It’s really sad how many examples of this I can come up with, but Rationality Rules does it again. The video is linked below, it’s long, so you can watch it or not at your leisure, but it’s just one more place where you get a leftist who points at the Christian, accuses them of being wrong and then goes on to do the exact same thing on their own side.

Why are we never surprised by this?

Here you go. Go watch.

So, just for context, he’s been doing a series of videos debunking Dennis Prager, which is a good thing because Prager and his idiotic “university” certainly deserve it. The first part of the video is fine, where he goes through and debunks Prager’s ideas on morality and that part is entirely accurate IMO.

However, thereafter, he starts to fall into the predictable pattern of just following the same irrational ideas that he’s accusing Prager of using, simply because it fills an emotionally comforting void for himself.

This is one of those times that I wish I could make a video about this, but we all know it wouldn’t go over well. Where we’re having problems is one of expectations. Dennis Prager expects certain things because he believes certain things, specifically in the Bible. He believes, without justification, that the Bible, at least his particular interpretation thereof, accurately represents the world in which he lives. He is wrong.

Unfortunately for Steven, he also assumes that the particular political ideology to which he personally subscribes accurately represents the world in which he lives. He is also wrong.

Both of them are doing the same thing, based on the things that they have adopted for entirely emotional reasons. On the one hand, *IF* the Bible and the particular reading thereof that Dennis Prager practices is correct, and note, I’m not saying that it is, then everything Dennis says is factually correct. It all comes down to the context. However, *IF* the left-wing social justice ideology that Steven Woodford accepts as correct actually is, then, likewise, his ideas are correct. Neither of them are coming to the table with independent, objective, corroboratory evidence that their preconceptions are true though. That’s the problem.

So, from the perspective that Steven has, all of the things that Dennis says, all of the social justice topics, hatred of gay people, hatred of trans people, etc., all of that is entirely justified. If Steven is right, then Steven is right. However, the exact same thing is also true if Dennis is correct. If there is a God and that God has declared that gay people and trans people are evil and women are subservient to men and all of the rest, then Dennis is, in fact, correct.

The problem is, neither side has justified itself as the true belief. Both begin with presuppositions and both rest entirely on them. Neither can show that they are factually correct and therefore, neither actually get you anywhere, if, as I am, you are concerned about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Therefore, if you go watch the video again, with that in mind, you’ll see that Steven is just making the same kind of unjustified bald assertions that Dennis is. He knows that his audience will mostly believe the same things that he does, just like Dennis’ will. Who cares? Argumentum ad populum doesn’t mean anything. We are no closer to discovering the actual reality of the situation than we were before he made the video. It’s all just “but I really want to believe!” Dennis is no different.

Both sides still have all of their work ahead of them.