Christianity Vs Secular Humanism: Which Is Best for Society Jay Dyer Vs 1stAmender의 전체 녹취록

38 00:01:43.159 --> 00:01:47.579 ethical normative sense, in something beyond just raw political power, 39 00:01:48.060 --> 00:01:50.560 something beyond just individual desires. 40 00:01:50.579 --> 00:01:51.480 It's got to be. 41 00:01:51.459 --> 00:01:55.519 Something more than that, and the philosophical case then for 42 00:01:55.599 --> 00:01:58.500 Christianity being better for society must then focus and look 43 00:01:58.920 --> 00:02:00.099 to what the good is. 44 00:02:00.260 --> 00:02:01.700 The good, in my argument, would. 45 00:02:01.620 --> 00:02:04.519 Be connected to the true. In other words, there's a 46 00:02:04.560 --> 00:02:07.980 connection between what are called in classic philosophical discourse, sort 47 00:02:08.020 --> 00:02:12.500 of transcendental ideas or categories. Aristotle, for example, in his 48 00:02:13.139 --> 00:02:15.680 writings talks about the categories, and he's talking about these 49 00:02:15.740 --> 00:02:21.610 types of things like quantity, quality, et cetera, that enable 50 00:02:21.669 --> 00:02:24.750 us to pick things out in the world. But they 51 00:02:24.789 --> 00:02:26.409 go beyond that because they also give us a kind 52 00:02:26.430 --> 00:02:29.680 of a foundation for a worldview, how we know what 53 00:02:30.180 --> 00:02:32.560 the good is, how we know what the true is, 54 00:02:32.639 --> 00:02:35.750 how do we justify our claims, our beliefs, What are 55 00:02:35.789 --> 00:02:39.840 good beliefs versus bad beliefs? And so this then relates 56 00:02:39.860 --> 00:02:41.819 directly to the common good, right? So if we want 57 00:02:41.840 --> 00:02:43.800 to talk about the good for society, obviously this is 58 00:02:43.840 --> 00:02:47.819 going to, in classical Western discourse, refer to the common good. 59 00:02:48.500 --> 00:02:50.719 How do we know what the common good is for society? 60 00:02:50.759 --> 00:02:54.060 How do we determine that? Certainly we could look to history, 61 00:02:54.080 --> 00:02:58.020 to examples of kingdoms, collapses of empires, et cetera. What 62 00:02:58.099 --> 00:03:00.759 led to those falls? What led to those collapses? Why 63 00:03:00.780 --> 00:03:06.699 did they degenerate into falling apart? Quite often, for example, 64 00:03:06.740 --> 00:03:11.259 this occurs in relationship to a degenerate elite class, an 65 00:03:11.300 --> 00:03:16.419 oligarchical class, that then, for example, due to economic interests 66 00:03:17.120 --> 00:03:20.960 or cheap labor, for example, would open the borders then 67 00:03:21.259 --> 00:03:27.039 to very low-quality wage workers or perhaps even slave labor. 68 00:03:27.460 --> 00:03:32.520 This then undercuts the existing people groups and their participation 69 00:03:33.009 --> 00:03:36.110 pre-established what we call in the Orthodox position ethnos, their 70 00:03:36.150 --> 00:03:42.659 people groups. Then the lower undercutting wage class comes in 71 00:03:43.319 --> 00:03:47.639 and damages the existing society for essentially monetary gain. Now, 72 00:03:48.020 --> 00:03:51.560 maybe you believe that a purely laissez-faire libertarian open borders 73 00:03:51.599 --> 00:03:52.530 approach is good. 74 00:03:53.110 --> 00:03:54.509 Maybe you think it's not. 75 00:03:54.610 --> 00:03:57.270 Maybe the kings were correct when they used to have 76 00:03:57.349 --> 00:04:03.330 tariffs and kings would have, you know, essentially state-approved businesses 77 00:04:03.370 --> 00:04:06.110 that were allowed, you might think, well, that's just for 78 00:04:06.129 --> 00:04:09.240 their own personal gain. But there's also a case to 79 00:04:09.259 --> 00:04:13.860 be made for tariffs protecting the existing people groups by 80 00:04:13.960 --> 00:04:17.180 not allowing the cheaper labor to come in to thus 81 00:04:17.339 --> 00:04:20.990 undercut it. For example, you could think of London, for example, 82 00:04:21.110 --> 00:04:24.149 where you've got shoemakers and people that have a certain craft, 83 00:04:24.730 --> 00:04:29.189 and then greedy politicians might open up the borders to receive, say, 84 00:04:29.980 --> 00:04:33.300 Asian shoemakers, not to say that Asian shoemakers are bad. 85 00:04:33.339 --> 00:04:35.439 I'm sure they make awesome Asian shoes. 86 00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:38.360 But if they come in and then they will work 87 00:04:38.639 --> 00:04:42.250 progressively or successively for lower and lower and lower wages, 88 00:04:42.399 --> 00:04:47.129 then this undercuts the already existing people group in that location. 89 00:04:47.189 --> 00:04:50.170 So this is an example of neoliberal economic theory and 90 00:04:50.189 --> 00:04:52.449 the idea of total open borders. We see, for example, 91 00:04:52.470 --> 00:04:56.649 Immanuel Kant argued that when there were no borders, when 92 00:04:56.689 --> 00:05:02.949 we have total libertarian across national, across imperial trade, this would, quote, 93 00:05:03.009 --> 00:05:05.430 lead to world peace. He wrote a famous piece on this. 94 00:05:06.110 --> 00:05:07.649 It didn't lead to world peace. So I think it's 95 00:05:07.670 --> 00:05:09.629 a bit naive to think that. 96 00:05:10.250 --> 00:05:13.370 The purely rational, purely secular approach. 97 00:05:13.920 --> 00:05:17.500 Because it has no foundation of what the good actually 98 00:05:17.579 --> 00:05:20.699 is or what the common good is beyond will to power, 99 00:05:20.819 --> 00:05:26.699 beyond secular government fiat, beyond essentially a sort of state-enforced 100 00:05:26.879 --> 00:05:30.100 notion of the good, or a social construct idea of 101 00:05:30.139 --> 00:05:33.519 the good, those are all essentially easily. 102 00:05:34.920 --> 00:05:37.879 Overthrowable, we could say. For example, the death penalty. 103 00:05:37.920 --> 00:05:43.160 The death penalty has historically a deterrent factor. It's essentially 104 00:05:43.279 --> 00:05:48.500 useful to deter serious offenders from serious offenses. And I 105

00:05:48.540 --> 00:05:51.620 think historically, you could argue that it does work. But 106 00:05:51.800 --> 00:05:54.779 when we look at secular societies, we'll see that they 107 00:05:54.879 --> 00:06:00.329 tend to utilize these same ideas without any limitations on 108 00:06:00.389 --> 00:06:03.089 the notion of the good according to what they have 109 00:06:03.170 --> 00:06:07.990 as the good. For example, Maoist society and the purges 110 00:06:08.149 --> 00:06:10.879 of Mao and the youth revolutions, you've got an attempt 111 00:06:10.920 --> 00:06:14.420 to sort of wipe out all of previous Chinese culture, 112 00:06:14.439 --> 00:06:17.839 and it's a very similar approach to what the Bolsheviks 113 00:06:18.199 --> 00:06:20.699 and Lenin had in place to wipe out all of 114 00:06:20.720 --> 00:06:22.540 the existing culture in total. 115 00:06:23.839 --> 00:06:24.819 But are these things good? 116 00:06:24.920 --> 00:06:29.170 How would we know if There are no transcendent objective 117 00:06:29.209 --> 00:06:32.519 categories of the good or the common good, or even 118 00:06:32.540 --> 00:06:35.540 whether there is such a thing as normativity in ethics. 119 00:06:35.620 --> 00:06:38.139 Normativity then having to do with, for example, what we 120 00:06:38.240 --> 00:06:40.939 ought to do, right? Ought we to follow what's true? 121 00:06:41.139 --> 00:06:43.899 Ought we to follow what's good? Ought we to lie? 122 00:06:44.060 --> 00:06:44.600 Maybe we should. 123 00:06:44.860 --> 00:06:46.079 Maybe the state ought to lie. 124 00:06:46.689 --> 00:06:50.610 Once you've removed all transcendent categories of theism, et cetera, 125 00:06:51.050 --> 00:06:54.949 you then kind of reduce the secularist approach to, I 126 00:06:54.990 --> 00:06:57.740 would argue, just simply will to power. And that's ironic 127 00:06:57.779 --> 00:07:01.860 because unless a person is just consistent and Nietzschean, the 128 00:07:01.959 --> 00:07:05.379 ubermensch idea of raw will to power is typically by 129 00:07:05.459 --> 00:07:09.290 the left and by secular theorists critiqued. But there's no 130 00:07:09.329 --> 00:07:12.350 reason why I ought to prefer the common good in 131 00:07:12.370 --> 00:07:15.709 this type of a utilitarian setting versus my own personal good. 132 00:07:16.589 --> 00:07:18.170 Maybe I've decided I am. 133 00:07:18.089 --> 00:07:21.449 The Kwisatz Haderach and there's nothing wrong with me trampling 134 00:07:21.490 --> 00:07:24.750 and trampling upon everyone else, taking the wives, et cetera, 135 00:07:24.810 --> 00:07:28.149 to be my own. What's that line from Conan in 136 00:07:28.189 --> 00:07:30.439 Conan the Barbarian, you know, where he says essentially, you know, 137 00:07:30.540 --> 00:07:33.699 steal the wives, crush your enemies, et cetera. That's essentially 138 00:07:34.220 --> 00:07:36.819 the highest good in life. When we look at, as 139 00:07:36.860 --> 00:07:40.870 an example, blue cities, Democrat-run cities, which are not always 140 00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:44.250 strictly secular, but they tend to exemplify, I think, secular ethos, 141 00:07:44.290 --> 00:07:44.850 secular ethics. 142 00:07:44.889 --> 00:07:52.500 We see societies that are governed by essentially pure economic interests. 143 00:07:53.170 --> 00:07:56.709 that then open up the city to all types of 144 00:07:56.790 --> 00:07:59.850 foreign entities that are not compatible with the existing culture. 145 00:08:00.269 --> 00:08:01.930 So there's no concern for any of that, because the 146 00:08:01.970 --> 00:08:03.649 highest good in that type. 147 00:08:03.430 --> 00:08:06.750 Of a system, by default, ends up in the liberal 148 00:08:06.810 --> 00:08:10.720 system being just pure economic dominance. You could argue that 149 00:08:10.980 --> 00:08:15.279 is the similar case with a Leninist. 150 00:08:14.939 --> 00:08:18.079 Or Bolshevik or Maoist regime, where the highest good simply 151 00:08:18.100 --> 00:08:20.079 ends up being, we go to the state where the 152 00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:20.680 party rules. 153 00:08:21.269 --> 00:08:23.529 Well, in either case, whether you put the gross. 154 00:08:23.410 --> 00:08:27.240 Domestic product as the highest good or whether you put 155 00:08:27.310 --> 00:08:31.839 the secular parties' good as the highest good, it's really 156 00:08:31.879 --> 00:08:32.600 just arbitrary. 157 00:08:33.019 --> 00:08:37.000 There's no way philosophically to delineate between which one we. 158 00:08:36.960 --> 00:08:37.820 Ought to prefer. 159 00:08:38.179 --> 00:08:42.649 Perhaps we ought to have the technocrats in Silicon Valley. 160 00:08:42.129 --> 00:08:44.450 Regulating and controlling all areas of life. 161 00:08:44.549 --> 00:08:48.970 Pure technocracy. Pure tracking, tracing, and dominance of all things. 162 00:08:49.009 --> 00:08:52.129 We see this with General Klaus Schwab's vote for industrial revolution. 163 00:08:52.149 --> 00:08:53.750 He says that this is the end goal. 164 00:08:53.769 --> 00:08:56.639 We will set this sort of technocracy that is the goal, 165 00:08:56.700 --> 00:08:59.659 for example, of the World Economic Forum, which is a liberal, 166 00:08:59.740 --> 00:09:01.100 maybe a socialist institution. 167 00:09:02.049 --> 00:09:07.149 We could see other people, either Teal or any of 168 00:09:07.240 --> 00:09:10.039 these other companies also having a competing model of a 169 00:09:10.059 --> 00:09:13.220 kind of kingly version of technocracy. 170 00:09:14.019 --> 00:09:17.279 What's good here? How do we know? What is dignity? 171 00:09:18.679 --> 00:09:19.899 Maybe we should have distance. 172 00:09:20.019 --> 00:09:22.899 Maybe we should have sterile ones in the water support 173 00:09:22.919 --> 00:09:23.940 to control the population. 174 00:09:24.340 --> 00:09:27.850 It's not just a tiny mustache man and his group 175 00:09:27.870 --> 00:09:30.879 that believe in sterilizing and sort of dumbing down. 176 00:09:30.960 -->

00:09:33.960 It's also, as I say, Soviet. So it's a grievous illness. 177 00:09:34.559 --> 00:09:38.860 There were Soviet purveyors of this genocide. 178 00:09:40.299 --> 00:09:44.710 So the question then at every sort of key. 179 00:09:44.399 --> 00:09:48.370 Societal issue comes back to when we talk about what 180 00:09:48.490 --> 00:09:50.789 the best is for society or what the good is. 181 00:09:51.330 --> 00:09:53.149 And this is going to play its way out in 182 00:09:53.409 --> 00:09:57.090 any area of politics, any arena that we discuss, whether 183 00:09:57.129 --> 00:10:03.700 it's the death penalty, whether it's loading, et cetera, open borders, immigration. 184 00:10:04.220 --> 00:10:07.860 All of these are going to be relying on some 185 00:10:07.919 --> 00:10:10.620 notion of the good, by extension, the common good. 186 00:10:11.740 --> 00:10:14.120 Why we should even prefer the common good? Why ought 187 00:10:14.159 --> 00:10:15.600 we prefer the common good? 188 00:10:16.149 --> 00:10:19.389 In a secular system or a secular ethos versus just 189 00:10:19.490 --> 00:10:21.570 pure individual will to power. 190 00:10:22.149 --> 00:10:23.029 I would argue that. 191 00:10:22.860 --> 00:10:26.879 There is a universal standard of the author that is 192 00:10:26.899 --> 00:10:29.500 just simply to be what he wants versus what anyone 193 00:10:29.539 --> 00:10:30.019 else wants. 194 00:10:30.419 --> 00:10:31.779 Which is just going to end up being. 195 00:10:31.580 --> 00:10:32.639 A pure will to power. 196 00:10:33.850 --> 00:10:37.830 Now, when we look at, so I would say that 197 00:10:37.850 --> 00:10:39.429 if we look at. 198 00:10:39.450 --> 00:10:43.370 The basics of the Christian ethos, the Christian civilization, which 199 00:10:43.389 --> 00:10:45.549 has demonstrated itself in history together. 200 00:10:45.649 --> 00:10:49.480 It was the most successful in the entire U.S. 201 00:10:49.539 --> 00:10:52.039 History, or Western history, you could say. 202 00:10:52.159 --> 00:10:56.039 Over a thousand years, had a solid economic policy of 203 00:10:56.059 --> 00:10:56.980 the gold standard. 204 00:10:57.019 --> 00:11:00.690 That was eventually destroyed by money, and so forth. And 205 00:11:00.710 --> 00:11:03.190 then eventually it falls to foreign. 206 00:11:03.009 --> 00:11:05.330 Influences, falls to Ottomans, it falls to Islam. 207 00:11:05.809 --> 00:11:09.570 But it still was successful precisely because of that transcendent makeup. 208 00:11:12.159 --> 00:11:15.710 All right, so the debate is specifically Christianity or secular humanism, 209 00:11:15.789 --> 00:11:19.049 which is best for society. And I argue that this 210 00:11:19.129 --> 00:11:23.769 isn't even an arguable proposition at all. There is, in fact, 211 00:11:23.809 --> 00:11:26.529 a long list of societies that have argued that they 212 00:11:26.549 --> 00:11:30.549 are Christianity in the results of scars marring just about 213 00:11:30.590 --> 00:11:33.320

everything it touches. we can provide a thank you to 214 00:11:33.360 --> 00:11:36.539 Christianity in the fact that there are many, many instances 215 00:11:36.580 --> 00:11:39.759 of history that when we observe the make-believe world of 216 00:11:39.820 --> 00:11:43.519 Christianity opposed to logic, reason, scientific inquiry, and all things 217 00:11:43.539 --> 00:11:46.289 that lead to beneficial outcomes in favor of a magical 218 00:11:46.330 --> 00:11:49.330 man in the sky that can make donkeys talk, snakes talk, 219 00:11:49.590 --> 00:11:53.470 and deems foreigners available to be chosen peoples taking for slavery. 220 00:11:54.120 --> 00:11:59.179 We've had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 221 00:11:59.399 --> 00:12:03.539 maybe even nine separate crusades over the course of roughly 222 00:12:03.539 --> 00:12:06.779 200 years when left up to the Christians to decide 223 00:12:07.059 --> 00:12:10.519 murdered foreigners for the explicit purpose of land acquisition, murdering 224 00:12:10.559 --> 00:12:14.879 not only Muslims, Jews, but even themselves. Indeed, other Christians 225 00:12:15.100 --> 00:12:17.340 all in the same name of a God who cannot 226 00:12:17.399 --> 00:12:20.850 show themselves for anyone except for those willing to pretend 227 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:24.250 hard enough. Perhaps I'm being a little bit rude, callous 228 00:12:24.269 --> 00:12:27.269 disregard for the audience and their beliefs of the adult 229 00:12:27.370 --> 00:12:30.570 version of Santa Claus. Maybe after I die and that 230 00:12:30.610 --> 00:12:33.309 my consciousness has been spread throughout the universe that I 231 00:12:33.350 --> 00:12:36.269 can stand at the pearly gates of heaven where Peter 232 00:12:36.289 --> 00:12:39.320 can judge me for every time I masturbated. Maybe then, 233 00:12:39.649 --> 00:12:43.179 in the death of Christians, can exhibit their callous disregard 234 00:12:43.399 --> 00:12:48.840 in the discontent for my LGBTQ-supporting sinner. Sadly, however, despite 235 00:12:48.879 --> 00:12:51.240 what the Christians think, they can pretend that their moral 236 00:12:51.279 --> 00:12:54.740 compass is based off of a 2,000-year-old book in callous 237 00:12:54.759 --> 00:12:57.539 disregard for human reason, reaching to a God that couldn't 238 00:12:57.580 --> 00:12:59.759 affect you any more than the bottle of whiskey in 239 00:12:59.799 --> 00:13:04.039 my liquor closet. Observing reality as it stands, Indeed, we 240 00:13:04.080 --> 00:13:07.539 cannot observe God leading to any virtuous outcome of any kind. 241 00:13:07.860 --> 00:13:10.590 We could have picked the deaths of the Salem witch trials, 242 00:13:10.830 --> 00:13:15.149 the Christian persecutions staunchly chasing Protestant and witch alike of 243 00:13:15.190 --> 00:13:19.220 Henry VIII, the six crusades, sorry, eight up to nine, 244 00:13:20.159 --> 00:13:23.779 the further religions that were created in reaction, such as Islam, 245 00:13:24.039 --> 00:13:27.399 a religion which has destroyed and torn apart the Middle 246 00:13:27.490 --> 00:13:31.950 East for each and every reason. Christianity's defiling reach has 247 00:13:32.169 --> 00:13:35.730 long and scarring throughout the globe. If we eschew our 248 00:13:35.769 --> 00:13:40.570 scientific inquiry, our moral compasses, logic, we find ourselves and 249 00:13:40.629 --> 00:13:43.350 the quality of life we live to be pushed away. 250 00:13:43.690 --> 00:13:46.590 Maybe germ theory isn't a thing. Maybe we can go 251 00:13:46.629 --> 00:13:49.029 back to curses and miasma theory and the fact that 252 00:13:49.320 --> 00:13:51.820 the reason why you have boils and legions is because 253 00:13:51.899 --> 00:13:54.830 God is upset with you. Maybe we shouldn't spare the 254 00:13:54.870 --> 00:13:58.509 rod and spoil the child. Maybe we should have multiple 255 00:13:58.570 --> 00:14:01.809 wives and adorn them with foreign slaves as well to 256 00:14:01.850 --> 00:14:04.250 show how prosperous we are as it shows in the Bible. 257 00:14:04.549 --> 00:14:07.870 This is a formidable, favorable to the God that does 258 00:14:07.909 --> 00:14:11.190 not answer any more than the bottle of whiskey. At 259 00:14:11.230 --> 00:14:13.279 least the bottle will be there for me at the 260 00:14:13.320 --> 00:14:17.090 end of all of this. Secular humanism. argues the virtue 261 00:14:17.429 --> 00:14:21.389 that we encourage questioning beliefs and revise our conclusions when 262 00:14:21.649 --> 00:14:25.870 evidence shows it. Christianity deems that we have a rule 263 00:14:26.049 --> 00:14:29.350 regardless of its results and we believe it and endorse 264 00:14:29.389 --> 00:14:33.059 it forever despite the mountains and mountains of evidence arguing 265 00:14:33.100 --> 00:14:36.620 against the benefits. See spanking and slavery as an example. 266 00:14:38.159 --> 00:14:42.460 Secular humanism argues a grounding of ethical discussion in minimizing 267 00:14:42.480 --> 00:14:47.059 human suffering, well-being, autonomy, and flourishing of each individual. Christianity 268 00:14:47.100 --> 00:14:50.120 will have you flagellating yourself with a dunce cap on 269 00:14:50.340 --> 00:14:53.740 to show penitence to your sin, onto the next backward 270 00:14:53.879 --> 00:14:57.850 mud village willing to witness the penitent one. Secular humanism 271 00:14:58.049 --> 00:15:01.200 does not accept supernatural claims because we cannot show it. 272 00:15:01.490 --> 00:15:04.370 You don't show it. It shows no physical manifestation of 273 00:15:04.429 --> 00:15:07.769 any kind. Therefore, it does not exist. Show it or 274 00:15:07.860 --> 00:15:13.340 shut up. No philosophical inquiries. No, you can't ground your logic. 275 00:15:13.700 --> 00:15:18.779 Show the supernatural and we will eschew it. Secular humanism 276 00:15:18.919 --> 00:15:22.379 also accepts many different worldviews. Even Christians can be in 277 00:15:22.419 -->

00:15:25.779 the secular humanist hellscape in all its acceptance. You can 278 00:15:25.840 --> 00:15:28.559 be a Christian in a secular humanist world, but if 279 00:15:28.580 --> 00:15:31.480 you attempt to be a secular humanist in a Christian world, 280 00:15:31.720 --> 00:15:35.240 woe be to you as kindle to the fire. Maybe 281 00:15:35.360 --> 00:15:39.620 the Christian offer many believers meaning, hope, and sense of 282 00:15:39.679 --> 00:15:44.090 connection to something greater than themselves. Let it show that charity, solidarity, 283 00:15:44.149 --> 00:15:48.929 and service to other. Let it provide established communities and 284 00:15:48.950 --> 00:15:52.429 traditions that can support people through hardship and ground its 285 00:15:52.490 --> 00:15:56.980 theological resources for human dignity, compassion, and social justice, yet 286 00:15:57.019 --> 00:16:00.360 do so while burning those that lay with another man 287 00:16:00.419 --> 00:16:04.950 with stones, fires, and gnashing teeth and death Let's all 288 00:16:04.990 --> 00:16:08.460 observe what would be better, secular humanism or Christianity. I 289 00:16:08.500 --> 00:16:12.039 think the answer is pretty clear. The concept is absolutely insane, 290 00:16:12.100 --> 00:16:15.240 as if it is worth anything other than your 2,000-year-old 291 00:16:15.299 --> 00:16:17.860 book dusting away in a hotel cupboard. My name is 292 00:16:17.899 --> 00:16:20.019 First Amender, and you can find me on youtube.com forward 293 00:16:20.070 --> 00:16:23.169 slash at First Amender. That's one S-T, Amender, and I 294 00:16:23.190 --> 00:16:23.889 hope you enjoyed my intro. 295 00:16:23.909 --> 00:16:24.509 Thank you very much. 296 00:16:24.549 --> 00:16:29.289 Got us back on time. We'll catch you later. 297 00:16:30.990 --> 00:16:34.330 After these openings, we will now go into a 60-minute 298 00:16:34.549 --> 00:16:35.649 open dialogue. 299 00:16:36.169 --> 00:16:38.350 Like I said, I do not plan on. 300 00:16:38.409 --> 00:16:40.769 Giving you time limits or anything like that unless you 301 00:16:40.809 --> 00:16:42.830 both agree to it or we just get bogged down 302 00:16:42.870 --> 00:16:45.600 where it doesn't really matter. With that, Jay, you started. 303 00:16:45.629 --> 00:16:48.960 So if you'd like to start now, you can go first. 304 00:16:49.019 --> 00:16:50.639 Then, like I said, just go back and forth. 305 00:16:50.740 --> 00:16:51.419 Open dialogue. 306 00:16:53.259 --> 00:16:54.279 Yeah, a lot there. 307 00:16:56.440 --> 00:17:00.350 Lot of arguments or assertions based on logic and reason. 308 00:17:00.679 --> 00:17:03.590 I heard you reference logic and reason multiple times, and 309 00:17:04.210 --> 00:17:06.789 in the case of God, for example, God can't show himself, 310 00:17:06.809 --> 00:17:10.329 doesn't show himself, the supernatural doesn't show itself. Do you 311 00:17:10.349 --> 00:17:14.529 think that logic and reason in themselves are evident in 312 00:17:14.589 --> 00:17:17.190 the world anywhere, and do they show themselves? 313 00:17:17.829 --> 00:17:20.869 Logic and reason are tools that we use to understand 314 00:17:21.009 --> 00:17:26.920 the society around us to establish a predictive outcome. But 315 00:17:27.380 --> 00:17:31.779 if you're asking if logic and reason itself exists in 316 00:17:31.819 --> 00:17:36.019 the universe, no. Logic and reason are constructs that are 317 00:17:36.059 --> 00:17:38.720 made up by human beings to describe the world and 318 00:17:38.740 --> 00:17:40.069 make sense of the world around us. 319 00:17:41.289 --> 00:17:43.849 So can a person invent and describe and come up 320 00:17:43.890 --> 00:17:46.230 with their own logic and reason that's different from, say, 321 00:17:46.250 --> 00:17:48.269 the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction? 322 00:17:48.829 --> 00:17:49.990 Yes, you're doing it now. 323 00:17:52.069 --> 00:17:52.890 How am I doing that now? 324 00:17:53.730 --> 00:17:54.250 You just did it. 325 00:17:55.470 --> 00:17:57.069 I'm asking you a question. How is that coming out 326 00:17:57.109 --> 00:17:58.609 with a different logic? You just did. 327 00:17:58.670 --> 00:18:02.319 The law of non-contradiction. Again, these are tools to establish 328 00:18:02.480 --> 00:18:03.420 reality around you. 329 00:18:03.579 --> 00:18:06.000 And they have no existence? You said they don't exist. 330 00:18:06.240 --> 00:18:10.970 So there's an underlying predicate of the universe that humans 331 00:18:11.150 --> 00:18:12.200 use to figure things out. 332 00:18:12.779 --> 00:18:15.390 What's an underlying predicate? That's a linguistic term. 333 00:18:15.470 --> 00:18:18.730 What the laws that you're referring to, the laws of 334 00:18:18.789 --> 00:18:19.750 logic are referring to. 335 00:18:19.809 --> 00:18:20.769 Are they just language? 336 00:18:21.670 --> 00:18:23.559 What would be a good example? Okay, let's say. 337 00:18:23.579 --> 00:18:25.799 When you said a predicate, that's language. So are you 338 00:18:25.819 --> 00:18:27.180 saying they're just language tools? 339 00:18:28.299 --> 00:18:29.200 They're tools, yes. 340 00:18:30.069 --> 00:18:31.009 They're linguistic tools? 341 00:18:31.640 --> 00:18:33.660 I mean, it's describing a specific thing. 342 00:18:33.680 --> 00:18:36.220 Okay, do linguistic tools exist? 343 00:18:36.309 --> 00:18:39.450 Well, am I going to answer that first question? Let 344 00:18:39.470 --> 00:18:41.430 me give you an example, okay? Let's say, for example, 345 00:18:41.450 --> 00:18:44.890 you're talking about the Pythagorean theorem. The Pythagorean theorem is 346 00:18:44.930 --> 00:18:49.529 describing something that's very, very real. the Pythagorean theorem would 347 00:18:49.769 --> 00:18:52.890 exist regardless of what part of the universe you're in. 348 00:18:53.170 --> 00:18:55.509 It would still hold true that a squared plus b 349 00:18:55.549 --> 00:18:59.359 squared equals c squared. The

Euclidean universe is consistent in 350 00:18:59.390 --> 00:19:00.450 that aspect. 351 00:19:00.539 --> 00:19:01.359 So they're universal? 352 00:19:02.480 --> 00:19:06.279 But the Pythagorean theorem, there have been separate instances where 353 00:19:06.319 --> 00:19:10.140 people have discovered it. And so if you can imagine... 354 00:19:10.940 --> 00:19:13.160 separate people discovering it, and then they're coming up with 355 00:19:13.200 --> 00:19:17.059 their own type of notation, but it's still describing the 356 00:19:17.099 --> 00:19:20.720 same exact thing, there appears to be an underlying universal 357 00:19:20.829 --> 00:19:23.210 principle that is there that then. 358 00:19:23.150 --> 00:19:24.269 Needs to be described. 359 00:19:24.809 --> 00:19:27.869 And I'm saying the Pythagorean theorem, that's the language describing 360 00:19:27.950 --> 00:19:29.089 that underlying predicate. 361 00:19:29.130 --> 00:19:29.609 Does that make sense? 362 00:19:29.630 --> 00:19:31.970 But the thing that the language is describing doesn't exist 363 00:19:32.109 --> 00:19:34.269 to you, or it does exist. You said it's universally 364 00:19:34.309 --> 00:19:36.910 the case. So how do you have access and justification 365 00:19:36.950 --> 00:19:39.309 for a universal claim or predicate? 366 00:19:39.670 --> 00:19:42.849 Predictive outcome. But I wanted to go back to the 367 00:19:43.079 --> 00:19:44.380 actual point of the discussion. 368 00:19:44.400 --> 00:19:46.740 But predictive outcome, well, this is part of the discussion. 369 00:19:46.859 --> 00:19:49.789 Well, the point of the discussion is Christianity or secular humanism. 370 00:19:49.890 --> 00:19:52.750 You would have. 371 00:19:51.670 --> 00:19:55.099 To show that your moral system outputs to, like, a 372 00:19:55.160 --> 00:20:00.380 better outcome under a Christian worldview, as opposed to secular humanism. 373 00:20:00.500 --> 00:20:02.000 What you're trying to do is you're trying to do 374 00:20:02.039 --> 00:20:06.880 the transcendental, the tag argument of where in order to 375 00:20:06.980 --> 00:20:10.900 predicate logic, you have to establish God. And I'm saying, well, 376 00:20:10.960 --> 00:20:13.299 number one, you don't have to establish God. You can 377 00:20:13.400 --> 00:20:17.349 establish universal principles or something that makes universe, and it 378 00:20:17.470 --> 00:20:20.569 doesn't have any attachment of God. It doesn't require an 379 00:20:20.630 --> 00:20:22.529 anthropomorphism to make universe. 380 00:20:22.930 --> 00:20:23.230 In this. 381 00:20:24.309 --> 00:20:26.750 Series of questions. Did you hear me make a transcendental argument? 382 00:20:27.210 --> 00:20:30.049 No, you have not. But I know your argument. 383 00:20:30.170 --> 00:20:34.029 Is it a tag argument? Then why are you asking 384 00:20:34.069 --> 00:20:35.589 me about how I ground my logic? 385 00:20:35.769 --> 00:20:38.839 Because what you just said doesn't address the question I'm 386 00:20:38.890 --> 00:20:41.519 asking you in terms of an internal critique as to 387 00:20:41.640 --> 00:20:43.440 what is the status or how do you know that 388 00:20:43.460 --> 00:20:47.400 there's a universal theorem that you posited and you said 389 00:20:47.480 --> 00:20:51.329 predictive outcomes. But you would need access to universal states 390 00:20:51.349 --> 00:20:54.130 of affairs to know that that's universally the case. So 391 00:20:54.190 --> 00:20:55.890 I want to know how you know that there are 392 00:20:55.950 --> 00:20:58.549 these things that are not existent but also do kind 393 00:20:58.589 --> 00:21:02.380 of exist, but also it's just your individual observation. 394 00:21:02.390 --> 00:21:04.859 I don't understand a damn thing you just said. I'll 395 00:21:04.880 --> 00:21:05.380 be honest with you. 396 00:21:05.799 --> 00:21:07.759 Well, that's a fallacy of incredulity. Let's try it one 397 00:21:07.779 --> 00:21:09.279 more time here. Why are you asking me to ground 398 00:21:09.299 --> 00:21:09.519 my logic? 399 00:21:13.809 --> 00:21:15.779 Because you want me to believe in something that I 400 00:21:15.799 --> 00:21:19.029 would argue is just as unbelievable and unknowable as what 401 00:21:19.049 --> 00:21:19.730 you said about God. 402 00:21:19.980 --> 00:21:23.549 Well, we all argue an existence of the universe, and 403 00:21:23.569 --> 00:21:27.930 we're able to establish predictive outcomes using the tools, the 404 00:21:27.970 --> 00:21:31.279 laws of logic, to determine things. I don't need to 405 00:21:31.359 --> 00:21:36.039 have an anthropomorphic being that makes universe. For starters, the 406 00:21:36.119 --> 00:21:41.440 concept of invoking a universe beyond space-time doesn't make sense, 407 00:21:41.809 --> 00:21:46.640 because the concept of a decision requires time. If you're 408 00:21:46.680 --> 00:21:52.539 beyond space-time making universe, you can't decide. So whatever decision 409 00:21:52.559 --> 00:21:55.579 that you would make, it would have decided, would decide, 410 00:21:56.039 --> 00:21:57.160 all in the same moment. 411 00:21:57.380 --> 00:21:59.529 But you have a double standard because... No, it's not 412 00:21:59.549 --> 00:22:01.630 a double standard. I'm saying I don't require an anthropomorphization 413 00:22:01.650 --> 00:22:02.950 for the existence of God. Well, the fact that you 414 00:22:02.990 --> 00:22:05.470 don't require it doesn't mean you have good justification because 415 00:22:05.509 --> 00:22:06.789 the mathematical theorems. 416 00:22:06.509 --> 00:22:07.289 That you would... I did, I did. 417 00:22:07.349 --> 00:22:09.440 It's predictive outcomes. We look at and see. 418 00:22:09.329 --> 00:22:10.609 Whether or not it establishes predictive outcome. Do you have 419 00:22:10.630 --> 00:22:12.430 access to universal states of affairs? No, I just look 420 00:22:12.450 --> 00:22:14.109 at predictive outcome. Right, so you don't have a justification 421 00:22:14.130 -->

00:22:15.569 for saying that it's universal. I look at predictive outcome. 422 00:22:15.869 --> 00:22:17.609 How do you know that it's universal if you haven't 423 00:22:17.670 --> 00:22:19.369 predicted every instance or every state of affairs? 424 00:22:19.529 --> 00:22:21.509 How do I know that? You don't need to do that. 425 00:22:21.950 --> 00:22:24.509 But I don't have to justify the outside of time 426 00:22:24.549 --> 00:22:25.049 and space. 427 00:22:25.170 --> 00:22:26.410 Do you have to sit in a debate if you 428 00:22:26.430 --> 00:22:27.279 don't have to justify it? 429 00:22:27.289 --> 00:22:28.670 Do you know if leprechauns exist? 430 00:22:29.599 --> 00:22:31.240 That's a totally different category. I'm asking you, do you 431 00:22:31.259 --> 00:22:32.940 think leprechauns exist? Do you think leprechauns are in the 432 00:22:32.960 --> 00:22:34.740 same category as mathematical? Let me ask you this. 433 00:22:34.759 --> 00:22:36.140 Do you think leprechauns exist? 434 00:22:36.180 --> 00:22:37.740 Yes or no? No, because it's a category. It's not 435 00:22:37.779 --> 00:22:39.259 the same thing as a mathematical theorem. 436 00:22:39.279 --> 00:22:41.720 Do you think leprechauns exist? Moderator, can he just answer 437 00:22:41.769 --> 00:22:42.930 the simple question, do leprechauns exist? 438 00:22:42.950 --> 00:22:44.789 I just answered your question. I said, no, they don't, 439 00:22:44.809 --> 00:22:46.630 and they're not like a mathematical theorem. 440 00:22:46.710 --> 00:22:47.529 Cool. I agree. 441 00:22:47.750 --> 00:22:49.490 Have you checked every bush in Ireland? 442 00:22:49.509 --> 00:22:50.210 Do you agree? 443 00:22:51.049 --> 00:22:52.910 No, but I don't... Oh, you didn't check every. 444 00:22:52.829 --> 00:22:54.619 Bush and island so you can't drown whether or not 445 00:22:54.630 --> 00:22:55.759 leprechauns exist? 446 00:22:55.779 --> 00:22:57.049 I don't have the same position as you. 447 00:22:57.079 --> 00:23:01.259 I could tell you, just logically speaking, from a physical standpoint, 448 00:23:01.519 --> 00:23:03.440 that obviously leprechauns don't exist. 449 00:23:03.519 --> 00:23:06.650 It's stupid. How do you prove you can't prove the 450 00:23:06.690 --> 00:23:08.450 universe is negative? You can't even prove that. 451 00:23:08.750 --> 00:23:10.369 This entire argument isn't even. 452 00:23:10.430 --> 00:23:11.369 It is not even. 453 00:23:11.450 --> 00:23:14.490 If he's just going to ignore, like, what's the point of... 454 00:23:15.569 --> 00:23:17.660 He's just talking and not answering any questions. 455 00:23:17.720 --> 00:23:19.519 No, because I'm trying to get you back on topic. 456 00:23:19.539 --> 00:23:20.650 I'm not trying to argue tag with you. 457 00:23:20.660 --> 00:23:22.079 The topic is what's good for society. Can we at 458 00:23:22.099 --> 00:23:23.819 least argue that we're in the same universe together? How 459 00:23:23.839 --> 00:23:24.640 do we know what the good is? 460 00:23:24.880 --> 00:23:26.220 Are we in the same universe together? 461 00:23:26.240 --> 00:23:26.660 What's the good? 462 00:23:26.680 --> 00:23:28.339 Are we in the same universe together? Can we say 463 00:23:28.359 --> 00:23:28.779 that we're in the. 464 00:23:28.740 --> 00:23:30.430 Same universe together? I don't think you have an account 465 00:23:30.470 --> 00:23:31.490 for what a universe is. 466 00:23:31.509 --> 00:23:34.430 Are we in the same universe together? 467 00:23:34.490 --> 00:23:35.950 Multiple personalities are talking here. 468 00:23:35.970 --> 00:23:38.369 Christian versus secular humanism. 469 00:23:38.390 --> 00:23:42.230 Which is better for society? 470 00:23:43.049 --> 00:23:46.420 Yeah, I mean, again, I exhibit many different instances in 471 00:23:46.460 --> 00:23:51.500 society where I pointed out how Christianity empirically shows worse outcomes. 472 00:23:51.680 --> 00:23:56.980 In fact, the theocracies in general lead to worse outcomes. 473 00:23:57.049 --> 00:23:59.269 In fact, I sat there and I did a statistical 474 00:23:59.309 --> 00:24:03.289 analysis of... on the Human Development Index as to theocracies. 475 00:24:03.410 --> 00:24:05.809 It turns out, in terms of the Human Development Index, 476 00:24:06.109 --> 00:24:09.410 they do worse. It turns out secular societies do better. 477 00:24:09.759 --> 00:24:13.980 Secular humanism leads to better outcome, and this is mathematically true. 478 00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:15.000 You have to argue against that. 479 00:24:15.079 --> 00:24:18.019 On what standard of the value judgment? So you're giving 480 00:24:18.039 --> 00:24:20.500 these value judgments, and I'm saying when you say better 481 00:24:20.519 --> 00:24:23.650 versus worse, how do you delineate what's better versus worse? 482 00:24:23.950 --> 00:24:28.099 That's simple. I want less... unnecessary suffering. 483 00:24:28.119 --> 00:24:29.539 I'm not asking what you want. I want to know 484 00:24:29.579 --> 00:24:31.640 how you delineate that value. That's how I delineate. I 485 00:24:31.700 --> 00:24:34.849 want less unnecessary suffering. Correct. Is there a way to 486 00:24:34.880 --> 00:24:37.289 delineate the people? How do you judge? I mean, here's 487 00:24:37.309 --> 00:24:39.250 the thing. Here's what's crazy about it. You're just going 488 00:24:39.269 --> 00:24:45.670 to talk. What's the point? Yeah, I mean, I'm saying. 489 00:24:46.579 --> 00:24:49.259 I don't need anybody to sit there and believe my worldview. 490 00:24:49.420 --> 00:24:51.799 I don't need you to read 20 different books. It's 491 00:24:51.859 --> 00:24:53.700 actually apparent in a baby. 492 00:24:54.000 --> 00:24:57.039 Go ahead. Go ahead and poke a baby in the 493 00:24:57.099 --> 00:25:00.039 side of a head. What the hell is just appeal 494 00:25:00.059 --> 00:25:01.009 to baby? Yeah, not a fallacy. 495 00:25:01.109 --> 00:25:01.660 Not a fallacy. 496 00:25:01.720 --> 00:25:03.569 Actually, it is a fallacy because... Go

ahead and. 497 00:25:03.690 --> 00:25:05.670 Poke a baby in the side of the head. The 498 00:25:05.750 --> 00:25:09.250 baby is going to avoid getting poked in the side 499 00:25:09.269 --> 00:25:09.569 of the head. 500 00:25:09.589 --> 00:25:11.190 That doesn't tell me what's universally good or bad. It 501 00:25:11.210 --> 00:25:14.930 does so intuitively. You are a mammal. You avoid pain. 502 00:25:15.269 --> 00:25:16.230 Pain hurts. 503 00:25:16.269 --> 00:25:19.710 We don't like pain. We avoid unnecessary suffering. It's that simple. 504 00:25:19.730 --> 00:25:20.529 Stop yapping, dude. 505 00:25:22.069 --> 00:25:25.490 So you've made the move of trying to get an 506 00:25:26.089 --> 00:25:28.710 ought from an is. Babies do not want to have 507 00:25:28.759 --> 00:25:31.460 their heads poked in. But how do we know that 508 00:25:31.539 --> 00:25:34.180 because these are the states of affairs that are the case, 509 00:25:34.440 --> 00:25:36.519 that we ought not to do this. 510 00:25:36.440 --> 00:25:37.160 Or that action? 511 00:25:37.200 --> 00:25:40.490 This is just another variation on how you ground your 512 00:25:40.509 --> 00:25:43.349 value judgments? Because remember, you said it's just what I want. 513 00:25:43.789 --> 00:25:46.869 How do you delineate between the competing claim of all 514 00:25:46.910 --> 00:25:49.990 the myriad, myriad positions that contradict your position if you 515 00:25:50.019 --> 00:25:51.480 can't appeal to something universal? 516 00:25:51.759 --> 00:25:53.579 Are you saying that you can derive an ought from 517 00:25:53.619 --> 00:25:54.839 an is with Christianity? 518 00:25:55.480 --> 00:25:57.039 It's not a problem for Christianity because. 519 00:25:57.059 --> 00:26:00.250 It is a problem for Christianity. That's what the is-ought fallacy... 520 00:25:59.890 --> 00:26:02.269 That's what the is-ought problem is. It doesn't matter if 521 00:26:02.289 --> 00:26:04.609 you're a Christian, Muslim, secular humanist. 522 00:26:04.650 --> 00:26:06.609 It doesn't matter. It's the same exact problem. 523 00:26:06.710 --> 00:26:09.700 Also, this is not necessarily referring to a... It is 524 00:26:09.740 --> 00:26:12.920 not referring... I'm answering the question. It is not answering 525 00:26:12.960 --> 00:26:14.299 a philosophical inquiry. 526 00:26:15.599 --> 00:26:19.089 The question was, how do you derive an offerment is? 527 00:26:19.190 --> 00:26:21.410 And you retorted by saying it's a problem for you too. 528 00:26:21.450 --> 00:26:22.609 That's a two-quote way fallacy. 529 00:26:22.650 --> 00:26:24.750 You can't. So I want to know in your system 530 00:26:24.789 --> 00:26:27.519 how you derive it. You can't. Also, we're not deriving 531 00:26:27.559 --> 00:26:29.539 a philosophical inquiry. So the baby poking that argument doesn't work. 532 00:26:29.819 --> 00:26:33.279 We're not applying a philosophical inquiry to the question. regarding 533 00:26:33.539 --> 00:26:35.900 what we ought and ought not to do. That is 534 00:26:35.960 --> 00:26:37.980 not what this is. It's referring to a philosophical inquiry. 535 00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:40.880 So you think the good is not part of politics? Okay, 536 00:26:40.940 --> 00:26:44.269 you have the same is-ought problem. This is a non-starter. 537 00:26:44.420 --> 00:26:45.519 So again, I'm going to go. 538 00:26:45.420 --> 00:26:47.369 For it again. If I'm not an empiricist like David Hume, 539 00:26:47.400 --> 00:26:49.089 why would I have the same problem? 540 00:26:50.509 --> 00:26:53.309 Would it be okay if, and this is for the 541 00:26:53.349 --> 00:26:56.170 sake of hypothetical, like if I went over to you 542 00:26:56.650 --> 00:26:59.049 and I started poking you in the head, would that 543 00:26:59.089 --> 00:26:59.450 be okay? 544 00:27:00.220 --> 00:27:02.000 I have a basis for why you shouldn't do that. 545 00:27:02.200 --> 00:27:03.980 You have a basis for why you should not do that? 546 00:27:04.039 --> 00:27:06.460 Because I believe in universal objective ethics. Well, I would 547 00:27:06.509 --> 00:27:07.380 say it hurts. 548 00:27:07.529 --> 00:27:08.710 I don't like that. What's yours? 549 00:27:09.710 --> 00:27:12.970 Well, it's morally wrong to try to provoke people or 550 00:27:13.009 --> 00:27:16.230 to attack or affront people in that way. 551 00:27:16.549 --> 00:27:16.930 Why? 552 00:27:17.849 --> 00:27:18.049 Why? 553 00:27:18.069 --> 00:27:20.190 Yeah, why? Why? Well, because we. 554 00:27:20.130 --> 00:27:22.650 Have a universal ethical standard of why it's wrong to 555 00:27:22.690 --> 00:27:25.170 do things. But your standard is just what you want. 556 00:27:25.309 --> 00:27:27.430 So what if somebody doesn't believe in God? I could 557 00:27:27.450 --> 00:27:28.819 just go up to you and poke you in the head. 558 00:27:28.839 --> 00:27:30.839 It's not relevant to whether there's an objective moral system. 559 00:27:30.980 --> 00:27:33.200 What if I, because I don't believe in God, that 560 00:27:33.220 --> 00:27:34.740 you can poke me in the head because I don't 561 00:27:34.920 --> 00:27:35.720 think God exists? 562 00:27:35.759 --> 00:27:38.160 He thinks that what he believes makes reality the case. 563 00:27:38.259 --> 00:27:39.619 And I'm telling you that. 564 00:27:39.440 --> 00:27:42.180 It doesn't matter what you want. I literally don't. I'm asking. 565 00:27:42.559 --> 00:27:45.579 If I don't put God in my life, therefore, I 566 00:27:45.900 --> 00:27:48.140 wouldn't have any grounding to my moral standings. Therefore, you 567 00:27:48.160 --> 00:27:49.420 could put me on the head whenever you like. 568 00:27:49.440 --> 00:27:51.420 I don't think you know what philosophical grounding means. 569 00:27:51.440 --> 00:27:53.299 I do know what philosophical grounding is. 570 00:27:53.339 --> 00:27:53.519 What? 571 00:27:53.839 --> 00:27:58.460 Philosophical grounding is referring to whatever your philosophical base is, 572 00:27:58.779 --> 00:28:01.569 what you base

your entire argument. I use epistemology. 573 00:28:01.589 --> 00:28:02.269 I use scientific inquiry. 574 00:28:02.289 --> 00:28:05.710 So what's the epistemic justification for your universal claims of 575 00:28:05.750 --> 00:28:06.150 good and bad? 576 00:28:06.529 --> 00:28:07.309 Predictive outcomes. 577 00:28:07.769 --> 00:28:12.710 But predictive outcome relies on a finite number of observations. 578 00:28:12.809 --> 00:28:13.549 Are you an empiricist? 579 00:28:13.710 --> 00:28:14.470 Here, I'll do it right now. 580 00:28:14.549 --> 00:28:15.049 Are you an empiricist? 581 00:28:15.069 --> 00:28:15.509 Check this out. 582 00:28:15.529 --> 00:28:19.359 This will fall to the ground because the center of 583 00:28:19.420 --> 00:28:20.680 gravity is below us. 584 00:28:20.680 --> 00:28:23.640 The question isn't, will it do that in every instance? Oh, 585 00:28:23.660 --> 00:28:25.559 what do you know? It did. See how it did? Again, 586 00:28:25.920 --> 00:28:29.480 the atheist skeptic David Hume raised this point. Let me finish. 587 00:28:32.960 --> 00:28:35.839 So the question is not, did you observe this? The 588 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:39.789 question is, how do you know in every instance universally 589 00:28:40.119 --> 00:28:42.289 that it will be the case? And Hume's point is 590 00:28:42.329 --> 00:28:44.589 that if you're an empiricist, as he appears to be, 591 00:28:44.710 --> 00:28:47.849 meaning that I only derive information and knowledge from my 592 00:28:47.890 --> 00:28:52.190 five senses, then I'm jumping outside of the possibility of 593 00:28:52.250 --> 00:28:56.910 epistemic justification by saying that it's universally the case that 594 00:28:56.930 --> 00:28:57.970 it will always fall. 595 00:28:58.230 --> 00:29:00.009 You don't know that. It may do that. 596 00:29:00.109 --> 00:29:04.009 But you can't epistemically justify that because It's an invalid 597 00:29:04.069 --> 00:29:06.609 leap from an instance and an instance and an instance 598 00:29:06.650 --> 00:29:07.529 and an instance. 599 00:29:07.259 --> 00:29:09.960 To universally the case. That's why you can't get a 600 00:29:09.960 --> 00:29:12.980 not from an is. OK. 601 00:29:13.000 --> 00:29:15.250 I mean, I don't need to derive a not from 602 00:29:15.329 --> 00:29:21.680 an is. to establish a moral grounding to anything. I 603 00:29:22.160 --> 00:29:25.599 am physically capable and it doesn't matter whether or not 604 00:29:25.640 --> 00:29:28.950 that it is the moral compass of a baby to 605 00:29:29.130 --> 00:29:32.549 you as an adult. You would like to avoid unnecessary suffering. 606 00:29:32.569 --> 00:29:34.549 You make a decision. 607 00:29:34.190 --> 00:29:37.410 To every single day on how to avoid unnecessary suffering. 608 00:29:37.450 --> 00:29:39.650 If it's freezing out, do you wear a sweater? 609 00:29:41.140 --> 00:29:41.420 Sure. 610 00:29:41.519 --> 00:29:43.460 I mean, I guess maybe if you're like a masochist, 611 00:29:43.480 --> 00:29:45.059

you can go out and decide, okay, I'm not going 612 00:29:45.079 --> 00:29:47.480 to do that. I'm saying that I want to live 613 00:29:47.519 --> 00:29:51.359 in a society that has less suffering for every individual. 614 00:29:51.440 --> 00:29:53.339 I don't need to ground that on the basis of God. 615 00:29:53.700 --> 00:29:56.440 It is simply that you have a basis of that. 616 00:29:56.680 --> 00:29:58.400 In your nerve cells. 617 00:29:58.440 --> 00:29:59.359 Your nerve cells are. 618 00:29:59.240 --> 00:29:59.859 Based on that. 619 00:30:00.059 --> 00:30:02.349 That is grounded. That is grounded on physical reality. 620 00:30:02.369 --> 00:30:04.470 Well, you could say it's grounded, but it's not an 621 00:30:04.730 --> 00:30:08.450 epistemically coherent or consistent grounding because you understand that if 622 00:30:08.490 --> 00:30:10.430 you can say it's just what I will to be 623 00:30:10.470 --> 00:30:12.230 the case, then the opponent in the debate can say 624 00:30:12.269 --> 00:30:13.950 the same thing. So how do you delineate between the two, 625 00:30:13.970 --> 00:30:14.529 which is right or wrong? 626 00:30:15.069 --> 00:30:16.930 Well, I don't... I'm sorry. 627 00:30:17.109 --> 00:30:17.910 Ask that question again. 628 00:30:18.029 --> 00:30:19.589 I don't really understand your question. 629 00:30:19.730 --> 00:30:22.839 If everybody can just come and state what they want 630 00:30:22.880 --> 00:30:25.410 to be the case, that that's their worldview, which is 631 00:30:25.430 --> 00:30:27.630 what you appear to be arguing, then what is the 632 00:30:27.690 --> 00:30:30.259 thing that can delineate in a debate between the true. 633 00:30:30.160 --> 00:30:32.559 And the false positions? I think what leads to better outcomes. 634 00:30:32.910 --> 00:30:35.450 That's begging the question because you haven't told me why 635 00:30:35.539 --> 00:30:35.880 or how you. 636 00:30:35.890 --> 00:30:38.539 That's not begging the question because it's like when we 637 00:30:38.579 --> 00:30:41.079 have one society that says, hey, we should burn all 638 00:30:41.099 --> 00:30:43.500 the LGBT people because they're LGBT and they're nightmares, and 639 00:30:43.519 --> 00:30:46.400 so therefore it's going to be a better society if 640 00:30:46.440 --> 00:30:48.960 we establish only Christianity, no more Muslims. 641 00:30:49.049 --> 00:30:51.809 No more atheists, no more LGBT. The basis was subjective. 642 00:30:53.670 --> 00:30:55.049 And then we're going to have a big, giant pile 643 00:30:55.089 --> 00:30:57.950 of burning dead bodies on that basis. Whereas mine is like. 644 00:30:58.130 --> 00:31:01.170 Hey, you could be a Christian. You could be LGBT. 645 00:31:01.289 --> 00:31:04.059 You could be all of these things, and it's perfectly acceptable. 646 00:31:04.099 --> 00:31:04.799 It's very simple. 647 00:31:05.119 --> 00:31:08.420 I don't need to establish grounding from. 648 00:31:08.200 --> 00:31:11.920 A transcendental argument. I don't require an anthropomorphism for the 649 00:31:11.940 --> 00:31:13.539 existence of the universe. I'm going to help you out 650 00:31:13.579 --> 00:31:13.960 to debate. 651 00:31:15.869 --> 00:31:18.109 He interrupted every single freaking word I said. 652 00:31:18.130 --> 00:31:21.029 Because you're filibustering and not answering the question. I'm not filibustering. 653 00:31:21.109 --> 00:31:23.299 I answered it. I answered it directly. No, you didn't. 654 00:31:23.319 --> 00:31:27.460 The question was, if you have a purely subjectivist position, 655 00:31:27.519 --> 00:31:28.250 and I come with a. 656 00:31:28.240 --> 00:31:29.319 It's not a subjective viewpoint. 657 00:31:30.079 --> 00:31:30.640 It literally is. 658 00:31:30.680 --> 00:31:33.369 Your pain nerve cells are going to exist with or 659 00:31:33.400 --> 00:31:34.230 without my perception. 660 00:31:34.250 --> 00:31:35.750 You literally said that it's what you will to be 661 00:31:35.769 --> 00:31:35.970 the case. 662 00:31:35.990 --> 00:31:38.089 Your pain nerve cells are going to be there with 663 00:31:38.170 --> 00:31:39.509 or without my perception. 664 00:31:39.529 --> 00:31:40.029 Oh, my gosh. 665 00:31:40.269 --> 00:31:40.890 Do you understand? 666 00:31:40.910 --> 00:31:40.990 Yeah. 667 00:31:41.630 --> 00:31:45.079 They exist, not from a subjective standpoint, but from a 668 00:31:45.220 --> 00:31:49.140 very real objective standpoint. You are all made of flesh. 669 00:31:49.440 --> 00:31:51.960 You are physically meat. 670 00:31:52.339 --> 00:31:55.390 You are carbon. You are oxygen. You are consuming oxygen 671 00:31:55.410 --> 00:31:55.690 and nitrogen. 672 00:31:55.710 --> 00:31:58.670 This is filibustering storytelling. I'm asking you a specific question 673 00:31:58.910 --> 00:32:00.109 of what is the thing. 674 00:32:02.359 --> 00:32:04.900 You just saying that your position is objective reality is 675 00:32:04.940 --> 00:32:06.319 the thing in question. I want to know how you 676 00:32:06.359 --> 00:32:08.400 know that and just appealing to the thing in question 677 00:32:08.539 --> 00:32:09.119 is being circular. 678 00:32:09.140 --> 00:32:11.680 Yeah, I ground my logic on the basis of a 679 00:32:11.819 --> 00:32:15.839 non-anthropomorphic creation of the universe. That's it. I don't require 680 00:32:15.900 --> 00:32:19.019 any anthropomorphization. It does not require a mind. In fact, 681 00:32:19.059 --> 00:32:21.779 the concept of a mind... does not make any sense 682 00:32:21.859 --> 00:32:26.349 beyond space-time. Because if you're beyond space-time, there's no time. Therefore, 683 00:32:26.390 --> 00:32:28.690 decision-making is impossible. 684 00:32:28.710 --> 00:32:32.950 Do you understand? That's your problem, right? How is it created? 685 00:32:33.049 --> 00:32:35.309 It's always projection when it comes to existence. 686 00:32:35.329 --> 00:32:37.799 How does creation avoid intentionality? 687 00:32:38.299 --> 00:32:42.839 How does creation

avoid intentionality? Because it's beyond space-time. If 688 00:32:43.140 --> 00:32:44.000 there is something that. 689 00:32:43.900 --> 00:32:44.240 Made the universe. 690 00:32:44.279 --> 00:32:46.299 You said you believe in creation that's not by a god. 691 00:32:46.319 --> 00:32:46.940 Let me explain. 692 00:32:47.220 --> 00:32:49.349 If there is something... It's not what I asked. If 693 00:32:49.380 --> 00:32:51.789 there is something that made the universe. 694 00:32:51.849 --> 00:32:53.190 You said creation. You believe in creation. 695 00:32:53.710 --> 00:32:55.450 You said a non-intellectual... I think that there is a 696 00:32:55.490 --> 00:32:57.250 beginning of the universe roughly 13.548. 697 00:32:57.190 --> 00:32:59.210 Billion years ago. You said creation. 698 00:32:59.230 --> 00:32:59.490 Though, right? 699 00:32:59.950 --> 00:33:00.109 What? 700 00:33:00.289 --> 00:33:04.029 You said creation. Creation... didn't you? 701 00:33:04.690 --> 00:33:08.769 I mean, it created, but it doesn't, there's no anthropomorphism. 702 00:33:08.789 --> 00:33:10.789 The word itself includes the idea of an intention. 703 00:33:10.829 --> 00:33:13.069 I don't believe that there's an anthropomorphism of a magic 704 00:33:13.130 --> 00:33:14.390 man who's like, I'm going. 705 00:33:14.279 --> 00:33:16.380 To make these eight people in the sky and then 706 00:33:16.400 --> 00:33:18.460 I'm going to kill them all. So notice he uses 707 00:33:18.480 --> 00:33:18.960 the anthropomorphism. 708 00:33:18.980 --> 00:33:20.640 One family will live and then whatever. 709 00:33:20.660 --> 00:33:20.720 So. 710 00:33:25.380 --> 00:33:28.480 So notice that he used the anthropomorphic language as he 711 00:33:28.539 --> 00:33:32.740 denied the anthropomorphic language, making the very phrase and terminology 712 00:33:33.140 --> 00:33:38.000 absolutely meaningless. There's no such thing as an intentional creation 713 00:33:38.140 --> 00:33:40.660 that is not intentional. Creation includes within it the very 714 00:33:40.740 --> 00:33:45.740 definition of the word is some agent acting to create 715 00:33:45.809 --> 00:33:48.890 or to affect something. Universally, that's the case. So when 716 00:33:48.930 --> 00:33:52.450 he says that the universe it just created, it's a nonsensical, 717 00:33:52.490 --> 00:33:55.470 meaningless statement. But what we've seen is that a lot 718 00:33:55.609 --> 00:33:59.730 of reliance on philosophical concepts that he does and also 719 00:33:59.779 --> 00:34:02.200 doesn't have to ground because it's just what is. If 720 00:34:02.240 --> 00:34:03.759 you do that in a debate, the reason this doesn't 721 00:34:03.799 --> 00:34:05.380 work is that I can come to the debate and 722 00:34:05.400 --> 00:34:08.579 do the exact same thing and say, my position just is, 723 00:34:08.760 --> 00:34:11.000 it just is the case. God just is. And I 724 00:34:11.019 --> 00:34:13.400 didn't make that argument. So how do we delineate between 725 00:34:13.440 --> 00:34:15.300 the two? 726 00:34:15.559 --> 00:34:18.880 You're saying that things can't be created unless if there 727 00:34:18.940 --> 00:34:20.539 is like a consciousness invoking it? 728 00:34:21.050 --> 00:34:23.929 Intentionality is contained within the idea and the definition of 729 00:34:23.969 --> 00:34:25.010 the term creation, correct? 730 00:34:25.050 --> 00:34:27.110 No, no, that's not true. 731 00:34:27.329 --> 00:34:28.630 Can you name. 732 00:34:28.489 --> 00:34:31.769 A thing outside of what you think is the universe 733 00:34:31.789 --> 00:34:33.869 that's created that doesn't have an intention behind it? 734 00:34:34.489 --> 00:34:36.949 Yeah, Saturn. There you go. 735 00:34:37.639 --> 00:34:39.590 How do you know that there's no intentionality behind Saturn? 736 00:34:40.610 --> 00:34:42.579 Because there weren't people making Saturn. 737 00:34:42.719 --> 00:34:42.900 What? 738 00:34:43.389 --> 00:34:45.190 Well, I didn't ask you about people. The universe. I 739 00:34:45.190 --> 00:34:48.309 didn't ask you about people. How do you know that 740 00:34:48.329 --> 00:34:50.130 there's not intentionality there? No, because it's just. 741 00:34:50.110 --> 00:34:54.579 Gases, and then it compiles amongst itself because of gravity. 742 00:34:54.599 --> 00:34:56.320 That begs the question. It's not because it has an intention. 743 00:34:56.360 --> 00:34:58.179 How do you know that there wasn't an agent compiling 744 00:34:58.219 --> 00:35:00.480 the gases? What? How do you know there wasn't an 745 00:35:00.539 --> 00:35:01.599 agent compiling the gases? 746 00:35:01.840 --> 00:35:06.949 Okay, so you, that's actually, you're begging the question yourself 747 00:35:06.989 --> 00:35:08.849 by presuming that that is the case. 748 00:35:08.909 --> 00:35:10.630 And I'm saying that the creation of the. 749 00:35:10.610 --> 00:35:15.500 Universe is non-anthropomorphic. You can't make decisions beyond space-time. The 750 00:35:15.539 --> 00:35:18.940 word creation is an anthropomorphic term. Again, Saturn can get... 751 00:35:19.139 --> 00:35:22.969 created without a person being like i'm gonna make saturn words. 752 00:35:22.849 --> 00:35:25.570 Don't even matter anymore like what they actually mean there 753 00:35:25.610 --> 00:35:29.349 is no notion of creation linguistically or philosophically that doesn't 754 00:35:29.389 --> 00:35:33.130 have an intelligent agent with intentionality behind it you're begging 755 00:35:33.150 --> 00:35:35.289 the question again i'm not saying it's true maybe it's 756 00:35:35.329 --> 00:35:37.949 false but i'm saying your usage of the term and 757 00:35:37.969 --> 00:35:39.070 your arguments. 758 00:35:38.670 --> 00:35:40.829 Are dumb arguments you don't know whether or not god is. 759 00:35:40.809 --> 00:35:44.250 Real oh my gosh dude I'm saying your argument is 760 00:35:44.269 --> 00:35:45.489 a bad argument. I'm asking you. I'm asking you. That 761 00:35:45.510 --> 00:35:47.769 wasn't

like, oh my gosh, dude, answer the question. Do 762 00:35:47.789 --> 00:35:48.469 you think God is real? 763 00:35:48.489 --> 00:35:50.610 Of course I'm not arguing that I think God is 764 00:35:50.659 --> 00:35:51.010 not real. 765 00:35:51.280 --> 00:35:52.940 I'm asking you on your argument. Do you think God 766 00:35:52.960 --> 00:35:55.059 is real? I would assume yes. You believe God is real, right? 767 00:35:55.099 --> 00:35:56.579 I don't think you know what an internal critique even is. 768 00:35:56.579 --> 00:35:57.719 I do know what an internal critique is. 769 00:35:57.739 --> 00:35:58.019 What is it? 770 00:35:58.139 --> 00:36:01.239 It's where you critique yourself. Now, what is exactly your argument? 771 00:36:01.380 --> 00:36:03.820 No, he doesn't even know what it is. It's when 772 00:36:03.840 --> 00:36:06.190 your opponent critiques you, dude. No, let's try one. 773 00:36:06.320 --> 00:36:09.090 Yes, that is what it is. Let's try one more time. 774 00:36:09.190 --> 00:36:11.829 Let's try one more time. Let's try one more time. 775 00:36:11.849 --> 00:36:16.289 Let's go over it, okay? It's not when you critique yourself. 776 00:36:16.510 --> 00:36:18.510 It's when I critique you. This is what's happening right now. 777 00:36:18.550 --> 00:36:19.550 It's internal critique. 778 00:36:19.610 --> 00:36:24.219 You require the invoking of an anthropomorphic deity that has 779 00:36:24.260 --> 00:36:27.739 a mind beyond space-time. You don't even know what an 780 00:36:27.820 --> 00:36:29.619 anthropomorphization is. What? 781 00:36:29.960 --> 00:36:31.300 You don't even know what an anthropomorphization is. 782 00:36:31.300 --> 00:36:34.079 It's making a human category of something beyond the human. 783 00:36:34.409 --> 00:36:36.389 So if I say that, if I say that the 784 00:36:36.429 --> 00:36:36.809 trash can. 785 00:36:36.829 --> 00:36:39.590 So why would you anthropomorphize that, which is beyond space-time? 786 00:36:40.429 --> 00:36:43.989 Where is it? Does it make sense? Do you understand 787 00:36:44.010 --> 00:36:46.730 that you did it? You said the universe created itself. 788 00:36:47.010 --> 00:36:50.389 No, I'm saying that things can get created without intentionality. 789 00:36:50.530 --> 00:36:54.210 And you're predicating that there must be intentionality. But obviously 790 00:36:54.250 --> 00:36:57.699 there are things that get made without any intentionality. 791 00:36:57.800 --> 00:36:58.090 I don't know. 792 00:36:58.429 --> 00:36:59.800 Snowflakes, for example. 793 00:36:59.820 --> 00:37:00.699 That's begging the question. 794 00:37:00.800 --> 00:37:06.340 A snowflake creates itself... without anybody saying, okay, be hexadecimal 795 00:37:06.380 --> 00:37:07.820 and do this thing. No, it's just because of the 796 00:37:07.860 --> 00:37:08.260 way that. 797 00:37:08.199 --> 00:37:08.920 The lattice is watered. 798 00:37:08.940 --> 00:37:13.510 The word creation is an anthropomorphic term, meaning that the 799 00:37:13.670 --> 00:37:15.989 agent or the deity behind the universe. 800 00:37:16.389 --> 00:37:19.090 Where does the word creation originate? I don't know. I'm 801 00:37:19.110 --> 00:37:20.050 not an anthropologist. 802 00:37:20.070 --> 00:37:23.139 So it comes out of ancient religious and theological terminology. 803 00:37:23.159 --> 00:37:26.539 Bringing something into existence or an original product, artistic work, 804 00:37:26.599 --> 00:37:30.550 or universe itself. So it doesn't require intentionality. It's just 805 00:37:30.590 --> 00:37:32.110 something that gets made. 806 00:37:32.309 --> 00:37:32.670 That's it. 807 00:37:32.730 --> 00:37:36.610 That's all I was arguing. If something is made, something 808 00:37:36.750 --> 00:37:41.650 being made is an intentional agent. Christianity or secular humanism, 809 00:37:41.769 --> 00:37:42.889 which is best for society. 810 00:37:42.909 --> 00:37:44.489 Let's do it like this. 811 00:37:44.570 --> 00:37:47.150 Instead of arguing that, you want to go right back 812 00:37:47.190 --> 00:37:48.869 to tag, despite the fact. 813 00:37:48.750 --> 00:37:51.449 That I just debunked. I haven't even made a tag argument. 814 00:37:51.469 --> 00:37:54.150 The debunking for tag, by the way, is the fact 815 00:37:54.269 --> 00:37:58.480 that you can't make decisions without there being temporality. That's 816 00:37:58.519 --> 00:38:01.059 the problem. So we could go back to the debate 817 00:38:01.119 --> 00:38:03.360 topic now that we have debunked tag. 818 00:38:03.400 --> 00:38:04.420 Let's go back to it. 819 00:38:04.719 --> 00:38:09.280 Christianity or secular humanism. What is best for society? Show 820 00:38:09.320 --> 00:38:10.719 me the society. 821 00:38:10.219 --> 00:38:13.309 Where it's nothing but Christianity and they. 822 00:38:12.989 --> 00:38:14.969 Got rid of all the gross atheists and all the 823 00:38:15.030 --> 00:38:16.349 gross LGBTQ people. 824 00:38:16.670 --> 00:38:19.349 Show me how it's better. Explain that. 825 00:38:20.199 --> 00:38:23.579 In my opening statement, I actually did argue a category 826 00:38:23.639 --> 00:38:27.239 argument about the good and grounding the good. Since that time, 827 00:38:27.280 --> 00:38:30.489 I've been doing an internal critique, not doing tag. So 828 00:38:30.590 --> 00:38:33.489 the internal critique, which you thought was you critiquing yourself, 829 00:38:33.610 --> 00:38:35.230 is not what it is. It's me doing this right 830 00:38:35.269 --> 00:38:39.710 now to say, if your position is this, then this follows. 831 00:38:39.789 --> 00:38:41.989 That's an internal critique. And every time I ask you 832 00:38:42.030 --> 00:38:45.250 about what follows, you just simply restate the position all 833 00:38:45.289 --> 00:38:47.329 over again. So you said, for example, about time and space. 834 00:38:47.349 --> 00:38:47.889 Let's talk about that. 835 00:38:48.510 --> 00:38:50.190 Do you observe time in space? 836 00:38:50.769 --> 00:38:55.389 Do

I observe space-time? We observe time, but the concept 837 00:38:55.449 --> 00:38:57.300 of the warping of space-time, no. 838 00:38:57.320 --> 00:38:58.860 Where do you see time? We're very, very bad at 839 00:38:58.880 --> 00:39:01.099 observing it. Can you show me under a microscope or 840 00:39:01.119 --> 00:39:02.039 in this room where time is? 841 00:39:03.980 --> 00:39:07.619 Yeah, I mean, with the proper tools, sure. Where time is? 842 00:39:08.619 --> 00:39:12.190 A clock? Is it over there? Is it physical? So 843 00:39:12.210 --> 00:39:13.409 a clock is time? Yeah. 844 00:39:14.199 --> 00:39:16.659 No, a clock measures time, you goober. A clock is 845 00:39:16.719 --> 00:39:19.260 not time. It's a tool for measuring something. 846 00:39:19.300 --> 00:39:22.860 Yeah, yeah, fair enough. Okay, so where is time? It's 847 00:39:22.940 --> 00:39:25.670 all around us. Are the hands pointing to time? No, 848 00:39:25.710 --> 00:39:28.250 it's all Look, the one is over there. No, the 849 00:39:28.349 --> 00:39:31.289 six is over here. It's all around us. Oh, but... 850 00:39:31.809 --> 00:39:32.590 So it's omnipresent? 851 00:39:34.050 --> 00:39:35.019 It's omnipresent? 852 00:39:35.719 --> 00:39:35.789 Uh. 853 00:39:37.800 --> 00:39:40.019 I don't know if I think it's like... Theological categories, 854 00:39:40.059 --> 00:39:40.340 here we go. 855 00:39:40.380 --> 00:39:43.300 I'm not sure if it's actually omnipresent, because I'm pretty 856 00:39:43.340 --> 00:39:47.400 sure light doesn't experience time. Time is effectively zero for that. 857 00:39:47.980 --> 00:39:49.079 Like you know that. 858 00:39:50.079 --> 00:39:53.539 Anyway, can we go back to the actual debate prompt 859 00:39:53.579 --> 00:39:54.780 instead of your silly tag? 860 00:39:54.800 --> 00:39:56.980 Oh, my silly tag. None of that was tagged. It's 861 00:39:57.000 --> 00:39:58.199 an eternal critique, so again. 862 00:39:58.219 --> 00:40:00.460 Can you show me the Christian society that's better? 863 00:40:01.199 --> 00:40:01.719 Sure, Byzantium. 864 00:40:02.460 --> 00:40:02.659 What? 865 00:40:03.219 --> 00:40:10.369 Byzantium, sure. Byzantium? What the fuck is Byzantium? Seasoned debater here. 866 00:40:10.449 --> 00:40:13.980 Seasoned debater. Byzantium. Hold on. See, this is why I 867 00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:16.599 always bring it. Ancient Greek city founded in 657 BCE. 868 00:40:16.619 --> 00:40:19.420 Once again, I'm debating AI. 869 00:40:19.440 --> 00:40:22.199 It later became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, 870 00:40:22.280 --> 00:40:25.179 known as Constantinople, and it's modern-day. 871 00:40:24.889 --> 00:40:25.969 Istanbul, Turkey. 872 00:40:26.369 --> 00:40:32.530 So your idea of the best society is ancient Turkey? 873 00:40:33.340 --> 00:40:34.829 Did I say it was the best? You asked for 874 00:40:34.849 --> 00:40:36.889 a better society, and I gave you an example of 875 00:40:36.929 --> 00:40:38.590 a better. I didn't say best. Better or best or 876

00:40:38.610 --> 00:40:39.010 not the same thing? 877 00:40:39.030 --> 00:40:40.429 Bro, have you been to the Netherlands? 878 00:40:42.150 --> 00:40:47.530 How is that relevant? It's really nice. So now the 879 00:40:47.610 --> 00:40:48.849 measure is just what's nice? 880 00:40:48.869 --> 00:40:51.210 I'm just saying it's better than fucking whatever the hell 881 00:40:51.269 --> 00:40:52.090 Byzantium is. 882 00:40:52.090 --> 00:40:55.090 Okay, well, Florida cities on the beach are nicer than 883 00:40:55.150 --> 00:40:55.989 Democrat cities. 884 00:40:56.510 --> 00:40:56.760 What? 885 00:40:57.679 --> 00:40:57.929 What? 886 00:40:59.360 --> 00:40:59.500 Florida? 887 00:40:59.519 --> 00:40:59.719 Florida? 888 00:40:59.900 --> 00:41:02.519 Florida cities on the beach are nicer than Democrat... The 889 00:41:02.539 --> 00:41:04.860 Florida cities are Democrat cities, you dolt. No, I'm talking 890 00:41:04.880 --> 00:41:06.420 about my home city. It's not a Democratic city. 891 00:41:06.699 --> 00:41:10.030 Okay. Well, guess what? Miami Beach is nicer than yours. 892 00:41:10.090 --> 00:41:11.829 I promise you that. No, it's not. I guarantee you 893 00:41:11.849 --> 00:41:15.030 it's not. Miami is not better than St. Augustine. Miami 894 00:41:15.050 --> 00:41:17.869 has a much higher crime rate. It's a terrible place. 895 00:41:18.170 --> 00:41:19.670 So notice he messed up there because he thought he 896 00:41:19.690 --> 00:41:19.969 could go into. 897 00:41:19.989 --> 00:41:21.590 What's better, Byzantium or the Netherlands? 898 00:41:25.480 --> 00:41:27.139 Well, it would depend on what our... You can smoke 899 00:41:27.159 --> 00:41:28.099 weed there. Are you going to let me answer? 900 00:41:28.119 --> 00:41:30.619 You can just smoke weed there, bro. All right, go 901 00:41:30.639 --> 00:41:30.920 for it. 902 00:41:33.059 --> 00:41:35.320 So now it's where you can smoke weed is the 903 00:41:35.340 --> 00:41:35.920 best place? 904 00:41:36.920 --> 00:41:40.000 No, the freedom. No, I'm saying as an example. 905 00:41:40.280 --> 00:41:40.760 The freedom. 906 00:41:40.800 --> 00:41:41.539 The freedom's nice. 907 00:41:41.559 --> 00:41:42.679 Why is freedom good? 908 00:41:42.840 --> 00:41:44.900 Why is freedom good? Because people can do what they want? 909 00:41:45.260 --> 00:41:47.320 Why is that a want? That's just restating the question. 910 00:41:47.340 --> 00:41:50.000 I'm saying that, hey, some people want to do certain things, 911 00:41:50.039 --> 00:41:50.820 and it's okay. 912 00:41:50.599 --> 00:41:53.139 To do that. Okay, well, but maybe it's... Do you. 913 00:41:53.039 --> 00:41:55.159 Think Byzantium is better than the Netherlands? 914 00:41:55.800 --> 00:41:57.780 Maybe it's better for me to just simply become the 915 00:41:57.820 --> 00:42:00.570 Kwisatz Haderach and say that, no, I crush all of 916 00:42:00.630 --> 00:42:02.190 you and I impose my. 917 00:42:02.250 --> 00:42:02.869 I don't. 918 00:42:02.630 --> 00:42:03.730 Care about the Dune novels. 919 00:42:03.769 --> 00:42:05.710 I'm asking about Byzantium. I'm giving an example, dude. I 920 00:42:05.730 --> 00:42:06.090 know you don't. 921 00:42:06.130 --> 00:42:08.210 I'm asking about Byzantium and the Netherlands. 922 00:42:08.309 --> 00:42:09.860 Obviously, the Netherlands is nicer, right? I'm giving you an 923 00:42:09.909 --> 00:42:11.420 example of why. 924 00:42:11.619 --> 00:42:13.760 Is the Netherlands a secular society? 925 00:42:13.800 --> 00:42:15.159 Is that a secular society? 926 00:42:17.539 --> 00:42:20.860 What I'm saying is that the question that you're asking 927 00:42:20.920 --> 00:42:23.809 me relies on some notion of the good or the 928 00:42:23.849 --> 00:42:26.239 common good. And I'm saying, how would you counter a 929 00:42:26.280 --> 00:42:28.420 person who had your same worldview? Let's say I have 930 00:42:28.480 --> 00:42:31.760 the same secular ethic, but I say, I want to 931 00:42:31.820 --> 00:42:34.699 be the Kwisatz Haderach. I want to impose my jihad 932 00:42:34.800 --> 00:42:36.739 on the world and take all of your wives and 933 00:42:36.800 --> 00:42:37.860 all your baser belong to me. 934 00:42:38.710 --> 00:42:42.449 Okay, I like less unnecessary suffering, and that seems like. 935 00:42:42.349 --> 00:42:43.469 A lot of unnecessary suffering. Who cares what you like? 936 00:42:43.489 --> 00:42:45.000 What does what you like have to do in a debate? 937 00:42:45.119 --> 00:42:48.139 Oh, because it's intuitive. This position is intuitive. 938 00:42:47.699 --> 00:42:48.780 On the basis of all cultures. 939 00:42:48.800 --> 00:42:50.039 So in a debate, the opponent can say that the 940 00:42:50.059 --> 00:42:52.699 opposite position is intuitive. Every single culture can actually align 941 00:42:52.739 --> 00:42:53.070 with this. 942 00:42:53.300 --> 00:42:53.829 In a debate? 943 00:42:54.010 --> 00:42:59.449 Individuals, as human beings, we don't revoke people's humanity. We 944 00:42:59.489 --> 00:43:02.300 treat people with the same life, liberty, property as other 945 00:43:02.340 --> 00:43:05.079 people because it leads to better outcomes. It leads to 946 00:43:05.179 --> 00:43:08.760 less unnecessary suffering. That's why we establish things like rights 947 00:43:08.820 --> 00:43:10.119 and laws and all sorts of stuff. 948 00:43:10.760 --> 00:43:14.250 But again... What I've observed, historically. 949 00:43:13.730 --> 00:43:17.389 Speaking, Christianity has a long history of a lot of 950 00:43:17.590 --> 00:43:18.789 negative outcomes. 951 00:43:18.630 --> 00:43:20.710 For a lot of people. Negative based on what? 952 00:43:20.889 --> 00:43:24.909 You have people right now, 2026, that because of their 953 00:43:25.269 --> 00:43:27.889 literal reading of the Bible, think the. 954 00:43:27.929 --> 00:43:29.179 Earth is flat. 955 00:43:29.480 --> 00:43:33.239 We're literally at the point where we're questioning reality in 956 00:43:33.280 --> 00:43:34.000 and of itself.

957 00:43:34.059 --> 00:43:37.739 Like homilies or debates, but. The question is, what's better 958 00:43:37.780 --> 00:43:40.969 for society? To me, it's obviously secular humanism. You can 959 00:43:40.989 --> 00:43:42.670 be a Christian. 960 00:43:42.010 --> 00:43:44.849 In a secular humanist world. It is better for society. 961 00:43:44.969 --> 00:43:46.650 Secular humanism is better. 962 00:43:47.110 --> 00:43:50.730 It's better. It just is. It is. There's less suffering. 963 00:43:50.769 --> 00:43:54.280 There's a lot less suffering, specifically unnecessary suffering. 964 00:43:54.409 --> 00:43:55.280 Okay, I want to ask you a question. 965 00:43:55.300 --> 00:43:59.519 So this relies on an older progressive utilitarian line of 966 00:43:59.599 --> 00:44:03.699 argument that the ideal society or the ideal position is 967 00:44:03.800 --> 00:44:07.900 to try to afford... the greatest pleasure for the greatest 968 00:44:07.980 --> 00:44:08.719 number of people. 969 00:44:09.019 --> 00:44:12.079 Nope. Let me finish. One of the problems with. 970 00:44:11.960 --> 00:44:15.750 This is that there's nothing in utilitarianism or kind of 971 00:44:15.789 --> 00:44:19.929 a secular ethic position that tells you what's preferable between 972 00:44:20.590 --> 00:44:25.119 everybody having a degree of pleasure points and kumis. 973 00:44:25.730 --> 00:44:30.269 Versus one guy really getting a lot of... I'm asking 974 00:44:30.309 --> 00:44:32.369 you a question. I'm not saying you're arguing that. I'm 975 00:44:32.389 --> 00:44:34.710 trying to show you that. 976 00:44:34.849 --> 00:44:37.389 You're already creating a straw man. 977 00:44:37.429 --> 00:44:39.849 You're already creating a straw man. 978 00:44:40.030 --> 00:44:40.909 I don't believe in any of that. 979 00:44:41.130 --> 00:44:44.050 I'm not saying you believe it. It's a hypothetical, dude. 980 00:44:44.070 --> 00:44:46.710 Do you not know how to do hypotheticals? 981 00:44:46.750 --> 00:44:48.590 I have no idea how to do hypotheticals. Please teach 982 00:44:48.610 --> 00:44:49.829 me about hypotheticals for the. 983 00:44:49.789 --> 00:44:50.349 Next 20 minutes. 984 00:44:50.630 --> 00:44:55.699 The question is, why ought we prefer... a really extreme 985 00:44:55.780 --> 00:45:01.300 version of an individual, let's say a tyrant, getting extreme 986 00:45:01.380 --> 00:45:08.130 pleasure from dominating the masses to a position where the 987 00:45:08.190 --> 00:45:12.349 greatest good is the greatest amount of pleasure spread amongst 988 00:45:12.389 --> 00:45:13.590 the greatest number of people. 989 00:45:13.630 --> 00:45:15.010 This is a classic critique. 990 00:45:15.789 --> 00:45:18.869 Of utilitarian ethics, that there's nothing that tells us which 991 00:45:18.949 --> 00:45:23.659 we ought to prefer logically. Not what you want, but logically. 992 00:45:23.940 --> 00:45:25.980 Yeah, so for starters, I'm not a hedonist. I don't 993 00:45:26.139 --> 00:45:29.420 argue that we should

have the infinite pleasure. I realize 994 00:45:29.480 --> 00:45:32.159 that if you do argue for infinite pleasure, you could 995 00:45:32.519 --> 00:45:36.920 logic into existence, putting everybody in like a heroin machine 996 00:45:36.960 --> 00:45:39.079 where you're just fed heroin your entire life and then 997 00:45:39.139 --> 00:45:41.099 all your waste is taken care of and that's somehow 998 00:45:41.139 --> 00:45:44.039 the best society. I'm like, no, that's not right. Obviously, 999 00:45:44.079 --> 00:45:47.510 it's not just pleasure. What I see is that each 1000 00:45:47.570 --> 00:45:50.989 individual has their own things that they care about. And 1001 00:45:51.070 --> 00:45:53.630 so the question becomes, how do I make it so 1002 00:45:53.719 --> 00:45:57.440 people can do the things that they like to do? 1003 00:45:58.079 --> 00:46:00.940 Where are the restrictions that are necessary to enable more 1004 00:46:00.980 --> 00:46:02.619 people to do the things that they like to do? 1005 00:46:03.030 --> 00:46:06.639 So I'm not referring to infinite pleasure when i'm saying 1006 00:46:06.679 --> 00:46:10.929 these things i'm saying hey we should reduce unnecessary suffering 1007 00:46:10.989 --> 00:46:14.110 it's suffering for suffering sake it doesn't have a purpose repeat. 1008 00:46:13.849 --> 00:46:15.829 The question again because he's still not answering the question 1009 00:46:16.889 --> 00:46:18.030 that was a question oh my. 1010 00:46:19.849 --> 00:46:23.610 God all right well go away your question the queen 1011 00:46:23.630 --> 00:46:27.730 was a question i didn't. 1012 00:46:26.110 --> 00:46:27.909 Know this was going to be doom trivia oh my 1013 00:46:27.929 --> 00:46:31.110 gosh Do I need to get giant crayons? 1014 00:46:31.190 --> 00:46:33.409 Do I need to write it out with a giant 1015 00:46:33.429 --> 00:46:33.760 crayon for you? 1016 00:46:33.760 --> 00:46:36.880 I only read it up until Children of Dune. That's 1017 00:46:36.900 --> 00:46:37.139 a good one. 1018 00:46:37.619 --> 00:46:38.840 The third one. 1019 00:46:39.039 --> 00:46:43.260 I couldn't get into it. It was hard to divide with. 1020 00:46:42.619 --> 00:46:44.960 The two children. I know the literary reference is making 1021 00:46:45.000 --> 00:46:46.559 it too difficult for you. Yeah, it's too difficult. 1022 00:46:46.579 --> 00:46:48.449 Very difficult, please. 1023 00:46:48.489 --> 00:46:49.550 Simplify it for me. 1024 00:46:49.670 --> 00:46:53.630 A tyrant who gets extreme pleasure out of dominating and 1025 00:46:53.670 --> 00:46:57.760 taking everyone's wives and whatever versus... The greatest pleasure for 1026 00:46:57.780 --> 00:46:59.789 a lot of people, for the infinite pleasure, but just 1027 00:46:59.829 --> 00:47:03.789 a lot of people. Which of these two utilitarian positions, 1028 00:47:04.050 --> 00:47:07.829 quantitative or qualitative, ought we to choose and why logically? 1029 00:47:07.849 --> 00:47:13.090 Oh, my God, dude. I'm asking

you. What was the 1030 00:47:13.110 --> 00:47:13.739 second one? 1031 00:47:13.929 --> 00:47:18.860 Yes, please state it. You said war tyrant that has 1032 00:47:18.880 --> 00:47:21.239 a bunch of wives. Okay, got it. What's the other one? 1033 00:47:21.599 --> 00:47:28.369 Versus a utilitarian argument that... The greater number of people, 1034 00:47:28.489 --> 00:47:32.550 quantity versus quality. How do we know on a secular 1035 00:47:32.670 --> 00:47:36.699 ethic which we ought to prefer in a logical argument? 1036 00:47:36.800 --> 00:47:39.880 Not what you like, because in a debate, if you 1037 00:47:39.920 --> 00:47:41.159 just come and say, that's what I like. 1038 00:47:41.989 --> 00:47:44.230 I can say, well, I like the opposite. So it's 1039 00:47:44.289 --> 00:47:45.730 irrelevant to a debate. All right. 1040 00:47:45.750 --> 00:47:47.650 So typically it would be that you would do a 1041 00:47:47.690 --> 00:47:50.900 comparison of two societies. One where like there's this war 1042 00:47:50.960 --> 00:47:53.480 tyrant that has killed a bunch of people and then 1043 00:47:53.719 --> 00:47:56.159 has like a bunch of wives. And then versus like, 1044 00:47:56.239 --> 00:47:58.579 I don't know, everybody like living a better life. Obviously, 1045 00:47:58.639 --> 00:47:59.340 B would be better. 1046 00:48:00.030 --> 00:48:02.449 Why is that obvious? That's the question. Why is that obvious? 1047 00:48:02.789 --> 00:48:04.110 Again, you would just compare the two. 1048 00:48:04.190 --> 00:48:04.590 Your position. 1049 00:48:05.250 --> 00:48:07.710 But comparing them is resting on some way to delineate 1050 00:48:07.730 --> 00:48:09.670 between which one is preferable. Yeah, I mean, I'm using 1051 00:48:09.710 --> 00:48:11.309 my intuition of wanting to. 1052 00:48:11.269 --> 00:48:13.760 Reduce unnecessary suffering. Oh, my God, dude, so that's subjective, 1053 00:48:13.840 --> 00:48:15.989 and I can come to the debate. My intuition is 1054 00:48:16.030 --> 00:48:17.179 that I'm the result of that. What are the desires 1055 00:48:17.260 --> 00:48:19.059 of each of the wives? So notice that it's a 1056 00:48:19.099 --> 00:48:21.980 purely subjective argument. There's no justification for it. Hold on, 1057 00:48:22.019 --> 00:48:24.840 hear me out. It's subjective. Hear me out. Is each wife... 1058 00:48:25.139 --> 00:48:28.480 Is it subjective? Hear me out. Is intuition subjective? 1059 00:48:29.019 --> 00:48:31.260 Is into it yet yours yes i think it's. 1060 00:48:31.119 --> 00:48:33.989 Always a purely subjective argument so it wasn't as much 1061 00:48:34.030 --> 00:48:35.170 as i can tell you. 1062 00:48:34.909 --> 00:48:37.429 This is not a gotcha that's that that's dumb your 1063 00:48:37.690 --> 00:48:40.449 your religion is also that your religion is subjective yeah 1064 00:48:40.469 --> 00:48:41.449 believe it or not it is. 1065 00:48:41.409 --> 00:48:44.510 Subject to quite a bit even if it was even 1066 00:48:44.530 --> 00:48:46.820 if it was leaving can even if it wasn't one 1067 00:48:46.880 --> 00:48:47.960 of the fire are. 1068 00:48:47.760 --> 00:48:51.780 Talking You don't believe in Confucius. You don't believe in Hinduism. 1069 00:48:51.820 --> 00:48:54.639 You don't believe in any of these other religions. You 1070 00:48:54.659 --> 00:48:58.309 believe in the Yahweh west of the Himalayas because you 1071 00:48:58.349 --> 00:49:00.630 grew post-Jesus society. 1072 00:49:00.929 --> 00:49:04.489 So, yeah, I do use my intuition to determine what 1073 00:49:04.530 --> 00:49:05.070 I think. 1074 00:49:04.969 --> 00:49:07.840 Is morally righteous. 1075 00:49:08.059 --> 00:49:10.460 And so my predication of that is I would like 1076 00:49:10.460 --> 00:49:13.599 to reduce unnecessary suffering. That's what the measurement would be 1077 00:49:13.599 --> 00:49:14.949 of deeming what is right. 1078 00:49:14.679 --> 00:49:16.760 And what is wrong. That's your taste, right. But in 1079 00:49:16.800 --> 00:49:19.280 a debate, we need more than taste and preference. 1080 00:49:19.420 --> 00:49:22.820 We need logical argumentation that appeal to some kind of 1081 00:49:22.880 --> 00:49:26.989 standard epistemically that grounds why others ought. 1082 00:49:27.010 --> 00:49:29.349 More tag. Why do we have to go back to tag? 1083 00:49:29.690 --> 00:49:32.230 It's not a tag. It's an internal critique, which you 1084 00:49:32.250 --> 00:49:34.250 didn't even know what it was. It's a question about, 1085 00:49:34.369 --> 00:49:37.750 if the basis... I've already grounded my position. 1086 00:49:37.809 --> 00:49:40.550 No, you didn't. It's not grounded. Grounding is a good argument. 1087 00:49:40.570 --> 00:49:42.920 The question is, what is best for society, Christianity or 1088 00:49:43.000 --> 00:49:43.980 secular humanism? 1089 00:49:44.820 --> 00:49:45.000 Right? 1090 00:49:45.019 --> 00:49:45.480 That's the question. 1091 00:49:45.519 --> 00:49:47.550 All you've got is a certain position. How do you 1092 00:49:47.619 --> 00:49:48.340 ground your logic? 1093 00:49:48.409 --> 00:49:50.610 I'm asking you that. How do you ground the laws 1094 00:49:50.650 --> 00:49:52.110 of logic? Yeah, I know. That's my question. 1095 00:49:52.190 --> 00:49:53.849 Yeah, I've already addressed this. 1096 00:49:53.869 --> 00:49:54.190 No, you didn't. 1097 00:49:54.210 --> 00:49:57.030 It would be a non-anthropomorphic thing that makes universe. 1098 00:49:57.289 --> 00:50:01.599 It's not God because God is a construct that we 1099 00:50:01.659 --> 00:50:03.920 invented like 600 B.C. 1100 00:50:04.159 --> 00:50:06.800 That's what we did. That's what humans did. We didn't 1101 00:50:06.840 --> 00:50:10.610 believe in God. So nobody believed in a deity before 1102 00:50:10.610 --> 00:50:13.250 600 B.C.? No, they did believe in deity. And it 1103 00:50:13.289 --> 00:50:15.070 wasn't invented in 600 B.C. I mean, we had 20,000 1104 00:50:15.070 --> 00:50:16.880 years of animism. And it wasn't

invented in 600 B.C.? 1105 00:50:16.889 --> 00:50:17.469 What are you talking about? 1106 00:50:17.489 --> 00:50:21.079 The point is that your concept of God in and 1107 00:50:21.139 --> 00:50:25.440 of itself is ultimately subjective. It still operates under that 1108 00:50:25.519 --> 00:50:28.960 subjective nature. So you say, claiming that my view is 1109 00:50:29.000 --> 00:50:31.710 subjective and that I have to ground my logic. despite 1110 00:50:31.750 --> 00:50:34.849 the fact that this is intuitive across every. 1111 00:50:34.670 --> 00:50:39.449 Single culture on planet Earth. It works. My system works. 1112 00:50:39.769 --> 00:50:43.800 Yours requires subjugation of anybody who's not a Christian. 1113 00:50:43.840 --> 00:50:44.820 That's the problem. 1114 00:50:45.179 --> 00:50:49.300 The question is, what's better for society, Christianity or secular humanism? 1115 00:50:49.599 --> 00:50:52.400 You can be a Christian in a secular humanist society. 1116 00:50:52.739 --> 00:50:55.179 You cannot be a secular humanist in a Christian society. 1117 00:50:55.570 --> 00:50:57.150 That wasn't a question. That was a statement. 1118 00:50:57.170 --> 00:50:59.670 It was a sermon. It was a statement. 1119 00:51:01.050 --> 00:51:07.019 It's amazing how religious and preachy the secular atheists are 1120 00:51:07.079 --> 00:51:09.260 because they're just like preachers. 1121 00:51:09.280 --> 00:51:11.639 The religious guy is telling me I'm being preachy. I'm 1122 00:51:11.659 --> 00:51:13.320 here as a philosopher. Let's say I'm not religious. 1123 00:51:13.340 --> 00:51:16.019 The religious guy is telling me I'm being preachy right now. 1124 00:51:16.039 --> 00:51:19.679 Bro, that's wild. This is my time. You're a Christian. 1125 00:51:20.059 --> 00:51:22.639 You are the preachiest motherfuckers on planet Earth. 1126 00:51:22.659 --> 00:51:23.360 I'm not here to preach. 1127 00:51:23.440 --> 00:51:24.559 What are you talking about? 1128 00:51:24.579 --> 00:51:26.280 You are the most preachy. 1129 00:51:26.420 --> 00:51:29.679 You're literally coming up with tag argument and then preaching 1130 00:51:29.719 --> 00:51:31.260 to me why I need to. 1131 00:51:31.179 --> 00:51:32.940 Ground my logic despite the fact that. 1132 00:51:32.840 --> 00:51:34.599 I've already grounded my logic. 1133 00:51:35.440 --> 00:51:39.010 Okay, can I talk now? Yeah. Thank you. 1134 00:51:41.030 --> 00:51:46.030 So, the reason that the debate comes back to philosophical 1135 00:51:46.090 --> 00:51:48.500 questions and why For the sake of argument. 1136 00:51:48.519 --> 00:51:50.650 Because you want to argue tag, not the topic. Come on. 1137 00:51:52.699 --> 00:51:55.940 I haven't referred to anything tag-related since my opening statement. 1138 00:51:56.059 --> 00:51:57.739 That was the only time I referred to anything tag-related. 1139 00:51:57.780 --> 00:52:02.869 Everything else has been an inquiry for your justification for 1140 00:52:03.389 --> 00:52:05.530 doing an

internal critique and then asking you to tell 1141 00:52:05.650 --> 00:52:08.690 me why I ought to prefer the many versus a 1142 00:52:08.789 --> 00:52:12.139 single tyrant. And the answer was my intuition. And the 1143 00:52:12.179 --> 00:52:14.599 reason that doesn't work in a debate is because if 1144 00:52:14.639 --> 00:52:17.840 the opponent can appeal to his own subjective intuition as 1145 00:52:17.880 --> 00:52:21.739 an argument, it doesn't work because the other position can 1146 00:52:21.800 --> 00:52:24.769 just appeal to that as well. Thus, it's no longer 1147 00:52:24.789 --> 00:52:26.989 a debate. And it shows that it's an irrelevant argument. 1148 00:52:27.030 --> 00:52:28.429 So you see, if you can do it in a debate, 1149 00:52:29.030 --> 00:52:33.699 I can too. And that's why it doesn't work. Regardless 1150 00:52:33.739 --> 00:52:36.139 of whether I'm a theist or whether I'm an atheist 1151 00:52:36.159 --> 00:52:38.760 or whether it's an objective or subjective position, none of 1152 00:52:38.780 --> 00:52:41.460 that has anything to do with telling me why, according 1153 00:52:41.480 --> 00:52:46.780 to your argument, we all ought to prefer your version 1154 00:52:46.900 --> 00:52:49.519 of utilitarianism versus other versions of it. 1155 00:52:49.760 --> 00:52:50.880 Actually, you don't have to. 1156 00:52:50.900 --> 00:52:53.380 Then there's nothing to debate. Thank you for conceding the debate. 1157 00:52:53.400 --> 00:52:55.159 But going back to it, let me ask you this. 1158 00:52:55.199 --> 00:52:57.179 If there's no arguments for a position, he's conceded the debate. 1159 00:52:57.199 --> 00:52:57.659 Let me ask you this, Mr. 1160 00:52:57.820 --> 00:53:01.519 Christianity is better than secular humanism. Let me just ask 1161 00:53:01.539 --> 00:53:04.829 you this very simply, right? Were the Crusades good? 1162 00:53:04.849 --> 00:53:07.409 To a degree, yes. 1163 00:53:07.769 --> 00:53:08.289 Okay, bro. 1164 00:53:08.369 --> 00:53:08.809 There you go. 1165 00:53:08.869 --> 00:53:09.309 Mic drop. 1166 00:53:09.510 --> 00:53:09.929 Mic drop. 1167 00:53:09.949 --> 00:53:11.250 You just got fucking owned right there. 1168 00:53:11.469 --> 00:53:14.480 Are you saying that the Crusades were good? You're saying 1169 00:53:14.519 --> 00:53:17.559 the Crusades were good? Dude, they even killed other Christians. 1170 00:53:17.619 --> 00:53:18.340 You psycho. 1171 00:53:18.400 --> 00:53:20.199 I said to a degree, yes. So no, this is 1172 00:53:20.239 --> 00:53:21.639 just an ad hominem attack. 1173 00:53:21.679 --> 00:53:21.940 No, no, no. 1174 00:53:22.039 --> 00:53:25.840 You said that the Crusades were good, my dude. And 1175 00:53:25.860 --> 00:53:29.420 you're sitting there arguing with me. How do I ground 1176 00:53:29.500 --> 00:53:32.119 my logic? How do I ground my morality? 1177 00:53:32.179 --> 00:53:36.429 You just said the death of millions of people. 1178 00:53:36.329 --> 00:53:40.090 Over the course of hundreds of

years was a good thing, guys. 1179 00:53:40.389 --> 00:53:42.030 That's a great argument. Good work, dude. 1180 00:53:42.170 --> 00:53:45.309 If secularism is true, if atheism is true, there's nothing 1181 00:53:45.329 --> 00:53:46.269 wrong with everybody dying. 1182 00:53:46.289 --> 00:53:49.510 There's nothing wrong with... Shut up. Good grief, dude. 1183 00:53:49.929 --> 00:53:52.170 There's nothing wrong with me going out on a crusade 1184 00:53:52.250 --> 00:53:55.449 as the Queezo Saturday once again, like Paul's jihad throughout 1185 00:53:55.489 --> 00:53:58.489 the universe, killing 82 billion worlds. Nothing wrong with that 1186 00:53:58.570 --> 00:54:00.710 because there's nothing wrong. 1187 00:54:01.030 --> 00:54:03.789 Yeah, you're the one that's arguing that, not me. 1188 00:54:03.909 --> 00:54:06.280 This guy is so stupid that if I do a hypothetical, 1189 00:54:06.300 --> 00:54:10.320 he thinks I'm arguing. He thinks a hypothetical is me arguing. Now, 1190 00:54:10.420 --> 00:54:14.940 on the Crusades itself, the Crusades were largely defensive. 1191 00:54:14.960 --> 00:54:17.300 You said the Crusades are good, dude. I'm answering your 1192 00:54:17.340 --> 00:54:20.139 stupid question. The Crusades were. 1193 00:54:20.800 --> 00:54:24.110 By the way, the trans aerobics is down the hall. 1194 00:54:24.139 --> 00:54:25.550 I think you wanted to go into there. The trans aerobics, 1195 00:54:25.630 --> 00:54:28.630 good one. You got your aerobics gear on. All right, 1196 00:54:28.969 --> 00:54:29.710 I'll join you there. 1197 00:54:29.730 --> 00:54:33.269 So the Crusades, the reason that they were called were 1198 00:54:33.349 --> 00:54:39.050 partly defensive due to Muslims taking Christian lands in Holy Land. Now, 1199 00:54:39.110 --> 00:54:42.110 there were people amongst the Crusaders who engaged in all 1200 00:54:42.170 --> 00:54:46.309 kinds of atrocious actions, including in the early 1200s, sacking 1201 00:54:46.489 --> 00:54:48.739 and killing Byzantine Orthodox Christians. 1202 00:54:48.840 --> 00:54:50.539 So obviously, I disagree with that. 1203 00:54:51.050 --> 00:54:55.110 But the premise of the Crusades, like many of the, say, 1204 00:54:55.150 --> 00:55:00.130 Serbian kings or Dracula himself, they fought Ottomans, they fought 1205 00:55:00.170 --> 00:55:02.760 Muslims to keep them from encroaching into Europe. 1206 00:55:02.840 --> 00:55:04.639 So in that sense... So it's good to kill the 1207 00:55:04.679 --> 00:55:06.780 Muslims but not the Christians? In that sense... I just 1208 00:55:06.800 --> 00:55:10.900 want to be clear that you're... Absolutely correct. That's correct. Perfect, logical, 1209 00:55:11.260 --> 00:55:15.480 godly worldview. That makes sense. Defensive posture is justifiable in 1210 00:55:15.519 --> 00:55:16.340 a Christian worldview. 1211 00:55:16.360 --> 00:55:17.590 You're not the literal Queezus. 1212 00:55:17.630 --> 00:55:21.590 His own system is the basis for why 60 plus 1213 00:55:21.650 --> 00:55:25.050 million people were killed in China and 60 plus million perhaps. 1214 00:55:25.510 --> 00:55:27.730 Russians were killed by the Bolsheviks. 1215 00:55:27.789 --> 00:55:31.980 So notice the secular atheist position. 1216 00:55:31.000 --> 00:55:35.440 Justifies massive depopulation. I don't argue for authoritarianism. That's ridiculous. 1217 00:55:35.800 --> 00:55:38.489 I'm saying that your position has no weight. Your position 1218 00:55:38.530 --> 00:55:39.199 has no. 1219 00:55:38.949 --> 00:55:46.519 Objective The position has no objective way to say that 1220 00:55:46.539 --> 00:55:51.170 it is morally wrong to genocide people that's consistent other 1221 00:55:51.210 --> 00:55:53.280 than your own subjective, I don't like it. 1222 00:55:53.409 --> 00:55:57.010 No, it's unnecessary suffering. It's just unnecessary suffering. Why does 1223 00:55:57.030 --> 00:55:58.710 that even matter? Why does the suffering exist? In a 1224 00:55:58.730 --> 00:56:01.219 meaningless universe, it doesn't matter. Or should we reduce it? 1225 00:56:01.630 --> 00:56:02.340 It's very simple. 1226 00:56:02.449 --> 00:56:02.550 Why? 1227 00:56:03.110 --> 00:56:03.460 I don't know. 1228 00:56:03.500 --> 00:56:06.079 Like, for example, working out. I mean, working out, that 1229 00:56:06.119 --> 00:56:09.780 causes suffering. Right? But it's for a reason. You do 1230 00:56:09.820 --> 00:56:11.179 so because it's better for you. 1231 00:56:11.380 --> 00:56:12.260 That's great. Okay. 1232 00:56:12.510 --> 00:56:13.969 So we don't have a problem with the concept of 1233 00:56:14.030 --> 00:56:16.489 working out. But what if somebody doesn't want to work out? 1234 00:56:16.670 --> 00:56:16.909 Okay. 1235 00:56:17.460 --> 00:56:18.460 You don't make them do that. 1236 00:56:18.739 --> 00:56:19.019 Why? 1237 00:56:19.039 --> 00:56:22.420 Because it's unnecessary suffering. It's up to each individual to 1238 00:56:22.460 --> 00:56:26.010 decide that as to what they consider to be unnecessary suffering. 1239 00:56:26.090 --> 00:56:27.800 For what is suffering to others? 1240 00:56:28.090 --> 00:56:29.909 I mean, I could imagine you, there's probably a ton 1241 00:56:29.929 --> 00:56:32.710 of people around here that would not want to hear 1242 00:56:33.030 --> 00:56:35.710 a debate of a guy saying that the Crusades were good. 1243 00:56:35.750 --> 00:56:37.190 That would be unnecessary suffering. 1244 00:56:37.210 --> 00:56:39.090 So they'd leave the room. It's that simple. 1245 00:56:39.510 --> 00:56:42.469 Everybody can operate under my worldview. I don't need them 1246 00:56:42.530 --> 00:56:46.610 to read 20 different books and establishing transcendental arguments. 1247 00:56:46.769 --> 00:56:49.139 It's definitely based on no reading. We can tell us 1248 00:56:49.159 --> 00:56:49.860 based on zero. 1249 00:56:49.920 --> 00:56:52.519 And by the way, just FYI, you're the one that 1250 00:56:52.559 --> 00:56:55.639 is effectively the Kwisatz

Haderach here. You're saying that I 1251 00:56:55.780 --> 00:56:58.510 am the Kwisatz Haderach, but it's just projection. Because you're 1252 00:56:58.690 --> 00:57:02.929 arguing the concept of Christians wanting to go there and 1253 00:57:03.030 --> 00:57:03.989 kill Muslims. 1254 00:57:04.250 --> 00:57:04.550 Why? 1255 00:57:04.570 --> 00:57:06.349 Because, I don't know, they took the land and so 1256 00:57:06.389 --> 00:57:07.909 we got to take it back and, you know, they're 1257 00:57:07.969 --> 00:57:09.909 bad and we're good because we're white, they're brown. 1258 00:57:10.190 --> 00:57:12.510 It's ridiculous. Who made that argument? It's straw man. You did. 1259 00:57:12.719 --> 00:57:14.239 You made that argument. I did not say anything about 1260 00:57:14.260 --> 00:57:15.239 we're white, they're brown. 1261 00:57:15.510 --> 00:57:15.719 Yeah. 1262 00:57:15.880 --> 00:57:18.460 No, I didn't. Sorry, sorry. All you have is straw man. 1263 00:57:18.679 --> 00:57:24.019 Sorry, what you said was Christians were the good ones, 1264 00:57:24.260 --> 00:57:26.579 but the Muslims were the bad ones. But I'm saying, hey, 1265 00:57:27.070 --> 00:57:29.199 I don't care if there's Muslims around me. I don't 1266 00:57:29.239 --> 00:57:32.280 care if Muslims exist. As long as they're not hurting me, 1267 00:57:32.579 --> 00:57:33.380 I don't want to hurt them. 1268 00:57:33.739 --> 00:57:34.360 They shouldn't hurt me. 1269 00:57:34.360 --> 00:57:34.679 It's that simple. 1270 00:57:34.699 --> 00:57:36.159 You're going to find out in your blue cities that 1271 00:57:36.199 --> 00:57:39.510 the Muslims don't care about your secular ethics and that 1272 00:57:39.530 --> 00:57:40.090 you don't care. 1273 00:57:40.110 --> 00:57:40.489 Oh, you're right. 1274 00:57:40.530 --> 00:57:42.349 Yeah, they're going to come after us. So that way, 1275 00:57:42.590 --> 00:57:45.090 that means every single one of you has got to 1276 00:57:45.110 --> 00:57:46.130 start harming Muslims. 1277 00:57:46.190 --> 00:57:49.909 That makes sense. You sound like a psycho, dude. You literally, 1278 00:57:49.929 --> 00:57:53.070 you are LARPing crusades. You're a psychopath, my dude. 1279 00:57:53.110 --> 00:57:57.389 You're arguing the psychotic Queezac-Otoroc thing. I'm not arguing that. 1280 00:57:57.670 --> 00:57:59.969 Okay, FED, you're glowing over here, dude. Come on, nobody 1281 00:58:00.070 --> 00:58:03.369 even said that. Self-defense is not arming the Muslims. No, 1282 00:58:03.449 --> 00:58:05.570 I didn't, but you know I didn't argue that. It's 1283 00:58:05.590 --> 00:58:08.179 not even close. By the way, you guys can. 1284 00:58:07.949 --> 00:58:11.239 Be Christian in the secular humanist world, but you cannot 1285 00:58:11.280 --> 00:58:13.500 be a secular humanist in a Christian world. Hell, you 1286 00:58:13.519 --> 00:58:15.460 can't be a Muslim in a Christian world either. 1287 00:58:16.480 --> 00:58:17.059 According to him. 1288 00:58:17.079 --> 00:58:18.380

I mean, he was in there arguing. 1289 00:58:18.440 --> 00:58:20.440 How are you existing if you can't be a secular 1290 00:58:20.539 --> 00:58:22.030 ethicist in our world? 1291 00:58:22.070 --> 00:58:23.329 How are you here existing? 1292 00:58:23.389 --> 00:58:26.429 How am I existing? Because it's a secular fucking society 1293 00:58:26.469 --> 00:58:27.369 right now, you idiot. 1294 00:58:27.730 --> 00:58:28.670 What? 1295 00:58:28.929 --> 00:58:31.590 It's currently a secular government. What's the First Amendment? My 1296 00:58:31.630 --> 00:58:32.380 name's First Amender. 1297 00:58:32.719 --> 00:58:33.000 Hi. 1298 00:58:33.019 --> 00:58:33.079 Hi. 1299 00:58:35.340 --> 00:58:38.239 How does that prove secularism? Because the people that drafted 1300 00:58:38.280 --> 00:58:40.360 that were not... The First Amendment. They were not... Were 1301 00:58:40.380 --> 00:58:43.460 they secularists? Yes. No, they weren't. Yeah, they were. Have 1302 00:58:43.480 --> 00:58:47.090 you read Locke? Yeah, they were. Have you read John Locke? Yeah, 1303 00:58:47.130 --> 00:58:49.289 I have. Okay, was he a secularist? No, he was 1304 00:58:49.329 --> 00:58:50.349 not a secularist. Thank you. 1305 00:58:50.369 --> 00:58:52.849 But he does believe the separation of church and state, 1306 00:58:52.869 --> 00:58:53.590 which would make it. 1307 00:58:53.809 --> 00:58:56.230 So you can be... But he's not a secular ethicist. 1308 00:58:56.429 --> 00:58:58.409 You can, by the way... He's not a secular ethicist. 1309 00:58:58.510 --> 00:59:01.739 You can, by the way, be a Christian, but also 1310 00:59:01.800 --> 00:59:03.219 believe in a secular government. 1311 00:59:03.260 --> 00:59:03.840 Did you know that? 1312 00:59:04.079 --> 00:59:05.539 John Locke's a great example of that. 1313 00:59:05.659 --> 00:59:06.710 He was a Christian. 1314 00:59:06.829 --> 00:59:09.969 He believed in God, but he wanted the separation of church. 1315 00:59:10.179 --> 00:59:13.199 and state because he saw the negative outcomes of government 1316 00:59:13.380 --> 00:59:18.340 controlling religion. If you guys want a less controlling government, 1317 00:59:18.639 --> 00:59:21.199 then what you should uphold is the First Amendment. 1318 00:59:21.489 --> 00:59:22.329 Not the other way around. 1319 00:59:22.349 --> 00:59:25.070 This is actually an argument in favor of secular humanism, 1320 00:59:25.329 --> 00:59:27.750 not Christianity, because Christianity will sit there and tell you 1321 00:59:27.969 --> 00:59:29.730 that you need to start burning witches. 1322 00:59:29.489 --> 00:59:32.170 And brown people. I'm sorry, bro, this is vile. 1323 00:59:32.210 --> 00:59:35.550 So the framers were not universally atheists, nor were they secularists. 1324 00:59:35.639 --> 00:59:38.500 Most of them had a Christian context, a common law, 1325 00:59:38.659 --> 00:59:42.519 and canon law was a huge influence on the American Constitution. 1326 00:59:43.139 --> 00:59:46.719 The Roman Republic and its laws were, and of course 1327 00:59:46.840 --> 00:59:48.889 Byzantine law played a key role in this as well, 1328 00:59:48.949 --> 00:59:50.289 but he doesn't know about canon law, so I don't 1329 00:59:50.309 --> 00:59:52.190 think we need to go there, but No, it's just 1330 00:59:52.230 --> 00:59:54.510 simply not the case that the fact that there was 1331 00:59:54.570 --> 00:59:57.739 a First Amendment in some way somehow necessitates or proves 1332 00:59:57.889 --> 00:59:58.800 secular ethics. 1333 00:59:59.469 --> 01:00:01.199 It does. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. 1334 01:00:01.219 --> 01:00:04.119 It literally argues the separation. Well, because from the writings 1335 01:00:04.159 --> 01:00:04.940 of the founding fathers. 1336 01:00:04.960 --> 01:00:05.840 For instance. But you just said that. 1337 01:00:05.860 --> 01:00:07.659 The writings of the founding fathers, they remember what it 1338 01:00:07.679 --> 01:00:09.699 was like to live. You just said that a Christian. 1339 01:00:09.739 --> 01:00:10.820 Hey, let me talk. 1340 01:00:11.619 --> 01:00:14.460 Let's say, for example, that you have, that they were 1341 01:00:14.960 --> 01:00:18.280 dealing with Henry VIII at the time, and that Henry 1342 01:00:18.340 --> 01:00:20.739 VIII said, we're going to have our own church here. 1343 01:00:21.320 --> 01:00:23.550 screw the Catholic Church, we're going to do our own thing. 1344 01:00:23.739 --> 01:00:26.949 They persecuted a bunch of other Christians, and they realized 1345 01:00:27.010 --> 01:00:31.710 that it is the melding of religion and government that 1346 01:00:31.829 --> 01:00:34.929 leads to a ton of human suffering and atrocities. 1347 01:00:34.969 --> 01:00:35.800 Yeah, I'll just simply argue that. 1348 01:00:35.820 --> 01:00:38.440 And so, when the Founding Fathers, regardless of whether or 1349 01:00:38.500 --> 01:00:42.820 not that they are Christians, they realized the error of that, 1350 01:00:43.219 --> 01:00:46.010 and in order to resolve it, have to have a 1351 01:00:46.190 --> 01:00:51.579 separation between government and religion. This is a necessary. 1352 01:00:51.019 --> 01:00:54.639 Component of what the United States is. It's not a fallacy. 1353 01:00:54.739 --> 01:00:57.099 It's pointing out why. 1354 01:00:56.679 --> 01:01:01.099 Secular humanism is better than a Christian theocracy. Theocracies do worse. 1355 01:01:01.219 --> 01:01:03.239 They do, in virtually every metric. 1356 01:01:03.260 --> 01:01:04.940 From education to. 1357 01:01:04.940 --> 01:01:08.210 Social outcome to health care to just about everything. 1358 01:01:08.329 --> 01:01:08.869 It's true. 1359 01:01:09.130 --> 01:01:11.630 Look at the southern states compared to freaking northern states. 1360 01:01:11.889 --> 01:01:15.110 The ones that are more biblical, they do worse. They 1361 01:01:15.309 --> 01:01:17.849 do worse. It's true. They do worse. 1362 01:01:18.849 --> 01:01:23.030 So, no, this is simply fallacious lines of

argumentation because 1363 01:01:23.070 --> 01:01:25.289 if you look at the Founding Fathers, many of. 1364 01:01:25.289 --> 01:01:27.329 Them, most of them, let me finish my argument. 1365 01:01:27.349 --> 01:01:27.909 Shut up. 1366 01:01:28.650 --> 01:01:32.550 So most of the Founding Fathers, again, you are wrong. 1367 01:01:32.590 --> 01:01:35.820 It's very easy to see that because the context, most 1368 01:01:35.840 --> 01:01:38.059 of them were theists of some kind. They did not 1369 01:01:38.139 --> 01:01:41.300 argue for a radical separation of God from the state, 1370 01:01:41.420 --> 01:01:45.110 which is the secular lie. They argued for a separation 1371 01:01:45.130 --> 01:01:48.050 of church and state, which already existed even in Byzantium. 1372 01:01:48.110 --> 01:01:49.909 The Byzantine double-headed. 1373 01:01:49.610 --> 01:01:51.889 Eagle symbolizes— Why is he so fantasizing about Byzantium? 1374 01:01:51.909 --> 01:01:52.989 Shut up, dude. What the fuck? 1375 01:01:53.250 --> 01:01:56.739 So he can't handle me giving a position because it 1376 01:01:56.760 --> 01:01:59.360 refutes all the nonsense that he says. The Byzantine double-headed 1377 01:01:59.400 --> 01:02:03.039 eagle symbolizes separation of church and state with one body 1378 01:02:03.059 --> 01:02:06.059 of the people sharing the same faith, having rulers and 1379 01:02:06.199 --> 01:02:07.860 church leaders that have the same faith. 1380 01:02:08.289 --> 01:02:09.489 That's a separation. 1381 01:02:09.590 --> 01:02:13.010 That same principle is utilized when the founding fathers draft 1382 01:02:13.170 --> 01:02:15.550 their ideas of what ought to be the principles of 1383 01:02:15.769 --> 01:02:20.340 social governance under God, which is still referenced, but not 1384 01:02:21.219 --> 01:02:23.500 the combining of the church and the state. So I 1385 01:02:23.539 --> 01:02:27.420 would agree that Henry VIII's principle of being the head 1386 01:02:27.460 --> 01:02:29.820 of the church and the state is wrong, but that's 1387 01:02:29.860 --> 01:02:32.900 because I have a basis in our position and our tradition. 1388 01:02:32.559 --> 01:02:33.079 To do so. 1389 01:02:33.739 --> 01:02:37.030 In his position, there is no reason why There ought 1390 01:02:37.090 --> 01:02:42.369 not be a technocrat who enforces the will to dominate, 1391 01:02:42.409 --> 01:02:45.280 the quixote's how to, again, let's say Peter Till decides 1392 01:02:45.320 --> 01:02:47.820 he wants to be the technate. That's an actual position 1393 01:02:47.840 --> 01:02:51.940 that some of those people in the Curtis Yarvin circles, 1394 01:02:51.960 --> 01:02:52.559 they have a technique idea. 1395 01:02:52.579 --> 01:02:53.840 Yeah, I mean, I think these people need to go 1396 01:02:53.880 --> 01:02:54.239 to jail. 1397 01:02:54.260 --> 01:02:55.380 I agree with you. I'm glad that you think that, 1398 01:02:55.400 --> 01:02:58.920 but that's subjective that you don't like it. It's not subjective. 1399 01:02:58.980 --> 01:03:00.139 I think it would produce unnecessary human suffering. 1400 01:03:00.159 --> 01:03:00.920 You've been arguing this whole. 1401 01:03:00.840 --> 01:03:04.789 Time that it's... Well, let's say that a technocrat can 1402 01:03:04.829 --> 01:03:06.550 control everybody to reduce suffering. 1403 01:03:06.570 --> 01:03:07.250 Should that be the case? 1404 01:03:07.570 --> 01:03:11.260 To reduce unnecessary human suffering? On your position, there's no 1405 01:03:11.280 --> 01:03:13.159 reason why that couldn't be. I would love to see 1406 01:03:13.219 --> 01:03:14.219 a simulation of that. 1407 01:03:14.320 --> 01:03:16.659 How would that work? Would it work? Is it theoretically possible? 1408 01:03:16.739 --> 01:03:17.380 I don't know. Maybe. 1409 01:03:17.400 --> 01:03:20.239 Let's say everybody's jacked into a matrix and a technocracy. 1410 01:03:20.510 --> 01:03:22.170 If it did work, then people would like it. But 1411 01:03:22.190 --> 01:03:24.829 I don't argue with technocracy. These billionaires are awful people. 1412 01:03:24.849 --> 01:03:27.369 There's pleasure inputs coming in, and they're totally controlled. There's 1413 01:03:27.409 --> 01:03:27.829 no more pain. 1414 01:03:27.849 --> 01:03:29.849 Again, I'm not arguing on basis of pleasure. 1415 01:03:29.869 --> 01:03:33.409 I'm arguing on basis of wanting to reduce unnecessary suffering. 1416 01:03:33.780 --> 01:03:36.500 Not everybody is going to have the same pleasure points. 1417 01:03:36.559 --> 01:03:37.460 And I'm not saying that. 1418 01:03:37.400 --> 01:03:39.119 Everybody should have infinite pleasure. 1419 01:03:39.139 --> 01:03:41.349 There's a limit to how much pleasure you should have. 1420 01:03:43.380 --> 01:03:47.239 If a technocrat created a matrix-type society where everybody was 1421 01:03:47.340 --> 01:03:50.400 in coom pods and they only got inputs of pleasure 1422 01:03:50.440 --> 01:03:53.610 points and no more pain or suffering, in his position, 1423 01:03:53.650 --> 01:03:56.190 there's no reason why that's not a good and ought 1424 01:03:56.210 --> 01:03:56.389 to happen. 1425 01:03:56.409 --> 01:03:57.829 I don't know if everybody wants that. 1426 01:03:57.909 --> 01:03:59.289 I don't think everybody would want that. Who cares what 1427 01:03:59.309 --> 01:04:00.829 everybody wants if it's a pleasure principle? 1428 01:04:00.849 --> 01:04:03.679 That would be unnecessary suffering. You're making people do something 1429 01:04:03.699 --> 01:04:04.420 that they don't want. 1430 01:04:04.440 --> 01:04:06.179 No, because they're going to eliminate the suffering. 1431 01:04:07.179 --> 01:04:10.420 I'm saying that they're okay with the idea of that 1432 01:04:10.719 --> 01:04:12.159 unnecessary suffering, so that's okay. 1433 01:04:12.179 --> 01:04:15.550 How do you know the difference between eliminating suffering versus 1434 01:04:15.710 --> 01:04:16.769 giving pleasure points? 1435 01:04:16.929 --> 01:04:19.789 I'm

saying that that is unnecessary suffering. Forcing somebody in 1436 01:04:19.829 --> 01:04:23.210 the pod is going to cause unnecessary suffering. People don't 1437 01:04:23.230 --> 01:04:25.429 want to do it, and so it makes people suffer. 1438 01:04:25.570 --> 01:04:27.550 Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? 1439 01:04:27.570 --> 01:04:30.239 Which is the higher principle on your system to choose 1440 01:04:30.300 --> 01:04:32.739 between the right of the individual to choose what he 1441 01:04:32.800 --> 01:04:36.719 wants versus the technocrat Mandating that everybody go into the 1442 01:04:36.780 --> 01:04:38.840 coon pod to only have pleasure, no more pain. 1443 01:04:39.260 --> 01:04:42.000 Well, because you're forcing people to go into something that 1444 01:04:42.019 --> 01:04:42.719 they don't want. 1445 01:04:42.559 --> 01:04:43.409 To be a part of. So what? 1446 01:04:43.449 --> 01:04:45.789 That's the question. How do you know that that's preferable 1447 01:04:45.809 --> 01:04:49.210 to the other option? I am preferable to a society 1448 01:04:49.269 --> 01:04:51.469 that upholds the autonomy of every individual. 1449 01:04:51.690 --> 01:04:53.250 So how do you know that that principle is higher 1450 01:04:53.289 --> 01:04:54.210 than the forcing principle? 1451 01:04:54.269 --> 01:04:59.269 Okay, well... I would argue the autonomy of individuals because 1452 01:04:59.630 --> 01:05:03.690 it in and of itself reduces unnecessary suffering. We've observed 1453 01:05:03.760 --> 01:05:09.260 societies where they have revoked individuals' ability to make decisions 1454 01:05:09.300 --> 01:05:12.659 for themselves, and we find that it lives worse quality 1455 01:05:12.679 --> 01:05:17.460 of living standards. People live worse livelihoods. People are more unhappy. 1456 01:05:17.980 --> 01:05:22.000 Authoritarian governments usually result in more negative outcomes. 1457 01:05:22.019 --> 01:05:22.840 That's how it works. 1458 01:05:24.239 --> 01:05:26.610 Just let you know there's 10 minutes left of the 1459 01:05:26.630 --> 01:05:29.969 open dialogue to start wrapping up, concluding your points on 1460 01:05:30.010 --> 01:05:31.849 what you've been talking about for the last 50 minutes, 1461 01:05:31.909 --> 01:05:33.289 and then we'll go into the Q & A. So 1462 01:05:33.369 --> 01:05:37.230 it's not necessarily closing statements, but start wrapping up the 1463 01:05:37.250 --> 01:05:38.550 loose ends that you've made over. 1464 01:05:38.469 --> 01:05:39.969 The last 50 minutes. 1465 01:05:40.010 --> 01:05:42.710 So I think that this is a great test case 1466 01:05:42.769 --> 01:05:46.389 example because you have technocrats in Silicon Valley. You have people, say, 1467 01:05:46.409 --> 01:05:49.690 for example, in the Sam Beckman Freed circles who believed 1468 01:05:49.730 --> 01:05:53.090 in effective altruism, and the principle there is If the 1469 01:05:53.130 --> 01:05:56.079 technocrats can create a society where, let's say

for the 1470 01:05:56.119 --> 01:05:59.099 sake of argument, people live in a Matrix pod, a 1471 01:05:59.280 --> 01:06:04.079 Oculus Rift pod or whatever, and they have pain eliminated 1472 01:06:04.099 --> 01:06:07.849 from their lives and they only experience pleasure inputs, right? 1473 01:06:07.929 --> 01:06:11.889 This has actually been discussed. In his position, there's no 1474 01:06:12.170 --> 01:06:17.929 reason or basis to prefer the individual autonomy to disagree 1475 01:06:17.949 --> 01:06:21.949 with that versus whether or not it's better for everybody 1476 01:06:21.989 --> 01:06:24.659 to be in the pot eliminating suffering. So notice he 1477 01:06:24.699 --> 01:06:28.480 had two positions, eliminating all suffering, which is very important 1478 01:06:28.500 --> 01:06:31.820 for him, and the individual autonomy. The two things are 1479 01:06:31.940 --> 01:06:34.440 incompatible if you try to figure out, well, in this 1480 01:06:34.480 --> 01:06:36.619 test case scenario, which one ought we prefer? 1481 01:06:36.639 --> 01:06:38.849 You want to get the straw out of your hat. 1482 01:06:38.869 --> 01:06:40.550 The autonomy, just that one. But I never said. 1483 01:06:40.610 --> 01:06:45.409 Yeah, no, I never said that. Which one's preferable and why? 1484 01:06:45.949 --> 01:06:49.440 I never said, like, infinite pleasure. From the beginning, I 1485 01:06:49.500 --> 01:06:52.639 never said that. And then number two, I didn't say suffering. 1486 01:06:53.019 --> 01:06:56.300 I said unnecessary suffering. I even gave you an example 1487 01:06:56.760 --> 01:06:58.500 of instances of suffering where. 1488 01:06:58.340 --> 01:07:00.500 It is indeed necessary. Would it be better to be 1489 01:07:00.519 --> 01:07:01.519 in the pod and have no suffering? 1490 01:07:02.360 --> 01:07:06.380 Again, you are revoking individual decisions for people to make 1491 01:07:06.400 --> 01:07:09.199 their own actions. And because you are doing that, that 1492 01:07:09.340 --> 01:07:12.389 causes unnecessary suffering and therefore would not be okay to do. 1493 01:07:12.409 --> 01:07:14.690 But we're going to eliminate all suffering. However, if somebody... 1494 01:07:14.789 --> 01:07:18.030 wanted to be in a pod like that. Okay, do it. 1495 01:07:18.050 --> 01:07:20.309 Who cares? Do it. I don't care. You do it. 1496 01:07:20.389 --> 01:07:21.050 That's up to you. 1497 01:07:21.349 --> 01:07:23.210 But I don't want to go in a weird pod. 1498 01:07:23.250 --> 01:07:23.510 I don't know. 1499 01:07:23.530 --> 01:07:24.269 It sounds kind of weird. 1500 01:07:24.289 --> 01:07:26.909 I think I'd be okay with being in the world. 1501 01:07:27.050 --> 01:07:30.469 I'm illustrating the inconsistency of how you don't have a 1502 01:07:30.489 --> 01:07:32.389 basis to choose which one is preferable to the other. 1503 01:07:32.409 --> 01:07:32.610 Hold on. 1504 01:07:32.610 --> 01:07:36.280 Hey, when it came to Christianity versus secular humanism, you 1505 01:07:36.320 --> 01:07:39.179 said that Christianity was better and even goes so far 1506 01:07:39.239 --> 01:07:42.519 to say that Christianity is so good that the Crusades 1507 01:07:42.539 --> 01:07:42.880 were good. 1508 01:07:42.980 --> 01:07:45.610 It's completely insane. It is insane. So they were a 1509 01:07:45.610 --> 01:07:47.269 defensive measure, and there was good and bad. 1510 01:07:47.650 --> 01:07:51.070 And I'd like to segue here, actually, with the last 1511 01:07:51.219 --> 01:07:54.059 five minutes. Again, as you've mentioned a few times, the 1512 01:07:54.099 --> 01:07:58.159 topic is Christianity versus secular humanism. Which is better for society? 1513 01:07:58.579 --> 01:08:01.800 Take these last five minutes to answer that specific prompt 1514 01:08:01.880 --> 01:08:06.079 there in your favor. Not in your favor. How do 1515 01:08:06.099 --> 01:08:09.530 you think you show yours is better for society? 1516 01:08:10.570 --> 01:08:12.599 Is this timed per person or. 1517 01:08:14.829 --> 01:08:16.750 I prefer that because it's not really getting anywhere. 1518 01:08:17.390 --> 01:08:17.930 What's that? 1519 01:08:17.970 --> 01:08:19.630 It's not really getting anywhere back and forth. We'll go 1520 01:08:19.649 --> 01:08:20.369 two and a half minutes. 1521 01:08:20.670 --> 01:08:21.670 On each one. 1522 01:08:21.689 --> 01:08:23.430 Jay, you started off first on the last one, so 1523 01:08:23.449 --> 01:08:25.909 first off, you can go first on this one. 1524 01:08:26.029 --> 01:08:31.090 Two and a half minutes to how your point is. 1525 01:08:31.310 --> 01:08:32.470 Better for society. 1526 01:08:32.529 --> 01:08:35.970 Yeah, I mean, you'll note that what I said to 1527 01:08:36.010 --> 01:08:38.649 you guys as a part of what I would consider 1528 01:08:38.689 --> 01:08:41.949 the best society, a secular humanist society, you can live 1529 01:08:41.989 --> 01:08:44.449 your life as you see fit. You can be a Christian, 1530 01:08:44.510 --> 01:08:47.029 you could be a Muslim, you could be non-religious, and 1531 01:08:47.050 --> 01:08:49.800 all of those things are perfectly okay. But, of course, 1532 01:08:50.359 --> 01:08:53.279 if you're a Muslim, then, you know, I mean, I 1533 01:08:53.300 --> 01:08:56.750 guess the Crusades are somehow a good thing, according to them. 1534 01:08:56.810 --> 01:09:01.399 I mean, it's just completely insane. I mean, I could 1535 01:09:01.420 --> 01:09:04.100 see if somebody invaded your land, you have a right 1536 01:09:04.140 --> 01:09:06.199 to take that land. But that, I mean, there's many 1537 01:09:06.239 --> 01:09:09.720 different crusades and some of which were stolen land from Muslims. 1538 01:09:09.779 --> 01:09:14.779 But regardless of that point, he's sitting there defending the crusades, 1539 01:09:14.939 --> 01:09:19.229 which killed everybody, not just Muslims. It killed Christians, too. 1540 01:09:19.310 --> 01:09:21.890 And he's saying that that is what's best for society.

1541 01:09:22.189 --> 01:09:26.670 He had to list a country from what? What? 670 1542 01:09:26.670 --> 01:09:30.390 BC to say that's the best society I figured it 1543 01:09:30.510 --> 01:09:35.479 out it was 670 BC Byzantine whatever bullshit bro go 1544 01:09:35.520 --> 01:09:37.760 to the Netherlands it's like really nice there like I 1545 01:09:37.800 --> 01:09:40.020 think you're gonna live like a really nice quality of 1546 01:09:40.079 --> 01:09:42.840 life and realize that people are pretty happy And, you know, 1547 01:09:43.119 --> 01:09:46.680 you could be LGBT and Christian, Catholic, whatever you want. 1548 01:09:46.960 --> 01:09:50.699 And you know what we'll notice? There's no burning of witches. 1549 01:09:51.100 --> 01:09:55.029 We don't have instances where we kill somebody because it's 1550 01:09:55.090 --> 01:09:58.329 not the right kind of Christianity. I fear the day 1551 01:09:58.810 --> 01:10:02.229 that if Christians do take a hold of power and 1552 01:10:02.270 --> 01:10:05.609 that the United States becomes a Christian theocracy, the next 1553 01:10:05.670 --> 01:10:09.350 question is, is that Peace doesn't actually happen because the 1554 01:10:09.390 --> 01:10:13.689 question becomes what version of Christianity are you going to 1555 01:10:13.770 --> 01:10:16.359 uphold and are the Scientologists going to be able to 1556 01:10:16.399 --> 01:10:18.460 defend themselves? We're pretty close to Clearwater, by the way. 1557 01:10:19.640 --> 01:10:21.779 The point that I'm trying to make... is that, hey, 1558 01:10:22.010 --> 01:10:23.520 do we want to live in a society that is 1559 01:10:23.869 --> 01:10:27.069 a secular world where you can believe in whatever you 1560 01:10:27.109 --> 01:10:29.529 want to believe, and that's okay, and we're going to 1561 01:10:29.569 --> 01:10:32.090 go sing kumbaya and go, you know, have a drink 1562 01:10:32.130 --> 01:10:34.369 together later? Or, I don't know, if you're a Muslim, 1563 01:10:34.390 --> 01:10:36.590 you may not want to drink. I'll get you an 1564 01:10:36.649 --> 01:10:40.069 apple juice. You know, I think that's better for society 1565 01:10:40.109 --> 01:10:42.029 than a Christian theocracy, and that's all I have to say. 1566 01:10:42.090 --> 01:10:42.390 Thank you. 1567 01:10:45.729 --> 01:10:46.779 Well, as you've seen.... 1568 01:10:48.409 --> 01:10:51.859 Constant straw man, constant fallacies, nothing that I even argued. 1569 01:10:51.880 --> 01:10:55.060 He asked specifically, what's a better society? I said, Byzantium 1570 01:10:55.100 --> 01:10:58.020 is a better society. He then straw man that and saying. 1571 01:10:58.039 --> 01:11:00.619 You said that's the best society ever from 600 BC. 1572 01:11:00.699 --> 01:11:04.079 I didn't say that. So straw man there. I think 1573 01:11:04.100 --> 01:11:07.600 the technocrat example was a perfect way of illustrating the 1574 01:11:08.260 --> 01:11:12.579 incoherence and the impossibility within his system and internal critique, 1575 01:11:12.600 --> 01:11:15.520 which he didn't know what that even was, of showing 1576 01:11:15.560 --> 01:11:18.600 how he doesn't have a basis to tell us why 1577 01:11:19.439 --> 01:11:24.220 it's preferable to choose the individual's autonomy versus the technocrat 1578 01:11:24.300 --> 01:11:28.359 in a technique putting everybody into a coon pod and 1579 01:11:28.399 --> 01:11:31.970 giving them only pleasure inputs. Because he argued for two 1580 01:11:32.029 --> 01:11:37.989 different positions. He argued that it's good to relieve suffering 1581 01:11:38.029 --> 01:11:41.529 or unnecessary suffering. Well, by that line of argumentation, it 1582 01:11:41.550 --> 01:11:44.810 would be preferable to get rid of all suffering. In fact, 1583 01:11:45.119 --> 01:11:47.359 getting rid of all suffering would then be a high 1584 01:11:47.399 --> 01:11:49.239 good in his system, if not the highest good. But 1585 01:11:49.260 --> 01:11:54.350 there's also this competing position that's an internal contradiction, which 1586 01:11:54.510 --> 01:11:56.550 is autonomy of the individual. 1587 01:11:56.710 --> 01:11:57.689 These are incompatible. 1588 01:11:57.750 --> 01:12:02.229 You can't have the necessity and the motivation to effect 1589 01:12:02.289 --> 01:12:06.109 the removal of suffering or unnecessary suffering, et cetera, and 1590 01:12:06.130 --> 01:12:10.590 at the same time maintain the absolute principle of individual autonomy. 1591 01:12:10.649 --> 01:12:11.939 These two things are incommensurable. 1592 01:12:11.989 --> 01:12:15.939 And so the example shows that his position is doesn't 1593 01:12:15.960 --> 01:12:18.859 have any coherent way to argue that you ought to 1594 01:12:18.899 --> 01:12:22.350 prefer the individual autonomy versus the technocrat putting everybody into 1595 01:12:22.390 --> 01:12:25.109 a coon pod and only giving them pleasure. When I 1596 01:12:25.289 --> 01:12:28.329 ask specifically, how do we delineate which one is preferable? 1597 01:12:28.529 --> 01:12:31.529 Because there are Silicon Valley technocrats who believe that. The 1598 01:12:31.550 --> 01:12:34.130 Society for Effective Altruism, these kinds of positions would argue 1599 01:12:34.170 --> 01:12:37.720 this kind of stuff. And they actually have had this 1600 01:12:37.779 --> 01:12:41.939 debate within utilitarianism that Maybe it is preferable for the 1601 01:12:41.960 --> 01:12:47.199 many to have less pleasure versus the individual getting maximal pleasure. 1602 01:12:48.100 --> 01:12:50.460 We don't know because there's no clear way to know 1603 01:12:51.239 --> 01:12:54.859 other than arbitrary assertions that it just is the case 1604 01:12:54.880 --> 01:12:57.229 because we ran some tests and I looked on AI 1605 01:12:57.279 --> 01:13:00.909 and I just don't like those Christians, bro. So literally 1606 01:13:00.949 --> 01:13:03.489 half of what he did today was sermonize, which I 1607 01:13:03.510 --> 01:13:06.829 thought

was really funny for a secular ethicist who's way 1608 01:13:06.869 --> 01:13:09.569 more preachy than anything I gave. I gave an internal 1609 01:13:09.609 --> 01:13:13.689 critique And so, as we saw, the position had no 1610 01:13:13.789 --> 01:13:15.489 account for the good whatsoever. 1611 01:13:15.590 --> 01:13:18.430 We don't know what the good is. There we go. 1612 01:13:20.270 --> 01:13:30.680 Thank you, gentlemen, for that open dialogue there. Let's have 1613 01:13:30.699 --> 01:13:32.359 a round of applause for the open dialogue. We will 1614 01:13:32.399 --> 01:13:34.119 have approximately 20 minutes for questions and answers. 1615 01:13:34.140 --> 01:13:35.789 I do ask that your questions... Well. 1616 01:14:06.510 --> 01:14:06.850 Hello. 1617 01:14:12.039 --> 01:14:12.699 Can you speak up? 1618 01:14:12.739 --> 01:14:16.460 It is hard to hear up here. Yeah, that's just 1619 01:14:16.479 --> 01:14:26.550 the YouTube channel, but I'm right here. Here, move forward 1620 01:14:26.590 --> 01:14:39.710 so I can hear you. Specifically unnecessary suffering. 1621 01:14:40.149 --> 01:14:40.390 Sorry. 1622 01:14:45.029 --> 01:15:00.180 No, not necessarily. I'm okay with suffering. I think that 1623 01:15:00.220 --> 01:15:02.520 should be up to women to decide if they want children. 1624 01:15:02.680 --> 01:15:11.739 That's a great example. that's the difference between suffering and 1625 01:15:11.800 --> 01:15:15.640 unnecessary suffering. When you're saying suffering and you think it's 1626 01:15:15.699 --> 01:15:18.479 just suffering, then that would mean all suffering. But obviously 1627 01:15:18.520 --> 01:15:21.590 there's suffering that is necessitated. Having children would be an 1628 01:15:21.630 --> 01:15:24.569 example of necessitated suffering. But I would say if you 1629 01:15:24.609 --> 01:15:27.310 have a woman that doesn't want to have a child, 1630 01:15:27.350 --> 01:15:30.689 doesn't want to undergo that suffering, that would be unnecessary 1631 01:15:30.729 --> 01:15:33.130 suffering for them. And they could choose to, I mean, 1632 01:15:33.170 --> 01:15:41.159 it's not an abortion debate, but you get my point. Yeah. 1633 01:15:51.520 --> 01:15:54.439 The universe will continue existing with or without us suffering. 1634 01:15:56.779 --> 01:15:59.140 Like if we stopped existing, Jupiter is going to still 1635 01:15:59.180 --> 01:16:02.739 be there. The sun will still be there. The galaxy 1636 01:16:02.779 --> 01:16:10.109 will still be there with or without us. Unnecessary suffering. 1637 01:16:10.609 --> 01:16:24.579 It's not suffering in and of itself. It's one thing, space-time. 1638 01:16:24.600 --> 01:16:24.699 Yeah. 1639 01:16:25.020 --> 01:16:31.680 I remember studying about the dimension. 1640 01:16:31.100 --> 01:16:34.770 Of the world. 1641 01:16:50.159 --> 01:16:55.289 Yeah, I mean, again, I look at historically what is 1642 01:16:55.350 --> 01:16:58.109 it that people have believed in, and it turns out 1643 01:16:58.569 --> 01:17:02.380 that judging by... time as well as geographic boundaries that 1644 01:17:02.409 --> 01:17:06.060 are difficult for humans to cross is largely vindicative of 1645 01:17:06.140 --> 01:17:09.739 what they tend to believe. And if there is an 1646 01:17:10.300 --> 01:17:15.840 underlying predicate, God, then for whatever reason, it's not consistent 1647 01:17:16.159 --> 01:17:19.039 based off of human geographic boundaries in time, which is 1648 01:17:19.079 --> 01:17:23.720 very good at stopping humans. So that would be a 1649 01:17:23.760 --> 01:17:27.399 very strong indicator that God is invented by man. 1650 01:17:37.960 --> 01:17:48.079 Yes. Yeah. Yeah. 1651 01:17:48.420 --> 01:17:50.079 Well, or not. I mean, you know. 1652 01:17:50.100 --> 01:17:50.180 Yeah. 1653 01:18:00.180 --> 01:18:00.359 Yeah. 1654 01:18:01.180 --> 01:18:03.779 Well, it depends on time and place. I mean, like 1655 01:18:03.880 --> 01:18:06.840 if you go back 20,000 years, people believed in a 1656 01:18:06.939 --> 01:18:10.819 form of animism. They wouldn't have believed in a in 1657 01:18:10.840 --> 01:18:14.470 like an omnipresent deity. That's like a more recent concept. 1658 01:18:16.270 --> 01:18:18.670 You know, again, that's a strong indicator that it's made 1659 01:18:18.710 --> 01:18:21.529 by men. People came up with these ideas. 1660 01:18:34.119 --> 01:18:36.789 Appreciate it. Thank you. 1661 01:18:39.010 --> 01:18:40.850 Appreciate it. Not necessary, but thank you. 1662 01:18:40.869 --> 01:18:50.739 Yeah, I would like to add, too, response as well, 1663 01:18:50.760 --> 01:18:54.510 just briefly that to say that, well, it's unnecessary suffering, 1664 01:18:54.859 --> 01:18:56.649 not all suffering. That's a kind of an ad hoc 1665 01:18:56.689 --> 01:18:58.890 rescue because there's no way to really delineate or figure 1666 01:18:58.989 --> 01:19:02.390 out what's unnecessary. Again, to go back to the technocrat example. 1667 01:19:03.060 --> 01:19:06.289 if I'm the ultimate will to power force in the universe, 1668 01:19:06.329 --> 01:19:08.409 in the case of the, you know, the Quisal Tatirak, 1669 01:19:08.829 --> 01:19:13.550 then it's unnecessary that everybody suffer, and I've determined what 1670 01:19:13.630 --> 01:19:17.409 is unnecessary. So he has no objective universal criteria for 1671 01:19:17.430 --> 01:19:18.380 what's necessary or unnecessary. 1672 01:19:18.399 --> 01:19:29.920 It's just a way to rescue the position. You want 1673 01:19:29.939 --> 01:19:30.239 to use your. 1674 01:19:31.569 --> 01:19:32.689 Wait, you're going to share this, Mike? 1675 01:19:33.310 --> 01:19:33.550 Sure. 1676 01:19:35.350 --> 01:19:37.390 Here, take it off and give it to him. All right. 1677 01:19:38.010 --> 01:19:39.750 And Jay, we'll do the same thing if the question's 1678 01:19:39.789 --> 01:19:40.090 for you. 1679 01:19:41.069 --> 01:19:45.310 OK. Come on up here. I'll hold it for you. 1680 01:19:45.310 --> 01:19:47.239 And then

you can ask a question. OK. 1681 01:19:48.779 --> 01:19:55.359 Yes, so my first question is in how do you know, 1682 01:19:56.000 --> 01:19:59.399 how did you come to the conclusion that the secular 1683 01:19:59.579 --> 01:20:03.720 humanist view, the worldview is true. How did you come 1684 01:20:03.800 --> 01:20:08.380 to that conclusion that it was better for society among 1685 01:20:08.420 --> 01:20:10.439 other religions and other worldviews? How did you come to 1686 01:20:10.460 --> 01:20:11.220 that conclusion? 1687 01:20:11.239 --> 01:20:12.180 And do you. 1688 01:20:12.140 --> 01:20:15.600 Think that it's true? And if so, how do you 1689 01:20:15.659 --> 01:20:19.460 know that it's the true worldview and not just your 1690 01:20:19.520 --> 01:20:22.460 opinion or intuition? Because any person or worldview can have 1691 01:20:22.479 --> 01:20:25.079 an opinion or intuition. How do you know that It 1692 01:20:25.220 --> 01:20:27.819 is the better world view. And so how does that 1693 01:20:27.869 --> 01:20:31.590 shape into a practical society? 1694 01:20:32.789 --> 01:20:33.250 How is it going? 1695 01:20:33.270 --> 01:20:35.689 How is it coming to practice as a better society 1696 01:20:36.050 --> 01:20:37.689 if it's a true world? 1697 01:20:39.909 --> 01:20:43.369 Yeah, so I come to my positions on the basis 1698 01:20:43.550 --> 01:20:50.989 of my logic and reason. I looked throughout historically many 1699 01:20:51.029 --> 01:20:55.060 different societies and, you know, what has been considered, okay, 1700 01:20:55.100 --> 01:20:57.779 these are moments of suffering and these are moments of 1701 01:20:57.880 --> 01:21:00.659 where things were good or things were better. And I 1702 01:21:00.699 --> 01:21:03.609 think that there is a pattern there. of when people 1703 01:21:03.649 --> 01:21:07.550 have reduced their unnecessary suffering and people are more prosperous 1704 01:21:07.609 --> 01:21:13.390 in general. And so I realized that the best societies, 1705 01:21:13.430 --> 01:21:16.890 the ones that have the highest human development, at least 1706 01:21:16.949 --> 01:21:18.880 if you look at the Human Development Index, they are 1707 01:21:19.020 --> 01:21:22.319 all secular societies. They're not theocracies. 1708 01:21:25.720 --> 01:21:26.600 Did you have a follow-up? 1709 01:21:28.880 --> 01:21:31.899 Yes, well, the thing is that Throughout the centuries, there 1710 01:21:31.939 --> 01:21:37.989 have been a lot of religious, well, religious center societies 1711 01:21:38.029 --> 01:21:42.869 such as Egypt, China, and whatnot that have had constructed, 1712 01:21:42.930 --> 01:21:46.130 have constructed intelligent societies and built all these monuments and 1713 01:21:46.170 --> 01:21:50.970 have had governments all based in some religion, either in 1714 01:21:51.029 --> 01:21:55.729 China or in Egypt or Rome or Greece. They all 1715 01:21:55.770 --> 01:21:59.100 had these intelligent sort of societies. that are all centered

1716 01:21:59.119 --> 01:22:04.460 around some sort of religion, and they weren't secular. Until now, 1717 01:22:05.359 --> 01:22:10.340 governments have been increasingly secular, such as communist China, Russia, 1718 01:22:10.359 --> 01:22:15.640 North Korea. And unfortunately, in the 20th century, the choices 1719 01:22:15.659 --> 01:22:18.439 that they made to make those societies secular have led 1720 01:22:18.460 --> 01:22:22.359 to a lot of deaths, as Mr. Dyer had mentioned earlier, 1721 01:22:22.840 --> 01:22:26.300 because they stated that man is God, that there is 1722 01:22:26.340 --> 01:22:30.840 no God, that man is the is the center of 1723 01:22:31.380 --> 01:22:34.800 our universe and not God or some religious deity. And 1724 01:22:34.840 --> 01:22:37.939 that you should only serve the state. And that serving 1725 01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:41.479 some deity or some religion is against the state because 1726 01:22:41.520 --> 01:22:45.829 you can't serve both. So they had their grounds in 1727 01:22:47.289 --> 01:22:50.810 persecuting their own people, those who turned against the state 1728 01:22:51.149 --> 01:22:55.800 and to some religious deity. So that was the point 1729 01:22:55.810 --> 01:22:56.819 I wanted to make there. 1730 01:23:00.180 --> 01:23:00.659 Yeah, I agree. 1731 01:23:00.699 --> 01:23:06.199 I don't like authoritarian atheist societies. I would prefer that 1732 01:23:06.279 --> 01:23:10.670 we live a more liberty-based society that is secular, separating 1733 01:23:11.590 --> 01:23:14.869 your religion from the government, and so you can worship 1734 01:23:14.909 --> 01:23:17.729 whatever you want. Communist China? 1735 01:23:18.050 --> 01:23:18.550 Well, great. 1736 01:23:18.750 --> 01:23:21.029 I'm not a communist. I don't believe in authoritarianism. I 1737 01:23:21.050 --> 01:23:24.079 don't believe in the CCP. Russia, I mean, you had 1738 01:23:24.800 --> 01:23:27.460 the Holodomor and wanting to kill people on the basis 1739 01:23:27.479 --> 01:23:30.399 of property. I mean, I'm against that. And they killed Christians, too. 1740 01:23:30.500 --> 01:23:32.710 I'm also against that. You can be a Christian in 1741 01:23:32.750 --> 01:23:36.149 a secular humanist society. And in fact, secular humanism specifically 1742 01:23:36.210 --> 01:23:40.270 says no to authoritarianism. It explicitly says that authoritarianism is 1743 01:23:40.329 --> 01:23:42.699 wrong on the basis on the fact that you said 1744 01:23:43.100 --> 01:23:44.079 it caused a lot of deaths. 1745 01:23:46.409 --> 01:23:48.170 Yeah, just in response to that, again, I mean, it's 1746 01:23:48.210 --> 01:23:51.449 a great example of states that put this into practice. 1747 01:23:51.489 --> 01:23:54.350 In the Cold War, you have a perfect illustration, again, 1748 01:23:54.550 --> 01:23:57.640 of what I've been highlighting as an inability of his 1749 01:23:57.689 --> 01:23:59.779 position to really tell us which one we ought to prefer, 1750 01:23:59.840 --> 01:24:03.359 other than to just simply reassert the preeminence of autonomy 1751 01:24:03.560 --> 01:24:06.000 and individual rights, which is the thing in question. So 1752 01:24:06.020 --> 01:24:09.520 the challenge is, if the atheistic states that did not 1753 01:24:09.560 --> 01:24:12.880 value freedom, Maoist China, the USSR, et cetera, they actually 1754 01:24:12.920 --> 01:24:16.829 were totally opposed to Western neoliberal ideas individual you know 1755 01:24:16.949 --> 01:24:21.750 atomized uh individualism um there's no reason why we ought 1756 01:24:21.810 --> 01:24:26.659 to prefer the individual autonomy secular position versus the collectivist 1757 01:24:26.699 --> 01:24:28.840 atheist position other than to just simply say well he 1758 01:24:28.880 --> 01:24:31.880 doesn't like it and uh we're supposed to go for 1759 01:24:31.899 --> 01:24:34.520 individual rights bro that's the thing in question what why 1760 01:24:34.619 --> 01:24:36.550 ought we choose that and he has no argument other 1761 01:24:36.560 --> 01:24:40.310 than his own subjective tastes all right it. 1762 01:24:40.250 --> 01:24:42.130 Was your question so you do get the final word. 1763 01:24:44.260 --> 01:24:47.300 Yours is subjective too this isn't a rebuttal the question 1764 01:24:47.340 --> 01:24:49.340 is whether or not it leads to better outcomes and 1765 01:24:49.380 --> 01:24:51.119 mine does lead to better outcomes. 1766 01:24:55.510 --> 01:25:03.729 In a secular humanist society is there anything inherently wrong 1767 01:25:03.869 --> 01:25:07.180 with six biological males who are related to get married 1768 01:25:07.449 --> 01:25:09.199 and adopt a two year old girl. 1769 01:25:12.220 --> 01:25:18.289 No That is a great argument. 1770 01:25:19.770 --> 01:25:21.670 Yeah, I mean, like, I mean, I'll grant you that. 1771 01:25:21.689 --> 01:25:23.130 I mean, it's weird. Sure. 1772 01:25:23.369 --> 01:25:25.550 I mean, I would probably be like, all right, do 1773 01:25:25.850 --> 01:25:28.270 background check. Make sure that there's no sex offenders. Make 1774 01:25:28.289 --> 01:25:30.449 sure there's none of that. I don't have a problem if, 1775 01:25:30.630 --> 01:25:32.430 you know, if people want to take care of kids, fine, 1776 01:25:32.810 --> 01:25:35.289 go for it. You know, if six biological males. They're 1777 01:25:35.310 --> 01:25:37.329 all in like their harem together or whatever. If they 1778 01:25:37.350 --> 01:25:39.069 could take care of a kid, sure. 1779 01:25:39.170 --> 01:25:40.670 I don't care. I don't care. None of that matters. 1780 01:25:41.300 --> 01:25:44.359 I mean, if it leads to abuse of a child, yeah, 1781 01:25:44.439 --> 01:25:47.220 take away the kid. Yeah, give the kid to CPS. 1782 01:25:47.420 --> 01:25:47.819 I agree. 1783 01:25:47.979 --> 01:25:50.550 But I mean, just because it's six biological males doesn't 1784 01:25:50.560 --> 01:25:51.510 mean that they're going to hurt the kid. 1785 01:25:55.750

--> 01:25:56.590 Yes, First Amender. 1786 01:25:56.630 --> 01:25:59.510 You said that the First Amendment was to separate church 1787 01:25:59.550 --> 01:26:01.670 from state, but that was only at the federal level. 1788 01:26:01.729 --> 01:26:04.479 Is it not true that the state constitutions all had 1789 01:26:04.739 --> 01:26:06.939 confessions of faith at the founding of the country? 1790 01:26:09.239 --> 01:26:10.000 Yes, that is true. 1791 01:26:10.720 --> 01:26:12.930 So then they're not secular ethics like you argued. 1792 01:26:13.890 --> 01:26:14.449 Thank you. 1793 01:26:16.609 --> 01:26:18.909 I mean, to follow up on that, he's saying that, 1794 01:26:19.409 --> 01:26:22.069 so they're not all, yeah, not everybody believed in having 1795 01:26:22.109 --> 01:26:24.079 a separation of church and state. I'm really glad that 1796 01:26:24.159 --> 01:26:24.840 we did win. 1797 01:26:24.859 --> 01:26:27.300 So they weren't secular ethicists like you tried to argue. 1798 01:26:27.439 --> 01:26:27.739 They were. 1799 01:26:27.939 --> 01:26:29.560 Thomas Jefferson did based off a Lockean concept. 1800 01:26:29.579 --> 01:26:31.560 You just admitted that they weren't. Anyway, it's still there. 1801 01:26:31.579 --> 01:26:33.220 So one of them being a secularist does not mean 1802 01:26:33.239 --> 01:26:33.960 they were all secular. 1803 01:26:33.979 --> 01:26:36.420 I'm sorry, there's no state religion on any state. 1804 01:26:36.439 --> 01:26:39.680 That wasn't the argument. The question was whether they were 1805 01:26:39.779 --> 01:26:44.039 secular ethicists. Not a single one of them. That's not 1806 01:26:44.060 --> 01:26:46.619 the question, you're conflating it. Sorry, nice try. Whether they 1807 01:26:46.659 --> 01:26:49.020 were secular ethicists was the question. 1808 01:26:51.890 --> 01:26:54.770 To the first amender, first, this is kind of a 1809 01:26:54.829 --> 01:26:58.510 clarifying question. So you claimed a secular humanist cannot live 1810 01:26:58.550 --> 01:27:01.800 in a Christian society. Are you implying you'd be killed 1811 01:27:01.859 --> 01:27:04.239 for not being a Christian in that worldview? 1812 01:27:07.060 --> 01:27:07.560 Who is the. 1813 01:27:09.029 --> 01:27:13.470 Who's the Christian guy that Pete Hegseth follows? What was 1814 01:27:13.510 --> 01:27:14.109 that guy's name? 1815 01:27:16.050 --> 01:27:16.630 Doug Wilson. 1816 01:27:17.689 --> 01:27:21.699 Doug Wilson? Yeah, Doug Wilson. He literally said that, right? 1817 01:27:21.880 --> 01:27:24.300 And Pete Hegseth follows that guy. 1818 01:27:24.520 --> 01:27:25.319 So, I mean. 1819 01:27:26.079 --> 01:27:28.300 I don't think it's a far stretch to say that 1820 01:27:28.340 --> 01:27:32.279 if the powers that be, if enough theocratic oligarchs end 1821 01:27:32.359 --> 01:27:34.909 up taking over, it would not surprise me that the 1822 01:27:34.930 --> 01:27:39.489 Christians start going after atheists, LGBT people, and it would 1823 01:27:39.510 --> 01:27:42.989 not surprise me that they go after people that are 1824 01:27:43.069 --> 01:27:46.189 not the right Christian, if they do get power. 1825 01:27:47.229 --> 01:27:50.109 Yeah, I'm not a fan of Doug Wilson, but Doug Wilson, 1826 01:27:50.149 --> 01:27:53.079 to my knowledge, did not say that secular atheists would 1827 01:27:53.119 --> 01:27:54.239 be killed, so he's full of it. 1828 01:27:58.619 --> 01:28:02.279 Yeah, I wanted to first establish that that's what you 1829 01:28:02.300 --> 01:28:05.800 meant before asking this question. So doesn't that then go 1830 01:28:05.859 --> 01:28:10.390 against the Great Commission or the gospel message to preach 1831 01:28:10.430 --> 01:28:14.550 Jesus to all nations? Like, killing somebody just because they're 1832 01:28:14.590 --> 01:28:20.050 not believers would be kind of contradictory to that, wouldn't it? Sorry, 1833 01:28:20.369 --> 01:28:23.510 one more time. Well, like, if we were to kill 1834 01:28:23.609 --> 01:28:27.520 non-Christians in a Christian society, wouldn't that go against Jesus... 1835 01:28:27.899 --> 01:28:30.579 telling us to preach the gospel to non-believers? 1836 01:28:32.779 --> 01:28:34.800 Yes, and I'm glad that you have a modern interpretation 1837 01:28:34.819 --> 01:28:38.210 of Christianity. That was not, however, the interpretation of Christianity 1838 01:28:38.250 --> 01:28:41.949 for hundreds and hundreds of years. They burned witches. They 1839 01:28:42.350 --> 01:28:44.840 killed people for not believing in the thing that they 1840 01:28:44.909 --> 01:28:49.739 wanted to believe in. And hell, they went after, they 1841 01:28:49.779 --> 01:28:53.369 even went after Quakers. Quakers themselves are Christians. Again, It's 1842 01:28:53.430 --> 01:28:55.930 not the right kind of Christianity. It has a long 1843 01:28:55.970 --> 01:28:58.810 history of negative outcomes. And so I argue for a 1844 01:28:58.890 --> 01:29:05.739 secular society that not a single religion can authoritatively rule 1845 01:29:05.939 --> 01:29:07.640 over other religions. It's that simple. 1846 01:29:08.119 --> 01:29:11.199 Could you name a competent scholar about the Middle Ages 1847 01:29:11.239 --> 01:29:15.270 that discusses how many, quote, witches were actually killed or burned? 1848 01:29:16.829 --> 01:29:17.170 I don't know. 1849 01:29:17.189 --> 01:29:18.550 I'd have to look that up. Well, how do you 1850 01:29:18.590 --> 01:29:19.750 know that they were killing everybody? 1851 01:29:20.779 --> 01:29:22.199 Because the Salem witch trials are real? 1852 01:29:22.220 --> 01:29:23.439 No, no, Middle Ages. Middle Ages. 1853 01:29:24.399 --> 01:29:26.199 That was, wasn't that like the 1670s? 1854 01:29:26.380 --> 01:29:27.909 That was like the 1600s. 1855 01:29:28.229 --> 01:29:28.649 That was like the 1500s. 1856 01:29:28.770 --> 01:29:30.270 That's not the Middle Ages. 1857 01:29:31.390 --> 01:29:34.310 Can you name any scholar that backs up this claim 1858 01:29:34.350 -->

01:29:35.869 that they were just killing everybody, the Christians went out 1859 01:29:35.890 --> 01:29:36.270 killing everybody? 1860 01:29:36.949 --> 01:29:37.810 I mean the Crusades? 1861 01:29:38.250 --> 01:29:41.520 No, a scholar that covers... I can tell you one. 1862 01:29:41.560 --> 01:29:43.640 Henry Common has a book on this. He's a famous 1863 01:29:43.680 --> 01:29:45.800 medieval scholar. I'd have to Google it, but it existed. 1864 01:29:45.840 --> 01:29:48.819 So no justification, just assertions. No, it's not a justification 1865 01:29:48.859 --> 01:29:49.380 or assertion. 1866 01:29:49.579 --> 01:29:51.439 I read about it, and whether or not I come 1867 01:29:51.460 --> 01:29:53.779 up with a name in your head right in front 1868 01:29:53.810 --> 01:29:56.510 of you is ridiculous. I mean, if you want, we 1869 01:29:56.529 --> 01:29:58.789 could play the Google game and just Google it for you, 1870 01:29:58.810 --> 01:30:01.710 and then we realize, oh, yeah, there are historians that 1871 01:30:01.729 --> 01:30:02.829 say that Christians kill a lot of people. 1872 01:30:02.850 --> 01:30:03.020 Name one. 1873 01:30:03.069 --> 01:30:04.810 You're just saying that. I don't need to. 1874 01:30:04.829 --> 01:30:07.010 Oh, so you can come to debates, and I can 1875 01:30:07.029 --> 01:30:08.510 just say stuff, and I don't have to name any 1876 01:30:08.529 --> 01:30:09.109 of the scholars. 1877 01:30:09.130 --> 01:30:09.789 I can just say it. 1878 01:30:09.810 --> 01:30:09.930 Okay. 1879 01:30:10.850 --> 01:30:13.029 Everything he said is false, and we all just know this. 1880 01:30:13.170 --> 01:30:13.510 Got him. 1881 01:30:14.229 --> 01:30:15.810 You did it, dude. Good argument. 1882 01:30:21.239 --> 01:30:24.840 My question is from First Amender. Just two questions, brief. 1883 01:30:25.399 --> 01:30:27.760 In your closing statement, you said that the secular society 1884 01:30:27.779 --> 01:30:30.439 would be better because you can live the way you 1885 01:30:30.470 --> 01:30:34.270 would see fit. So what if someone wanted to live 1886 01:30:34.289 --> 01:30:35.350 their life as a serial killer? 1887 01:30:38.470 --> 01:30:40.890 If a serial killer had the option to live their 1888 01:30:40.970 --> 01:30:43.329 way that they see fit, that it would cause a 1889 01:30:43.390 --> 01:30:46.710 lot of unnecessary suffering. I want to reduce unnecessary suffering, 1890 01:30:46.729 --> 01:30:48.010 so that means we have to put that guy in 1891 01:30:48.050 --> 01:30:48.369 a box. 1892 01:30:50.750 --> 01:30:53.989 So, as I anticipated, okay, with the two criterias you have, 1893 01:30:54.010 --> 01:30:56.869 unnecessary suffering and living your life as you see fit, 1894 01:30:56.909 --> 01:31:00.590 wouldn't the suffering the serial killers caused become a living, 1895 01:31:00.909 --> 01:31:03.710 because they lived their life as they see fit, become 1896 01:31:03.750 --> 01:31:05.760 a necessary suffering for your worldview? 1897 01:31:05.770 --> 01:31:08.960 Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, I can repeat it, sorry. 1898 01:31:09.300 --> 01:31:13.229 So, with the two criterias you have, unnecessary suffering and 1899 01:31:13.350 --> 01:31:16.010 living your life as you see fit, wouldn't the suffering 1900 01:31:16.029 --> 01:31:19.350 the serial killer causes because of living as he sees 1901 01:31:19.409 --> 01:31:21.949 fit become a necessary suffering for. 1902 01:31:21.750 --> 01:31:25.140 Your will or feel? I argued this, by the way. 1903 01:31:25.180 --> 01:31:28.399 Yeah, the necessary suffering of the serial killer. The serial 1904 01:31:28.439 --> 01:31:31.520 killer would have to endure the necessary suffering of being 1905 01:31:31.579 --> 01:31:32.220 shoved in a box. 1906 01:31:34.720 --> 01:31:35.180 I'm trying. 1907 01:31:35.319 --> 01:31:38.810 He can't handle hypothetical. We've seen this like 10 times. 1908 01:31:38.970 --> 01:31:41.029 You ask him hypothetical, he short circuits. He doesn't know 1909 01:31:41.050 --> 01:31:41.310 what I mean. 1910 01:31:41.750 --> 01:31:46.539 The cause that the serial killer does is the killing 1911 01:31:46.600 --> 01:31:48.899 so many people. So would the killing of so many 1912 01:31:48.939 --> 01:31:55.149 people become a necessary suffering according to your worldview because 1913 01:31:55.369 --> 01:31:56.449 he wants to live that way? 1914 01:32:00.470 --> 01:32:04.850 I mean, so you're saying that, okay, the serial killer 1915 01:32:05.220 --> 01:32:09.380 is having unnecessary suffering because he can't serial kill? 1916 01:32:09.760 --> 01:32:12.380 He just can't do hypothyroidism. I'm trying to understand. Seriously. 1917 01:32:12.560 --> 01:32:14.920 It's not possible. Okay. I don't know. 1918 01:32:15.399 --> 01:32:18.609 So in other words, it becomes subjective, right? What's unnecessary 1919 01:32:18.750 --> 01:32:21.569 or necessary is subjective in his position. So from the 1920 01:32:21.609 --> 01:32:26.590 serial killer's vantage point, every suffering that he's inflicting is necessary, 1921 01:32:26.649 --> 01:32:26.949 you see. 1922 01:32:27.010 --> 01:32:31.960 Here, repeat it one more time. If you had not 1923 01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:34.220 had breakfast today, if you had not had breakfast. 1924 01:32:34.239 --> 01:32:37.500 The unnecessary suffering that you're referring to is to others, correct, 1925 01:32:37.560 --> 01:32:44.560 in society? Yes, so I'm asking for a clarifying of 1926 01:32:44.619 --> 01:32:47.369 your view. So the unnecessary suffering that you would wish 1927 01:32:47.449 --> 01:32:50.989 to avoid would be towards the people in the society, right? 1928 01:32:51.010 --> 01:32:52.069 Individuals. 1929 01:32:52.090 --> 01:32:52.310 Yes. 1930 01:32:52.529 --> 01:32:54.130 To each individual. 1931 01:32:54.770 --> 01:32:55.060 Yes. Yes. 1932 01:32:57.880 --> 01:33:00.819 Yes, but another criteria of your worldview being better is 1933 01:33:01.039 --> 01:33:03.199 that they get to live as

they see fit. So 1934 01:33:03.520 --> 01:33:05.859 if a serial killer wants to live as they see 1935 01:33:05.939 --> 01:33:08.689 fit as a serial killer doing harm to others, would 1936 01:33:08.739 --> 01:33:13.250 that be necessary suffering in your worldview? 1937 01:33:14.630 --> 01:33:17.829 That would be unnecessary suffering to each individual that they kill. 1938 01:33:22.460 --> 01:33:25.060 It is no longer unnecessary to live as they see fit? What? 1939 01:33:29.100 --> 01:33:30.859 He's never going to get it, dude. He's never going 1940 01:33:30.880 --> 01:33:31.159 to get it. 1941 01:33:31.619 --> 01:33:31.939 Yes? 1942 01:33:39.739 --> 01:33:42.699 No, it's unnecessary suffering because each individual is losing out. 1943 01:33:43.840 --> 01:33:44.180 Gotcha. 1944 01:33:47.859 --> 01:33:52.649 How's it going, First Amender? Hey, yeah, I have one question. 1945 01:33:53.270 --> 01:33:57.729 It's actually more of a hypothetical. So in a... Imagine 1946 01:33:57.810 --> 01:34:03.229 a secular human society with a secular humanist constitution. Imagine 1947 01:34:03.270 --> 01:34:09.800 this culture decided that poking babies as a rite of passage, 1948 01:34:09.840 --> 01:34:15.100 for example, all the family members come over, and perhaps 1949 01:34:15.260 --> 01:34:17.949 if there's twins in the family, they can both poke 1950 01:34:17.970 --> 01:34:22.640 the baby at the same time. You know, I wonder 1951 01:34:23.100 --> 01:34:26.010 if there's anything that you could say to, you know, 1952 01:34:26.229 --> 01:34:28.670 objectively say that that would be incorrect to do. 1953 01:34:31.109 --> 01:34:33.310 Yeah, I mean, I would say it probably hurts the babies. 1954 01:34:33.409 --> 01:34:35.930 Babies don't like it. And there's probably some negative outcome 1955 01:34:36.090 --> 01:34:39.319 that can be observed, like measurably, like based off of 1956 01:34:39.380 --> 01:34:41.920 some study. I don't know. A good example would be like, hey, 1957 01:34:41.960 --> 01:34:44.779 do we allow kids to smoke? I mean, well, before 1958 01:34:44.819 --> 01:34:47.779 we knew that it was harmful, we did let kids smoke. 1959 01:34:47.899 --> 01:34:50.199 But then we realized, oh, it's harmful. So we should 1960 01:34:50.229 --> 01:34:53.289 probably stop doing that. So if there was like in 1961 01:34:53.609 --> 01:35:00.130 our secular humanist society with a secular constitution that the 1962 01:35:00.149 --> 01:35:04.210 culture says poking babies is the rite of passage, you know, 1963 01:35:04.329 --> 01:35:06.430 that maybe it'd be okay in that moment, but then 1964 01:35:06.470 --> 01:35:08.609 we realize, oh, it's actually bad, and then not do it. 1965 01:35:10.600 --> 01:35:15.680 Is the determination of necessary and unnecessary suffering also subjective? 1966 01:35:17.029 --> 01:35:19.970 The determination of necessary and unnecessary suffering. 1967 01:35:20.109 --> 01:35:20.289 Yes. 1968 01:35:20.850 --> 01:35:23.109 Yes, it's subjective. But then again, so is your moral compass. 1969 01:35:23.130 --> 01:35:26.350 There you go. Your moral compass is also subjective, believe 1970 01:35:26.390 --> 01:35:29.010 it or not. Yeah, but everybody's getting the argument. 1971 01:35:34.210 --> 01:35:36.010 So this has kind of been touched on quite a 1972 01:35:36.010 --> 01:35:37.510 bit already, but I just kind of want to get 1973 01:35:37.550 --> 01:35:40.850 down to brass tacks. What makes suffering necessary or unnecessary? 1974 01:35:41.430 --> 01:35:43.970 Whether on the individual level or the societal level, I'll 1975 01:35:43.989 --> 01:35:44.430 let you pick. 1976 01:35:44.510 --> 01:35:45.470 Just what is it? 1977 01:35:47.180 --> 01:35:49.149 It's typically an individual interpretation. 1978 01:35:49.520 --> 01:35:53.850 How are we going to make societal rules based off 1979 01:35:53.890 --> 01:35:58.670 of your individual interpretation when anyone else can disagree with 1980 01:35:58.689 --> 01:35:59.850 that and wildly disagree? 1981 01:35:59.949 --> 01:36:01.710 Exactly. The whole debate. There's the whole debate right there. 1982 01:36:02.350 --> 01:36:04.710 The collection of individual decisions. 1983 01:36:06.260 --> 01:36:06.640 Arbitrary. 1984 01:36:06.779 --> 01:36:09.600 No, it's the collection of individual decisions. And by the way, 1985 01:36:09.640 --> 01:36:12.579 that's what we're doing now, by the way. And it's working. 1986 01:36:12.600 --> 01:36:14.239 It doesn't mean it's right, just because we're doing it. 1987 01:36:14.380 --> 01:36:18.970 Okay, yeah. Let's have the theocratic oligarchy that then goes 1988 01:36:19.050 --> 01:36:22.630 in and kills non-Christians and then kills the not-right Christians. 1989 01:36:22.649 --> 01:36:23.369 There's nothing wrong with killing. 1990 01:36:23.670 --> 01:36:24.489 Yeah, that ought to be good. 1991 01:36:24.649 --> 01:36:25.989 It's all subjective. There's nothing wrong with killing. 1992 01:36:27.010 --> 01:36:29.090 Let's give it up for our two interlocutors.