Re: 5 Questions for Atheists

[Kingjne92]

hah she removed the video

[mystic81006]

So then all you care for is sex then? wow, what good moral values,goes to show what the world would be like if you ran the world,lol.just kidding

[thenvdude]

why do u think god has to be this dude who expects you to pray to it?cant it be something like just matter that created the spark for the big bang?

if god expects u to pray to it then god is an asshole

[Rodrigo71359]

your retarded drunk

[jukiluti]

You're a fuck.

[r0535mau]

You are fucked up..

[avp715]

wtf...

73.122% serious mode 12.4001% sarcastic mode... ?

[ModelAnarchist]

Don't get me wrong, I'd bang her, but I'd don't thinks she is all that hot

[EvolvedOutlaw]

I'd fuck the fear of "god" out of her.

[limmywinks]

Subscribed.

[nemanxtube]

100% like this "L" u..

[uglyengineer]

Oh, throwing around that pedophile comment btw, that's precious. You probably pull the wings off of butterflies after you lose arguments with them as well...

[deathbox8394]

1- haven't lost

2- i said that before we started "argueing"

3- butterflys are hard to catch

[uglyengineer]

Haven't lost what? A simple, idiotic rhetoric that you defend by calling people pedophiles?

Your past use of that word is legitimized by your continued use of it?

Ignoring point 3, your obviously out of your depth, why don't you run along before I make you look even stupider?

[deathbox8394]

wikipedia? wow, i can tell how much legit research you do, considering how the big bang violates multiple laws of sceince, quite a hypocrit and pedofile

[D4Shawn]

Which theory do you prefer over the "big bang"?

[deathbox8394]

Creation Theory, personal

[D4Shawn]

So you don't think Creation Theory "violates multiple laws of science"?

[deathbox8394]

nope, you can't put laws of the universe on an un-universal being, like for an example: in the UK your not subject to USA laws

[uglyengineer]

Huh? You want to expand on that little theory there sport? I'd comment, but I want to make sure I read ya correctly. You seem to be implying that becuase you don't believe it that means it doesn't exist, or shit to that extent?

Woah, never heard that argument before, but I want to make damn sure I understand ya correctly there...

[deathbox8394]

about evolution? im assuming thats what you mean

Cells arising from "primordial soup" is Spontaneous Creation, which was proved wrong like 600 years ago, but its "science" when you use it for your Theory?

a single spinning atom exploding and making the universe violates several scientifical laws, and its outcomes make no sense if that was indeed its origin for example: we have planets/moon that spin in oposite ways, which if they came from 1 spinning atom, they shouldn't

[uglyengineer]

"...Spontaneous Creation"

Your greatly simplifying the process, but never the less, yeah, that's very difficult theory compared to an absent entity who created every thing in 6 days 6000 years ago...

[uglyengineer]

@deathbox8394: "about evolution? im assuming thats what you mean..."

You need assume nothing. Everything I'm writing here is in response to things you've said, so go back over your own record if you need further understanding;

"nope, you can't put laws of the universe on an un-universal being, like for an example: in the UK your not subject to USA laws"

You may want to temper what exactly you mean here before I rip this argument to shreds.

[deathbox8394]

i'd liek to see that, and im assuming by "theory" you ment evolution, you could be talking about something else, and what i ment was god can't break universal laws because he isn't subjagated to them, just as in the UK i can't be held responsable to USA laws, since im not subjecgated to them in the UK, if that clears it up

[uglyengineer]

I used the word to describe YOUR words:

YOU: :nope, you can't put laws of the universe on an un-universal being, like for an example: in the UK your not subject to USA laws "

MY VERY NEXT RESPONSE: "Huh? You want to expand on that little theory there sport?"

I'M TRYING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY BUT IF YOUR GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE STUPID I MIGHT AS WELL NOT EVEN DEAL WITH YOUR SHIT.

Are we on the same page now? When I used the word was I talking evolution?

[deathbox8394]

wh yare you flipping out? yes i beleive so, now tae a nap and a chill pill and we can continue

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"Spontaneous Creation"**

It's called spontaneous generation. Yes, it was falsified by Louis Pasteur.

**"...but its 'science' when you use it for your Theory?"

Now you're talking about abiogenesis, which is not a theory but a collection of hypotheses about how organic compounds might have first emerged from extant matter. See:

watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Your silly claim about retrograde motion is Claim CE260.1 at the TalkOrigins archive and a straw-man of the big bang theory.

[D4Shawn]

I'm a little confused.

What do you mean by "being"?

A "being" is something that exists within a universe, right?

Could you define your terms please?

[MindlessGlitch]

"nope, you can't put laws of the universe on an un-universal being, like for an example: in the UK your not subject to USA laws"

You're absolutely right. I have a pet asshole, it exists outside all time and space. It floats around, and is basically your typical ass minus the rest of the body. I named it Assbutt. You can't apply the laws of the universe on it because it is not of this universe.

[deathbox8394]

wow, nice strawman, your just proving how your losing now

[MindlessGlitch]

I'm not the one arguing, I just wanted to mock you. Ironic that you would use the word "proving," considering you have no proof about a "being" that exists without the laws of the universe.

[deathbox8394]

mock what? how idiotic you are?

[Davidbasque15]

@deathbox8394 Man in the bible or whatever book you read it's written more or less " god created this like that and bam" so don't try to invent things to suit your belief. Fact is religion can't explain the creation and science can't explain it too, the difference is that a scientist can admit he don't know everything instead of trying to fill the gap with fantasy.

[uglyengineer]

Well HOLYCHRIST why am I not surprised this clown has an issue with a well-known and perfectly reasonable description of the early universe?

[uglyengineer]

Nothin' funnier than a wanna-be wigger.

[JamesWolfe08]

Really nothing funnier than a 34 year old dude hitting on a 15 year old chick on the internet.....

Fail

[uglyengineer]

@JamesWolfe08 hits us with a witty: "Fail"

Fail. Huh. Wtf is that? You go running up to people who find you less than stellar in your analysis and random burblings, yell "fail" in your squeaky. annoying, little voice and go running off laughing I bet.

You probably win all your arguments with the neighborhood children, Oh, excuse me! "In Da Hood," by yelling "Poopie" at the top of your lungs too.

Huh "OG"?

Is your "gat" like a chocolate one or something?

[JamesWolfe08]

Dude what the fuck are you talking about lol

So now I'm a black kid with a squeaky voice in the ghetto?

I'm a 19 year old white guy on an Army base try again ya fat fuck.

I don't really understand why you are so angry, I thought this video was "Fail". As in FAILURE.

As in its sad that 34 year old men hit on teenage girls on the internet during a 5 questions response video....

So sorry my opinion affects you so much but thanks for the laughs.

[jackal0022]

shut the fuck up d4shawn is the froggin best guy in utube

[D4Shawn]

"Fail"

How does being funny (as both you and uglyengineer attest) constitute failure?

Y'all are like... "Hey, this is funny... and that's bad."

What's wrong with humor?

[AdolescentAntiTheist]

Oh yeah? There's nothing wrong with humor? This is a little known fact, but the nazis were just brilliant satirists. So brilliant, in fact, that they killed over 900 billion Jewish people. It's not so funny now, is it?

[lambystuff]

nice shawn.

she's not even hot though

[rainskullvids]

Plants are exactly like animals, therefore we should kill as many animals as possible.

My goodness, what a wonderful argument, 2rocker4u!

[oojamaflipper]

13:50.. ur right, but there IS such a thing as ping and pong

[freedom0f5peech]

You should be more honest.

[Finiras]

8,5!? more like 7 :P

o btw i doubt that she understands the words subjective and objective

[withoutleaders]

Did you try posting this as a response?

[D4Shawn]

Yes. She hasn't sign into YouTube in a day.

[withoutleaders]

lol keeping tabs I see.

[D4Shawn]

Well... you asked.

[crazypants88]

I like your thoughts on morality.

Thought provoking.

[thnderstrm716]

"there is no such thing as right and wrong. there are only the consequences of your actions"

love it.

[beeohhski]

just as you have your ideology so does she i belive in god but i dont feel like pushing it on people because people are entitled to their ideology as for science disproving religion and viceversa who cares science is badass i love it and god but like you cant mix them because then you get paradoxes and creationisim makes us christians look ignorant to say theres no evolution is to say that birds cant fly cause they arent angels which is dumb as hell anyway who gives a shit dinosaurs are dead

[uglyengineer]

Attempting to disprove theology is a real problem and usually doomed to failure. And I really don't have a problem with people running to religion if they want. I start to have a problem when theists say creationism or this silly intelligent design crap has to be taught in school. That's a real problem for a number of reasons.

[bwhahrhr]

I feel the need to debate the 8/10 you gave her. A 4 at best (i.e. me being drunk and horny as hell).

[D4Shawn]

She just need a new hairdo and she'll be pretty smokin'.

[rainskullvids]

That hairdo of hers is so god damn awful.

[D4Shawn]

We should figure out what kind of hairdo she needs and then give her a makeover.

[penguinworm]

Christ. What would be a 10/10 for you?

[bwhahrhr]

A smart, charismatic women?

[penguinworm]

Oh, then your rating makes more sense. Though it makes me slightly more uncomfortable to know that you guys are also grading women's personalities. ;)

[Dangerman5]

Hot Christians are great for some reason.

[D4Shawn]

It's because they are forbidden fruit, and a challenge to corrupt. It's one thing to deflower a body. It's another thing to corrupt an immortal soul.

[beeohhski]

i love corrupting imortal souls

[Dangerman5]

Knowing right and wrong is a natural evolutionary instinct. If everybody decided to just kill everybody then we shouldn't last very long. We also have intelligents which means we can look down on the rules of human nature from above.

[D4Shawn]

There's a lot I could say about that:

1) If 70% of people have instinct X, there's no reason why the other 30% "should" adopt that instinct. You can't get an "ought" from an "is", and as far as I'm concerned, "morality" (for it to be morality) must be prescriptive (not simply descriptive).

2) The only thing intelligence will tell us about any give action, is whether or not it is practical/effective in relation to a specific goal.

3) One person (or some people) killing, /= everybody killing.

[angryislander56]

NO TOOTH FAIRY!!!

wtf are you talking about??

Heathen zeus boy

[Sarahon06]

oh and one more thing. How do you drink that shit? @ Bonnaroo they gave me a glass of that shit as a sub for blue moon. It tastes like it's been pickled in rat piss. :P

[Sarahon06]

"I'd do er. I'm just bein' honest."

lol

[junior00bacon00chee]

haha jesus this bitch is lazier than me. takes two seconds to type "evolution" into a search engine.

you like those sierra ipa's. you ever had bigfoot? it's sierra's new barley wine. tastes like bug spray.

[vezrig]

How can you say she's hot? Her voice is annoyin' as fuck. "Kheeeeer," "humanidee," "eetheeist,"  "wherdwibidal-gwome fwom," "respwonhse" "gwoing," "big beng," "natheeng," "kheemens," "eedeeng," "immonhral," the list goes on.

[TheNakedAtheist]

I soooooo agree. I can't stand her voice, or looking at her. That tongue clicking thing or whatever it is she does is so annoying.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"...fucking the Smurfs..."**

You sick bastard.

[crazypants88]

I call quotemining! :Þ

[hollytoo]

Somehow I don't see any mayo being broken out here.

[NoCryingNowYes]

Morality is no more an illusion than economics or mathematics are.

Morality is a system of protection of common law, negatively enforced by threat of isolation, sought and agreed by individuals in their own self interest.

[D4Shawn]

So it's only "immoral" if you get caught, right?

[NoCryingNowYes]

No, it's immoral either way. Just because you kill someone and don't get caught doesn't mean it's not illegal.

However if you don't get caught and nobody knows, you don't face the external consequences, if that's what you meant.

[D4Shawn]

Well... you're either equating "morality" with "legality" or "practicality". I was just trying to determine which one. It doesn't matter though.

[NoCryingNowYes]

I gave my definition already

[NoCryingNowYes]

It's neither. It's just an agreement between people. A contract. The purpose of which is to incentive practical behaviors and deter impractical ones, in regards to the interaction between individuals as it regards to violence and deceit.

[NoCryingNowYes]

I'm down with the whole inter subjective consensus view. I just think that some inter subjective consensuses are objectively better than others in terms of practicality.

[D4Shawn]

So your version of morality is essentially descriptive (rather than prescriptive).

You're saying: There's this thing called practicality, and then there's a subset of practicality called "practicality insofar as it relates to what I think people should do [which is just a category you create according to your goals/preferences]).

[D4Shawn]

That's a bit of a circular argument (self-fulfilling prophecy). Obviously, if you disincentivize certain behaviors, those behaviors become less practical.

[D4Shawn]

See... here's the thing:

Essentially, you're saying this:

Morality means doping what mot people think you should do.

The problem however, is that you can never turn that into an "ought".

There's no basis upon which you can argue that one should do what other people want them to.

As such, I would never call what you describe as morality (because it's not prescriptive).

The only way you could make prescriptive is by saying, "It's just my OPINION that people should...".

[NoCryingNowYes]

It's descriptive. But you can derive an "ought" from the combination of an "if" and a bunch of "is".

[D4Shawn]

That's just called "practicality". Personally, I think there are numerous problems with saying something like, "Putting the turkey in the oven when you want to freeze it is immoral."

I don't think there is any intellectually honest reason why one would replace terms such as "practical", "effective", and 'efficient" with moral terms.

The ONLY reason I've ever seen anybody use moral terminology is to hide the fact that all they are talking about are their personal preferences.

[NoCryingNowYes]

"Putting the turkey in the oven when you want to freeze it is immoral."

I don't say that. Morality relates to acts of violence between individuals. Putting a turkey in the oven has nothing to do with that.

[D4Shawn]

Every time somebody talks bout morality, ALL they are talking about are the following two things:

a) basic practicality/prgmtism, and

b) their personal preferences

The only thing moral terminology does, is allow people to obscure what they re talking about and attempt to pass their preferences off as facts.

[NoCryingNowYes]

The IS:

1) A society where individuals constantly shoot each other at random or to take each other's possessions will be one where life is short and violent, where there is basically no production, resources will run out and almost everyone will die within a short period of time.

2) If the intersubjective consensus of the area repudiates this type of behavior, most people won't find it in their own self interest to behave this way and so they won't.

[NoCryingNowYes]

(continued from The IS:)

3) If the intersubjective consensus of the area does NOT repudiate this type of behavior, most people will probably find it in their own self interest to behave this way and so they probably will.

The if and ought: Therefore, *if* the majority of people want to live long, relaxed, peaceful lives where they possess a lot of resources, they (as a group) ought to morally repudiate this behavior.

[NoCryingNowYes]

That doesn't tell you that the individual ought to repudiate this behavior as well, but using a similar reasoning you can come to the conclusion that there is a huge incentive for the individual to do this as well.

[Chameleon41]

And if the individual doesn't value long life and peacefulness, are their destructive and violent actions still immoral?

Your opening gambit was that morality is simply the guard of common law. If there is no law, then is there no morality?

[NoCryingNowYes]

"And if the individual doesn't value long life and peacefulness, are their destructive and violent actions still immoral?"

Yeah. Morality pertains to groups or societies.

"Your opening gambit was that morality is simply the guard of common law. If there is no law, then is there no morality?"

I wouldn't say it's "the" guard, but it's "a" guard. If there are no commonly shared preferences, there can be no morality.

[NoCryingNowYes]

"That's a bit of a circular argument (self-fulfilling prophecy). Obviously, if you disincentivize certain behaviors, those behaviors become less practical."

Indeed, and that's a very interesting point.

But the practicality of the behavior towards society will continue to exist whether or not it is disincentivized.

For example, today it's useful for individuals to use fiat money because everybody does, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for society as a whole to do it. Same w/ YouTube.

[Chameleon41]

A contract? How is one entered into this contract? If a person doesn't agree to participate in this contract, are their illegal actions still immoral?

[NoCryingNowYes]

"How is one entered into this contract?"

Individuals choose to enforce the contract or not in each particular situation. If I have a friend and she starts scamming people, I won't be her friend anymore.

"If a person doesn't agree to participate in this contract, are their illegal actions still immoral?"

Yeah.

[lnd3005]

Cute as a button.

[PinkFloydDroid88]

hahaha, i love this video, bwahahhaha!!!!

[theVAGINAtheist]

Yo Shawn, we should DP 2rocker4u.

Me and you.

Tag-team.

[D4Shawn]

Totally.

[spawk1993]

Just for the record , the bible doesnt say not to have premarital sex, thats a lie churches started. Its says not to commit adultery, if you look up the definition thats when some ones whos married has sex with someone who there not married to, point this out to christian girls lol. btw if you have to explain the word subjective, do you really think she'll get ethical nihilism? lol

[CallMeCammack]

i worship D4Shawn

[K2xR]

Great video!

: D

[tgseason12]

Yeeah! Poor little girl, 2rocker4u.