Dennis Prager is Wrong About The 10 Commandments
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2024
- The Ten Commandments (or at least a version of them), despite making no reference to slavery or rape, promoting authoritarianism, and creating one of the oldest recorded thought crimes, is supposedly the greatest basis for modern Western morality.
We'll see about that.
-----------------------------------------LINKS-----------------------------------------
Original video: • The Ten Commandments: ...
43Alley video (a must watch): • Video
Christopher Hitchens on the Commandments: • Thou Shalt Watch this ...
@CosmicSkeptic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the Cosmic Skeptic CZcams channel on Patreon: / cosmicskeptic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
Pragers logic is so circular it can be used to prove Pi.
Umm…I don’t think they prioritize math.
This. Lmfao
Sky Jack but you're right.
Both of these comments are hillarious.
You can never make a pie with pi
Prager can be logical but just not on religion; it's just religion messes with your thinking. Ignoring the bad dogma of the Bibles is the biggest mistakes of religious folks. The first four commandments of the old testament are all cut from the same piece of sleazy cloth. Essentially, they say:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make thee any graven images or bow down to them, and if you do I'll get you and your kids and their descendants.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
In essence, the first four commandments all scream that "the lord thy god" has an uneasy vanity, and like most dictators, must resort to threats, rather than intellectual persuasion, to promote a point of view. If there were an omnipotent god, can you imagine him or her being concerned if some poor little insignificant creature puttered around and made a graven image? Most of god's doings can be perceived to hold pettiness, bluster, bombast and psychotic insecurity.
Do study the ten commandments! They epitomize the childishness, the vindictiveness, the sexism, the inflexibility and the inadequacies of the bible as a book of morals.
Ah yes theft and murder the only two crimes.
Edit: Why are some of you having moral and ethical arguments on a shitty joke comment.
Yeah, God hadn't thought about the most extreme crime: Jaywalking
Nah no joke that killed me 😂
@@Gkowi how will we have a world free from suffering when people still jaywalk
Yeah he said there's no need for police and people are all safe if there's no theft or murder....like people could still get raped or have the shit kicked out of them 😂😂
@@nakkadu Which, to be fair, the bible is okay with in a lot of cases. So at least Prager is being consistent!
>Western civilization
>Comes from the 10 commandments
[angry greek noises]
The greeks didn't need Jesus for democracy.
@@saladcaesar7716 they also didn't have democracy. Only the nobles could vote, and not women, either.
The Greek noises were, 'Why didn't we think of that? (forehead slapping).'
Mens et Ens Women's right was kinda recent. And through history, no one really cared about the poor plebs. But it's a good first step for that time.
@@saladcaesar7716 yes, indeed it was. The Ten Commandments were better, though, in that they prompted deeper thinking about the nature of all people. It just took a long time for us to think about it. That's the way we always work.
Ended slavery?
I've never heard of the "Thou shall not have slaves" commandment...
Kevin Smith I think the all powerful all knowing all loving god would have a pretty easy time stopping them without allowing slavery...
@@kevinsmith853 Isnt it obvious what God should've done?! Outlaw slavery!! He outlawed murder right? Do the same with slavery. God made murder a sin but the Isrealites still killed people so your point on changing their nature makes no sense. But I guess ordering people not to mix fabrics was more impotant💀
@@kevinsmith853 So what? Think of all the unnecessary harm that came about becaue there was no law about slaves. But here's the kicker: God condoned it. That's why it isn't a law.
@@kevinsmith853 No He literally gave laws on how to own slaves and where to get them from lol
The Hebrews were slaves...
I love how Prager University isn't even an actual school of *ANY* kind let alone a university. Also, captan Dennis who loves the Tanakh so much has been divorced twice! Way to practice what you preach Dennis.
its the sister school to trump university
hamburger university isn't a real university!!!!!!!!
Well, watching a PragerU video is probably the closest you've ever gotten to a college education.
***** go back to your video game.
All citizens have a right to participate in politics. Besides, I play video games as a hobby.
Is it ironic that I got a Prager U ad before this video?
Okay, does he know there are other crimes than theft and murder? You can break someone's leg and commit rape doing neither.
When someone says that children obeying their parents is good makes me want to punch myself. Children are not the robots controlled by their parents. Children are human beings, with minds of their own. Treat them like that.
Okay, Mr. Prager. I am an atheist. I think murder is wrong. I do not need your God to tell me that.
I feel like religious people being told that morality is objective just shut down and can't understand that concept.
Dinonid123 is murder inherently wrong? if we were vikings, it wouldnt be. is there someone in your life giving you problems? murder them, problem solved. however, in this day, it is socially unacceptable. believe me, i am not in favor of legalizing murder, but it seem to be a completely rational response. extreme, but also rational.
It is not ironic that you got Prager U ad. The CZcams ad serving algorithm knows that irony is wrong.
I believe the argument is that God gifted everyone with morality, regardless of your beliefs. Not that being religious brings about morality
ScarMilly yes, that's the argument, but it's quite obviously bs. yes, it's true that most people agree on the broader notion of "you shouldn't take someone else's life", but what about those who support the death penalty or those who are in prison for murder (most of whom are religious) or the psychopaths who think it's okay to kill people or those who support honor killings or wars, what about self defense, etc? it's clear that not everyone thinks that every case of taking someone's life is wrong. and that's just the most basic thing, as op said there are a lot of things considered crime that different people have different opinion about. just take a look at the criminal laws on various countries around the world, that tells you all you need to know about how subjective morality is.
esgaril Well I don't think that we should be able to say that objective morality is false simply because a murderer is/claims to be religious
Apparently god assumes we're sociopaths like him who have no empathy and need to be told that murder is wrong.
That is exactly what is going on here and with any preachers. If you ask and talk to any preachers about their believes, you find out that most of them are in deed sociopaths without empathy and they preach god to others because they assume other people are like them.
@@damienasmodeus928 sociopaths - no, most of them believe that the Bible presents the truth: the best way for people to get along and to be happiest. Ideally it puts all people on the same footing so they get along with each other. 3/3/2022: Russia invading Ukraine - Putin believes he knows what is best for the world, that the Ukranians know nothing, they are simply the enemy because they disagree with him.
@@damienasmodeus928 I couldn’t have agreed more
Wtf
@@mylem6234 its true!
7:30 to paraphrase; if it isn't god who declares slavery wrong, it. isn't. wrong.
and god doesn't...so it isn't?
uncomfortable argument there...
Nice one
He did, that's why Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt...
@@Leo_artistero he condemned the Egyptians for slavery, but let's not forget that Abraham and Sarah had slaves and weren't condemned for that.
@@alia.1041 They were, Abraham's son with Hagar brought incredible repercussions that still haven't been resolved.
@@Leo_artistero God didn't want the Israelites to be enslaved, but He was totally fine with them owning slaves themselves. See Levicicus 25.44-46.
A child born in China or India or a remote Brazilian rainforest might never encounter Christianity in their lifetime, but in all probability they won't turn to murder. So there must be some non-Biblical source of morality.
Knowing that murder is wrong, morally and legally, is not what stops people from committing murder. Most people just have no desire to do it. And their lack of desire to kill people has nothing to do with a commandment. It's part of growing up and playing your part in a civilised society. Which is why the military has to spend a lot of time and money indoctrinating recruits in learning to kill, dehumanising the enemy and getting them to obey orders without thinking about it. And then they come home and develop PTSD because killing people does not come naturally.
Well said!
why so much murder then
God has given man a conscience.
@@tomral1
Because the bible says its wrong and doing something wrong gives people thrills.
Then add all they gotta do is ask for forgiveness after each murder and boom free ticket to heaven.
@@nullvoid7188 That would be insincere even the lord didn't tempt the lord. Maybe same could be said for those who believe in nothing and have the idea then that nothing really matters, they worry me more. There's a lot of hopelessness out there.
Wait, PragerU is serious??? I thought it was a satirical comedy channel all this time...
Lol
🤣
@@JackWaruinge Whats that emoji
Poe's law
Like Conservapedia, which I still can't quite believe isn't a product of The Onion.
PragurU is Basically Buzzfeed but for Conservitives.
Buzzfeed are stupid just because. PragerU are backed financially and heavily by Conservatives, and oil companies. Meaning PragerU is stupid because...money.
@@massineben7198
Eh.......
I guess. To be honest i could not give a shit about the both of them.
At least Buzzfeed has Unsolved. If PragerU made a series where Prager and Shapiro do something really fucking stupid, like renovating houses or cooking, then maybe they’d be equal.
@@massineben7198 buzzfeed is backed by leftist billionaires just like PraegerU is backed by right-wing billionaires.
@@cyn3rgy759 Source? Also Buzzfeed is not leftist, they are liberal which is completely different.
Dennis : then morality is just an option and belief
Alex : FINALLY YOU GOT IT
no, you have it just the opposite.
@@rick9870 wdym dude
@@rick9870 morality is still an opinion ñest you assume every human to be sociopathic like most Christians do
God, according to the story, killed the first born sons of the Egyptians, but murder is wrong? It seems your god loves to contradict himself.
Mike Carter not only that, the Pharaoh wanted to let the slaves go, but the God hardened his heart. therefore is solely responsible for the slaughter
Michał L. Michał L. Absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, every time Pharao wanted to free the Israelites, god hardened his heart in order to further torture, and ultimately slaughter the Egyptians.
I think the term "God hardened his heart" is just poetry. The Pharaoh like most kings were blinded with Power. No man could just walk up to a king and demand to let certain people go. His actions were expected.
I love Alex's subtle humor in the video.
It's a British trait. My dad was from Scotland and had an incredible ability to be funny without being loud or strange. Dry humour as we call it.
Cause he's lying to us and knows we won't do any research into the full prageru video, or the kjv scripture
@@Richard-hn8ex mate he literally showed all of the video
If one of the Ten Commandments is to respect your parents then what if your parents abused you?
Don't forget the commandment to kill your children if they curse you in the Torah which he "happens to leave out"
Guess little Timmy deserves that beating 🤷🏾♂️
Dennis Prager specifically says in his video that the Ten Commandments require people treat their parents with respect. He does not say that people must love/like them. A person can treat another person with respect and honor them, even if that person has inflicted pain upon them.
@@revan552 I personally think that honoring our own parents regardless of what harm they did to us, is a form of respecting our own roots. Regardless of our living circumstances, we need to respect our reason for being, the starting point of our own lives, even if it consists of much hatred and malevolence. Giving respect to our parent, biological or not, is a form of appreciation and humbleness towards life. When our parents die someday, we go to their graves, and lay flowers for them. This is the concept for me, hope that makes sense.
According to a number of denominations they will denounce it on the surface but when faced with actual abuse will often blame the child for misbehaving or even told that they deserve it even if that punishment leaves a child covered in black and blue or is even molested. Source: personal experience.
Prager starts with a conclusion about the ten commandments, then seeks reasons to support his conclusion. He can't use deductive logic to prove a sound argument for his opinion, because false premises always lead to dubious conclusions. The Torah contains over 600 commandments, and if they were universally applied to all humankind, the results would be absurd.
"Ended slavery" lol seriously?
They literally think that... so... yes... "seriously".
Devaloped democracy?? The greeks did that long before the 10 comments were ever written.
@@TheRamiel001 The republican/democrat names have changed drastically . . . Republicans used to be diehard bleeding heart liberals . . .
The fact that Prager has to take extended credit for ending slavery on behalf of the republican party . . . literally proves that they're so fucking far from those roots.
The democrats used to be the racist, southern, lilywhite hicks . . . now they're the opposite . . . modern Republicans picked up from where old school dems left off
@@TheRamiel001 And western society perpetuated some of the most horrible systems of slavery in history . . . google the Belgian congo if you want evidence
@@NymbusCumulo928
I think maybe you think I agree with prager, I do not. I'm just saying that "yes, they are serious, they do believe the shit they spew, they're trash."
Prager is annoying to have frequently suggested to me. The few times I've given their content a chance, it seems like they started with their conclusion and then tried to find some half assed evidence or reasoning after the fact. Then when that fails, they try to make a blindly ideological explanation for whatever the topic is, despite claiming to be in favor of knowledge, objectivity and factualism.
Matt Cooke They're a very alt-right channel. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the right wing philosophy, for the most part, but they put so much propaganda on their videos, it's disgusting.
I don't mind conservatism at all, I hold many beliefs that people would call conservative. I do mind when people reach the conclusions that they do for bad reasoning. Prager could espouse my exact opinions on every issue, but if he couldn't intelligently defend them I'd rather support someone who could justify the opposite beliefs.
Matt Cooke the first prager video I ever saw was the one about the wage gap and I had really high expectations after that, but I was extremely disappointed.
.
.
“All morality is just opinion and belief”
Wow, Prager explained moral relativism!
Dennis Prager: No document has changed the world more than the Ten Commandments.
Magna Carta: *am I a joke to you?*
PragerU = BuzzFeed of Right
Utsav Manandharz at least buzzfeed doesn’t pretend to be intellectual
@@maximusmedia8412 no but they pretend that they are a "legitimate news source" which is basically the same thing . I chuckle everytime BuzzFeed calls themselves news.
Utsav Manandharz you complete me.
At least BuzzFeed has fun+stupid quizzes that might entertain someone.
@@kelseyrobinson1917 those things annoy more people than they entertain
"No document has changed the world for the better more than the ten commandments." I dunno, I could see an argument for the magna carta.
I'd personally argue the Code of Hammurabi had a huge impact, being the first written law code and what not.
Euclid’s “Elements” - revolutionised and kick-started maths and science.
Justinian et al. “Corpus Julius Civilis” - Rationalised Roman law, is used as a basis for law around the world today.
Various’s “US Constitution” - Be you a US citizen or not, you cannot deny both how influential the country has been throughout history, and this is the foundation stone of that.
Just a few.
Code of Hammurabi? First written law code written thousands of years before the ten commandments.
_Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk._ (Jurgen Habermas)
@@mensetens6391 Word salad, Judaic Christian ethics existed before them.
Saying "Dennis Prager is wrong" is like saying "water is wet" or "fire is hot."
Water isn't wet
Fire isn't hot
@@stitch2769 czcams.com/video/mV-CmdVU8HU/video.html
Not really. I mean "wet" and "hot" are determined by context moreso than objectivity. Wrong is wrong. You can make the argument that water is not wet and that fire is not hot and hold some validity but you cannot validly make the argument that Dennis Prager is not wrong.
@@splaarthank you
“Unless there is a God, all morality is just opinion and belief,” - Dennis Prager
Thank you for that wonderful agreement of the definition of morality, without proving yourself correct
Nerdy Psycho
Backing up an opinion with an opinion. Incredible debate tactic by prager
You didn't show that he is wrong...
It’s called faith. Either you have it or you don’t. There’s no need to actively attempt to take faith away from others but there is always a need to bring the idea of faith to society.
Dominick Mazurek why is there such a need?
Mens et Ens I wasn’t attempting to show he was wrong, I was showing that he’s not actually saying anything worthwhile in a sarcastic, somewhat jokey, manner. I hope that cleared it up
“"In much of the West, the well educated have been taught to believe that they can know nothing and that they can draw no independent conclusions about truth, unless they cite a study and "experts" have affirmed it. "Studies show" is to the modern secular college graduate what "Scripture says" is to the religious fundamentalist." -Dennis Prager, equating evidence to religious dogma
Did he just contradict himself?
Also, I love your name and profile picture
+3milyDurpicorn yes he did, but that's no surprise considering it's Dennis Prager
Just to play devil's advocate for a second: Do you and I affirm the validity of the Big Bang theory because we're privy to the evidence in the form of raw data, or could even understand it if we were? Or do we just figure "scientists oughta know"?
@Steve F. We affirm the validity by observing the evidence provided by those with the means to obtain it. If you simply do not have a reasonable means to attain evidence (ie religious scripture) then naturally we would dismiss it and choose the more logical conclusion that was obtained via the Scientific Method. So in a way, yes we do figure "scientists oughta know" but on the same note, we can come to our own conclusions using just what makes the most sense to us logically. However, we could also rationalize in the opposite manner and choose faith over facts. It really comes down to who you are as a person and how you were raised. It's hard to make an Atheist out of an Evangelical Christian and vice versa. Perhaps a better questions is, "Are we more likely to be rational or irrational given the evidence of a higher authority? Or are we more partial to our own world views regardless of evidence?"
Don't get me wrong, I'm not religious. What I meant is that Prager has a point that we accept a whole lot of scientific knowledge on the say-so of scientists. I'd argue that we're justified in accepting the scientific consensus when the matter at hand is scientific. But the fact remains that it's an appeal to authority rather than a decision made through assessing the evidence itself.
PragerU:
the channel which convinces me that, I am, indeed, intellectually superior to someone: them.
Very well put. Dennis Prager needs to grow up. But that's not going to happen.
@Abandoned/inactive account
did you assume Dennit Prager's gender?
@@gameinsane4718 Dennis prager is both a gender and a mood
And this is a fairly worn out joke. Let me guess, aTtAcK hElIcOpTeR ftw?
Its basically Buzzfeed for conservatives
😀
"Thou shall not scrawl graven images"
So everyone who's drawn a penis is going to hell?
That's 7 billion more people added to the census of the underworld
If I believe that murder is wrong, why do I need to "know " it?
@FunnyTech ethics and morals are 2 different things. Morals are beliefs held by an individual; ethics, by society.
Someone's morals could include killing under any circumstance (e.g., a serial killer.)
Society would lock them up. Because the society (probably) believes it's morally wrong to kill under some circumstances (e.g., not in war.)
Why? Evolution actually provides a sound explanation.
If all members of a species thought killing was OK in every circumstance, then they'd all kill each other and wouldn't reproduce. Thus, whatever DNA that caused that trait would be eliminated.
On the other hand, you also want to be able to punish a few rogue individuals from killing the population. That's why we have a police force and why we think having a police force is good.
War is also considered moral in some cases because defense is necessary to keep the species alive.
The only reason would be because you are an epistemologist
So, are the ten commandments good because God commanded them? Or did God command them because they are good?
God's commandments, which constitutes the believer's moral framework, are permeated with the substance of God's moral nature. All of His commandments, not just 10
And that measn what exactly?
Master Bow Well. If you accept that the things God command are good because he commands them, then that means the only prerequisite to something being good is God commanding it. So if God decided one day to reverse all of his commandments, running around killing and stealing where ever possible would then be the objective good. It sort of takes away from the value of goodness, since it only means "what God command".
But if you accept that God command what he does because the commandments are good themselves, then this says that God is not the final word for what is good. He is getting how to act from some other source. And of God is getting his rules from this other objective goodness, then why don't we simply go straight to that source? It turns the commandments into a sort of clip notes of the real good.
You're probably right, but my question was actualy directed at bob polo (I should have been clearer). He uses the phrase "permeated with the substance of God's moral nature." What do you think that means?
In any case, I've heard Christians (such as WLC) try to get out of the Euthyphro dilemma by saying that it is neither the case that what God commands is good because God commands it, or that God commands what he commands because what he commands is good (independently of him). Instead, what God commands is good simply because God is good (in his nature). It is in God's nature to be loving, compassionate etc. (so says WLC), which is why he only commands loving, compassionate etc. things (I know lol).
The problem is, however, that this response just pushes the same question back: why is compassion good, for instance, because God is compassionate, or is God compassionate because compassion is good (independently of him)? Even if you know that God is good, that doesn't tell you anything about the content of 'goodness' as such.
bob polo So we don't necessarily need God to have a morality, since it is God's tendency towards this moral framework which imbues his commandments with goodness.
For those who don't know, Dennis Prager is the Bill O'Reilly of the religious world BTW.
I misread that as Bill Cosby. At first I was like "reeeally?".
I thought Bill O'Reilly was the Bill O'Reilly of the religious world...
Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.
555 To The 666 uh, God. duh
I thought Bill O'Reilly was the Bill O'Reilly of the religious world...
Christian here. I really like your videos; I'm honestly surprised how much I'm getting from them. A while back I decided I wanted to really investigate my faith, and also how other people were looking at things. So I took a look into Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and most recently Islam. Islam was the silliest, for reasons you probably know. But after coming from there, I at least learnt the kind of empty arguments to avoid in order to honestly debate and critic. This channel is asking good, direct, well thought out questions - a stark contrast to what I got what with Islam lol. Gonna take some time to research what I've seen here and see how well it holds up to close scrutiny. God bless.
Yo, as an Ex-Christian of a couple years, props for being so honest about your position. That kind of honesty is rare. I hope you keep asking questions and continue to find satisfying answers!
@@georgehiggins1320 i remember watching this a couple of years ago. It hits different when it's the first time you hear something or consider such a different point of view. At the time I remember the sense of feeling like I was in a whirlwind whenever I interacted with someone like that. Eventually my faith in Christ was strenghtened. in a nutshell my conclusion was - there's a good reason why we believe what we believe. A pretty dense nutshell. But yeah.
The first commandment is a demand from a jealous, barbaric god that commits genocide and supports slavery
to worship only him
and not those other "rival" gods
which he could easily destroy any time he felt like it.
Sounds like tribal warfare among the goat herders.
is it just me or did he get more sassy
His sass levels have been rising, it's quite enjoyable in my opinion
It makes it entertaining to watch
Actually he acts like he doesn't want to do the video.
HE DID and I love it
sebastian talbierz maybe because he keeps having to deal with more stupid bullshit
"Unless there's God then people would think that stealing is ok"
Or CCTV, police, security, jail, law
An ass beating by whoever you are stealing from catching you
That alone tells you exactly how immoral the average theist is...
@@allahspreadshate6486 your name itself is immoral
Or empathy
@@muhammedshefin3939 how many beheadings and terror attacks do you need to prove that user's name wrong?
Stop it! You're converting me to Atheism. lol
Joe Pekarek and that’s not a good thing? Lol
@@kingcody1800 Depends. #TruthaboveIdeology
Atheism simply means you don't subscribe to any particular God. It does not mean you claim that no God exists, for immeasurable claims cannot be proven by science.
If some divine being descended from Heaven and told you a bunch of stuff and gave hard evidence, then you'd believe that specific divine entity exists because you just measured at least a few properties about him.
Hey Joe, I also want to add that you don’t need organized religion to believe in more than the material. ”God” might even exist, because the universe IS clearly mysterious. I for instance believe that the whole universe is kind of ”alive” and one onenness that I sometimes even call God.
Because we all small humans and we dont know everything. Organized religion is often so arrogant and claims it knows.
I recommend taking a psychedelic or meditating a bunch and exploring what God is for you, personally.
Love
I am recently found your channel. For such a young man you are very very smart. It took me 50 years to even start questioning what I was taught as a child. Now that I am 70 plus years old I realize that I am an atheist. So thank you for your channel.
Oml I saw an ad of his which was him ranting about how awful it is that merry Christmas was replaced with happy holidays and I died. It was so dumb
Akrian Mapping, seriously, why does he hate New Year's? I mean if he only wants to celebrate Christmas but not New Year's that is fine, but I enjoy having multiple festive holiday in the winter season.
Joseph Perez idk man
That’s ridiculous and this is coming from a Christian. I understand where he is going but just no it doesn’t matter in the end. Some Christians need to think before they speak
_about how awful it is that merry Christmas was replaced with happy holidays and I died_
Only from the neck up, it seems.
@BronzeGod First, learn to read. Second, think about it for a year or two. You'll get it eventually.
Normal person: I believe that 1+1=2
Dennis Prager: bUT hOw DO YOu KnOw!?!?!
"But you believe that your ancestors are monkies"
If you're going to know [Edit: Oops, I meant 'knock'] evolution, try first understanding what it actually says.
John Smith - You write a big essay and still no answer. You are going to be my google for now cos you are smart.
1) Who came first Ape or Human?
2) How exactly did the first full 100% Human came into being?
3) If we evolved from something what was it?
4) Who was the first Human male or female?
"Who came first Ape or Human? -Neither.
So, you don't know."
'Neither' is not synonymous with 'I don't know'. Neither came first because there is no specific point where a previous species became human. There are just more and more human-like traits that get added over hundreds of thousands of years. I have explained this and given an analogy of the red water turning into purple. Can you tell me the precise hue where red changes into purple? If not, is it because of your failure to understand, or just because there is no exact point where it happens?
*So you think, "EVERYTHING is human because there is no single point where we diversify".*
Again, no. What you said is ridiculous and is not even close to what I said.
The context of the discussion is the change from an ape-like ancestor into humans. To say that I'm suggesting dogs, birds and fish fall into this category is patently stupid. If you need to strawman what someone says to such an extreme level, you should perhaps reconsider your position.
*But you didn't even know whether it is ape or human from #1 and #2. So, you don't know.*
No, you fallaciously said I don't know, based on the ridiculous assertion that 'neither' means 'I don't know', and the even more ridiculous assertion that I thought dogs, birds and fish existed in between humans and our relatively recent ancestor.
The fact is the question asked was nonsensical and I explained the reasons why. If you want to point out where I am flawed in those reasons go for it and let's have a useful discussion. But just asserting that all of my nuanced answers to nonsensical questions boil down to "I don't know" while avoiding addressing even a single point I made is a poor excuse for a rebuttal.
*You don't know, just like #2*
Just like #2, it was a nonsensical question that anyone with an understanding of the basics would recognise makes no sense and therefore has no answer.
If I was to ask you "Which car is tree?" and you couldn't answer and pointed out the question makes no sense, would that be an example of you having poor knowledge? No, of course not.
*You can just say "I don't know." Unless your ego is too big to admit that you don't know, and just like to make up bullshit and nonsense arguments that only idiots can agree with.*
I say "I don't know" all the time. Feel free to look up my other posts on CZcams. I do it all the time, especially when abiogenesis and the question of what came before the big bang arises.
By all means, come back when you are interested in having a serious conversation and actually making sensible points, or pointing out flaws in anything I've said. But you haven't addressed a single thing I've pointed out and just pretended my answers are all variations of "I don't know". I don't believe it's possible for anyone to have such poor comprehension skills, so I can only assume you are being deliberately dishonest to try to make a point. Try again, but this time actually make a point. If what you believe is based in fact and reality it should be no problem for you to defend your beliefs without falling back to cheap tactics and absurdities.
*NOOO!! There has to be A POINT when they are both the same...*
Excellent. Then you tell me every single characteristic that makes something a human and no longer an ape-like creature, and give me the exact threshold for the thing (as an example, tell me the exact percentage of body hair a human has as opposed to an ape-like creature, and exactly where this hair isn't on the body). You are adamant that this precise point exists so this should be an easy task for you.
Or even easier, tell me the precise hue where red stops being red and becomes purple. I note that you disregarded this challenge.
*APE and HUMAN, how are they are similar to RED and PURPLE???*
Do you not understand what a metaphor is? I am not saying red and purple are analagous with humans and ape-like creatures. I used it as an example of something that has a definite starting point (red), a definite end point (purple) and is a very gradual change, and that there is no single point where red turned into purple. This is precisely that same as the change from an ape-like ancestor to humans (it took hundreds of thousands of years). This is a trivial example to understand.
*human is not ape, ape is not human, we are different species*
No shit; no-one is saying apes turned into humans. We evolved from a shared ancestor. Stop saying ape - that is a huge strawman argument. If you care at all about being honest you will stop pretending anyone is saying apes turned into humans.
*If you give an example of red and blue, how the heck do you make blue from red?*
Please work on your reading skills. The analogy is a bucket of red water and blue dye being added. The more that's added the more the water colour changes to purple. Who said anything about making blue from red?
Come on. You can do better than this. Stop avoiding the points I make and pretending I'm saying stupid things. It makes you look very weak.
*You said that there is no single point during the transitional phrase where the common ancestor becoming human.*
Correct! Which is not even in the ballpark of saying "dogs, birds and fish can turn into humans" which is what you pretended I was implying.
*But you DON'T KNOW when they start becoming a human, an ape, or a monkey*
I tell you what - you give me an extremely precise definition of each of these things. The more precise you can be about what constitutes each of these things, the more precise I can be about when it happened. Because that's the problem; concepts like 'human' aren't extremely precisely defined. Good luck defining 'human' so precisely that you cover things like co-joined twins, people with missing limbs, people with extra organs or nipples, super-hairy people, hairless people, albinos etc, without making your definition also cover ape-like creatures.
*...which means human is ape is monkey is dog is bird is fish. Guess what: NO. They are not, they are different!!*
I'm not sure why you bother pretending I said this. I've consistently pointed out that we can point to the start and classify them ("ape-like ancestor", or in my analogy "red") and do the same for the end result ("human", or in my analogy "purple). To pretend I'm suggesting I can't classify anything is either blatant stupidity or blatant dishonesty. (In case it's not obvious, I have just answered your request regarding "How am I being strawman here? Please point it out...").
The entire point is about how gradual the change is. If you want to refute my point fine; give me an impossibly precise definition of a human, or give me the exact hue at which red ceases to be red and becomes purple. You keep insisting I'm wrong that there is no definitive point so get on and prove to me there is. If what you say is correct this should be a trivial thing for you to do.
Bold prediction from me: You won't do it. You know whatever hue you give won't be 'the' exact point where the transition happened. And you know the moment you give me a specific point I will show how wrong you are.
*Just because you use wrong logic to apply to a REASONABLE question, doesn't make it nonsensical. It means you don't have the answer, or you fail to understand the question.*
Great. Instead of asserting it though, show it. Tell me the precise hue where red turns into purple. The precise hue where something ever so slightly redder is definite red, and anything ever so slightly more purple is clearly purple. This is such a simple challenge for you so stop wasting words and do it. Prove to me that a very gradual change has definite points where things can be classified.
**an ape-like common ancestor*, How do you know that we share one? How do you know that they exist?*
Good question. As you know I have felt you have avoided addressing the actual topic at hand, but this is a genuine relevant question.
a) DNA. We can look very precisely at our own DNA and modern apes and see how much DNA we share. We can even look at exactly which DNA strands have changed.
b) The fossil record. This is surprisingly complete; we have all sorted of examples from our most recent shared common ancestor through to humans (and the same is true for apes).
So we know through DNA sequencing that we have somehow ended up with a lot of the exact same DNA as apes, and it is likely we evolved from the same species. Then we have the fossil record that shows this is exactly what did happen, because we can see the intermediate species.
If you care to educate yourself in this area, see also the scientific fields of phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics.
John Smith - As I said previous you do write long assays with no answers. You say how hair a human has...You clearly are an idiot or simply having to become one to justify your evolution theory. Is that how science defines a human? By body hair? You fool. You need to educate yourself. Evolution is just a Theory and it has never been a fact. So everything you are saying is totally pointlesss from a Godless view of society.
Absolutely, undoubtedly, unequivocally, categorically, and undeniably, the best opening to a video ever. Lol
“...obedience and respect is not a given. It should be earned; based on the parent’s performance...”
- some New Yorker who was one of the most smartest comedians in the world
Damn, 109 thousand subs! You really rose fast. Good for you man. ❤
Correction: 110,000 subs now! It jumped that fast in one hour!!! =)
I subscribed when he was at around 50,000. That was only months ago. He really is getting popular.
fishlove69 I subbed around 10k. Everytime I went on his channel to watch a video he'd be up by another 5k subs, or so it seemed.
Ryan Swanson I subbed by accident. Remained subbed. Not one of my favorite channels but still has been enjoyable and I have remained subbed.
He interviewed Lawrence Krauss! He deserves more IMO
you can beat your slave as long as they dont die within three days of the beating
i really think this book isnt that good
I didnt expect this video to make me laugh out loud.
Ended slavery. After perpetuating and justifying it for ages.
Ridiculous level of ignorance.
I like the biggie track use! Prager is extremely conservative
+The Progressive Voice Prager made a stretch here for sure, however most of their stuff is spot on.
+SHAZBAT414 "theoanarchist" Interesting concept. I don't know if Dennis himself is Conservative. However the PragerU videos are almost always Conservative in nature.
The Progressive Voice LMFAO I did not expect to see you here XD
I actually laughed when he talked about the Ten Commandments helping with women's equality and ending slavery like didn't the bible say that women aren't worth as much as men
Well, considering that in one of the commandments, a person's wife is included in a list of their property you're not supposed to covet, I'd say it not looking too good for Prager's assertion.
God’s a WOMAN! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
I loved the scene in The Ten Commandments where Charlton Heston tells Yul Brynner "LET MY PEOPLE GO YOU DAMNED DIRTY APE!!!".
And the scene where Edward G
Robinson tells Yul Brynner"NYAAHH!!!NYAAHH!!LOOK HERE PHAROAH!!WER'E GETTING OUT OF EGYPT SEE ??!!!NYAAHH!!".
7:18 PragerU has a video that no joke says that if a kid asks why you should say "because I said so".
Nothing triggers me harder the a PragerU video. The perfect concoction of pseudointellectualism, misrepresentation of facts, and straight up arrogance just nudges me in the worst way possible.
Their most recent video I keep getting ads for is just terrible. They're arrogantly trying to use like a jedi mind trick by saying "you do love capitalism and you do hate big government. Whether you realize it or not". Correct, I like the free market but that doesn't mean I don't also see a place for government in things like healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. Somehow they think all left wingers are all put communists.
ProGMO Vegetarian Trust me, you're not alone. Prager's arrogance infuriates me.
It's not just arrogance, it's smug arrogance.
Nothing triggers me more than Postmodern cultural Marxists like you......
Smug.....because he knows what he is talking about...
Other animals don't kill other induvidials in their tribe, because it would not be benifical to passing on the species,
but humans need a "god" to know that it's "wrong"??
Do more research about your claims about animals not killing their own tribe members
BadassRandomness Many animals kill members of their own tribes in order to make room for offspring of successful mating pairs/groups; even often for the chance to mate. Same goes for the claims that animals do not go to war or commit cannibalism; many social animals engage in such activities when feeding territories overlap especially among carnivorous animals.
Humans do the same and they have a god (not a real one, but you know what I mean)
A new pack leader will kill all the children of the old lead. You are wrong.
Cosmic skeptic thank you for bringing people up to date with ethics in 2019 lol. Please post more videos like this!
my religion teacher showed the class pragerU's 10 commandment vids and im about to send him this.
My better Ten Commandments
1) Don’t be a dick. 2) Take time for yourself. 3) Do what you like to do (see number one). 4) Learn something everyday. 5) Laugh. 6) Discover awe. 7) Be adroit in at least one arena. 8) Surround yourself with loved ones. 9) Enjoy and preserve the beauty of nature. 10) Leave the world better than you found it.
Red Hunteur agreed
Prager U makes me physically ill. And I'm decently politically conservative.
Thank you sir
I’m so puzzled why in the US it seems to be the opposite. Conservatives are more religious and liberals less. It should be the other way around or at least equal. The US is such a weird social case...
Seriously.....?
You question it's moral goodness because you are probably not in a position to understand it....
Antonie de Vry we can all question moral goodness (ethics) in a case by case basis , because we have a brain, we live in an evolved society, and we benefit for the long term personal and societal wellbeing.
A few comments on this video from a Post-Grad student in Hebrew and Old Testament studies:
The versions of the TC are different because the writers are different and use different phrases for the same things, therefore the POV of the writer (1p as opposed to 2ndp) are different. Exodus is a 3rdp account of God speaking to his people, therefore phrases will start with "vayomer elohim" meaning "and God said", in Deut. Moses is speaking in the first person to the Israelites (the name of the book literally means "second law") as a way of REMINDING them of things written down in the "Torah" or Law, that is, Exodus and Lev. etc. They are different because they are supposed to be different and the Exodus version of the TC are used because it's the FIRST version as opposed to the "second law" reminder of Moses in Deut. You must know this and I can assume the only reason you leave all this out is in order to establish your own argument by way of deceptive statement.
As to your argument of "wanting" something in order to progress as a society, the TC never state that you are not allowed to want, it says you are not allowed to COVET the possessions of your NEIGHBOUR. Hitchens would also know this. There is a massive difference between wanting something better for yourself and actively plotting to take what rightfully belongs to someone else (this is was the TC refers to) You should know this also and yet again you leave this small detail out.
As to your argument for God explaining His actions to you let me see if I can turn that around: You argue that IF the being that created the entire universe does indeed exist, then He has an active obligation to you personally to explain himself based on the morality that your society created? Based on what? Hmmm... a bit of narcissism there don't you think? Just a bit?
Great piece. One thing: I believe that "to covet" in Biblical terms means not just to want something like another person has ("I'd really like a red BMW like Fred drives") but to actually want the object that that person already has ("I want Fred's red BMW.") In this context, coveting becomes a doorway to theft. At least, that's what I was taught in my Calvinist Sunday school. I don't believe it anymore, but I still remember. Keep up the great work!
Sorry about the audio issues. I know I've been talking a lot about morality recently, so let me know what sort of stuff you'd like to see.
CosmicSkeptic Morality of Utilitarianism might be an interesting topic. Everyone seems to have a different opinion
Still a good video. Great job!
CosmicSkeptic thanks for doing a Prager U video. I hate seeing those guys in the ads on CZcams
I know the same old "tornado assembling a perfectly made car" gets quite old. Perhaps some semi-political videos. Or, and I know you do not live in the US, point out the lack of separation of church and state in America even though it is part of the constitution.
I had no idea Prager was Jewish, I know that's not exactly relevant but his videos always came across as overtly christian to me. Another solid video Alex, your videos actually got me watching NonStampCollector which is all just brilliant stuff. Maybe just going through some of his content would be a good place to find more material that you have opinions on. Your response to apologists videos are still the best in my opinion though.
To me hearing creationists say there can be no morals without God, is like saying without Kermit the frog there can be no colour green.
vzgsxr But is it not beautiful we can all have different opinions and live side by side?
Religious people say, "All Atheists want to do is sin"
Yet Atheists only account for 5-10% of people in prison. The other 90-95% identify as religious.
Hmmmmm very strange.
vzgsxr with all due respect religious sin does not equate to legal wrongdoings. Sure there are some like common law murder but things like being jealous etc are not statutory Acts
Banzingo NE
No only the "Big ones" do.
Thou shall not kill,
Thou shall not steal etc.
My point still stands.
Banzingo NE
As far as "living side by side" goes, I cant say I see how this is working, people all over the world are willing to kill themselves and also kill other people because they believe their god is the one true god.
A little snarkier than usual... some beautiful sarcasm. I like it, but it's not the "maybe if I just explain this patiently" Alex that we've seen in the past...
but then you're implying this deserves patient explanation
Hello!
Great video! Really appreciate your content. However I do have one question. In the beginning of the video you say that the version of the Ten Commandments that are labeled "The Ten Commadments" are in Deuteronomy 5. However, when looking at Exodus 34:28 we get:
"Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments."
When looking at Deuteronomy 5 however, I can not manage to find a any mention of "The Ten Commadments". Is this a miss from your side or am I missing something? This is not a critique, I just really want to understand :)
The 10 Commandments are just as relevant today as they were when they were written - i.e., not at all.
GalapagosPete They are relevant in the sense that a society needs laws and there are archetypal laws that govern over many sub-laws. The problem with applying them to current society is many believe laws should be applied universally. But even now as back then there are people who believe it is only a crime when crimes are committed against members of the society that the laws were written for - i.e. murdering your fellow citizens is wrong, but killing foreigners in the name of war is acceptable.
Alex, serious thank you for posting the verses in the video! That's a huge help, and it shows that you go the extra mile to inform your viewers!
In a world with no murder or theft, politicians would be out of a job for sure.
Are ten commandments that appear in Exodus 34 called Rule 34
😂
If murder is wrong because god says so then, his morality is arbitrary.
Shawn Cudjoe God doesnt have morals or opinions. He is. We have opinions.
What's The Takeaway? What? So he doesn’t have opinions on things? Therefore he doesn’t have an opinion on my actions and thus won’t judge me if I murdered orphans? I am confuse.
@@kianjt
Nah he'll judge you for murdering orphans all you gotta do is ask for forgiveness after each murder and he'll let you off the hook.
are you wearing pants?
Shhhhhhh you'll ruin the illusion...
Don't ruin it for the kids.
Naji Ishag Wait, how do you know he wasn't wearing trousers
If your catholic probably not might also have little timmy glued to the crotch.
7:07 Its funny because this is how pragerU wants us to raise children as of stated in another video of theirs.
He claims that democracy comes from the Ten Commandments. Democracy comes from Athens, decades and centuries before
I thought the ten commzndments were supposed to have been written before ancient greece.
If the 10 Commandments are needed to have good morals, then was every person alive before they were written a horrible person with no morals?
The biblical God is needed for good morals, not just His commandments
bob polo, yes, if by "good morals" you include slavery, rape, genocide and infanticide, all of which are allowed by god. Also note that the 1st four commandments are unconstitutional.
Yes
Well God certainly was
"...if God didn't tell you murder is wrong, how to you KNOW murder is wrong?" That's a good point Dennis, but God didn't say RAPE was wrong (except when it is a violation of property rights or laws), or racism (except against God's chosen people), or suppression of speech (except the word of God), so is that something that we know is wrong? By your logic we don't, we... guess; those things are subjectively wrong, but slavery of war captives is objectively right.
I'm sorry Dennis, but that doesn't seem to hold up.
Robert Aylor do not commit adultery is a commandment.
The Frunter Marital Rape
James Meow What about it?
This Prager guy is a clear example of how someone can unconditionally believe the thing they chose to be absolute truth. No reasons needed.
The intro is one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen in my life 😂
The same way that you knooow that chocolate tastes better than tar. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
BRILLIANT 👍👍👍
I don't know. I haven't tasted tar, so I am unable to present an informed opinion on the matter. However, I can _deduce_ that tar tastes worse (to me) because I am a chemist and understand aromatics. Tar looks pretty horrible on paper/
I don't know I haven't tasted tar but if it tastes good than tar tastes better than chocolate.
I've tasted tar but it's not as good as chocolate.
I just got a pragerU ad before watching this lol
Sounds like a brand name or a perfume.
Your videos are usually very good, but when you go after Prager, you're better than just very good!
Nice presentation Alex. Nice to see reason in use.
The first comandment contradicts the first amendment.
Seed Of Evil no...no it doesn’t. One is the government saying it won’t compel belief.
The other is a commandment from God saying what you ought to do. Just like how it’s a sin to cheat on your wife, but the government isn’t going to throw you in jail for being adulterous.
Omar I didn’t realize the Ten Commandments weren’t rules but guidelines. Frankly that seems pretty not like a commandment to me.
You need to learn before you try to teach. Some examples: Ex 20 WAS written in stone, by God--Moses broke the tablets in anger. Ex 20 and De 34 are the same list, while Ex 34 is not the 10C at all, but just directs its recreation. Covet does not mean what you say it means.
@@bassman_0074 So basically, God's a bigger dick than the goverment? Got it.
@@bassman_0074 The Commandments are Un-American... Yet the Bible is the basis for "Western" Society? Try and square that circle.
What do you think of the inclusion of certain words that already imply a position on a moral concept?
For example, "Thou shalt not steal." Isn't this just saying "Thou shalt not do the thing you already know is wrong"? It is not explaining the concept of theft. The fact that the word "steal" existed in biblical Hebrew suggests they already understood the moral concept and knew it was wrong. The commandment simply reaffirms it as wrong...
Interesting linguistic point, Paul. Nicely done.
Thank you sir!
To start off, I just want to say that I am an atheist and as such I am not defending the ten commandments or God. I am simple contributing to the conversation with my opinion.
*For example, "Thou shalt not steal." Isn't this just saying "Thou shalt not do the thing you already know is wrong"?*
No, it isn't. I'll explain why.
*The fact that the word "steal" existed in biblical Hebrew suggests they already understood the moral concept and knew it was wrong.*
No, it doesn't because the word steal needed to invented to describe the specific action of someone taking something that is not his property for himself. No part of that needs to decribe it as morally wrong which is why the commandment specifies it as such.
Let me further clarify this with another example.
Killing.
To kill = To take the life of another living being.
What part of that definition describes killing as morally wrong?
The word used for "kill" in "thou shalt not kill" is "retzach", which refers to unlawful killing resulting in blood-guilt (I.E: murder). There are other words for killing (nakah or harag) that don't have that connotation. So yeah, "thou shalt not kill" comes pre-packaged with the understanding that this form of killing is the bad kind.
As opposed to the good kind, which pious men regularly subject God's enemies to, sometimes on His direct orders.
Eloquent and articulate as always Alex. Thank you.
I love the fact that there is a cardboard cutout of a CZcams play button in the background.
9:01 I'd just like to add that almost all humans have a genetic predisposition to prefer sweet tastes over bitter tastes because bitter tastes often signal toxic poisons to organisms. This argument is somewhat flawed because morality and gustation both have evolutionary reasons to exist as they commonly do. However, the idea that morality is objective has definite flaws since details about morality tend to vary across cultures. Prager is exceedingly closed-minded because of separate influential issues that concern the communities with (moral) values which are unnecessarily strengthened by the internet. It's a conspiracy on all sides.
(edited for a spelling error)
TBH Prager isn’t even worth refuting but I do understand why you would want to. He’s proven to hold to some incredibly stupid ideas and is a dishonest debater.
A lot of people believe Prager, believe it or not. They think the opposition is the straw man "leftists" and have not heard actual good arguments against Prager.
> Be gay
> Gets stoned
The ten commandments are the basis of human morality!
Hmmm, if murder is wrong, then all war is wrong as well...
Actually, Mr. Prager, the most influential law in the world is probably the Code of Hammurabi. It influenced all other law of the Middle East and beyond (including that of the early Hebrews.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
Despite what Christians and conservatives want to believe American law is not based on the 10 Commandments. It is derived from English law which in turn comes from Celtic and Germanic traditions and bits of Roman and Greek law. The law of the Hebrews is a side show at best to all of that.
I started laughing my ass off at 1:55 and couldn't stop
At the time 1:10, you made reference that only one scripture made mention of the ten commandments leaving Deuteronomy 5 on the screen but the reference is found in Exodus 34, specifically verse 28.
The must watch video is unavailable, does anyone have a working link to it?
Crazy how different our communities are, atheism is strongly looked down upon where I'm from, my parents would probably disown me if they knew I was an athiest😂
Megan Carrington believe me if they were do disown you over that, their morals are upside down and you're probably better off without them.
Chevy S they're great parents other than this issue and it's not a big issue unless I want it to be. I simply won't tell them I'm atheist. Besides I kind of like pretending to be Christian, I get to critically challenge everything I'm told about Christianity without people thinking I'm having a dig at the religion; they think I'm just very curious and eager to learn about 'my faith'😂
Megan Carrington that's excellent, you're actually modernizing the religion within your community without you probably knowing it! Bringing criticism to the table will surely make a few think twice about their beliefs of Christianity and will make them weigh the fundamentals in which they base themselves on.
Megan Carrington relatable lmao
Haha, you're like a double spy within Christianity.
Alex you are a genius. You have helped me so much. Honestly the only way I was able to watch your videos in the first place was because of how respectful and poised you are. I understand now how hard it is to adress these absurd arguments with a straight face, but I beg of you to remain the way you were. Don't get me wrong I will still watch you, this video was nothing bad in particular, but you just had a slight smugness that I am not accompanied to. Thoughtless Christians needs videos they can tolerate. Thanks for what you have done and don't take this the wrong way. :)
Kai Widman Wow... it is amazing how you surprised by this video... he don't even attack the arguments.
And Christians have been hearing since always the most awful things.... for tolerance... their the best in general.
Funny, how being logical is regarded as genius these days...
Piotr Tarasov Logic is pretty rare on youtube as it doesnt't provide the views and the money
@@tarasov9794 Funny, you're guys don't counterargument him anything? How delusional are you guys.
@@enriquevilla5374 Oohhhh, you just a fanatic that think that holy fictional book is true when in reality hold a lot of contradictions.
I wonder how PragerU would react if I say
"Murder is wrong because Buddha said so."
Okay, it has been 3+ years since this upload but I must ask: What is that orange device behind Alex on the right? A bladeless fan? A speaker?
Mr DrawerSkeptic, please do a video on Ray Comfort.
I would *love* to see the two of them have a discussion. Maybe I'll work on that. :)
I love how Prager attributes the end of slavery to "western civilization". Ignoring the fact that the ending of slavery has nothing to do with the commandments, America was actually one of the LAST major countries to end slavery. Britain, France, and much of Europe had made slavery illegal long before the US, not to mention Eastern countries like Japan, where due to their secluded nature and the type of crops that grew there, never really adopted the practice of slavery at all. Not only did it take us longer but the presence of slavery was so strong in the US that we started a whole civil war because of it. Yes, in a time when many countries had already banned slavery, we were fighting over it because half the country thought it was ok. Not only is acting like the end of slavery is some kind of accomplishment ridiculous in its own right, considering that it's fixing a problem that we caused, but specifically acting like the Western hemisphere is special in ending slavery is when it was one of the worst in this regard. If anything this claim only disproves his point, considering that any amount of research shows that woman's rights and unalienable rights were prevalent in countries that had little to no Christianity in them. Oh, and no, Western civilization was not responsible for developing "universal human rights". To claim that any one civilization did so silly in its own right, but if the concept had to be traced to one source it would actually be Europe. There was a period in Europe called The Enlightenment, in which many writers expressed ideas of democracy and universal human rights (AKA unalienable rights). During this time France was doing very badly, it was being suppressed, citizens were poor, and the nation was in debt, largely due to it's monarchs. This is largely what sparked the Enlightenment, and soon after, the French Revolution. The Enlightenment had a huge impact, as these writings and ideas soon spread across the globe. It is often said by historians that without the Enlightenment, the American Revolution would have never occurred.
Assuming you read the whole thing, you've probably learned more from this comment than from PragerU's video. For an "educational" channel, I think that really says something.
Both the Catholic and the Protestant faiths endorsed and explained-away slavery.
At 1:20 you made mention that version being presented by Mr. Prager is written down, however, Deuteronomy 5 verse 22 states that those set of instructions were in fact written down.
I always understood the "don't covet your neighbour's stuff" thing to refer to unique items. So yeah, you can covet having enough food to stay alive, even if your neighbour has that food. You can covet your wife. You cannot covet his wife or his house.
PropagandaU is at it again!! *shakes fist*
May I suggest Pragerganda U?
The self-made 10.000 subscribers play button is driving me kind of crazy because you pasted another 0 behind the number because you achieved 100.000 subs congrats. But I can't stand it that the little dot isn't in the correct place 10.0000 instead of 100.000.
Lotus Venlet he has 10 subs now
+Lotus Venlet Hey I'm not the only one who noticed this! It bugged the hell out of me too. I wouldn't normally mention something like that but he is someone who argues against creationists using science. With this in his background he opens himself up to a cheap shot like "How can I believe you even understand the science behind X if you don't even understand where a comma should go in the number 100,000?" That subscribe button has become outdated, it's time for an updated version. I'm sure if he asked there is at least one crafty person in his group of 100,000 subscribers.
TechReflection Do you actually think this is a significant flaw? Anybody making that as a serious argument has no legs to stand on.
+skeptic moderate Significant? Not really, it's just notation but if I wanted to convince someone gullible that cosmic skeptic doesn't know what he's talking about it would be my go to. Sure you could explain that it's only incorrect because he added another zero, but not everyone will hear that explanation. If I convinced you that someone was to stupid to put a comma in the right place you might watch their video and figure it was to add another zero to the end so it's harmless, but how many people do you know that would take that at face value? It's less of a pain in the ass to get or make a new one because it was made for 10,000 and if he wants to keep getting subscribers it's only going to get more wrong from there. What's he going to do when he reaches 1,000,000? It's not going to be correct until you reach 10,000,000.
I agree with what alex is saying here but I'm just a little confused on his moral beliefs. he says murder is wrong subjectively, however so many people hold this value it may as well be a fact. My main problem with this is if for example, as alex says, women always were equal it just took us a while to find out. wouldn't that mean that when women didnt have rights and the majority of people thought they were inferior being the subjectively moral viewpoint as he puts it, contradict with our current beliefs that women are equal. sorry if this doesnt make sense im writing this at 4 am.
The "must watch" video in the link is no longer available. Does anyone have an alternative link?