The First Amendment applys only to Congress. The individual states could make a state religion if they chose to do so. Should they, probably not. But to take your agrument to it's full realization is to say that all members of the govenment should be Athists... but even that wouldn't work since the Supreme Court defines Atheism as a religion. Can't win, can you?
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.
(continued) This ignorance hinders understanding and indeed breeds intolerance, and the condescending tones which you use towards it, indeed shows the same bigoted and exceptionalistic attitudes present on both sides in the religious- non-religious debates. And contrary to what you say, while criticizing may not show intolerance, insulting a religion definitely demonstrates this intolerance.
I don't think that Crowder was talking about the norms of Morality like "no murder or theft". I think he was talking about the fact that the founding fathers of the country believed that the rights of the individual come from a higher power than man (God) and are thus unalienable. BTW, I'm agnostic and don't really care about religion. I'm just not going to deny that the founders of this country did.
Aye, but that's because no wholly secular political philosophy really existed at that point in time. At that time, 'natural philosophy' was intimately bound up with theology, things that were natural were 'divine' by definition. However, the founding fathers' beliefs don't fit into christian thought, they belong to the enlightenment tradition.
So when a liberal refers to Christianity as "a death cult that infected Europe" he's making social commentary. When a conservative does the same of Islam he's branded as a bigot (and rightfully so). So therefore let me hold you as a liberal to the same standard as I hold conservatives and say that you are a bigoted ignorant prick.
@JmkLcAeJsm Criticizing the actions of a religion is entirely legitimate and I encourage you make a video where you whine about everything which Christianity has done- it'd be a long video. Yet when Atheists criticize a religion like Christianity calling it a "death cult" thats simply showing the same ignorance and intolerance which you condemn in other religions. The only difference is that you in your eyes have a justifiable grounds to do so... just like every other religion has claimed.
Being ignorant of a religion, I find, is more likely to beget tolerance than knowledge of it is. Insulting something does not display intolerance anyway, and I don't particularly object to the childish slagging matches/debates that theists have with each other.
I don't see how christians can possibly object to their religion being called a death cult. It is a cult without a shadow of a doubt, as all religions are by definition, and it focuses on death.
@JmkLcAeJsm The fact that you don't see why Christians would object to their religion as being refered to as a death cult. And the fact the you believe Christianity focuses on death (which is a wholly over simplistic and incorrect representation of the religion which I would love to discuss should you be willing). Shows your ignorance of Christianity.
The fact that you see all religions as a cult. Shows the ignorance which you view religion from. (see next post)
I bet that crowder doesn't know the actual basis of the constitution such as the Magna Carta and Hammurabi's code, the latter predates Christianity by a few thousand years. What a chicken hawk that guy is.
Nobody's perfect, and I agree that S.C.s theocratic notions are absurd. But I do agree with his political opinions, especially as reguards Obama and the libdiots who worship him. Me, I skip the religeous (bibliot) bits and watch the cynical and humorous political stuff; he's a riot!
I may be a day late, and a dollar short here, but what the hell. I enjoy Crowder, not always agree on everything. I always found the social concepts interesting. What creates inherent guilt for wrong doing? Would not a social animal, in need of social cohesiveness for survival, inherently feel something wrong for anti-social behavior? Even though, I do find humans to be mold breakers, ever since they advanded far enough to break away from social reliance.
You sir are a jack ass. If I have time some day, I may point out the absurdity of some of the things you have said in this video....and sorry about the" jack ass" thing. I got a little heated by your ignorant, pontificating,insipid,pompous,babbling that I had a hard time controlling my self for a second.
Go for it, I don't mind being insulted, and I actually enjoy having my ideas challenged. Over the years I've got so used to people calling names when they can't respond to my ideas I don't really notice any more.
I do believe Crowder was referencing to how the country was founded by Christians. It is true that many Christian principles are shared by other religions, but that doesn't make them any less Christian. Put them on a Venn diagram and see for yourself.
It makes them universal, which means that calling them uniquely christian is ridiculous. When Crowder claims that values that inform the US law are 'christian' in origin, he is talking crap.
Ya, cause Morals in government? Who wants that. Faith based principles in government is fine. Give me an example of what crowder said to make you believe this?
1. he never said that the Judeo-christian ideals our fore-fathers thought of when making the constitution were about killing and stealing, that was just your assumption.
2. I wish you could have said what article of the constitution your aforementioned quote about the separation of church and state is from.
1. Neither Steven, nor I said anything about laws. It was simply that a Christian ethic that the founding fathers shared was the motivation and strong belief in freedom.
2. that didn't answer my question. All you did was restate what you said in your video, you didn't tell me what artivle of the constitution that's from.
'But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.'
@JmkLcAeJsm Just watched through all of crowders videos (I am a small government kind of guy tbh... Altough I am also an atheist and don't agree to all he says they were kinda funny and interesting..) And when I got to this one I remembered that he was the guy you argued with in this video xD Nice to see you are still around the youtubes but I hope you make some more videos soon... You make really interesting ones :)
Oh and because I had some spare time I watched some of your better videos again, they actually where better now after I've read more about philosophy than I had last time I watched it ^_^
it's a "deist", not diest. read what tham means - does it sound like the christian god who pardons sin and sends his son to save the world? hilarious.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
direct quote. no religion in government. rights from god? how exactly?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
your ignorance amuses me, tell me why liberal pansy's, like yourself never show your face. Is it because you secretly know your full of shit, please grow some balls do some research.
So your entire argument is based on the fact that I haven't bothered to buy a camera? Is that literally all you feel you need to point out that's wrong with my position?
Notice I don't insult crowder and co, just refute their arguments. Who's more likely to be right, the one slinging insults or the one advancing fact-supported arguments?
The values refered to by crowder are not "do not murder" or "do not steal", for indeed, everyone believes these, but values like: the place of goverment (goverment serves the people, not the other way around), private stewardship (what is mine does not belong to the goverment), the corruption of man (the need to place checks and balances in order for people in power), and values like these. The fact is that whether "america" is christian or not, it's founder's convictions primarily were.
'Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesars'
'Slaves, be obedient unto your masters'
Just two quotes from a bible filled with other radical liberal, progressive statements. And all of those things have clear and present secular origins, read your Locke, read your Mill.
the first quote is saying that people should be responsable citizens.
the second quote isn't in proper context. slavery back then wasn't what we think of. most "slaves" were actually people paying off a debt through working. and even if the person was "oppressed", the verse right before that tells masters to NOT abuse their power, and the context says to act honorably no matter what circumstances you are in. if you are implying that I don't know my bible, you would be mistaken.
Crowder said the US was founded on J-C values, not the government. The treaty states the "government" is not founded on Christian religion" The US is not the government or vice versa. Sorry to split hairs but there is a difference.
Who is Steven Crowder? Is he in Washington? Is he a writer for a big time Newspaper? Hell no! He's a nobody with a camera, who makes a few appearances of Fox News. Yet liberals feel the need to attack him mercilessly. I LOVE IT! It's quite laughable. It just goes to show how truth can really strike a nerve. If you fascists libs had your way, you'd make Crowder illegal. You hate freedom of speech so bad, unless you can hide behind it yourselves! You are afraid of a man with a camera!
Again, thank you for the laugh! Yet another typical liberal tactic: the misquote. I said nothing about criticism being equal to censorship! YOU put those words in my mouth. LOL! I was making reference to your hatefulness, and name calling. (i.e. you calling me moron even though I didn't call you anything.) When I said "you fascist libs wanted to make Steve Crowder, I meant the fairness doctrine. Let's not be naive here. we both know what that's REALLY about.
Hatefulness is NOT a very effective way to get your point across. Can we be adults? You can disagree with someone a great deal without hating him. Some of my best friends are liberals, Muslims, and gay. I disagree with them on almost everything, but love them dearly. The hatred toward Sarah Palin was completely unfounded and shameful. What exactly did she do to anyone? Disagree with you? OOOO! I believe Obama is leading our country to hell, but I don't hate him. I don't wish for his death.
It is funny how Americans do as they please, are in fact not serving the Lord. Trying their ,monkey best, to raise their status to be equal to the Lord. This act of replacing their own selfish lives in place of God, is like trying to pretend sinning is ok. Pride is the base of all sin. Time to move away from statism and never look back.
Thank you JmkLcAeJsm! I'm glad someone finally took the piss out of that loud-mouthed populist Neocon. His popularity is an indication of how vast mind-blowing ignorance, reactionary-ism and spiteful bigotry has become among the American populace. There's A LOT of ignorant malcontents out there and they have a lot to say unfortunately those who know the least usually talk the most and the loudest.
There should be a channel dedicated to debunking that guy.
The Christian principles Crowder is pointing out, that you are trying to discredit, are not just from a few centuries ago, but from THOUSANDS OF YEARS ago when Jesus Christ established his ministry that brought forth the Grace administration. Which happens to be what we live in and where we get our freedom to support these views. These principles are what allow us to live how we live today. Its a state of mind and belief.
Dude you are such an idiot. Has life gotten better since you liberals convinced people to abandon religion? No in fact it has gotten worse. Have wars ceased being fought? No they haven't. So to place so much blame on religion is just more liberal tactics for your own ends. It seems like you people like nothing better than to try to fix things that were never broken.
"Has life gotten better since you liberals convinced people to abandon religion? No in fact it has gotten worse. "
Speak for yourself man. I for one appreciate what science has given us and the progress we have made in our society. Don't like it? Fine. You can believe whatever you want just keep your religion away from my government.
Society hasn't progressed though. In fact it has gotten worse. There is more crime not less since radical liberals infused their agenda in society. And by the way it isn't your government. I know you liberals think is but it is still my government too. The fact that you think it is you governement goes to show how liberals think they are entitled to everything if they whine and lie enough.
So were you come from you ignore common knowledge facts? Doesn't sound like the people where you come from are all that inteligent then if they ignore facts. The town you live in must be very liberal indeed if it routinely ignores facts just because they don't suit them.
And no I will not retract my claim. We both know that I am right. We both know society has not gotten better and that many of the morals of society have been lost.
How convenient for you to have such a dim view of "common sense". I bet you get to convince yourself of all sorts of things since you just ignore common sense. You are asking me to prove the obvious. I am not going to waste my time looking for studies just to prove what we both already know to be true. BTW in your video against MR.Crowder did you use scientific studies to back up your claims? No you didn't.
Show me scientific evidence that meets your criteria that monkeys are punished for lying by other monkeys as your video claims. Or a scietific peer reveiwed study that shows Nancy Pelosi shares veiws with the ACLU.
Simple interpretation of the first amendment is literal. They cannot prevent the creation or practice of a religion. They had just left a country where the head of the government, the king, was also the head of the church and no choice was allowed for your religion.
Yes humans are social animals and you can claim that laws and social rules would have developed without religion, but the simple truth is that all social laws and rules developed from a religion, which every civilization has.
Yet all religions have most of their basic ethics in common (reciprocity, fairness etc) and these are also found in our ape and monkey relatives, so I see no great creative role for religion in that regard.
Thomas Jefferson's commentary on God being cruel, vengeful, and capricious comes as a bit of a laugh to me considering the man falsified reports of Cherokee integration into white society and paved the way for presidents such as Jackson and VanBuren to initiate horrible injustices on Natives. Jefferson basically came up with the concept of reservations.
I don't think I'll take moral advice from a man who obviously had no morals.
Thank you, JmkLcAeJsm, for taking the time to respond to Crowder. He's so infuriating it's difficult to watch. When I ran across his steaming pile of ill-informed, spiteful, inexplicably popular videos, I became extremely disheartened. We can't allow the internet to be the voice for populist ignorance. It's encouraging to find the flipside: you redeem the the medium and give us hope.
You're most kind, and I do hope that at least a few people are similarly encouraged by this and other videos addressing him. Thank goodness this is still a free medium!
Here are the actual core principles of Christianity:
Honesty, kindness, love for everyone, patience, forgiveness, and Christ specifically said NOT to force others to follow Him.
These are the characteristics Christians are SUPPOSED to exhibit. Which of these principles do YOU think should not be allowed in government simply because they are Christian principles?
One can hardly claim that a nation founded upon the belief that there are rights endowed by the "Creator" was not founded upon the principles of those that followed that Creator. It also does not equate to a Theocracy.
Now, 1st AoA: The govt can't establish a religion or meddle with the religious beliefs of the people. However, that does NOT mean that all religious principles must be kept out of govt. It DOES mean that the govt can't force these beliefs on others. There's a big difference.
If the government chooses to display religious symbols, that does not force others to follow the religion. In terms of policy, it would depend largely on what that policy is. As long as it doesn't force people to change their beliefs, or affect the exercise of their freedom of religion in some way, then no, it does not force those beliefs on others.
Crosses and displays of the ten commandments/nativity scenes as well as memorials honoring our war dead that include crosses or other religious symbols are some of the things the ACLU is attacking under the argument that there is supposed to be a "separation of church and state."
Recently, a historic plaque featuring the ten commandments had to be removed from a court house lawn.
I don't think you really understand the issue Crowder was addressing in his video.
Would you argue that a Christianity infused government deciding to practice forgiveness (a large part of Christianity) by pardoning those who break minor laws is forcing Christianity on everyone pardoned?
Let's also bear in mind that after ratifying the US Constitution, our first president (like all presidents after) was sworn in on the Christian bible. Based on that alone, it's kind of hard to claim that the founders intended Christian principles to be completely separated from government.
In your opinion. However, whatever the reason someone wants to implement a law, if it does not infringe on the freedom of religion of others (i.e. force them to follow Christian beliefs), then it cannot be argued against on those grounds. At least it's not supposed to be. If it will likely cause harm or infringe on other rights, then it can be argued against on THOSE grounds.
Your faulty interpretation of the 1st AoA aside, The Declaration of Independence is on of our nation's founding documents, and is considered a legal document by our courts. Right off it references "Nature's God" and refers to "certain inalienable rights" endowed by the "Creator." The idea that these rights exist was a cornerstone of the govt they outline in the Constitution and one of the basic principles this nation was founded/built upon.
There's no way a response would be allowed, and Zakir Naik is a complete moron. Anyone convinced by him is an idiot and already a dead loss as far as I'm concerned.
well frankly i am an atheist still but i had no idea that their book knew all those things so long ago, that's the closest thing to proof i've ever heard of.
Yeah there is much of improvement, I still hear those "p" here and there but that's just matter of moving away from mic. This all makes videos sound more professional.
What makes the USA the greatest country in the world is the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state (on that subject Crowder is wrong). BUT Crowder is 100% right about the hypocrisy of the ACLU and other so called liberals. When a Muslim policewomen is denied the option of wearing hijab on duty the ACLU will be the first to make a fuss about it. The ACLU is focused only on the separation of church and state, What about separation of mosque and state?
Actually, I think genji77 is quite wrong. It's highly unlikely that the ACLU would take on this hypothetical case. They ARE interested in separation of church and state, but in the USA the only threat to the separation comes from Christians.
Where they would defend a Muslim's religious rights would be in THIS hypothetical case:
Muslim cop is told she can't wear hijab off-duty. Christians have no similar restrictions on wearing crosses or magic underwear. ACLU steps in. As they should.
Your claim that the only threat to the separation of church and state comes from Christians is wrong. For instance: in universities throughout the US footbaths are being installed since Muslims have to wash their legs before their daily prayers (this cost to each university tens of thousands of dollars). In MINNEAPOLIS - Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions where they dont need to do it. (Part 1)
(Part 2) In September 2008 a federal court ruled in favor of Muslim workers of the Gold'n Plump company in Minnesota after those workers sued because they were not allowed to take prayer breaks and not handle pork Muslim cab drivers refuse to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol and blinds with their Guide dog
. I guess that when Islamic practices and American practices conflict, the American practices have to be the ones that give way.
To break it down... Nutrional elements are found in both food and crap. Ergo, food is not the only source of nutritional elements. A true statement... Just as your statement is a true statement. But I don't think I'll eat shit or ingest your thinking.
Are you trying to use a dialectical arm bar here? All different religions have all different degrees of moral maxims and ethical influences on cultures where they are found. They are not all the same in quality and effect. But since equivocation is your goal, your response makes sense.
ROFL... Reciprocal ethics doesn't explain the totality of ethics. And a chimp doesn't require justice when her sister and pals eat her baby... In fact, she is even open to being comforted by her guilty sister immediately following the eating. I think your little diagram is an accurate depiction of your philosophical conception of morality, 2D and detached from reality. Both the means and the ends of human morality are shaped by the values that direct them.
Nor did I claim it did, and clearly the diagram was simplistic, one section was labelled 'good ethics' for goodness sake! It was intended to demonstrate to Crowder & pals that so called 'christian' ethics are simply universal ones.
The diagram was a clear illustration of the esthetic complexity of your thought. You look for an underlying social behavioral trait and then you ascribe to it the totality of human ethical behavior. Simplistic and disconnected from reality?
I do try, very hard, not to be dense, but I truly don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you contending the point that religion draws its morality from a set of basic human values? Or do you just think my diagram is simplistic? if the latter then I agree, but its basic point is still sound.
Drawing morality from a basic set of values is a process that not every human shares. Such a process I am sure leads to a much more life affirming existence, but when a suicide bomber blows himself up for a greater good, how does he/she draw this "moral" action from a basic set of human values? Your reductionism is great for breaking things down into bite size pieces.
Memetics are a cute way of dealing with the information that is passed down as experienced values and ideas. For instance, your approach to ethics and morality bears the memetic mark of a person who has passed through an institution that sculpted and shaped its subject to only follow certain paths of reasoning. All other reasoning is considered foreign and irrational. It is labeled and stereotyped as memetics and treated as a mental virus. Know yourself?
It's a shame so many Christians don't understand the history of the U.S.
The constitution, and the treaty of Tripoly were ratified by founding fathers who knew this country was built (in large part) by people who came here to escape religious persecution, and didn't want future Americans to be treated as, or to feel in any way second class due to their religions beliefs or lack thereof.
Congratulations sir, you have won yourself a new subscriber. I watched a couple of Crowder's earlier videos and I liked them at first. They were largely about personal responsibility and such... But the more I watched, the more I started to find that far from being an interesting, free-thinking individualist, he's just another statist "red vs. blue" kinda guy and I find that generally hard to tolerate.
Anyway, I've spent a long time studying US history & constitution and Crowder can suck it.
It's really rather frustrating honestly. But I feel this way every time I see a Glenn Beck clip and a lot of the time when I watch the liberals on other news networks...
It's like, they'll start out with a reasonable argument, making a good point here and another there, and then suddenly there's some giant disconnect and logic fails them on their way to the conclusion.
Obviously, your software is incompatible. Try using a different program. You can understand another person's logic without accepting it. I don't accept Glen's logic but I know why he thinks the way he does... It isn't irrational, it just functions from a different basis. It always amazes me how everyone sits around pointing fingers and calling each other irrational.
Umm... I'm not finger pointing. I'm perfectly capable of understanding where Glenn Beck is coming from - I actually used to listen to him when he wast still only a radio-host.
But logic isn't something that changes based on who is saying it. It's either consistent or it isn't. Saying "this country is about individual rights & freedom, those freedoms have been eroding... we need to do something about it... therefore... more religion!" is a simply a non sequitur.
Actually, logic does change in terms of conclusions and the content of premises. His conclusion of more religion doesn't follow from the premises you set out. You selected your own set of premises you picked from different arguments he makes and then a conclusion that doesn't follow. It is called a strawman.
What you said is essentially a strawman, yes, however, since I didn't even use a specific example at all and was more commenting generally on that *type* of argument... I think you're making a bigger deal out of that than you should. I'll be happy to find you an example of one of Glenn Beck's many logical failures...
However, I will repeat - no, logic is either consistent, or it isn't. The premises you start with are terribly important, and Beck's are sometimes wrong as well...
I've never heard him make that argument or anything close to it.
The structure of logic is consistent, yes. But the contents of premises are a matter of judgment and examination. Most people like to cut and paste their own premises onto other people's arguments rather than examing what the premises are asserting in the first place. Your strawman showed that desire.
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part:"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Has Crowder never heard of this? It's the only thing you need to bring up in this argument to destroy these theocrats.
It's quite galling when you hear from Xians regarding the supposed uniqueness of Judeao/Xian values, virtues and moral etc. The only thing unique about it is the level of ignorance it evinces.
Great sound improvement too! Get rid of the "P-Popping" and it'll be perfect :)
Haha. I initially had the same problem. You just have to not speak *directly* into the mic but across it, either over or beside it so the breath sounds don't "pop". A bit of experimentation and you'll be there! I much prefer these vids to your economic stuff, too, but then, I'm totally biased.
to avoid plosives you could get a pop guard. Or they're easy to remove in any audio editing software as they are always frequencies well below the range of speaking.
The First Amendment applys only to Congress. The individual states could make a state religion if they chose to do so. Should they, probably not. But to take your agrument to it's full realization is to say that all members of the govenment should be Athists... but even that wouldn't work since the Supreme Court defines Atheism as a religion. Can't win, can you?
4PFrog 3 months ago
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.
MagicTellaVision 8 months ago
(continued) This ignorance hinders understanding and indeed breeds intolerance, and the condescending tones which you use towards it, indeed shows the same bigoted and exceptionalistic attitudes present on both sides in the religious- non-religious debates. And contrary to what you say, while criticizing may not show intolerance, insulting a religion definitely demonstrates this intolerance.
MasterTheJ 8 months ago
I don't think that Crowder was talking about the norms of Morality like "no murder or theft". I think he was talking about the fact that the founding fathers of the country believed that the rights of the individual come from a higher power than man (God) and are thus unalienable. BTW, I'm agnostic and don't really care about religion. I'm just not going to deny that the founders of this country did.
Rhaven85 8 months ago
@Rhaven85
Aye, but that's because no wholly secular political philosophy really existed at that point in time. At that time, 'natural philosophy' was intimately bound up with theology, things that were natural were 'divine' by definition. However, the founding fathers' beliefs don't fit into christian thought, they belong to the enlightenment tradition.
JmkLcAeJsm 8 months ago
Typical leftist double-standard BS.
USN1985dos 8 months ago
So when a liberal refers to Christianity as "a death cult that infected Europe" he's making social commentary. When a conservative does the same of Islam he's branded as a bigot (and rightfully so). So therefore let me hold you as a liberal to the same standard as I hold conservatives and say that you are a bigoted ignorant prick.
MasterTheJ 8 months ago 2
@MasterTheJ
So does your baseless insult apply to everyone who criticises religion and the often hypocritical and anti-humane actions of the religious?
JmkLcAeJsm 8 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Criticizing the actions of a religion is entirely legitimate and I encourage you make a video where you whine about everything which Christianity has done- it'd be a long video. Yet when Atheists criticize a religion like Christianity calling it a "death cult" thats simply showing the same ignorance and intolerance which you condemn in other religions. The only difference is that you in your eyes have a justifiable grounds to do so... just like every other religion has claimed.
MasterTheJ 8 months ago
@MasterTheJ
Being ignorant of a religion, I find, is more likely to beget tolerance than knowledge of it is. Insulting something does not display intolerance anyway, and I don't particularly object to the childish slagging matches/debates that theists have with each other.
I don't see how christians can possibly object to their religion being called a death cult. It is a cult without a shadow of a doubt, as all religions are by definition, and it focuses on death.
JmkLcAeJsm 8 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm The fact that you don't see why Christians would object to their religion as being refered to as a death cult. And the fact the you believe Christianity focuses on death (which is a wholly over simplistic and incorrect representation of the religion which I would love to discuss should you be willing). Shows your ignorance of Christianity.
The fact that you see all religions as a cult. Shows the ignorance which you view religion from. (see next post)
MasterTheJ 8 months ago
Crowder is so obnoxious! he makes shit up all the time. We all just need to ignore him already. plus hes ugly.
sparbaroku 10 months ago
I bet that crowder doesn't know the actual basis of the constitution such as the Magna Carta and Hammurabi's code, the latter predates Christianity by a few thousand years. What a chicken hawk that guy is.
GoodOldHalo 1 year ago
Nobody's perfect, and I agree that S.C.s theocratic notions are absurd. But I do agree with his political opinions, especially as reguards Obama and the libdiots who worship him. Me, I skip the religeous (bibliot) bits and watch the cynical and humorous political stuff; he's a riot!
jimbocidman 1 year ago
i think you every dose bthis videos needs to do more history on his storys, and not just give the crap he got off the net
mormonguy89 1 year ago
I may be a day late, and a dollar short here, but what the hell. I enjoy Crowder, not always agree on everything. I always found the social concepts interesting. What creates inherent guilt for wrong doing? Would not a social animal, in need of social cohesiveness for survival, inherently feel something wrong for anti-social behavior? Even though, I do find humans to be mold breakers, ever since they advanded far enough to break away from social reliance.
spaceanus 1 year ago
You're quite right, it showed up as a response to my comment in my inbox. Will delete this whole bit!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You sir are a jack ass. If I have time some day, I may point out the absurdity of some of the things you have said in this video....and sorry about the" jack ass" thing. I got a little heated by your ignorant, pontificating,insipid,pompous,babbling that I had a hard time controlling my self for a second.
dathandaniel 2 years ago
Go for it, I don't mind being insulted, and I actually enjoy having my ideas challenged. Over the years I've got so used to people calling names when they can't respond to my ideas I don't really notice any more.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago 4
If you have some actual points of argument to make other unleashing a fuming tirade of invective, then by all means, make them.
kevlonk 2 years ago
I do believe Crowder was referencing to how the country was founded by Christians. It is true that many Christian principles are shared by other religions, but that doesn't make them any less Christian. Put them on a Venn diagram and see for yourself.
TRexTurtle 2 years ago
It makes them universal, which means that calling them uniquely christian is ridiculous. When Crowder claims that values that inform the US law are 'christian' in origin, he is talking crap.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago 6
Another freedom hating communist making up lies.
Since when did Steve Crowder support reconstructionism?
phantastickyle 2 years ago
Don't recall saying he did. Crowder wants religion mixed with government, like a moron.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Ya, cause Morals in government? Who wants that. Faith based principles in government is fine. Give me an example of what crowder said to make you believe this?
Vorgoth911 2 years ago
Yeah, universal morals that everyone can share in. Moral sentiments based on reason which everyone can agree to. Principle of least harm etc.
Christian morality is exclusive, many of us simply don't agree with much of it.
And I made the damn video almost a year ago, I can't remember what crowder said.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Ahahahahahaha.
Was that sarcastic? Because I swear, you conform perfectly to the parodic "Conservatives according to Liberals" viewpoint that Crowder espouses.
Unless its less parodic than Mr. Crowder realizes...
kevlonk 2 years ago
1. he never said that the Judeo-christian ideals our fore-fathers thought of when making the constitution were about killing and stealing, that was just your assumption.
2. I wish you could have said what article of the constitution your aforementioned quote about the separation of church and state is from.
Phunkywhiteboy 2 years ago
1. So name me some Judeo christian ideals that are in US law that aren't universal and obvious.
2. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
1. Neither Steven, nor I said anything about laws. It was simply that a Christian ethic that the founding fathers shared was the motivation and strong belief in freedom.
2. that didn't answer my question. All you did was restate what you said in your video, you didn't tell me what artivle of the constitution that's from.
Phunkywhiteboy 2 years ago
1. That's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore has no truth value.
2. That, as well you know, is the first clause of the first amendment to the united states constitution.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You know its true
The fool have said in his heart, there is no God...
mainestategop 2 years ago
'But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.'
Careful now
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Just watched through all of crowders videos (I am a small government kind of guy tbh... Altough I am also an atheist and don't agree to all he says they were kinda funny and interesting..) And when I got to this one I remembered that he was the guy you argued with in this video xD Nice to see you are still around the youtubes but I hope you make some more videos soon... You make really interesting ones :)
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
Oh and because I had some spare time I watched some of your better videos again, they actually where better now after I've read more about philosophy than I had last time I watched it ^_^
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
it's a "deist", not diest. read what tham means - does it sound like the christian god who pardons sin and sends his son to save the world? hilarious.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
direct quote. no religion in government. rights from god? how exactly?
franzpolak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your ignorance amuses me, tell me why liberal pansy's, like yourself never show your face. Is it because you secretly know your full of shit, please grow some balls do some research.
Being a jackass isn't cool, no it is not.
also and I shouldn't have to type this.
But when you know the truth you boldly tell it,
you don't hide behind a monkey.
douche bag.
chesterton101 2 years ago
So your entire argument is based on the fact that I haven't bothered to buy a camera? Is that literally all you feel you need to point out that's wrong with my position?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
and who would be that "creater" exactly? jeebus?
where does it say that?
franzpolak 2 years ago
No, deist, a line added by benjamin franklin who was one.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Spoken like a TRUE liberal,atheist,brit , FAGGOT....
No1Rides4Free 2 years ago
Notice I don't insult crowder and co, just refute their arguments. Who's more likely to be right, the one slinging insults or the one advancing fact-supported arguments?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
........facts my ass
No1Rides4Free 2 years ago
@No1Rides4Free Just because you choose not to listen to them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
Jeebaah 1 year ago
The values refered to by crowder are not "do not murder" or "do not steal", for indeed, everyone believes these, but values like: the place of goverment (goverment serves the people, not the other way around), private stewardship (what is mine does not belong to the goverment), the corruption of man (the need to place checks and balances in order for people in power), and values like these. The fact is that whether "america" is christian or not, it's founder's convictions primarily were.
Bongobutt123 2 years ago
'Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesars'
'Slaves, be obedient unto your masters'
Just two quotes from a bible filled with other radical liberal, progressive statements. And all of those things have clear and present secular origins, read your Locke, read your Mill.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
the first quote is saying that people should be responsable citizens.
the second quote isn't in proper context. slavery back then wasn't what we think of. most "slaves" were actually people paying off a debt through working. and even if the person was "oppressed", the verse right before that tells masters to NOT abuse their power, and the context says to act honorably no matter what circumstances you are in. if you are implying that I don't know my bible, you would be mistaken.
Bongobutt123 2 years ago
That was great. I do not know who you are talking about but my god that was good. I will give you 5 stars for that.
mymojorisin 2 years ago
His voice reminds me of a documentary.
shadow123123123 2 years ago
Crowder said the US was founded on J-C values, not the government. The treaty states the "government" is not founded on Christian religion" The US is not the government or vice versa. Sorry to split hairs but there is a difference.
MeekPopsicle 2 years ago
Who is Steven Crowder? Is he in Washington? Is he a writer for a big time Newspaper? Hell no! He's a nobody with a camera, who makes a few appearances of Fox News. Yet liberals feel the need to attack him mercilessly. I LOVE IT! It's quite laughable. It just goes to show how truth can really strike a nerve. If you fascists libs had your way, you'd make Crowder illegal. You hate freedom of speech so bad, unless you can hide behind it yourselves! You are afraid of a man with a camera!
Rhyno0412 2 years ago
Aha... So contesting his propositions = censorship does it?
Moron.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Again, thank you for the laugh! Yet another typical liberal tactic: the misquote. I said nothing about criticism being equal to censorship! YOU put those words in my mouth. LOL! I was making reference to your hatefulness, and name calling. (i.e. you calling me moron even though I didn't call you anything.) When I said "you fascist libs wanted to make Steve Crowder, I meant the fairness doctrine. Let's not be naive here. we both know what that's REALLY about.
Rhyno0412 2 years ago
You said the implication of my criticism of Crowder was a desire to make him illegal. Let's not split hairs here.
And the tacking on of a few insults doesn't imply hatefullness, just frustration.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Hatefulness is NOT a very effective way to get your point across. Can we be adults? You can disagree with someone a great deal without hating him. Some of my best friends are liberals, Muslims, and gay. I disagree with them on almost everything, but love them dearly. The hatred toward Sarah Palin was completely unfounded and shameful. What exactly did she do to anyone? Disagree with you? OOOO! I believe Obama is leading our country to hell, but I don't hate him. I don't wish for his death.
Rhyno0412 2 years ago
Don't really remember at what point in the video I advocated killing anyone, or said that I hated anybody.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
high & mighty profanity. kinda devalues the opinion expressed.
meandale 2 years ago
It is funny how Americans do as they please, are in fact not serving the Lord. Trying their ,monkey best, to raise their status to be equal to the Lord. This act of replacing their own selfish lives in place of God, is like trying to pretend sinning is ok. Pride is the base of all sin. Time to move away from statism and never look back.
nightstalkersasslt 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
nightstalkersasslt 2 years ago
Thank you JmkLcAeJsm! I'm glad someone finally took the piss out of that loud-mouthed populist Neocon. His popularity is an indication of how vast mind-blowing ignorance, reactionary-ism and spiteful bigotry has become among the American populace. There's A LOT of ignorant malcontents out there and they have a lot to say unfortunately those who know the least usually talk the most and the loudest.
There should be a channel dedicated to debunking that guy.
A86 2 years ago
FAIL!!!!!!
The Christian principles Crowder is pointing out, that you are trying to discredit, are not just from a few centuries ago, but from THOUSANDS OF YEARS ago when Jesus Christ established his ministry that brought forth the Grace administration. Which happens to be what we live in and where we get our freedom to support these views. These principles are what allow us to live how we live today. Its a state of mind and belief.
jasoncj85 2 years ago 2
Dude you are such an idiot. Has life gotten better since you liberals convinced people to abandon religion? No in fact it has gotten worse. Have wars ceased being fought? No they haven't. So to place so much blame on religion is just more liberal tactics for your own ends. It seems like you people like nothing better than to try to fix things that were never broken.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
"Has life gotten better since you liberals convinced people to abandon religion? No in fact it has gotten worse. "
Speak for yourself man. I for one appreciate what science has given us and the progress we have made in our society. Don't like it? Fine. You can believe whatever you want just keep your religion away from my government.
CharlesHorman 2 years ago
Society hasn't progressed though. In fact it has gotten worse. There is more crime not less since radical liberals infused their agenda in society. And by the way it isn't your government. I know you liberals think is but it is still my government too. The fact that you think it is you governement goes to show how liberals think they are entitled to everything if they whine and lie enough.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
Hahahahaha, radical liberals...
Crime has got worse huh? Find me evidence connecting declining religiosity with crime.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
It's called history and common knowledge. We all know that there is more crime now than there was before the decline of religion.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
Aha...
Well where I come from, the only acceptable currency for making a claim like that is survey data, preferably peer reviewed.
So if you can't link me, retract the claim please.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
So were you come from you ignore common knowledge facts? Doesn't sound like the people where you come from are all that inteligent then if they ignore facts. The town you live in must be very liberal indeed if it routinely ignores facts just because they don't suit them.
And no I will not retract my claim. We both know that I am right. We both know society has not gotten better and that many of the morals of society have been lost.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
As far as I'm concerned 'common sense' is just a euphamism for 'some crap I just made up.
Evidence to support your claim that declining religiosity has lead to an increase in crime please.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
How convenient for you to have such a dim view of "common sense". I bet you get to convince yourself of all sorts of things since you just ignore common sense. You are asking me to prove the obvious. I am not going to waste my time looking for studies just to prove what we both already know to be true. BTW in your video against MR.Crowder did you use scientific studies to back up your claims? No you didn't.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
Show me scientific evidence that meets your criteria that monkeys are punished for lying by other monkeys as your video claims. Or a scietific peer reveiwed study that shows Nancy Pelosi shares veiws with the ACLU.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
Ah I see, thing Is, I've got good evidence that correlates religiosity with crime. Interesting eh?
Look at the composition of the US prison population vs the rest of the population and you see what I mean.
Plus I did link to evidence for both my monkey claims in the video description.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
just wonderin what religion are you'
Johnnybones4 2 years ago
WTF! TAKE YOUR ASS BACK HOME! YOU FUCK!
GORNWINDER1 2 years ago
Simple interpretation of the first amendment is literal. They cannot prevent the creation or practice of a religion. They had just left a country where the head of the government, the king, was also the head of the church and no choice was allowed for your religion.
Yes humans are social animals and you can claim that laws and social rules would have developed without religion, but the simple truth is that all social laws and rules developed from a religion, which every civilization has.
Jsickert 2 years ago
Yet all religions have most of their basic ethics in common (reciprocity, fairness etc) and these are also found in our ape and monkey relatives, so I see no great creative role for religion in that regard.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Then by your view religion can't be responsible for war. Apes and monkeys fight wars with other tribes and baboons and chimps will eat the fallen.
Jsickert 2 years ago 2
Like saying the individuals can't be held responsible either.
Just because evolutionary anthropology explains a phenomenon does not stop individuals and ideologies from being accountable for individual conflicts.
Beside, my rejection of theism is grounded in the fact that it isn't true.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
And because it is found in nature doesn't mean religion wasn't responsible for the rise of moral and social values, which historically it was.
Believing in a God is a decision for an individual and regardless of that decision should be respectful of the other persons view.
Jsickert 2 years ago
I agree, but only in the sense of the rather trivial and superficial ethics of 'thou shalt not' that religion has historically promoted.
And I see no reason to be respectful of anybody's beliefs if they are transparently ridiculous.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Eye of the beholder, some people though Napoleon Dynamite was funny.
Jsickert 2 years ago
"thought"
Jsickert 2 years ago
Great point.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
Thomas Jefferson's commentary on God being cruel, vengeful, and capricious comes as a bit of a laugh to me considering the man falsified reports of Cherokee integration into white society and paved the way for presidents such as Jackson and VanBuren to initiate horrible injustices on Natives. Jefferson basically came up with the concept of reservations.
I don't think I'll take moral advice from a man who obviously had no morals.
nofalltoofar 2 years ago
You, JmkLcAeJsm are a fucking douche bag.
Dismantle that.
ventz5995 2 years ago
Very well.
I'm not.
Good to see my detractors are such a cogent, sensible, reasonable bunch, not a shower of utter fucktards.
That, in case you're wondering, was sarcasm.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
lol that wasnt me but u are!
ventz5995 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
lol
ventz5995 8 months ago
Thank you, JmkLcAeJsm, for taking the time to respond to Crowder. He's so infuriating it's difficult to watch. When I ran across his steaming pile of ill-informed, spiteful, inexplicably popular videos, I became extremely disheartened. We can't allow the internet to be the voice for populist ignorance. It's encouraging to find the flipside: you redeem the the medium and give us hope.
siquierocerveza666 2 years ago
You're most kind, and I do hope that at least a few people are similarly encouraged by this and other videos addressing him. Thank goodness this is still a free medium!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
video worth watching: America is not a christian nation: True or false?
TheRationalthinker 2 years ago
Oh, I forgot one of the core principles: Christians are supposed to treat everyone equally...
bldgy 2 years ago
Here are the actual core principles of Christianity:
Honesty, kindness, love for everyone, patience, forgiveness, and Christ specifically said NOT to force others to follow Him.
These are the characteristics Christians are SUPPOSED to exhibit. Which of these principles do YOU think should not be allowed in government simply because they are Christian principles?
bldgy 2 years ago
One can hardly claim that a nation founded upon the belief that there are rights endowed by the "Creator" was not founded upon the principles of those that followed that Creator. It also does not equate to a Theocracy.
Now, 1st AoA: The govt can't establish a religion or meddle with the religious beliefs of the people. However, that does NOT mean that all religious principles must be kept out of govt. It DOES mean that the govt can't force these beliefs on others. There's a big difference.
bldgy 2 years ago
By adopting one set of religious beliefs as the basis for policy, does a government not implicitly force them on those who do not share them?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
If the government chooses to display religious symbols, that does not force others to follow the religion. In terms of policy, it would depend largely on what that policy is. As long as it doesn't force people to change their beliefs, or affect the exercise of their freedom of religion in some way, then no, it does not force those beliefs on others.
bldgy 2 years ago
The display of the cross really doesn't bother me, it's as much a secular as a religious symbol now.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Crosses and displays of the ten commandments/nativity scenes as well as memorials honoring our war dead that include crosses or other religious symbols are some of the things the ACLU is attacking under the argument that there is supposed to be a "separation of church and state."
Recently, a historic plaque featuring the ten commandments had to be removed from a court house lawn.
I don't think you really understand the issue Crowder was addressing in his video.
bldgy 2 years ago
Would you argue that a Christianity infused government deciding to practice forgiveness (a large part of Christianity) by pardoning those who break minor laws is forcing Christianity on everyone pardoned?
Let's also bear in mind that after ratifying the US Constitution, our first president (like all presidents after) was sworn in on the Christian bible. Based on that alone, it's kind of hard to claim that the founders intended Christian principles to be completely separated from government.
bldgy 2 years ago
No I would not. But to use christianity as the basis for arguing that law is exclusive and innapropriate.
I imagine the founders themselves thought some christian principles a good idea, and I agree.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
In your opinion. However, whatever the reason someone wants to implement a law, if it does not infringe on the freedom of religion of others (i.e. force them to follow Christian beliefs), then it cannot be argued against on those grounds. At least it's not supposed to be. If it will likely cause harm or infringe on other rights, then it can be argued against on THOSE grounds.
bldgy 2 years ago
Your faulty interpretation of the 1st AoA aside, The Declaration of Independence is on of our nation's founding documents, and is considered a legal document by our courts. Right off it references "Nature's God" and refers to "certain inalienable rights" endowed by the "Creator." The idea that these rights exist was a cornerstone of the govt they outline in the Constitution and one of the basic principles this nation was founded/built upon.
bldgy 2 years ago
"They're monkey principals"
I literally got a cramp in my side from the laugh on that one.
You, sir, are very, very good! Thanks for the laugh, and for yet another altogether brilliant monologue.
dfarmer1584 2 years ago
Oh Get a Life! Would you really think macro evolution started it all if you weren't exposed to the ranks of Darwin and Dawkins?
Danny2Lisa 2 years ago
I don't think that now. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis, which is the body of theory that describes how life may have begun.
And asking counterfactuals gets no one anywhere.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
***restatement***
________
Would you really think "Universal Gravitation" explains the movements of the Planets if you weren't exposed to the ranks of Newton and Galileo?
cthulhex 2 years ago
Could you make a response to this? watch?v=aszXCD2dPeE&feature=related good video by the way ^_^
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
There's no way a response would be allowed, and Zakir Naik is a complete moron. Anyone convinced by him is an idiot and already a dead loss as far as I'm concerned.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
well frankly i am an atheist still but i had no idea that their book knew all those things so long ago, that's the closest thing to proof i've ever heard of.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
It's complete fabrication my friend, go look at the verses he cites for all that and check out the real context and translation. It's complete crap.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
that's what i suspected ^^' thanks for replying mate.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
make the monkey stfu!
fbibarbie 2 years ago
Many better than you have tried.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
JmkLcAeJsm I've posted a short video in response to your video.
mousegeek 2 years ago
I've only seen your "Steven Crowder 4 Theocracy!" video. Have you made another?
mousegeek 2 years ago
Yeah, 'Guns and Greenhouse Gases'
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
I had watched it. I've just played it and I remember it now. Excellent.
mousegeek 2 years ago
The microphone is a marked improvement. How much is it for a decent one?
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
This one cost me £20, and it's a dual condenser directional mic.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Yeah there is much of improvement, I still hear those "p" here and there but that's just matter of moving away from mic. This all makes videos sound more professional.
EnhancedNightmare 2 years ago
Noted, and the next video will have that ironed out I hope!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You could also get a pop-filter. They're used in the professional studios and they're relatively cheap.
inarchus 2 years ago
What makes the USA the greatest country in the world is the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state (on that subject Crowder is wrong). BUT Crowder is 100% right about the hypocrisy of the ACLU and other so called liberals. When a Muslim policewomen is denied the option of wearing hijab on duty the ACLU will be the first to make a fuss about it. The ACLU is focused only on the separation of church and state, What about separation of mosque and state?
genji77 2 years ago
You're quite right, I should have acknowledged that.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Actually, I think genji77 is quite wrong. It's highly unlikely that the ACLU would take on this hypothetical case. They ARE interested in separation of church and state, but in the USA the only threat to the separation comes from Christians.
Where they would defend a Muslim's religious rights would be in THIS hypothetical case:
Muslim cop is told she can't wear hijab off-duty. Christians have no similar restrictions on wearing crosses or magic underwear. ACLU steps in. As they should.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Your claim that the only threat to the separation of church and state comes from Christians is wrong. For instance: in universities throughout the US footbaths are being installed since Muslims have to wash their legs before their daily prayers (this cost to each university tens of thousands of dollars). In MINNEAPOLIS - Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions where they dont need to do it. (Part 1)
genji77 2 years ago
(Part 2) In September 2008 a federal court ruled in favor of Muslim workers of the Gold'n Plump company in Minnesota after those workers sued because they were not allowed to take prayer breaks and not handle pork Muslim cab drivers refuse to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol and blinds with their Guide dog
. I guess that when Islamic practices and American practices conflict, the American practices have to be the ones that give way.
genji77 2 years ago
1. Are you claiming the ACLU took on the case of the Muslims getting foot baths installed at a university?
2. Bad or inadequate court decisions are common-place in a democracy. That's why we have higher courts.
3. The totality of your examples of Islam's intrusion into church/states issues is negligible next to what goes on with Christianity.
Don't get me wrong. I'm for stopping religious intrusion wherever it occurs. Certainly, if I were British or Dutch, I'd be screaming about Islam.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
To break it down... Nutrional elements are found in both food and crap. Ergo, food is not the only source of nutritional elements. A true statement... Just as your statement is a true statement. But I don't think I'll eat shit or ingest your thinking.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
So you're analogising every non christian ethic as 'crap'? Englighten me...
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Are you trying to use a dialectical arm bar here? All different religions have all different degrees of moral maxims and ethical influences on cultures where they are found. They are not all the same in quality and effect. But since equivocation is your goal, your response makes sense.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
ROFL... Reciprocal ethics doesn't explain the totality of ethics. And a chimp doesn't require justice when her sister and pals eat her baby... In fact, she is even open to being comforted by her guilty sister immediately following the eating. I think your little diagram is an accurate depiction of your philosophical conception of morality, 2D and detached from reality. Both the means and the ends of human morality are shaped by the values that direct them.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
Nor did I claim it did, and clearly the diagram was simplistic, one section was labelled 'good ethics' for goodness sake! It was intended to demonstrate to Crowder & pals that so called 'christian' ethics are simply universal ones.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
The diagram was a clear illustration of the esthetic complexity of your thought. You look for an underlying social behavioral trait and then you ascribe to it the totality of human ethical behavior. Simplistic and disconnected from reality?
shattersidvik 2 years ago
I do try, very hard, not to be dense, but I truly don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you contending the point that religion draws its morality from a set of basic human values? Or do you just think my diagram is simplistic? if the latter then I agree, but its basic point is still sound.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Drawing morality from a basic set of values is a process that not every human shares. Such a process I am sure leads to a much more life affirming existence, but when a suicide bomber blows himself up for a greater good, how does he/she draw this "moral" action from a basic set of human values? Your reductionism is great for breaking things down into bite size pieces.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
They do, however, memetics also plays an important role and sometimes is the greater effect.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Not sure what you are commenting on.
Memetics are a cute way of dealing with the information that is passed down as experienced values and ideas. For instance, your approach to ethics and morality bears the memetic mark of a person who has passed through an institution that sculpted and shaped its subject to only follow certain paths of reasoning. All other reasoning is considered foreign and irrational. It is labeled and stereotyped as memetics and treated as a mental virus. Know yourself?
shattersidvik 2 years ago
Five stars.
Geneva009 2 years ago
Crowder is a total moron!
He thinks that the USA was the first country to "end" slavery!
TheRedneckAtheist 2 years ago 4
It's a shame so many Christians don't understand the history of the U.S.
The constitution, and the treaty of Tripoly were ratified by founding fathers who knew this country was built (in large part) by people who came here to escape religious persecution, and didn't want future Americans to be treated as, or to feel in any way second class due to their religions beliefs or lack thereof.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago 3
HATE SPEECH!!! HATE SPEECH!!! Get "The List"!!!!!
megamaniac76 2 years ago
Well done friend, once again you have totally owned the theist! Keep up the fantastic work :D
jimbobtownley2 2 years ago
Congratulations sir, you have won yourself a new subscriber. I watched a couple of Crowder's earlier videos and I liked them at first. They were largely about personal responsibility and such... But the more I watched, the more I started to find that far from being an interesting, free-thinking individualist, he's just another statist "red vs. blue" kinda guy and I find that generally hard to tolerate.
Anyway, I've spent a long time studying US history & constitution and Crowder can suck it.
Fountainhead83 2 years ago 6
I'm in the same boat as you. At first he was interesting and entertaining. Now he just seems like another Right Wing Puppet.
uskafighter 2 years ago
It's really rather frustrating honestly. But I feel this way every time I see a Glenn Beck clip and a lot of the time when I watch the liberals on other news networks...
It's like, they'll start out with a reasonable argument, making a good point here and another there, and then suddenly there's some giant disconnect and logic fails them on their way to the conclusion.
Logic->Logic->Logic->Logic->???->FAIL.
Fountainhead83 2 years ago 2
Obviously, your software is incompatible. Try using a different program. You can understand another person's logic without accepting it. I don't accept Glen's logic but I know why he thinks the way he does... It isn't irrational, it just functions from a different basis. It always amazes me how everyone sits around pointing fingers and calling each other irrational.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
Umm... I'm not finger pointing. I'm perfectly capable of understanding where Glenn Beck is coming from - I actually used to listen to him when he wast still only a radio-host.
But logic isn't something that changes based on who is saying it. It's either consistent or it isn't. Saying "this country is about individual rights & freedom, those freedoms have been eroding... we need to do something about it... therefore... more religion!" is a simply a non sequitur.
Fountainhead83 2 years ago
Actually, logic does change in terms of conclusions and the content of premises. His conclusion of more religion doesn't follow from the premises you set out. You selected your own set of premises you picked from different arguments he makes and then a conclusion that doesn't follow. It is called a strawman.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
What you said is essentially a strawman, yes, however, since I didn't even use a specific example at all and was more commenting generally on that *type* of argument... I think you're making a bigger deal out of that than you should. I'll be happy to find you an example of one of Glenn Beck's many logical failures...
However, I will repeat - no, logic is either consistent, or it isn't. The premises you start with are terribly important, and Beck's are sometimes wrong as well...
Fountainhead83 2 years ago
I've never heard him make that argument or anything close to it.
The structure of logic is consistent, yes. But the contents of premises are a matter of judgment and examination. Most people like to cut and paste their own premises onto other people's arguments rather than examing what the premises are asserting in the first place. Your strawman showed that desire.
shattersidvik 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
steven crowder is MORE CLASSY THEN YOU WILL EVER BE!! THE USA WAS FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS YOU FUCKER!!
slayerkendra 2 years ago
Aha... So where it says in the treaty of tripoli that the USA 'Isn't a christian nation' that's all made up lies by the left wing media right?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
"steven crowder is MORE CLASSY THEN YOU WILL EVER BE"
Do you really think shouting helps? Reason your case in a civilized manner and people might actually listen to you.
andreashuber69 2 years ago 4
Crowder doesn't strike me as someone open to debate, though his type rarely are.
It would give me profound joy to see the whole intellectual youtube community take aim at this nauseating hack.
shenanigan55 2 years ago
Him and HTWW both... I'll take a crack at HTWW at some point, but no way will he pay attention to a two bit, 550 sub channel like mine!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part:"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Has Crowder never heard of this? It's the only thing you need to bring up in this argument to destroy these theocrats.
Morrakiu 2 years ago 6
In the sidebar :)
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Good stuff. I enjoyed the tamber.
PFTECHMETAL 2 years ago
It's quite galling when you hear from Xians regarding the supposed uniqueness of Judeao/Xian values, virtues and moral etc. The only thing unique about it is the level of ignorance it evinces.
Great sound improvement too! Get rid of the "P-Popping" and it'll be perfect :)
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Always one awkward customer... I'll try and fix it on the next one, constructive criticism = Genuinely appreciated!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Haha. I initially had the same problem. You just have to not speak *directly* into the mic but across it, either over or beside it so the breath sounds don't "pop". A bit of experimentation and you'll be there! I much prefer these vids to your economic stuff, too, but then, I'm totally biased.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
to avoid plosives you could get a pop guard. Or they're easy to remove in any audio editing software as they are always frequencies well below the range of speaking.
picopallasi 2 years ago
Any idea, per chance, if Audacity has an appropriate noise reduction filter?
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
No, he's right. The U.S. WAS founded on Judeo-Christian values, especially ones like slavery and racism.
Morrakiu 2 years ago 4
I think there's an area for that on my venn diagram...
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
I believe he was being sarcastic.
anthonzi 2 years ago