Ray seems to suffer from Alwaysadolphobia, the fear that if you don't invoke Hitler every 60 seconds, a giant eagle will swoop down from the sky, grab you in its talons and drop you into a volcano.
It is really a dirty little trick. By involving hitler into a discussion, he can create feelings among the listeners, the listeners when full of emotion will not want to disagree with something, if it has a negative connection with hitler. Couse if they were to agree, they would be supporting hilter. So if Ray can make it seem like his ideas are opposing hitler, then people will be more likly to acceot his words... it is really a dirty little trick...
It's being twisted to appear complicated. Giving hypotheticals about inventions to measure theoretical future deaths can never be fully known. That's like saying, if only the person who made the knife knew what he was creating. And you can twist that and say the same thing about anything you want to make morals appear muddy. A knife, fork, swimming pools, cars, electricity, fire, and a nearly infinite amount of other things have caused death, whether or not these things are used to take a life is on the individual.
He wants to distill this down to a simple yes or no answer because that's all he's able to work with. There's no nuance to his answers. It's either "yes" this is wrong or "no" it's not wrong. There is no grey area. And that's why he pushes for a single, definitive answer.
Thunderf00t - "Can you make a distinction between murder and killing someone?" Ray - "No" Thunderf00t - "Earlier you said that killing someone is...." Ray - "No there is a difference" Ever notice those pauses when Thunderf00t talks? It's him thinking and being consistent. Obviously Ray doesn't think through what he is saying. What's worse is when he asked Ray if he'd justify abortion to save lives. Ray said it was an absurd question and refused to answer... You gotta be kidding me.
+Brian Stevens Killing and murder is the same thing in my opinion, it just depends on how you see it or better said from your persective. For example if killing or murdering someone for revenge or whatever reason were legal because let say it's part of our natural way or capabilities, then you killing or murdering is the same thing.
+T Tc If they're the same thing, language is failing to do it's part. The purpose of having multiple words is so that they're not all synonymous and we can make distinctions. I believe the best answer is that we can draw distinctions between the words "kill" and "murder" but the two have some overlap. Just think about the usage of someone saying "You killed him" or "You murdered him" while both sound horrible, we know the later denotes criminal activity in our society. You mention "natural" which has nothing to do with legality. It is nature for human-beings to not wear corrective lenses. You're once again putting words together. We have "natural" and "legal" because they're two separate concepts. Even if this were the case your jump that murder is "natural" is a huge leap you haven't shown any evidence for. Let's get back to the topic and show very easily how killing and murdering are not the same thing: I know a girl who lost control of her car and killed two ladies by way of an accident. Dylan Roof went in to a church and killed many people by way of murder. This shows the overlap I mentioned but also shows the necessity of two different words. I would be wrong to say that the girl I know murdered two women. This is why someone could say "I passed the class" and another person could say "I aced the class". The person in the later example most likely made an A or maybe... a B. The person in the first example made a passing grade. The words we use convey different amounts of information and it is possible for them to overlap at times but the reason we have different words is for the ways in which they don't overlap.
I get what you are saying but, killing or murdering has the same effect, death. That is way I was saying it depends on the perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or we consider as natural.Maybe my example was not right, I don't know. We are talking about the death factor, the result of those actions being the result of an accident or not, the action it self, if you say it's bad or wrong, or consider it to be ok, it's most probably because of your: "perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or you consider as natural". The cause of an action being an accident or not still makes the "unwanted killer or murderer" a killer or murderer, cause and effect. Murder involves the act of killing, and we call it one or the other because of the perspective, which usually is the perspective of what we consider what is right or wrong (but we don't know what's right and wrong).
T Tc *I get what you are saying but, killing or murdering has the same effect, death.* They don't have the same consequences. If you murder you're in worse shape legally. They don't have the same meaning. Just like "finishing a race" and "winning a race" have overlap, they don't mean the same thing. I've finished a lot of races but I've rarely won a race. Clearly these are two separate words conceptually. It's like "All males are human, not all humans are male" because "All murder is killing, not all killing is murder." *That is why I was saying it depends on the perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or we consider as natural.Maybe my example was not right, I don't know.* You're right if you say, "At times, they're the same thing" you're wrong if you say, "They're the same thing" and don't draw the distinction where they can be different. *We are talking about the death factor, the result of those actions being the result of an accident or not, the action it self, if you say it's bad or wrong, or consider it to be ok, it's most probably because of your: "perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or you consider as natural".* 1 - Natural has nothing to do with this. Natural and legal are separate concepts. 2 - Bad or wrong have nothing to do with this conversation in drawing distinctions between words. 3 - Our society has defined these words. It is why we have a dictionary... let's use it: Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Kill - Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). You'll notice how our society has added the part of about legality regarding murder. As I've stated above, murder is killing but not all killing is murder. We have "murder" to add the extra context that the act of killing was illegal. Please listen.... just because these words are similar doesn't mean they're synonymous. *The cause of an action being an accident or not still makes the "unwanted killer or murderer" a killer or murderer, cause and effect.* You really don't understand the words if you think the girl I know murdered two ladies. Her car spun out of control on a bridge that was iced over. She killed two ladies. She didn't murder them. Yes, the outcome of killing and murdering is the same HOWEVER they're not the same. If she had murdered those two women she'd probably have ended up in jail. The reason she is not in jail is because they never prosecuted her because they don't believe she murdered them even though she killed them. I hope this clarifies the difference between two words for you.
It was an unsure response to a guy I thought might be joking but wasn't sure. He seems to have deleted his comment. Seems there was a misunderstanding.
man, Thunderf00t is such an intelligent human. he doesn't just give the simple answer; he gives so many details and goes into such depths on his views. I would argue he is the smartest atheist on youtube.
+cheesefrommysoul Actually shame he wastes it on this nitwit. RC MUST be the stupidest Christian around...at least he is the most annoying one. Although there's fears competition! If I were God I'd be ashamed about the level of intellect among my followers.
+cheesefrommysoul I know right? And Ray never even actually listens of considers TF's words and explanation. He just plays word games and attempt to tip-toe around the subject in order to put words in TF's mouth
+cheesefrommysoul i agree but some youtubers like the amazing atheist is mostly for intertainment but he does manage bring some good points sometimes :)
"can you elaborte on the differance between murder and killing someone" "no" "so is killing immoral?" "no, if someone tries to kill my wife i shoot the leg and work my way up. so is it absolutly wrong to murder?" "it like you said it depends on the situation." "no it's always wrong" "but you said you kill to save your family" "that's differant" and people take comfort seriously?
20:28 It is inspiring to see someone as eloquent as Thunderf00t deal with the bombastic Comfort. He does not respond with a snide remark, but chooses to stay kind.
We can't convince R of any different concept. He only believes in a god giving humanity a conscience of right or wrong. Then how come there are so many other religions? And why would god care for property?
Communists believe that private property is theft as it is stealing from the commons and view wage labour as theft as the employer extracts labour value from workers.
Dealz Jawalha Don't take part of what he said out of context. he said: "I dislike the term atheism... I prefer the term rationalist. But people know what atheist means, so for all intents and purposes, yes I'm an atheist."
CiscoWes You cannot know for sure that the invisible, undetectable, ghost of Abraham Lincoln is in the room watching you right now. Are you an Abraham Lincoln's ghost agnostic?
+Dealz Jawalha you've gone off on strawman land. an agnostic at least admits he or she doesn't know if God exists or not. that alone pushes agnostics into a much healthier debate arena rather than the typical atheist God doesn't exist so you are an ignorant fuck for believing argument.
Thunderfoot has quietly risen to the ranks of Dawkins, Krause, and Hitchens in my mind. He, like the others above mentioned, has his own way of speaking about the same topics of the 3 mentioned, but can draw you in and keep you entertained. A full fledged scientist and a pretty polished ability to speak is a winning combination. Keep up the good work sir.
Yeah but at least he knows he's right because he has moral absolutes. No mushy subjectivity for him. He's the servant of a king, albeit invisible. Similar to the singer "Genesis" who's been talking to Jesus so he knows he's right. That's what our country needs right now. More people who talk to invisible people. Too much visibilityism going on. Time for invisible people to get treated like people too!
This Ray Comfort guy doesn't realize that right and wrong are not objective objects in the universe; they are not even objective to human nature either.
"Oh no, he's got me in a corner... Lets ask another, unrelated question, totally switch the subject, instead. That way I don't have to come up with ANY FUCKING ARGUMENT OR ANSWERS AT ALL."
Can you put that in English for us peasants? Hahaha what a genius, im a bloody high school drop out and I understood thunderfoot perfectly the entire time.
ray:"if you hypothetically went back in time and the had the opportunity to kill hitlers mother before he was born, would you?" later f00t"would you tell somebody to have an abortion if it would save the lives of many" ray"thats a ridiculous question"
Oh no, IT'S TOO LATE! You already turned into an idiot who "looses" brain cells instead of "loses" them, just from listening for a few minutes! When your brain cells got loose, did they fall out of your ears, or did you manage to stuff your ears up with cotton in time?
BlackEpyon Open mindfulness is good eh? How about being opened minded to God of the Holy Bible? But it won't work will it. Because you would need to open your heart to God which is another way of saying connect with Gods' Spirit. The human mind is at enmity with God.
@@andrajules3503would you say ray comfort could have behaved better? Do you not see a lot of scientists lack the open mindedness for Christianity because of folks like Ray, ray doesn’t lead by example like the word of God says, imo he is a wolf in sheep clothing
Empathy is a human trait. "I would not like to be stolen from, therefore, I don't steal. I would not like to be lied to, therefore, I choose not to lie." God is no more, or less required in this equation than any other. If you believe, then empathy is given by God. If not, then God is just a construct to rationalize natural selection, and cultural conditioning.
You mean FOLLOWING Godwyn's law. Not violating it. Godwyn's law states that as the length of a forum thread approaches infinity, the probability of Hitler coming up approaches 1. Ray would only be VIOLATING Godwyn's law if the interview was infinitely long, and yet the topic of Hitler never came up.
I got into an argument with Comfort once. He kept on asking me over and over "Do you know everything?". No matter what I said there was no getting through.
Oddly enough, Comfort does not SEEM a bad guy. Just someone who is so morally misguided by his religious blindness. If he walked up to you out on the street and you talked not about religion, but like the weather. He'd be a fine guy...Once again we see a man who COULD be a good man, has been turned bad by religion
I disagree. I think he is a disingenuous liar who makes a living from the harmful nonsense he spews out. he is aware that it is nonsense. I think he is an insecure and profoundly unhappy man.
wolverine668 The irony of such a comment is that Hitchens was himself, a religious person--he just put his faith in random chance as the explicator of life.
This video really shows two things: 1) How good Ray Comfort is at editing his debates to make him look good at debates 2) How bad Ray Comfort actually is at debates
I don't think that they quite understood each other, to be honest. Thunderfoot's initial hypothetical (have science, save X billion people at the cost of X million people) was slightly off topic IMO, or he did the logic in his head and didn't lay the groundwork necessary to connect it to what came before. Which left Ray fumbling about for other hypotheticals that didn't completely address the same point either. So like two gears that don't quite engage, it's not going to be able to drive a discussion.
"I want to talk about Nazi Germany" lol of course you do. you're just a walking fundamentalist stereotype aren't you? Ray Comfort is my favorite comdian.
Ray is forgetting that jesus also lied: Jesus says to his disciples: (John 7:8) -"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." (John 7:10) - "But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret." Jesus lied to his disciples, so obviously its not that big a deal.
The thing is that Ray Comfort is asking if something is right or wrong, but as an absolute, which is as God supposely said it. But moral absolutes does not exist for atheist. Raping is wrong, but what if from that rape the human who will cure cancer will Born. Then Rape will still be wrong, the damage made to that woman will still be damage, even when the birth will bring something that it not wrong. So lets separate this things, Rape is wrong. (it damage physically a person and if we all do that, we will create chaos which is not a good condition for survival) The birth of a human is Good. ( every birth of any man increments probability of maintain the species) The cure of cancer is Good, (it will increase the survival probabilities) I think the answer to this, will be that we should search another way to cure cancer, or we should search antoher way to impreganant that woman to bring that one human, by artificial insemination or something else. If we did not know the outcoming of rape, then we should not rape either. Because if we all rape, it will create chaos and our probability for survival will decrease. As of Hitler is not necessary to kill him, we can show to him that he is wrong, that if he continues he will lose, that the Aria specie does not exist, we all are humans, and if that does not work, we can just keep him in jail, I mean there are not only 2 option, Kill or be killed, we an think or something else. Something that creates less Chaos, that shows that it is no necessary to kill to survive but all the contrary.
The whole "What if a rape would result in the person who cured cancer being born?" scenario you constructed is pretty much nonsense...There is no way to predict that any specific combination of genes from a specific rapist and specific rape victim would result in a human being that would cure cancer. It's ridiculous to even postulate. Without even touching on the supposed moral decision there (which doesn't exist because the entire concept is flawed), without knowledge of the future of a hypothetical child (even if somehow you could predict that the two individual's genes would result in this cancer-curing super-baby, which you could not, there's always plenty of chance that no child would even be conceived, or that the mother would get an abortion, or that the child would be stillborn), the logistics don't even begin to make a bit of sense. The only moral dilemma that your scenario brings up is whether to allow ALL rape on the almost nonexistant off-chance that the resulting child would go into medicine and cure one specific malady, which again, is ridiculous. If you're going to postulate scenarios to try and make a point about morality, at least postulate ones that make even the slightest bit of sense.
That is why, I said, "What if" in the first place, of course it does not make sense, Of course there is no way for us to know that a baby from a rape could cure cancer. Of Course, That is why is an hypotetical situation. As for almost every "what if" that cannot exist, As only exist what is, not what if, you need to imagine that situation. I know its like a"fairy tale" lets say, but still, I was wondering, what could be the way I would act on that situation. And by that you state "is impossible" when my question was, "imagine it is possible". So your answer does not make sense towards the hypotetical situation, I know the idea is kind of stupid, But still I was wondering "What if" do you get that? So is Ridiculous, SO WHAT? I scratch my balls with a comb, that is ridiculous, but I still do it. I mean what is the point on your answer? state the obvious? I know it is impossible, When I state "what if" as imagine, I knew it was impossible. So thank you for telling me what I already knew, But, If I want to know from an impossible situation, I will, postulate, what ever I want, to think what would my position would be, Even, to think I am peter pan, fighting Captain Garfield. You try to make the slightest sense of yourself, BEFORE you answer an Hypotetical, with "that is Hypotetical, it cannot be"
*It is a hypothesis based on specific conditions or concepts* That is one meaning of hypothetical. Another is for something that you assume it is true for the sake of argument. you are the one who does not know the whole meaning of the word and it is giving this ridiculous answers, So yeah, that hypotetical situation I made is ridiculous, So is your answer. Because my question is "what your position would be" and you are answer, "that is an hypothetical" *hypothetical situation is not a situation that cannot exist* I postulate "cannot exist" as a part of the Hypothetical, not as all the Hypothetical. I mean Hitler cannot die before the war, that is impossible, it already happened as it happened. So that is one Hypothetical that cannot exist. Because every "What if" cannot exist as of now, otherwise it would be, What is, and not, What if. *Something that hasn't happened, but COULD or COULD HAVE, without the possibility of it ever occurring postulating on the outcome is pointless* First of all how can you know it could or could not happened, if you cannot know what hitler was about to do, before he did it? Because we can assume the possibility based on his capacity? If that is te case and the possibility is a factor for any Hypothetical , even when you mention the range of Stuff why the Rape thing was not possible, is still meaningless, I mean we know people had find cures to deceases , So even if we do not know "who" will, we know that someone, or someones could or could have, with previous reference of it. And I was asking "What if" that someone could come from an horrible act. But that was not even the case, I was assuming you know that for a fact, because you kind of travel through time, So you did not knew it not by knowing the correct DNA combination, bla, bla, bla but because you already knew it, Just as with hitler. But the thing is, we are arguing "If" the Hypothetical situation is possible, And I am saying, "Assume" it is, (that is why is an hypothetical) and then to tell me what would the "correct" position you think it would be. I already agree that it is a childish, ridiculous, silly Hypothetical. And you keep giving answers to "support" What I already Agree? Do you realize, how ridiculous that is?
Senzu Beats *First off, the example of a hypothetical I gave was* First of all, I was never speaking of your Hypothetical but mine, Second, I don't really care about your Hypothetical. *did not occur, could have occurred* Still, how would you know they "could have existed" Because of Hitler's mom capacity to give birth or not? For people around hitler's Father or mother with the capacity of killing them? what ever your answer "could be" your dancing around what I said. *This is different from the nonsense you spouted* It is different because I based my hypothetical on a possibility, and you do that same thing, so yours make sense and mine doesn't,hahahaha that really does not make sense, So now not just your answers are ridiculous, but your explanations are far worse. I stated that the possibility of a Child being the one who cure cancer, is based on the observation that Us humans had cure deceases, and my hypothetical that , a woman can get pregnant by raped is based on "Danielle Dellorto", "Begley, Sharon, Heavey, Susan" statements, that rape does not lower the chances of a women in getting pregnant. It is a possibility just as your Idea of the Unburn Hitler, and I mix them both. And I stated that you know that for a fact, by you traveling from the future, Just as you know now, Hitler was born and was reponsible for all the masacre, So it is not based on the knownleadge that a child was burn to cure cancer by knowing the exact combination on DNa requiered for that to happened. *What YOU did was try to introduce a moral question masquerading as a hypothetical* I did not masquerade Anything, WHERE? I did say, What your position (moraly correct) would be in that Hypothetical, I did not masquerade anything, I was very clear, that I was thinking on what my position or moral choices I .would postulate, I think you do not even understand, what you are talking about. *Your moral choice does not exist" It exist in the HYPOTHETICAL, hahahaha man , you really are dancing around. *These kind of unrealistic moral questions have no point, they serve no real-world application* YEAH because, It IS A HYPOTHETICAL hahahahaha. Your idea of hitler is Unrealistic also because IT IS NOT REAL, it is based on a HYPOTHETICAL. hahahaha *Unless an individual is omniscient and knows every single outcome of every action decades in advance, no one will ever make a decision like it* No, here you really demonstrate you do not understand anything I said. You do no need to be omniscient, you just need to come from the future and know for a fact that X child born from a rape, and that he found the cure of cancer. *I can make up ridiculous scenarios like you did all day* Yeah, you already prove how ridiculous you are, you don't need to convince me of that. *But what the fuck is the point if there is no correlation to the real world* It is not from the real world, because, IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL, hahahahahaha The correlation is, that are some aspects in reality where a thing is "not moral" but end on a "good thing", So it is testing the limits of that, also the point is, I want to think what my position would be. I repeated that like a hundred times. hahahahahhaha And what is the point of me wanting to know my position on a unrealistic scenario? Because I fucking want to. It is also using the same logic on a real scenario, which it could be you killing someone that wants to kill you. You do a "no moral" action and you save your life, so it is a "no moral" action generating a Good or beneficial thing, Still someone or someones is getting "hurt" *(I can't bear to read another misspelled, 5th grade reading level, word-jumble response from you, so reply if you wish, but I have no more time to waste trying to illuminate a point to someone who can't even form a coherent thought)* Oh, how rude hahahahaha, You write like a 5th grade. woooow, you are a danger. hahahahaha, How pathetical that is. I may write as a 5 year old just as you write like a piss off girlfriend. ohh you write like a 5 yeard old, whats next, hit me with your purse? hahahaha What is it that you need to illuminate? I already agree that my hypothetical was ridiculous just as your answer, and just as you keep trying to convince me of what I already agree, hahahahhaha And of course you are wasting your time, I ALREADY AGREE. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is the most stupid conversation I've ever heard. It's quite clear that Thunderf00t is completely incapable of progressive conversation outside the comfort (no pun intended) of his pre-written vlogs... For anyone looking at the comments before watching, save your 20 minutes and watch some Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens.
Every single time Ray thought he had a 'gotcha' question and pinned phil down, the only thing he had achieved is asked a dumb question and then when phil began a thoughtful response accused him of somehow conceding or failing
I must say that I get frustrated that TF isn't quite giving the answers that I want to hear, but I applaud this format. Just having two amateurs go tête-à-tête in a parking lot is much more interesting than one of those over-blown prize fights which get so much attention.
3 ปีที่แล้ว
You have to give the interviewer credit for showing us the resilience of TF. I don't think I would have lasted 10 minutes without losing my cool.
Ray comfort doesn't know what's right and wrong because he can assess what's best for his fellow humans... he knows what's best based on what his god has currently made law. That's terrifying. Ray just does what he's told, regardless of what is fundamentally/actually/naturally right or wrong. If Ray's god told him today that killing is okay, or worse commanded Ray to kill, Ray would kill! That's terrifying!
This conversation could be summed up into two quotes, one by Comfort and one by f00t; "It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis" -f00t "There are moral absolutes" - Comfort
"Do you know where the courts are" at the exact moment Comfort drops the H-bomb in a conversation about morality... im an atheist but god moves in mysterious, bizarre ways
I don't get why he can't comprehend "We learned a lot from that having happened." If we never make any mistakes in history we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
So no one can discover good things without going through a process of bad things? I still don't understand how to determine absolute right and wrong, not socially, but what IS right?
Ray is *awful* at conducting interviews. I’m pretty sure he contradicted himself a double-digit number of times just in part 1 here. He can’t know right from wrong, or else he wouldn’t be so disingenuous.
It's so obvious throughout this conversation that Ray isn't genuinely listening to Thuderf00t's responses. He's just asking questions to get quotes he can mine for whatever DVD or book he had in mind to next produce.
Ray Comfort's brain: "Confuse the issue. Confuse the issue. Confuse the issue. Ignore the question. Ignore part of the answer. Confuse the issue. Purposely misunderstand statement. Simplify complex conundrums. Confuse the issue..."
Ray Comfort did not see the contradiction in murder. Murdering for sport and killing to protect yourself while yes in society it's viewed different, it's still killing. You can't say killing is or isn't wrong because what Thunderf00t says is right. It's dependent on the situation. Killing is still killing. Even if you're protecting your family from an attacker.
that discussion was perfekt for my psychology class, it took us 120 min to get through. my personal opinionv is that thunderfoot should answer some of his questions with one of his own.and make things waaaay more simpler for him to understand, like the trolley problem, either that disussion goes nowhere or that priest has to acknowledge the real problem with those kind of questions ether way .. Thunderfoot i really appriciate you saying whats onour mind.keep it up!!
I accept that the facts point to the concept that life began in aquatic environments and gradually moved on to land where it diversified further and eventually gave rise to mammals, then apes and then people.
anyone who can see through rays intention can only think of one word... "Disgusting" The simple mindedness of this man is stunning beyond belief. I am surprised this man can tie his shoes, much less hold something in his hand and speak at the same time.
I have a moral question for you all. Please respond honestly and try to give your reasoning for a decision. Imagine that you are a captain on interplanetary vessel, your mission is to colonise the planet, you are third generation captain, the rest of colonists are frozen in stasis. In the fleet there are 2 more ships exactly like yours, same amount of people, same engines, everything. You know that the first ship to arrive will have the opportunity to pick the best sites for cities and mines, because of that all ships were launched at the exact same time and have the same engines, generations ago it was planned that all ships will arrive at the same time. But... some people died during the travel while in their stasis pods, ejecting them into space would give you additional week. You sit down and think about it and you narrow it all to four options 1. You can fly as planned 2. You can eject dead colonists and have aditional week which will put your people in a little better position then others 3. You can eject dead colonists and all others who may (or may not) have suffered trauma during the flight, this will give you additional month plus it will ensure your population will be healthier then others which will give them a big edge over the others. 4. You can eject dead colonists, those who may suffered trauma plus those you consider non-essential for mission. It would give your people three months and ensure their total domination over other colonists effectivly creating the beginning of a powerfull and rich empire BUT you would be remembered as sick tyrant and revilled by everyone including your own people. Choice is yours.
No video has made this more clear to me than this one: Ray Comfort will not accept that the only accurate answers to some questions are complex answers. Everything he refuses to accept requires a complex and nuanced understanding of many details, and when you try to explain more than a few words of it to him, it's like his brain shuts off. He simply can't comprehend that there aren't simple clear-cut answers to some questions, so he accepts wrong answers that ARE simple enough for him to grasp.
Moral isn't just a cost/benefit calculation, fairness is at least as important when taking moral decisions (legislation, etc.). Here two examples (the first is Thunderf00t's example, modified to have the same cost/benefit outputs as the second): 1) A peaceful hermit (a "perfect" hermit, which doesn't produce any value for the society) is killed in order to harvest his organs and save 5 ppl. 2) An hermit (again, "perfect" hermit) stabbed 5 peoples (and we are absolutely sure he's guilty) which will all die within weeks if we can't get 5 different organs. And the only compatible donor available is this very hermit. He's sentenced to "death by organ-harvesting" to save the 5 victims (the alternatives sentences were cost/benefit neutral, eg: life in prison + work to cover exactly the cost of his own detention). Each cost/benefits of each corresponding output (ie: hermit lives or dies) of both examples are strictly equal, however much more would say that the second example is moral than for the first example. This is that "fairness factor" that makes death-sentence for murderers acceptable (if we assume no innocent could be convicted, which is an totally different moral issue (which interestingly, is entirely based on fairness) ), but laws such as "Revenge unsolved murders by sacrificing a random citizen" unacceptable. NB : the rest of this debate is worthless ; especially the part "You don't believe in God, because you fear his judgment ! " which is one of the stupidest thing i even heard : fearing something requires believing in its existence in the first place (except pathological fear such as phobia, which by definition isn't rational) ! It's like saying "You don't believe in unicorns because you're afraid to be stabbed by their horn ! ". Plus, God isn't the only entity able to judge (experience showed that humans does it much more often, and not only magistrates, we (re)evaluate each other continuously) so if this reasoning was valid, it would prove that you don't believe in humans either ; just like you couldn't believe any horned animal may exist without also believing in unicorns... Finally : his argumentation is weak : "Have you even played baseball ? Yes ? So you ARE a baseball player ! " / "Have you even been a little baby ? Yes ? So you ARE a little baby ! " I'm sure that if we use the same sophism long enough we could infer that anyone is a space-frog...
Ray seems to suffer from Alwaysadolphobia, the fear that if you don't invoke Hitler every 60 seconds, a giant eagle will swoop down from the sky, grab you in its talons and drop you into a volcano.
It is really a dirty little trick. By involving hitler into a discussion, he can create feelings among the listeners, the listeners when full of emotion will not want to disagree with something, if it has a negative connection with hitler. Couse if they were to agree, they would be supporting hilter.
So if Ray can make it seem like his ideas are opposing hitler, then people will be more likly to acceot his words... it is really a dirty little trick...
4:45 Ray: "I can't really follow your logic.."
Well, no surprises there.
+Peppermint thats because ray lacks logic
+PapaNickFresh What in the hell are you referring to?
+Peppermint cant understand the trolley problem.. ive met more intelligent dogs
+Alex Brady and fucked them
+Peppermint hahaha, he can't understand.... so bad
ray doesn't realize that morality is far more complicated than just "is murder wrong"
Even better when he starts talking about Nazi Germany.
As if that wasn't all just a repeat for the Old Testament!!!
It's being twisted to appear complicated. Giving hypotheticals about inventions to measure theoretical future deaths can never be fully known. That's like saying, if only the person who made the knife knew what he was creating. And you can twist that and say the same thing about anything you want to make morals appear muddy. A knife, fork, swimming pools, cars, electricity, fire, and a nearly infinite amount of other things have caused death, whether or not these things are used to take a life is on the individual.
At least he didn't ask "Are chemical reactions wrong or right?"
He wants to distill this down to a simple yes or no answer because that's all he's able to work with. There's no nuance to his answers. It's either "yes" this is wrong or "no" it's not wrong. There is no grey area. And that's why he pushes for a single, definitive answer.
I think people who see morality as binary are extremely dangerous.
Just came here from the westboro church interview, and in comparison Ray is like the nicest guy
+adam wickens Lmao you too? Yeah he is definitely nicer. Man this is refreshing.
aye lol me too
+adam wickens Haha, yeah, plus, he has an adorable accent.
+adam wickens same here. i would have called those westboro women "stupid cunts" within 2 minutes of the "interview".
Artorias Abysswalker I would have fucking bitchslapped them within 2 minutes
Anyone else notice how Ray's Mic 🎤 fits perfectly in his hand?
Thunderf00t - "Can you make a distinction between murder and killing someone?"
Ray - "No"
Thunderf00t - "Earlier you said that killing someone is...."
Ray - "No there is a difference"
Ever notice those pauses when Thunderf00t talks? It's him thinking and being consistent. Obviously Ray doesn't think through what he is saying.
What's worse is when he asked Ray if he'd justify abortion to save lives. Ray said it was an absurd question and refused to answer... You gotta be kidding me.
+1
+Brian Stevens Killing and murder is the same thing in my opinion, it just depends on how you see it or better said from your persective. For example if killing or murdering someone for revenge or whatever reason were legal because let say it's part of our natural way or capabilities, then you killing or murdering is the same thing.
+T Tc
If they're the same thing, language is failing to do it's part. The purpose of having multiple words is so that they're not all synonymous and we can make distinctions.
I believe the best answer is that we can draw distinctions between the words "kill" and "murder" but the two have some overlap. Just think about the usage of someone saying "You killed him" or "You murdered him" while both sound horrible, we know the later denotes criminal activity in our society.
You mention "natural" which has nothing to do with legality. It is nature for human-beings to not wear corrective lenses. You're once again putting words together. We have "natural" and "legal" because they're two separate concepts. Even if this were the case your jump that murder is "natural" is a huge leap you haven't shown any evidence for.
Let's get back to the topic and show very easily how killing and murdering are not the same thing:
I know a girl who lost control of her car and killed two ladies by way of an accident.
Dylan Roof went in to a church and killed many people by way of murder.
This shows the overlap I mentioned but also shows the necessity of two different words. I would be wrong to say that the girl I know murdered two women. This is why someone could say "I passed the class" and another person could say "I aced the class". The person in the later example most likely made an A or maybe... a B. The person in the first example made a passing grade. The words we use convey different amounts of information and it is possible for them to overlap at times but the reason we have different words is for the ways in which they don't overlap.
I get what you are saying but, killing or murdering has the same effect, death.
That is way I was saying it depends on the perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or we consider as natural.Maybe my example was not right, I don't know.
We are talking about the death factor, the result of those actions being the result of an accident or not, the action it self, if you say it's bad or wrong, or consider it to be ok, it's most probably because of your: "perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or you consider as natural".
The cause of an action being an accident or not still makes the "unwanted killer or murderer" a killer or murderer, cause and effect. Murder involves the act of killing, and we call it one or the other because of the perspective, which usually is the perspective of what we consider what is right or wrong (but we don't know what's right and wrong).
T Tc
*I get what you are saying but, killing or murdering has the same effect, death.*
They don't have the same consequences. If you murder you're in worse shape legally.
They don't have the same meaning. Just like "finishing a race" and "winning a race" have overlap, they don't mean the same thing. I've finished a lot of races but I've rarely won a race.
Clearly these are two separate words conceptually. It's like "All males are human, not all humans are male" because "All murder is killing, not all killing is murder."
*That is why I was saying it depends on the perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or we consider as natural.Maybe my example was not right, I don't know.*
You're right if you say, "At times, they're the same thing" you're wrong if you say, "They're the same thing" and don't draw the distinction where they can be different.
*We are talking about the death factor, the result of those actions being the result of an accident or not, the action it self, if you say it's bad or wrong, or consider it to be ok, it's most probably because of your: "perspective, point of view, laws, regulations or what is or you consider as natural".*
1 - Natural has nothing to do with this. Natural and legal are separate concepts.
2 - Bad or wrong have nothing to do with this conversation in drawing distinctions between words.
3 - Our society has defined these words. It is why we have a dictionary... let's use it:
Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kill - Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).
You'll notice how our society has added the part of about legality regarding murder. As I've stated above, murder is killing but not all killing is murder. We have "murder" to add the extra context that the act of killing was illegal.
Please listen.... just because these words are similar doesn't mean they're synonymous.
*The cause of an action being an accident or not still makes the "unwanted killer or murderer" a killer or murderer, cause and effect.*
You really don't understand the words if you think the girl I know murdered two ladies. Her car spun out of control on a bridge that was iced over. She killed two ladies. She didn't murder them.
Yes, the outcome of killing and murdering is the same HOWEVER they're not the same.
If she had murdered those two women she'd probably have ended up in jail. The reason she is not in jail is because they never prosecuted her because they don't believe she murdered them even though she killed them.
I hope this clarifies the difference between two words for you.
I'm 6 minutes in. The guy with the handheld camera is *really* gunning for a slip-up so he can say "A-ha! Gotchya! You're a terrible person!"
Sketchy 15 minutes in. This guy is full of contradictions.
[two snare drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff]
+Sketchy oh damn,,,I trying to think but I don't get it. help
It was an unsure response to a guy I thought might be joking but wasn't sure. He seems to have deleted his comment. Seems there was a misunderstanding.
+Sketchy yep, welcome to the wonderful world of Ray Comfort.
Ray Comfort wrapped up in one quote: "I can't follow your logic."
man, Thunderf00t is such an intelligent human. he doesn't just give the simple answer; he gives so many details and goes into such depths on his views. I would argue he is the smartest atheist on youtube.
+cheesefrommysoul Actually shame he wastes it on this nitwit. RC MUST be the stupidest Christian around...at least he is the most annoying one. Although there's fears competition! If I were God I'd be ashamed about the level of intellect among my followers.
+cheesefrommysoul I know right? And Ray never even actually listens of considers TF's words and explanation. He just plays word games and attempt to tip-toe around the subject in order to put words in TF's mouth
+cheesefrommysoul "smartest atheist" - that's a phrase you don't ever hear. There's a reason for that, I guess.
+cheesefrommysoul i agree but some youtubers like the amazing atheist is mostly for intertainment but he does manage bring some good points sometimes :)
I'm not even trying to bash him, but come on seriously? he did not give any clear answers what so ever...
"can you elaborte on the differance between murder and killing someone"
"no"
"so is killing immoral?"
"no, if someone tries to kill my wife i shoot the leg and work my way up. so is it absolutly wrong to murder?"
"it like you said it depends on the situation."
"no it's always wrong"
"but you said you kill to save your family"
"that's differant"
and people take comfort seriously?
Smart people don't..
They take comfort in him being so shoddy that they are allowed to think out doesn't really matter so much if your are acting out being dumb
This argument is missing a banana...
Ray shows his true colors too, he never change or progress in his ways of giving and answering questions.
Ray answered "I can't answer that, it is too nebulous". Yes Ray, now you know how we feel. Some questions are not answerable.
I really love this guy. Phil embodies the strengths of character and inteligence that I have aspired to all my life. Great job Thunderf00t.
This Ray guy just doesn't get even his own context! I wish I lived in a universe so tiny; beyond that there's Thunderf00t!!
20:28 It is inspiring to see someone as eloquent as Thunderf00t deal with the bombastic Comfort. He does not respond with a snide remark, but chooses to stay kind.
thunder: "Certain cultures have no concept of property or theft."
Ray: "You mean communism?"
*facepalm*
We can't convince R of any different concept. He only believes in a god giving humanity a conscience of right or wrong. Then how come there are so many other religions? And why would god care for property?
@@fingolfin117baal2 exactly
Communists believe that private property is theft as it is stealing from the commons and view wage labour as theft as the employer extracts labour value from workers.
20:36 "Could you put that in English for us peasants?" probably the most impactful thing Ray said during this entire interview.
The difference between these two individuals is that one is objective with an open mind, while the other has followed a narrow path.
12:38 and 13:01
Ray should stop shooting himself in the foot and instead just slowly move upwards.
"I dislike the term atheism... I prefer the term rationalist"
" *SO AS AN ATHEIST* "
fucking christ
Dude I was fucking dying when he said that, that shit is so funny.
Dealz Jawalha Don't take part of what he said out of context. he said: "I dislike the term atheism... I prefer the term rationalist. But people know what atheist means, so for all intents and purposes, yes I'm an atheist."
atheism is far from rational or logical. agnosticism is even at least one notch above atheism.
CiscoWes You cannot know for sure that the invisible, undetectable, ghost of Abraham Lincoln is in the room watching you right now. Are you an Abraham Lincoln's ghost agnostic?
+Dealz Jawalha you've gone off on strawman land. an agnostic at least admits he or she doesn't know if God exists or not. that alone pushes agnostics into a much healthier debate arena rather than the typical atheist God doesn't exist so you are an ignorant fuck for believing argument.
3 minutes into this and he's already railroading the conversation in the direction he wants it to go..
No, he's just asking questions but getting no answers.
"Well let's stay with murder for a minute because I want to talk about Nazi Germany"
Had to laugh at some point, this was a good place to start.
MrFreakshow182 Glad I wasn't the only one!
Thunderfoot has quietly risen to the ranks of Dawkins, Krause, and Hitchens in my mind. He, like the others above mentioned, has his own way of speaking about the same topics of the 3 mentioned, but can draw you in and keep you entertained. A full fledged scientist and a pretty polished ability to speak is a winning combination. Keep up the good work sir.
If you could reason with religious people, then there wouldn't be religious people. ~House
Ray never gets into the meet of the conversation or discussion. Just keep changing the topic
>meet
Yeah I noticed that too.
true
It was really disappointing. As soon as thunderf00t was making an interesting point, he just switched the topic
Yeah but at least he knows he's right because he has moral absolutes. No mushy subjectivity for him. He's the servant of a king, albeit invisible. Similar to the singer "Genesis" who's been talking to Jesus so he knows he's right. That's what our country needs right now. More people who talk to invisible people. Too much visibilityism going on. Time for invisible people to get treated like people too!
This Ray Comfort guy doesn't realize that right and wrong are not objective objects in the universe; they are not even objective to human nature either.
Shhh! Next they'll deploy legions to search for any signs of a cross in the animal kingdom!!
"Oh no, he's got me in a corner... Lets ask another, unrelated question, totally switch the subject, instead. That way I don't have to come up with ANY FUCKING ARGUMENT OR ANSWERS AT ALL."
Can you put that in English for us peasants?
Hahaha what a genius, im a bloody high school drop out and I understood thunderfoot perfectly the entire time.
"If you're alone there's no one to lie to." ~ Thunderfoot ~
ray:"if you hypothetically went back in time and the had the opportunity to kill hitlers mother before he was born, would you?"
later
f00t"would you tell somebody to have an abortion if it would save the lives of many"
ray"thats a ridiculous question"
I like how Ray hardly answers any questions
I applaud your patience, and on that basis, gained my absolute respect.
I want to listen to the whole discussion, for the sake of open mindedness, but I feel that I loose brain cells every time Ray gets into an argument.
Oh no, IT'S TOO LATE! You already turned into an idiot who "looses" brain cells instead of "loses" them, just from listening for a few minutes! When your brain cells got loose, did they fall out of your ears, or did you manage to stuff your ears up with cotton in time?
BlackEpyon Open mindfulness is good eh? How about being opened minded to God of the Holy Bible? But it won't work will it. Because you would need to open your heart to God which is another way of saying connect with Gods' Spirit. The human mind is at enmity with God.
@@andrajules3503would you say ray comfort could have behaved better? Do you not see a lot of scientists lack the open mindedness for Christianity because of folks like Ray, ray doesn’t lead by example like the word of God says, imo he is a wolf in sheep clothing
Empathy is a human trait. "I would not like to be stolen from, therefore, I don't steal. I would not like to be lied to, therefore, I choose not to lie." God is no more, or less required in this equation than any other. If you believe, then empathy is given by God. If not, then God is just a construct to rationalize natural selection, and cultural conditioning.
"Hold on a second Thunderf00t, I need to invoke Godwin's Law."
Ray immediately violates Godwin's law.
***** He obviously did. Do you even know what you're talking about?
***** Technically, you're right. And you're not overly defensive and whiny like John St. Maur, so I think you deserve a cookie! :D
You mean FOLLOWING Godwyn's law. Not violating it. Godwyn's law states that as the length of a forum thread approaches infinity, the probability of Hitler coming up approaches 1. Ray would only be VIOLATING Godwyn's law if the interview was infinitely long, and yet the topic of Hitler never came up.
"It's a great benefit."
- Ray Comfort, in reference to rape.
He’s railroading the conversation into a path he wants it to go the path of least resistance against his beliefs
While thunderf00t was flexible
why didn't they do this in a studio at a desk with microphones instead of sitting on eachothers laps in the middle of a goddamned parking lot
Because merica
I got into an argument with Comfort once. He kept on asking me over and over "Do you know everything?". No matter what I said there was no getting through.
Thunderfoot is amazing, why did I not hear about this guy before?.
Oddly enough, Comfort does not SEEM a bad guy. Just someone who is so morally misguided by his religious blindness. If he walked up to you out on the street and you talked not about religion, but like the weather. He'd be a fine guy...Once again we see a man who COULD be a good man, has been turned bad by religion
I disagree. I think he is a disingenuous liar who makes a living from the harmful nonsense he spews out. he is aware that it is nonsense. I think he is an insecure and profoundly unhappy man.
As Hitchens put it, religion poisons everything lol
wolverine668 The irony of such a comment is that Hitchens was himself, a religious person--he just put his faith in random chance as the explicator of life.
Hitchens was religious? Was he? First I've heard of that.
sonlover62
It's okay to not know what the word religion means, until you choose to speak about it in public.
Hitchens was obviously not religious.
"I prefer rationalist"
other dude: "ah so as an atheist" *facepalm* 0:50
This video really shows two things:
1) How good Ray Comfort is at editing his debates to make him look good at debates
2) How bad Ray Comfort actually is at debates
ok… i watched the video, painstakingly, and you guys got no where, just in circles with hypothetical questions and no answers.
I don't think that they quite understood each other, to be honest. Thunderfoot's initial hypothetical (have science, save X billion people at the cost of X million people) was slightly off topic IMO, or he did the logic in his head and didn't lay the groundwork necessary to connect it to what came before. Which left Ray fumbling about for other hypotheticals that didn't completely address the same point either. So like two gears that don't quite engage, it's not going to be able to drive a discussion.
"I want to talk about Nazi Germany"
lol of course you do. you're just a walking fundamentalist stereotype aren't you?
Ray Comfort is my favorite comdian.
Thank you for sharing this conversation, may you have a blessed day!
Ray is forgetting that jesus also lied:
Jesus says to his disciples:
(John 7:8) -"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
(John 7:10) - "But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret."
Jesus lied to his disciples, so obviously its not that big a deal.
He also told them he was the son of a magical sky emperor...lol
The thing is that Ray Comfort is asking if something is right or wrong, but as an absolute, which is as God supposely said it. But moral absolutes does not exist for atheist.
Raping is wrong, but what if from that rape the human who will cure cancer will Born. Then Rape will still be wrong, the damage made to that woman will still be damage, even when the birth will bring something that it not wrong.
So lets separate this things,
Rape is wrong. (it damage physically a person and if we all do that, we will create chaos which is not a good condition for survival)
The birth of a human is Good. ( every birth of any man increments probability of maintain the species)
The cure of cancer is Good, (it will increase the survival probabilities)
I think the answer to this, will be that we should search another way to cure cancer, or we should search antoher way to impreganant that woman to bring that one human, by artificial insemination or something else.
If we did not know the outcoming of rape, then we should not rape either. Because if we all rape, it will create chaos and our probability for survival will decrease.
As of Hitler is not necessary to kill him, we can show to him that he is wrong, that if he continues he will lose, that the Aria specie does not exist, we all are humans, and if that does not work, we can just keep him in jail, I mean there are not only 2 option, Kill or be killed, we an think or something else. Something that creates less Chaos, that shows that it is no necessary to kill to survive but all the contrary.
The whole "What if a rape would result in the person who cured cancer being born?" scenario you constructed is pretty much nonsense...There is no way to predict that any specific combination of genes from a specific rapist and specific rape victim would result in a human being that would cure cancer. It's ridiculous to even postulate. Without even touching on the supposed moral decision there (which doesn't exist because the entire concept is flawed), without knowledge of the future of a hypothetical child (even if somehow you could predict that the two individual's genes would result in this cancer-curing super-baby, which you could not, there's always plenty of chance that no child would even be conceived, or that the mother would get an abortion, or that the child would be stillborn), the logistics don't even begin to make a bit of sense. The only moral dilemma that your scenario brings up is whether to allow ALL rape on the almost nonexistant off-chance that the resulting child would go into medicine and cure one specific malady, which again, is ridiculous. If you're going to postulate scenarios to try and make a point about morality, at least postulate ones that make even the slightest bit of sense.
That is why, I said, "What if" in the first place, of course it does not make sense, Of course there is no way for us to know that a baby from a rape could cure cancer. Of Course, That is why is an hypotetical situation. As for almost every "what if" that cannot exist, As only exist what is, not what if, you need to imagine that situation.
I know its like a"fairy tale" lets say, but still, I was wondering, what could be the way I would act on that situation.
And by that you state "is impossible" when my question was, "imagine it is possible".
So your answer does not make sense towards the hypotetical situation, I know the idea is kind of stupid, But still I was wondering "What if" do you get that?
So is Ridiculous, SO WHAT? I scratch my balls with a comb, that is ridiculous, but I still do it.
I mean what is the point on your answer? state the obvious? I know it is impossible, When I state "what if" as imagine, I knew it was impossible.
So thank you for telling me what I already knew, But, If I want to know from an impossible situation, I will, postulate, what ever I want, to think what would my position would be, Even, to think I am peter pan, fighting Captain Garfield.
You try to make the slightest sense of yourself, BEFORE you answer an Hypotetical, with "that is Hypotetical, it cannot be"
*It is a hypothesis based on specific conditions or concepts*
That is one meaning of hypothetical. Another is for something that you assume it is true for the sake of argument.
you are the one who does not know the whole meaning of the word and it is giving this ridiculous answers, So yeah, that hypotetical situation I made is ridiculous, So is your answer.
Because my question is "what your position would be" and you are answer, "that is an hypothetical"
*hypothetical situation is not a situation that cannot exist*
I postulate "cannot exist" as a part of the Hypothetical, not as all the Hypothetical.
I mean Hitler cannot die before the war, that is impossible, it already happened as it happened. So that is one Hypothetical that cannot exist.
Because every "What if" cannot exist as of now, otherwise it would be, What is, and not, What if.
*Something that hasn't happened, but COULD or COULD HAVE, without the possibility of it ever occurring postulating on the outcome is pointless*
First of all how can you know it could or could not happened, if you cannot know what hitler was about to do, before he did it?
Because we can assume the possibility based on his capacity?
If that is te case and the possibility is a factor for any Hypothetical , even when you mention the range of Stuff why the Rape thing was not possible, is still meaningless, I mean we know people had find cures to deceases , So even if we do not know "who" will, we know that someone, or someones could or could have, with previous reference of it.
And I was asking "What if" that someone could come from an horrible act.
But that was not even the case,
I was assuming you know that for a fact, because you kind of travel through time, So you did not knew it not by knowing the correct DNA combination, bla, bla, bla but because you already knew it, Just as with hitler.
But the thing is, we are arguing "If" the Hypothetical situation is possible, And I am saying, "Assume" it is, (that is why is an hypothetical) and then to tell me what would the "correct" position you think it would be.
I already agree that it is a childish, ridiculous, silly Hypothetical. And you keep giving answers to "support" What I already Agree? Do you realize, how ridiculous that is?
Senzu Beats
*First off, the example of a hypothetical I gave was*
First of all, I was never speaking of your Hypothetical but mine, Second, I don't really care about your Hypothetical.
*did not occur, could have occurred*
Still, how would you know they "could have existed" Because of Hitler's mom capacity to give birth or not? For people around hitler's Father or mother with the capacity of killing them? what ever your answer "could be" your dancing around what I said.
*This is different from the nonsense you spouted*
It is different because I based my hypothetical on a possibility, and you do that same thing, so yours make sense and mine doesn't,hahahaha that really does not make sense, So now not just your answers are ridiculous, but your explanations are far worse.
I stated that the possibility of a Child being the one who cure cancer, is based on the observation that Us humans had cure deceases, and my hypothetical that , a woman can get pregnant by raped is based on "Danielle Dellorto", "Begley, Sharon, Heavey, Susan" statements, that rape does not lower the chances of a women in getting pregnant. It is a possibility just as your Idea of the Unburn Hitler, and I mix them both.
And I stated that you know that for a fact, by you traveling from the future, Just as you know now, Hitler was born and was reponsible for all the masacre, So it is not based on the knownleadge that a child was burn to cure cancer by knowing the exact combination on DNa requiered for that to happened.
*What YOU did was try to introduce a moral question masquerading as a hypothetical*
I did not masquerade Anything, WHERE? I did say, What your position (moraly correct) would be in that Hypothetical, I did not masquerade anything, I was very clear, that I was thinking on what my position or moral choices I .would postulate, I think you do not even understand, what you are talking about.
*Your moral choice does not exist"
It exist in the HYPOTHETICAL, hahahaha man , you really are dancing around.
*These kind of unrealistic moral questions have no point, they serve no real-world application*
YEAH because, It IS A HYPOTHETICAL hahahahaha.
Your idea of hitler is Unrealistic also because IT IS NOT REAL, it is based on a HYPOTHETICAL. hahahaha
*Unless an individual is omniscient and knows every single outcome of every action decades in advance, no one will ever make a decision like it*
No, here you really demonstrate you do not understand anything I said. You do no need to be omniscient, you just need to come from the future and know for a fact that X child born from a rape, and that he found the cure of cancer.
*I can make up ridiculous scenarios like you did all day*
Yeah, you already prove how ridiculous you are, you don't need to convince me of that.
*But what the fuck is the point if there is no correlation to the real world*
It is not from the real world, because, IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL, hahahahahaha The correlation is, that are some aspects in reality where a thing is "not moral" but end on a "good thing", So it is testing the limits of that, also the point is, I want to think what my position would be. I repeated that like a hundred times. hahahahahhaha
And what is the point of me wanting to know my position on a unrealistic scenario? Because I fucking want to.
It is also using the same logic on a real scenario, which it could be you killing someone that wants to kill you. You do a "no moral" action and you save your life, so it is a "no moral" action generating a Good or beneficial thing, Still someone or someones is getting "hurt"
*(I can't bear to read another misspelled, 5th grade reading level, word-jumble response from you, so reply if you wish, but I have no more time to waste trying to illuminate a point to someone who can't even form a coherent thought)*
Oh, how rude hahahahaha, You write like a 5th grade. woooow, you are a danger. hahahahaha, How pathetical that is. I may write as a 5 year old just as you write like a piss off girlfriend. ohh you write like a 5 yeard old, whats next, hit me with your purse? hahahaha
What is it that you need to illuminate? I already agree that my hypothetical was ridiculous just as your answer, and just as you keep trying to convince me of what I already agree, hahahahhaha
And of course you are wasting your time, I ALREADY AGREE. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"But moral absolutes does not exist for atheist."
That's a completely unfounded claim.
after watching some "living water" videos, this here is just what i needed, badly
This is the most stupid conversation I've ever heard. It's quite clear that Thunderf00t is completely incapable of progressive conversation outside the comfort (no pun intended) of his pre-written vlogs... For anyone looking at the comments before watching, save your 20 minutes and watch some Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens.
I kind of agree with you but Thunderf00t's point here is that morals are based on a collection and its populace. This was pretty damn boring though.
Well Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens dont usually talk to idiots like Comfort.
Thunderf00T thought carefully about his answers. He's not exactly known for debating though
God dam Ray has no clue !
Every single time Ray thought he had a 'gotcha' question and pinned phil down, the only thing he had achieved is asked a dumb question and then when phil began a thoughtful response accused him of somehow conceding or failing
Thunderfoot: The butterfly effect Ray, it's a loose theory at best.
Ray: aha you murder butterflies.
Thunderfoot: ohh fack me.
Thunderfoot: Hey, here is the thing I would prefer to be called by.
Ray: Yeah no, I will call you what I like.
@Thunderf00t; You, sir - may well be the most patient man in the world. We salute you.
There is so much to learn from you. I wish I could spend an afternoon with you, a 6 pack of beer and some good conversation.
I somehow missed this one at the time, but its Lovely! LOVELY!
there is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong. there is no absolute morality. that is why so many people differ so much on so many topics
I must say that I get frustrated that TF isn't quite giving the answers that I want to hear, but I applaud this format. Just having two amateurs go tête-à-tête in a parking lot is much more interesting than one of those over-blown prize fights which get so much attention.
You have to give the interviewer credit for showing us the resilience of TF. I don't think I would have lasted 10 minutes without losing my cool.
I respect your calmness. If ray would have cut me of this many times I would have said " now shut the fuck up I'm talking now".
If Comfort had told the guy where the courts are, at least this would have been a useful discussion for someone.
Thank you thunderfoot for talking with these people, you are a true debater.
why is he holding the microphone? he kept cutting off thunderfoot
Ray comfort doesn't know what's right and wrong because he can assess what's best for his fellow humans... he knows what's best based on what his god has currently made law. That's terrifying. Ray just does what he's told, regardless of what is fundamentally/actually/naturally right or wrong. If Ray's god told him today that killing is okay, or worse commanded Ray to kill, Ray would kill! That's terrifying!
Comfort - 'Thats a ridiculous question!'
Mason - 'Not really, You asked me if I would kill Hitler's mother!'
Just rush Ray to the burns unit!
I'm watching this after the Westboro Baptist Church interview and I want to hug Ray Comfort now.
Watched this again after several years....Briljant Thunderfoot..Briljant
This conversation could be summed up into two quotes, one by Comfort and one by f00t;
"It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis" -f00t
"There are moral absolutes" - Comfort
This was a good debate they were both polite to each other, no insults just two men talking and having a serious discussion.
I totally get thunderf00t's many points. Why are they lost on so many? He speaks very clearly and makes perfect sense.
Why does Ray need that handheld camera whenever he is in front of a tripod camera?
2 mics = debate, 1 mic ='s an interview
Complicity: a word that should be learned before your high school is complicit in granting you a diploma.
"Do you know where the courts are" at the exact moment Comfort drops the H-bomb in a conversation about morality... im an atheist but god moves in mysterious, bizarre ways
I don't get why he can't comprehend "We learned a lot from that having happened."
If we never make any mistakes in history we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
So no one can discover good things without going through a process of bad things? I still don't understand how to determine absolute right and wrong, not socially, but what IS right?
Ray is *awful* at conducting interviews. I’m pretty sure he contradicted himself a double-digit number of times just in part 1 here. He can’t know right from wrong, or else he wouldn’t be so disingenuous.
"Hitler never killed anyone" that will never be taken out of context
Love how ray dodges the question but expects you to answer..... and you know no matter what you pick your a murderer in his eyes
It's so obvious throughout this conversation that Ray isn't genuinely listening to Thuderf00t's responses. He's just asking questions to get quotes he can mine for whatever DVD or book he had in mind to next produce.
Ray Comfort's brain: "Confuse the issue. Confuse the issue. Confuse the issue. Ignore the question. Ignore part of the answer. Confuse the issue. Purposely misunderstand statement. Simplify complex conundrums. Confuse the issue..."
Ray Comfort did not see the contradiction in murder. Murdering for sport and killing to protect yourself while yes in society it's viewed different, it's still killing. You can't say killing is or isn't wrong because what Thunderf00t says is right. It's dependent on the situation. Killing is still killing. Even if you're protecting your family from an attacker.
There were multiple times where you asked him a question, and he responded pressing a different question.
Ray doesn't discuss to learn or share ideas.
He discusses to find opening and opportunities to say what he 'KNOWS' already.
Thunderf00t: "Let's talk about the nuances of morality..."
Ray: "Well, just a moment while I set up a straw man."
that discussion was perfekt for my psychology class, it took us 120 min to get through. my personal opinionv is that thunderfoot should answer some of his questions with one of his own.and make things waaaay more simpler for him to understand, like the trolley problem, either that disussion goes nowhere or that priest has to acknowledge the real problem with those kind of questions ether way .. Thunderfoot i really appriciate you saying whats onour mind.keep it up!!
I love how he holds a camera in your face. As if.
I accept that the facts point to the concept that life began in aquatic environments and gradually moved on to land where it diversified further and eventually gave rise to mammals, then apes and then people.
Today in youtube recommends, a video I watched 8 years ago, that has no relation to anything I've watched lately...
anyone who can see through rays intention can only think of one word...
"Disgusting"
The simple mindedness of this man is stunning beyond belief. I am surprised this man can tie his shoes, much less hold something in his hand and speak at the same time.
I have a moral question for you all. Please respond honestly and try to give your reasoning for a decision.
Imagine that you are a captain on interplanetary vessel, your mission is to colonise the planet, you are third generation captain, the rest of colonists are frozen in stasis. In the fleet there are 2 more ships exactly like yours, same amount of people, same engines, everything. You know that the first ship to arrive will have the opportunity to pick the best sites for cities and mines, because of that all ships were launched at the exact same time and have the same engines, generations ago it was planned that all ships will arrive at the same time. But... some people died during the travel while in their stasis pods, ejecting them into space would give you additional week. You sit down and think about it and you narrow it all to four options
1. You can fly as planned
2. You can eject dead colonists and have aditional week which will put your people in a little better position then others
3. You can eject dead colonists and all others who may (or may not) have suffered trauma during the flight, this will give you additional month plus it will ensure your population will be healthier then others which will give them a big edge over the others.
4. You can eject dead colonists, those who may suffered trauma plus those you consider non-essential for mission. It would give your people three months and ensure their total domination over other colonists effectivly creating the beginning of a powerfull and rich empire BUT you would be remembered as sick tyrant and revilled by everyone including your own people.
Choice is yours.
The part about Quicksilver got me rolling. I saw Thunderboot just itching to tell him the properties of Quicksilver.
Ray Comforts crazy scenarios remind me of Fire Marshall Bill. lol "Let me showing you something buddy!!"
I'm convinced Ray Comfort is just a computer programmed to listen for keywords and phrases b4 spewing a reiteration of old talking points
No video has made this more clear to me than this one: Ray Comfort will not accept that the only accurate answers to some questions are complex answers.
Everything he refuses to accept requires a complex and nuanced understanding of many details, and when you try to explain more than a few words of it to him, it's like his brain shuts off. He simply can't comprehend that there aren't simple clear-cut answers to some questions, so he accepts wrong answers that ARE simple enough for him to grasp.
Moral isn't just a cost/benefit calculation, fairness is at least as important when taking moral decisions (legislation, etc.). Here two examples (the first is Thunderf00t's example, modified to have the same cost/benefit outputs as the second):
1) A peaceful hermit (a "perfect" hermit, which doesn't produce any value for the society) is killed in order to harvest his organs and save 5 ppl.
2) An hermit (again, "perfect" hermit) stabbed 5 peoples (and we are absolutely sure he's guilty) which will all die within weeks if we can't get 5 different organs. And the only compatible donor available is this very hermit. He's sentenced to "death by organ-harvesting" to save the 5 victims (the alternatives sentences were cost/benefit neutral, eg: life in prison + work to cover exactly the cost of his own detention).
Each cost/benefits of each corresponding output (ie: hermit lives or dies) of both examples are strictly equal, however much more would say that the second example is moral than for the first example.
This is that "fairness factor" that makes death-sentence for murderers acceptable (if we assume no innocent could be convicted, which is an totally different moral issue (which interestingly, is entirely based on fairness) ), but laws such as "Revenge unsolved murders by sacrificing a random citizen" unacceptable.
NB : the rest of this debate is worthless ; especially the part "You don't believe in God, because you fear his judgment ! " which is one of the stupidest thing i even heard : fearing something requires believing in its existence in the first place (except pathological fear such as phobia, which by definition isn't rational) ! It's like saying "You don't believe in unicorns because you're afraid to be stabbed by their horn ! ". Plus, God isn't the only entity able to judge (experience showed that humans does it much more often, and not only magistrates, we (re)evaluate each other continuously) so if this reasoning was valid, it would prove that you don't believe in humans either ; just like you couldn't believe any horned animal may exist without also believing in unicorns...
Finally : his argumentation is weak : "Have you even played baseball ? Yes ? So you ARE a baseball player ! " / "Have you even been a little baby ? Yes ? So you ARE a little baby ! " I'm sure that if we use the same sophism long enough we could infer that anyone is a space-frog...
How does Ray Comfort dress himself in the morning?