"
If you're exposed to it, getting a vaccination is too late. But again, the authority for that lies with the states. And various Democrat-run states bungled it big-time. But for political/ideological reasons, you're blaming Trump instead. Trump, by the way, sped up the development of a vaccine, despite the left saying that it couldn't be done.
"Must be a selfish, childish republickan that hates America."
Trying to be a comedian again? It's the left that hates America, at least in the sense of what it stands for and what its values are.
1
-
1
-
@100percentSNAFU
"Agreed, in no way is the existence of God proven..."
On the contrary, it is proven in some ways.
"so scientifically you cannot say as such, however religion works on belief and not proof."
Christianity works on faith, which is trust, based on trustworthiness, which is based on evidence. We believe God because what He says that can be checked is true. We believe Jesus is God because that's what the evidence points to. And "belief" simply means agreeing to an idea; it doesn't require that the belief be baseless. So although I've never been there, I can accurately say that I believe that America exists.
"Yes, no man has seen, touched, or proven that God exists."
Apart from Adam, Moses, the people who saw and touched Jesus, and more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackknightjack3850 What makes you so sure that that is the only thing that justifies that sort of comment? Lots of people have that view, and most, I would suggest, are not being paid by fossil fuel interests. One reason for saying that is that fossil fuels, unlike solar and wind, are very good for providing baseload power, i.e. not subject to the sun shining or the wind blowing.
And you're still not justifying most of your claim. Rather, you make a claim, get challenged on it, then ignore that and make another claim. On the few occasions that you do try and justify a claim, it's on the basis of baseless assumptions, such as in this case of reckoning that there could not be any other reason for his views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1