Home
Videos uploaded by user “Rationality Rules”
It’s True For Me – Debunked (Bill O’Reilly Exposed)
 
11:12
This is It’s True For Me – Debunked (Bill O’Reilly Exposed). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. Bill O’Reilly interviewing Richard Dawkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ 2. Bill O’Reilly interviewing David Silverman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3AFMe2OQY 3. If Atheists Rules the World (Hillarious!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8&t= -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to those who assert that ‘It’s True For Me’. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 108078 Rationality Rules
Science Changes its Mind - Debunked
 
10:22
This is "Science changes its mind" debunked! To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Ross and Phoebe argument on Fiends: https://youtu.be/6rvPP-IgYJk 2). Tim Minchin's Storm: https://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U 3). Neil deGrasse Tyson's wonderful scientific rant: https://youtu.be/yC47CbcoWOE 4). The Dragon of Ishtar Gate: http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2011/01/dragons-of-babylon-and-dinosaurs-in.html 5). Crash Course's take on Newton's Laws: https://youtu.be/kKKM8Y-u7ds 6). AMNH's essay on Newton vs. Einstein: https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/astro/documentaries/gravity-making-waves/essay-newton-vs.-einstein-vs.-the-next-wave/ -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video aids you in dealing with the incessantly ignorant assertion that science changes its mind.
Views: 85123 Rationality Rules
Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever - Debunked (Matthew Archbold Refuted)
 
10:42
According to an article written by Mathew Archbold that was published on the National Catholic Register on the 21st of May, 2017, “atheism is uncoolest choice ever”, and he can prove it! Get your popcorn kids, because this guy’s gone full-retard… This, is Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever – Debunked. Throughout this video I take on each of Mathew’s 8 reasons why atheism is the most uncool choice ever, and while I have a fun time doing so I’m sure you’ll appreciate the solid points that I’m trying to convey. Links: 1. Japan and Somalia’s life expectancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy 2. Japan and Somalia’s opinion on religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country 3. Study that shows a correlation between religiosity and life expectancy: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2521827 4. Religiosity among scientists: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ 5. Religiosity among ‘elite scientists’: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/fig_tab/394313a0_T1.html -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thank you kindly for the view.
Views: 98590 Rationality Rules
Islamic Feminism - Debunked (Yassmin Abdel-Magied Hitchslapped)
 
11:06
This is Islamic Feminism – Debunked (A response to Yassmn Abdel-Magied). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through merchandise: https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/rationality-rules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Australia’s Q&A (featuring Jacqui Lambie and Yassmin Abdel-Magied): https://youtu.be/Xn6WKOJDzuI 2). Zena Agha’s “How Islam made me a feminist”: https://youtu.be/0jWSDyJiIXg 3). Aabiya Baqai’s “Feminism in Islam”: https://youtu.be/5JPpfdbbs8Q 4). Christopher Hitchens Hitchslapping a Muslim on Q&A: https://youtu.be/Dbx-MYjy6PI 5). Al Islam’s interpretation of Ch.4 V.60 of the Quran: https://www.alislam.org/library/question/islam-obedience-law-of-land/ 6). BBC World Service’s Case Study (and definition) of Sharia Law: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art07.shtml 7). Etymology, origin, and meaning of Sharia Law: http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html 8). Saudi Arabia is a theocracy: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2004/35507.html 9). My video "Islam is a Religion of Peace - Debunked": https://youtu.be/dcs-M_cJy2U 10). My video "Criticising Islam is Islamophobia - Debunked": https://youtu.be/DpkvNbQjjCM 11). My video "9 Quranic Miracles - Debunked": https://youtu.be/xnJvuXpU6SU 12). My video "Questions No Atheist Can Answer": https://youtu.be/BaVIOCsJPjM -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps reveal the fact that Islam is NOT the most feminist religion.
Views: 98356 Rationality Rules
Super Deluxe's Crystal Healing - Debunked (New Age Thought Debunked).
 
06:50
So here’s something a new for you – Rationality Rules doing the classic YouTube response format. Now while I normally steelman the position of the person or idea that I am criticising, in this case, because of the sheer volume of unsubstantiated outrageous assertions made, I’ve decided to use the more controversial strategy of ridicule. To quote Thomas Jefferson (though I don’t entirely endorse this quote), “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” Anyhow, within this video I react, ridicule and debunk many of the assertions that this advocate for crystal healing makes. I hope you enjoy! Here’s the video that I’m replying to: https://www.facebook.com/superdeluxevideo/videos/vb.117753738569185/501679876843234/?type=2&theater And here's a link to Tim Minchin's AMAZING track titled 'Storm': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk&t= -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope this video helps you defeat those who would believe in crystal healing. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 36850 Rationality Rules
The Ouija Board - Debunked
 
10:09
This is the Ouija Board – Debunked! To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. Tanner Fox Ouija Board video (referenced in the intro): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypnLdIaFdIQ&t 2. Bible-Knowledge.com asserting that Ouija Boards can summon demons: http://www.bible-knowledge.com/ouija-board/ 3. Bibleinfo.com asserting that Ouija Boards can summon demons: http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-wrong-ouija-boards-or-contacting-spirits 4. PremierChristianity.com advising people to burn Ouija Boards: https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Just-say-NO-to-Ouija 5. Brain Games debunks the Ouija board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRo8TytvIDw 6. Science of Scams debunks the Ouija Board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cma5Zn7xrWU -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to Ouija Board advocates, who would have you believe that it’s a means of contacting the dead. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 86973 Rationality Rules
The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted)
 
09:43
As most famously presented by William Paley in his theological work titled “Natural Theology”, the Watchmaker Analogy (teleological argument) is a recurring argument for a designer, which, by way of analogy, asserts that complexity requires a designer. The way Paley put it is essentially as follows: if you were walking across a field and saw a watch lying upon the ground, you wouldn’t assume that it had come together by chance because it’s too ordered and complicated. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer. By way of analogy, Paley then went on to argue that because life and indeed the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must’ve had a conscious and intelligent designer. Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the Watchmaker tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. False Analogy: An analogy is a comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle or an idea, and in this case, Paley insists that a comparison can be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe, which both imply that they had a designer. 2. False Cause Fallacy: Essentially, like all False Cause Fallacies, the Watchmaker Argument mistakenly confuses correlation with causation. It recognizes a relationship between complexity and designers, and then concludes that one necessarily implies the other. 3. Ignores Evolution by Natural Selection: It completely ignores evolution by natural selection. Without getting into it too deeply, natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process that has given rise to countless complex and purposed organisms. The watchmaker argument ignores this in the attempt to substantiate it’s black and white fallacy (deliberate designer or randomness). 4. Special Pleading: Its core premise asserts that purpose and complexity requires a designer, and so if we draw the Watchmaker Argument out to its logical conclusion – that there is a god and that it created the universe and everything in it, then by applying the argument’s logic to itself we must conclude that this god too had a designer, and so on and so forth for infinity… 5. Contradiction: The Watchmaker Argument is self-contradicting. The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which it indirectly claims is uncomplicated and random. However, it then states that since the universe is so complicated and ordered it too must have a creator. Thus, it gives the universe two incompatible and contradicting qualities. 6. Shoemaker: The Watchmaker Argument doesn’t imply a designer – it implies that there are many designers. After finding that watch upon the ground, imagine if you then saw beside it a shoe. Would you assume that a watchmaker made that shoe? Of course not – you would assume that a shoemaker made it. 7. Ex Nihilo The Watchmaker Argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing, when this simply isn’t true. A watch, like all human creations, is a rearrangement of energy and mater that already existed. 8. Doesn’t Support Theism: The Watchmaker Argument doesn’t support theism. Even if it were accepted as a sound argument, it would only prove that a universe had a universe designer – and that’s it. It wouldn’t prove a particular religion to be true. 9. Incompetent Design: An all-powerful and all-loving god would not create organisms with the type of suboptimal design that can be seen in nature. Meaning that either that god isn’t omnipotent or that it isn’t omnibenevolent – or both! -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the Watchmaker Argument against you.
Views: 117741 Rationality Rules
The Crocoduck - Debunked / Kirk Cameron Exposed (3 Minute Debunks Ep4)
 
04:03
Welcome to Three-Minute Debunks, where we debunk asinine assertions within three minutes, and on this occasion, the star of the minutes is the breathtakingly stupid Kirk Cameron. On May 5th, 2007, in a live debate aired on Nightline, Cameron presented his now infamous Crocoduck, in the attempt to mock and denounce evolution… and it backfired tremendously! “Science has never found a genuine transitional form that is one kind of animal crossing over into another kind, either living or in the fossil record, and there’s supposed to be billions of them! Now what I’m about to show you does not exist […] this is what evolutionists have been searching for for hundreds of years! Alright, and if you find one of these you could become rich and famous – so here’s some transitional forms […] This is called the Crocoduck – can you see this? Crocodile and a duck.” Oh boy… where to start? How about with Brian Sapient’s immediate and hilarious response “oh my god… what a numbnut…” To get straight to it, the Crocoduck is a grave misapprehension of what a transitional form is, and it spectacularly exposes Cameron’s abysmal ignorance of the subject – or worse still, it exposes him as a contrived and deceitful liar. A transitional form is not a random combination of two organisms – that’s a chimera; rather, it’s an organism that has characteristics of both its ancestors and descendants. To illustrate this, consider the following two examples: A species of Amniota is considered to be the most recent ancestor between snakes and humans, but it would be incorrect to call it a “transitional form between the two”, because one didn’t transition from the other… they are related, but they are not closely related. Just as crocodiles and ducks are related, but they are not closely related… On the other hand, Tetrapodophis is considered to be the most recent ancestor between snakes and lizards, and it would be correct to call it a “transitional form between the two”, because one did transition from the other. To the untrained eye it might look like an elongated lizard, but unlike lizards, and just like snakes, it has a short tail, broad belly scales, a skull with a short snout and long braincase, curved jaws, and sharp hooked teeth… it is, if you will, the “Snizard”. Moving on, and to get to the crux of this rebuttal, due to Cameron insisting that the Crocoduck is exactly what “evolutionists have been searching for for hundreds of years”, he is misrepresenting evolution in order to make it easier to attack – which is pretty much exactly the definition of the Strawman Fallacy. It’s the equivalent of me asserting that Cameron believes that there is an omnipotent bearded Caucasian man within the clouds, and that if you find him “you could become rich and famous”. Just as Cameron would dismiss this nonsense because it doesn’t accurately represent his position, so can the scientifically literate dismiss his Crocodilic crap! “What a numbnut…” And that’s it folks – game over. The Crocoduck is a Strawman Fallacy, and Kirk Cameron… is Kirk Cameron. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- Anyhow, as always, thanks for kindly the view, and if you know of a asinine comment, tweet, or clip that’s gone full retard, let me know in the comment section below, and should I feature it in one of my videos, I’ll be sure to credit you as who requested it.
Views: 25140 Rationality Rules
Matt Slick’s Transcendental Argument – Debunked (TAG / Presuppositionalism Refuted)
 
06:50
Over my short time here on YouTube I’ve had a fair amount of requests to take on Matt Slick’s Transcendental Argument for god, and I can understand why. On the surface the argument seems hard to understand, and in turn, hard to debunk, but as the philosopher Alex Malpass demonstrated to Slick himself, it’s not. It’s actually easy to convey and easy to debunk. The difficulty is in how Slick presents it, and in how he conflates it with another one of his arguments – which I’m not going to take on within this video. This, is Matt Slick’s Transcendental Argument – Debunked. So first and foremost, links, all the links! • Alex Malpass destroys Matt Slick: https://youtu.be/HUR49lBH1iE • Alex Malpass destroys Matt Slick again: https://youtu.be/0ynBtakYh_E • Matt Dillahunty destroys Matt Slick: https://youtu.be/rb1mfKJU6bo • Scoot Clifton… you guessed it, DESTROYS Matt Slick: https://youtu.be/D8dePAhDMh4 Now with that out of the way, I want to stress that within this video I expose and explain several flaws and fallacies within Slick’s Transcendental Argument in detail, but for a brief summary (extremely brief), here’s a shorter version. Black and White Fallacy: When Slick states that “if the no-god position, atheism” he is conflating the ‘Christian god does not exist’ proposition with, and only with, the atheist position (which is not the only ‘Christian god does not exist’ position); Buddhism is a ‘Christian god does not exist’ position; Hinduism is a ‘Christian god does not exist’ position; Egyptian Polytheism is a ‘Christian god does not exist’ position; and the list goes on and on and on and on, meaning that even if the atheist position cannot account for logical absolutes (which is an assertion I don’t accept), it does not logically follow that only the Christian god can. Or in other words, Slick’s third premise commits a subtle, but game-ending, Black and White Fallacy, because it implicitly asserts that only one of two positions can account for logical absolutes (that being Christianity or atheism), when, as we’ve just demonstrated, these aren’t the only positions. Find and Replace: And finally, I’m going to point out just one more ridiculous flaw with Slick’s argument… if we switch the word ‘god’ with ‘Zeus’ then the argument proves the existence of Zeus, because, ‘If the no-Zeus position, atheism, clearly fails to account for Logical Absolutes from its perspective, then it’s negated, and the other option is verified. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who would use Matt Slick’s Transcendental Argument against you in the future.
Views: 40644 Rationality Rules
Macroevolution Cannot Occur - Debunked
 
09:16
This is Macroevolution Cannot Occur – Debunked! To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. Kent Hovind strawmanning evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUtGGsTRazM 2. Ray Comfort strawmanning evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkucszhRjnA 3. Potholer54 absolutely destroying Kent Hovind on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ&t 4. Potholer54 debunking this same argument (amazing, as always): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to those who assert that macroevolution cannot occur. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 79259 Rationality Rules
Pascal's Wager - Debunked (Blaise Pascal Refuted)
 
06:19
In 1670, the French mathematician and Christian philosopher, Blaise Pascal, published a collection of theological work titled “thoughts”, in which he put forward an argument that has since been known as “Pascal’s Wager”. Stated simply, Pascal’s Wager argues that you’re better of believing in god, because if you’re right, you stand to gain eternal joy, and if you’re wrong, it won’t make any difference whatsoever. Yet, on the other hand, if you don’t believe in god and turn out to be wrong, you’ll receive eternal suffering, whereas if you’re right it’ll make no difference at all. Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use Pascal’s wager tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. Black & White fallacy: Right from the get-go the argument commits the Black & White Fallacy – making it a false dichotomy. It assumes that there is either a very, very specific god, or that there is absolutely nothing. 2. Ignores All Other Religions: By committing the Black & White Fallacy, and again as already mentioned, Pascal’s Wager utterly ignores all other religions and religious subsects. Pascal himself was assuming that the god of Christianity, that the god of his culture, was the one and only true god. Yet if he had grownup in anyone of a thousand other cultures he would’ve assumed the existence of anyone of a thousand other gods. Which god is the real one? They all claim to be real, and if you just so happen to be born into the wrong culture, what then? And what if you choose the wrong sect of the right religion? After all, there are over 40,000 denomination of Christianity alone, who all dramatically disagree with one-another on very important issues such as abortion, equal rights and euthanasia. 3. Ignores All Other Heaven and Hells: Furthermore, by ignoring all other religions, Pascal’s Wager also ignores all other possible havens and hells, which are central to many theistic religions. For example, religions descended from Mesopotamian culture, including Catholicism, Islam and Judaism, all have sects that describe 7 types of heavens and hells. This is also true of many eastern religions, such as some sects of Hinduism, who believe in 7 levels of Patala. 4. Claims that Devotion and Worship Cost you Nothing: As if these objections and flaws weren’t enough, Pascal’s Wager also indirectly claims that belief and worshiping costs you nothing, when this simply isn’t true. Most theistic religions demand a great deal from believers, from abstaining from alcohol to praying several times to day to not having sex before marriage (what’s wrong with you?). 5. Assumes That You Can Choose What to Belief: Pascal’s Wager assumes that people can choose what they believe, when this simply isn’t true. Either something makes sense to you – to varying degrees, or it doesn’t. For example, you can’t choose to believe that the earth is the shell of a turtle. Of course, it’s true that you can expose yourself to the arguments and evidence that support this belief – if there is any [there’s not] – but you can’t choose to whole-heartedly, 100% believe its true upon will. In fact, those who claim that you can indeed choose what you believe are either mentally ill or they’re lying. They’re lying to you, they’re lying to themselves, and ironically they’re lying to their deity. 6. Assumes That You Can Lie to God: And on the topic of lying to their deity, this takes us comfortably to what many people belief is one of the worse flaws in Pascal’s Wager. It assumes that if there is a god, then it can be fooled by a human pretending to believe in it… However, considering that many theistic religions attribute the qualities of omnipotence and omnipresence to their deity, this necessarily means that their god is impervious to lies. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use Pascal’s Wager against you.
Views: 47187 Rationality Rules
Criticising Islam is Islamophobia - Debunked (Islamophobia Refuted)
 
08:35
These days, you can criticise pretty much anything at all, be it a film or a religion. However, if you criticise Islam you’ll be labelled a bigot, racist and indeed islamophobic… this is, Criticising Islam is Islamophobia – Debunked. Normally I provide a brief text to illuminate some of the points made in the video, but for this video I’m going to use the description is a reference sheet (hope you don’t mind). On homosexuality: • 99.4% of Iranian citizens are Muslim: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html • An estimated 95% of Saudi Arabians are Muslims: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html • 61% of British Muslims endorse punishing homosexuals: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf • A fantastic site in general (very useful for my research), which helps explain Islam and Muslims nature to homosexuality: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx On suicide attacks: • The Institute of National Security Studies on suicide attacks: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=11361 • The Times of Israel reporting on this study: http://www.timesofisrael.com/450-of-452-suicide-attacks-in-2015-were-by-muslim-extremists-study-shows/ • More: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/suicide-bombing.aspx On women: • PEW Research Centre study (of over 38,000 Muslims) stating that 80% of Muslims believe that a wife should obey her husband: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf • More: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/women-worth-less.aspx On criticism and blasphemy: • Iran laws on blasphemy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran • Saudi Arabia laws of blasphemy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia • Egypt laws on blasphemy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Egypt • PEW Research Centre study (of over 38,000 Muslims) stating that Muslims overwhelmingly want Sharia law to be the law of their country (which be extension means that they want blasphemy laws implemented): http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the argument the Criticizing Islam is Islamophobia against you.
Views: 90903 Rationality Rules
European Free Speech – Debunked (ECHR)
 
08:33
This is European Free Speech – Debunked To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through merchandise: https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/rationality-rules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). The European Court of Human Rights’ judgement: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-187188%22]} 2). Dailymail “Woman’s conviction in Austria for calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not breach her right to free speech, European Court of Human Rights rules”: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html 3). Reason “European Court: Woman's Criticism of Muhammad Doesn't Count as Free Expression”: https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/25/european-court-womans-defamation-muhamma 4). Anadolu Agency “Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR”: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823 5). Open Air Outreach "How to LOVINGLY Street Preach to Homosexuals": https://youtu.be/lOlhRnKtog8 6). BBC: "Muslims burning Poppies on Remembrance day": https://youtu.be/rIPG1EQHrxc -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps in our eternal fight for liberty.
Views: 62298 Rationality Rules
The Argument from Beauty Debunked
 
06:07
The Argument from Beauty is, in my opinion, the worst teleological argument of them all. Truth be told, I’d go so far as to say that it’s one of the most ignorant and pathetic arguments of all time… period. But alas, I’ll save my rants for later – for now, let’s respectfully present the argument. Syllogistically, it goes as follows: • Beauty can only be created by a very specific god; • Beauty exists; • Therefore, a very specific god exists. Seems completely absurd right? In fact, let’s be honest, it seems like I’ve deliberately misrepresented the argument in order to easily ridicule it, doesn’t it? Well, that’s because I kind of have… because unlike most theological arguments, Arguments from Beauty are very rarely presented syllogistically. Rather, they’re asserted through a question that reeks of ignorance, such as, “How can you look at a tree’s beauty and not see deliberate design?” or, “How can you look into your baby’s perfect eyes and not see the hand of god?” Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the Argument from Beauty tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1 – 3. Argument from Ignorance or Argument from Personal Incredulity: To go straight for the jugular, Arguments from Beauty are, at their core, either Arguments from Ignorance or Arguments from Personal Incredulity. Beneath their appeal to emotion (which is a fallacy in and of itself), they’re asserting that because we can’t explain why beauty exists, their very specific god must’ve intended for it to exist; which is just as absurd as asserting that, because we can’t explain why war exists, Ares, the god of war, must’ve intended for it to exist... 4. Ignores Inconvenient Facts: A fourth flaw to raise, and one that is outrageously obvious, is that Arguments from Beauty entirely Ignore Inconvenient Facts. That is, they ignore the fact that world isn’t all sunshine and rainbows; but rather, it is, in the words of Rocky Balboa, “A very mean and nasty place”. Whether we like it or not, the fact of the matter is that in the state of nature, life is solitary, poor, brutish and short; it’s an ugly place, and one that only a sick and twisted maniac would deliberate create. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use an Argument from Beauty against you.
Views: 28469 Rationality Rules
Is the Left Eating Itself?
 
11:19
Is the left eating itself? What do you think? To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule To watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Spiked Magazine Panel “Is the Left Eating Itself?”: https://youtu.be/WsTuMmyHw8s 2). Unfounded accusations against Bret Weinstein: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evergreen-professor-at-center-of-protests-resigns-college-will-pay-500000/ 3). Brendan O’Neill banned from abortion debate: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-i-am-pro-choice/16221#.Wthur4jwZPY 4). Cathy Newman “interviews” Jordan Peterson: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54 5). Unfounded accusations against Sam Harris and Douglas Murray: http://www.philosophyforlife.org/category/racism/ 6). The Washington Post “A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech”: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.668de8055988 7). You.Gov UK “Attitudes to Brexit: Everything we know so far”: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/attitudes-brexit-everything-we-know-so-far/ -- So what’re your thoughts? Is Bret right? Is the left eating itself? Or is Brendan right? I’ll be sure to read your comments, for this question is very close to my heart.
Views: 119785 Rationality Rules
Debate with a Santa Fundamentalist: Ridiculous Reasoning Ep1
 
07:50
Within this episode of Ridiculous Reasoning, I debate Dr. Billy Craig Lane on the topic of Santa’s existence. I hope you enjoy the watch! To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope you enjoyed the episode. Stay rationale my fellow apes.
Views: 33335 Rationality Rules
The Argument from Improbability - Debunked (Improbability Argument - Refuted)
 
08:51
Have you ever wondered what the statistical likelihood of your existence is? If we just scratch the surface, you are the result of one sperm out of 400 billion, and one egg out of 300.If we consider just these two facts alone, the likelihood of your existence is vanishingly small... therefore, according to the Argument from Improbability, an intelligent designer must’ve intended for you to exist. Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the augment that Argument from Improbability tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. Black and White Fallacy: The first major fault with the Argument from Improbability is that it commits a massive Black & White Fallacy within in its first premise. It asserts that either the universe is the product of random chance, or that it is the product of intelligent design, without justifying why these two conclusions are the only possibilities. By doing this it also subtlety attempts to shift the Burden on Proof. It does this because it insists that unless someone else can provide a third option, then one of the two options it proposes must be correct… which is… not how logic works… Ignores Natural Selection: For those of you in need of a reminder, natural selection is a non-random natural process whereby organisms that are better suited to their environmental pressures, such as predators and changes in climate, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favourable traits in succeeding generations. What makes natural selection so important, and what also causes it to crush the vast majority of teleological arguments, is that proves that life isn’t the product of chance. It proves that the premise that life was either created by random chance or by a god is completely and utterly invalid! Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: The Argument from Ignorance essentially boils down to the statement that, “we don’t know how the universe and life was created, and so therefore an intelligent designer must’ve done it”. It’s a classical Argument from Ignorance… “we don’t know, therefore god”. But in some cases, and in particular I’m referring to those who’re either unaware of natural selection or don’t understand it, the fallacy committed is actually a Personal Incredulity Fallacy rather than an Argument from Ignorance. The different being that the former states that “we don’t know, therefore god”, while the latter states that “I don’t know, therefore god”. Special Pleading Fallacy: A forth flaw that the Argument from Improbability commits, is a Special Pleading Fallacy. It does this because it first claims that exceptionally improbable phenomena is more likely to be the result of intelligent design than random chance, but it then makes an unsubstantiated special exception for the intelligent designer itself. Or in other words it all goes back to the age-old question, “who designed the designer?” and it offers no answer. 2. Arbitrary Assigns Significance: Here’s a link to a playlist of Tracie Harris’ dice model on The Atheist Experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvftq2ystmY To present a slightly different version of her point, if we were to roll five six-sided dice, the probability of them all landing on six is 7,775 to 1. That’s remarkably improbable… but here’s the thing – the probability of getting any other outcome is also 7,775 to 1. The only thing that makes one roll significant and the other insignificant is our perception of those rolls. But how exactly is this relevant to the Argument from Improbability? Well, the argument is guilty of arbitrarily asserting that one specific roll of the dice is significant simply because it’s the roll that happened. Proponents of this argument are essentially saying, “Hey look, if the dice didn’t land on 3, 2, 4, 6 and 6, we wouldn’t have a grand total of 21. If just one dice landed on any other number than it did, the grand total of 21 wouldn’t exist! Therefore, an intelligent designer must’ve intended for this roll to happen. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the Argument from Improbability against you.
Views: 43924 Rationality Rules
The Atheist’s Burden of Proof – Debunked (And the Definition of Atheism)
 
07:11
This is The Atheist’s Burden of Proof – Debunked (And the Definition of Atheism). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- 1). My ‘David Mitchell Doesn’t Understand Atheism (And Neither do Agnostics)’: https://youtu.be/bZKaBW9rSaQ 2). Dave Rubin – “The best definition I've found for atheism is that it is not the denial of gods, it is a lack of belief in gods. This is an incredibly important distinction to make.”: https://youtu.be/UGgFB_-2NQw 3). Cosmic Skeptic (Alex O’Connor) – “All atheism is is a lack of belief in a particular deity, chiefly due to lack of evidence.”: https://youtu.be/w_2SwU79I-E 4). The Atheist Guy – “Atheism is non-belief in the existence of a deity. It doesn't make assertions and it doesn't in anyway address knowledge. Non-belief is the default position until the burden of proof is met.”: https://youtu.be/HCp66yS8n_4 5). Dusty Smith – “Atheism is a lack of belief in gods!”: https://youtu.be/dfwiUt3nHek 6). Armoured Skeptic – “The definition of atheist is a person who lacks belief, or does not believe, in god. Period.”: https://youtu.be/bcZJVfw_GOo 7). Paul Provenza on The Rubin Report with David Silverman – “I try to clarify this with people who're under the impression, usually with negative connotations, that, you know, atheists think they know there's no god, but really, I really subscribe to the passing of that - which is that that's not the case - what it is is that it's unreasonable for me to believe there is a god.”: https://youtu.be/HcoysmpUV-E -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who erroneously assert that atheists have a burden of proof, or that there’s only one true definition of atheism. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 47230 Rationality Rules
Arguments from Faith - Debunked (Appeal to Faith Refuted)
 
09:38
The single greatest bit of advice that I can give to someone who has been presented with an Argument from Faith, is to get the proponent to first very clearly declare which definition of the word ‘faith’ they’re using, and to then help them put their argument into a syllogistic form. The reason for this is because the word ‘faith’ means many things to many people, and if we want to effectively communicate with one another (which is the very point of rational discourse), then we simply must make sure that we first understand each-other, by ensuring that we’re using the same language and definitions. And so, let’s start by putting a few of the most relevant definitions on the table (I go into further depth with these within the video). In no particular order: (1) Faith - ‘A particular religion.’ (2) Faith - ‘A strongly held belief.’ (3) Faith – ‘Belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of something or someone.’ (4) Faith – ‘Trust or confidence in a person or thing.’ (5) Faith – ‘Belief without sufficient evidence (and often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).’ Now we could continue to list more definitions, but, honestly, there’s no need – the point has been made; there are many definitions of the word ‘faith’, and people frequently use them interchangeably, which makes them extremely susceptible to committing Equivocation Fallacies… and that, good Sirs and Ladies, is the primary flaw with Arguments from Faith… they quite simply are the embodiment of the Equivocation Fallacy (which I explain within the video). To provide but one example (I can’t provide more in the description due to YouTube’s word-limit), if a proponent was to assert that ‘you have faith in science like they have faith in god’, you could layout their argument as follows: • Alice has faith that science works, like; • Robert has faith that god exists, and; • Therefore both Alice and Robert have faith. From here, you can point out that they are (either consciously or unconsciously) using a definition of ‘faith’ that is ‘belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of something or someone’ during premise one, but a definition of ‘faith’ that is ‘belief without sufficient evidence (and often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary)’ during premise two, and hence, their conclusion is invalid. Now it’s worth nothing that, in response to this, they might insist that you’re wrong, and that they’re actually using exclusively the first definition throughout their entire argument, but if they do this, all you have to do is explain that people (including them), believe in the reliability, truth, and ability of science because it consistently produces effective results and because it’s based on objective, verifiable evidence, and then simply point out that their belief in god isn’t based on such rigorous objectivity – and that if they insist that it is, then they must provide such evidence, because, if they can’t, then despite their protestations to the contrary, they are believing in a god without sufficient evidence. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who would use Arguments from Faith against you in the future.
Views: 45603 Rationality Rules
The Most Important Person You’ve Never Heard Of
 
06:52
This is The Most Important Person You’ve Never Heard Of… Thales of Miletus. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy's entry on Thales (fantastic read): http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ 1. What the Ancients Knew: Greece (fantastic series): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRFLXBlsmA&t 2. Carl Sagan on Thales: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxeNgfo9ZDs 3. Kent Hovind denouncing science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooDV8okZefs&t -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video inspires you to learn more about the legend that is Thales of Miletus. Stay rational my fellow apes!
Views: 85171 Rationality Rules
The Law of Attraction - Debunked (The Secret - Refuted)
 
09:29
I cannot stress enough the impact that Caysen and Matt had on the direction of this video – from ensuring that I understood the concept correctly, to provide succinct and vital parts of the script, this is as much their video as it is mine. Here's where you can check out All Shall Perish's fine work: https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/all-shall-perish/id64942610 And here's where you can keep up to date with them: www.facebook.com/allshallperish As always, watching the video will be more productive than reading this (what you doing? Click play!), but here is a brief rendition of the flaws covered within the video: 1. Pseudoscience: So the first thing to be said, in my opinion, is that the Law of Attraction, and, to be blunt, New Age Thought altogether, is entirely predicated on dispensing meaningless drivel masqueraded as profound truth and wisdom… it is, to paraphrase Michael Shermer, the combination of scientific sounding words with New Age words to create the illusion that they’re somehow related… For example, the term ‘Law of Attraction’ deliberately implies that it is a scientific law, just like the ‘Law of Conservation of Energy’ etc., and yet, science regards the Law of Attraction as pure nonsense and pseudoscience, and puts it in the same bin as creationism, homeopathy, climate change denial and tin foil hats! 2. Argument from Ignorance: Anyhow, with that said, the first question to be asked is if the first premise is true - is everything really comprised of energy vibrating at different frequencies? Is the Law of Vibration true? Well, while it is true that everything so far appears to be an expression of matter and energy, and while matter and energy are indeed different states of the same thing (energy)... the only way someone can say that everything “vibrates” is by defining ‘vibration’ to be “energy in motion” – which only serves to confuse people. What’s more is that if the proponents of this argument go a step further and assert that we know for sure that everything is vibrating energy, they’re actually committing an Argument from Ignorance, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 3. Equivocation Fallacy: Of all the arguments I've taken on (so far), the proponents of the Law of Attraction perhaps commit more equivocation fallacies than them all. From defining energy as “energy in motion”, to defining it as “the universal life force that exists in all living matter”, to defining it as "a personal mental state or an emotional atmosphere that can be sensed", they are the kings of equivocation. Watch out for it! 4. Unfalsifiable Fallacy: A third flaw with many, but not all concepts of ‘energy’ and ‘vibration’, is that they are untestable and irrefutable, and that because of this they commit an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. An Unfalsifiable Fallacy occurs when an asserted proposition cannot be disproven by any amount of evidence, and yet the proponent insists that the proposition is true. For example, if a proponent defines vibrational energy to mean “an intangible and undetectable life force that exists in all living matter”, then due to it being intangible and undetectable, it can never by proven false… 5. Anecdotal Fallacy: And finally, as the last major flaw that I’ll raise in this video, most proponents of the Law of Attraction commit a devastating Anecdotal Fallacy. They do this because their concepts, definitions, ideology and assertions are largely, and sometimes entirely, predicated on their own personal experiences, interpretations, and testimony. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- Anyhow, as always, thanks for the view/read, and I hope this video can help you in defeating those who would use the Law of Attraction or The Secret against you!
Views: 68663 Rationality Rules
Argument from Miracles - Debunked (Miracles Explained)
 
12:43
On Sep 6th, 1946, an Airliner flying from New York to San Francisco unfortunately crashed, killing everybody onboard except a two-year-old baby boy called Peter Link… therefore, an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful god impregnated a virgin with himself, so that he could later sacrifice himself to himself to save you from a sin that you didn’t personally commit… makes sense right? Jokes aside, The Argument from Miracles is one the most requested videos that you’ve asked for, and so, here it is – the Argument from Miracles – Debunked. Videos referenced: 1. Frank Turek being… Frank Turek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-4pKs8f7HY 2. Frogs falling from the sky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uN5elpiDsk 3. Darren Brown – Miracles for Sale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6hhikoAKVU&t= 4. Matt Dillahunty being as awesome as always: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAuFJKQh83Y Throughout the video I pin-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the Argument from Miracles tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. Don’t Support Theism: So the first flaw to reveal, in my not so humble opinion, is that the vast majority of miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of a god even if they were indeed true… Or in other words, they don’t support theism. For example, even if it were unimpeachably true that a man called Jesus resurrected, this would not, in the slightest, prove that the universe had a creator! Nor would prove that Jesus turned water into wine; that he healed the blind; that he walked on water; or that he was born of a virgin… all it would prove is that a man called Jesus respawned, and that he had terrible lag, because it took him three days! 2. Argument from Ignorance or Personal Incredulity Fallacy: The second and perhaps most obvious flaw with miracles is that they almost always commit either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy. To illustrate this, consider the following: Throughout history there have been numerous accounts of flightiness animals raining from the sky – and needless to say, on just about every occasion, someone somewhere has asserted that a miracle has occurred, because, “there’s no other explanation”. Now of course, it’s fair to say that flightless animals don’t just fall from the sky, but one can’t simple assert that a miracle has occurred simply because there’s “no other explanation”… that would be, and is, an outrageous Argument form Ignorance! It is, in essence, “we don’t know, therefore god”. 3. Burden of Proof: And this brings us comfortably to a necessary question that is extremely effective at exposing a third fallacy that ravishes miraculous assertions – this question is, “how exactly can we distinguish a miracle from an unlikely natural occurrence that we are yet to comprehend?” It’s a very simple question, but it’s a brilliant one (if I do say so myself) – because it forces the proponent to bare their Burden of Proof rather than allowing them to shift it to you by appealing to ignorance. It indirectly emphasizes that they are the one asserting that an event has violated the laws of nature, not you, and so they bare the burden to prove this. 4. Appeal to Emotion and/or Anecdotal Fallacy: To illustrate this I show a clip from Darren Brown’s show. Now the point of me showing you this clip is to predominantly point out two additional fallacies that are rampant in miraculous claims. The first is the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy, which occurs when pastor Shaun manipulates both the recipient’s and the crowd’s emotions by shouting and invoking their deeply held beliefs; and the second is the Anecdotal Fallacy, which occurs after the show when a crowd member asserts that they witnessed a miracle, when they didn’t… the charlatan simply lied about the extent of the recipient’s condition and then presented evidence of things that the recipient could already do as if he couldn’t… -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the Argument from Miracles against you.
Views: 115219 Rationality Rules
The Atheist's Nightmare - Debunked / Ray Comfort Exposed (3 Minute Debunks Ep3)
 
03:38
Welcome to Three-Minute Debunks, where we debunk asinine assertions within three minutes, and on this occasion, the star of the minutes is the obnoxious Banana Boy, Ray Comfort. On The Way of the Master, in 2006, Comfort presented what he called “The Atheist’s Nightmare”. “Behold, the atheist’s nightmare! Now if you study a well-made banana you’ll find on the far side there are three ridges, on the close ride two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana you’ll find on the far side there are three groves, on the close side two groves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made one for the other.” Now I’m going to spare to you the rest of this fruitful sermon, but in a nutshell, Comfort asserts that the banana has been deliberately designed with humanity in mind, and that because of this, it testifies to the existence of an intelligent designer – which wouldn’t you know, just so happens to be the super-specific god that he believes in… Sarcasm aside, the banana that we all know, and most of us love, actually is a product of intelligent design – it’s the result of thousands of years of deliberate artificial breeding… and so immediately, Comfort is wrong… the banana has been deliberately designed not by his god, but by humans for humans, funny huh? On the other hand, this is a natural banana; it’s short, fat, littered with large and hard seeds, tastes foul, and it’s low in nutrients… but hey, If Comfort’s god exists, it’s evidently the banana that it wants you to enjoy… so… enjoy… or else! And while we’re on the topic of laborious fruit, what’s with coconuts, pineapples and watermelons being so damn inaccessible? Again, if Comfort’s god exists, then presumably it doesn’t want us to eat these… but, conversely, it does want us to eat the easily accessible and tasty, but extremely deadly Death Cap Mushroom… You know, now that we think about it, by using Comfort’s logic, the Death Cap actually testifies to the existence of an evil devil-like being, doesn’t it? Furthermore, and to get serious, even if we were able to prove, for sure, that the banana, or indeed anything was created by a transcendent intelligent designer, we would not be able to infer from this alone what or perhaps who this designer is or was… Or to put in other words, even if valid, Comfort’s argument only gets him to deism, and as Hitchens used to say, “But if you've established deism you've got all your work still ahead of you to be a theist. You have to show that this god, this person who went to all this trouble with physics, cares who you sleep with or how or whether you should eat a pig or not or what day you should observe as holy”. I mean seriously Comfort, your lack of brainpower testifies to the existence of Loki, the god of pranks and mischief! -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- Anyhow, as always, thanks for kindly the view, and if you know of a asinine comment, tweet, or clip that’s gone full retard, let me know in the comment section below, and should I feature it in one of my videos, I’ll be sure to credit you as who requested it. Until next time my fellow apes!
Views: 68453 Rationality Rules
The Ontological Argument - Debunked (Anselm Refuted)
 
11:20
Likewise to most theistic arguments, there are many versions of the Ontological Argument, which differ in the language they use and in some cases the premises they rely upon. Hence, I may in the future create additional videos to address the alternative versions, but for this video I’m going to address the most popular version… the first version, as defined by Anselm in 1077. Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the Ontological Argument tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1.) Reductio Ad Absurdum: Well first and foremost, and arguably the most important objection, was put forward by a contemporary of Anselm called Gaunilo, who pointed out that by simply replacing the term “greatest being” with “greatest island” you can prove that their must be a greatest island, or a greatest beer, and so on. Effectively, Gaunilo used the technique of Reductio ad Absurdum, more commonly know as Reduction to the Absurd or Appeal to Extremes, to demonstrate this flaw in Anselm’s argument. 2.) Misuse of Language: A second objection with Anselm’s Ontological Argument is that it misuses language. Premise one states that, “god is a being than which none greater can be imagined”, but this is simple incorrect. Rather, ‘god is a conceptual being than which none greater can be imagined”. Minds don’t conceive beings, they conceive concepts of beings; in the same way that painters don’t paint trees, they paint paintings… of trees. Premise two states that, “god exists as an idea in the mind”, but this too is incorrect. Rather, “a concept of god exists as an idea in the mind”. Of course, I realize this may sound pedantic, but when it comes to logical arguments it is paramount that the correct language and definitions of words and terms are used, less one wants to run the risk of committing, among other errors, an Equivocation Fallacy. 3.) Equivocation Fallacy: In the case of Anselm’s Ontological Argument the Fallacy of Equivocation resides in the word god. During point two Anselm uses a definition consistent with, “a conceptual god who exists only in the mind”, but in point 5 he uses a definition consistent with, “a god who exists in reality”. It might be subtle, but this is a writhe example of an Equivocation Fallacy. 4.) Begging the Question: A fourth major flaw with the Ontological Argument, and one that was first voiced by Immanuel Kant, that is that it commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. It does this because the conclusion of the argument is included in one of its premises, making it circular reasoning. Or to paraphrase Kant, it attempts to cause something to exist by adding existence to its definition. A great example to illustrate this issue can be seen in The Messianic Manic’s video, which I’ve provided a link to below, but to paraphrase his example; a Realicorn is by definition a unicorn that really exists. It exists by definition. Therefore, if you have a fully accurate understanding of what a Realicorn is, you must believe that it exists, because if you’re thinking about a Realicorn that doesn’t exist you’re not actually thinking about a Realicorn… your just thinking about a unicorn. 5.) False Attribution: While we’re on the point of defining things into existence, a fifth major problem with the Ontological Argument is that it treats the word ‘existence’ as if it were an attribute of something, rather than the condition that allows for attributes to apply to something. Something existing in the mind is conceptual, and may or may not reference something that exists in the natural world. Or, as Scott Clifton puts it – in his outstandingly clear way, and who’s content I’ve also linked to in the description, “to say that anything has any attribute at all is to already say that it exists – otherwise you’re just speaking of the attributes it would’ve had if it existed.” 6.) Faulty Definitions: And while we’re on the topic of Clifton, and to raise a sixth objection, Anselm fails to define and emphasis the relevancy of the word greater. To briefly paraphrase Clifton on this point, one can conceive of a being greater than the Abrahamic god because one can conceive of a being that doesn’t commit genocide, sanction wars or slaughter the firstborn of an entire country because their King was stubborn. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the Anslem’s Ontological Argument against you.
Views: 68361 Rationality Rules
The Free World's Blasphemy Law - Debunked (Stephen Fry Blasphemy)
 
07:46
Blasphemy law is, and has always been, a disgrace to any culture that calls itself “free”. As George Orwell once said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Now we often hear that the Western World is free, and indeed, much of it is – within the confines of decency we’re free to act as we wish, and we’re entirely free to think and speak as we wish… that is, unless you live in Denmark, Finland, Greece, or Ireland - then you're free to say whatever you want unless it’s something mean about the Abrahamic god – because, you know, an all-powerful god is vulnerable to mean words… This, is The Free World’s Blasphemy Law – Debunked. Link to Stephen Fry on god: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-d4otHE-YI&t= Throughout this video I primarily explain why free speech and blasphemy laws are incompatible, and that Free speech is the right that allows us to secure and defend all other rights. It is the foundation of a free society, and that therefore I would argue that either these "free" countries must abolish their blasphemy laws, or we should no longer refer to them as "free". From here I pin-point several other flaws with blasphemy as a whole, but for a very brief summary (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. Blasphemy Laws are a Ridiculous: Blasphemy laws are a @&%*ing joke... and I swear on purpose - because likewise to swearing, blasphemy is a victimless crime. A Christian doesn't get hurt when someone swears or says something mean about their divine North Korean, they get offended – and funny enough, Fry's response to people getting offended is second to none: "It's now rather common to hear people say 'I'm very offended by that' as if it give them certain rights... it's actually nothing more... it’s simply a whine [...] it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase; 'I am offended by that' well so fucking what! 2. Blasphemy Laws Exist to Preserve Ignorance: And this brings us to the real reason why blasphemy law exist. It’s not to defend an all-powerful god, because such a being would be necessarily impervious to offense… it exists to preserve religious ignorance, because deep down the religious know that their beliefs cannot withstand rationality, and they know that the application of criticism will dissolve their undeserved privileges – that, is why blasphemy law exists. 3. An All-Powerful AND All-Loving god Certainly doesn’t Exist: Fry is absolutely correct when he calls the Abrahamic god a mean-minded maniac, because if this god exists and truly is all-powerful (as its proponents do indeed claim), then the state of the universe proves, without a doubt, that this god is utterly, utterly evil. To illustrate this, I’m going to quote Epicurus, a man who lived three-hundred years before the inception of Christianity, and who within this one quote alone entirely eviscerated the idea of an all-powerful and all-loving god for good: “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” Hence, if an all-powerful god exists then it’s necessarily not all-loving because evil exists. 4. Fry Illustrates Real Morality: And the final point I want to make is that when Fry stated that he wouldn’t want to get into heaven on the Abrahamic god’s terms, he demonstrated true morality and real benevolence, because unlike the religious, who Appeal to Authority for their morality, Fry demonstrated that he actually cares about the wellbeing of others… -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you point out that many “free” countries aren’t actually free.
Views: 81489 Rationality Rules
Christian Science - Debunked
 
10:12
This is "Christian Science – Debunked”. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Intercessory prayer study (“Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications”): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 2). Cardiac care prayer study (“Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterisation or percutaneous coronary intervention”): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023511 3). Skeptical Science’s - “The results for any studies that are bad (fraudulent), or ugly (not really scientific at all) can be discarded, only the good once (truly scientific) are reliable”): https://www.skeptical-science.com/science/scientific-studies-prayer-good-bad-ugly/ 4). Rita Swan - victims of religion-based medical neglect: http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132 5). MassKids – cases of child deaths caused by Christian Science: https://www.masskids.org/index.php/religious-medical-neglect/cases-of-child-deaths -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video aids you in dealing with the claims of Christian Science.
Views: 52772 Rationality Rules
My Views On Morality (Is It Objective?)
 
12:17
This is my thoughts on morality. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ 2). Catholic Morality: http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-morality 3). Moral Relativism: https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/ 4). Decent notes on the definition of “objective”: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objective-and-subjective 5). David Hume’s is / ought problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you better understand my views on morality.
Views: 50356 Rationality Rules
Homeopathy - Debunked
 
13:38
Please be sure to check out GMS' wonderful content! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG1uayRlzz3ahT8ISRdyw7Q/featured This, is homeopathy – Debunked. So let’s start by explaining exactly what homeopathy is. Put simply, it’s an alternative medicine (do you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine), that asserts that “illnesses can be treated with minute doses of substances that in large doses would produce symptoms of the illness. Or as the creator of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann put it ‘like cures like'. For example, Aconitum is an extremely poisonous plant that causes (among other symptoms) nausea, headaches and diarrhoea, and so homeopathic advocates assert that because influenza causes the same symptoms, a homeopathic remedy for influenza can be made from Aconitum. So with that said, you might be wondering, “How exactly is homeopathic ‘medicine’ made?” Well, to create a homeopathic remedy for influenza, for example, a homeopathic ‘technician’ grinds Aconitum into a very coarse grain, mixes it with either water, alcohol or a combination of the two, and then thoroughly shakes the solution. From here, the ‘technician’ then mixes one part of this solution with ten parts water, alcohol or a combination of the two, and then puts it through a process called ‘succession’, which is a deliberately verbose way of saying ‘it’s shaken’. And finally, this process (which is called ‘potentization’) is repeated until the solution is as diluted as desired, which is normally 30 times, which, to put this into perspective, means that you’d need to drink 8,000 gallons of the final solution to ingest one molecule of the original solution – (which is more liquid than the average person drinks in twenty years!). Anyhow, there’s just a taste of the content within the video :) And here’s the links to the research that I reference within the video. 1. Lancet: the analysis of 110 homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials (found homeopathy to be no more effective than placebo): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16125589 2. European Journal of Cancer: meta-analysis of 6 studies (found homeopathy to be no more effective than placebo): http://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(05)00996-2/fulltext 3: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (found homeopathy to be no more effective than placebo). http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.723 4: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian Government): meta-analysis of over 1,800 studies (found homeopathy to be no more effective than placebo): https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02a_information_paper.pdf 5: NHS: public statement on homeopathy (there is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition): http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx 6. Federal Trade Commission: (the FTC will hold efficacy and safety claims for over the counter homeopathic drugs to the same standard as other products making similar claims): https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/11/ftc-issues-enforcement-policy-statement-regarding-marketing 7. Scientific American: (Homeopathic Medicine Labels Now Must State Products Do Not Work): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/ -- To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to homeopathic advocates who would have you believe that homeopathy is a ‘real science’. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 75019 Rationality Rules
A Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Compatibilism (Free Will)
 
13:14
This is a response to Matt Dillahunty’s compatibilism (his position regarding free will). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- 1). Matt Dillahunty’s Q & A video: https://youtu.be/mlkgROsi79E 2). My video titled ‘Free Will – Debunked’: https://youtu.be/j4Oyi1T-HmU 3). My video titled ‘The Death of Mainstream Religion – With The End of Free Will’: https://youtu.be/rYqL2Icj5k0 4). My conversation with Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) on free will: https://youtu.be/lks1MfZ8gQU 5). Sam Harris’ Atlantis analogy: https://youtu.be/FrS1NCvG1b4 6). Harris S, 2012. Free Will: https://www.samharris.org/free-will 7). An excellent lecture on free will by Sam Harris: https://youtu.be/aCxyVjUpaqk 8). Libet B, 1983. “The onset of cerebral activity clearly preceded by at least several hundred milliseconds the reported time of conscious intention to act.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273 9). Soon CS, 2008. “We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408715 10). Bode S, 2011. “We demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124546/ 11). Fried I, 2011. “We report progressive neuronal recruitment over ∼1500 ms before subjects report making the decision to move.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21315264 -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that in this video I successfully conveyed why I believe Matt Dillahunty’s compatibilism to be flawed. Sicily exists, but it’s not underwater, and that’s what people care about.
Views: 53364 Rationality Rules
The Argument from Personal Experience - Debunked (Why Personal Experiences are NOT Proof)
 
08:04
An Argument from Personal Experience is an interesting one… because for the person who’s had the experience it’s remarkably compelling, but for the majority of everyone else it’s borderline insane… this, is the Argument from Personal Experience – Debunked. Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the Argument from Personal Experience tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. Most, but not all, Contradict Reality: First and foremost, Arguments from Personal Experience tend to contradict reality. For example, if our aunt was to claim that reincarnation is real, all of the facts, laws, theories and evidence found in biology and psychology must be contradicted. 2. Most, but not all, are Mutually Exclusive: In addition to Arguments from Personal Experience contradicting reality, they also often contradict one-another, meaning that many of them are Mutually Exclusive. For example, our aunt’s claim of reincarnation is in direct conflict with other Arguments from Personal Experience, such as, for example, our cousin’s claim that the Christian heaven exists because he personally experience heaven when he was on life-support. In this case, our aunt and cousin are making mutually exclusive claims about the nature of death… they can’t both be absolutely correct, and hence, their claims are mutually exclusive. 3. They all commit an Anecdotal Fallacy: A third flaw to bring up, and one that is committed by all Arguments from Personal Experience, is that they not only commit, but they essentially are, Anecdotal Fallacies. To state it simply, an Anecdotal Fallacy occurs when a proponent uses a personal experience as evidence instead of reliable, falsifiable data, and that folks, is pretty much Arguments from Personal Experiences verbatim. 4. They all commit an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy: A second fallacy that all Arguments from Personal Experience commit, and one that is very similar to the Anecdotal Fallacy, is the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. An Appeal to Emotion Fallacy is characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to win an argument, rather than presenting factual evidence and sound reasoning. For example, if our cousin grabs us by the shoulders, looks us intensely in the eyes, and says, in his loud and aggressive voice, that if we don’t believe in heaven, and by extension god, we will burn in hell for eternity, he would be appealing to our fear… he would be attempting to manipulate our emotions rather than present us with a respectable and falsifiable argument, and therefore he would be committing an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. 5. They all commit an Argument for Authority Fallacy: Yet another flaw committed by all proponents of an Argument from Personal Experience, is the Argument from Authority Fallacy. In general, an Argument from Authority Fallacy occurs when an authority is cited on a topic outside of their expertise or when the authority is not a true expert; but in the case of Arguments from Personal Experience, the authoritative figure that is cited is themselves… 6. Some, but not most, commit an Argument from Ignorance: And finally, as a last flaw that I’ll point out in this video, we have the classic Argument from Ignorance. Not all Arguments from Personal Experience commit an Argument from Ignorance, as many of them claim to be absolutely, one hundred per cent certain of their claims – and so they’re just contradicting reality and committing a myriad of devastating fallacies…no biggy. But those who aren’t absolutely certain of their claims very often appeal to ignorance by saying something along the lines of, “my personal experience can’t be explained any other way… how else did I see visions of my previous life? Reincarnation must be the answer!” -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use an Argument from Personal Experience against you.
Views: 32858 Rationality Rules
The Big Bang - Debunked (Ex Nihilo Model)
 
10:16
This is The Big bang – Debunked To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Blake Giunta debating Matt Dillahunty: https://youtu.be/a1SVpqv8VkI 2). Space documentary: https://youtu.be/gs-yWMuBNr4 3). William Lane Craig debating Alex Rosenberg: https://youtu.be/8kARkbDCjtM 4). Another space documentary: https://youtu.be/4eKIjkk0NVY 5). Yet another space documentary: https://youtu.be/HdPzOWlLrbE 6). Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? | Brian Greene: https://youtu.be/bf7BXwVeyWw 7). Sean Carroll - Did the Universe Begin? https://youtu.be/FgpvCxDL7q4 8). More on the Big Bang: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-of-the-universe/ 9). Even more on the Big Bang: https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html 10). Still even more on the Big Bang: https://www.bbc.com/education/guides/zg9x3k7/revision/2 -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps clear up confusion regarding The Big Bang (The Great Expansion)
Views: 112191 Rationality Rules
Evolution is Just a Theory - Debunked (It's "Just a Theory" Refuted)
 
06:54
If you’ve ever watched a creationist in a debate, or have had the misfortune of debating one yourself, it’s very likely that at some point you’ve heard the argument that “Evolution is Just a Theory”. And moreover, it tends to be said as if it was a fatal and devastating blow against evolution… Yet the irony, which may or may not be known by the proponents of this argument, is that calling evolution a theory is actually a tremendous compliment… While the argument that Evolution is Just a Theory is very rarely presented in its logical form, for the purpose of clearly demonstrating why exactly it’s flawed, I’m going to present it this way nonetheless; • A theory is, by definition, “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action”. • Evolution is a theory. • Therefore, evolution is just “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action”. Here’s a link to Hemant Mehta’s (The Friendly Atheist’s) YouTube channel (definitely worth checking out!): https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistVoice/videos Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the augment that Evolution is Just a Theory tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows: 1. Equivocation Fallacy: The first major flaw with the argument that Evolution is Just a Theory, is that it commits, and that it pretty much entirely is, a huge Equivocation Fallacy. An Equivocation Fallacy is the misleading use of a word or a term with more than one meaning, by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. And in this case, the Equivocation Fallacy occurs in the word ‘theory’. The argument uses one definition of the word ‘theory’ during its first and third premises – that being, “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action”; but it uses another definition of the word ‘theory’ during its second premise – that being, “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined protocol of observations and experiments”, and because it switches between these two definitions to attain its conclusion, it’s not a coherent argument. 2. Scientifically Illiterate However, to raise another… not so much of a flaw but rather a comment, proponents of the Just a Theory argument tend not only be unaware of what a scientific theory is, but they also tend to be unaware of the four degrees of scientific knowledge altogether… that being facts, laws, hypotheses, and of course theories. To put it simply; • A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. For example, it’s cold outside. • A scientific law is a description of how some aspect of the universe behaves under stated circumstances (but not why). For example, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. • A scientific hypothesis is, for intent and purposes, an educated guess. It’s very similar to the everyday layman definition of the word theory. For example, eating vegetables causes weight loss because they’re low in calories but are high in fiber. • And a scientific theory is a rigorously tested and confirmed hypothesis that accounts for all related facts and laws, and has been proven to accurately predict future findings and phenomenon. Or as Matt Dillahunty puts it, “a theory is the highest possible achievement of science”. Hence, calling evolution a theory, which it is, is actually a tremendous compliment! 3. Fact & Theory: The last small point I want to make on this matter is that evolution is technically both a fact and a theory. It’s an uncontroversial fact that organisms have changed (or evolved) during the history of life of Earth, and the theory as to why these organisms have changed (or evolved) is called Natural Selection. Just as gravity is a fact, so is evolution; and just as General Relatively is a scientific theory, so is Natural Selection. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the argument that Evolution is Just a Theory against you.
Views: 38709 Rationality Rules
A Likely Goodbye for Now
 
05:06
To support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To donate to me via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule Hello my fellow apes, I hope that you’re well and that you’re not too alarmed by the title of this video, but, without your help, this is indeed likely a goodbye from me for now, and the reason for this is quite simply because I have to put bread on the table. It sucks, I know, but it is what it is… So, to explain my situation succinctly, over the last 3 months I’ve been very fortunate in that the company that I worked for underwent major restructuring, and because my job got moved abroad, I was granted gardening leave, and so for the last 3 months I’ve been literally living my dream – I’ve been a full-time YouTuber, and by the gods (that don’t exist), it’s been glorious! I have thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I now know that this is what I want to do with my life – I want to debunk nonsense and make a real impact in the atheist, non-religious and secular sphere. Rationality Rules has become more than a channel to me – it’s an identity. It is, to a large extent, the polished version of myself, and I’m extremely proud of it. But alas, the 3 months of awesomeness are over, and I have to support my family and pay the bills, and so as of today I’m going to start working on my portfolio and applying for jobs… but I’ll completely level with you… once I am making enough from Rationality Rules to pay my bills and support my family, I will quit my profession as a Graphic Designer, despite the pay-cut. Be that tomorrow, in six months, a year, or even five years… that’s how much I want to help you, and others, deal with nonsensical arguments in an entertaining and educational way. I want to continue to make a real impact. I want to keep doing what I’m doing. But as it stands, this just isn’t possible…and that’s why I thought I’d reach out and ask for your help. What it basically comes down to is that if you’re happy with one video from me per month, then you need do nothing, you’ll very likely get that, but if you want to have three to five videos per month (which are of significantly higher quality), and if you want to make an indirect impact to the non-religious sphere through me, then I quite simply need your financial support – even if it’s just for a month or two – until the channel gets greater exposure. And so, if you are willing and able to help, then the best way to support me is through Patreon, where you can pledge as little as one dollar per video per month, and in return you’ll gain my eternal gratitude as well as access to some great goodies, such as being the first to know what topics I’m working on, being able to vote on many of the topics I take on, and, if you so wish, you can even be eternalised in cartoon form within all of my subsequent videos. Or, if you prefer, you can make a one-time donation through PayPal. I’ve put both links below. Now just before I wrap up, as it were, I want you to know I really considered scraping this video altogether, because asking for your help just doesn’t feel right… and I’m not entirely sure why, but it just feels awkward… but come to the realisation that if I want the best chance for Rationality Rules to succeed, then I simply have to ask for your help. And if I was to just disappear for several months without telling you why, and then only create one video per month, well, that wouldn’t be very considerate of me… And finally, I just want to sincerely thank my current patrons – all of them (all of you)! I honestly can’t convey how deeply touched I am by strangers really believing in me and in what I’m doing. It’s bizarre, but my greatest supporters aren’t my family or my even my friends, it’s you. People who have never met me, and may never meet me, and yet you believe in my cause enough to support me. I just want to say thank you, and I want you to know that there’s not a day that goes by that I’m not completely overwhelmed by your kindness and generosity. You really do make me feel like I’m not alone in this endeavour, and I couldn’t possibly ask for more than that. I may be just a YouTube personality to most people, but really I’m just a person who’s trying to make it through this life doing what he loves, and you’re helping me achieve that, and so, you have my eternal gratitude. Thank you. Anyhow, to recap, if you are willing and able to buy me a cup of tea of two per month in exchange for my videos, you can find my Patreon and PayPal links below. And as always, thank you kindly for the view, and in this case, your consideration. Thank you. To support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To donate to me via PayPal: paypal.me/RationalityRules
Views: 20234 Rationality Rules
The Holy Chicken - Debunked / Islamic Miracle Exposed (3 Minute Debunks Ep5)
 
03:37
This is The Holy Chicken – Debunked / Islamic Miracle Exposed (3 Minute Debunks Ep5) To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. The Holy Chicken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuuRq47TySk&t= 2. Hindu Snake Charmer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIBQ54rIi9w&t 3. Gazelle escaping predators due to tonic immobility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0RHSX_9c-U 4. The Chalk Line Method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqZZ95L2n7o 5. The Sternum Stroke Method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwUPax25_Vo -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who would use such non-sequiturs against you. Stay rationale my fellow apes.
Views: 23456 Rationality Rules
The Argument from Ignorance - Debunked (The Appeal to Ignorance - Refuted)
 
07:40
To state it clearly, an Argument from Ignorance occurs when either a claim is asserted to be true because it hasn’t yet been proven to be false, or when a claim is asserted to be false because it hasn’t yet been proven to be true. For example: • You can’t prove that there isn’t a mirror universe of our own; • Therefore, there must be one out there somewhere. However, in a typical argument from ignorance for a god – the specific type we’re going to focus on for the rest of this video – a theist will propose a scenario that cannot, or currently cannot be adequately explained by our current understanding, and they will then “fill the gap” with an assertion of their god. Hence this argument is often referred to as the “God of the Gaps” argument. Here’s a link to Potholer54’s video on Bill O'Reilly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcUo9Tk0A-s So, while there is a much larger explanation in the video, here in the description I’m going to get straight to the objections with these arguments (due to restricted word-count). 1. They attempt to shift the Burden of Proof. When two parties are in discourse and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the party who is asserting the claim has the Burden of Proof to substantiate it. However, in an Argument from Ignorance the claimant insists that the other party must prove their claim false – and in doing this they attempt to shift the Burden of Proof. To go back to our life from non-life example, the theist attempts to shift the Burden of Proof by insisting that unless the other party can prove how life started they’re justified in believing that their god divinely intervened. • 2. Most commit a Black & White Fallacy. A Black & White fallacy occurs when a party presents two choices as the only possibilities, when in fact additional options cannot be ruled out; and in the case of our life from non-life example the theist asserts that either life emerged spontaneously from nothing, or that their specific god created life, without justifying why these two options are the only possibilities. In doing this they’re once again attempting to shift the Burden of Proof. It is the theist that is claiming that only two options exist, and so once again it is the theist that has the Burden of Proof to substantiate this claim. It is not up to the disputing party to disprove their assertions or provide additional possibilities. • 3. Many commit a Personal Incredulity Fallacy. A third major flaw that many, but no all Arguments from Ignorance have, is that rather than relying upon universal ignorance, they actually rely upon the personal ignorance of the theist, and in doing this, they commit a Personal Incredulity Fallacy. A great example of personal incredulity is when Bill O’Reilly infamously said to David Silverman that “tide goes in, tide goes out – never a miscommunication; you can’t explain that!”. Because O’Reilly didn’t – or, let’s be honest, probably still doesn’t understand that the moon’s gravity is responsible for the rise and fall of sea levels, he asserted that a god – his very specific god, must be involved. Of course, there are many, many more flaws and objections to be had with Arguments from Ignorance, but likewise to all arguments, it only takes one premise being discounted for the entire conclusion to crumble apart, and in the case of all Arguments from Ignorance it is particularly the shifting of the Burden of Proof that is this devastating flaw. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use an Argument from Ignorance against you.
Views: 25679 Rationality Rules
Censored Speech – Debunked
 
12:59
This is Censored Speech – Debunked (in close relation to my video “Is The Left Eating Itself?”). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Spiked Magazine's "Is the Left Eating Itself?": https://youtu.be/WsTuMmyHw8s 2). My “Is the Left Eating Itself?”: https://youtu.be/1r3H9--2nS0 3). Someone getting attacked for advocating free speech: https://youtu.be/d4AuCjESzRo 4). Brendan O'Neil on the Dave Rubin Report: https://youtu.be/Ak51zb4G_Kk 5). Brendan O'Neil's "Freedom to Offend" speech: https://youtu.be/BtWrljX9HRA 6). Tucker Carlson's speech on hate speech: https://youtu.be/m_f_tQMrJMU -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video strengthens your beliefs in free speech absolutism.
Views: 71280 Rationality Rules
Sam Harris Calls for a Muslim Genocide - Debunked:
 
08:10
If you’ve watched many of my videos, then you’re likely aware of how highly I regard Sam Harris. He’s an incredibly thoughtful person who confronts difficult and often inconvenient subjects with intellectual fire, and who supports his assertions with objective and verifiable evidence – but he also is, unfortunately, a frequent victim of outrageously deplorable and lazy misrepresentations, and this video is a response to just one of them. This, is Sam Harris Calls for a Muslim Genocide – Debunked. A special thanks to Hement Mehta (The Friendly Atheist) for both writing a fantastic piece on this event, and for reaching out to Harris to get his response. Here’s the original article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/06/26/sam-harris-critics-are-misrepresenting-his-words-in-an-effort-to-discredit-him/ And here’s a link to the studies loosely referenced within the video: 1. PEW Research Centre study of over 38,000 Muslims. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf 2. Civitas study of British Muslims: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope this video helps you defeat those who misrepresent Sam Harris’ views. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 50175 Rationality Rules
Address the Heavy Hitters – Debunked (Jordan Peterson Refuted)
 
09:25
This is Atheists Haven’t Addressed the Heavy Hitters – Debunked (Jordan Peterson Refuted). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Jordan Peterson’s lecture and Q&A session at Lafayette: https://youtu.be/qT_YSPxxFJk 2). Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty debate (Pansburn Philosophy): https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8 3). Interview of Jordan Peterson (Transliminal): https://youtu.be/07Ys4tQPRis 4). Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked: https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0 5). Jordan Peterson’s Archetypes – Debunked: https://youtu.be/VW2bxDOAx3Q 6). Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian: https://youtu.be/UWuYSo-nL08 7). Everyone is Religious – Debunked: https://youtu.be/ZMhP59FnXgw -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps spell-out Jordan Peterson’s views.
Views: 113123 Rationality Rules
ASAP Science’s Can Math Prove god’s Existence? Debunked (Argument From Improbability Refuted)
 
09:55
This is ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” – Debunked. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existience”: https://youtu.be/-jxdIt2_WI0 -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you understand and articulate the fallacies and errors in ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” (and of course Arguments from Improbability in general). Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 267926 Rationality Rules
Homosexuality is Unnatural - Debunked
 
07:54
This is Homosexuality is Unnatural – Debunked. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that ‘homosexuality is unnatural’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_xxqMT2JY 2. Blanchard R, ‘sexual orientation correlates with an individual's number of older brothers’: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11534970 3. Jerson, ‘homosexuality is associated with a preponderance of older brothers’: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3961213/ 4. Blanchard R, ‘analysis showed that homosexuality was positively correlated with the proband's number of older brothers’: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8540587 5. Blanchard R, ‘Meta-analysis of aggregate data from 14 samples representing 10,143 male subjects shows that homosexuality in human males is predicted by higher numbers of older brother’: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15302549 6. Blanchard R, ‘the fraternal birth order effect is the tendency for older brothers to increase the odds of homosexuality in later-born males’: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608293 7. John Corvino asking ‘is homosexuality natural?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlQvf7IVxao -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to those who assert that ‘Homosexuality is Unnatural’. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 111226 Rationality Rules
The War on Drugs – Debunked (The Inconsistencies of Drug Law)
 
08:38
This is The War on Drugs - Debunked. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. Dale Bewan’s Dropping Acid: A Beginner's Guide to the Responsible Use of LSD for Self-Discovery: https://www.amazon.com/Dropping-Acid-Dale-Bewan/dp/1492318191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515084420&sr=8-1&keywords=dropping+acid+lsd 2. United States’ classification of drugs: https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml 3. United Kingdom’s classification of drugs: https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing 4. United Kingdom's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/contents 5. United Kingdom’s Talk to Frank’s explanation of drug classifications: 6. David Nutt’s Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract 7. David Nutt’s Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382831 8. Legal history of cannabis in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_(1900s) 9. Legal history of LSD in the United States: http://www.drugwise.org.uk/lsd/ 10 . Legal history of ecstasy: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/neill-franklin/mdma-legalization_b_4044755.html 11. Portugal’s classification of drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal 12. The result of Portugal’s decriminalisation of drugs: https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.cy9GD0fPt 13. More results from Portugal’s classification of drugs: https://mises.org/library/portugal’s-experiment-drug-decriminalization-has-been-success 14. Kurzgesagt’s Why The War on Drugs Is a Huge Failure: https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI 15. Kurzgesagt’s Addiction: https://youtu.be/ao8L-0nSYzg -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you illustrate the inconsistencies of current drug laws to those who think otherwise. Stay rationale my fellow apes.
Views: 52060 Rationality Rules
DNA is a Language – Debunked (The Argument from DNA Refuted – Ken Ham & Lee Strobel)
 
08:00
The Argument from DNA is very rarely presented in its syllogistic form… rather, it’s just asserted – in one way or another, its proponents simply claim that language is always a product of a mind, and that since DNA is a language, it too must be a product of a mind – and that mind is, wouldn’t you know, the super specific god of they just so happen to believe in – amazing right? But if it was put into a syllogistic form, it would go as follows: • Language is a product of a mind. • DNA is a language. • Therefore, DNA is a product of a mind. Now before we proceed, I want to stress that within this video I expose and explain several flaws and fallacies within the Argument from DNA in detail, but for a brief summary (extremely brief), here’s a shorter version. 1. Doesn’t Support a Specific Religion: So, to get straight to it, even if this argument was valid, it would not logically follow that a specific god or group of gods exist. Nor would it logically follow that whatever created DNA still exists, that it is / was benevolent, or that it also created the universe. Seriously, all it would prove is that DNA had an author or authors, and that’s it… it isn’t an argument for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or indeed any religion, and hence, in the words Hitchens, “[Even] if you’ve established deism, you’ve got all your work still ahead of you to be a theist.” 2. Equivocation Fallacy: With that point made, I’ll now explain why the argument isn’t valid, and I’ll start by completely and utterly crushing it with one swift sentence: the assertion that DNA is a language is an Equivocation Fallacy, because its proponents switch between two different definitions of the word ‘language’ throughout their premises, and thus, their argument is incoherent and therefore invalid. To put this as simply as possible, during premise one and three, they are using a communicational definition of the word ‘language’, which is, “A method of communication, in which intended information is conveyed from one entity or group to another, through the use of mutually understood signs and semiotic rules”, but during premise two, they are using a programming definition of the word ‘language’, which is, “A set of rules that instruct elements on how to function and behave”. 3. Personal Incredulity Fallacy: To keep it brief (see the video for more detail), the vast majority of proponents of this argument also commit a Personal Incredulity Fallacy. They do this because they don’t personally understand or accept Natural Selection, or appreciate that it’s supported by copious amounts of evidence from multiple branches of science, and so, quite literally, they just dismiss it and assert that it isn’t supported at all. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who would use the Argument from DNA Argument against you in the future.
Views: 44191 Rationality Rules
The Big Bang is Just a Belief - Debunked / Ken Ham Refuted  (3 Minute Debunks Ep1)
 
02:51
Welcome to Three-Minute Debunks, where we debunk asinine assertions within three minutes, and on this occasion, the star of the minutes is no other than the derptastic anti-science guy himself, Ken Ham. Ham tweeted, “Those who believe in the Big Bang did not see it happen--it’s their belief. It’s about time evolutionists admitted they have beliefs.” So first of all, let me get this damn straight… evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang… please, creationists, stop pretending that it does! Just stop it. Ham’s tweet might as well say, “Those who believe in the Big Bang did not see it happen--it’s their belief. It’s about time Copernicans admitted they have beliefs.”… Secondly, and to get to the crux of Ham’s assertion, we don’t have to “see it happen” in order to know that something has occurred… I wonder Ham; did you see World War I happen? No? I guess it’s just a belief then, isn’t it? Did you witness Mount Vesuvius, in 79 A.D, erupt and bury Pompeii in a thick avalanche of molten volcanic ash? No? I guess this too is just a belief then, isn’t it? In fact, did you witness your own birth? No? Oh, well I guess that’s just a belief too isn’t it? It’s just as valid as every other belief concerning the origin of children – such as Stork Theory – because you didn’t “see it happen”. Look, in science, the word ‘observation’ doesn’t mean, “see it happen”, it means, “to perceive and measure through our senses or through scientific tools and instruments.” Sure, we can observe the age of a tree by “seeing it happen”, but we can also observe the age of a tree by measuring the rings that it has… that is, we can observe the age of a tree without “seeing it happen”. The truth is that we don’t know anything with absolute certainty, but this doesn’t render all claims as equal. Just as the overwhelming evidence indicates that Pompeii was buried in volcanic ash in 79 A.D, the overwhelming evidence indicates that the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. It’s not just a belief, unlike your Ark. Anyhow, as always, thanks for kindly the view, and if you know of a asinine comment, tweet, or clip that’s gone full retard, let me know in the comment section below, and should I feature it in one of my videos, I’ll be sure to credit you as who requested it. Until next time my fellow apes!
Views: 18613 Rationality Rules
YouTube’s Monetization System – Debunked
 
08:42
This is YouTube’s Monetization System - Debunked To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. YouTube’s ‘Advertiser Friendly Content Guidelines’: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en-GB 2. Phillip DeFranco’s ‘YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I'm Not Sure What To Do’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbph5or0NuM 3. Counter Arguments ‘Demonetized’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0evIT7U94zw 4. H3h3Productions’’YouTube's Rules Don't Apply to Everyone’ : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8n78AuN3w 5. Casey Neistat’s ‘WTF YouTube? taking away monetization???’ : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjOQTOkK4Q 6. The Late Show With Stephen Colbert’s ‘Stephen Colbert Is Genuinely Freaked Out About The Brexit’ : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRAU6hODSck 7. RobinHoodUKIP’s ‘Brexit guy destroys lefty arguments’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gHLfMXb0Yg 8. Phillip DeFranco’s tweet ‘Your response is bullshit YouTube’ : https://twitter.com/phillyd/status/916132444662751259?lang=en -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps YouTube recognise their mistakes and subsequently seek to fix them. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 45556 Rationality Rules
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes - Debunked
 
09:49
This is There Are No Atheists In Foxholes - Debunked. To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- References: 1. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers: http://militaryatheists.org 2. Further reading on the history and response to the argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes 3. Thomas J. Anderson’s Why We Believe in God(S): https://www.amazon.co.uk/WHY-WE-BELIEVE-GOD-S/dp/0984493212 4. Hemant Mehta’s The Problem With The Phrase There Are No Atheists In Foxholes: https://youtu.be/PBMk0KCjMpY 5. Religiousity in the United States: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_sociology-understanding-and-changing-the-social-world-comprehensive-edition/s20-05-religion-in-the-united-states.html -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who assert that there are no atheists in foxholes. Stay rationale my fellow apes.
Views: 80713 Rationality Rules
Secularism is Anti Christian - Debunked / Ken Ham Refuted (3 Minute Debunks Ep2)
 
03:27
Welcome to Three Minute Debunks, where we debunk asinine assertions within three minutes, and on this occasion, the star of the minutes is once again Ken Ham, the almighty boat-building fallacious douche! On the ninth of March, Ham tweeted, “Secular ideology is not about having equal rights but about having superior rights for those in power to eradicate Christian speech.” Oh Ham, I sometime wonder, are you just trolling or are you seriously this damn stupid and self-absorbed? First and foremost, secularism as an ideology is founded on “the principle of separation of state and religious institutions.” It is, as the one and only Thomas Jefferson put it, “the separation of church and state”; the principle that all people, despite their religion and beliefs, are equal before the law – with no special exceptions. So, if you’re strictly speaking about secularism “as an ideology”, then you’re one-hundred-percent wrong Ham… it’s not about granting non-Christians superior rights, it’s about taking away superior rights from unjustly privileged religions and beliefs – which in the U.S is currently Christianity. It’s about equality: secularism 101. With that said, let’s address the more implicit assertion that you’re making: that the current secular movement within the U.S isn’t truly secular, but rather, it’s anti-Christian. Well, let’s respond to this through an example… when the Freedom From Religion Foundation requested that the state of Texas police department remove the motto “In God We Trust” from their vehicles, they did so by asserting that the motto violates the First Amendment – that is, it violates secular ideology – one of the core foundations of the U.S. On the surface, and to the ignorant, this may have seemed like the FFRF were trying to “eradicate Christian speech”, but in reality they were trying to take away superior rights from Christians. They were trying to separate Christianity (a religious institution) from the Texas police department (the state). Find tweet of ham attacking the FFRF To put this all bluntly Ham, you’ve experienced so much Christian privilege that you now see equality as discrimination against Christians… which is truly abysmal… However, with all of this said, I think it’s only fair to end this episode with the acknowledgement that some regressive groups are indeed anti-Christian, such as some factions of the LGBT community, who tolerate (and even endorse) outrageous homophobia from Muslims, while simultaneously condemning the same homophobia from Christians… which, indeed, is both anti-Christian and anti-secular. Anyhow, as always, thanks for kindly the view, and if you know of a asinine comment, tweet, or clip that’s gone full retard, let me know in the comment section, and should I feature in one of my videos, I’ll be sure to credit you as who requested it. Until next time my fellow apes! Until next time…
Views: 10303 Rationality Rules
9 Proofs of Evolution (Why Evolution is True) Ft. Holy Koolaid
 
11:00
My fellow apes, click here to subscribe to Holy Koolaid: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzvoUDoDu-cKIb11rg4ODDQ?sub_confirmation=1 And here's a link to watch me and Holy Koolaid take on the misconceptions about evolution (remember to subscribe!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAPSQ1zqfY8&feature=youtu.be Holy Koolaid's patron: https://www.patreon.com/holykoolaid Holy Koolaid's Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/holykoolaid/ Holy Koolaid's Twitter: https://twitter.com/holykoolaid The evidence for evolution comes from every branch of science that remotely interacts with organisms. This includes, to name but a few, anatomy, biology, embryology, genetics, neurobiology, and paleontology – which in turn includes every sub-field of these sciences, such as anthropology, biogeography, chronological dating, comparative anatomy, fossils, molecular biology, and the list goes on and on and on and on… The point being here is that everything we objectively know about the natural world both supports and improves the theory of evolution by natural selection, whether we like it or not! This is 9 Proofs of Evolution – Why Evolution is True. Now to present all of the evidence for evolution would take eons, and would bore even Darwin, Dawkins and Jay Gould, and so if you’re really interested in reviewing all of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, then this video isn’t it… what it is, however, is just nine lines of evidence from several fields of study which by themselves alone make a very convincing case. Needles to say, please watch the video for an adequate explanation of each line of evidence, as what follows is just a brief outline (due to a cap on description length). 1. Forelimbs of Whales: Within their flippers, whales have, just like the forelimbs of land mammals, finger, hand, wrist, and arm bones, which can be easily explained if these bones are repurposed forelimbs, but are remarkably hard to explain if they’re not, as after all, these bones have very little in common with non-mammal fins, and yet a great deal in common with the forelimbs of land mammals. 2. Hind legs of Whales: Whales have strange bones that look like shrivelled hip, thigh and shin bones where land mammals have hind legs, and some of these bones, such as these (on screen) from a bowhead whale, even have what appears to be a ball and socket joint… further still, palaeontologists have found numerous species within the fossil record that have unique similarities with whales, but also varying sizes of hind legs. 3. Left recurrent Laryngeal nerve in Mammals: Without getting to technical, this nerve runs from the brain to the voice box, which should be a distance of a few inches, but instead it goes down into the chest, loops around a main artery, and then goes back up to the voice box, which in the case of the giraffe results in a 15 foot detour… “A mistake that no engineer would ever make!” However, in animals without a neck, such as fish, the most direct route for this nerve is indeed by navigating round the artery, and hence, if mammals evolved from fish-like ancestors, we can easily explain why this absurd design exists. But if, on the other hand, we want to insist that it was deliberately created this way by a designer, then, well, we certainly can’t call this designer intelligent… Unfortunately, due to a cap on description length, you’ll have to watch the video to see 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. -- DNA Similarity Explained: Within this video I mention that we share X% of our DNA with certain organisms, and I stress and emphasis the words ‘of comparable DNA’ because that exactly what it is… of the DNA ‘that is comparable’, we share X% with these organisms. However, there is plenty of DNA in all of these organisms that is so different to ours that it can’t be compared, and this is why some studies show as low as a 90% similarity between humans and chimps, while other studies show as high as 99% similarity. It all depends on how you measure it. -- Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope this video helps you defeat those assert that evolution has no evidence! Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 97908 Rationality Rules
Atheists Are Murderers - Debunked (Jordan Peterson)
 
12:38
This is Atheists Are Murderers – Debunked (Jordan Peterson Refuted). To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to mine, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty debate (Pansburn Philosophy): https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8 2). Jordan Peterson’s lecture and Q&A session at Lafayette: https://youtu.be/qT_YSPxxFJk 3). Jordan Peterson’s “Western Civilisation is Based on Judeo-Christian Values”: https://youtu.be/Wd6FgYbMffk 4). Jordan Peterson’s “Address The Hard Hitters”: https://youtu.be/upGxmPd_fhI 5). Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked: https://youtu.be/AwXAB6cICG0 6). Jordan Peterson’s Archetypes – Debunked: https://youtu.be/VW2bxDOAx3Q 7). Jordan Peterson is NOT a Christian: https://youtu.be/UWuYSo-nL08 8). Everyone is Religious – Debunked: https://youtu.be/ZMhP59FnXgw -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps spell-out Jordan Peterson’s views.
Views: 232337 Rationality Rules
Western Civilization is Based on Judeo-Christian Values – Debunked
 
10:33
This Western Civilisation is Based on Judaeo-Christian Values – Debunked To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules To tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule And, to watch / listen to my, Thomas Westbrook’s (Holy Koolaid) and Rachel Oates podcast: https://goo.gl/oFUiie -- References: 1). The Kavernacle – America and the West were NOT founded on Judaeo-Christian ideals: https://youtu.be/cNFibQHPjZU 2). Theramin Trees – Appropriating Morality: https://youtu.be/OsAaxOFOUl4 3). Ben Shapiro – Culture and Values: https://youtu.be/LKmwieuVqcg 4). Steven Crowder – Does Christianity Form Western Morality: https://youtu.be/WCAnuv53fh4 5). Dennis Prager – If There Is No God, Murder Isn't Wrong: https://youtu.be/yrcQ_PTkVD4 6). Jordan Peterson – The Basis of Western Civilisation: https://youtu.be/MqPT7co0cgs 7). Milo Yiannopoulos – Joes Rogan: https://youtu.be/eCNsJKVd3BA 8). Rick Santorum – American Values are Judaeo-Christian values: https://youtu.be/AJ1AE2QCnG8 9). Jana Hoofman – Christianity Built Western Civilisation: https://youtu.be/hiSgq3xevmg 10). Jordan Peterson – Lafayette Q&A: https://youtu.be/qT_YSPxxFJk 11). Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (2100BC): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu 12). Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1750BC): http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp 13). Britain Abolishes Slavery (1833): https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery/chronology-who-banned-slavery-when-idUSL1561464920070322, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom 14). Animal Morality: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html 15). History of free speech: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/freedom-of-speech-in-republican-rome-laura-robinson-freedom-of-speech-in-the-roman-republic-pp-xiv93-baltimore-j-h-furst-company-1940-paper/FEDAD964888E4887947FA4BA91D8238A 16). First country to enact Free Speech: https://www.worldcat.org/title/eighteenth-century-constitution-1688-1815-documents-and-commentary/oclc/1146699 17). Athenian Lawgiver Solon grants freedom to slaves (500BC): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Athenian_Constitution#12 18). Cleisthenes’ Athenian Democratic Reforms: http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/10a.html 19). The Age of Enlightenment and Democratic Proliferation: http://science.jrank.org/pages/8957/Democracy-Age-Enlightenment-Revolution.html 20). History of Easter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ēostre 21). History of Christmas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope this helps you deflate those who assert that Western Civilisation is Based on Judaeo-Christian Values.
Views: 200039 Rationality Rules
You Can't Prove That God Doesn't Exist - Debunked
 
09:53
It’s often said by skeptics and scientists that ‘You can’t prove a negative’ or that ‘It’s impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist’. Hell, I even used to say this, but it’s simply not true… you can prove a negative, and you can prove that god doesn’t exist (depending on the definition of god)... This, is You Can’t Prove That God Doesn’t Exist – Debunked. -- To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule -- As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to the assertions that ‘You can’t prove a negative’ and that ‘You can’t prove that god doesn’t exist’. Stay rational my fellow apes.
Views: 325181 Rationality Rules

1994 united states history dbq essay sample
Myself 20 years from now essay definition
What is the meaning of philosophical essay
2000 word essay topics
Thesis statement of process essay