Backstory; larger conversation /w Jay Gee about morality

Responding to the first 1 minute and 4 seconds of this shit show:

I wrote:

If there was well-paid job where someone goes through every moment of videos to explain where people were-vs-weren't being logical, fair, etc, I'd gladly do that job. I used sometimes do it for free. But with so many points to consider, not even my fellow atheist/skeptics would want to spend time reading or listening to such long reviews. These days, I tend to give a lot less time to religious fundamentalists; for the sake of the value of my own time and peace. I actually enjoy spending the occasional hour on random social and ideological issues that catch my interests. But there's definitely a diminishing return on every minute after that first hour. I'm only a bit over a minute into this video. And already the religious guy has more focused on propagandizing the discourse rather than having a genuine and fair exchange of ideas. Examples: No one (literally nobody) who is Trans says to themselves "I am a man. But I want to pretend to be a woman" (nor vise versa). Instead, they think "I've been labeled as (man or woman). But my own psychology and sense of identity is that of (exact opposite; or something more fluid). And I am tired of pretending to think/feel/identify differently than I really actually do". -- Note where the word "pretend(ing)" actually is. It's not where the religious guy says it is. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a "woke", liberal, Social Justice Warrior. I am what I'd call a "compassionate and practical ally". I support their personal, social, and legal rights to think/live/love/identify however they do. I just won't go those extra miles to fully support a larger narrative that I think isn't well-enough sorted. Trans people have misunderstood trans-state. I would explain what I mean. But that would make this post too long. And it would carry us off-topic. For now, I'll just say: the facts about "gender" that trans people are accidentally wrong about are exactly the same things that the anti-trans people are wrong about. Fact is: they are being honest (even if only partially self-aware) about how they think/feel. And they aren't hurting anyone. So it's not a "morality" issue. Whereas, if we keep bullying them about it, perpetuating an unsafe society, and interfering with their legal rights,... Those behaviors are immoral. So there's an irony there; which (imho) fundamentalists aught consider. In any event, ... It was incredibly anti-charitable for the religious guy in the video to accuse them of making a conscious choice to misrepresent themselves. But I did keep watching, to see what happened next. I stopped the video right after the religious guy played a 2nd disingenuous, manipulative word-game when the girl says she would support her child "no matter what they do". In context, she obviously meant: Life choices they'd be making relative to the subject they are (then and there) discussing. His response "even if they burn down a house?" was the last straw for me. I'd review the rest of the video; if adequately ... incentivized. But otherwise, ... nah. We all know the religious guy will keep pulling unfair stunts, as a Bad Faith Actor; -something Religious Fundamentalists have a well-earned reputation for. I think they know how to behave better. They just don't want to. -- As a final note: Iran is finally working to ban their "morality police". If Christians can see the "moral wisdom" in that, then they should be able to see the same problem within their own authoritarian ideologue structure; as the morality police in a society who has already outgrown them. ------------------------------------------------ Responding with ONLY a wall of bible texts, Jay Gee offered this: Romans 1: 18-32 He copy pasted the whole thing. But for the sake of a reasonable length blog/record of this conversation, I'm just posting a link to it: here. Note: I'm not sure if Jay has a preferred bible version. So I just linked to the first version Google listed. ---------------------------------------------- Responding to that, I offered this: ​ Certainty Exists - Jay Gee  I get it. Religious-fundamentalists in the iron age said religious-fundamentalist stuff. Flash Forward to today: Religious-fundamentalists today believe those ideas were: * perfect ideas, * including only actual facts; no false-facts [all the qualified scholars who say otherwise are just using their academic station to secretly rebel against your one-true-God]. These "divine revelations" were: *given to ultra-rare, qualified(?) humans *in the privacy of their own tent, mountain-climb, or headspace, [requiring cult members and outsider-audience to take their word for all of it] *in the most perfect possible form, [even enough our logical faculties, ("as designed"?) say otherwise] *in the most reliable and efficient possible means of transmission [even enough our logical faculties, ("as designed"?) say otherwise] * from a perfect source, [a claim requiring a tremendous leap of blind faith; in direct conflict with the vast preponderance of evidence]. Further, these messages have been: * somehow adequately preserved through long chains of fallible humans ... without any significantly message-tainting nor credibility-impacting compromises. [all the qualified scholars who say otherwise are just using their academic station to secretly rebel against your one-true-God]. Also: * it all speaks for itself, with no meaningful room for misunderstanding except if the reader is (what boils down to) a willfully bad person, * And we know those people are willfully bad and worse-than-fatally wrong because: your religion says so. And we know your religion is correct about all that because: the people who disagree with your religion are willfully bad and wrong. And we know those people are willfully bad and wrong, because your religion says so. Additionally, you "presuppose it". -which is just another way of saying: you semi-arbitrarily (only "semi"; because it meets your personal emotional needs) chose a narrative-specific bias in favor of the general and "correct" religiosity of the culture you just luckily found yourself in. With that, you took a personal oath of loyalty to "confirm" that bias on all matters, at all times. --- Now, for the sake of staying on topic (the topic I raised in the comment you're replying to): I'm going to just grant ALL of that. Yep. All of it. You are 100% correct. In fact, since *logic be damned*, you are 200% correct. And this brings me back to what I said in the first (above) comment: Why do "His" appointed messengers feel the relentless need to pull dirty stunts while representing the cleanest possible entity? And why would any self-respecting "God" be ok with his special people making the entire pitch less credible by acting that way? Has he rescinded his rule against stumbling people? Has he SWITCHED to making that entirely the stumbled-persons' responsibility? ------- In reply to that, Jay offered this: "You May want to establish your epistemological starting point for all these opinions stacked upon other opinions." -------- In reply to that, I have written this: (link to subsequent blog)