 All right, welcome everybody. Today, we are, as you know, debating what is best for society, Islam, or atheism. And we are going to start with Daniel's opening statement. Want to mention, as I mentioned, that format is 15-minute openings followed by five-minute rebuttals, then 40 minutes of dialogue, four minutes of closings, and then 30 minutes of Q&A. With that, thank you very much for being with us. Daniel, the floor is all yours for your opening statement. Thank you, James. Thank you, Arne. You want to know what atheism has to offer society? Just think about the matrix. People living in pods with their bodies sustained on pink goop while their minds are plugged into a virtual reality. That is literally the kind of future world leaders are now considering for the human population. Leaders at Davos, the World Economic Forum, the World Governance Summit, and elsewhere are openly talking about their plans for the future. And it's quite dark. Have you heard of the expression get in the pod and eat the bugs? That is basically the kind of future that they have been working towards step by step, where individuals live in small personal living units or pods and entertain themselves with a steady dose of Marvel movies, video games, and pornography, not to mention anti-depressants. This might sound far-fetched, but a huge percentage of the world population today already lives like that. In the largest urban centers around the world, people are living by themselves in their apartments, no significant other, no children, no family. Their only social connections are the ones they have online. They work from home alone, eat at home alone, and pleasure themselves at home alone. This is atheism's vision for society. Most atheists won't admit this, but this is nothing more than self-delusion. An atheistic worldview has dominated the modern world, and these are the results. It's clear as day that this is what an atheistic worldview produces. I'll tell you why. First of all, atheism says that the only objective truth is scientific truth. This automatically means that religion and traditional biologically rooted morality are out the window. What do I mean by traditional biologically rooted morality? Traditional biologically rooted morality says that there are certain objective and immutable values that are embedded in human nature. There is the sanctity of marriage and family, the value of community, devotion to God, and the sanctity of the human body. Atheism says, that's all garbage. There's nothing sacred about marriage. If you want to fornicate every day of your life, go for it. If you want to be romantically involved with five people at a time, 10 people at a time, maybe throw some animals and some inanimate objects into the mix, no problem. Love is love. As long as you have 100% freedom to pleasure yourself, that's all that matters. And every taboo is just some nonsense religious zealots made up to keep you from having fun. Atheists also believe that family is nonsense. Sure, family is okay as long as they're supportive, but if your mom is being a pain, forget her. Your dad being a jerk, throw them in the nursing home. Your grandparents, uncles, and aunts don't support your personal freedom. That just means they're toxic and you have to cut them out of your life. As for children, who has time to raise a bunch of leeches that suck so much of your time and your energy and do nothing other than get in the way of you pursuing your dreams? Atheism says the same thing about community. Community is great, but only as long as you're getting what you want out of it. As soon as a community places some kind of responsibility on your shoulders that conflicts with your desires, then it's time to throw them in the trash and find another group who will accept you for who you are. Now when it comes to religion, God of course is nothing but a fiction according to atheists, but even if God were real and 100% proved by science, atheism, atheists would still think that's a drag to have to worship God and have religious duties. Why can't God just let us enjoy life and have fun? Finally, atheism attacks the sanctity of the human body. If you want to cover yourself in tattoos, why not? If it makes you happy to get piercings all over, why not? If you want to get surgery to change your gender, why not? If you want to cut off your limbs, get thin implants and live like a dolphin, why not? There are literally no limits. You'll notice that when it comes to all these things, atheism says the most important thing is fulfilling your individual desires. That is the key to happiness. And as soon as anything conflicts with your desires, that thing needs to be cut out. So this is how atheism destroys traditional biologically rooted morality. Traditional morality says no, sometimes marriage comes first, sometimes family comes first, community and God comes first. Sometimes you can't have what you want. Sometimes you can't be free to live your life however you want to live it. Traditional morality restricts individual choice and imposes moral duties on people whether they like it or not. This is actually one of the main problems atheists have with religion and traditional cultures in general. The thing is telling people that all that matters is satisfying your personal pleasures, getting that hit of dopamine and enjoying life to the max. That makes people more willing to live, to prefer living life in a pod. Through technological advancement, the pod can fulfill your every desire. Want to travel the world and meet women? Virtual reality can make your wildest fantasies come true. Want to taste the finest culinary delicacies? Synthetic food technologies can deliver treats to titillate your every taste bud. Want to get the perfect high and experience euphoria? Deep brain stimulation technology can induce as much bliss as you want. And the best part about all this, you get it all right in your pod. Atheism has conditioned people to crave this kind of future. This is because atheism destroys traditional morality and programs people to put their personal desires above all else. The political and social culture then accommodates this psychology. In the past, people could be motivated by appealing to traditional values, appealing to God and the afterlife. But all that is off the table due to atheism. As society becomes more atheistic, telling people, do this because it is your duty to God, to your family, to your country. That doesn't motivate people anymore. You can only motivate them by telling them, do this because you'll be able to go on that vacation, you'll get to enjoy this new experience, you'll get to have fun with the latest gadget. People are only motivated by the pursuit of personal pleasure. Politicians and governments recognize this so their political agenda increasingly revolves around promising more and more pleasure, fulfillment, more and more freedom, fewer and fewer duties. Of course, this freedom is not political freedom in the sense that people can choose the kind of society they want to want or the kind of future they want on a societal level. It's only the freedom to enjoy more and more personal pleasures. The way these secular governments give people what they want is through liquidating traditional values and producing new technologies. Governments say you can have sex with whoever or whatever you want. You have the freedom to change your gender. You have the freedom to blaspheme against God. You have no obligations towards your parents or your spouse. You don't want kids, no problem. There's full reproductive choice. If you do have a kid, don't worry. Here are all kinds of daycare and schooling programs so that little brat won't hinder your pursuit of happiness. These policies aim to maximize individual happiness by absolving us of our duties to others. The result is extreme individualism. When you prioritize your personal desires over your relationships, those relationships die out. This is exactly why the institution of marriage is on the brink of complete collapse. Even non-marital romantic relationships are going the way of the dinosaur as all developed countries face an in-cell crisis. Birth rates and family size are plummeting. Community and religion have collapsed. Atheism has created masses of individuals who are desperately alone but don't feel like it because technologies keep the dopamine flowing. Whether it's anti-depressants, drugs, social media, video games, pornography, everything at the tip of your fingers, just constant stimulation. For all intents and purposes, people are plugged into pleasure machines which sap any last motivation they might have had to pursue meaning and reality. The kind of meaning and reality that atheism is constantly telling you is a figment of your imagination and nothing more than a byproduct of mindless evolutionary forces. So yes, let's place the blame for this imminent dystopia at the feet of atheism because frankly that's where it belongs. Get in the pod and eat the bugs. That in summary is atheism's contribution to society. And guess what? None of us have a choice in any of this. Atheism is authoritarian. If you don't like what's happening, that just means you're an extremist. Technological progress is inevitable and you will have no choice in adopting it. When the seatbelt was invented, did they ask you whether or not you want it to be forced to wear it by law? Of course not. Your choice is irrelevant. It's for your own good. It's for the greater good. That's what makes your choice irrelevant. What happens when they perfect the artificial womb? Once the artificial womb is reliable, natural pregnancy will likely be made illegal. Why? It's for your own good. Compared to natural pregnancy, artificial wombs are much safer. By mandating artificial wombs, the mortality rate for women and children could be greatly reduced. If atheists were controlling society, which they do, mandatory artificial wombs are definitely on the horizon and natural pregnancy will be seen as an archaic and misogynistic practice. Impregnating a woman naturally might even be deemed a human rights violation. You are subjecting a woman to nine months of morning sickness, body aches to be followed by an excruciating and bloody childbirth that literally rips her open. Such horrific practices must be banned and only religious misogynists will refuse to comply. When atheism is in charge of society, all kinds of humanity altering technological nightmares can be imposed in this authoritarian fashion. What usually could block such technologies is traditional morality because traditional morality says there are certain immutable values that cannot be violated no matter what. Traditional morality says artificial wombs should not be allowed because there is a sanctity around natural human birth. There is an inherent value to it that is transcendent and irreducible. But the atheistic mind says nope, that's all just superstitious mumbo jumbo. Whatever a mother gives a child or vice versa in natural pregnancy can be mimicked using pharmaceuticals or other technology. So just get over it. Get over your silly hangups. This same logic is used for every new technological innovation no matter how drastically that technology distorts human life. This is why as long as atheism dominates society, the personal pleasure pod is inevitable. As long as the goal is to maximize personal happiness through technological innovation, the pod is inevitable. Now you might be skeptical that we really are headed toward this matrix like dystopia. But just look at the country of China, a staunchly atheistic nation. The personal pod is already a reality there. Millions live in tiny windowless apartments by themselves in major cities like Beijing. What is even more concerning is the Chinese social credit system which ensures full compliance from the population. The same technologies that give you the pleasure machines also facilitate complete surveillance of all your communications, your movements, even your biology down to the cellular level. This is done through satellites, harvesting social media data, turning your phone into a tracking device and constant medical examinations involving scans and testing as we saw during the COVID pandemic. Technology also centralizes the financial system. Governments are quickly adopting digital currencies that can be tied to bio-identification. All your financial and social activity can be monitored in real time. Technology allows governments to harvest all this data and AI-guided algorithms process that data to identify patterns of behavior which indicate non-compliance, express the wrong opinions, associate with the wrong groups, quote a politically incorrect passage from the Bible or the Quran and you get banned losing not only your social media but also your bank account, your ability to travel, maybe even face criminal charges for hate or extremism. This kind of social credit system is already in use in China and is coming to the rest of the world very soon. But technology doesn't stop with surveillance. Why not modify the human body through vaccines, pharmaceuticals and implants? I mentioned artificial wombs already but what about gene editing people so that they are repulsed by red meat? Seems like a good way to reduce meat consumption and save the climate. Or how about addressing the problem of violence and misogyny by modifying testosterone in males via implants or gene editing? What about completely modifying the body and the mind through gene editing technology? Or how about just uploading your consciousness to the cloud via Neuralink, the new technology Elon Musk is developing? Of course, all these technologies will literally result in the end of the human race as we know it. That's what atheism offers humanity. It offers humanity its own demise. What could stand in the way of this atheistic dystopia? What could help us preserve the very kind of traditional morality that would block these innovations and stop their proliferation? What could help us preserve the kind of life that cherishes deep biologically rooted human values like marriage, family, community, God and the human race itself? Islam as a complete way of life does exactly this. And this is why Islam is far and away superior choice for society. You care about having a loving, healthy marriage, having a loving family, surrounding yourself with parents, children, grandparents, a community that gives you a sense of belonging, a sense of heritage and culture. You care about a higher purpose and the belief that existence is more than just atoms randomly knocking into each other. You believe that human race is something special. The human race deserves to be preserved, that deserves to persist. Then, if that describes you, Islam protects all of these things. Atheism, however, destroys all of it and makes you want to live in a pod. Thank you very much for that open. We're gonna kick it over to Aaron Roth for his opening as well. Thanks so much for being with us, Aaron, the floor is all yours. Thank you, and thank you, Daniel, for I thought we were gonna be debating something of substance, but instead, Mr. Hakikachu, is that the correct pronunciation, has given us a dystopian fantasy of exceptional paranoia, painting an imaginary world with virtually no connection to reality, ignoring all of our humanity. If there was a God, we wouldn't have to worship it. No being worthy of worship would ever want to be worshiped. The question is, which is better for society, atheism, or Islam? And the question should be whether we should make believe in any religion, but we're just gonna pretend that those other religions don't exist. Again, I know a lot of pastors in Texas would want to debate me on whether atheism is better than Christianity, again, ignoring all the other religions, because they think there's a special. And like many natural born Texans, which I believe Mr. Hakikachu is, he is politically confused. I've seen him say that the political left and right are both wings of the same cancer as if it's possible for a society to exist without any politics at all. And no human collective is, any human collective is necessarily going to have politics. The larger the group, the greater the need for it. To agree on how to protect everyone's interests fairly, to cohabitate productively, there has to be some expectation of conduct leading to an adherence of customs, norms, and ultimately laws. That requires politics. And in any collective, there will be those who advocate sharing resources to take care of everyone as contrasted with the others who are only interested in their own ambitions. And this is one way we can characterize the left versus right. But the more important issue, especially at this debate, is the other axis perpendicular to that between authoritarian and libertarian. That oft ignored axis is the one that matters most here, where whichever end you're on, either allows you to do as you will or commands you to do as you're told. How could I got you? And I would have to argue from opposite ends of that scale because he is advocating for the imposition of a faith-based belief system with required beliefs and prohibited beliefs, whereas I am arguing for free thought. The word atheism simply means without theism, without a God belief. Put another way, it is simply not being fooled into believing unsupported assertions of impossible nonsense for no good reason. It's not a religion itself nor even a belief so much as a lack of either. I understand that some proponents of communism have tried to suppress or eliminate religion, but we also know that when Joseph Stalin tried that a century ago, he saw that it didn't work. So he switched tactics and employed the Russian Orthodox Church to promote communism for him through their community outreach. You can't demand that everyone be entirely rational and to promote communism the way they did wasn't rational anyway. It was evil because it was authoritarian. The worst type of society that is and that is exactly what Mr. Hakogaciu is arguing for because he's not offering the freedom to believe in Islam if you like. You already have that right. Instead, he wants to impose it upon you so that you have to believe that, so that you have to declare faith and you have to talk to yourself five times a day pretending as if God can hear you and you have to do that in full prostration where everyone can see you because Islam is the religion George Orwell warned us about. Religion always was the imposition of authoritarianism that the Soviet Union once tried to be. But as the famous atheist Carl Sagan pointed out, arguments from authority are worthless. He also said that the suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it's not the path to knowledge and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. So what we would call an atheist society is one that is largely or predominantly not religious. That only means that we have secularism where social activities as well as legislation are not based on religion. I've often said that if you cite religion as your sole justification for any action or policy, then you still haven't given a reason for it. You need something more than faith. You need a real explanation. So what makes a good society? Most explanations I've seen yet list what we would call left-wing policies and I think they're correct, but let's be objective, staying out of politics for a moment to deal with this particular question. Let's look at something more mainstream. Forbes Magazine has a list of the top 10 best societies in the world, starting with Germany, Netherlands, UK, France, Japan, Australia, Canada and South Korea. Contrary to what you may have heard from some self-deluded patriots out there, the USA is not number one. We haven't been for a long time, not since the encroachment of the religious right which Barry Goldwater warned us about some 60 years ago. We have since fallen from the pinnacle position but we're still at least in the top 10 if only just barely. We're number nine, just above Taiwan which like the US also has laws and policies to protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion as well as freedom of expression, assembly and association. Something Islamic countries do not have. The US is just below South Korea. Their government maintains a better legal separation of church and state than we have thanks to the impeachable justices making the majority of our now extreme no longer Supreme Court. But otherwise they're like us in that despite that secular divide, South Korean politicians may personally advocate or endorse Christianity just like our politicians blindly do. Likewise, Australians may be illustrated by a few religious legislators in their government but the populace is protected by section 116 of their constitution which keeps church and state separate. Because every time religion has ever had rule over law the result has been a violation of human rights. The way to ruin any society is to make it theocratic. Every one of the top 10 best societies in the world is considered secular, even Germany in as much as it is not founded on a specific religious ideology of its own and also because it does not identify as a particular religion to the exclusion of all others. The UK may have integrated church with state at its founding but British society has since become one of the most secularized in the world where irreligion is prevalent. Meaning that atheists account for a significant portion of the population if not the majority compared to devout practice of any other faith. France too, once a very religious country until the revolution, France now declares itself to be an indivisible secular, democratic and social republic guaranteeing that all citizens regardless of their origin, race or religion are treated as equals before the law and respecting of all religious beliefs. All good things but I've seen interviews where Mr. Khachchou has objected to all of that. But as Forbes put it, of all factors that make a society great to stand out, economic opportunity and quality of life both of which require freedom, equality and secularism all of which my opponent is against. He is against everything that makes a society good. If society is defined as an aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community then we don't have to rely on Forbes. We could look at another list of the top 10 best countries to live in because they're all looking at economic opportunity and quality of life in addition to national healthcare and other benefits of those societies. Since there is no final authority on which ones are best, I found 10 different lists from different sources each claiming to be the top 10 best countries in the world to live in for 2022. And I'll share the links to all of them when I have the opportunity to do so. I compared all 10 lists to make sure they were different countries or in a different order to make sure that it wasn't just the same list being repeated and I then made my own top 10 from them from the ones that come up again and again. For example, Switzerland, Sweden and Canada appeared on nine of the 10 lists followed by Germany, Australia and Denmark with eight out of 10. Norway was on seven of 10. Then five countries tied for the last three slots with four out of 10. They are Finland, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and USA. So I'm not even sure if my own country is in the top 10 anymore. If any of these lists that I saw continued beyond the top 10 then you might see especially rich countries like the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain show up somewhere down someone's list, but not one Muslim country ever made it to anyone's top 10. Every nation in the compiled top 10 is a secular society and so was every country in each of the lists that I compiled to get the top 10 with one exception. While some of these sources were travel bureaus or financial centers or universities, one of them was just some guy's YouTube travel channel wherein he said that Singapore was quite a nice place or would be except for the fact that it is oppressively authoritarian. Authoritarianism means the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. That nightmarish description is exactly what Hakogachu wants. He is actually arguing that a better society is one where the people are neither equal nor free but who are instead subjugated to the despotic dictate and treated with prejudicial bias. Just like prisoners or serfs in medieval times or like slaves because some Muslim countries still have slavery. Authoritarian regimes such as every theocracy ever are bad for society almost by default. To prove that, let's also look at the list for the worst countries to live in with the worst reputations, the most dangerous and the lowest quality of life for the least human rights. Muslim majority or Sharia countries show up all over those lists. There are only three secular countries that show up on any of them. Venezuela is technically secular because it doesn't have a state religion but at the same time practically everyone is Catholic and you'll be treated as some kind of freak if you admit to being atheist. Russia is on the list of countries with the worst reputations obviously and Ukraine is on the list for the most dangerous but that's only because it's 2022 and they're at war with Russia. Otherwise, now let's look at Muslim majority countries on all these lists. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria and Kazakhstan are all in the top 10 countries with the worst reputation. Niger, Chad, Mali, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone and Eritrea are all in the top 10 worst countries to live in. Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria and Syria are on the top 10 worst places to live, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan are all in the top 10 most dangerous countries to live in while Pakistan, Bangladesh, Lebanon and Mali are in the top 10 most dangerous countries to visit. Then Afghanistan, Chad, Niger, Guinea, Yemen, Sierra Leone and Liberia are all in the top 10 countries with the worst quality of life. So we've seen that the best countries are secular, all of them and largely atheist while the worst countries are religious and the worst among them are Muslim. Proving I think conclusively that atheism has the most positive effect on society while religion in general is always bad and Islam in particular is the worst thing for society. Thank you very much for that opening, Aaron. We're gonna go into the five minute rebuttals. I have the clock set for you. Thanks very much, Daniel. The floor is all yours. So there's a lot of history. Liberalism, liberalism has always been authoritarian. It has always imposed itself on people in an authoritarian, genocidal fashion. We can look at the spread of liberalism in Europe, continental Europe by Napoleon who was spreading liberalism, basically spreading the consequences of the French Revolution in the 19th century or beginning of the 19th century forward. Throughout Europe, seven million Europeans killed because they were opposed to Napoleon's new social reform and the imposition of these values of freedom and equality and so forth. Look at it. Daniel, if you're able to just move your microphone a little bit. I am sorry about that. For some reason it's gone down a little bit. Or look at when it comes to the history of colonialism in the Muslim world and elsewhere. Look at the history of the United States. Look at the bloody history of American expansionism and manifest destiny, how many Native Americans, millions of Native Americans murdered, genocided for what reason for the spread of this project of freedom and liberty and equality, the pursuit of happiness. Look at the policies within colonial Muslim world in the subcontinent, within North Africa and literally there is no freedom of expression in these colonial territories. Why? Because the colonial powers declare a state of emergency and they say that, no, we can't have the Muslims speaking out against the French power or the British power because that could cause rebellion. Therefore, if you insult the French colonizer, you insult the British colonial power, then you can be sentenced to death, you can even be killed on the spot. This is the actual history of liberalism, not the kind of hoax that you are propagating. Liberalism has been always authoritarian in this way and we're experiencing it now. Now we're experiencing the kind of authoritarian policies from an executive power. Actually, I'm not like trying to batch-fighting, the front was doing the same thing, where people's movement is restricted. People cannot go from place to place, country to country unless they meet certain standards set by the liberal powers. You cannot move freely unless you have passed for that, checks off, okay, have you had these tests done, have you had these vaccinations and so forth. The amount of imposition, a little extra for some reason that Mike's not working on. So I mean, we can talk more about that, how liberalism has been the most authoritarian force of the past 250 years. The other point that you really emphasized was that whenever we look at top 10 lists of best places to live, they all happen to be secular countries. Well, obviously, if you have a liberal standard for what counts as the best place to live, then yeah, liberal countries, secular countries are gonna come out on top. That's a tautology, that's a circular type of argument. Let's look at the countries that are going to preserve marriage, the countries that are going to preserve family, the countries that are going to ensure that you can live a happy, fulfilled human life. What are the countries that come out on top with those standards? And they're not going to be liberal or secular countries because all kinds of stats that we can talk about, how the marriage rate is collapsing, fertility rates are collapsing, people are alienated from their families. You every day or every week, there's a story in one of these online outlets that talk about 70 year olds who are working jobs at McDonald's because they can't retire, they have no safety net from family. In the Muslim world, you never see a 70 year old who has to work at McDonald's. Why? Because he or she has a loving family that can support him or her. In the secular world, in the West, also in certain East Asian countries like Japan, people are literally dying by themselves in their apartments because they have no family checking up on them. They go months at a time without anyone discovering them until the stench of the rotting corpse wafts into their apartment building hallways. And it's such a prevalent problem that there are even companies that are dedicated just to this issue of cleaning out rotten corpses from apartments. And it's something that is so common that even in my extended family, this has happened. Like someone has died and no one knew about it because, well, the family is pretty secular and no one is checking up and that's the state, that's the dystopian state that people have to look forward to in their twilight years. That's what liberalism, that's what secularism has to offer. So yeah, is that- Actually, I'll give you an extra 30 seconds just because of that audio blunder on my part. Go ahead, another 30 seconds. Yeah, so that's basically what I want to respond to is that we have to define what makes life valuable and you're saying that freedom, equality, liberty, these are values. I never said that those are bad values. I just think that there's a balance that is needed. You need a balance between liberty and equality, these freedom of choice, autonomy. I never said that those should be rejected out of hand. Those are good things. They just need to be balanced with other things that preserve other values that- All human beings universally find valuable, marriage, family, community, so forth. Time, we'll kick it over to Aaron. Yeah, as I've said before, like many natural born Texans, Mr. Hakigachi was politically confused. He conflates liberals with leftists, which I see common and left. He also conflates the right wing with liberals, citing the evils of American expansion and other things that could not possibly be blamed on liberalism. I don't think he understands what a political compass looks like. You look toward the middle, that's where the liberal is. He blames left-leaning liberals for what the conservative right did, including the war on terror and the attempted Muslim ban and profiling of immigrants, all of which were led by Republican neocons on the conservative right where he is politically. He blames liberals for that, even though liberals were in fact defending the rights of Muslims and other immigrants and those of other faiths under the First Amendment to which Hakigachi is opposed, like Christian conservatives are too, which I think is funny that atheists and other secularists are the best defenders of religious freedom, but devout religious believers don't want anyone to have such freedoms. Contrary to the Constitution, religious right conservatives want to establish theirs as the state religion, and they want to prohibit the free exercise of any other faith because the religious right of any religion don't want democratic republic, such as we enjoy in this country. Instead, they don't want a government of we the people. They want to impose their make-believe onto everyone else along with what they call values, which is really just bigotry. A bigotry is an obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular, prejudice against a person or people based on the basis of their membership to a particular group. We've already seen Christian nationalists announcing that they don't want atheists or Muslims in this country, and those are all right-wingers. There are no liberals in that group. Likewise, remember that Hakigachi is not debating whether theism is better for society, but only his brand of theism, Islam, such that if he had political weight in this country, then Mormons and Hindus and even Baptists would be turning to me to ask what we can do to defend religious freedom because that's just one of the freedoms he doesn't want you to have. I've heard other Christians in this state say that they feel oppressed by not being able to oppress other people by imposing their imposing their religious beliefs onto everyone else along with their personal perversion of morality the way Hakigachi wants to do. This is why I appreciate that he has a Texas accent, that he's a natural American citizen because it means the only difference between his bigotry and that of the religious right conservative Christians is that when he says the exact same arguments they do, it's coming from a Muslim because that makes him an example that I can show to Christians to illustrate what their bigotry sounds like to everyone else. So my religious family will hear his arguments, the same arguments they themselves make, but if it comes from him, they'll reject it and agree with me. Typical right-wing Christians will often argue that the patriarch, he doesn't even exist anymore. There's no need for feminism now that women have equal rights in this country until they hear Hakigachi saying that no, they don't and no, they shouldn't even have it because the Christian bigotry is that of course Muslims oppress and subjugate their women and here he is to prove it and then finding that they have a common enemy with him, with me rather, the Christian right will start sounding like me saying that unfair double standards should not be arbitrarily imposed on the basis of gender. It's like when Christians support public funding of faith-based schools and then some Muslim school tries to claim that money then Christian legislators suddenly remember the value of secularism, something he doesn't value at all. And if what he's selling you doesn't make any sense to you, you better be glad that he doesn't wield any power because he said that he wants to criminalize heresy, blasphemy and apostasy, punishing the latter with execution because he doesn't understand that the death penalty was never a deterrent to violent crime but that's a debate for another time like the absurdity of religious history and theology, why hell doesn't exist and so on. For now, let me remind you that in this country, blasphemy is not a crime, it's a right. And if you don't use it, you'll lose it to people like him. Thank you very much for that rebuttal, Aaron. We will kick it into open dialogue. So this is about 40 minutes followed by Q&A. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. So you didn't, you just read your opening, your response to me. So that means you didn't actually engage with what I said in my opening. That's fine, we'll talk about it. Yeah, okay. You came up with a matrix fantasy. You have something that's not even attached to reality. That's fine. So I wanna know as you listed all of these countries that are the best places to live, their ranked top 10, whatever, all of those countries, they tend to be Northwestern European white countries. Do you think there's some kind of racial bias in that? South Korea and what was it? Japan and there was another East Asian country in there and I can't remember which one it was. Was it South Vietnam? Taiwan. I didn't say all of them were European. Yeah. The majority are, is there a bias? There was an imbalance. Do you think that's racist? I don't know. I don't know. So it could possibly be racist. As I said, I went through a collection of different things and also all of the lists are saying that they're ordering by different criteria. I don't know what everybody's criteria is in every case. I thought that the best way to do that would be to take a collection of lists and see who fares on everybody's list. But Shannon, make us wonder that all of the best places to live happen to be white. I don't know again what the criteria, what everyone's criteria is. You don't need to know the criteria. You can look at the results. I think it would be strange to say that a group of lists that include Asian countries are necessarily racist. Do they, there are no African countries? If I'm doing a collection of different lists, and the criteria that they're listing is for economic opportunity or what have you, for all of these different things. While I looked and said, these European countries show up an awful lot here. Either Europe is the best place to live, or every one of these people are lying and they're racist. So white countries are the best places to live. I said Europe, right? We're playing risk now, and so we're gonna pick a continent. But they're white, these European countries are white. There are no African countries on the list. There are no South American countries on the list. We don't need to know the criteria. If we can see a predominantly white group of CEOs, they're all white. There is not a single African or a single woman or a single whatever on that group. Wouldn't you say that that is not representative of the human race? I recognized that there's a possibility there, but it seems extreme to think that all of these different people who are citing different criteria are all actually racist, and that the reason that the criteria that they're citing don't actually apply. I think it's a little bit paranoid to say that every one of these lists are racist. That all of these people compiling these lists are racist. Well, they're certainly not representative of the human race. The thing is that your criticism of Islam, your criticism of Islam doesn't really, you're saying all these Muslim countries rank at the bottom, but there are plenty of African countries. They're not Muslim, Latin American countries, Eastern European countries, East Asian countries that also rank very low. There are also, many of them are secular. Some of them have a lot of atheism actually because of the history of communism in Asia, for example, and they rank very low. It's not because of Islam or even theism. It's just other factors like colonialism and the domination and authoritarianism of liberalism from Northwestern Europe, from the United States. So that is causing that. Not because Islam is just inherently backwards. Once again, there's no way of knowing whether every one of these lists is racist, but it would say that it's suspicious. Yes, there's a disparity that Europe is favored. Is it favored because all of these different people compiling these lists for these different reasons are all secretly lying and they're racist? No, I think that's a bit ridiculous. So we could say, based on your list, that black and Hispanic societies are inferior. No. That's the list. Your list didn't have any Hispanic countries. It didn't have any black countries. I think it actually did. Which one? I'd have to go back over the whole thing, but it wouldn't matter because we're talking, what are the problems that we have if we're having these discussions? We have to have some common metric. We have to have some common fact. And I find that when I'm discussing politics, especially with somebody, there's not even a common fact. There's like nothing that anybody agrees on, whether the election was stolen or whether it wasn't, whatever, we don't have any common thing that we can build on. And that's the difficulty I'm having with you. What you call good is bad. And what you describe it as. Racism is bad. You agree? What you describe in your previous interview that I watched, what you're describing as a utopia is my dystopia. And apparently the opposite replies. This is like. So if I offer freedom of religion, which atheists unilaterally support because we believe in free thought, that you have the right. It's one of the most basic fundamental rights is the right to think and believe or not what you do for whatever reason makes sense to you. No religion likes that. They all wanna control thought right inside your head. And Islam is among the worst of them. You have laws in certain countries, in certain Sharia countries, if you're Arab, for example, you are legally obliged in the UAE that you have to believe Islam. You can't have free thought. If you have free thought there, that's criminal. No, this is like a caricature. It's not a caricature, that's a fact. Okay, so all governments restrict certain forms of speech and certain forms of investigation. We're talking about thought and belief. Even thought, even thought. You can't express certain thoughts. You can't express certain ideas. Every country, every society restricts thought. Read Stanley Fish. There's not, there's not. I'll let you speak. I'll let you speak, let me finish my point. Read Stanley Fish, philosopher, eminent philosopher, his book. There is no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too. Every society has to regulate expression and thought in order to preserve that community. So even if you go on social media and Facebook, they have what? Community guidelines. If you violate those community guidelines, you will get banned, you will get punished. Why? Because you are disturbing the fabric of the community. That's the logic of it. That justifies you being banned. Presumably, you don't have a problem with that kind of banning or you don't have a problem with the fact that you can't go around and shout the N word at everyone that you see. Presumably, that kind of speech should be restricted or are you in absolute free speeches in favor of absolute free speech and even that kind of expression should be allowed in society. Do you accept that there is a law in the UAE, a Sharia country, that if you're Arab, you were legally required to believe in Islam? No, there is no such law in the UAE. You can be a Christian in the UAE. You can be a Jew in the UAE. You can be Buddhist. They have lots of Buddhists. But as an Arab. In the UAE. Are you talking about the apostasy law? No. You can be Christian and live in a Muslim country. I was in the UAE and I'm having a conversation with a group of Arabs who all tell me that they have this law, that you're Arab, but you have to believe in Islam, that we can be Christian or whatever if we're foreigners. There are Arab Christians, though. They have long generations of Arabs who are Christians. Arabs who are Jews. So what you're saying is that all my hosts. I don't know who you're talking about. Right, is all my hosts, including a cop, are all lying to me. And all of them, all of my lists. I'm saying a fact. All of these different independent lists that I gather, they're all racist. Well, you acknowledge that now. And you're saying that every society controls thought. Legislative. What about Coptic Christians? Have you heard of Coptic? And you've somehow conflated that to free speech. Whereas I was talking about free thought and belief. And you're saying that every society has legislation to control thought. Now apart from the example I gave, which you denied, give me an example of a nation that controls thought. So which Muslim country can actually scan your mind to determine what thoughts you have? I'm sorry, I forgot. I was asking the guy who thinks we're headed for the main bridge. Explain it. Which society can scan your thoughts to control what thoughts that you have? Thoughts are expressed through speech. It's the same, there's no distinction between free thought and free speech. If you can go straight to the heart of the Muslim world and have all kinds of blasphemous, satanic thoughts. No one can do anything about it because it's in your head. But okay, so you're saying. There's no distinction between free thought and free speech. So again, this issue of racism. So what you're saying is you're not allowed to express this at all. That's free speech, yes. At all. It restricts free speech in some form or fashion. Free speech so you can't give your opinion on anything. You can't say. You can give your opinion on plenty of things in the Muslim world. So you're saying the end of, that I can legally say, here's the reasons why Quran is wrong. No, you can't. The speech. I can. No, you cannot. Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, I acknowledge that. So my host who was lying to me had to rush me out of a restaurant for saying that very sentence. Yeah, that's the law. Because it's illegal to say that the Quran is wrong. Yeah, that's the law. Because Muslim society is preserving Islam. It's preserving belief in God because that is something that's valuable and important. Yeah, it's amazing how many liars live there. Just like in, if you come to, no, no, let me finish my point. You can go to many European countries and you can say, look, I think that homosexuality is wrong. That's hate speech and you will be prosecuted for that kind of language. What country? Britain, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, France deports, France deports Muslims. Yes, you can be imprisoned. You can be kicked out of the country. Muslims are deported from France because they cite verses of the Quran in public speeches that are seen as hateful. This is something that is happening in Europe and it's being, in Canada, the same thing. You have hate speech laws. The only reason that is not the case in the United States is because the First Amendment is more robust here. But in all of those countries, you can be imprisoned if you say, I think homosexuality is immoral. So while I'm, They call that inciting hate. Just because we need to have a common fact here. And so you're saying that all my hosts have in Dubai lied to me about that law. And then I find myself in a hotel room in Dubai. I'm playing Texas Hold'em and there's a knock on the door. Everybody gets scared because they think that there's gonna be police or something. And they say, oh no, you're fine because you're a foreigner, but we're all gambling. That's illegal for us because we're Arabs. We can't be doing that. And then we go to a nightclub. And there are Arab women there who say that they can sneak out and try to blend in with the foreigners. But because they're Arab, if they're caught there, then they're gonna be criminalized because they have this racist legal system where if you're Arab, you have to be, you have to adhere to Islam. And you're telling me all of those people lied about that law. So within Muslim countries that abide by Islamic law, there are certain restrictions on your speech. There are certain restrictions on your behavior. These kinds of restrictions exist in all kinds of societies. There are differences between societies based on fundamental beliefs, but it's not something particular or unique to Islam. That is the point that I'm trying to make. So in a video that I watched of you recently, you said that you don't believe in equality. You don't believe in equality. No, I never said that. Which videos do I say I don't believe in equality? Well, I actually have the link for it. Which was the title of the video. You said you can't have a successful marriage if you have equality, because there has to be inequality. Absolute equality. Just like you can't have a successful business if everyone is equal in the business and there's no hierarchy between the manager and the employees and the owner and the administrators. And you specified the detail was that the man has to be in charge of the woman. Yes, this is patriarchy. You don't have to be a patriarchy, right? Yeah, as has been practiced by literally every single society in history. And you said ultimately that no marriage can succeed without patriarchy. Without the man being in charge of the woman. So my 13 year marriage apparently was a hallucination as well. I don't know. The claim that I made is strong ending my position. My position is that patriarchy provides the best success rate for marriage. Yeah, you can have a great marriage, equality marriage. That's true. That's possible, but that doesn't contradict the general rule. Okay. There's a reason, like you believe in evolution, right? I don't believe in evolution. Okay, you accept the amazing fact of evolution. Yes. So I can show it to you, improve it to you too. Great, excellent. If evolution is true, cultural evolution is true. You accept that. Why is it that all of human history, we have these patriarchal systems of family and society. If the strongest survive, it seems like all of these cultures that are independently developing throughout the world across time and space, they all came up with the same solution or the same model of patriarchy. How do you explain that from an evolutionary perspective? How could something so dysfunctional and evil end up dominating the entire human history? Because one, it's not the strong that survives is one that can best adapt. That wasn't Darwin's statement. That was Herbert Spencer and economist who said so later. Two, you're talking about tribal societies where you have the warrior and the hunter versus the home keeper and that sort of thing. Every society. What's that? Every society. Right, began that way. So that's how that began. That's the answer to your question. And maintain and continue that way. But they don't have to maintain and continue. They're not hunter-gatherers anymore. We don't have to be the warrior providers like we used to be. No, I want an explanation for why that practice persisted for millennia, thousands of years. Why did it persist? Because it all began in that trial. People can change. You can have society A that decides to have a kind of equality feminist marriage. And then society B that is patriarchal. And then if we strongest survive or the best adapted survive, then which will survive? The equality marriage based society or the patriarchal society? In every country, in every society, in every civilization historically, the patriarchal ones came out on top. All began from that stone age culture of the system. Cultures can change, right? Yes, they can. That's why they did. And that's why we're not, until the past 200 years. Lots of things changed in the past 200 years. We've made significant progress. It's still patriarchal. Practically everything we've invented has been in the last 200 years. Because it accelerates. You're not engaging with the point. If you have society A. If I may just be blunt on here. That's pretty rude to say. You're dystopian fantasy. That's pretty rude to say for someone who believes that all the best countries happen to be white and we can't know if that's racist or not. So my point was very simple. You have society A that is feminist and society B that is patriarchal. Don't you think that if feminism and equality marriage was such a rational idea that there would be people in history who would have stumbled upon it prior to the past 200 years. Human history is. And advanced cultures historically, yes, they did. Oh, so advanced, so primitive cultures wouldn't have the IQ to develop that? I said it started as 100th-century societies. And then we have, like Greeks and Roma, that we have other societies to develop that. But why did it start actually, that's a good point. Why did it start? How many times do you need me to answer the same question? Why did patriarchy start? Why was that evolutionary adaptive? For the hunter and gatherers. That is the same question I've just answered like four or five times. I'm sorry, I missed it. What was the answer? Because they all began as stone age societies of hunter and gatherers. What began, prior to the stone age, there were people, right, that evolved. So why did they evolve patriarchy in those stone age societies? For the reason I am now going to explain for the fifth time, because they started out as hunter-gatherer societies where you had the men playing the role of the hunters and the warriors because of a slight advantage in physical strength, whereas the women were, for a number of reasons, connected to the children, the upbringing, the home. That's, the roles were discerned that way. And they don't have to stay that way. So advanced societies, they don't stay that way. We adapt and improve. Please don't ask me to answer that same question at sixth time. So these advanced societies happen to be, like which countries developed equality marriage? It happened to be, guess what, white countries. It happened to be the Northwestern European countries that developed families. Except it wasn't always. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Historically. Sai Senegal, Japanese author, female, there was a time when even Japan allowed for this kind of advance. And when the United States was founded, the reason that we were so popular was not because we were white. The reason that we were so popular was because we were the first secular nation in the world. We were the first meritocracy where it didn't matter about the caste system in India. It didn't matter about the Huguenots versus the Catholics or any of that religious nonsense going on back home. You could come over here and then those religious laws no longer apply. It no longer mattered whether you had a religion or what religion it was. Religion didn't rule. We had secular law and that was hugely attractive. That made the melting pot of the United States. That attracted people from every country. So why did whites come across this brilliant idea? Is it because we were racist? I don't know. I want your explanation from you. Like why is it the whites that developed this kind of amazing secularism and equality marriage? You said earlier that it's advanced societies, advanced civilizations that figure out that. Marriage should be all about equality. No, Japan has not had any kind of equality marriage. It's a highly patriarchal society. In the current day Japanese parliament, there's only two women and they're not allowed to talk. I know. So tell me about patriarchy being abolished supposedly by whites in Europe and in America. What makes whites better able to discover these amazing truths of equality in the sector? I didn't say that. I said that around 1200 or so, Japan was more egalitarian than it is now. And they have since reverted. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit the ill painting that you're trying to paint here. Just like your opening statement with your dystopian nightmare about things that we're never gonna have it, about what atheists do that no atheist does and never did. We offer free thought. We offer freedom of religion. And while we do not offer absolute freedom of speech, we allow freedom of speech. And the thing we are most against. It's a lie. Excuse me? What free thought? I said already, if you say in certain Western, the most secular atheistic European societies, if you say homosexuality is immoral, if you say if you misgender someone, you can be put in prison. Literally, you can be fined. Are you opposed to those kinds of restrictions on speech? You're gonna have to show me that. Are you opposed to that if that's the case? Where if you misgender someone or if you say that I disagree with homosexuality or homosexuality is wrong, that that's gonna put you in prison? You disagree with that. I would need to see proof of that because I don't believe you. No, there are hate speech laws in the UK. For example, last year, there was a Muslim woman who said, who went on the street saying homosexuality is a sin. This is Sodom and Gomorrah. Society's gonna be destroyed by God. She was arrested for hate speech. She was fined for hate speech. This is something very common. Even posting on social media in the EU, you can be prosecuted for statements that you make on Twitter or Facebook that violate hate speech laws. If you're ignorant about these laws and you're focused on America, fine. But even Canada in the North, they have similar laws. If you misgender, this was the whole controversy with Jordan Peterson. He was going contrary to the law by saying that I am not going to be forced to use someone's preferred pronouns. That's the whole controversy with Jordan Peterson. Why? Canadian law has been changed to prosecute or to make that illegal to misgender people. So the debate we're supposed to be doing on which would be better for society, I as an atheist am advocating for free thought and you're telling me that I'm not. You're telling me that I'm lying. No, I'm saying that you have like a fantasy understanding that's not based in reality. You said that liberalism was always authoritarian. It is not. I'm in the anti-authoritarian left quadrant of the political compass, which you really should look up at some point. So we are not always authoritarian. Most of us in fact are not. If you take a poll of the entirety of the country, if everybody did the study, they would realize that most of the population actually leans libertarian left where I am. So that was a false statement. We do not support authoritarianism. We are not advocating for, an atheist society would not mean an authoritarian society whereas an Islamic society would. So you are trying to paint something on me that is not going to fit. I am countering you. Now you wanna talk about something that's gonna make society good. I say free thought is gonna make that good. You say I don't allow free thought. I'm demonstrating that I do. So you think that Holocaust denial should be allowed in Europe? I don't know what to say about Europe because I can't prove to you on the fly what laws actually exist. Should it be legal or not? It's a simple question. I live in a country where stupidity reigns. So you're proving that you're not a free speech absolutist. You do think certain ideas should be restricted. I did already tell you. Certain ideas should be restricted. I did already tell you. You just draw the lines. Hello. You're interrupting me. You just talk for five minutes. I'll let you speak. Don't interrupt, man. You're extremely rude. You've done nothing wrong. You're extremely rude monologue. I really just wanna jump in. Yeah, I gave you your chance to talk for five minutes to give your speech. So this is my response to that. And then I didn't. I asked you a question and you said that you couldn't answer whether Holocaust denial should be legal or illegal. That indicates should be legal or illegal. I said I can't speak for the laws in Europe because I don't know what the laws are in Europe. In the abstract. In the abstract. And then I didn't get to answer because you then asked me another question is another distraction. Because you can't answer a simple question. In the abstract, forget about Europe. Forget about the laws of any particular country. Should Holocaust denial be legal or not? As I was trying to answer when you interrupted the answer to ask yet another question. Yes, I think that in the country that I live in stupidity reigns, right? You people get to say all kinds of stupid things. Now I'm not a free speech absolutes because you do have to be responsible for the things that you say. But whether people say stupid things, sure. We just watched Herschel Walker talk about a vampire movie as part of his campaign speech. I saw Marjorie Taylor Greene say they don't teach us in history about how in the ice ages they had to pay taxes to heat up the planet and melt the ice. People say that these are the people running for office and they're that damn dumb. Yeah, you can't make a law against stupid. You can't make a law against hate. You can make a law when it's gonna lead to violence because you do have to have some low. That's what people argue. They say that Holocaust denial leads to violence. They say saying that homosexuality is immoral leads to violence. I would have to see the evidence and hear the argument and make an informed decision. But if it is proven that it does increase violence then you would be fine with banning it. I'm not gonna make a judgment without the information. But in principle you would be okay with banning certain types of speech because they could potentially lead to violence. If the statistical data prove that out. It has to be a realistic expectation. Not, I wanna get back to the debate, not the opening statement you made about what you talked about. Blaspheming against God in the UAE or in a Muslim society can increase violence towards Muslims. That's potential, right? So if the science shows that blaspheming against Islam. Once again it has to have a realistic probability. Let me finish my hypothesis here or my suggestion. If you have a Muslim country and there's someone like you in that Muslim country blaspheming against God saying that Islam is just a delusion that could potentially inspire people to rebel against the government or it could inspire people to commit acts of hatred against Muslims. If the statistics showed that that increased, that kind of blasphemy increased the rate of violence would you be in favor of blasphemy laws to restrict blasphemy? I am not in favor of blasphemy laws and I know that you are because I saw the interview where you said that you would criminalize blasphemy as a death sentence. So you would execute people for realizing that they can no longer buy into this bullshit. Yeah, just like the liberal colonial governments executed Muslims for disagreeing with. I don't have to wonder what liberal means to you because you think. Liberal means the pursuit of maximum freedom and maximum equality. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Donald Trump is a liberal in that philosophical sense. I'm not talking about leftism versus right wing. I'm talking about liberalism as a concept, a philosophical concept. No, it's like three or four different definitions. No, no. No, there really are. Maximizing freedom and equality. There really are three or four different definitions. One is that liberalism is leftism. That was what I thought you were using before. And that liberalism is left leaning where the political compass puts it in the center and there's another one that says that it favors socialism as a means to communism because they're going off Marxist theory. I get that there are a number of different definitions and some of them conflate leftist and liberal. But I'm not accepting that American expansionism was liberalism. Thomas Jefferson is not a liberal. Is George Washington a liberal? Is the constitution of the United States liberal, a liberal document? Something the entirety of the United States does. I wouldn't say that that's the fault of you. Is the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness a liberal doctrine? I'm talking about liberalism in the philosophical sense, not in the terms of left wing or right wing politics. If you look at the quadrant that you keep referring to and saying that I don't know about, that entire quadrant is liberal. Why? Because every quadrant believes in maximizing liberty and freedom. They just disagree on how best to achieve that. Donald Trump is a liberal in the sense that I'm using it because he thinks that, yeah, we need to maximize people's freedom and equality to the different definitions that I mentioned before. Well, the whole point of this debate is whether atheism is better for society as opposed to society. Okay, so we're offering free thought. You're not. You're offering a death sentence for underage. I think people should be allowed to explore all kinds of ideas, like is homosexuality really right or wrong? Is COVID really this kind of dangerous disease or is it more like the flu? Is different historical events, should we be able to question those historical events or should we be able to question the government on certain so-called conspiracy theories or will we be branded as extremists by the Biden administration or the Trump administration? There is a definition. Those are the things that you cannot question or you cannot broach. There is a definition for extremist. You don't let me finish my question or my point. So those areas of speech are heavily restricted even in the United States. Liberal governments have a long history of restricting speech. I think that all of those things should be investigated, should be talked about. So maybe I'm more of a free speech advocate than you are. I just say, don't blaspheme against God. Don't say things that will destroy these important human institutions like marriage, family, community, God and belief. All of those things are important to preserve. Therefore, it makes logical sense, practical sense to restrict speech that will destroy a community. We're not trying to destroy your religious traditions. We're trying to correct them. That's what atheism wants to do. People like you and these ex-Muslims, they want to wipe Islam off the face of the earth, right? They say, Muslims need to become atheists. No, I said you have one of the most fundamental of all human rights is to think and believe what you will for whatever reason makes sense to you and you don't even have to explain why that is. Now, if you say I want to question whether vaccines work or I want to question whether revolution is real, what have you? I've already seen the article that you wrote where you said that you will deny even evolution because you're going to go on an erroneous assumption of authority of scripture to deny demonstrable scientific fact. I realize that you're going to be that way. You're welcome to question whatever you do. The extremist is when you're the extremist part, that label applies when you take your assumption of authority to deny reality. That, by definition, is a religious extremist. That's the way I apply it. Who defines reality? Who? Yeah, you're saying the extremism means denying reality. If you define reality, yeah, that's very convenient for you. Everything that goes against your reality is extremism. If I define, let me define reality and then you're going to be the extremist. So you want to say that you want to question all of these things, all these established facts. Well, how far does questioning go? At what point do you accept answers? I mean, I already- I thought you were proponent of free thought. Don't you want questions? Of course I do. Great. You're not very good at giving answers, are you? What was your question? Okay. At what point do you accept answers? So you're going to question something. You're going to question vaccines. You're going to question evolution, right? You say you're going to question evolution. Go ahead, question evolution to me. I can answer, I can help you. If you've got a problem, you don't understand evolution. I'll be happy to help you, except that you've already said you're going to believe your storybook no matter what. Doesn't matter. I could show you evolution happening in real time by the time machine, it wouldn't matter. You're going to believe the storybook. The people who want the liberal proponents, the liberal proponents of restricting speech say that certain kinds of speech lead to hatred and violence and that's what justifies restricting it. But this becomes a very convenient way to restrict basically whatever you don't like. So if you're gay in a Muslim country- Literally just a week ago or two weeks ago, Biden said that if you question election results that makes you an extremist. You don't believe in democracy and you could face criminal charges. You could be put on a watch list because you question election results. The logic that liberals give, again, if Donald Trump were the president, he could say the same thing. The logic that they give is this kind of questioning of democracy leads to violence and therefore we have to restrict it. It demonstrably did lead to violence and that was an issue. So you think it should be illegal to question election results? No, I don't as I keep repeatedly explaining a little slow on the uptake. So on the point of the debate about which is gonna give us more, you're talking about Islam which is gonna kill you for apostasy and kill you if you admit to being gay, you're saying you advocate free speech, but obviously not in those cases and many other cases. But you're gonna say that you're the free speech advocate and that I, the anti-authoritarian, am the authoritarian and that I, the one who is strongly advocating for free speech and freedom of religion, I'm the one who's trying to shut you down and that I want us to live in pods and eat bugs. So that was the problem. The reason I didn't address your opening argument was because it's an utter fantasy. There's no reality to it. Do you think there's a problem with people living in pods? Do you think there's a, do you have an objection to gene editing? Do you want to live in a pod? No, no, don't answer the question. You have a right to live in a pod if you want to. Do you think that, so imagine this scenario, you have this gene editing technology and you can use it to increase the IQ of a child in the womb, the 300 increase industriousness so that a person can work 20 hours a day and not get tired. This kind of gene editing technology, do you think that- The fan of Gadica, are you? Right, would that be something that we should promote or prohibit according to atheism? The discussion was on the matter of consent, right? So I don't know what the issue with consent would be in gene editing cases for humans. Well, they would say that if we don't make it mandatory for everyone, then there'll be these gigantic inequalities. Or China. I don't know if they are, we're talking about- The atheistic secular authorities of these countries or China develops this kind of gene editing technology which they're on the cusp of doing, by the way. So if you have- And they, let me finish this scenario. And they actually start, without consent, editing the genes of the next generation, making them into these super productive citizens of the Chinese state. In that situation, the United States or Europe or any other country has no choice but to make that mandatory as well. Why? Because China's GDP will shoot up, their economic power will become so great that they can easily take over the rest of the world. And this is exactly what happened with colonialism. Liberal powers developed all kinds of technologies that the rest of the world didn't have that allowed Western liberal powers to dominate the globe. And we're still living under that kind of dominance. So your argument then is that atheism is bad because science can be misused. And so we should believe in, we should make believe in something else instead. That's a caricature of my argument. Okay, so what is the advantage then? We have science, we have my arguments which have nothing to do with your opening statement at all. I mean, violently opposed to every bit of it. We have humanity, we have families, we have familiar connections. We want to improve some things that you are not ready to fix. And that's your problem, not mine. That's not part of your dystopia. So what is the advantage of believing something that isn't evidently true? The things that I cited, you are true. Like these things are happening in the world. Islam, better for society. Islam is not evidently true. What is the advantage in any religion since no religion is evidently true? We can concede, okay, let's say that Islam is false. You can still have a beneficial system that is based on falsehood. Forced conformity. No, no, people, the masses aren't necessarily hooked into what is true or false. But they have to adhere to the practices. They have to do the thing that the prayers from God taught us today. Like liberalism itself is based on complete falsehoods. The idea that men and women are exactly equal or there's no such thing as gender or... Did you want to come to debate against liberalism? Or are we going to debate? Or are we going to debate? You're the one who's bringing up secularism. All the best countries in the world are secular. You're the one who's talking about left versus right in your opening statement. I didn't bring up these issues. You did, I'm responding to them. I'm responding to the points that you're making. And you can... So tell me. Right, so tell me. I gave you a scenario with gene editing. China developing it. Should that be something that we promote or prohibit in society? If we have the option, as they showed in Gatica, that we know that this child has a genetic propensity toward this disorder and we can correct that. Should we correct that? I think so. I think most people would say that. That's our scenario. If we know what the failure is and we can correct that failure so that that being is not going to have that congenital defect anymore, great. We could fix that. Now what is... So there's the advantage, one of many. We have free thought. We have the freedom of religion protected by atheist activists. And then we have, what's the advantage for Islam? We kill homosexuals and... No, no, no. You change the scenario, you change the scenario. So is there a good... Let me finish my point. Let me finish my point. You changed the scenario that I gave you. I said we can use gene editing, for example, to reduce testosterone in males to make them more docile, less misogynistic. Is that the kind of technology that should be allowed or prohibited? Yes or no? Why would it have to be prohibited if we can improve? Well, a person like me, a religious person or a Christian might say, we should not mess with the human genome. We should not do gene editing. The human body is sacrosanct. That's a religious objection to these kinds of dystopian future technologies. What is the atheist objection to those technologies? That's the answer that I'm not getting from you and you keep avoiding or diverting the topic. Give me a reason on the basis of atheism to prohibit or block these kinds of technologies. Why would, once again, why would I want to prohibit medical science from improving a child that might, would have otherwise been... No, we're not talking about a child who has defects. We're talking about any fetus, any no defects. Can you use the technology to change that fetus, to take away certain undesirable traits or improve certain desirable traits like industriousness, IQ, take out aggression, take out maybe even like... Because people are not livestock. Why? Why not? They're just, you know, animals were animals, right? Well, we are, we indeed. Yeah, so give me a reason. Give me an atheistic objection. We have to expand our humanity to other species, not just restrict it and then treat humans the way we currently already mistreat other species. That's one of the morality advantages that I have over you. So now what is the advantage? You, the argument is this, atheism, not believing things that are not evidently true. Islam, believing things that are not evidently true for no good reason. Since you know everything that's evidently true, tell me if that kind of technology should be prohibited or not. Once again, I wouldn't prohibit the technology. How many times do I gotta answer the same question? Now let's get to my answer. I ask you, again, what do you bring to the table? Atheism means we believe that we accept what's real, we don't make ourselves believe things that are not real. You want society to believe things that are not real. Where's the advantage? I'll just stick to the example of gene editing. What Islam brings to the table is preserving the human being and preventing the kind of gene editing that is going to down the line, completely eliminate the human race. That's what Islam provides. That's the difference. Islam provides. The problem with you is you don't even understand how this is horrific that you basically said, oh, we can allow the technology. You say it so nonchalantly, like that is horrific to many people. The technology that you are talking about misusing also has a practical application that I described. There's no reason to prohibit something that will cure a congenital defect. You want to deny medical science the ability to cure the congenital defect. No, that's a strawman. That is it. No, that's not exactly what you said. And you think that that's the advantage of what believing a false story provides. So having high testosterone is a congenital defect. I'm sorry, what? Having high testosterone is a congenital defect. Why would you say that? What about low IQ? Having sub-100 IQ, is that a congenital defect? I gave you the answer to that one. That's the scenario that I'm talking about. Okay, so you're talking about misusing science. Should we prohibit misusing science? Using technology that can also be used to help people not have congenital defects. I would prefer a society where some people have congenital defects, as opposed to a society that is wiping out the human race because you've edited the genome into something completely different. Okay, so we both agree that's not going to happen. I would prefer the congenital defect society. I don't promote misuse of science, but I will promote the existence of the technology that can also not be misused, but be used properly to cure congenital defects. Now, Okay. Can we just continue? Let's just continue. Oh, I got to hear your closing statement. After hearing how distorted your opening was, I got to hear your closing statement. I think we have to get the closing statement too. I agree. Wait, I went first in the opening. I thought it was the opposite. Do you have a preference both sides? Are you okay, R&D? I don't really need a closing statement. I'll give you this, maybe one minute on a closing statement. So atheism means we accept what's real. We don't make ourselves believe things that are not evidently true. I don't see an advantage to believing things that are not evidently true. That's called lying. So there's no reason to do that. He's advocating that it would be better for society to believe things that are not evidently true. Specific things that also have implications such as death to apostates and homosexuals in some cases. So he's talking about a forced conformity that I think is dystopian. My utopia is dystopia vice versa. And I don't think Islam ever brought anything to the table, not anything we want. Yeah, so I think that Aaron has a completely hoax understanding of liberalism and the history of liberalism. He's completely ignorant about colonialism. He's ignorant about the liberal policies within Europe and within America. He doesn't experience any kind of authoritarian measures from these liberal governments, liberal in the philosophical sense, because he himself is a liberal. That's why he doesn't experience the totalitarian nature of liberalism. But any theist, any person who actually values traditional life, values marriage, values family, values community, values God, this is a hellscape that we're living in and it's getting worse and worse and worse. He makes these very childish claims about free speech and then when I ask him about Holocaust denial he waffles and he can't make up his mind. I point out that all of these countries do have restrictions on freedom as seen historically and in the present. He's not conversant with any of that history or those kinds of political facts. He asks what does Islam provide humanity? That's what the debate was about. What is better for society? I gave an entire opening statement about how Islam blocks the technologies that are going to literally wipe out the human race, the technologies that are going to put us into this dystopia, living in the pod. It's already happening. We can look at a city like New York City, we can look at Beijing, we can look at San Francisco. People are already living in the pods and this is a dystopia. Every normal person will see that and will think I don't want that for myself, I don't want that for my children, but that is an impending reality and Aaron wasn't conversant with any of that. I'm saying that Islam and a commitment to these kinds of values, like the value of being a human being, the value of marriage and family and community, that's what blocks that dystopia from taking us over. But if your ethic and your morality and your worldview is just based on maximizing personal pleasure, well, if that's what you want to do, who's to stop you, we should all be free and happy and live the way that we want, that kind of logic step by step will take you to the pod. That is exactly what is happening and you have philosophers, atheist philosophers by the way, like Yuval Harari, saying that yeah, most of humanity in the future because of AI and automation, most of society is useless, they'll just have to entertain themselves through drugs and through pornography and video games, that's the solution for the majority of society because people, humanity is useless. That kind of logic is coming directly from atheism and this ethic of maximizing freedom, maximizing liberty, maximizing pleasure, bodily pleasures, Islam and other religions by the way, other traditional religions say no, there are important values that we have to preserve, important institutions that we have to preserve and that blocks the technology. Yes, I say Islam is the best because I think Islam is the most resistant to these kinds of changes. Other religions have unfortunately increasingly sold out, increasingly liberalized, but I would much rather this be a Christian nationalist society or a Jewish nationalist society or even a Hindu nationalist society as opposed to an atheistic society because it is that much more dystopian and that much worse. Islam is the best option that we have for improving society. Atheism is just a nightmare, dystopic nightmare. Unfortunately, Aaron could not respond to any of the points that I brought up. And with that, we'll go into the Q&A. If you guys could do me a favor, both Aaron and Daniel, if you could reread the question for the audience member as they ask it, just to be sure that everybody's both in the room and not in line here, is it? We'll take questions from Jackson, if anybody has a question. I have a question for Daniel, right? No. What's your name? Aaron. I thought Daniel did a better job, but my question for you is, you miss all these countries that supposedly are war-free at the starting of your opening? Yeah, and they didn't start out that way. That's important, because all of these places where they're- You can't even finish this question. Those countries also have a litany of problems that arise due to the fact that there is no morality, there's no efforts to protect humanity, such as women sleeping around, you have all this transgenderism, you have this mental illness in society, everyone's fat, you have just countless problems, you have illicit problems. So at the end of the day, how do you value freedom over the success of humanity? I don't. I'm not a liberal in the sense that I was defining, I am a leftist, which I realize he's using a different definition, which is why we were talking past each other. But leftist means that I'm going to be more favoring the community, not just myself, it's not about my needs, it's the needs of the many over the one. So I don't value freedom, my own freedom over humanity, I value humanity more. So then why would you oppose a punishment for apostasy, for example, that is a communitarian ethic, preserving the interest of the community over your individual right to blaspheme, that is exactly the logic. Because there's no advantage in the community being deceived. No, there is an advantage in preserving the community, you say that you value community, you say that there's an advantage to the community being deceived. Preserving the community, yes. That's your assumption that that's deception, but imagine there is an Asian community, imagine there's an Asian community, or a Chinese community, or a Canadian community, that group has a set of rules. Don't suddenly start insulting Canadian values, or Canadian nationality, otherwise we'll kick you out of the group. To continue with your question, a lot of these countries that were on that list did not start out that way. They actually took the example from the United States becoming the first secular nation, and where we fell away from that ourselves, other nations adopted it. France was not a great place to live at the time that he's talking about, which was also the time that I was talking about. France improved after that, and a number of these other nations did too. Now whether they all did a spectacular job is debatable, but that's what they're all aiming for, and they understand that secularism is the way to go. That's the best way to go, whereas forced conformity to any religion is not. Yeah, I am. The question, should I repeat it? So the question was, have you seen what is happening to Muslims in India? So I have condemned Hindutva, Hindut nationalism, Hindu fascism basically. Yeah, so that's a very good question. Why I still prefer to live in a Hindu nationalist society than an atheistic society. Yes, because the Hindu society is going to still preserve certain values that Muslims can benefit from. So in India, again, it's oppression. It is fascistic. Muslims are being literally killed for expressing their religious beliefs. But if a Muslim were to hide his religious beliefs and just pray at home, he could still have a successful marriage. He could have a very robust family life. He could not worry about his children being taken away from him for... Can I address that question too? Well, you didn't let me finish answering the question. So let me finish answering. No, let me answer. Yeah, so what I'm saying, I didn't say Hindutva society was a free society. Right, but... Okay, so let me answer the question. You have to let me answer the... This is not like a dialogue. You asked your question, I'm answering it. So you can sit down now. But look, we're comparing, I'm not Hindutva society versus atheistic society. The atheistic society is going to be much worse in the long run. It is going to be much more totalitarian. China is the model that we're seeing right now and that's being rolled out to European society, American society as well. That vision of the future, get in the pod and eat the bugs, that is objectively worse than a highly oppressive, highly totalitarian Hindutva society. That society is still better in the sense that it will do better in preserving other values. I'm not promoting Hindutva. I'm not promoting that kind of society. It's still objectively better than the kind of society that atheism produces. And I... That's one question, come on. I want to address that too, because the event that you're talking about happened when I happened to be in India myself. So a band of militant Hindus, which is a concept that Americans are not familiar with because the only Hindus we're usually seeing is Harkrishnas, right? So what do we know? I go to India, that's when I find out that Hindus are militant and there's a band of them that have busted into this guy's house, that dragged a Muslim outside, killed him for eating beef when in fact he was eating chicken. Problem with that, several problems with that. One is it's a religiously motivated crime. All of those people walked because India has a law that if you committed a crime motivated by religion, then you cannot be prosecuted for it. In an atheist society, that's just dumb fuckery and we wouldn't have allowed that. That would still be illegal. Everything about that would be illegal. The busting into his house and the, if he had been eating beef, it wouldn't have mattered because we have religious freedom. We have secularism, which is this wonderful thing you should find out about. It's completely opposite of everything that you wanna talk about. So the last word on that is guess what? They are trying to limit the eating of beef within secular societies. Don't you know that cow farts are going to destroy the earth? So we have to stop people from eating beef and introduce synthetic beef or synthetic meat so that people can consume that and basically limit or completely x out the eating of cows because the future of the human race depends on it. The same kind of restrictions are being rolled out within secular society that you love so much. What you're talking about is a problem of having eight billion people on the planet. You have to be very efficient with your food production. I don't know if it could be that word. I mean, doing this to you is just that the stardust gave them the initial challenges so I wanted to give them at least the last word in response to you, Arun, and then we gotta go over the question right behind me. And so, yeah, I mean, the other thing about, okay, eight billion people on the planet you gotta be very efficient with your food production and with your energy production. We have to, and we're just not very efficient. Yes, we could be more efficient if we cut out beef, but that's not meaning that we're gonna criminalize somebody for eating a cow. So what is in that? As much as I hate Hindutva, it's also a caricature to say that they're just going around and murdering anyone who eats beef. There are cases of lynchings like that, and it's deplorable, and I denounce it in the strongest terms, but also Indian law and the kind of law that they have in that society does not like make killing Muslims for eating beef. That's not actually something that is representative of Hindu national legal system. We gotta get over the question. Yes. No, I accept that that's probably significant, especially with a lot of the countries that are in Africa. It may not just be that they happen to be Muslim majority countries, because there are the other ones that, there was a lot of Christian majority countries on those lists too. And in the case of the African continent in particular, I would suspect that a lot of that was due to long-term subjugation from Europe for quite a long time. So I understand the systemic problems to keep the people of that continent down more so than other continents we could talk about. Yeah, but the point that I'll just make is that that basically invalidates the entire opening statement that you gave, because you're acknowledging that all of those lists are based on, like the superiority of those countries are based on a very bloody and brutal colonial past. And then again, if Islam was the best thing for society, Islam would have improved those countries. They wouldn't be exactly as bad as the Christian countries that are also on that list. We're gonna give our, they're gonna change years for a second here. I found the discussion of a genetic arm race, kind of this notion of an existential threat to be very interesting. And specifically, Mr. Kikichu, I was wondering if you could comment on, to what extent you think that, say that China does develop some sort of, now the technology, there is a genetic arm race. Do you really think that all of these Muslim countries would be able to successfully stick to their morals when you're facing a threat, according to you, it would go into nuclear weapons. To what extent do we see that principle is able to time and time again stand up against probably a threat that poses such a great danger to the world as far as your medical is concerned? I mean, that's the problem with technology. It creates these nuclear weapons, literally. These weapons of mass destruction, this gene editing that threatens the existence of the entire human race. And the reality is that Muslims have lost against that kind of power, but the consolation is that all of humanity is lost. Christianity has lost, Judaism has lost. Every traditional culture has lost because of this onslaught that imposes itself. And if you don't wanna be wiped out, you have to basically get rid of all of your traditional values in order to industrialize your society and adopt the kind of technology that can allow you to maintain some level of sovereignty. That is the threat of technology. That is why it's such an existential problem. And it's not just Muslims who are losing this. We all are victims. We all are losing because of the threat that these technologies pose. And atheism is doing nothing other than driving it forward and telling us science is the only source of objective truth. All of this kind of traditional morality and religion and belief that you have, whether it's Islam, Christianity, Confucian, this is all nonsense. It's all fake. Like that is only increasing the problem. It is driving the kind of extinction that we are faced with. Okay, so he's conflated technology, all technology, which even that technology was devised by Christians. It's all somehow based on atheism. And somehow atheism not believing in God is somehow driving this. Which he's never made an argument for why that is. It's just all dystopian and supposedly we have no vile use or morals. So therefore, we're the bad guys in that picture. Even though we don't advocate for destroying the planet either. And a lot of these weapons weren't even invented by atheists. Yeah, I mean, that's irrelevant whether it was invented by an atheist. The point is that ideology doesn't, and I ask you this in the debate, like give me an atheistic argument to prevent this kind of gene editing technology. And you say, no, we would allow it. We would allow that kind of technology. Presumably you allow people to develop all kinds of technologies based on the principle of free choice without understanding the consequence down the line what that can be used for. That's a problem with your worldview. That's a big problem with atheism. That's why it's so bad for society. My worldview is only relevant to the point that I don't wanna be fooled into believing things that are not evidently true, like you do. Yeah, well my worldview is that I don't want the human race to go extinct. That does not mean that I want the human race to go extinct. That does not mean that I advocate. But what are the consequences of your belief? I'm not going to prohibit science because it might be misused. Yeah, you just need to go to the World Economic Forum. You need to go to Davos. You need to go to all of these forums of power. Go to all of these forums of power that are dominating society on a secular basis. I don't know if you got the memo, but secular powers are ruling the globe right now. They're secular. They're not ruling on the basis of religion. So these kinds of policies and plans that they openly speak about and roll out. This is on the basis of secularism. It's not religion that is guiding those kinds of policies. And maybe you're not very well read, but if you look at some of these atheistic philosophers like Yuval Harari, you can see exactly, or Klaus Schwab, you can see exactly the kind of plans that they have for the human race. Unfortunately, people like Richard Dawkins aren't really clued into a lot of these realities, so maybe you need to find better atheist friends. Yeah, you hear that, Matt? Richard Dawkins is not elite enough for the atheists. No, I said he's not smart enough, that's why I said. He's not getting invited to these conferences of world power, that's the good thing. And you are. I don't know, other atheists are. That's exactly what I believe. The reason that those countries are at the bottom of these lists is because they have been the victims. Let me answer your question, please. Let me answer your question. The reason that those countries are at the bottom of the list is because they're victims of the humanist, liberal, secular, colonial powers, neo-imperial powers that have dominated them for the past 250 years. That is the explanation. The challenge was to aren't, because his claim was that these countries are the best because they are secular. Well, guess what? There are plenty of African countries that are secular. There are plenty of South American, Eastern European countries that are secular, but they're at the bottom tier. Secularism apparently didn't help them get to the level of prosperity that we find in America and Europe. What is the explanation for that? Aaron had no explanation, and he fumbled when I asked him if it's racist to consider that all the best societies to live in are these white European countries. He didn't have an answer to that, but that was a problem for his view, not my view. Yeah, the explanation that I gave that- I still didn't answer your question. Yeah, I did answer your question. Yes, it is because of imperialism. Yes, it is because of colonialism. Yes, because imperialism is racist. Imperialism dominated non-whites. Imperialism and colonialism is racist. Yes, bingo, you got it. Yeah, Italy didn't make any top 10 list, by the way. I noted. About 2000, streets were shut down, mosque students were having cleaner segregation. You met risk of abandonment in Switzerland since 2009. You can't fill a man-made point of mosque. And this year, the Sweden Education Ministry has started an initiative to close down or reduce the number of Islamic schools in the country. So the question is, if y'all cared so much about free thought in your secular worldview, why is that all of your model secular countries that you mentioned in Western Europe make such a habit out of discriminating against normal worldviews? It could be that the statement made by a number of imams toward the Islamification of Europe, because they did broadcast that in a number of places. I've even seen video of that. Presentations done in Norway and a number of other places where they have these huge gatherings where they're talking about the Islamification of Europe. And that, I suspect, is going to be a reaction to those threats, where they said that within 10 or 20 years that Europe was going to be a Muslim continent. I'm saying that that's a reaction. I'm not saying it's justified. Yeah, I'll ask you, why is it a habit of your model secular countries in Western and northern Europe who discriminated against Muslims is closely altering their views and is closely altering so much about their thought as a state of... Because Christianity isn't a threat anymore. And Islam isn't a threat anymore. As I said, if they're reacting, which is what I suspect they're doing, they're reacting to a deliberate threat that was made that they're going to be Islamified within 20 years. And I suspect that these countries are reacting that way. I'm not saying it's justified. That's just what I think is happening, because it's the first I've heard of it. And that's my gut response to it. Why is the far right who sees Islam as a threat and immigration as a threat, why is the far right so dominant in all of these best countries to live in that you listed in Western Europe and in the Nordic countries, for example? That's his question. You're just restating his point without answering the question. He asked why they were criminalizing Islam and not Christianity. He didn't say anything about it. No, he's asking about why are they criminalizing Islam? He didn't say anything about Christianity. He didn't say anything about the far right. Yeah, but that's what he's describing. It's the far right that's criminalizing Islam. Banning the hijab, banning minarets, banning mosques. Okay. Yeah, many of them are. Many of them actually are. Yeah, they're really not. No. In Europe they are. In Europe they are. I have met in my life three right-wing atheists. And I also, I'm on the board of directors for American Aid. The people who are most rabidly against Islam are the atheists. They're the most rabidly against Islam. They're the most in favor of banning mosques. The most in favor of banning hijab. They're the most in favor of restricting Muslim rights. That's really interesting. They're atheists. Why? Because they view Islam as a threat. That's really interesting because I'm hearing all the time about how I, as an atheist, am showing favoritism to Muslims. Why don't I attack Muslims? Why am I always attacking Christians? Why do you, atheists, favor the Muslims so much? Thank you for being the one person to say that that's not happening. Everybody else is criticizing me for attacking you. For not attacking you. I mean, you're saying that there's a European reaction against Islam. I said that's my suspicion. That's the only thing I can think of. Yeah, so Europe is also cracking down against anti-Semitism. So you think there's a Jewish threat? Why do you have to put words in it? Obviously aren't there. I'm just following your logic, bro. No, you're not. I asked that question. I asked that very question. He was not conversant in that he would not provide an answer. I did provide an answer multiple times. In my closing, I provided an answer. Islam is the most resistant to the liberalization force. And the values that I have promoted throughout my opening statement are universal values. Arendon specifically say this, but I presume he does value things like marriage, he values things like family. He did say he values community. If you want to preserve those things, you have to restrict certain liberties. You have to kind of restrict equality to a certain extent in order to preserve those institutions and those values. Islam does that in a unique way because Islam is uniquely resistant to liberalization and secularization. That's why a lot of atheists, humanists hate Islam and see it as the primary threat. Sam Harris is the one who said that we need to be willing to do a preemptive nuclear strike on the Muslim world because Islam is the mother load of bad ideas. Sam Harris, last time I checked, is an atheist. They hate Islam. Why? Because Islam is resistant to this liberalization program in the way that Christianity or other religions haven't been. So that is the unique contribution of Islam. For those who, even though they're not Muslim, they value marriage. They value community. They want to live a life where they can find someone to love a stable marriage and not being worried about getting divorce-raped or having their children being taken away from them because of some new LGBT policy on and on. People who have those kinds of values will see the value of Islam even if they don't convert to Islam. I've talked to people at this conference who said, I'm not Muslim, actually I'm atheist, but I see the value of Islam. I see that this is a way that this makes sense to live in this way even if I don't ultimately accept the theology. I see this in the audience that while he says now, that I'm sure Aaron has these values for friends and family and humanity, and that it's a humanist and all that, he did say in his opening statement that atheists, all of us, have no values. We don't value humanity at all. His opening statement was very explicit on that. But that's the contradiction. I'm pointing out a contradiction that you will express belief in the value of community in marriage. You will say that, but your worldview, your atheism, your belief that only scientific truths are objective undermines those values. It undermines morality and community. No, that's blatantly false. And if you want to say objective truth, the truth is what the facts are. How else do we verify it? Show me how a religion can objectively show me the fact of love. We can show the chemical signature of it. That's exactly the undermining that I'm talking about. You're thinking love, which is this amazing love, which is this amazing concept, this transcendent value that has so much power and meaning, you're saying it's just chemical signals. That is undermining life. It's chemically traceable and it's objectively verifiable. Yes, I do think that people are attracted to the idea that defectors are punished. Again, this is a universal feature of all communities, all religions prior to modernity. You had punishment for defection, apostasy if you leave the group. There's a punishment for that. That is actually very attractive. Why? Because it preserves the community. It preserves the stability of the community and the group. And humans universally value that. It's actually something that moral psychologists will talk about. How there is a universal human intuition about in-group versus out-group ethics where you have a preference towards your in-group. So people are attracted to actually Andrew Tate said this before he converted to Islam. Andrew Tate said that, I respect Muslims. Why? Because they don't take, you know, shit from anyone. They don't take crap from anyone. They stand up for their beliefs. He was attracted to that and he said it in a lot of non-Muslims, millions actually who in the comment sections agree. That's a very attractive part about Islam. And then Andrew Tate ended up becoming Muslim. So that's a perfect scenario of what you're describing. We shouldn't want to believe something that might not be true. We shouldn't believe anything until evidence is sufficient to convince us. And then for me if, and it's happened on occasion that I will believe something because some fact is related to me or something I read which indicates this thing. And then when I realized that fact is fraudulent or was not represented correctly or what have you, and thus you don't have to disprove the belief. It's enough to know that there wasn't sufficient foundation for it. I've already stopped believing it. But with religion you have to believe. It's literally make-believe. That's what pastors and mums and all those are doing in their sermons. They're making people believe and there's no justification for believing something that is not evidently true. You shouldn't have to make believe. Just show me what's real. Let's base our information on that. Flipperylism has so many beliefs that have nothing to do with fact. I mentioned the idea of gender equality that the genders are equal in every way. They have exactly the same IQ. They have the same level of intelligence and personality. This is something that is completely disputed by science but liberal humanist atheists will maintain that belief no matter what and they want to reorder society as a whole based on this myth. That's just one example of gender equality but you can talk about any other area. What definition of liberal are you using now? I define what liberalism is but if you don't think that it's a liberal belief that the genders are equal and have equal intelligence let me know.