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.

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.

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!

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...

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.

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 KZfaq 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

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!

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.

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.

Lol

🤣

@@JackWaruinge Whats that emoji

Poe's law

Like Conservapedia, which I still can't quite believe isn't a product of The Onion.

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

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.

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 KZfaq

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

.

.

Water isn't wet

Fire isn't hot

@@stitch2769 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o7xddtCVu7uceIk.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

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

😀

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?

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

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.

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.

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...

@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

"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 KZfaq. 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.

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

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.

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.

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! 😂🤣😂🤣😂

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

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

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.

+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

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

Red Hunteur agreed

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...

but then you're implying this deserves patient explanation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like a brand name or a perfume.

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.

Robert Aylor do not commit adultery is a commandment.

The Frunter Marital Rape

James Meow What about it?

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.

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

I would *love* to see the two of them have a discussion. Maybe I'll work on that. :)

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.

May I suggest Pragerganda U?

Yeah, it seems just plain odd that someone should tout the Ten Commandments as being so liberating and allowing for a free society when the same Bible states that working on the Sabbath is punishable by death and a non-virgin bride should be stoned. Hey Prager, how liberating are those Bible passages?

Also these particular commandments include women as property. Its quite explicit, but usually edited. Something like; don't covet thy neighbors land, ox, goat or women.

God does not want anyone to worship out of evidence, but out of Faith. Atheists need to accept the fact that God will NEVER reveal himself physically. We are not worthy to see his form. But God does work in our Lives. We call, he answers.

"God does not want anyone to worship out of evidence, but out of Faith. Atheists need to accept the fact that God will NEVER reveal himself physically." We accept that. And we treat it like any other claim that hasn't met its burden of proof and requires faith (aka "gullibility") - we don't believe it. There is literally nothing that can't be believed based on faith. It is a terrible way to find truth.

Denies Prager is Jewish.

I know right, cosmic skeptic made himself look like a fool in this video

@@djohnmark3625 Ahhhh, you're people saying he's wrong but you don't even counterargument his claim.

Kyordanny Del Valle Neither did the original commenter buddy. That was the point of the joke

@@djohnmark3625 Mmm, I don't see you not debunking anything. Beside, didn't you know that fact prager U isn't even an credited university and it said so in their website. Getting their science wrong and neglecting some evidence so it doesn't debunk their stupid agenda. There are no different from ben shapiro, Cnn, mbnc, fox news, infowars which are just propagandic machines.

@@kyordannydelvalle523 Well I didn't claim that i debunked anything which might have something to do with it. Also I really don't care for any of those figures you mentioned so dunno why you brought them up.

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.

yeah me too 😔