Theist Insists on a "Middle Ground" with Purity Culture | Jimmy Snow + Eve Was Framed 

I immediately thought this myself.

"These are the thoughts of the Devil!" Isn't is nice, that religion has a build-in justification for wanting more?

This is a great point. Felix has been indoctrinated into thinking that expressing yourself sexually only within a specific context(the plain food) is acceptable. You can tell he sees it almost as an obvious settled fact that anything outside of that is immoral. That's not the thing in question in his head. His thought process is, "ok this is obviously the right thing, does religion or atheism get us there?"... Which is a bad utility argument even assuming he has the "correct" position. I'll just as add, religion has also bred a mindset that there is in fact objectivity where subjectivity is obviously the case. That there are in fact right answers in some cases where there CAN'T be right answers. Felix is a victim of this kind of indoctrination. His overarching programmed belief is that religion(true or false) is good. So he needs to get to religion as the conclusion using whatever means it takes. He is doing what so many theists are painfully guilty of... Examining evidence with an assumed conclusion in mind. It's motivated reasoning at its core.

You forget the word *culture* , which is not a trivial thing.

Imagine comparing another human being that has value, a personality, and individual needs to FOOD that you can get tired of. Like something easily as replaceable as an unwanted baked potato on your plate that you’re tired of eating. You completely devalued a human by comparing them to food. Humans are not food. They are humans. Shame on you.

Any relation to “Lord” Christopher Monkton?

When you're religious nobility but the common folk are starting to whisper the old Baron can't satisfy her 😂

@@kaizokuo5850 Lol, not far off most likely. There's a welath of rich idiots from old money that utterly hate the fact that their old privilege ain't working any more.

As another person from the uk. I agree

It depends on how you define religious. The majority of people in the UK according to the census still identify as belonging to one religion or other even though it's much more a matter of tradition than practice with most people only attending church for weddings, funerals and other similarly more ceremonial occasions.

Nobody is going to take care of you but you. Sounds like you're doing a good job so far. Peace & blessings 💕

violent sister. ??

@@AwesometownUSA that would be a sister that was violent

Those of us who have come from a family of terrible abuse know what you are talking about. My mother stayed too until her death. It is sick. Luckily for me, I have only 1 sister and we are both empaths (as was my mother).

Silly sausage

This is such a beautifully simple comment, it's so refreshing

He’s a silly goose.

@@floppyseizure8615 Papa Gut must be proud

@@-paganless-4248 I’m not sure what that means.

Especially when Jimmy gave a perfect true or false question.

He wanted to escape into Jordan Peterson style word games, so he can avoid giving a plain answer to a simple question.

And they only play against people who only started playing basketball after marriage.

Ha!

Yep.

We’re also hardwired to rape, murder and steal but for some reason religious people disapprove of those foundational human behaviors just as much as secular society. It’s almost like theists will say whatever they think supports their current position regardless of it’s truth or relevance

We're hardwired with pattern recognition, even wherever there isn't any patterns, possibly a survival skill evolution. Especially when the brain triggers it's self defense mechanisms or instinctive behaviors, then things really steps into overdrive. Like finding religions when dealing with an life threatening addiction (aka seeing the light), altering fundamentally some individual's life path through self preservation. This is the only positive I see in religions existing until we can find alternative solutions to these issues.

The casual relationship

Oh, yeah, would that be whenever you actually propose a middle ground, they push back and say that they need a middle ground to that, and so on and so on until the middle ground is indistinguishable for their starting position?

@@TheDahaka1 well, not entirely. The middle ground fallacy occurs when you compare two extremes. One is right while the other is wrong, but then you propose a middle ground compromise. The compromise will also be wrong. Pro-slavery vs anti-slavery is a good example. A middle ground between the two would be morally wrong.

@@StannisHarlock Ah, I see. It always rests on the objective you set though. Since they believe that making god happy is the only reason for existence, they won't see as bad something that we consider objectively bad, and vice versa. It's much more important to talk about what your objective is and make others understand that their objective doesn't equate to ours. When there are opposite views, it's always easier to reach a middle ground, even if you consider your position objectively good. When the middle ground is reached, it's reality itself, with tangible consequences, that leads to progressive side to the new objective to reach, while the conservatives will try to maintain that previous middle ground that's now the norm. The huge problem with the world nowadays is that too amny of the conservatives are ready to fight and kill to maintain the status quo while the majority of the progressives are emotionally mature enough to abhor fighting in general, and therefore everything is much more stagnant.

@@TheDahaka1 the perspective you're looking at this from puts more emphasis on the opinions of the masses than my example did. Unfortunately, politically speaking, yes, we have to put up with the opinions of groups of people, mainly because people to a large degree don't care about what the truth is. They'd rather do what makes them feel good. But from an objective standpoint, it's not a good thing to reach a middle ground with a society where the majority of people there want to sacrifice 10 children a year in order to appease the Volcano god, so that he doesn't get angry and destroy their crops. I know their opinions are what we have to deal with, and 5 fewer dead children is better than the original 10, however it would still be wrong to call killing 5 children a good middle ground. The only right answer is to stop killing kids because the volcano is either going to erupt this year or not based on an entirely different set of circumstances than what they are preparing for. They could sacrifice the 10 or the 5 and still be wiped out by the volcano. So the only good answer for their society is to look for solutions to the volcano problem that will actually work, and also allow all their children to live hopefully full lives.

@@StannisHarlock Well, in my opinion you are the one looking at it in the worng way, and it's because there are no groups of people in society that want to sacrifice kids to volcanoes. And that's because some people, at the time that they were doing so, thought that it was a bit too extreme, they didn't want to sacrifice any more kids to volcanoes and they reached a middle ground. Middle ground after middle ground the practice stopped altogether. It's unrealistic to expect the whole society to change just because in your (AND MINE) opinion there are a lot of things objectively evil that are still accepted. You have to either reach a middle ground or just slaughter everyone that thinks different than you, because christians won't magically stop wanting to please sky daddy just because they're hurting innumerable people with that belief. You have to nudge them little by little in the right direction, and the only way to do so is by making as many people as possible understand the harm they're causing. But it's a very long process, and we have to keep fighting every step of the way, never forgetting that we're judging 12000 years of progress from our standpoint, and even the most conservative of people today are progressive geniuses compared to thousands of years ago. We might find them terrible, but it's because we're already vastly ahead of the past to which they think they're clinging to.

I thought he said "fart". Would make more sense...

Well, not really because he's just answering the question at all. Saying that it's art is just dismissing the question entirely.

Atheists please don’t ask tough questions we can’t answer. We just want to believe because it’s comforting. 😂

@@chrisking6695 yes! Thats what It is, they rather believe in what makes them feel good rather than what is true because reality and the real world is too bad for them but the first step in fixing the problems of the real world is accepting the real world...

Why do so many theists have trouble answering that question?! It’s almost as if some actually KNOW it’s all hogwash but want to hang on to the ideologies anyway to “benefit” society.

She's stunning.

Yes. Studies aren't published in newspapers. Articles inTERpreting studies are published in newspapers.

@@brucebaker810 yep yep. Sometimes the journalist has degree in the subject and understands statistics. Must often not, unfortunately.

sht thats kinda messed up. its so hard to imagine but i imagine it as literally feeling trapped and afraid of having a good time.

And when the feller with the clipboard checked Christian: 10/10. Then asked if they are multi-orgasmic kinksters. "We fornicate like its 1999."

Thank you

thank you

An intelligent, well spoken, interesting and physically attractive hypothetical/conceptual woman that ISN'T her is kind of sexy though am I right?

Finding women attractive is incel behavior

I didn't even notice he was there. I was too busy staring at Eve and breaking one of the commandments.😂

What exactly is being "pure"? And if you choose not to be pure, then does one choose to be "impure"?

For real-real?

good luck jax

why do the bees get an apostrophe and the birds don't ?

he accepts evolution that's a start

@@scambammer6102, indeed

To his credit he did admit towards the end that there’s nothing wrong/harmful with a consensual sexual relationship between two adults.

@@RTSurvivor23, exactly, and as an Atheist I also extend it to mutually consensual incest as Not being wrong either, as long as there is no chance of a baby being born unhealthy because of it

Most of the christians I know, believe in evolution. I was a practicing Catholic, for at least 30 years. Went to parochial (prison😁) schools, in New Orleans.

Gotta love the poop hole loophole :P

Actual;ly he didn't say that. I'm British and we ain/t religious on the whole - FAR less than the US. And you the US is a SECULAR nation. It's almost like who is technically in power has fuck all to do with the population isn't it? The point Felix made that the UK is generally pretty secular is demonstrably correct. If you went into most churches in Britain you wouldn't see anyone during the week, and a handful on a Sunday unless it was a special church. People just aren't generally religioous here.

We Brits are in a situation strangely opposite to the US. Our country is officially Christian, yes, in that it has a constitutional monarchy and the monarch is also the head of the church, and (I think) all of our holidays are Christian ones. But this is just a matter of tradition. Culturally, we are very secular. Church attendance is low. Adherence to religious traditions is casual where it is not completely apathetic. There is zero pressure on political leaders to be religious. There is no stigma to being an atheist in any part of the country that I know of. I'm happy to say that we are functionally a secular nation, and better for it. As I suggested at the start, the US is the opposite. A nation deliberately designed to be secular. The only secular constitution of any nation that comes to mind. Yet, it is a nation where any presidential candidate even suspected of atheism has no chance, where people can be disowned and ostracized for not professing a belief in supernatural mythology, where theocracy digs its claws in at every opportunity, imposing freedom crushing laws where it can and citing only religious doctrine as justification. No, never mind what is "official". Britain is the one of the two that has a greater claim to de facto secularity.

@@crunchyfrog555 I guess you are too young to feel the impact of the Good Friday Agreement. The UK isn’t a majority Christian nation anymore, but it’s still a majority theist nation (46.2% Christian, 16.6% other, 37.2% none).

as someone who lives in a theocratic monarchy that isnt england i kind of agree. we are a pretty secular country. but our gouvernment is definately more theistic. mostly christian.

As someone living in another secular country that's a constitutional monarchy, most of this tracks here in Norway too. Our leader of the Royal family (currently our King) is the constitutional head of state but functionally in name only. The Royal family are by the constitution required to follow the Evangelical Lutheran Christian faith, even though we have church and state separation. The still named state church organization are separated from the state, but receive government funding according to religious organizations funding laws that any religion of a required member size can apply for. I'm still a member in the state church (was enrolled around my baptism as a baby), but as for me and probably a large part of the members are in name only to get cheaper church marriages, baptisms and funerals out of respect of the grandparents generation. We have 2 political parties that have following the Evangelical Lutheran Christianity in their party program, but with 63,7 % members of the state church organization in the population, those 2 parties got in the last election 3,8% and 0,4% of the votes. And in addition, 47% of the population say that they follow a religion or faith. To get a seat in government, a political party needs 4% minimum votes, with some exceptions about averaging the representatives for parties. Because of those exceptions, the 3,8% party got 3 seats in government of 169 total representatives, because the averaging rules are in broad terms about giving representation to small parties with high regional voting. A non Christian party got 0,4% votes nationally, but still got 1 representatives because of averaging of the northern most regional votes. It's so complex that even seasoned professionals in calculating and assessing voting results struggles to get it right... The Prime Minister and their cabinet of ministers are required to meet the King in state council at inauguration and the Prime Minister meets the King in state council once a week every Friday, unless there's extraordinary events like changes in the cabinet and an extraordinary state council is called the next day. Somewhat similar to what's done in the UK, I'm guessing.

she is very active on instagram

@@theflyingdutchguy9870 thank you. I found her there.

Or are you ignoring Jimmy’s experience? Is it possible he’s aware of that data and still thinks the odds are better?