 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not atheists are consistent skeptics and we are starting right now. With Daniel's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us Daniel, the floor is all yours. Bismillah, Alhamdulillah. Salaamu Alaykum, Salaamu Alaykum. Atheists say they do not believe in God because there's no scientific evidence for God. The operating principle here is that in order to be justified in your belief in something, you need to have scientific evidence. But how consistent are atheists in applying this principle? My argument is that atheists are not consistent. They are selective skeptics. Let me share my screen here. Here is the argument. Premise one, atheists live in societies with governments and laws. Premise two, long term, humans will not live peacefully under governments and laws they believe are morally evil. They will revolt. Premise three, to avoid civil war, there needs to be a basic consensus that the government and laws are not morally evil. If a high percentage of the people believe that government and laws are evil because of oppression, discrimination or lies, they will revolt. Premise five, or Premise four, sorry, Premise four, scientific facts alone are not enough to create consensus among large groups of people. Consensus requires additional facts. Those facts can be religious in character or they can be non-religious in character. Those are the only two choices. Premise five, atheists reject purported facts that are religious in character. Therefore, in accepting political consensus, atheists accept facts that are not religious in character and are not backed by science. Therefore, atheists are not consistent skeptics, at least those living in stable, secular societies. So for example, look at China. With over 60% atheist population, the highest in the world, do you think Chinese atheists are free thinkers? No, obviously much of their worldview is Chinese nationalist propaganda. Or consider the former USSR, a government which was explicitly atheist and ruled over millions of atheists. Were Soviet atheists free thinkers? No, their worldview is dictated in large part by Soviet propaganda. Well, we have the same situation in the secular West. The state propaganda is liberal secular political ideology and no one is more blindly committed to that ideology than Western atheists. We can understand this better with four categories of examples, examples that have to do with utilitarianism, about human nature, about group difference, and about so-called conspiracy theories. Let's start with the first category of utilitarianism. Consider democracy versus dictatorship. We're not able to see your slides anymore if you still had slides you were showing. Yeah, I took off the scruncher, so you shouldn't see anymore slides. Consider democracy versus dictatorship. Which political model leads to better socioeconomic outcomes? You can bring in a ton of empirical data to weigh pros and cons to justify either position. But ultimately, science alone is not going to definitively decide. You need additional facts that go beyond science to justify one position, and that's where political ideology comes in. Of course, we find that atheists in the West overwhelmingly support the idea of liberal democracy.ists in China or the USSR beg to differ. Another example, atheists believe that giving people more and more freedoms is good for society and increases happiness and prosperity. But is this actually true? Again, a utilitarian argument weighing net benefits versus net harms based on empirical evidence could show that actually individual freedoms should be strictly limited. There could be arguments either way, but the point is science cannot definitively settle this question. Despite this, atheists are unanimous. Where's their skepticism? Or what about encouraging women to pursue careers as opposed to being mothers and homemakers? There is a lot of empirical data showing how careerism among women is associated with higher rates of mental illness, worse outcomes for children, and many other negative social effects. How do we decide which policy is best? One method is to let religion dictate laws and social policy. Religion creates that moral consensus. And that is most common in human history, but that's precisely what atheists reject. So how can secular governments create consensus? Well, they fabricate claims to support their liberal ideology and aggressively censor competing narratives. For example, if we were to suggest, well, empirical data shows that net harm of women in the workplace is actually greater than the benefit, therefore we should ban it. What is the response from atheists and the proponents of liberal secularism? They say, that's misogyny, that's hate speech, that's extremism. You're blocked from exploring or even considering a set of potential scientific facts. If you're an academic, you'll not get funding for your research. You'll be kicked out of academia. You'll get banned from social media. You might even be charged with hate speech in some secular countries. You're not allowed to research scientific facts that are politically incorrect according to the secular establishment. It's just asserted that science supports the secular position. So where's the skepticism from atheists? Now let's move to the second category of examples regarding what is human nature? Are human beings naturally atheist or religious? Plenty of evidence suggests that humans are naturally religious and believe in God. This would support laws and policies that prioritize religious perspectives, but atheists will deny the scientific facts here or they won't practice skepticism about liberal secular claims that all people are born as atheists and it's only indoctrination that makes people religious and therefore religion should be barred in all matters of governance. Another example is promiscuity natural for women. If so, that fact would support the political ideology of sexual liberation, legalizing abortion, etc. But a ton of scientific evidence says that no, women are not naturally promiscuous and there's a great deal of psychological and societal harm that comes with female promiscuity. But what is the response from proponents of a secular worldview? That's slut-shaming. That's misogyny. You're just an incel. The conversation is shut down as hate speech. We're not allowed to scientifically investigate the anti-liberal position. Yet, when you poll atheists, 94% of atheists, according to Pew, think casual premarital sex is acceptable. Nearly 90% believe that abortion should be legal. You have near consensus from atheists on things that are not only not supported by science, but actually glaringly contradict the scientific evidence. No skepticism from atheists, though. Another example, pornography. The secular belief is that viewing porn is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. Nowadays, government programs are even including pornographic material in grade school curricula. But again, tons of evidence suggests that this is very unnatural and damaging, but atheists express no skepticism in these issues and overwhelmingly believe that porn is morally acceptable. Atheists, where's your skepticism? Meanwhile, those who suggest banning porn are branded as irrational extremists and fundamentalists. Now, the third category, group differences. If groups are fundamentally different, then we usually think it's OK to discriminate. For example, can we have laws that discriminate against blind people when it comes to driving cars? Yes, that's justified because the blind cannot safely drive cars. But can we discriminate against Canadians on this? No, because there's no relevant difference between Canadians and other groups when it comes to driving. So purported facts about group differences affect our understanding of discrimination. Are men and women different enough to justify gender-specific discrimination or unequal treatment in certain domains? All traditional religious systems say yes. But atheists argue this is misogyny and hatred of women. Why? They claim it's because men and women are functionally the same in terms of IQ, psychology, physical capacity, emotional tendencies, et cetera. Of course, plenty of science says otherwise. So where is the skepticism from atheists? Furthermore, the secular regime aggressively fabricates facts. The liberal consensus, for example, is that the only reason that women don't have as much success in math, science and business as men is that women are subject to discrimination. It is not because of IQ distribution or women having less testosterone that makes them less competitive. No, it's because they're unfairly discriminated against by men. That is fabricating facts about causation to support a political ideology while ignoring all the contravening scientific evidence. But this is not surprising because scientific facts alone are not enough to bring people to a moral consensus about laws and social policy. Of course, of course, atheists as proponents of this secular system cannot admit that this is what is happening. And that's why atheists are selective skeptics. Another example, should same sex marriage be legal? An overwhelming consensus of atheists, 92 percent say yes. And if you ask them, they'll say that their support for it is based on the scientific fact that homosexual marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage. Therefore, it would be morally wrong to discriminate against same sex couples. But much evidence shows that homosexual marriage is associated with mental illness, child abuse, domestic violence, etc. But follow that line of reasoning and atheists scream, that's homophobic. That's hate speech. That's extremism. And you will be banned from social media, academia and the political domain as a whole. Where is your skepticism on this issue, atheists? The fourth category, conspiracy theories. Atheists have no problem believing that the governments around the world routinely commit election fraud, conduct false flags, falsely revise history in order to support their political regimes, manipulate public health crises to expand control, do political assassinations. But if you accuse the US or Western liberal governments of doing these things, you get blasted as a conspiracy theorist about conspiracy theorists or even a disinformation agent who needs to be silenced. Basically, any conspiracy theory about non-liberal regimes, no problem. But conspiracies about liberal regimes like the US, we can't have that because that undermines any consensus about the goodness of the liberal world order. Where is your skepticism on these issues, atheists? I just finished the last paragraph. We'll do the same for T. Jump in terms of giving an extra 20 seconds. Go for it. So these are four areas where atheists don't practice the same skepticism they have for religion. It's not just that atheists have different values, and that's what's causing the difference. It's that atheists rely on false facts that support their liberal secularism and shut down everything that contravenes it. This is selective skepticism. Thank you very much for that opening statement, Daniel. And want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science, religion and politics, welcoming people from every walk of life. We hope you feel welcome. And don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up, for example, next week, a past state prophet and Muslim apologist debate whether or not Islam is harmful. You don't want to miss that one. Hit that subscribe button. And with that, we're going to kick it over to T. Jump for his opening statement as well. Thanks very much, Tom. The floor is all yours. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for inviting me on. As always, appreciate being here. I have no idea how pretty much anything he said has to do with the topic. Like I'm not the other atheists. If your argument is that some atheists are inconsistent, like Duh, atheists are people, too, hashtag people, too. But I in the context of a God, they're not adding any extra skepticism. So, for example, I wrote in epistemology theory of knowledge. To summarize, it's conceptual claims require conceptual evidence, empirical claims require empirical evidence and metaphysical claims require metaphysical evidence. I apply all claims to that exact same standard, including all the things you listed. Women, on average, have a bell curve lower IQ than men. We know this same with physical strength. That's why they don't do as well. I'm like chess and we know prizes. Like it's a fact. Yes, we know this. It's not it's not debated. It's a fact. So I don't know what you're even talking about when you're saying we don't acknowledge these facts. We do. So it's just not true. So if you're saying that atheists, some atheists out there are inconsistent. Well, that's great. I can't talk about those because I'm not them, but I'm not. I am an atheist. I am not inconsistent. Therefore, premises is false. Atheists are true. Atheists are consistent skeptics. So I don't know. I don't know where else to go with that. It's pretty simple. I have a consistent epistemology. I apply it to all things. Therefore, atheists are consistent skeptics. Devont. You got it. We'll jump into the five minute rebuttal. So each side will get five minutes in return for the opening statements. With that, we also want to say, folks, if you have not yet already, consider sharing this debate with somebody else who enjoys these topics as we really do want to spread a neutral platform, modern day debate on YouTube as well as via podcast. But with that, Daniel, thank you very much. The floor is all yours for your five minute rebuttal. Yeah. So the topic is our atheists consistent skeptics. So it's referring to atheists as a group, not just is T jump a consistent skeptic. That wasn't the topic of the debate. We're talking about atheists and the whole point of my argument. And I can bring it on the screen again if you want to like point to a specific problem that you have with the argument is that the skepticism that atheists are using against religion is not consistent with or is not consistently used against these other areas, these other areas within politics, within society, within perspectives of history, within morality and values and policy. This, you know, this is the whole point of being consistent as a skeptic. You can't just have, you know, liberalism and secularism as a worldview is the dominant ideology within the world today. And for some reason, atheists have, as a group, are not interested in having a sustained critique against it. And all the most prominent atheist thinkers, whether you're talking about Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or even someone like Daniel Dennett, they all fall on that part of the political spectrum, in terms of values, in terms of political outlook, views on government, et cetera, et cetera. So that's what we're talking about when we refer to atheists within this within this debate topic. I mean, you're asking, you're saying something like, OK, the IQ of women is lower when we look at a bell curve, the average might be slightly lower and they have, you know, less of a standard distribution at either ends of that bell curve. But is that something that we can talk about? Like I graduated from Harvard University and we had Larry Summers as our president. Larry Summers was sacked as president of Harvard University while I was a student. Why? Because he pointed out exactly this fact that you said, oh, everyone acknowledges he got kicked out of Harvard University as president because he said that look, like women's IQ, he was addressing the fact or the situation at Harvard where you have more the physics department, the math department, the chemistry department are all dominated by men. And there's not equal equality in those departments with equal female and male professors. So he's addressing this issue and this fact. And he's saying that, look, this is just a function of the distribution of IQs between the genders and he was fired from that from that position and who's leading that kind of witch hunt against them. It's people who have a secular value system and view religion as toxic and our critics of religion, including many atheists. So this is what you have to explain. That's the whole point of being consistent. But the debate topic had said nothing about God or you have to be consistent about views on religion. It's just consistent skepticism. Most of us are consistent. We're consistent in applying. Yeah, laugh it up, Tom. We have to we're consistent in that we approach the world through our religion through Islam. That is what being consistent means. It's inconsistent when you are focused, laser focused on religion and you ignore every other belief system that is out there and that you yourself accept and endorse. So that's that's what we call inconsistency. And I mean, the thing about I don't know how much time do I have, Tom? Minute and thirty one seconds. OK, so the thing about consistency is that, you know, if atheists did practice consistent skepticism across the board, Western society would collapse consistent skepticism and scrutiny on the basis of science would literally destroy public trust in every secular institution. Imagine applying scientific scrutiny to American or European history and realizing that what they teach in public schools about the modern West being the good guys in history, et cetera, is just a hoax and an actuality the West was built on and continues to thrive on systematic war and genocide. Imagine applying scientific scrutiny to the modern secular way of life and realizing it's actually objectively harmful compared to traditional lifestyles or religious lifestyles. Skepticism of this nature would cause modern secular society to slowly descend into chaos. And that's precisely why Western governments strictly control speech. They censor, they strictly control thought with an army of fact checkers and departments of misinformation. If a country like Russia or China, for example, want to destroy America, they wouldn't need to nuke us. All they would need to do is provide Americans with open, uncensored internet, as well as NGOs that could operate in America and attract the top dissident minds with big salaries and have those intellectuals constantly push political narratives that contradict the secular American government. In fact, this is exactly what America does to other countries in order to push secularization as well as stir revolution and spark regime change. Skepticism is a powerful weapon, which is exactly why atheists apply it selectively against others, but rarely point the gun at their own beliefs. What makes it egregious is when atheists deny this glaring inconsistency. We have to kick it over to Tom for his five minute rebuttal as well. Tom, thanks very much. The floor is all yours. Folks, if you haven't had questions for the Q&A, as we will have a Q&A following the open discussion, you can submit them here at the YouTube channel, Modern Day Debate. If you at me at Modern Day Debate in the live chat, that's one way to ask a question. Otherwise, Super Chat's another option, in which case we push it at the top of the list. Thanks very much. Tom, the floor is all yours. Yeah. So Daniel actually said nothing there to support the position that atheists are not consistent skeptics. So skepticism is like doubting, like it's something true or insulting false. And you seek evidence for that. In the case of all the examples he listed, there's evidence for both sides. So you can find evidence for both sides. There's many different papers in the spectrum. There's no proof in sociology one way or the other. It's a very difficult field to establish proofs one way or the other. But in the case of magical skydatties, there's zero evidence. So it's pretty easy to be like, yeah, that's that's garbage. And so in the case of all of the atheists he mentioned, they have evidence to support their position and the debate is over who's right. That's that's the question. We don't have proof one way or the other. And so they are being consistent skeptics. They have a skeptical position. They found evidence to support their position and they believe it for that reason. I may disagree with many of them and that's fine. But as long as you have evidence to support your position, then you're being a consistent skeptic. You've questioned it, found evidence, come to a conclusion. So he has provided no examples where all of the people or any of the people listed have no evidence for their position and are therefore inconsistent skeptics, which is what you'd have to provide. Like, give me if you if you think atheists are inconsistent skeptics, show me a belief and show me a belief that has no evidence for it and that they believe it anyway. You got it. We'll jump into open discussion. I want to remind you gentlemen would like to keep the interruptions to a minimum. So if you take maybe 60 to 90 seconds in your responses, that's ideal. If there is too much interrupting, we'll break it into two minute responses where I'll segment the time, in other words, have two minute speeches from each of you back and forth during the open discussion if we can't have a civil discourse. But with that, thank you very much. The floor is all yours. So I did provide a lot of examples. You're saying that, well, atheists will support whatever has evidence behind it. And I think that's true. You see atheists and philosophy and philosophy departments, they will not agree on a lot of facts. In fact, there's no consensus on very basic issues like what is justice, what is goodness, you know, is free will a reality? Or is there a determinist reality? All of these philosophical all of these philosophical questions have been debated hotly by philosophers. And each philosopher has his own rationale for supporting his position. But when it comes to political domain, you don't see the same. No, you don't. I've cited you pure research. I cited pure research where 90 percent of atheists believe that premarital sex is perfectly morally acceptable. Yeah, pornography is morally acceptable when it comes to women's education, when it comes to women's representation, when it comes to the value of freedom, when it comes to the value of democracy. Where is the scientific evidence that those are morally unacceptable? There's plenty of scientific evidence that puts all of those things into question. Where is the point is that we can't even the question was, is what is the scientific evidence that those are morally unacceptable? Because this is the point. Just first of all, acknowledge that there's not a discrepancy amongst or there's consensus amongst atheists on all of those issues. That that they're not that they're morally because at first you said at first you said that no, atheists will have different positions depending on the evidence and where there's plenty of evidence. What is the evidence that those are morally unacceptable? For example, the issue of democracy versus dictatorship. There are many things you mentioned before. Like that was an example I mentioned before. I think sexual liberation. Women's promiscuity. You want to go into the evidence. We can the things that just listed like look at any of my other debates. Any of the other articles are not going to look at any of your sexual promiscuity creates psychological problems in women. It increases depression as sexual liberate. Stop interrupting me, dude. Stop interrupting me. Well, when I'm trying to answer your question, yeah, you ask the question, I'm answering your question. So don't interrupt. What what did those the things you listed? What do they have to do with morality? Because you said atheists have a sexual promiscuity, a moral issue or not. That's how it has to do with morality. OK, but what is the evidence provided? You didn't provide any evidence that it's not moral. I look, I'm saying that this is a conversation about facts. So there are plenty of facts to say that sexual promiscuity causes harm. What is that? Morality, you don't understand how harm has something to do with morality. Not in the context of what you're saying. No. So you said that atheists have agreement that sexual promiscuity is perfectly moral. I agree. Um, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's harmful. So things can be moral, regardless of whether or not they're harmful. Like, for example, it could be perfectly moral to do drugs or whatever. Even if it harms you, that's totally fine. It doesn't matter if it causes harm. The fact that something causes harm doesn't make it moral or immoral. It's a different fact that something causes harm is evidence that it's immoral. I didn't say it proves. How explain that one to me. How is the fact that it causes harm indicate that it's immoral? Explain that one to me. Do you think it's harmful to, you know, subjugate a certain race? Why are you asking? No, I meant I asked you a question. How is it you ask my turn to ask questions? My turn to ask a question. My this is like the entire point you've been trying to make. And I'm trying to understand something that's very basic, that harm. Have you heard of the harm principle? Have you heard of the how harm is calculated in utilitarianism? You're saying that harm has nothing to do with morality. Utilitarianism isn't an abject moral system. It's not a moral real system. So utilitarianism is not a moral system. No, it's a pragmatic system. So so morality says there is an objective right and wrong. Utilitarianism doesn't. So yes, it did this. No, no, no. Ask Jeremy Bentham. Ask John Stuart. No. Ask any of these fellows off. So so what's your question? The question I asked. Actually, what's your question? I asked, you know, you know, you go back to your day. I hate to do this, but it's difficult. Just to be sure that they can hear each of you. Just want to if I have to break it into two minute segments, just because it's been really fruitful and people want to hear what each of you have to say. I just want to be sure that there's not too much interrupting. Otherwise, they can't hear either of you. So the question I asked was, is how does harm indicate morality? Because the whole argument is that skeptics are not consistent because they agree sexual promiscuity is moral, even though it causes harm. But there's no evidence that harm equals morality. In fact, that's literally the wrong thing. We know that's false in philosophy. Harm is irrelevant to morality because there can be harmful things which are moral. And this is very common. So so you agree, harm doesn't indicate it's immoral. So even if you're initial claim, your initial claim was that harm has nothing to do with morality. And I simply pointed out that, yes, it does have a lot to do with morality. That's that's literally irrelevant to question here. So things can cause harm and be moral. Therefore, it is harmful. It doesn't tell you whether or not it's moral. I didn't say that. I said that harm is a is evidence that something could be immoral. No, that's literally you just contradicted yourself. I just I just explained that harm doesn't tell you if something is or isn't moral. And you're like, yes, I agree. But no, it does. It's evidence like, no, that's those are opposite things. Those are you know, that's something. No, no, you can have evidence that something is wrong and there will be other evidence that contravenes that. And overall, that's exactly how utilitarian and utilitarianism works. No, that's absolutely not. Swinting your eyes. You don't know what you're talking about. I clearly do. You said that utilitarianism isn't a moral theory. That's the pragmatist theory. And harm has nothing to do with more. What is do you know the difference between pragmatism and moral theory? Do you know the difference between pragmatism and moral? You don't think that utilitarianism is a moral theory. Can you can you stop this? This is about you're trying to stop. Disrupt. No, no, no, no, no. Hold on. You don't know what you're talking about. You think that you're trying to get it out of the town. Even a more gentleman. I hate doing this. So embarrassing. I have to mute you. So what I want to do is I'll kick it over to Tom for his question that he had just asked. I can't remember exactly what it was. And then we'll give you a chance to respond, Daniel, maybe one or two minutes. And then we'll give you a chance to basically ask a question in kind. To Tom as well. All right, so I'll break it down to kitty logic for him because he's so uneducated on philosophy. The arguments he made was skeptics are inconsistent because they agree that sexual promiscuity is moral. And then he's trying to make this connection that because it causes harm, therefore this previous statement isn't inconsistency. Now, if you know anything about moral realism, moral philosophy at all, then you know that just because something causes harm doesn't tell you whether or not it's moral or immoral. So for his argument to hold, then atheists would have to think that because it's harmful, therefore it is by definition immoral, which nobody thinks that's not a thing anybody thinks. It's not. We Daniel even admitted things can cause harm and be moral. So one of these examples would be sexual promiscuity. It can cause harm and still be moral and which completely contravenes his entire point here. If things can cause harm and be moral, then the fact that it causes harm is irrelevant to whether or not it's moral. And so the fact that atheists think it's moral isn't an inconsistency. Like baby steps on logic here, Daniel, let's go. OK, I mean, the condescension, where's your degree in philosophy? Where's your degree? I have multiple degrees in philosophy. Where's your degree in philosophy? You should ask your money back. Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt, please. OK, I didn't interrupt your stupid remarks. OK, look, I didn't say that harm is conclusive in determining a moral position. I said that it's evidence is one of the factors that is part of moral evaluation and humans biologically take harm into account when they determine what they view to be moral or immoral. Now, you want to say that, oh, there is some kind of scientific consensus that promiscuity is not harmful. Where? Show me that. I literally said the opposite. Don't interrupt. Don't straw me. I said the opposite. No, you're straw man. I want to give Daniel another. This guy is in her 60 seconds and then we'll come back to you, Tom. Well, no, if he's going to misrepresent what I said. You miss everything. You can definitely address it after he's just got another 60 seconds. The only difference is just 60 seconds. You can address what you think. No, I'm morally obligated to stop him if he literally says the opposite of something I said. No, you're not. Just the same way that Daniel have some respect, the same way that Daniel gave you the time to respond. We just got to give him another 60 seconds. I'm going to be clear on this. If he says Tom said and then something I didn't say, I'm going to say I didn't say that. What is the difference between 60 seconds? You can correct him. You'll have two minutes to correct him. We just got to give him another 60 seconds. I'm telling you, I'm going to do this. It is, yeah. I mean, you can't let someone talk because you can't follow a thread of thought. That's the problem with you. It's not unreasonable to ask to give him the same amount of time that you just had, Tom. No, if he... I could have been through a lie. And he lies about something I said. You can't even understand basic argument. You can always... I'm trying to be as fair as possible. I can't hear what James is saying, Chump. I'm trying to be as fair as possible here. I need you to just give him the same amount of time that you were given. If you think that he's lying... That's not fair. ...you can absolutely address it in the following statement. No, so if he literally says something I did not ever say and is directly misrepresenting like he literally says the word, T-jump said, and then something completely opposite to what I said. That's lying. And so the fair thing to do is say, no, that's not what I said. You can do that after he's 60 seconds remaining is done. That's... This is... It's how debate has been done for decades where people would have time statements. It's how they typically do them stuff. It's not unreasonable. You'll have as much time as you need to rebut him, but I gotta give him the same amount of time that you just had. That's fine, but I'm still gonna... If he directly lies about something I said, I'm gonna stop him and say, no, I didn't say that. Because at no point, at no point in anything I said, did I say sexual promiscuity is incredible. My guess is that there are points where he also thinks that you're making up things about what he said, but he doesn't jump in. He gives you the full two minutes. So we gotta kind of do it. If I misrepresent when he said, I want him to stop me and correct me so I can get his argument correct. Dude, didn't you request this debate? Like, didn't you request this debate? Why don't you show respect to someone who agreed to debate you? I am by correcting your mistakes. No, you can show respect by shutting your mouth when someone else is talking. No, I can... According to the moderator, the moderator's telling you to shut up. He has to explain to you a debate format. If you make an ignorant mistake, before we get into the weeds on this, because people want to hear more about your guys' ideas on this topic. So I hate to redirect us, but just to do that, let's give 60 seconds to Daniel, and then we'll come back to you, Tom, for your two-minute rebuttal. Okay, so the point that I was making is that the argument that T-Jump is making is that, well, on these political issues, like sexual promiscuity is morally okay. The reason that there's moral consensus on that amongst atheists is because it has to be backed by some kind of scientific evidence. I never said that. So then why do atheists have a moral consensus on sexual promiscuity? The moral views aren't based on scientific evidence. There isn't scientific evidence of moral views. And why is there a consensus? There's philosophical arguments. So there's not scientific arguments for morality. There are philosophical arguments for morality. Why, what is the philosophical argument that proves that sexual promiscuity is moral? There's nothing that proves it. I just admitted that. That's not science. So why is there a consensus? That's the question. Because we agree that our intuitions map onto the philosophical arguments that indicate that position, but that's irrelevant to the argument you made. So the argument you made was skeptics are inconsistent because they think sexual promiscuity is immoral or is moral. And like, well, no, I agree. We think that is moral, but that isn't contradicting any kind of evidence against the argument that it's moral. Like there's no evidence that it's not moral. It's not the case. There could be, like imagine, like sexual promiscuity is discovered in a hundred years that it actually destroys the brain. And you think that would make it immoral. So let me finish the thought experiment, please. You had a good example. You had a good example. No, you don't let me finish the example. Let me finish the example. Let me finish the example. I want to make it better. So your argument was is that if we discovered in the future that there's objective morality and it is objectively immoral to do sexual promiscuity. That's not what I said. I said it's discovered that it causes some kind of debilitating brain disease or it has some kind of major issue. Like for example, you have, or even like there's some disease that's being transmitted sexually. And for that reason, the government has to ban sexual promiscuity. You have to remain celibate, completely celibate. And they base that policy on the fact that there's this disease that's killing people right and left. That's a scientific fact that sexual promiscuity transmits this disease which is killing people and contraceptives don't work against it. So that scientific fact is morally relevant to the governmental policy to ban sexual promiscuity. This is how sexual, how harm and how a kind of disease or a societal problem relates to a moral determination. No, no. So again, nothing you said there has anything to do with morality. You're talking about pragmatism and what laws we should implement. Laws aren't moral because they save lives. There are many laws that can save lives that are immoral laws. The fact that it does good things doesn't make it moral. So if you were competent in philosophy, the argument you would make is if we discovered objective morality and could morally prove that it's immoral to have sexual promiscuity and then atheists still continue to think that sexual promiscuity was good, then they would be inconsistent. And I would agree. But simply saying that moral promiscuity has physical consequences will never lead to therefore it's immoral. And so none of your arguments could ever interpret that. Everyone has to be like a moral objectivist and subscribe to a very specific philosophy. What does this have to do with anything I said? You are talking about moral objectivism. So explain to me why that's necessary to have a philosophical position before you can take a position on sexual promiscuity. To make atheists inconsistent then they would have to be proven wrong. So if atheists think that sexual promiscuity is moral, for them to be inconsistent, it has to be proven wrong. They have to be objectively wrong. If they're not objectively wrong, then they can't be inconsistent with that belief. Therefore, like if objective morality was the case, moral realism, and we proved that they were wrong and they still chose to believe it, then they would be inconsistent. So for them to be inconsistent, there has to be objective morality and they have to be wrong. No, like the evidence that I'm bringing forth for you to consider is that you have to, if you have a consensus amongst atheists, what is grounding that consensus? Like legalizing abortion, why is there consensus amongst atheists? 92% agree with legalizing abortion in all cases. Because of- Why is there consensus on that? Did you want me to answer that? Well, let me finish explaining. Let me finish explaining. If there's a consensus on that, there's a consensus amongst Muslims, for example, based on religion, based on religion and certain factual claims about how the spirit is blown into the fetus at a certain time after conception. So Muslims have consensus based on religious facts. That explains the consensus. What explains the atheist consensus on legalizing abortion? What kind of scientific facts? If there's- It's moral, it's moral intuition, moral progress and philosophical. Well, there's no scientific fact there. While it's intuition, this agrees with it's not like a universal moral intuition. It's right. That doesn't matter. So what's the consensus based on? So what's the consensus based on? So you're acknowledging that it's not science. Right. It's morality. Morality isn't based on science. There's moral- There's consensus amongst atheists on morality. Yes. But I'm totally lost on your argument here. So there are some things that are non-scientific. Like atheists have a consensus. Harry Potter is the greatest book ever written. Like, that's awesome. But that's not based on science and not literally- But that's a joke because there's no atheists. There's no polls that show that. But there are polls that show that atheists. Yeah, it's a stupid hypothetical. There are some non-fiction books are preferred by the majority of atheists over other non-fiction books. Where's the consensus? If there were a consensus, if all atheists, 92 percent said Harry Potter is the best work of literature, then I'd also want to know why that's the case. Like, what's what is causing that literally doesn't matter. So you can pick any. It doesn't matter. There is 100 percent consensus. Atheists like pizza more than poop. They like the taste of pizza more than poop. This is not based on science. Yes, it is based on the fact that humans do have a natural aversion. Human beings have a natural aversion to feces. That explains the consensus. It's not an objective fact. It's an opinion based on a feeling, which is nice, but there's not. I didn't know that contradiction. Well, we're not getting into a metaphysical discussion about what is objective or what is like, what is grounding these kinds of moral claims. I'm saying that these are scientific. What is the topic of the debate? Are atheists consistent skeptics? Right. And what does it mean to be a skeptic? It means to the in the way that I defined it at the beginning of my opening statement is using science as a grounding for your claim. So if you want to believe in something, if you want to believe something, there has to be scientific evidence for it. This is why atheists reject belief in God, because there's no scientific evidence. Go back, go back. So so you think a skeptic is basing all of your beliefs on science? You realize skepticism predates science, right? I didn't use skepticism in the philosophical sense. I defined it at the beginning of my introductory statement that the skepticism that the majority of atheists have with regards to belief in God and the existence of God, that there is no scientific evidence correct for God. So that that kind of skepticism, do they apply to other areas? Do they also demand scientific evidence in other areas of life? And the answer is one second. One second. So so I think I understand. I think you understand here. So when skeptics say that you need scientific evidence for something, it's for something that you claim is true. If you claim a statement is true, that means it corresponds to reality independent of your imagination. Now, if you make a claim that you're not claiming is true, like, I don't know, pizza is the best food, and you're not claiming that this is some fact of the universe. You don't need scientific evidence for that. Or if you're claiming Harry Potter is the best book, you don't need scientific evidence for that, because it's not a truth claim about the universe. It's an opinion claim. Morality is an opinion claim. It's based on intuition. It's based on philosophy. There's you don't think it's a true fact. Wait, wait, wait. What you said earlier is the skepticism that most atheists are applying. Now, most atheists in the public are not moral realists. They're moral subjectivists. They believe in opinion. So when they say something is moral, like sexual promiscuity, it's an opinion statement, a subjective moral claim. So they do not mean that it is objective truth statement about the universe, which means they don't need evidence, scientific evidence to prove it's true, just like they don't need scientific evidence to prove Harry Potter is the best book. Nobody in the skeptic community is claiming that there is a truth value to their preferences on morality. That is not a thing. I would agree if they were making that claim, they would be inconsistent or they would have to be moral realists and most are not moral realists. Unless you're evidence for that. Why do you say that they're not realists? There are polls above of the public atheists and how much believe in objective morality and the most don't. It's academic. I'd have to look it up. I haven't researched. I've never heard of such a thing. I've never heard of such a thing. Most most public nonbelievers are not moral realists. Like that's a pretty common thing or that they don't believe in moral facts. That's literally what not being a more show me the evidence. Yeah, show me the evidence. I can find it. But I don't understand. This isn't relevant to the date. I'm happy. But do you think so? If I were to tell you that, you know, the government in Afghanistan right now is more just and is more moral than the US government. Well, I'm not going to ask for evidence is that you need to provide a definition of moral. So if you're going is a better government, is the government of Afghanistan right now a better government than the US government? If I asked most atheists, they would say, well, I can't answer that because I don't believe in moral facts. No, they're going to say that based on my subjective morality. No, they're not. They're not better. They're not going to say it objectively. They're morally worse. They literally don't say that. So every atheist's subjectivity works in exactly the same way. What? No. I never said that. So why is there? Why is there consensus? Yeah, why? It's just the subjective. The same reason is a consensus among the best nonfiction novel or the best food or the best drink. People have cultural similarities that gives them the question. The question of whether Afghanistan has a better government than the United States is similar to the question of whether Harry Potter is the best work of literature. It's the same thing. Better you mean moral and you're talking to a moral subjectivist. Yes, I'm not a moral subjectivist. I'm a moral realist. So I think there is a correct answer. They're a truth value statement. But for moral subject, why don't you answer? Because you literally said in the beginning, this isn't about T. Jones is about what most atheists believe. Well, answer for the moral objective is such as yourself. Which one's a better? Yeah, I'd say that Afghanistan's government is objectively worse and is objectively more immoral. OK, well, what's the scientific fact that backs that up? There isn't a scientific fact. It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. So the moral realists that you're talking about that you say is a majority. You say it's not a majority of philosophers. No, it's a majority of philosophers, a minority of atheists. So most people in the atheists aren't philosophers. They're a small number of philosophers. So of philosophers in the in the Phil Surveys paper, 2020, they did a poll, they said 70 percent of philosophers are atheists, 65 percent of philosophers believe in moral realism. Of the public, whatever percent of atheists there are, I think it's like 20 percent or non-religious or something like that. The vast majority of them are not, don't believe in objective morality. But that's different. So average people are different from philosophers. No, so they they don't have. They don't believe in objective morality. But they all have a consensus. So you still haven't explained how that can be the case. Culture, I did. So there are cultural similarities. People like certain things better than other things. And so if you're a moral subjectivist, you're right. So you're conceding. So you're conceding that a large portion of the atheistic worldview of atheists who are in the West is based on just cultural, you know, things that they've adopted and follow blindly. For beliefs that don't have anything to do with correspondence to reality, like opinion statements, obviously, like no one. But you just said that they're moral facts. Why are you taking the subjectivist position? I don't even you're saying things that don't have to correlate. If you're a moral realist, you think morality does correlate with reality, right? Yes, I'm a moral realist. I believe morality. Why are you just saying the subjectivist position? Because you said in the beginning, this is not about Pedro. This is about atheists in general, our atheist consistent skeptics. So I'm talking about their position, who you were talking about. That was you brought them in, you said, talk about these people. You want to talk about my position? I'm happy to talk about my position. Pick one. Neither of us are inconsistent here. Pick one. So on the. Non-objectivist position, subjectivist position. Yes. So they'll say that, yeah, a large portion of our worldview has nothing to do with reality. That's why, but yet, but yet they'll say that they'll they'll acknowledge that they're just influenced by culture, the fact that 99 or 92 percent of them or 90 percent of them will agree on all of these moral issues. They'll say that, well, I don't believe in moral facts. Morality has nothing to do with reality. I'm just influenced by culture. I'm just blindly following the political dogma of the secular West. They'll acknowledge that. Yes, 90 percent of them speak English. Do you know why? It's not because of some scientific facts. So speaking English is not the same as having a position on pornography or a moral position on what's the best type of governance or whether, you know, women and men have the same intellectual capacity. Your question. Those are moral questions. Your question was is why is there a consensus among this group of people for why they agree on this? I mean, that's a huge you're saying. So let me just summarize. You say that most atheists are subjectivists. Yes. And you're saying that when you're a subjectivist, then if you see a consensus amongst all of these atheists who are subjectivists, it's because it's like, you know, speaking English. That's just what they picked up from the culture and they didn't question it. That's what you know. That's their worldview. I mean, that's great. That's you're basically conceding the whole debate. No. So again, there are things that are not claims about reality. If you're a moral subjectivist, you don't think you think morality does not correspond to reality. So I got that. So skepticism is being skeptical of claims of things that do correspond to reality. So if you claim that's not how I define skepticism, you define it dumb. I mean, it defines that way. There is no skeptics on the world the way you find it. Zero people believe what you believe. But you're basically conceding. You're basically what's wrong with the way that I just described it. So you have all of these subjectivists, all of these. OK, let's let me repeat this. You have all of these atheists who are subjectivists. The majority of atheists are subjectivists. Sure. Yes. A huge portion of their worldview, basically all politics, moral positions, political positions, historical positions, positions on like history, none of all of these things can be disputed. So just let me finish. So all of these facts. All. But you just said it has nothing to do with reality. You said the subject of morality, morality. So is all distinction? There's this big thing in philosophy. Maybe you've heard of it. Is all politics. Politics is based on your facts, facts. So like you can. Well, it should be. It should be based on facts. So the politics that says that we need to grant reproductive rights and abortion should be legal. Is that a factual issue or is it a moral issue? Based from a political standpoint, it's a factual issue. If you compare the quality of standard of living of countries that allow abortion versus countries that don't, banning abortion increases crime rates, decreases literacy rates, decreases quality of life, increases poverty. All the stats show that banning abortion causes a worse quality of life for everybody in the country. And so from a political standpoint, you based on facts. Well, moral subjectivists don't believe in the more of facts determining a moral position. What nothing I said had anything to do with morality. We're saying, do we want a society with a higher quality of life? Yes. If you want a society with a higher quality of life, do the policies that increase the quality of life? None of these are moral statements. These are these are is statements, not all statements. Quality of life is a moral evaluation. It is a normative. You don't understand how quality of life is a normative determination. You understand the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative when you go with no. No, no, first, tell me, is it, you know, you can't even decide if the issue of legalizing abortion, it has any moral normative that's why I'm asking. So the reason I'm asking is a hypothetical imperative is if you have some goal, then there is some process to achieve that goal. A categorical imperative is saying this is morally the thing you ought to do, independent of some subjective goal. So a hypothetical imperative is saying I have this subjective goal and there's some method I should follow to achieve that goal. And this has nothing to do with morality. It's just a computational analysis. The categorical imperative is the moral statement. There is some objective oughtness that you should do this. So if if you're a moral subjectivist and you have a hypothetical imperative that you want a society with a higher quality of living, then you ought to do the things that lead to whatever those stats are. It says nothing to do with morality. It's just basic philosophy. But yeah. So the fact is that you have atheists. Let's just grant all of this that you just said. Wait, I want to wait for it to get like this. I wanted to go back. It's just like there's no normative content in wanting a better quality of life. It's just a calculation where you determine if you if you if you, which is the majority of atheists are going to. So if you permit abortion, you legalize abortion, it is going to lead to this better quality of life. Right. This is supposedly the calculation that all atheists, subjectivists have made to arrive at the 90 percent consensus that abortion should be legalized. This is what you're saying. I don't know if they've done research. That's the ones who have done research. Like, I can't why is there consensus? Why is there consensus? I already answered that. It's intuition and culture. That's something they all do agree. Yeah. OK. So yeah, it's culture. It's just the influence of culture that they blindly follow. And, you know, you can call that being skeptical. No, I don't have nothing to do with blindly following culture is not that has nothing to do with my definition. So remember, remember the way skeptics define skepticism is they are skeptical of claims that refer to reality independent of your imagination. They're not skeptical of literally any random claim. That's not how skepticism works. Skepticism is about skepticism of claims that refer to truth values of reality. So if you claim I like pizza, I don't need to be skeptical of that because that isn't to claim about a corresponds to reality. That's a claim about your opinion. Skeptics don't you just said that there is a fact of the matter about abortion, permitting it leads to a better quality of life. Did you not? Yes. So there's a fact of the matter about that. Yes. Then why do you keep? Whenever I get you on being objective and there are facts about these political issues, you revert back to subjectivism and talk about liking pizza and Harry Potter. And then when I moved to subjectivism, no, no, no, you're making two different points here. You start talking about, oh, it's an empirical fact that abortion will lead to a better quality of life. And there's no normative content involved in that. Right. So based on the hypothetical imperative of wanting a better quality of life, if you legalize abortion, then it will lead to a better quality of life. This is nothing to do with morality. This is just basic facts. And that's all based on statistics. All of the atheists who have studied it came to this conclusion based off of those things. I don't know how many have studied it. A lot of them come to it based off of what their parents taught them, what their culture teaches them, what their friends do it, like any culture, that's how you learn things. It's completely irrelevant to the topic, though. So when you say skeptics, you said your definition was something like requiring scientific information to believe some fact or something, right? Yeah, backing your your beliefs about the world was science. OK, so if it's not a belief about the world, do you need skepticism? But the question of is legalizing abortion that is a question about quality of life. Quality of life is a question. One step at a time. One step at a time. If it's not a belief about a true statement about the world, so it's not a claim about a fact about the world, do you need to be skeptical of it? If you believe it, if you believe it, what? OK, OK, so if it's not an example, if again, if 90 percent of atheists believe that pizza was the best food, we would want to have a reasoning for that or we want to know what that consensus is based on. Because there are different ways to. They like it. There are different explanations for consensus. Yeah, they like it. What is to be what are you being skeptical? It would be shocking. Like it would be shocking if 90 percent of atheists all like the certain food. We would want to know what is the basis of that preference, right? OK, OK. And there are different ways to create. No, no, you wait. There's different ways to create consensus. I don't understand what you're saying. Clearly, there's different ways to generate consensus. So if I say, if I'm skeptical of the claim God exists, what does that mean? It means that there's you claim that there's no scientific evidence to justify the belief in God. No, like more generally, it means I don't believe the claim or I think it may not be true, right? Yeah, if you're skeptical, OK, you don't believe it. Or you think that there's there's not a reason to justify or you're investigating if there's a reason to justify belief in God. Sure. So if someone says pizza is my favorite food and you're going to be skeptical of that claim, what do you what are you being skeptical of? How do you get moral claims are not like aesthetic judgments or your favorite food or your favorite literature? You're constantly conflating these issues saying. Speaking of you, well, do you know the distinction between an aesthetic or personal preference and a moral judgment? Do you know the difference between those two things? What what? What is moral subjectivism? What is the definition of moral subjectivism? OK, look, you either decide moral subjectivism and we can argue that or we can talk about the one who's talking when you talk about when you talk about politics, look, when you're talking about politics, and you said that, no, there's a fact of the matter that legalizing abortion improves quality of life. Stop interrupting. James, I want to go back to what I'm saying. Well, you made the claim. You want to go into two minutes segments just to be sure that there isn't too much interruption. No, no, no. I want to stay on the topic wild and it's been acceptable to where it hasn't been too much, but it is for two minutes. Yeah, it is drifting back into that area of where it is a lot. No, no. Definitely not. So so he's making it. It's just like he just interrupts my client. We know we do. I let I let him finish his thoughts, but he doesn't extend the same courtesy to me. So it's because you completely not answering the question. I need to ask the question. Well, I've kind of let it be like the Wild West for the last like 20 minutes. And for a while, it was OK. But it is getting a little bit like I do want to make sure that everybody hears both of you. And so if we just break it into 60, 60 seconds, some minutes, I don't I don't I'm just ignoring you and he answered the question. I'm focused on the question. Question is he's claiming Tom, I know that. But I don't I don't want to get distracted by in in relevancies. I need to answer the question. This is the entire point of the debate. At the same time, it is reasonable for him to be concerned about being interrupted too much, just the same way that you wouldn't want to be interrupted too much. I'm not even saying anything. I'm asking a question. So I'm making zero points. And I want to give an answer. You interrupt because because he's not answering the question. He summoned me. Was just I'm asking a question. And if you answer a different question degree of that. So so here's the question. I think it here's like, well, let me let's just let Daniel finish the last point that he was making. And then we'll come back to you for that question. So it's just 30 seconds. Daniel, I'll give you a short and pithy wrap up on whatever point it was you were making. And then we got to give Tom the full two minutes. So 30 seconds. Good, Daniel. OK, when I get my two minutes, I'm going to ask a five second question and then let him answer and interrupt him and stop him because it's still my two minutes until he answers the exact question I'm asking. So in my two minutes, I'm going to let him talk, but I get to interrupt. Then I won't answer any of your nonsense questions until your time is up. And then I'll address them all together. No, I just work with me, guys. So basically, OK, we'll give you 30 seconds, Daniel. And then we'll get Tom a chance to ask a question and then, you know, we'll go from there. OK, so the consensus that we find amongst atheists on these political issues, I'm trying to understand what is the basis for that consensus. I think it's pretty clear that the basis for the consensus is what Tom admits, that it's culture, but culture involves things like censorship, things like controlling discourse, things like censoring, countervailing information. And that's what we see with all of these issues when it comes to, you know, differences between men and women, differences between different groups when it comes to utilitarian calculations about what form of life is better, a liberal secular system or a traditional religious system. Whether on issues of any kind of area of religious you know, it's a jibberish. All of that, those are things that can be censored heavily and are censored heavily into one kind of liberal position. That's why I do 30 seconds. Consensus you can do 30 seconds to go back to the topic. So like literally nothing he said there was all gibberish and irrelevant to answering the question. The question was, is he saying that a skeptic is somebody who is requires scientific evidence for every belief or something along those lines. Now, if someone is skeptical that you say you like pizza is the best food. What are they being skeptical of? How can you be a skeptic of that statement? What do you what does it mean to be skeptical that most people like pizza? Personal prep. Can I talk or is there two minutes done? Yes. No, I'm like I'm sorry, I can interrupt you. No, no, no, no. Keep going for two minutes. No, no, I need I'm going to play the interrupt game. I'm not even going to play this. Why what does it mean to say that most people like pizza? You're skeptical of that factual claims, like pizza being the best food is not a factual claim. Yes, thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. So claims that are not factual claims you don't need to be skeptical of. So for a moral subjectivist who thinks morality isn't a factual claim, it is perfectly consistent for them to not be skeptical of that, right? It's a question not because there are moral facts. What may I agree with you? I agree that they're wrong, but they're not being inconsistent. So inconsistency is like a logical contradiction, P and not P. I believe God exists and I believe God does not exist. That's an inconsistency. A moral subjectivist believes moral facts are equivalent to aesthetics. So if they believe that it's the exact same as the opinion, are they being inconsistent if the reason they believe it is just cultural? Finish your two minutes. OK, I'm finished. Go. All right, so your explanation doesn't make sense because atheists, you don't have a consensus on aesthetic claims. You don't have a consensus amongst atheists that Picasso is the best 20th century painter. There's no consensus on those kinds of aesthetic claims. But this is the thing that you are not able to explain. How what is what is consensus? If there is no, I'm just trying to understand why you have this kind of consensus amongst atheists. And I'm implying that the reason is that there is a lot of blind following of the dominant political ideology in the same way that 60 percent of atheists or 60 percent of the Chinese population is atheists. Six, that those atheists are fully on board with Chinese nationalism. Is that because these atheists are free thinkers? Or is it because they are under political domination or they're indoctrinated into a political philosophy so that you know, it's my two minutes. Don't interrupt. No, so you're not answering the question. Like I ended mine early because I wanted to answer to this one. That's your choice. You and your your stuff early because I can answer to this question. I do think that maybe we break it into 60 seconds just because if two minutes is too long, I do I take I need 10 seconds. I mean, 10 seconds is an atheist who believes morality is equivalent to aesthetics being inconsistent if they have a consensus on their opinion and culture. All right, we got to give them a full at least 60 seconds. Even if I took five seconds, you get five seconds, yes or no? I can't force them to do a yes or no. But I got to give them 60 seconds at least. That's even if there were, you know, if there was a atheist who was truly a subjectivist and believed that there are no moral facts except, you know, in this tiny, narrow domain, I would say yes. Or there would be no point in asking about what's your evidence for or are you skeptical about pizza being the greatest food or democracy being the best system? If that were the case, but the way that atheists poll and the way that atheists express their opinions on forums online and elsewhere shows that they are not treating questions of morality in as if it were subjective and equivalent to aesthetics. Why? What's the evidence of that? It's because they have overwhelming agreement on these issues. Whereas with other aesthetic issues, with other aesthetic problems or aesthetic issues like is Picasso the greatest artist? Is Harry Potter the best work of literature? There is no consensus amongst atheists. I'm still lost on how you're making this connection between consensus and aesthetics, like whether or not something has a consensus is completely irrelevant to its epistemic treatment as whether or not it's a truth claim of reality. So like if there's one piece of art that literally every human being liked and another piece of art that literally every human being hated that wouldn't make it not aesthetics because there's a consensus. You're saying that there's a consensus. We would wonder wonder wonder why I don't know why. Is there a consensus? Why would there? Yeah, it does matter. Why is there a question? I want to question is consistency is someone being consistent if they say they like it because of the they like it, essentially. No, that's perfectly consistent. It doesn't matter if everybody says that it's still consistent whether or not the number of people who say they like something because of its aesthetically pleasing doesn't make it not aesthetics. And so the fact that there's agreement in morality doesn't make it not a subjective statement from a subjectivist perspective. Literally, what you're saying is just basically the misunderstanding of the terms of philosophy. Like it doesn't matter how much agreement there is among an aesthetic claim. It doesn't make it not an aesthetic claim. I granted all that it can be an aesthetic claim. You can define it however you want. You want to say there's no such you want to take this supposedly dominant atheist position of subjectivism. There are no moral facts. Even though before you were saying that there could be facts that about what is the what leads the best quality of life. OK, so even if we restrict so fine, let's take it as aesthetics. It's all aesthetics. You still have to explain why is there this consensus? And you said you admitted that it's because of culture. It's about these other factors are influencing. So most people would see that as not being consistently skeptical. How is how is that not being consistent? Again, so if a person thinks morality equals aesthetics, and so they just believe what the culture does or whatever, how is that person being inconsistent? You're talking about a single person. I keep trying to talk about the majority of the demographic. So I'm saying the majority of atheists, if all they do is say, I think morality is equivalent to aesthetics and I just believe whatever the culture is, how is the majority of atheists who are moral subjectivists being inconsistent? Let's go to the example of abortion. Why do 92 percent of atheists say that they support legalizing abortion in all cases? Why? I don't think it's in all cases, but I think it's because that's the research. Just see, I don't think it's all cases. I think they just legalize abortion, but should abortion be legalized in all cases? Yeah, I don't think women's bodies say that. But the question to answer your question was study. Should we bring up the one minute? I don't care. I'm happy to correct the question. Why why? Because they is their cultural values. So they believe that it's morally correct to allow abortion. If it's morally correct, how is that subjectivism? Because they believe I mean, if you're a moral subjectivist and you believe something is moral, you can still do that. I'm not sure what your question is. You just. So what does morally correct mean? If there's no fact of the matter, what it would mean? What it would mean to be correct moral intuitions. But why would? So there is an objective fact about your intuitions. Oh, they exist. Sure. So when you say intuitions, do you mean that things that every human being has? No, I mean the individual. So an individual has individual moral intuitions. And if they're a moral subjectivist, that means what morality is, is whatever corresponds to their moral intuitions. So being morally correct, that's the expression that you use, means corresponding to whatever you think, whatever you feel. Or a moral subjectivist. Yes, I'm a moral realist, so I disagree. But for a moral subjectivist, that means that morality is defined by the cultural description of morality of that individual and their culture. So if you're a moral subjectivist, then you think morality is equivalent to aesthetics, so what you like may not be what a different culture likes. And so if you're saying something is morally better in your culture, then that's just saying a cultural claim for a moral subjectivist. Again, I'm not a moral subjectivist. And so for that person, they aren't being inconsistent when they're saying we all like abortion because that's a cultural claim, not a fact claim about the universe. You just so. OK, so they agree. And it's not a factual claim about the universe. Right, just like they agree on their favorite foods or the language they use or their favorite books, it's a preference for a moral subjectivist. Literally, in moral subjectivism, morality is an aesthetic. Yeah, I just think that that's. That there's an empirical argument that I'm making here that you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that when you do have if it were the case that this was purely aesthetic, and it's just a subjective experience that these atheists have, then there shouldn't be a consensus. There shouldn't be 90 percent agreement, just like there's not 90 percent agreement on any other aesthetic judgment that atheists have. So you again, I think you're saying that. Opinions can't have a consensus. That seems to be your argument. People can't have a consensus saying there is if there is a consensus. Yes, then it has to be on perceived facts or it's on the basis of a certain reasoning or certain ideology that is being accepted. Oh, my God. Right. But it's not. So it seems like you're saying or sign it is impossible for something for people to have a consensus on something that has no factual basis, just on their feelings. You're saying it's it is not possible for people to agree on. No, it is because I said it is this consensus exists. I'm acknowledging that it exists. I'm trying to get an explanation from you. What? Again, so so I'm not following your argument for atheists to be inconsistent. That's that's the argument. Are atheists inconsistent in their skepticism or inconsistent in thinking that science is the basis for their beliefs again and for their worldview for major components of their worldview. That's not relevant at all to this. So the question is for them to be inconsistent, they have to apply skepticism to a claim about reality and not to apply it to another claim about reality. So they're applying it to one claim about reality and the other claim has nothing to do with reality, then they're not inconsistent. I mean, the other proof, the other proof that aesthetics is not the same as moral judgment is through neurological studies. Like when you light up a person's, you know, you hook someone up and you look at their brain function, atheists who claim to be subjectivists when they're making moral claims, that lights up a different part of their brain than the aesthetic part or the part of the brain involved with aesthetic judgments. Actually, like these. Yes, it does. Don't show aesthetics, a logical evidence. Are you questioning? Yes, because what you just said is so dumb. Aesthetics is covered by each of the five senses. Each of the five senses is covered by multiple parts of the brain, the soma sensory judgment. Yes, that judgment is covered by not sense perception. Oh, my God. So aesthetic judgments, when you think of something that you like, the parts of your brain that light up are the parts of the brain that are correlated to the thing you're thinking of. So if you think of physical touch, your soma sensory lights up. If you're thinking about sound, your bracket sensory lights up thinking about any different parts. The part of your brain lights up is the part of the brain that organizes and does the physical sensations that cause it to be aesthetically pleasing in the first place. So if you're thinking of the Mona Lisa, your visual syntax course up, you're thinking of a song, your auditory senses. We're talking about aesthetic judgment. Yes, pleasure in certain things is different from the part of the brain that's all that is associated with moral judgments. When you make aesthetic judgments, one, it does happen in the same part of your brain. The more, but it also happens in the part of your brain that causes the sensation that makes it aesthetically pleasing. So for sound, your auditory sensors light up, but so what you're saying when you said it because that different parts of your brain light up when you're doing moral and aesthetic judgments, therefore it must not be aesthetics is just dumb because it's false. But it's a completely irrelevant to the topic. So again, your whole point here is that if you just don't understand something, you don't have to say it's irrelevant. It's literally how would the fact that different you're denying the fact that aesthetic judgment is a different part of the brain associated with a different part of the brain than moral judgments. Stop. Stop. How would different brain areas lighten up, be relevant to whether or not atheists are consistent skeptics? Go ahead, explain it to me. Say that again. How would different areas of the brain lighting up when you think about different things prove that atheists are not consistent skeptics? How is it relevant to the topic? Can I answer? Yes, please. Don't know. All means. So aesthetic. So for example, utilitarian calculations are associated with the prefrontal cortex. Other aesthetic judgments are not necessarily or aesthetic judgments. Things about how good food tastes, how beautiful art is. Those aren't in the prefrontal cortex. Those are associated with other parts of the brain. This is all cognitive science research. How this is relevant is that when atheists claim to be subjectivists and that, oh, murder is wrong is the same as saying that pizza is good. OK, or our pizza is bad. An atheist or subjectivist can say that. But the way that that's actually functioning in their brain is that it's for the murder is bad judgment, that's lighting up a different part of the brain. So that shows that actually there these moral intuitions that you keep referring to are categorically or qualitatively different than the aesthetic judgments. So one, that's just stupid and false. Brain correlates of aesthetic judgments by Thomas Jacob, published in Enslave or neuroimaging, literally says prefrontal cortex is one of the things that lights up when looking at aesthetic judgments of beauty. Done, stupid, dumb, dumbest argument ever. But even if it was true, even if your stupid argument was true, that doesn't prove atheists are being inconsistent. The fact that it's two things are done in two different parts of the brain doesn't prove that there's an epistemic difference between the two. I wasn't claiming that. So this is just something that you have asserted that there, you know, according to these groups of atheists, that they don't have this kind of moral objectivism. We just are running with that claim. Sure. Right. So you're saying that when these atheists are saying that 90 percent of them are saying that, you know, women should be equally represented in work. Or, you know, there's no problem with pornography or whatever. You're saying that these are subjectivists who don't think that there is a fact of the matter about pornography. They don't think there's a fact of the matter about any of these. Those are the ones you brought up. So both I said I could take both positions, neither one or being inconsistent. So the moral realists are being consistent because they have evidence of what they think moral realism is. And the moral anti-realists are not being inconsistent or are being consistent because they are consistent with their moral subjectivism. So neither one are being inconsistent. Yeah. If you want to define consistency as, you know, you could be a solipsist and think the whole, you know, there's nothing, there's no external reality. How do you define? Let me let me finish. Let me finish. I defined it. How many times have I defined it for you? You can be a solipsist and be completely consistent. And you can say that there's nothing. There's no God that exists and there's no physical reality that exists because it's all just a figment of my imagination. A solipsist would be very consistent in that definition. But this is not the definition of skepticism that I have used in my introductory statement. We're taking what is the definition of consistent? Like I granted your definition of skepticism as trying to use science to validate claims about the world. That's fine. And if you don't believe moralities about the world, then you're not being inconsistent. So how do you find consistent means that if you demand having scientific evidence for all your factual claims that in your the own facts, your own factual beliefs, you back them up with science. Well, that's an example. Your response, your response is to say that, well, these atheists don't believe in political facts or moral facts. Therefore, like your argument is irrelevant. That's like, well, wait, wait, wait, so you got part of that, right? So one, that wasn't the definition of consistent. That was an example, but it was a good example. So, yes, to be consistent means to apply the same standard to the same criterion. So if you have a good job, that you're brilliant. Your genius. Thank you. I appreciate it means a lot to me. So if you're if you're a skeptic towards claims about reality and you want to doubt claims about reality and then something is not a claim about reality, well, then you don't need to be skeptical of that. It's not inconsistent because that's an easy, you know, that's that's really convenient. So for everything, everything that you believe has no realities. Wait, so moral subjectivists, they literally by definition of moral subjectivism in every academic journal claim that morality is not a truth claim about reality. That's literally the definition of moral subjectivism, which most most popular atheists are. And if you are a moral objectivist, like most philosophical atheists are, then you've claimed that sexual promiscuity is moral because it conforms to the philosophical arguments that indicate objective morality. So both are being consistent. One, the moral subjectivists are being consistent because they don't believe morality is a truth claim. So they don't need to be skeptical of it. Two, the moral objectivists are being consistent because they believe it is a claim about reality and they use philosophical evidence to try and indicate that, not scientific, because we don't use science for everything. And so both groups are being consistent here. I'm not sure why you think either are being inconsistent in any way because you've granted that they're both being consistent in every conceivable way, this entire debate. Yeah, so it seems like you just conceding everything. You're just bickering about like what's the exact definition of consistency. All I wanted to show is that a large part of the atheist world view as determined by polling of atheists, atheists as a community shows that they their beliefs are not actually based on scientific fact. That's all I wanted to show. Well, I agree. Like, yes, we believe most of the things we believe, like my favorite color, my favorite drink, my favorite sports team, none of that's based on science. So yeah, the vast majority of my beliefs, but you think that what's my favorite color is the same thing as is genocide wrong? No, no, I'm a more subject. OK, subjectivists that you're talking about. Yeah, yeah, we don't care about your objectivism, but you said you. So it's the general generic you as an atheist's believe that genocide being wrong is like saying, you know, green is a bad color. Like, OK, you want to go with that extreme definition of subjective. You're just making atheists look more ridiculous, actually. Well, I agree. I think it is ridiculous. I think there's a very silly position. I agree with you and I don't think that moral subjectivism should be the consensus, but it is. So what? Yeah, I think that a lot of atheists who are watching this are going to disagree with the idea that the, you know, whether Afghanistan has a better government or is like hardcore Islamic Sharia is a better form of government than liberal democracy. That judgment is the same as, you know, is pizza my favorite food or not? Well, if they're moral subjectivists, they won't. But you're saying the majority of them. You're saying the majority of them are more subjectivist. And so, yeah. So in the chat, people can chime in and say, you know, if you're an atheist, whether you think Tom, what Tom is saying about yours, about subjectivism, whether that's your actual view about morality, this is about Sharia because when I look, you know, I've debated many atheists and they have very strong views about the morality of Islamic law and Islam as a religion and the, you know, implementation of Islam in society. They have very, very strong views and they're all consistent on those views. Next time I debated an atheist, I haven't yet met an atheist who is a subjectivist in the way that you described. But next time I meet such an atheist, I just say, hey, hey, hey, this is all just subjective, according to you, right? You know, you're going to debate me on whether pizza is the best food or Harry Potter is the best literature. That should be the response of Muslims. Whenever all these the majority of atheists, according to you on Reddit, you know, the Fedora wearing atheists start arguing about all the Sharia Islam is so barbaric, that should be the response of Muslims. Congratulations, Muslims have discovered the moral argument. Yeah, that's literally that's literally mocking you. You don't even get it when I'm mocking. Well, no, I mean, that's literally the argument Christians use against most atheist debaters who are moral subjectivists. Like, literally, you just caught up to the to the Christians that were like 1000 years ago, because that was that was their argument. Yeah, you can't have morality without a God. That's that's literally the argument you're saying. That's your argument. That's your argument. You can't have argue. You can't have morality if there's no correlation with or this is your interpretation or your projection on what atheists believe or the majority of them that, oh, you can't have morality if there's no objective matter of fact about what more morality is or what more claims are there. That's literally what objective means. So, yes, but I mean, I agree that moral subjectivism is silly. And I think it's silly that most atheists are moral subjectivists, but for something to be objective, it has to be true about reality. That's what the word means. Yeah, this may be a good opportunity to go to a Q&A gentlemen, both ready. Well, I want to make this point. There is he said that I'm wrong about aesthetic judgment being a different part of the brain than moral judgment. So let me read you this paper one second from Thomas Jacobson. And the title of it is Brain Correlates of Aesthetic Judgment of Beauty. And there's quote here. Behavioral results confirm the influence of stimulus, symmetry and complexity on aesthetic judgments. Direct contrast shows specific activations for aesthetic judgments in the front, so median cortex, bilateral, prefrontal and posterior, singulate, left temporal pole and the temporal paracial junction. In contrast, symmetry judgments elicited specific activations in peritial and premotor areas subserving spatial processing. Interestingly, beautiful judgments, enhanced bold signals not only in the frontal median cortex, but also in the left intraparacial sulcus of the symmetry network, moreover, stimulus, complexity caused blah, blah, blah, not prefrontal cortex. Aesthetics and morality judgments share cortical neural architecture. Nora Heisman and Susan Weber. Pwned. I just read you something that incited Thomas Jacobson. That says the exact thing I claimed earlier about the different parts of the brain that are lit up for aesthetic judgments versus moral judgments. You claim that aesthetic judgment is also found in the prefrontal cortex. It's found in many places. They're all found in many places. That was my point. With that jump into the question and answer, want to say, folks, thanks for all of your questions. We're going to try to move through this as fast as possible. As always, we don't want insults. We want meaningful questions. This one, we're going to let slide. It's not an insult, but it's not particularly germane. They say, will Daniel debate Lloyd de Jong on the Sharia? I don't know who that is. You got it. It's always possible. Semi-request. You got it. Question for Daniel from DL says, why does Botswana do better than its neighboring countries concerning economics and health matters? Botswana is at 6,700. They don't say particularly what these numbers, what metric this is. They say South Africa is lower at 5,000, and then they basically names a number of other countries, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Gola, that are lower than Botswana as well. It's the abortion. Yeah, maybe it's just some kind of liberal policy that somehow makes Botswana better than its immediate neighbors. Yeah, but when you look at them, that's the point. But there's no fact of the matter whether abortion is morally justified or not. This one from DL says, question for D.Jomp. Why did Atheist countries like Albania and Cambodia not do as well as countries in similar environments? Dictators who starve the people, that would be why. But if we take the average of most secular nations and the average of most religious nations, the secular nations do significantly better on a significant margin. So like if we take all the current Atheist nations, they're better in pretty much every respect. Japan is one of the most Atheist secular nations in the world and it has best healthcare, best life expectancy, best occupation, education rate. Pretty good. What about China? Even if we include China, it's still better off than the majority of... Yeah, but China is becoming the dominant power in the world. Is this an argument against Atheism? Is it a liberal democracy? Is it a liberal secular democracy? No, but I wasn't arguing for liberal secularism. No, I was saying quality of life. So the quality of life in China is still better than a lot of the Christian nations in Africa and around the world. So it's even including... But it's not a liberal secular system. I didn't say anything about liberal. I said Atheist countries. No, I said Atheist countries. Take the Atheist modern Atheist countries and take the average. Their quality of life is better than religious countries. Include China, include North Korea, include Russia. Russia is actually mostly Christian. But we'll include it anyway. Atheist countries are still better. There's nothing to do with liberalism. Yeah, so you can get those better outcomes through brutal dictatorship. Does that mean brutal dictatorship is justified? No, they lower the average. They don't help the average. They lower the average. But it's directional. So they're on the way to be the top superpower. China. What does it have to do with the average? So secular nations, if you take the average, some bad ones, lots of good ones. Take the average. Higher average than the religious average. So if China becomes the highest GDP country, best socioeconomic status, and they achieve that through their current model of brutal social control and dictatorship, then you would support that model of governance or you'd say that's a good model of governance. Better than starving to death in a religious nation. Yeah. I mean like the standard is a comparison here. So is it better than religious nation? Now is it good? No, that's the question. So like whatever has the best outcomes means something that you'd support or? Pragmatically, not morally. We've got to jump forward. Yeah, so these are scientific facts. Like these are facts of what kind of, what nations are producing the highest GDP. Yes. These are facts that you bring into moral determinations. That's the whole thing that I was arguing. Pragmatic, not moral. Pragmatic, not moral. So morally, the most moral nation is a Jane nation who gives all of their money to charity. They are not the highest GDP. They don't have the highest life expectancy. They aren't the best economically. They are not. So why would that be the most moral? Because they impose the lease and voluntary position of will and do the most to help everyone else. So they do moral things, like giving all of your money to a charity. That's very moral. That's not the way that atheists evaluate what is the best system of government. That's how I do. You asked about me. How do I assess whether something's moral and political? I hate to do it, but because we have so many questions. Sunflower says, T-Jump labeling yourself as an atheist puts emphasis and priority on the lack of belief in God over any other lack of belief. By labeling yourself as an atheist, you are revealing your anti-God bias. No. The label atheist does target God, but it doesn't have a bias against God. It just means that that's the label I identify as. I'm also anti-murder, but I don't label myself as a murderist. I'm equally against murder as I am against God. This one from Cameron Hall says, doesn't religion allow immoral things to be moral? Yes. Lots of them, in fact. That's primarily what it does. Daniel, any thoughts? Agree? I mean, you have to... What's your standard of morality? And if you're like most atheists, according to T-Jump, you're a subjectivist, so you can't really make determinations of morality one way or another. This one from made by Jim Bob says, Tom, there is no evidence for the law of identity, but you believe it. Any evidence you present will require assuming the law of identity beforehand. Conceptual claims require conceptual evidence. Simply imagine it is, in fact, evidence that it's true. So for things like conceptual laws, math, logic, semantics, linguistics, those don't require empirical evidence, like scientific, because they're not empirical claims. They're conceptual claims. So you only need conceptual evidence. This one from DEL says, Daniel, are you asking why atheists don't have the same opinions aside from religion? Rand and Marx are both atheists, but disagree on every other issue. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing. You see all of this kind of disagreement amongst atheists, even though all atheists are committed to this kind of logical rationality and a process of logical reasoning, they're all committed to that standard. So they're all equally skeptical when it comes to using logic to evaluate beliefs and to weigh evidence and so forth. Yet they come to all of these different positions and all of these different commitments philosophically. Like there's no consensus on these big philosophical topics. Yet when it comes to the political domain, they have all of this kind of consensus when it comes to liberal secularism and liberal morality, and they often use that kind of, those commitments to liberalism to attack religion and to attack Islam. And those are the kinds of debates that I often do, where you have atheists who are attacking the morality of Islam. So this is a very clear inconsistency on the part of atheists. And the explanation for that consensus is very simple. You have mass censorship. You can't really talk about certain kinds of potential scientific facts. You can't really talk about, well, maybe it's not a good idea to have unlimited individual freedom in society. Maybe democratic representationalism isn't the best kind of system. Maybe it was a mistake to allow same-sex marriage. Maybe it was a mistake to allow sexual liberation. These actually lead to worse outcomes, it leads to a worse quality of life. It leads to all kinds of misery and suffering and depression. You can't even explore those lines of thought. Why? Because there's censorship, because there is also policies, hate speech policies that will shut down any kind of exploration of these kinds of topics. So liberal consensus, it's not a mystery why atheists are all aligned on these liberal issues, is because they're indoctrinated. They're a product of indoctrination. And Tom pretty much conceded that. Absolutely, everything he said is wrong. I conceded that most atheists are subjective moralists, which is the truth, but everything else he said was objectively wrong. This one coming in from Pancake of Destiny says thank you, James, modern day debate team and all mods for creating this channel. I have to say, all credit goes to the guests. Daniel and T-Jump are linked in the description, so you can hear plenty more from each of them if you click on those links. And that includes if you're listening via the podcast, we put our guest links there. But thank you, Pancake of Destiny, for your kind words who said, this channel helps with my depression. We're glad to hear it helps. Seriously, Pancake of Destiny. And it's a question for T-Jump's chair. How does it feel for your clam shaped chair to win all debates? Very nice. And it feels like warm. Wait, I get to answer that, right? That was a question. Clearly, I get to answer that. Feels like warm rainbow farts. Warm rainbow unicorn farts. A tremendous chair. We love the chair. Sunflower says, it's more likely that actions that result in harm are immoral than moral. It's not necessarily true, but it's certainly more likely. Involuntary impositions on the will are harmful, T-Jump. You lose. Well, no. So example is like working out, working out or playing video games or challenging yourself. Things can be an imposition on will and cause harm, but it's moral because you want to experience them like playing video games. Mostly they'll play video games competitively against others and lose the vast majority of the time, which is somebody else imposing on your will, but it's moral because you want to be in those kinds of situations. So the vast majority of those kinds of impositions on an everyday basis are not immoral. Simply causing harm doesn't indicate whether something's moral one way or the other. And so it doesn't actually relevant to the argument of whether or not something is moral. This one coming in from Bitter Truth, I'm going to read some of these together because some of them are more statements. We'll give you a chance to respond to each of them, Daniel. Said religions are a curse on humanity and Islam is the worst religion, Haqqika. I think they mean you, Daniel. I don't know what Haqqika refers to for sure. They say this is the reality. The spelling of his last name probably. Can you defend? And then said, I'm sorry, Quran. Toba verse. Is this something I've never heard of? Toba like T-O-B-A. Toba verse, spreading hate and insulting humanity. Even haddys. I don't know what these things mean, but we'll give you a chance, Daniel, to respond before I go through any more because there's another question from them. I debate atheists who want to claim that Islam is morally bad because of this verse in the Quran Hadith. And when I take them through basic argumentation and I will make a utilitarian argument or I will make an argument appealing to natural human emotions they really can't respond. And so those are the types of atheists that I have seen online represented online and it's not really hard to make these kinds of arguments against liberal positions. People have this kind of liberal outlook on life. Their entire worldview is dictated by liberal sensibilities. We need to maximize freedom and equality and men and women are equal in every way and sexual liberation is such a good thing. They have this entire structure like this entire worldview and they don't apply the kind of skepticism that is directed specifically towards belief in God or belief in traditional religion. So this is a blind spot it's an inconsistency and it's very easy to point that out and to show how silly these atheists are in their evaluation of Islam. This one from Bitter Truth as well I think I know your answer to this Daniel but I'll humor you. They say can you please show us there are human values in the Quran? That's it. My guess is you'd say yes. Okay this one from ASDF says being correctly skeptical about a child being correctly skeptical about Muhammad's angel story doesn't require you to be skeptical about sky teapots or alien abductions. I think they're saying a person can be consistent to reject Islam and yet still believe in sky teapots or alien abductions. Well when it comes to people's the belief in a God creator that's actually something that is quite universal. It is something that's biologically based. You can read anywhere you know Justin Barrett on this you can read any of the cognitive science of religion research on this topic but belief in a creator God is universal amongst humans and that's exactly what Islam calls to is to the worship of one creator God but belief in teapots or like the space teapot or the flying spaghetti monster those aren't actually backed by human intuitions whereas the belief in one creator God is it's based on one of the most fundamental human intuitions that people have and I can refer you to this kind of cognitive science research with which justifies that. Oliver Petrovich is another researcher who found that even in societies that are polytheistic, their religion is polytheistic or they don't have any religious belief in a creator even in those societies children will still believe in a creator God such as in Japan for example so this is a lot of evidence for belief that how belief is something that's very natural it's something that's very human every fallacy bias illusion delusion are all natural meaning that they're more rational than believing in a teapot because they're naturals appeal to nature fallacy great response Tom this one from Jesse Miller says good science must support good theology I don't know who that's for though bitter truth says Afghani peoples let's see they say if afghanistan afghani people marry children and they're islamic do you think that they are doing better than the USA thinking Daniel and this is a great question for calm for what would a subjectivist say to that I'm a moral realist so I think they are objectively immoral and he's asking you specifically how you would answer it from your moral standard and I have plenty of video content on this question you can go to that I'm just wondering like if I'm a subjectivist there's really no fact of the matter most atheists would not be able to respond to this question they'd say there's no problem there's no fact of the matter there's no fact of the matter about marrying a nine year old there's no fact of the matter whether that's right or wrong according to most atheists I've already answered this question but just for the point of this discussion with an atheist you claim that most atheists do not believe there's a fact of the matter about whether marrying a nine year old is right or wrong so yes their objectives are moral subjectivists but the question was for you based on your morality is Afghanistan morally better than America yeah my answer to the question is that any country that implements Islamic morality is better than one that does not thank you for answering I mean this is not like anyone who's familiar with my debates knows like this is not a gotcha moment it definitely is definitely is that most atheist according to you think that there's no morality about that question that's the gotcha right I agree I think that's stupid most atheists are stupid right in many ways most people are stupid most atheists are stupid right this one from bitter truth says Daniel I'm sorry bitter truth I'm trying my best I don't know what this is saying they say the Quran has hundreds of scientific errors how God who create this universe and didn't know about it claiming he made the universe which is wrong come on I don't know what maybe you guys know what that means I don't know what that means I mean it's just Hindu wow there's errors in the Quran oh okay this one from bubble gum gun says if the Harry Potter book gave you cancer that would be a utilitarian fact books don't give you disease sexual promiscuity can argument he jump you soy boy I added the last part in come on I don't understand the argument there like the argument was again that harm doesn't equivalent does not equate to morality so whether or not a book did or didn't cause you harm wouldn't make it any more or less true that it's the best book peeled a consequence fallacy I have a question for you Tom like you have this belief that you impose on someone's will that that is involuntarily that is wrong so there's no concept of harm in that no so like if someone wants like if someone wants to die and you kill them that's moral so it's only if they don't want to be harmed and you harm them is it immoral if they want to be harm and you harm them then it's moral so you're just like stating as you're just asserting or postulating that that is what morality is that imposing the will no that's my conclusion based on the evidence what evidence supports that moral intuition and moral progress the philosophical delineation and all the progress in the field of philosophy over the past 500 years well isn't China a counter example because China does not allow individual freedom to the same extent as many liberal countries yet it is progressing it is that's the directionality I was talking about it's becoming a world superpower despite the fact that it socially controls heavily population imposing on the will of people isn't that a great counter art counter example of what? your whole morality about progressivism and moral no again so there's no part of my morality that says being moral leads to more progress it's not literally the opposite of what I said the most moral people are the Jains they don't make the most progress and what makes pragmatic growth in the world has nothing to do with morality has to do with pragmatism so no one thinks that being moral is going to lead to more so then what's the evidence that imposing your will on people is wrong you said there's evidence for moral intuition moral progress the philosophical delineation moral progress what is moral progress the changes of moral intuitions over time across cultures in this consistent pattern so the consistent pattern is being broken by China because people in China no people in China do not think that you have to have individual freedom right that so the pattern is that if we go back a thousand years when they think that rape and slavery is totally fine and okay no one ever thought that rape and rape was wrong was right there is no moral problem with rape no one has ever thought that yes they did so you need to learn more about history no you need to learn more about history so China the morals of the average Chinese person is significantly better than the morals of the average people thousands of years ago the moral assertion you can look at the evidence this isn't my claim you can look at the polls but you're using the word moral so the whole question is what is the evidence for your moral intuition but you're using moral and your evidence your definition for oh my god oh my god oh my god that's your response to everything so ignorant of this topic it hurts me it hurts my head how ignorant of you so so just to clarify morality refers to certain actions and feelings we get like punch a baby oh my god it's so stupid so stupid oh my god when when we say like China and the people in China are more moral we can compare their moral intuitions to the moral intuitions of historical counts and people in the past and we say is there a change and if there's a change you can't if you don't have a definition of morality morality is the feelings we get when we say certain actions like punching a baby I literally said that so the evidence of morality is the pattern and changes of those feelings across time that's what moral intuition means please google the word it will help you a lot Stanford encyclopedia philosophy moral intuitions it will definitely help this one coming in from Yeshua the king it's just that's just an insult to an entire people group we're not going to read it we're looking for meaningful questions Zio Levi's says T jump how do natural laws pop up in the universe first I think that's what they mean they've always been there so natural law is a description of the fundamental natures of reality which have always been there gotcha and this one coming in from Alan Green says why can't you be skeptical of pizza is my favorite food what if I'm lying what if I like something more but I forgot so to be skeptical of the claim that someone says pizza is their favorite food isn't to be skeptical of the truth condition of pizza being objectively better it's to be skeptical of the truth claim of that statement corresponding to their opinions and so in the debate the reason I ask that is that if it's the case that someone is skeptical of let's say being sexually promiscuous is moral what they're being skeptical of isn't the truth claim to reality it's the truth claim to whether or not that corresponds to an opinion and so it would not be inconsistent of a skeptic to not be skeptical of that claim because you're not being skeptical of something that corresponds to reality it's not a fact about reality it's just something about an opinion you got it this one coming in from sunflower says tjump is trying to rest on his abstract laurels as he further descends okay basically I'm okay with insults I've said that before please read it I'm happy with it I like insults that's basically just as he descends into absurdity so something more meaningful than that this one from annan yamau says tjump how can you look like the medic engineer and scout from tf2 that must be some sort of hip new movie teen fortress too oh thank you all the time all at the same time if I was an atheist that would make me a believer do you look like the medic engineer and scout from tf2 I do I'm just that sexy nice good for you bitter truth says daniel did you ever see god or angels so don't you think this is called blind follower other end someone believe in reality on the other end someone believes in reality based on evidence I think they're saying you haven't seen god or angels you don't believe based on evidence daniel I think that's their claim I think it's he's not skeptical of his claim of his personal experience therefore he's not being consistent trying to tie it into the title I am consistent in that my beliefs are based on a Islamic paradigm and I apply it consistently and nowhere does Islam say that belief in God has to be based on empirical evidence but atheists when they argue against religions whether it's Christianity or Islam or any other religious system they say that you are irrational for having these beliefs and empirical evidence to back up those kinds of beliefs they apply that kind of standard to religion but they ignore their own world view this one from bitter truth this one might be good to clarify because during the debate this came up I think each of you have the same view on this one which I think has been misunderstood they said do you support the idea that women have lower IQ isn't this discriminatory and I think if I understand right most of you just believe that there's greater variability among men's bell curve distributions such that there are both more cognitively delayed people as well as more geniuses among men is that basically the idea or are you saying something different? Yes, so the scientific evidence is that on the bell curve there are more men on the extremes both the highly intelligent extreme and both on the lower less intelligent extreme and the average could tend to be higher in the direction so men on average are slightly intelligent by a very small margin but yes the evidence indicates that overall men take up the extremes on a much higher degree and so that's why men dominate all hyper intellectual fields like chests and Nobel prizes and mathematics Daniel, was that what you were saying? Yeah, the point about IQ that's one point but there's other personality traits that differ between men and women that will affect their representation or their ability to be in certain fields the more competitive fields tend to prefer men because men have more testosterone that makes them more competitive those are all scientific facts but those facts are not allowed to be discussed within liberal society to justify this kind of gender equality ideology and we don't see atheists really questioning that ideology or voting against you know less progressive or less liberal ideology So in other words folks or bitter truth, I think each of our guests is just saying that the distribution of men's intelligence is kind of flattened the belliger basically has both more cognitively delayed or what we used to call retarded people and also more geniuses but the averages can still be the same it's just that the distribution is flatter so it's not necessarily that one sex is smarter but they also said do you support children child marriage Daniel and do you think that this is morally acceptable and is that morally consistent yeah it's morally consistent according to Islam it's morally consistent with respect to every single traditional culture or religion including Christianity including Hinduism that permits minor marriage the idea that it's only morally acceptable if both parties are over 18 this is a modern development this is something that is found in modern culture but was not universally shared and is still not universally shared by people across the world Islam is not the only religion who believes in the morality of minor marriage this is a great example for China the reason China is actually an example of more progress so they actually do disagree 14 is considered minor marriage according to western they're not an example of regress they're closer they're getting there, they're a lot better than the Islamic society well a lot of things they've changed they also thought that we should limit the number of children within a family just one child per family they also walk that back they walk back women's representation they walk back women's liberation they have censored feminists and those promoting women's liberation so you consider that moral progress so a lot better than the Islamic societies today no, no, no, just answer is it moral progress to roll back feminism and roll back women's liberation so in any graph there's ups and downs the trend is what we're looking for so they're getting closer to Islamic society by rolling back women's liberation I just gave you examples I gave you examples where they're rolling it back I don't know how you're so ignorant of statistics there are ups and downs in any graph the trend is what we're looking for what is the pattern in the trend their trend is becoming more dictatorial their trend is more social control less individual liberty that's the trend within China using technology, yes it is yes it is, the trend within you're just ignorant about most topics but definitely China is implementing the social credit system that controls all of Chinese society there's less individual liberty in China because of technological progress so the trend is actually away from liberal society no it's not, this is just basic fact education rate is increasing do you know what a social credit system is okay is that more is that more conducive to individual liberty so that's being developed is it becoming more expensive or no it's not no they're becoming better the social credit system is more expensive I already answered that yes it's becoming more expensive I already answered that no you already answered that I already answered that social credit system is bad I'm going to use your tactic social credit system is bad is it becoming more expensive in China over time yes that one system is that progress that one system is not a representation of the entire system of China the fact that their increase in education have made more educated people in China more than ever in history in progress the fact that they've limited slavery, progress the fact that they've eliminated hunger, progress the fact that the minimum wage, progress they're going up in millions of ways they're not doing greats but they're doing better, they're improving Steven Pinker is better than other natures if you ignore the massive social credit system that is crushing it doesn't matter it doesn't contradict the millions of people I'm arguing with a clown the increase of the living wage you moron social credit system one example of that like of the twin lamps says thoughts on Taliban victory is this proof that Islam triumphs over secularism if a technology inferior force can beat a superpower is that for me or Tom? I think that is my I would guess it's for you I think it's both but I mean obviously technologically superior nations can lose but doesn't mean anyone's better yeah I think technology is not a sign of moral progress like I'm consistent on that I think China is with their social credit system this is actually objectively bad and the fact that it's expanding is bad is not the sign of progress and you can still have this kind of brutal social credit system and limiting people's liberty and still have a rise in GDP so that doesn't mean that that's a good system or that's a good form of government those are the kinds of nuance kinds of ethical distinctions that you can make but I mean we're missing that in this debate Carlos Santana says T-Jump is correct about categorical imperatives existing and Daniel is correct about our world being determinist once again great show I'm glad I am in the timeline for today's chat thanks Carlos and you can find both of our guests linked in the description here if you want to hear more from Daniel or T-Jump right here at Modern Day Debate in the description box here on YouTube as well as at our podcast we're going to talk about what is the correlation factor between atheism and supporting abortion in America it's a pretty drastic spread in America the religious people drastically supports banning abortion yeah it's a really high correlation so really high check out Pew like atheists are the most supportive of legalizing abortion in all cases like even in the second trimester third trimester so that's the pew stats and you can look them up but I think it's highly correlated like your religiosity and your commitment to traditional religions like Christianity and Islam is negatively correlated with your support for you know liberal policies like reproductive rights or legalizing abortion sexual liberation so forth this one from XXWLZX says let's see looking for more productive questions that one let's see not very useful bitter truth says Daniel nobody can see God God never communicates with us can you show us or provide evidence that God exists evidence that depends on what kind of evidence you accept if you're only going to accept scientific evidence and you need a peer reviewed published paper that says oh God exists we have the scientific proof if that's your standard of evidence then no I don't have that evidence is just anything that differentiates imagination from reality that's what you mean Mr. Monster says are all Muslims consistent believers all Muslims no you have hypocritical Muslims you have Muslims who aren't have the same level of religious commitment like there's diversity on the practice of Muslims this one from Ted Eckerd says who are these atheists that are moral subjectivists Tom so I believe Amy Newman is one pretty much all of the atheists I've debated most of the ones in my channel the vast majority of atheists if you go to the American Atheist website you can go to their description of morality where they say they're moral subjectivists American humans organization they say they are the ACA I believe they say they are pretty much every atheist organization and their members are the vast majority of our moral subjectivists that's like the most common view take any YouTube Atheist online they're most likely to be moral subjectivists very few are moral realists Logan what's his name now he's a great moral subjectivist philosopher debater guy I haven't debated him yet Logan Lance Lance Bush debate him on moral subjectivism he'd be great most are most regular atheists are they're all over the place my Chad 10 people just said we're moral subjectivists this one from DL says for Daniel thoughts on Sarantoneo the former piece TV host leaving Islam after learning Aramaic he agreed with Orientalist scholars that it was likelier that the Quran copied Alexander's legends yeah I read this story about this guy who is in prison because he was like recruiting for ISIS and then while he's serving this kind of prison term after recruiting for ISIS he discovers that oh well you know this story in the Quran and sort of calf seems to be referring to Alexander the Great therefore this must be a copied story in the Quran therefore he left Islam so I mean it's pretty stupid reasoning this one from XXWLZ XX says by the way China has become significantly more liberal since the death of Mao the most prosperous parts of China are the free trade economic zones in China well I think that there is again this very oppressive social credit system that is monitoring all Chinese citizens and if we are to believe the western news reports about China like during the height of certain periods of Covid there are literally like welding the doors of apartment buildings shut to keep citizens you know trapped inside and not leave just trapped in quarantine and they're even like killing pets and like this is the level of repression that you see in a country like China so if that means it's more liberal than the time of Mao I don't know if that's saying much but I think it's going in a more repressive direction that's because they find that to be beneficial the power that be in China the CCP sees that as in their interest to control the Chinese population and use technology to do so I think western liberal governments are also discovering that it's better than Mao but it's regressing somehow no contradiction oh Tom there's ups and downs Tom there's ups and downs this one coming in from XXWLZ XX says will Daniel ever be willing to debate specific claims from the Quran such as semen coming from the backbone of the man and ribs of the women these these kinds of debates are stupid because whatever explanation is given you're not going to accept these atheists aren't going to accept those kinds of explanations so very specific debates like that I don't find productive like I thought this kind of debate would be productive to talk about like skepticism and world view of atheists as a collective those broader topics I find to be more interesting or like science like the value of science and evaluating religious texts those are good debates but like specific verses like I don't know how useful that is this one coming in from catch 22 for T jump is touching a baby on the hand with sexual intent wrong even if it doesn't cause any harm and if it is wrong why under any theistic view yes because it's the baby didn't consent so if the baby doesn't consent it's a violation of its consent and so it's immoral but the baby doesn't consent to being like held at all yeah so it'd be morally better if you didn't ever violate any consent ever so you're never holding a baby is better if we had a perfect world where no violations of consent were required so we could just give the baby everything it needed to be an adult like instantly then yeah that'd be better so mothers are immoral by carrying their babies no we're pragmatic so the perfect world if we didn't need to violate ever that would be good babies don't have the ability to consent because they don't have the intelligence so why is that why is that pragmatic but if you touch with sexual intent the baby that's morally wrong because it's not pragmatic so the opposite of pragmatic well I think the person who is touching the baby thinks is pragmatic what do you think the word pragmatic means it's your definitions man I'm just going off of your definition and the words that you're using you don't think that a mother holding a baby is morally good what does the word pragmatic mean let's show your own inconsistencies here again no I just asking you questions that's all yeah I'm asking you questions you make statements like oh I think the child rapist thinks it's pragmatic what do you think pragmatic means come on you define morality as you know in position of will so I'm just like drawing out the conclusions of that yes so imposing on the baby's will by touching them without consent is immoral yes this one from John do bro says atheists are skeptics by definition they are skeptical about the claim of God in quotes that is because there is no proof of God therefore the laws should not be based on a God right as a laws are there are many policies within these liberal governments that are also not proven by scientific data or and sometimes they even contradict scientific data yet there are laws that everyone abides by by force and a vast majority of atheists agree as being morally justified you know that's a objection that's an objection against atheists so like weed being illegal it's all the data shows that that's wrong and is bad but it's still illegal so yes there's definitely archaic laws that are bad and it takes a while for the science to influence the laws to make them improve doesn't just happen overnight so there are lots of laws that are bad and are scientifically proven to be false and I agree to change them you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question graze 174 Daniel what is the objective reason to listen to what God tells you is it just because it's objectively true that you will go to hell or be punished if you disobeyed I know the belief in God like this is a big question about human behavior and human morality and human intuitions so this kind of distinction between is an odd this might be like a conceptual truth that is an odd or not the same thing but when it comes to human psychology is often is translated automatically by the brain into an odd so for example the fact that people like there's a king or someone with great authority that is just a fact that someone has great authority but humans translate that in many cultures into you know I should submit to that authority or I should respect that authority or I should fear that authority this is something that is proven again within the cognitive science of religion and so that is of authority and someone who has great power you should obey them or you should submit to them that instinct is something that is universal that's why you know that this is one of the explanations for why religious traditions have this concept of an all powerful God and submitting to an all powerful God it's something that matches human intuitions that are universally seen across history and geographic space because he has a big stick he has a big stick that's why says brother Daniel in your opinion why do atheists resort to moral subjectivism in their let me know if I see this right Welton-Shong world view, why do except for me or Tom? they said brother Daniel why do they I think that a lot of atheists that are online maybe appeal to subjectivism in this kind of inconsistent way like they want to criticize Islamic morality on an objective basis but then when you press them on trying to justify their morality they suddenly very conveniently are subjectivists I think that's what explains it because they can't really appeal to scientific facts to back up their moral commitments so they just throw up their hands and say oh you know morality is just like liking ice cream or liking Harry Potter that's I think the sociological explanation for subjectivism in general but again when you look at brain scans when you look at how atheists actually talk when you do these polls you see they walk and they talk like moral objectivists but they want to claim that they're not it's because most of them were religious and they thought that they were brought up being taught that you need to believe in God to believe in objective morality and they were never taught that it's possible to believe in objective morality without a God so when they became atheists they then kept that intuition and became moral subjectivists that's why it's so popular among non-philosopher atheists yeah but this is a product of their culture and their upbringing indoctrination basically yes raise 174 says Daniel what about the H-O-L-O cost makes it morally worse than the hell of your God that someone may be sent to is there a better answer than does it so it's okay God does it what was the H-O-L-O is that hell no just a word that you should pick up on unnecessarily H-O-L-O-C-A-U-S-T it's a word that yeah yeah okay I got it so is it I still don't understand what the question was they're saying why is hell not worse or comparable to that event and they want an answer other than as they quote it they say other than quote God did it so it's okay well I think the understanding of that historical event was that that was unjust but when God punishes it's based on justice perfect justice it's not just arbitrary ad hoc genocide that's the moral distinction you got it this one from Zayo Levi's let me know if I say this right they say Tom mind is a product of blind process under atheism so why should we trust it um because blind processes can lead to true facts so the fact that something comes about by a blind process doesn't mean that it's false so appeal of motive fallacy so the fact that like for example we could have a process like natural selection that selects out for false facts and selects true facts therefore you have a reason to believe the facts because there's a system that selects for true facts this one from DL says if a human views a face in a bush due to intuitional survival it doesn't mean that a face is actually there can't the same be said of God Daniel it doesn't mean that it's there it also doesn't mean that it's not there so there's more than just intuitions to justify belief in God this one from bitter truth says child marriage let's see just basically this is basically a duplicate question bitter truth famoTV says Tom you mentioned people marrying young in Afghanistan yet you have zero problem with people changing their gender or taking on prostitution because it's quote unquote they're right and we shouldn't interfere with their autonomy very mute here you Tom let me I didn't mute you but let me work on it yeah I muted myself to make the ice sound not show up yeah so child marriage is immoral because children don't aren't of the age of consent and so doing something to them is immoral because they don't have the ability to consent adults like for prostitution are adults they can consent so I figured what the other example was they had said people changing their gender yeah I mean if they're adults they have the right to do that it's their body their choice so that's perfectly not immoral oh that's children no they can't consent so it would be immoral for children to do it so is it immoral to put children in school yes force them to this one from so soban chowry I didn't see your question you had one in the live chat I didn't see one attached XXWLZXX says it is astonishing to me let's see uh says Daniel don't you think that child marriage is harmful if you support the harm principle in terms of saying that harm is roughly equated you could say roughly equated to morality no I don't accept the harm principle and I don't reduce morality to harm I said that harm is morally irrelevant there are many different moral considerations harm is one of the big ones and also I don't necessarily think that minor marriage is always harmful so that's and that's actually the consensus scientifically because what evolutionary biologists will say is that well there must be some kind of evolutionary advantage for why this is found in all human societies this practice of minor marriage regardless of religion or culture so there must be some kind of evolutionary advantage I'm not saying that I endorse evolution but this is what the psychological consensus is and it's actually a controversy because it's taboo minor marriage is taboo according to liberalism yet they can't find a reason to categorize it as a psychological dysfunction if you know a man marries a you know pubescent woman so this is actually a debate within moral psychology this one from xxwlzxx says Tom is right there's massive evidence that people are progressing on a massive scale when it comes to morality Daniel please read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature Steven Pinker is again very selective like all atheists I assume that Pinker is not a subjectivist he's an objectivist so he's very selective in the kind of scientific data that he points to and for any kind of data that you can show that oh well liberalism leads to these kinds of positive socioeconomic outcomes you can make a contrary argument that less liberty less individual freedom will lead to those same outcomes but we're not allowed to ask those questions or do that kind of research because the research funding is controlled by a liberal establishment by liberal institutions we're not allowed to talk about these things on social media we have to like use code words in our you know debates and our social media presence because you'll get censored so it's no surprise that Steven Pinker at Harvard can write a book and completely ignore the contrary side to the debate and people aren't wise to it because everything to the contrary has been censored you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question Melvin Waterin says can tjump prove that his family members love him using scientific evidence can you fix that I see yep there it is alright just fixed it alright first thing Steven Pinker said nothing about liberalism it's just everywhere in the world quality of life everywhere in the world quality of life is improving it doesn't matter about liberalism what was his question they asked can you prove using science that your mother loves you or other family members love you can you prove it with evidence by using neurological correlates of love to conclude that yes there is evidential reason you can't prove it with 100% certainty but we can prove it with any level of scientific certainty yes so also about Pinker let me just respond to that because how do we define quality of life you know that has to be quality of life is in everything that measures the expectancy the happiness the meaningfulness the nutrition yeah so you have to make a decision you have to make a moral decision about what counts as being relevant to quality of life someone could argue that look most human beings value marriage they value big families they value community they value religion and belief in God but all of those things are being destroyed within societies they're objectively getting worse and worse fewer people are getting married I think you have a personal problem with that issue of you know finding a female partner Tom so these are things that are getting worse and worse in society and I'm not trying to get you Tom you just literally had a video talking about your trouble on your channel about having difficulty finding a girlfriend I think Instagram model yes anybody in the chat please if you could have Instagram model introduce me it'd be appreciated could be great yeah so that's like suffering that you're going through and that it's much harder now for someone like you to find a loving partner than it was 50 years ago 100 years ago 200 years ago so all of these things that human beings value are not counted in Stephen Pinker's analysis of quality of life no they're not if they were counted then those things are all taking a nosedive so how can they indicate how can they indicate that those are leading to quality of life overall because people are living three times longer which is a lot more important you can leave you can live three times longer if you're strapped to a bed and all of your you know needs are given to you intravenously you can live longer that doesn't mean that's a better quality of life right so there's well that's why we use all the different criteria on like quality of life as in happiness fulfillment ability to find food ability to find meaningful joy in hobbies and things free time there's lots of criteria not just just life expectancy but the one criterion there are some things that are going down like you mentioned finding meaningful relationships don't outweigh the billion other things that are improving like all the things I listed so yeah there's some people with some people would like prefer to live just 40 years of life instead of 80 years and maybe suffer from more disease but have like a loving committed wife or to live in a loving community like a large-scale community rather than sitting on a couch in front of a laptop watching Netflix and ordering Uber Eats like in the vast majority of people 500 years ago wanted to not die of the black plague this one that's one historical period you're characterizing all of the past as like plague rent you know plagues killing people constantly yes literally yes literally yes even then even then people would prefer that then the health scape dystopia that we're living in today this one from DL the theory of evolution contradicts Islam so our Muslims consistent with reality no I think that the theory of evolution is factually incorrect and irrational their Alma Alma town says based on your morality is free speech good if so what do you think about laws in European countries that penalize criticizing Holocaust narrative yeah so I'm for free speech I think everyone should be able to free speech including the holo guys so yeah I'm all for free speech that's very contradictory to what atheists overall think not contradiction do I agree with all atheists no I'm not a feminist I didn't say it's contradictory I was just making that note I said that contradicts what other atheists say I didn't say what you said is contradictory sure I disagree with other atheists I'm not an SJW yeah we know we know we got graze174 says follow up on the H cost question that was just asked how do you determine the quote perfect justice that H-I-T-L-E-R didn't have is it quote whatever God does is perfect justice I think that's for you Daniel yeah it's the previous the previous one not the one that was just answered I don't know like it was the one about comparing hell to what Hitler did and saying why is God not bad that was the previous question and he's saying what determines what is the justice for Hitler because of his actions is simply just God just picks it no we're morally accountable we have ability to make choices that we'll be judged on in the afterlife this one coming in from do appreciate it we just got a few more questions here this one from Mzar says Daniel Muslim scholars differ on when abortion is legal so where's quote objective morality on quote if subjective interpretation is used anyway it's not a trivial matter we're talking potentially about murder yeah there's what's called the left like difference opinion on a variety of moral issues within Islam so that doesn't contradict their being like in a objective answer objective meaning the sense that God has determined that one thing is right and another thing is wrong so there's but in Islam like the scholars who are the the jurists who try to determine what is the objectively correct position on an issue like abortion they're allowed to exercise what's called HD had like inferential reasoning and as long as they are doing that properly and bringing to bear the relevant sources from revelation then they're not morally culpable for having a wrong answer they can be wrong but Muslims can still follow them despite that because they made the best effort given the resources that they had and their understanding of revelation you got this one from Karzan says Tom jump is having sex with a dead body per se morally wrong not if the previous occupants said you could do it after they die they consented to allow their body to be used after death in that way that's perfectly fine I asked him next to have this one FAMO TV says but Tom are you okay with kids such as I think they mean like nine year olds transitioning in their being from male to female no I think that kids under like whatever the age of consent is aren't allowed to consent and that doing so can have drastic consequences later in life I think that they should wait until after like 18 or whatever before they can legally be allowed should be allowed to do that what's yeah but there's plenty of scientific evidence that contradicts that like the arbitrary line of 18 is not supported by any kind of scientific evidence or moral or objective fact if there's scientific evidence that they're better off transitioning earlier and it doesn't cause problems for the majority then I'll just admit I'm wrong and then yeah if it's scientifically supported that it's healthier for them to transition at an earlier age and that it would be worse for them to not transition for the majority of people than I just say yeah I'm wrong go with the evidence yeah all of that is like you're just using the word worse you're using the word better all of these are like normatively packed words that you're applying but I'm a moral realist moral realist remember I believe an objective moral yeah but it doesn't connect to like the will like a person's consent because yes it does no because you make a distinction between what is meaningfully consent like how who can give meaningful consent yes you have to be of the age of consent to give consent so that is consistent yeah but the question is who determines that line and it's not something that can be scientifically okay best evidence to try to say who is capable of giving actual consent we try to use science to evaluate that by using rationality and test say who has the intellectual capability to analyze the situation to make a rational decision and isn't just making a decision based off of some mental incapacity if someone has a mental incapacity like a brain tumor or something they don't have the ability to consent and then we can analyze kids brains and say well are they more like the cancer patient or are they more like an adult and then we can assess well where do they transition between more of just a responsive meat sac like a cancer patient into a rational human being who can make rational decisions and we try to estimate that age and give an appropriate destination of saying this is where the age of consent is it's pretty rational this one from FAMO TV says Tom why are suicide rates extremely high among atheists is this true I don't know if this is true in America in America so in cultures that are the most majority religious people who are in a minority have a higher rate of suicide so atheists in America have a higher rate of suicide because of cultural disenfranchisement and challenges in society of being ostracized in secular nations it is not the case that it's true in secular nations where they're majority and they feel accepted they have lower rates and so it's relative to the culture in America it's because of cultural disenfranchisements lots of religious effects on politics and how that impacts the secular community this one from DL says Shia's think Imams are divine Muslims are consistent I think they're saying different heretical groups in Islam that doesn't make a difference Hassan Khameth says Daniel Haqqaqoo vs Matt Dillahundy make it happen we'll try our best and graze174 says at least destiny got destroyed in this debate amen to that this one coming in from Ananya Mauss says T-jump under a liberal system can you identify as the medic who has three hats from Val because you're entitled to them I demand Half-Life 3 from Val because we're all entitled to it what was the name of that game Team Fortress 2 I'm behind Tom I used to play Mortal Kombat this one from FAMO TV says Tom then explain LGBT pushing kids to transition you like that don't you no I don't like that I'm not an SJW I'm anti feminism so you believe that was determining the age of consent you have to evaluate all the scientific empirical data to see like what is the quality of life how do things improve so you address that for transitioning children transitioning to different genders but what about marriage so you could argue on that same basis say that okay if it's shown that nine-year-olds who get married they have really high levels of happiness they have high levels they have a quality of life you would say that it's moral for people to marry nine-year-olds no I'd say that the age of consent is determined by whether a brain of a human being is able to make rational decisions yeah what if that's determined like a nine-year-old is able to if we determine that in the future that the intellectual capability of children at some point reaches some IQ level where they can achieve adult levels of consent it's not going to be the case because we have the studies on it and it isn't that low actually I think you should review the studies I have so the studies actually show that most rationality doesn't really develop until like 24 your brain continues to develop later so we should move it back well actually there are studies that show that you really can't you haven't fully developed mentally until you're in your 30s so can you give consent before you're in your mid 30s right now we think that the ability to give consent is rationally justified at like 18 or something it may be in the future we can determine that it's later than that based on your definition of being an adult and being able to make consent and the development of the brain the human brain is not fully developed according to some studies until well into the mid 30s so there's no meaningful consent for anything prior to the mid 30s according to your definition no based on all of the studies we have the best conclusion we have for consent is about 18 there are some studies that so yes the brain continues to develop through life later does that mean that because of this one criterion in the brain that we should make the age of consent based off this one criterion no because there's lots of other criterion that establish that the best age range is about 18 for right now until we have better data and a multitude of studies that indicate something different the conclusion going with anything else to be inconsistent the science just so conveniently matches up with what you know the liberal culture is it's just a miracle this one why we did put it that way from okay from DL says Dan and Tom is the Quran true because it's beef preserved I don't understand what that means been preserved oh yeah I think that's what they meant I prefer the beef I like the beef version the beef version is good there's there are many reasons to know that Islam is the truth the textual preservation is a very strong evidence not necessarily conclusive proof but strong evidence that Islam is the religion chosen and revealed by the creator to all of humanity because it's if you know you think of a creator God who it wants to send guidance to humanity he would preserve that guidance he would preserve those texts and there's no textual preservation within any religion that compares with the textual preservation of the Quran and other Islamic texts like hadith no the Quran has not been preserved it was most of them were burned at one stage and then one specific version was then copied after that which makes the illusion of preservation when you destroy all of the earlier copies so that you can't prove that they've been debunked but yeah they haven't been preserved pretty strong consensus that the earliest copies you can have many copies so the earliest manuscripts we found do show inconsistencies with the current Quran and so it hasn't actually been preserved no absolutely wrong this one from graze174 Daniel how do you define quote unquote perfect justice God's justice this one from XXWLZXX says the Maldives has the strictest Sharia in the world and they have the highest rate of divorce in the world 11 per 1000 I think they missed a zero or something because wouldn't 11 out of 1000 be like 1% maybe so let's just stick with they say that the Maldives has the highest rate of divorce in the world Islam doesn't preserve marriage they say I don't know what the stats are for the Maldives but it's possible that you have a Muslim country that implements Sharia but you still get these kinds of problems because you are living in this hegemonic liberal world order that affects everyone like a poison so it's not a surprise that certain countries that do implement aspects of Islamic law are still suffering from the malaise that the rest of us are suffering from in countries where we don't have the blessing of Islamic law this one from FAMO TV if a married woman can cheat on her husband while he is at work ignorance is bliss so there is no harm on him and she gained pleasure can you address how this would be ethically wrong if he doesn't ever find out about it yeah so if you agreed to join in a relationship under certain pretenses that you will not cheat and then you broke that or violated that agreement and then cheated that would be immoral if they are in an open relationship it would not be immoral so if they became married and were okay with this so it would be immoral if they agreed at the outset that they would not cheat and she violated that consensual agreement of the pretence of engaging in the relationship this one from Hassan Kham Korna says Daniel if it wasn't for liberalism Islam will not spread in the west you should be thankful for it they were not for liberalism well I mean if it weren't for liberalism the Muslim world wouldn't have been brutally colonized if it weren't for liberalism France wouldn't have genocided 3 to 8 million Algerians in Algeria if it weren't for liberalism the subcontinent wouldn't have been brutally occupied by the British if it weren't for liberalism you wouldn't have 3 million Muslim deaths in Indonesia in the 19th century these are all the products of liberalism so let's actually be fair in how we evaluate these things what did those have to do with individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise because I'm missing out all the liberal thinkers were also in favor of colonialism watch my debate with destiny that has nothing to do with liberalism yes it is, they're the liberal philosophers people, is John Stuart Mill a liberal philosopher partially but again liberalism is partially, is partially a liberal philosopher, okay there's also a colonial administrator within the subcontinent liberalism is individual rights civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise if you add anything else, you're not adding liberalism you're adding something else all of these liberal thinkers believe that they believed in individual freedom they believed in personal rights, free enterprise, etc but they believed that they argued people like Alexis de Tocqueville John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham even Adam Smith believe that you have to impose this on religious societies because they are too they're not intellectually capable to accept the reason of philosophy the reason behind liberalism so you have to impose it and if that means killing millions of people that's justified, why because the end result is going to be better the ends justify the means that is the utilitarian thinking that all of these liberal philosophers had to justify the brutal invasion and occupation of the Muslim world watch my debate with destiny just because you're ignorant of historical facts and you make this stupid face it doesn't make you look smart I think you should recognize that when I ask you is John Stuart Mill a liberal philosopher you said partially yes because I'm more educated in philosophy than you what's your degree Stanford and encyclopedia stop deflecting stop deflecting stop deflecting stop deflecting I'm more educated in philosophy clearly not stop talking stop talking stop talking address the point what's your degree in philosophy I'm more qualified than you objectively, everyone can tell that but if you're saying that liberalism what's the qualification can you mute them for a second please that's my qualification I've got to get it on the cnp just so they can hear it because they won't hear either of you if it's continuously both of you talking so he's saying that civil liberties, free economy and that all the things that are fundamental to liberalism these philosophers wanted to violate all of those things and do literally the opposite to these other countries and that's liberalism so what he's doing there is called a contradiction read John Stuart Mill he says that look yes we have to sometimes implement a benign dictatorship on barbaric people who are yet to see the life of liberty is that a part of liberalism it's in his book on liberty on liberty read the book on liberty he says sometimes it is necessary to impose despotism on these masses of non liberals until they become acculturated to the liberal superior way of life Alexis de Tocqueville in front of the french government argued that's not a part of liberalism they are liberal philosophers on liberty is a book of philosophy oh my god John Stuart Mill is a philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville is Sam Harris a liberal he says that we need to it is justified to nuke muslims preemptively nuclear strike how are you so dumb it is acceptable to preemptively nuclear strike the muslim world if they do not accept liberal beliefs and the faith this is Sam Harris making this a liberal saying something is not equivalent to liberalism it is in the book on liberty yes it is the book on liberty is not the end all be all book of liberalism liberalism has progressed all of these major liberal thinkers who are also part of the colonial project so dumb Alexis de Tocqueville Adam Smith Jean T-Jump as a moral objectivist don't you think it's impractical to base morality on something as inconsistent and volatile as feelings these are the phenomenon of morality how we experience it they aren't the thing that it makes it true so we're not basing it off feelings feelings are interpretation kind of like vision if morality is a real thing our intuitions are how we sense it kind of like how our sight is how we see things we don't base what we're seeing off of our sight we try to correspond and test it outside of that moral intuitions are the phenomenon they're not the morality itself this one coming in from thanks for your question as well WLZXX says the UK has a higher marriage rate and lower divorce rate than almost all Sharia compliant countries there's no evidence that Islam preserves marriage no I don't believe that's true graze174 says why is God's justice perfect what does that mean for it to be perfect that's for me yes God's justice is perfect what does it mean for it to be perfect this is what euthyphro dilemma that's perfection is God's nature so justice we refer justice back to God's nature God's names and attributes that's where we get the idea of justice and perfection the source of perfection is God it's the what is a woman question for God so like you've heard that the Matt Walsh thing is a woman and they say well a woman is anybody who defines as a woman so they're asking the same thing about God is God if whatever God does is good what does that mean good I know the euthyphro dilemma I know it's like a stale argument it's G.E. Moore's open question argument it's not the euthyphro yes it is no it's not no it's not you're just like you're so ignorant and you're so foolish and say no I literally tell you that's the only moves that you have so they don't know you just contradict yes G.E. Moore has commented on the nature of goodness and morality yes but it's also the euthyphro dilemma you can just tell me you just negate everything that I say how can you know that the person who wrote this comment is referring to G.E. Moore instead of the euthyphro dilemma because that's literally the G.E. Moore question is something the definition of good what is goodness is something good G.E. Moore talked about God and the definition of God's justice G.E. Moore talks about that in his open question oh my god oh my god whenever you get trapped on something you do this stupid move yeah okay I'm the one who's dumb here you never told us your qualifications either most Muslims think Ramesses to is Pharaoh preserved by God and Sheikh Hakim mentions only preserved for time thus most Muslims are inconsistent with their theology I don't know what Sheikh he's talking about what that even means from bitter truth says goat eaten Quranic verses Surah Rijim also missing verses Omar burned Quran how do we know the Quran is preserved because it's in the Quran Daniel no it's a fact about academic secular textual criticism so go talk to academics within Islamic studies who are not Muslim and they'll attest to the historical preservation of the Quran and they'll date it to within the prophet Muhammad salallahu alaihi salam within his lifetime that's not Muslim saying that that's not Muslims famous TV says Tom in liberal and secular USA you have a constant stream of breakups and monogamous relationships breaking up not to mention high rates of depression please address this what address what I think they're saying there's more freedom I think they're trying to kind of make the case that secularism is leading to this given that sort of yeah when you don't have forced marriages and rapes and punishment by death if you leave them there's a lot more promiscuity and you can leave relationships and get divorces and that's fine so yeah if you don't outlaw people being free to change relationships then yeah you're going to need a lot more changing relationships and that's a good thing not a bad thing it's a good thing that 60% of the male population can't find a partner that's a good thing it's better than legalized rape like in Islam yeah legalized rape okay see this is like your problem Tom you don't understand and you don't want to understand well that's the consensus on academics that it's legal rape they say there are higher rates of depression in these liberal liberal and secular USA is that the same question right yeah but I don't know did you address the depression part oh yeah the depression part is related to again as I mentioned earlier because we're a more free society you can measure depression and happiness in a much greater extent the quality of life is assessed based on psychological measures rather than material measures so the rate of depression is higher for people who don't have access to social lives and in our society it's more isolated but again even though that's the case it's still better in every other metric so yes there are some that are worse some metrics that aren't perfect we're working on them but it's still better in literally every other metric it's better when you off yourself more people killing themselves is better it's better than Islam that's for sure they are Al-Mhadun says Tom should sex under 18 be illegal if there are two 17 year olds that aren't able to consent to sex with an 18 year old is it wrong for them as 17 year olds to be having sex no I think that's a social constraint argument that if like you're literally a grade away from them and their friends then that's totally fine but I leave that up to the states let them decide they can't meaningfully consent according to you yeah it's pretty much already been addressed by every legal court in the system this isn't even a hard question great we're not talking about legal courts we're talking about your moral system according to what you just said yes legal courts operate based on consent the same thing I'm using you just said it's not meaningfully consent meaningful consent if it's under 18 because the brain has it developed to give you just appeal to court appeal to the court system the person is not asking about the court system they're asking about your nonsense moral theory that changes with every question so that 18 year old is closer to a brain state like the 17 year old and so because they are similar and might each other probably way before it's totally fine like there's no problem this is not even a hard issue the fact that you're ignorant of this is just pathetic I'm ignorant about what 18 year old or 17 year old is not being able to consent or is this just the standard thing that you say to everything that I say you're ignorant well you are ignorant of everything it's going to be my go to standard for sure graze 174 says why base morality on consent instead of suffering Tom because you can consent to suffering so suffering isn't necessarily evil it can be good examples of suffering and so if we base morality off of suffering then it would eliminate many goods in the world so for example video games video games is very stressful hypothetically you could play on a hard difficulty and it can cause you suffering but maybe you want to play the video game in which case it's not immoral if we base morality purely based on suffering then it would be immoral to play a really hard video game and make it stress you out so not all bad things or not all good things involve a lack of suffering so suffering can be good this one from Melvin Waterin says tjump we just heard you say oh my god do you believe that god exists or not I don't know if they're serious no I do not believe that god exists but I like the insult Marty Mad Scientist says both how does your objective morality accommodate technology advances quote stupidity got us into this mess stupidity will get us out from the Simpsons was that a question was that a question in some way they just ask how does your objective morality accommodate the fact that technology advances I don't understand morality doesn't cause technology to advance or vice versa there's separate things gotcha any thoughts on that as well Daniel yeah I didn't really understand the point I think that technology definitely affects what people understand to be moral I think that technology is driven by moral considerations I think a lot of technology is driven through a atheistic worldview and the idea that what's the most important about life is bodily pleasures and like increasing consumption so I think a lot of technology is driven with that understanding of value but that is destructive to humanity because there are other very important values that human beings have that I mentioned before like having value for marriage, for family having a loving community belief in God these are all things that human beings deeply value but a lot of technological progress is predicated on this view that the only thing that matters is bodily pleasure so it's no surprise that we are in a world with a lot of technology but people are more depressed people are more lonely they're more atheistic and they're suffering that's partly due to technological progress this from DL says do most Muslims think as deeply about faith as you if not why would people go to hell when to them it is just like Christianity to a Christian I think everyone has a certain capability to evaluate evidence and to come to the conclusion that God exists again it's something that literally people are born with again this is the Islamic belief in fitra but it's also something that's corroborated by cognitive science of religion that people naturally grow up and develop this belief in God and then at that point people can evaluate what is the correct religion when it comes to worshiping God without partner and Islam just says that there's one God who created us and that God is the supreme perfect being he has no partners he has no assistance and people should worship him alone without partner that's basically what Islam says and that's I think the most rational position and people can evaluate that anyone can evaluate that's the most rational today as long as they're not like insane you got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question DL says that was XXW LZXX says if there is in fact a God then I hope he blesses T-Jump he's a champion for reason great work T-Jump you gained a fan this one from DL says T-Jump what are your educational credentials I started my own business out of high school I actually have I think 15 college credits and the rest are all audited so they didn't get to the degree but I got all the classes done this one from graze174 quote what is a woman but for God's justice perfection is really funny Tom thanks for that one is their discourse put in that way that I can follow up what I don't know if they're asking for your discord but I'm confused by that but Tom is discourse on like some discussion of some kind between two topics this one coming from FAMO TV says Tom American men constantly complain about their girlfriends flirting with other men but are too afraid to do anything to fix it where is the happiness well western nations are objectively happier than muslim nations on every metric so like the fact that one metric seems less happy is not the case men are still happier in America in the relationships than in muslim nations happiness correlates with material prosperity to a certain extent this is like the income happiness paradox so if you keep increasing your income and your material status eventually at plateaus you're not going to keep increasing your happiness there's a plateau and it just happens to the case that western societies are at a higher level of material income and GDP so that explains the happiness differential the problem is that the material or the material difference or income difference or economic difference between western nations and muslim nations is that these western nations have engaged in 200 years of divide and colonialism and neo-imperialism so their happiness like yeah you're happier but because you engage in all of these destructive policies against the rest of the world no Islam was the leader of the world in the 1200's and then thanks to Islam they destroyed themselves so it's literalism that got you don't even know what colonialism is Tom yes when did it start modern colonialism modern colonialism you call modern colonialism colonialism by western powers by liberal western powers when did it start liberal western powers probably the 1300's, 1400's wrong completely wrong you're off by like 500 years great because you're making up a definition that's great my point was that Islam had the world liberalism didn't exist in the 1300's Islam had the most powerful military the most powerful government everything and then screwed it up because Islam is a terrible religion there's no one known to colonize Islam back then, Islam screwed itself up they had all the opportunity, liberalism was just better we see the betterness of the modern west we see the dystopia famous TV says Tom at the end of the day from an atheistic perspective rape is just particles interacting with each other how can you even say it's quote unquote wrong things are morally correct or incorrect independent of whether they're made of matter or made of soul stuff the fact that something is made of matter doesn't make it any more or less more significant than if it's made of soul stuff so the saying that it's made of matter doesn't mean that it's less real you got it, thank you very much for this question this one's coming in from some all well proper punishment for stealing under Sharia law Daniel dropping in the hands Soban Chauri says T-jump since morality is subjective for atheists rooted in geography or culture etc I don't know if they're referring to this does that mean diverse groups of atheists will be morally inconsistent what so I'm a moral objectivist I believe that is true independent of opinion and the moral subjectivists are the ones who think that's not the case those are two different ideologies this one from FAMO TV says T-jump you might criticize Islam for polygamy yet in the USA one can have 50 partners if they choose to why the hypocrisy polygamy is fine I didn't criticize Islam for polygamy this one from XXWLZXX says Gulf Arab countries have similar GDP to the west yet are still less happy Saudi and Iran are still less happy compared to other similar GDP countries Gulf states have comparable GDP because of oil wealth but a lot of that wealth is concentrated in a minority of people who live in those countries whereas a lot of the population of Gulf countries consists of immigrants they're there for work on work visas they're coming from the subcontinent and they're horribly oppressed often times so that might explain the differences and happiness and also one thing that affects happiness is if you're like a subjugated people so the whole world is being subjugated by the west and countries like the United States the UK France and so forth and so even if you do have a higher GDP or comparable GDP but you feel like your country or your culture or your religion is being subjugated by a more dominant power then that affects happiness levels so that's affected in the Muslim world overall Grace174 said Tom what I meant was do you have people had conversations about God's perfection just being the quote is a woman question that I can follow up on yeah that's the GE Moore open question argument so that's literally the whole point of the argument that the same question is being asked about goodness in the context that's what GE Moore is doing is asking the exact same question that Matt Walsh was asking liberals about what is a woman it's just called the GE Moore's open question argument this one coming in from my XO1402 said to Daniel don't you think that any book can be quote unquote preserved if Muslim kids were forced to memorize it at a young age for 1500 years uh yeah I mean that's why it's a good policy this one from FAMO TV says Tom should a mom ask a baby consent to change its diaper lest she be immoral I just looked up colonialism began in the 1400's I was 100 years off Google it colonialism origin 15th century that's the 1400's liberal colonialism I don't know what that even means liberalism did not exist in 1400's or 1300's is France at what point did France become a liberal country I have no idea do you know what the French Revolution is yes I know what the French Revolution is when did the French Revolution so you asked when colonialism started liberal colonialism liberal colonialism that's not a thing Google liberal colonialism is not even a thing yes colonialism of liberal nations yes stupid I was right you don't have no concept of history no right you wrong if you mean colonialism is just one group of people conquerors and other people and occupies their land that's been the case throughout human history it didn't start in the 1300's or the 1400's so what are you saying I said that first I told you that your correction also doesn't make sense your correction also doesn't make sense when academics refer to colonialism they're referring to western conquering other nations and that began in the 1400's I was correct you were wrong that's Christianity you're an idiot you're so stupid so stupid Tom do you still think China is an ethically secular country given their oppression of Uighur Muslims and locking them in concentration camps I don't know what that means ethically secular I don't know what that means I think they're saying do you think that China as a secular nation is ethical when they no they're evil China is horrible but it's better than like Islam this one from Soban T-Jump do you think Chinese oppression I think that was the second I mean yeah I mean the Chinese Communist Party agrees with you that Islam is evil that's why they're putting Uighurs in concentration camps so you do share a lot with the Chinese government Tom well sure we also breathe we have lungs and hearts we share a lot in common like other humans man I can't believe you audited classes in a university you're so smart they should have just given you an honorary doctorate this one from FAMO TV FAMO TV says T-Jump Mao and Stalin lead the most murders in history they were both atheists not to mention USA the secular country has a goal of over 12 million yes so if we take the average of all secular nations is still better so they're definitely bad ones that's true but the average is still higher for secular nations are better off in every respect you got it and I think let me just double check but I think that is it for the questions that was a lot of them you guys had a lot of questions for this one so I want to say our guests are linked in the description folks if you'd like to hear more you certainly got a taste for them and there will be thousands more listening as this video on demand is up on the youtube channel and then thousands more on the podcast highly encourage you our guests are linked in the description you can find their channels below if you just click down below and you can hear more about their views one last question from Hisan this is the last one we can take folks he says did God choose His nature because it's good or is God's nature good because it's chosen by God if He can't choose His nature is He not omnipotent I don't see that as a coherent question like your nature is your nature that's who you are did He consciously choose His nature or did His nature force His consciousness to be the way it is can you have a four-sided triangle like you can string together any combination of words but the whole purpose of your nature is that that's who you are regardless of any other consideration so you're just stringing together words that aren't coherent no so this take some more classes like audit some more classes then you can tell me what the question is I answered the question the question is like your nature determines your consciousness and that makes perfect sense your nature doesn't determine your consciousness that makes no sense how does your nature determine your consciousness you don't choose your consciousness do you or aspects of your consciousness like for example you did you choose to be have the specific personality traits that you do no no because your nature is not your consciousness your nature is the fundamental aspects of who you are that's not your consciousness so your consciousness arises from those things the fundamental aspect of who you are that's your nature you just said that you don't choose those things right so that's like your brain if you're a materialist that'd be like your brain your spirit would be like your soul so if it doesn't make sense to ask that question you just conceded that doesn't make sense to ask that question about God it does make sense for all of those things your nature is the fundamental thing you're made of audit some more classes audit some more classes Tom you need to brush up on these topics how to educate children I just missed that class I totally missed it you missed a lot to the end so I want to say thank you very much Daniel and Tom it's been a true pleasure this was an epic debate seriously this was a fun one it was a lively one you guys really we do appreciate you guys and again they're linked in the description folks I'll be back with a short two minute you could say post credit scene in just a moment folks to let you know about upcoming debates if you have not yet hit that subscribe button we have many more debates coming up in the future that you don't want to miss as an example and Muslim apologist are debating next weekend you don't want to miss that one so hit that subscribe button and that notification bell but one last thank you to our guests it's been a true pleasure to have you both Daniel and T jump thank you see you guys later ladies and gentlemen want to say thanks so much for being here let me just flip it over two seconds there we go I want to say thanks everybody for being here I have got to run because I don't want to be too loud as I am actually a guest house and so I don't want or I should say I'm a guest at someone else's house so I don't want to keep I don't want to keep them up in case they can hear me so I do want to say though thank you guys for being here we do appreciate you being here at modern day debate no matter what walk of life you are from whether you be Muslim atheist Christian soyboy you name it we're glad you are here and want to say thanks so much for hanging out with us tonight also we have many more debates coming up they are going to be amazing so you don't want to miss those as a couple of examples we have next week apostate prophet and Muslim apologist it is going to be amazing you don't want to miss that one as well as I have got to tell you we have King Crocoduck scheduled for Dr. David McQueen that is going to be another epic debate King Crocoduck has been in the debate world and been in the youtube world for a long long time has a massive following so that is going to be a juicy debate that you don't want to miss and let me just peek in we might have a very controversial debate or I should say panel next week on whether or not basically a white grievance panel namely whether or not white people have any sort of grievance over how they are treated and then if you hadn't seen it we are going to release a debate that was recently deleted from David Woods channel in particular this was two seconds in particular this was I am so tired oh yeah David Wood had a debate David Wood had a lot of debates on his channel they were deleted from his channel but before they were deleted I saved them and then I asked for permission if I could upload the copies that I had saved and I got permission and so we are going to be releasing some classic debates with Muslim scholar Shabir Ali and David Wood as well as David Wood with other popular Muslim speakers so you don't want to miss those those are going to be coming out on the channel in the future so if you love topics like tonight's debate we are going to be letting out some huge massive classic debates on the channel that I think you will really enjoy but want to say hello to you in the old live chat fatty lord happy to have you oh yes three thanks for coming by as well as Ryan Lyon good to see you random bruh Zarks John Smith Triumph the insult dog good to see you as well Zarks happy to have you Hannah Anderson happy you're here absolute death glad you're with us Zai Kotol we're glad you are here and Muhammad Ashad thanks for coming by raise 177 174 so thank you for being here James and John Robertson says thank you James thank you for I appreciate that seriously that means a lot and we do hope you feel welcome folks whether you be like I said Atheist Christians Muslims you name it we are striving to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field on YouTube we are going to make it happen we are excited about the future and we are determined to continue to expand so we can have that positive neutral platform available to everybody to make their case no matter what their position is no matter how far out there it might seem so black mama good to see you Sophie and Texas glad to have you here pancake great thanks for dropping in Christopher and Missy UK glad you're here and Bison brick thank you for being with us thank you guys I have got to go I am like super wiped out so I want to say thanks everybody for your support we love you guys you make this fun we will see you in an upcoming debates as we have a lot of them don't forget to hit that subscribe button if you haven't already hit it as well as my breath is we do have a podcast modern day debate the podcast is growing it's 100% ad free we have a ton of debates on the podcast that you can listen to none of them have any ads so highly encourage you to check those out we have not put any ads on all the videos we have uploaded and want to say we are thrilled to see that people have found it useful we put up all the debates within about 24 hours usually of the debate so you can find those and I highly encourage you to check out the modern day debate podcast on your favorite podcast app and you will find us quite easily it's modern hyphen day debate and that is on fine podcast apps everywhere so thanks everybody we love you guys we hope you have a great rest of your night and we'll see you in the next one thanks for all your love and support you guys make this fun I hope you have a great rest of your night