🚨LIVE: Is Christianity, Or Secular Humanism Better? Debate Reaction To Andrew Wilson & Craig/FTFE

本站添加: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]American street.

[00:00:19]>> What's up you guys?

[00:00:21]>> I'm looking at something.

[00:00:24]Hold on just a moment. I gotta do something.

[00:00:27]Why isn't my X not uh Why did my ex not connect?

[00:00:41]Okay.

[00:00:43]My ex wasn't going Why is my ex not going live? My ex did not go live this time. Why?

[00:00:53]Why did my ex go live?

[00:00:57]That's weird.

[00:01:02]That's super weird.

[00:01:06]It didn't go live.

[00:01:14]I'm going to check it out later. That don't make sense.

[00:01:22]That don't make sense.

[00:01:33]Well, oh well. No X tonight.

[00:01:45]Nothing there.

[00:01:49]Nothing there. Why did it not go live?

[00:01:54]app.

[00:01:56]Keep going.

[00:02:00]Edit.

[00:02:03]Uhhuh.

[00:02:05]Right.

[00:02:06]Okay. Changes.

[00:02:14]Go live.

[00:02:18]It's live now. Finally. X was acting up you guys.

[00:02:23]Good evening, Pinko Pink.

[00:02:26]Good evening. You almost caught me with a mouthful of food right when I went live.

[00:02:34]Almost.

[00:02:37]All right. So, now I'm actually live.

[00:02:40]There we go. Live now on X.

[00:02:44]And I do have a poll up, you guys. I got a quick poll up. I'm not going to leave it up long. It's just going to be It's just a question. It's just a question. Um, Candace Owens did an interview today with uh the one and only Hunter Biden.

[00:03:02]Um, and I have a poll up real quick on YouTube asking if you guys want me to show that first before the debate or you guys want me to show it after the after the debate or not at all.

[00:03:17]Um because each thing is like two hours long.

[00:03:21]So if you want me to skip it, I'll skip it. If you want me to play it first, I can play it first and then the debate.

[00:03:26]But that was going to be late for some people.

[00:03:30]Um and or I could just maybe not play it. Whatever you guys want. But I have a poll up real quick. Keep it up for a few minutes. I got some things to get pinned over on uh Facebook. Pinko Pink. Um, dinner is orange chicken and rice.

[00:03:46]Steamed rice. I got to love that panda.

[00:03:50]I love panda. Orange chicken.

[00:03:55]Double orange chicken and steamed rice.

[00:03:57]I like the fried rice, too, though. But that orange chicken. Something about that.

[00:04:03]Something about that.

[00:04:06]That's what That's what dinner is.

[00:04:11]What's your dinner? Um, Goodness gracious. Why' that do that?

[00:04:15]What's your dinner? Pinko pink.

[00:04:22]What is your dinner?

[00:04:27]Uh, fast forward the first one.

[00:04:31]Fast forward the first one. What you What? What you mean, Jay? Nice. What do you mean?

[00:04:46]Um, you have a strong stomach. Who? Me?

[00:04:54]Why you say that?

[00:04:59]Christianity just means Christ and you follow his teachings. Christ is king.

[00:05:05]Amen.

[00:05:08]Jay, nice had uh steak, shrimp, pasta, baked potato, garlic bread. Awesome. You had uh baked chicken breast. All right.

[00:05:18]I like chicken.

[00:05:21]I can't just do the highlights. I don't I can't just do the highlights. I haven't gone through it. I haven't edit it. I don't know what the highlights are of either one. So, I can't just I can't just do the highlights.

[00:05:35]Can't just do the highlights. Sorry.

[00:05:39]Uh PM B97220.

[00:05:43]I know who you are.

[00:05:45]Um did tacos.

[00:05:50]You did tacos.

[00:05:56]I'll check I I'll look back at this poll in just a moment just to see what you guys are saying and then we'll get on with it.

[00:06:06]We'll get on with it and do what I enjoy the most. I enjoyed the debates. Um, but it I know I know the Hunter and and Candace is probably going to be big.

[00:06:24]Um, that's why I was asking probably going to be big.

[00:06:38]I'm just getting something shared real quick, guys, and then I'll be good.

[00:06:59]And then there's um real quick you guys also um we can watch anything and have a good time. That's true. Real quick also you guys if you guys are on Facebook please go to Facebook and share this out. Also, if you have a Facebook account, go to Facebook, like it, and share on Facebook. Just share on your page. Make sure you guys have it on public. Even if you have your Facebook locked down for most of your post and all that, if you have Facebook, when you share this out, just put it on public.

[00:07:33]That's the only time. And you can go back to put it on private or friends only or whatever you guys do. Please, please, please. then you can come back to YouTube.

[00:07:44]Please do that.

[00:07:46]Um, let me check this poll out really quick. See where we're at.

[00:07:57]Ooh, look at that. I think some of y'all are going in and out of YouTube, so you guys can double vote.

[00:08:06]62% say not at all. All right. Well, I guess we'll start with uh guess we'll start with the other um the uh Christianity versus secular humanism.

[00:08:21]And here comes Pastor Russell to the rescue.

[00:08:24]Christianity is actually a covenant relationship that saves man from eternal separation from God.

[00:08:31]It is not simply following or being like Christ. I completely agree.

[00:08:39]Yep.

[00:08:41]Goodness gracious. You had to You had You have to come in here like guns blazing, huh? Just guns blazing.

[00:08:50]Just just blasting and spraying everybody.

[00:08:54]Good stuff. But it also it does also include following what Christ says. Or not I'm not even going to say following, but probably more what? obeying what Christ says. And that's where it gets complicated because then you get into the doctrinal stuff.

[00:09:16]So, uh, Miss Jay, we love you, Quincy. Where Pastor Russell, thank you.

[00:09:27]Thank you for the $5 super chat, Miss Jay.

[00:09:32]Sometimes you only h have one opportunity.

[00:09:37]You want to break that down, sir? For the people in the back, the people who are black. The people in the back who are black. You want to break that down?

[00:09:46]Sometimes you only have one opportunity.

[00:09:52]Christ is king. Christ is king and that's all we need. Huh?

[00:09:57]Uh he says a little bit more than that.

[00:10:01]says a little bit more. It's a little bit deeper than that, Jay. Nice.

[00:10:08]A little bit deeper than that. But we'll get into this uh debate.

[00:10:12]So that is why you have to come forth with the raw truth. Oh, that's what you're saying. Okay. All right. Some basically Pastor Russell saying that, you know, he may not see some of y'all again or some of y'all may not be in the chat again. So he's just going to come in with the AR and just ratat and you know um just come in and do it his one opportunity. So that's basically what he's saying. He's trying to be he's trying to be hood tonight.

[00:10:40]Trying to be ghetto. He's bringing out his black card. Um and just saying, "Hey, this is it. I'm throwing it. If it catches, it catches."

[00:10:51]So all right.

[00:10:54]I think we got the final verdict.

[00:10:57]Most people are saying not at all. Don't show it. So, all good. He's keeping me in line.

[00:11:06]How's that working, Pastor Russell?

[00:11:12]You don't have to answer that.

[00:11:15]You do not have to answer that.

[00:11:18]Um, Reverend Gun, hello. Hello. Hello.

[00:11:30]I'm late again. No, you're not late. We just started. We just started, Tia. We just started.

[00:11:39]Sometimes keeping you in line is like trying to hurt. Why?

[00:11:44]Pinkle Pink told you not to ask.

[00:11:54]Uh, thanks a lot. Love you too. Love you too, sir. Appreciate you. Appreciate your honesty.

[00:12:03]All right, I want to end this poll because got the answers.

[00:12:12]Yeah, I know. I know what you mean. You had a you had a black moment there. Not hurt, but heard. Wildcats.

[00:12:19]Sometimes keeping a Q in line is like trying to herd wild cats. That's what Pastor Russell thinks about me.

[00:12:33]I got it.

[00:12:36]All right, let's go with this. Let's go with this heated debate with uh I guess we'll see who's supposedly the Christian or is Christian and who's a secular humanism person.

[00:12:49]We'll roll with it. Let's go.

[00:12:57]How come there's no sound?

[00:13:00]Are they talking? There should be sound.

[00:13:03]will be most no one again.

[00:13:08]>> All right.

[00:13:11]I am a man. What's a Are you a manther, Quincy? What's a mathther?

[00:13:16]>> I forgot what it was. Pastor Russell says, "Just saying." Goodness gracious.

[00:13:23]>> Love you, Pastor Russell.

[00:13:24]>> Five.

[00:13:30]My name is Thomas Shidy, president of Atheists for Liberty, a 501c3, a nonprofit organization that stands for free speech, free thinking, and freedom for all. At AFL, we are firm believers in everyone's right to freedom of speech. When I heard about Debate Con 5 and today's theme of religion versus atheism, >> I want you some food.

[00:13:52]>> I just knew Atheist for Liberty had to be one of its first sponsors.

[00:13:56]Keep him in line. Pastor Russell, >> I have to address a very disheartening reality. My friend, Alex O'Conor, many of you know as cosmic skeptic, was supposed to be here as one of the debaters.

[00:14:11]Instead, he came under threat by radical Islamists and had to withdraw for his safety. We understand why Alex did this and we hope he's safe.

[00:14:25]But this is disgraceful. No one, least of all religious zealots, should have the power to shut down speech from people they disagree with, or anyone for that matter. These are the people who fly airplanes into our buildings. They fight wars of religion that belong in the dark ages.

[00:14:48]They can't even agree on whether women are people.

[00:14:53]and they want to control what we say.

[00:14:56]No, we will not cave into terrorism.

[00:15:00]Free speech will go on.

[00:15:07]And that's what all of us are ensuring.

[00:15:10]That's what all we're ensuring here just by being here. We are saying no to radical Islamism and censorship.

[00:15:18]Whatever side you fall on today's issues, you are affirming everyone's right to hold an opinion and peaceibly fight for it. By being here, we are proving that threats made by cowards do not have the power to shut speech down.

[00:15:38]So, thank you everybody for being here.

[00:15:40]Thank you James and modernday debate for organizing this. Once again, I'm Thomas Shidi, president of Atheists for Liberty, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to Debatecon 5.

[00:15:56]And now I am going to hand the microphone to the head of uncensored America, Sean Samco.

[00:16:12]Thank you.

[00:16:15]Hello everybody. Thank you all for coming out today. I'm the founder of Uncensored America, which is a free speech organization on college campuses.

[00:16:22]We host people that are censored, cancelled, and just generally controversial. We discuss all kinds of topics and issues. We hosted people like My Yiannopoulos, Gav McInness, Alex Stein, John Doyle, Destiny, and anybody in between, left, right or center. We'll host anybody. And today's another good example of the importance of free speech and how you got to keep having these conversations. No matter what people say, no matter what threats they make, no matter that they'll try to intimidate you, they'll try to scare you into silence. But everybody being here right now proves that we're not going to be scared. We're going to keep having conversations and doing the awful scary thing of saying words and making vibrations in the air. So, I'd like to thank everybody for coming out. And now I'm going hand off to the moderator and host of the event, Dr. James Coons.

[00:17:11]Thank you, James.

[00:17:15]>> Thank you very much for being here, folks. We are thrilled for this epic event. Going to give you a couple quick housekeeping things. So, the restrooms are just outside here, just past that little cafe. And then there's a slight schedule change. I'll let you know when we get there. But just a heads up, minor difference, 15 minutes. I want to introduce our speakers. But before doing that, I also want to make sure I remember our third sponsor is Manifold.

[00:17:40]And while Stephen couldn't be here today to talk about Manifold, it's an online prediction market where you don't have to gamble your actual money. It's just play money can predict outcomes and they actually partnered and sponsored us this time for Debatecon 5 in which we'll have a market where people can predict who will be most persuasive in the debates.

[00:18:00]This is only for two of our debates today, but the way it'll work is we're going to have people raise their hands.

[00:18:08]If you, in fact, we're going to do this count right now, happen to lean more toward Craig, our atheist, secular humanist friend, on today's debate topic, which is best for society, secular humanism or Christianity, could you slip your hand up? We're going to do a before and after count. The only thing I ask is that you only vote uh if you vote, make sure you vote again at the end. And if you don't vote in the first time, don't vote in the second time. So, give uh our guys just a chance to count the uh people that lean toward Craig.

[00:18:44]Give me a thumbs up when you got that number.

[00:18:50]Excellent. And then if you happen to lean toward Andrew Wilson, our Christian guest pretty intimidated.

[00:19:20]>> Excellent. All right. So, we'll do that again at the end. Do want to do one other quick thing, which is I want to introduce our guests. Before doing that, I want to say huge thank you to all of our sponsors. Modern Day Debate is a fully neutral debate platform, but we will partner with any organization that believes in the value of people disagreeing, having debates, having discussions, you could say, keeping communication open between different groups. So, we appreciate our sponsors for agreeing with us on that and supporting us in that mission. But going first, Andrew Wilson is the owner of the popular entertainment channel, The Crucible. debates all over the world and also unusually handsome. So, thank you very much for that.

[00:20:05]>> Yeah, >> write it.

[00:20:07]>> Yes, I have to. But Craig McNeel representing secular humanism today is a nuclear engineer turned YouTube baros is a glob smacking flat earth destroying legend whose debates leave conspiracy theorists questioning their life choices. Thank you very much. I'm going to step into my moderator's seat and get us started.

[00:20:42]>> Hey James, can I say something just before we start?

[00:20:44]>> Of course.

[00:20:45]>> Great.

[00:20:46]So, I was pretty authoritative when they was talking about free speech. You know, we will not be cowed to these people when it comes to free speech.

[00:20:56]But he was. But he was. And the Christians showed up.

[00:21:02]And they didn't. They didn't show up. He didn't show up. He bowed to the threats.

[00:21:07]We didn't bow to the threats. So, no, I'm not willing to give you the slack.

[00:21:12]Sorry.

[00:21:21]We have 10-minute opening statements from each guest. Andrew, the floor is all yours for your 10-minute opening.

[00:21:30]It's like it's like a funeral in here.

[00:21:32]You guys, you can make some noise. It's okay, right? You can you Yeah, there you go. Going to enjoy yourselves today.

[00:21:39]It's perfectly acceptable. It's all right. All right. The humanist manifesto, which is actually called humanism and its aspirations. Humanist Manifesto 3. Blah blah blah. It's got a stupid title. It's terribly written and it's complete nonsense and no human being should ever adhere to it for the purpose of human flourishing or anything else. Yet some do like um Craig here.

[00:22:02]Its greatest issue is simply that it only makes vague descriptive claims and not one prescription for what it should actually do. So, I propose a new revised manifesto and I'm calling it humanist for society and its consequences. Note, while drinking in my cramped hotel room last night at an airport holiday in James, I wrote this manifesto which is the culmination of a hundred Wilson generations of drunken reason, Irish sensibilities, and just a drab of single malt whiskey. Now, the quote unquote normal modern-day debate viewer, who we would just re refer to in The Crucible as um not very smart. Um, and you know, kind of fun to philosophically torture, much like a cat and mouse gently severing their soul from their body, peace by agonizing peace, metaphorically, of course, not to mention being better than them in basically every aspect of life. Luckily, the Crucible's here in case the low IQ MD liberal scum wants to whine and cry for another two hours of Q&A after their manhumping earth daddy fled the room with his boy toy tears in his eyes while his dress was flowing. I don't think we're going to see a repeat of that this time though, right?

[00:23:16]>> I'm going nowhere.

[00:23:17]>> Okay, great.

[00:23:20]>> You can leave. Fine.

[00:23:21]>> Let's So, let's launch into my new and improved humanist manifesto. Craig will be unable to refute any of my prescriptions based on his manifesto if he only uses his manifesto. Instead, he will require a normative framework to supplement that manifesto. He has to do this because without using the manifesto, what what are we even arguing about? I can refute his prescriptions based on Christian ethics, church tradition, and effects to society, which is what this debate is about. What is best for society? But he's unable to apply that standard with the humanist manifesto itself. He must appeal to the sources outside this manifesto. So humanism has no real, measurable, actual, conceivable effect on society.

[00:24:03]Yet Christianity does. He offers descriptions. I offer prescriptions.

[00:24:09]So here it is. I'm going to read to you the tenants of humanism according to the humanist manifesto itself, their own words, and then apply a reasonable and logical prescription to each tenant. Now Craig has to debunk each of my prescriptions using the humanist manifesto or he loses. Why does he lose?

[00:24:27]Well, because I can debunk the stated prescriptions easily using Christian ethics and he can't debunk or even successfully argue against one using the humanist manifesto. He requires something else. Do you see the problem here?

[00:24:40]One first tenant humanist manifesto.

[00:24:42]Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experiment, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

[00:24:56]My prescription based on that the birth rate is low. Therefore, all women must be forcibly bred. Experiments must be conducted on them to maximize fertility and thereby maximize human flourishing because science and that is good.

[00:25:09]Humans, this is tenant two of the uh manifesto. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life uh as all and enough distinguished things as they are from the things we might wish or imagine them to be. So my prescription based on this vague nonsense. Because humans are unguided, they require guidance. Maximum force from the state can lend itself to maximum results. People ought to accept things as they are, and that requires ending all charity to avoid giving them false hope. And that is good.

[00:25:46]Tenant three, ethical values are derived from human needs and interest is tested by experience. This is in the uh humanist manifesto as well. So my prescription based on that we ought to have an emperor. He ought to be Darth Logicist. A one world global government under dark logicist, supreme ruler of the federal peoples of earth will maximize the responsibility granted to them, thus recognizing their inherent dignity. And that is good. Tenant four, life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of human ideals. My prescription based on this, we ought to occasionally beat random citizens to death with hammers, thereby reinforcing the value of the preciousness of human life, forcibly transmitting wonder and awe via the hammer, and that is good. 10 at five.

[00:26:34]Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. My prescription based on this. We ought to eliminate all those who believe in violence conflict resolution there or sorry who believe in violent conflict resolution thereby making sure we eliminate violent conflict. We call this the paradox of violent conflict and that is good.

[00:26:55]Last working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. So my the descriptor here is right now millions suffer from inequality. My prescription is we should just eat nachos and that is good. Now, I can refute all these prescriptions using Christian ethics. Craig's unable to refute any of them using his own standard. That standard is humanism based on this manifesto. Again, do you see the problem? Unless he just makes it up as he goes, which is what he's going to do. And that's why Christian ethics are superior, thus destroying the entire ideology of secular humanism. If Craig moves away from this document, he's admitting defeat, something he knows a lot about. The advantages of Christian ethics is that it can provide a standard which is unchanging for what people ought do, not just descriptions of what they are doing. Craig's moral framework necessarily must change by its own admission, which is why society hasn't adopted it and won't adopt it. They don't know what it will be in another 20 years, 15 years, 200 years. They have no idea.

[00:28:00]There are now four versions because I wrote one more. Should we have I don't know 5,000 Craig 10,000 I don't know.

[00:28:08]The humanist manifesto can be interpreted any way you want. I just demonstrated that by interpreting it how I wanted to and can't even be used to refute bad prescriptions given by bad people like Andrew Wilson based on the humanist manifesto itself. So what are we even doing here?

[00:28:23]My society has produced obvious good results on soc on society for millennia including the fact that all societies which currently are considered the best are using my moral framework and not his. None as in not one as in zero societies on earth are run off the humanist manifesto. If Craig claims the manifesto itself isn't necessary to humanism or its doctrines then again what the hell is humanism and how do we know what it is? How do we know what we're supposed to do with it? If we don't even have a document which describes it, then how can we understand how it works? If Craig claims we can use things outside the manifesto, he also again loses unless he can describe how that is humanism and how my prescriptions are not humanism, which is clearly defined with this manifesto I've been talking about. Also, I just want to finish with this. Craig doesn't know what a straw man is. I think first first thing out of his mouth is going to be and do straw mending me. Okay, which he also doesn't understand uh what at home.

[00:29:27]He doesn't understand what a lot of these terms mean. I'm giving a position based on prescriptions. So I can't actually be straw manning Craig because these are my views. They're not your views. He'll say I'm straw manning humanism but I'm literally reading line by line than giving prescriptions based on reason uh in regards to its tenants. So, I I don't really know what the problem is.

[00:29:47]Craig will not be able to refute a single prescriptive claim I've made by using his manifesto. All of my prescriptive claims are humanist claims.

[00:29:55]This is why humanism is the flat earth of ethical systems. And that's what Craig is. You're a moral flatearther.

[00:30:12]We'll kick it over to Craig for his 10-minute opening statement as well.

[00:30:15]Thanks very much, Craig. The floor is all yours.

[00:30:26]Hello. Um, I thank Andrew for his presentation and uh, reasons why Christianity is better for society, but I didn't notice either of those things.

[00:30:34]So, I guess I'll just go to my presentation and explain why secular humanism is better for society. Maybe Andrew forgot what the debate was about.

[00:30:41]I'm not sure. Um, okay. So, um, who am I? I'm Craig McNil. I run the YouTube channel, um, FTFE, where I do debate the dumbest people on the planet, people that think the Earth is flat and stuff like that. But today, I'm here to debate why secular humanism is better for society than Christianity. Um, again, Andrew maybe missed the title of the debate there.

[00:31:03]Uh, okay.

[00:31:07]Sorry, one second.

[00:31:13]Just deleted my script. Bear with me.

[00:31:19]Right. What is secular humanism? Um, secular humanism is a philosophical stance that values the capacity of individuals to act with autonomy and emphasizes critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning. It prioritizes human welfare over objective knowledge and objective knowledge over religious dogma or superstition.

[00:31:38]Um, secular humanism centers on upholding reason, ethics, and justice as foundations for humane society. It advocates for human rights, social equality, and the continuous search for truth through scientific and rational inquiry. Second is um humanism is all about cutting down um the hurt and boosting the happy. It's a no-brainer.

[00:31:59]Less suffering, more thriving. This principle shows up in the nitty-gritty stuff like public health policies and safety rules that actually work for us, not against us. Forget the days of wiping out chunks of Europe in the Crusades. Now we're into making life better, not starting wars over divine favor. It's not about making choices that help. It's about making choices that help everyone. Proving that we can do a lot of good without any kind of holy wars. Secular humanism sticks to reason and real world proof to keep its ethics sharp. We're not about bending the rules to fit oldtimey text or or mystical claims from a sky daddy as the world changes. Thanks to um thanks to tech upgrades and new social twists, we update our moral code, too. It's about evolving with the times, not getting stuck in scriptural mud. Secular humanism uh lays the groundwork for a society where common sense and fairness call the shots. It's all about using solid evidence and treating everyone equally to build a place where everyone gets to do what they need to thrive. This way we all have a shot at living our best lives. Secular humanism traps uh taps into what we all feel deep down. Things like empathy and compassion that cross all borders instead of relying on the whims of deities with their own dodgy moral compasses. It builds ethics on the real shared experiences of all humans and the things we go through. This keeps things fair and focused on what actually improves our lives, helping guide smart, kind decisions no matter where in the world you are. It's about playing by the rules that make sense for everyone, not just the heavenly few. Secular humanism relies on scientific evidence and rational debate, driving major advancements in civil rights, healthcare, and education. It champions facts over fiction, leading to real world solutions that improve lives.

[00:33:40]Christianity often lets ancient texts block modern scientific progress. From stifling stem cell research to opposing gender equality, it's held us back more often than not, clinging to outdated beliefs that don't match today's realities.

[00:33:54]Secular humanism adds a um to secular humanism adapts to new moral challenges and societal shifts, always looking to refine and improve ethical standards based on human needs and new information. Whereas Christianity is stuck in the past, often finding itself on the wrong side of history with rigid doctrines that clash with modern values of fairness and justice. Whether it's LGBTQ rights or women's rights, the inflexibility leads to exclusion and harm.

[00:34:20]Secular humanism embraces everyone, no matter their religion, gender, sexuality, or race. It's built on the idea that ethics and rights are universal, everyone's included, and everybody matters. Christianity too often divides and discriminates under the guise of divine law leading to social fragmentation where it's condemning non-believers or marginalizing communities. It's more about inroups um and outroups than universal brotherhood.

[00:34:46]Now, um I'm going to debunk some of Andrew's more outlandish claims about secular humanism, starting with his um peculiar fixation on necrilia. I don't know why he brings that up so often. Um let's set the record straight. Secular humanism puts a premium on consent and continued consent because there are two parts to consent. Crucial elements that are obviously absent when one party is deceased. Unlike some ancient doctrines that might overlook such nuances, our ethical framework in shoes ensures respect for both the living and the dead, advocating for laws that uphold dignity for all. Moving on to intriguing cultural practices Andrew likes to also bring up. Um, Andrew tends to highlight the particular tribe with rituals that are less than conventional. Secular humanism doesn't give a free pass to every tradition out there. We critically assess their impact based on real harm, consent, and continued consent. We respect cultural diversity, but we stand firmly against practices that harm or exploit, especially under the guise of tradition. We believe in evolving traditions that promote human rights and dignity, not those that trap people in harmful cycles.

[00:35:52]and about that favorite narrative of Andrews that secular humanism supposedly opens the door to moral relativism.

[00:35:58]Here's the truth. Our moral framework is solidly anchored in the observable impacts of actions on real people, promoting behaviors that enhance well-being and reduce suffering. We rely on reason and evidence to guide us, not fleeting feelings or ancient edicts. We find deep meaning in human connections and logical thinking, striving for a society that values real outcomes over the purity. Andrew, while you might be content to debate the ethics of bygone eras, we secular humanists are busy applying rational, thoughtful decisions to improve real lives today. So, while some are still praising the finer points of medieval texts, we're ensuring that everyone right here and right now gets a fair shot at a dignified life underpinned by principles of consent and continued consent. No divine interventions needed, just the commitment to common sense and humanity.

[00:36:44]Now um >> the ethical failings of Christianity through both historical and modern lenses is an interesting thing.

[00:36:50]Historically, Christianity has found itself on the wrong side of morality.

[00:36:54]Crusades, Inquisitions, where violence not only justified but glorified as a divine mandate. Um then there's the endorsement of the slavery and colonialism where scripture was twisted to justify the unjustifiable oppressing millions under the guise of spiritual destiny. Fast forward to today and we see the doctrine lingering the doctrine's lingering effects in discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and the suppression of women's rights often justified by some ancient texts.

[00:37:20]These aren't just old tales. They're ongoing issues that affect real lives fueled by policies and attitudes steeped in outdated belief and divine command theory. Well, God said it, so I believe it. And that that sells it really because basing your moral compass on what you think a deity commanded millennia ago is like letting your drunk uncle navigate your road trip. Both are dangerous and outdated. This approach has led to some pretty sketchy interpretation of what God's will looks like. Turns out it's super flexible if you want to justify just about anything.

[00:37:49]Well, in contrast, secular humanism doesn't just get its ethics from celestial whispers or sacred texts written before we figured out the Earth orbits the sun. We use reason, empathy, and evidence to form ethical frameworks that address real world issues, not dictate dress codes and back bedroom activities.

[00:38:04]>> Good evening.

[00:38:05]>> So, Christianity clings to its ancient script. Secular humanism is busy solving modern puzzles, moving forward, not backward. Building a society based on equality and science, not superstition and suppression. It's time we left the biblical ethics in the past where they belong, and focus on building a fairer world for everyone. Because let's face it, if your moral system has more plot holes than a bad soap opera, maybe it's time for a rewrite. Secular humanism um isn't just good on paper, it's spectacular in practice. When we base our ethical standards on reason and human well-being rather than ancient scriptures, we end up with policies that genuinely improve lives. This isn't about lofty ideals. It's about real benefits like better health care, advanced education, and robust welfare systems that actually work because they're built on evidence, not faith.

[00:38:47]Here's something Andrew might find hard to swallow. The happiest countries in the world are overwhelmingly secular.

[00:38:54]Look at global happiness indices.

[00:38:55]Nations that embrace secular governance aren't just a little happier. They're leading the charge. These countries have higher standards of living, more inclusive laws, and you guessed it, they're pushing the envelope in science and technology while respecting individual freedoms. Why does this matter? Because in secular societies, health and welfare are not afters, they're priorities. We see significantly better public health outcomes when policies are shaped by science, not superstition. Lower rates of poverty, higher life expectancy, and greater social equality. These aren't coincidences. They're the results of choosing humanism over dogmatism. So, while Andrew and his followers might yearn for the good old days of divine rule, the rest of us are enjoying the fruits of society that values all its members and bases its decisions on logic and love, not fear and control. In the modern world, secular humanism isn't just a better moral choice. is the blueprint for a thriving progressive society. Let's remember what's at stake.

[00:39:47]We're not just debating ideologies.

[00:39:48]We're discussing the blueprint for future. Secular humanism um offers us a path forward uh that no longer serves us in um that shackles us from ancient texts and divine decrees that no longer serve us in the modern interconnected world. We have a chance to build a fairer world, one where policies are not dictated by religious bias, but crafted from compassion and ethical evidence. A world where every individual is valued, where their rights are protected, not because a deity says so, but because our common humanity demands it. Let's choose a future where our children are taught to think critically, to respect science, and to care deeply about the welfare of others. Let's embrace secular humanism, not just because it offers better ethics, because it leads to a better lives, happier and healthier, and more harmonious. So, Andrew, I challenge you to look beyond the dogmas of the past and join us in shaping a more rational, just, and humane world. The future doesn't belong to ancient techs or celestial overseers. It belongs to all of us. All of us here today, ready to make a difference with every decision we make, grounded in reason and empathy.

[00:40:47]And James, thank you for bringing me here for my first ever in-person debate.

[00:40:50]And thank you, Andrew, for being my opponent.

[00:40:52]>> No problem at all. Thank you very much.

[00:40:57]>> Hopefully you all understood that because I didn't get it.

[00:40:59]>> I appreciate those openings, gentlemen.

[00:41:01]We'll kick it into the 60minute open dialogue. The floor is all yours.

[00:41:05]>> Yeah. So uh if you don't mind if I ask a quick question. Uh do you have a copy of humanism 3?

[00:41:11]>> No.

[00:41:12]>> You know you do follow humanism 3.

[00:41:14]>> It's a framework. Yes.

[00:41:15]>> Okay. It is your framework.

[00:41:17]>> Uh can you using the document of humanism 3 debunk a single prescriptive statement that I make?

[00:41:25]>> Well your prescriptive statements were just something you made up based on your personal interpretations.

[00:41:30]>> So secular humanism 3.

[00:41:31]>> Yeah I was in the middle talking.

[00:41:32]Andrewism. If you want to come down while I'm talking that'd be great. Thank you. Um, yeah, what you did was you said, "I think this is what the manifesto says, so therefore I'm going to interpret it this way and bring my own prescriptions." Well, Andrew, your prescriptions are your prescriptions, and that is literally a straw man because it is your own interpretation of um of secular humanism, which doesn't align with what everyone else thinks secular humanism is. You claim I don't know what an ad hom things are. Trust me, I debate flarifers all the time.

[00:42:00]That's uh but yeah, I don't have to argue against your personal prescriptions. We can just talk about what secular humanism is better for society. None of the things that you mentioned are about society. They're just what you don't like about secular humanism.

[00:42:14]>> Um, what I'm just going to ask you is very simple.

[00:42:16]>> Humanism. Humanism.

[00:42:18]>> Yeah. What I'm going to ask you, Andrew, is how >> So, how long are you going to filibuster, dude? I just >> I'm literally about to ask a question.

[00:42:22]If you you can calm down and let me finish my sentence, then you can respond. Right. What I am going to ask you is >> chill out. Craig, stop spuring. Craig, what >> I'm like, stoping. Calm down. Okay, we'll get to the question. Go ahead, Craig.

[00:42:36]>> You need a moment, Andrew. Okay, calm down. Great.

[00:42:38]>> If you need a moment to like take a breath, that's absolutely fine. Craig, this is a great time to ask the question.

[00:42:42]>> What I'm going to ask you, Andrew, is because you failed to do that in your opening. Could you explain to us why Christianity is better for society?

[00:42:50]Yeah.

[00:42:50]>> Instead of just attacking your own views.

[00:42:53]>> Yeah. So, let's make this really simple, right?

[00:42:55]>> So, Craig says here, he says, "Well, that's your interpretation of the humanist manifesto." You see the problem? Everybody's going to have an interpretation of the humanist manifesto.

[00:43:06]Thus, if everybody has an interpretation of the humanist manifesto, including me, I we can make prescriptions based on it, Craig. So now I'm making prescriptions based on the humanist manifesto for what? Society.

[00:43:19]Okay. You are asking about Christianity.

[00:43:21]I told you that Christian ethics are better for society because I can refute the prescriptions made in the humanist manifesto that I just made in the humanist manifesto. You Craig cannot refute a single prescription I made off a single tenant in the humanist manifesto using your own manifesto. Do you understand that?

[00:43:42]>> Yes, Andrew. I completely understand that.

[00:43:44]>> So, doesn't that have an in society entailment? A societal entailment?

[00:43:48]Craig, >> would you like me to answer the question or are you just going to talk when I talk?

[00:43:51]>> Can't wait. Go ahead.

[00:43:52]>> Um, do you need a minute to calm down?

[00:43:53]It's fine. We can take two minutes and you can It's fine.

[00:43:56]>> Yeah. Get to the answer, please.

[00:43:58]>> Yeah. So again, um, what you haven't done is explain why Christianity is better. You just said, "I think it's better because I don't like secular humanism." That's not explaining why Christianity, what ethics, what morals about Christianity make it better for society. What you've done is simply attack secular humanism. You haven't given me a single reason why Christianity specifically is better.

[00:44:20]What you've said is Christianity is better because I don't like these things about secular humanism. And I want you to tell me why these things about secular humanism is bad. But Andrew, you aren't here to attack secular humanism.

[00:44:32]You're here to defend Christianity. So you failed to do it in your intro. So can you just give me a single reason specifically without attacking secular humanism? Because that's what flat earthers do. You're acting like a flat earther.

[00:44:44]>> Oh.

[00:44:44]>> So flat earthers attack the globe instead of saying why flat earth is better. So instead of attacking secular humanism, >> could you give me a reason why Christianity is the thing that is better for society? Tell me more.

[00:44:55]>> Oh yes, I could. You want me to go?

[00:44:57]>> Because when I make prescriptions based on a humanist manifesto, you can answer that.

[00:45:01]>> I can debunk those prescriptions using Christian ethics. You can't debunk those prescriptions using the humanist manifesto. Go on then.

[00:45:08]>> That's why it's better. Okay. Here, I'll show you. Let's give you an example.

[00:45:13]>> We can go through these. We can get through.

[00:45:14]>> Well, that'd be wonderful. Yeah. Because you know what I would like to hear is reasons why Christianity is better, not reasons why you dislike secular human.

[00:45:21]This is that feeling.

[00:45:23]perhaps so that we're not talking past each other.

[00:45:26]>> Are you willing to steal man argument here? Can you steal man it?

[00:45:30]>> Well, uh, your argument would be based on, um, your particular version of Christianity, which is which again?

[00:45:38]>> Can you steal man? My argument, Craig, >> which argument?

[00:45:41]>> The one I just made, Craig, >> your your argument is you don't like secular humanism. Uh, these are the things I don't like about secular humanism. I going I'm going to say secular humanism can do these things and that means that secular humanism is bad.

[00:45:55]That's what you've said Andrew. You have given me a list of things that you think you can prescribe based on the humanist manifesto. Right. That's what you've done. Correct.

[00:46:03]>> Uhhuh.

[00:46:04]>> Right. So therefore you are saying well these are prescriptions that I think I can give based on secular humanism.

[00:46:10]>> Why do I think Christianity is better?

[00:46:11]What's my argument? Christianity >> you haven't you haven't said yet. You've said what you've said, Andrew, is that Christianity can debunk these things, but you haven't explained how it can debunk them.

[00:46:20]>> Give me specifics related to Christianity. Debunk the things about secular humanism you don't like.

[00:46:26]>> So far, you've given me no reasons why Christianity is better. I'll >> do. Come on.

[00:46:30]>> The prescription for one, do you agree that that the first tenant for secular humanism is knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis?

[00:46:38]>> Uh, that's what I said. Then it would go back to the slide which you didn't present any. It's uh but >> why why do I need to present a slide?

[00:46:44]>> Well, it's because you know we've got a big thing up there to present slides and I thought it'd be nice to >> I have a slideshow. So anyway, >> yeah, because one of us prepares for the arguments, the other one, you know, >> I didn't prepare for the arguments because have a slideshow.

[00:46:57]>> Yeah, Andrew, you've done a million debates like this. This is my second. I thought I'd do some research and prepare and, you know, give something for the audience to look at. But, you know, >> well, can we get back to this? Do you do you agree? Yes or no? Tenant one knowledge. And I did say yes. Maybe you have problems hearing, but carry on.

[00:47:11]>> Greg, you need to calm down, bro.

[00:47:13]>> Oh, I'm I'm fine. I'm waiting for your What I'm doing, Andrew, is I'm waiting for your argument, but you >> I just I just want to make sure that we're we're clear.

[00:47:20]>> Yeah, we are clear, but you haven't yet argued for your position.

[00:47:23]>> Okay. So, my my prescription to that, Craig, is the birth rate is low.

[00:47:27]Therefore, all women must be forcibly bred and experiments must be conducted on them to maximize fertility and thereby maximize human flourishing because science and that is good. Now, Craig, that's what I read from tenant one, right? Can you use any of the tenants in secular the the humanist manifesto 3 to debunk that prescription or tell me why that prescription is bad?

[00:47:51]>> So, still no reasons why Christianity is better. That's what I'm asking here.

[00:47:54]What you're saying is explain why this is good because I get to hear why. Okay, let me explain.

[00:47:59]>> You said you can debunk that using Christianity.

[00:48:01]>> Then I'll explain. Yes. So under Christian ethics, >> forcibly locking up women and doing horrible things to them would be a violation of God's law. It would be a violation of Jesus Christ's law to man.

[00:48:14]So because of that, Christians would say, "No, you can't lock women up and forcibly breed and experiment on them.

[00:48:20]You're not allowed to do that, Craig."

[00:48:22]Now Craig, I just gave you a demonstration of how Christianity would debunk this. Now Craig, can you use the Humanist Manifesto to do it? Great.

[00:48:31]Absolutely. Let's do it.

[00:48:32]>> Um, well, so your prescription is a straw man of secular humanism.

[00:48:36]>> Just go say your point.

[00:48:39]>> It's all right. I can explain why, right? Because secular humanism doesn't say doesn't you've gone um that there's a low birth rate, therefore we have to do this. Secular humanism doesn't say there's a low birth rate. it. You know, read the prescri read the tenant again for me.

[00:48:55]>> No, >> it says knowledge in the world is derived by observation, experiment, and rational analysis.

[00:49:02]>> And then what was your prescription?

[00:49:04]>> My prescription based on my interpretation of this is that the birth rate is low. Therefore, all women must be forcibly bred. Experiments must be conducted on them to maximize fertility and therefore maximize human flourishing because science. And that is good. So you're saying that secular humanism makes a low birth rate.

[00:49:22]>> No, I'm saying that the interpretation here prescriptively and what I'm reading is that this prescription would not in any way counter that tenant.

[00:49:31]>> Well, the fact that there's low birth rates isn't a bad thing. It's not low birth rates, it's lower birth rates. Um, but is locking women up and breeding a bad thing?

[00:49:39]>> Absolutely not. We wouldn't >> that's not a bad thing or it is a bad thing.

[00:49:43]When I'm in the middle of a sentence explaining something, that's when you'd be quite maybe I know you're used to talking. I know I'm way I'm way out of line, Craig. I know. But >> if you let me finish my my thoughts, it is it would be helpful, you know, if I can finish what I'm saying.

[00:49:56]>> Okay, go ahead.

[00:49:56]>> So, secular humanism is about harm and locking people up and doing experiments on them is causing harm and they wouldn't do that. Um, a lower birth rate doesn't necessarily mean that things are bad. It just means that there is less people than having lots of people. Now an extremely large birth rate has many problems. Um so we can look at what large birth rates cause. Poverty um you know broken families, people being homeless, um you know lots of things like that. So there's no reason secular humanism would if there is a low birth rate go and then lock people up and experiment on them because that is not necessarily a bad thing. And having a slight slightly lower birth rate can actually help humans flourish. As a secular humanists, we're all about human flourishing. And having a slightly lower birth rate will actually help because it um allows better standards of living, less poverty, less problems, um less um you know children being abandoned, less um family and societal problems from having too many people around. So you have come up with your prescription which is a prescription I don't agree with. So I don't have to accept your prescription.

[00:50:57]>> Yeah. Okay. So >> So if I don't have to accept your prescription, I don't even have to debunk it. That is your prescription.

[00:51:03]And it's not what any secular humanism would say. In fact, that prescription is a logical impossibility based in secular humanism because it includes doing harm.

[00:51:11]And secular humanist would not do something that includes harm. So Andrew, whether you realize it or not, and whether your audience realizes it or not, that prescription that you have come from your interpretation is a straw man of secular humanism.

[00:51:24]>> A prescription is a straw man.

[00:51:25]>> Your prescription is because your prescription is based on interpretation that no secular humanism would come to the conclusion of. It is a logical impossibility that secular humanists would lock people up and do experiments on them. So to think that a um a humanist manifesto could include that as a prescription means that you have no clue what secular humanism is. Okay? And that's fine if you don't know what secular I've just let you ramble for forever. Right.

[00:51:49]>> Um but so you said >> Craig, calm down now.

[00:51:51]>> Okay. Carry on with your point. So I had the red apologize.

[00:51:54]>> Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, rational analysis. This is a descriptive claim, correct? Mhm.

[00:52:01]>> Okay. Can do do we make prescriptive claims off of descriptive claims?

[00:52:06]>> If you want.

[00:52:07]>> If you want. So if I were a humanist and I read that, who whose interpretation would it be up to as to how it was applied or what the prescription? Hang on. Hang on. Craig, was I done? Calm down.

[00:52:19]>> You asked the question.

[00:52:20]>> What I'm asking you specifically is >> if it is the case that the person reading it is going to be the person who makes the prescription. Okay. Then if I make a prescription here and it's not debunked by any of the rest of the humanist manifesto and you're going to some external source in your case, well you see uh just a logical impossibility because secular humanist wouldn't do that.

[00:52:43]>> It doesn't tell us [ __ ] Craig.

[00:52:45]>> I'm giving you a prescription based on your first tenant. It's hang stop based on your very first tenant. I need you to use the actual manifesto itself to tell me how it conflicts with that prescription. What you're doing is you're saying, "I don't like that prescription." That's great. Nobody gives a show what you like. Show me in the humanist manifesto where it is that it actually debunks this prescription or says this prescription is wrong or says this prescription isn't humanist. What I'm claiming is that that is humanism.

[00:53:15]>> Okay. Um, for the record, you guys, I did not watch this before. I just saw the title and the heading. I was like, "Okay, cool. We'll do this one." I haven't watched them. Most of the debates I show, I have not watched them.

[00:53:28]So, I'm just letting you guys know. Um, I'm playing at my own risk. You guys are playing at your own risk. I'm watching the theater, the circus go on here. Um, yeah. So, I mean, I want to continue to roll with it, but right now, and what we're half hour and 40 minutes into it, and this is what we have for debate. And at least one of the people on stage is kind of I guess a debater and does it a lot which is Andrew and we're nowhere yet which is kind of very disappointing.

[00:54:05]>> That is a humanist doctrine. You need to show me within the humanist manifesto how it's not.

[00:54:10]>> I already did that by explaining that the sec the humanist manifesto doesn't say harm. It is about not doing harm.

[00:54:16]And again, Andrew, you are going back to your own interpretation. Now, secular humanism doesn't have one person's interpretation to take into account.

[00:54:24]Second humanism is based on a collective, the shared experiences. We >> we don't take the Bible, we we don't take one person.

[00:54:32]>> We need you in the audience to remain quiet, please.

[00:54:34]>> We we don't take one person's interpretation and say that's what we're going to stick to. Okay? We don't go this is the thing that we say because this person wrote this and that is what we stick to. As humanists, we have collective experiences. We will get together and say, >> "Do you write them in a manifesto?"

[00:54:50]>> Yes. Because that's a group of collective experiences.

[00:54:52]>> You're kidding. You have collective experiences and you put them in a manifesto.

[00:54:57]Do you want me to answer the question or are you going to jump in and let me take to answer the question?

[00:55:01]>> Well, I let you talk for a while to give the question. So, let me Are you afraid of me answering the question?

[00:55:05]>> I just want you to I'm trying to Andrew, if you're afraid of me answering the question, just if you're afraid of me answering the question, Hold on one second. Let me pull you apart just to reset here.

[00:55:18]>> Andrew, can you ask your question one more time?

[00:55:20]>> Yeah, it's very it's really simple.

[00:55:22]Okay. Yes, I agree. You guys all have collective experiences and you put them in a thing called the humanist manifesto which you just agreed to using this humanist manifesto of your collective experiences. I gave a prescription. Can you also use that human manifesto to debunk that prescription? Tell me why that prescription's wrong using the manifesto itself. the manif.

[00:55:44]>> I think you can't I think you can't do it, Craig. Because it doesn't tell you [ __ ] It doesn't tell you anything.

[00:55:51]>> Go ahead. Show me. Show me in the manifesto itself where that prescription conflicts with humanism because I'm saying it's a greater form of humanism than your humanism.

[00:56:00]>> Are you done?

[00:56:01]>> Yes. Go ahead.

[00:56:02]>> Okay. Now, take a deep breath and let me talk. Okay.

[00:56:05]>> Good boy. There we go. Calm. Right. Once again, the human manifesto says no harm.

[00:56:12]It's about not doing harm. It's about human flourishing. Okay, I'm not going to use the exact words because interpretations are a thing. But as sector humanists, we would get together and say, how do we deal with this thing?

[00:56:22]It's not a particular prescription of things that you have to do. It is a ethical framework. You would take the framework and you would say how do we deal with this problem? You would get together as a society and using our shared experiences, empathy towards each other, the want to do less harm, how do we deal with this issue? Secondly, humanists do not do harm. That is the idea of secular humanism, to not do harm, to flourish. So, I'm going to use the principles. I don't have to use the specific manifesto because I just I could just get into the Bible and ask how stoning people on the Sabbath because they went to work is good for society or how not letting women speak.

[00:56:57]Andrew, your Bible says that you can stone, you can beat your slave as much as you want, as long as they can get up afterwards. That comes for a good society. No, I can tell you why Christianity is not good for society, right? You have not given me any reason.

[00:57:10]What I'm not going to do, what I'm not going to do is engage with your personal interpretations of secular humanism because personal interpretations don't matter. Collective decisions as a society is what matter. So you individually deciding this is the prescription of secular humanism is not how secular humanism works. And what you've done is said we have got a set of rules by God that we can set out by.

[00:57:33]We've got a norm we've got a normative authority to go to. But that normative authority also drowned the entirety of humanity because they didn't he didn't like what they were doing. To use a normative authority that is a psychopathic deity is a very silly thing to do.

[00:57:46]>> Does it does he know why that he drowned society and his creation?

[00:57:54]Does anybody know why why the Lord did that? Why he drowned?

[00:58:02]Does anybody know, Pastor Russell, you don't count? If Pastor Russell, if you're in here, you're on Facebook, you cannot answer the question.

[00:58:12]Does anybody know why God did that?

[00:58:17]Because I I guarantee probably neither one of these people at this point know it.

[00:58:22]He's just running He's just running off the the lip. I was trying to silence pass to Russell. Yes.

[00:58:33]I should be there with a loud buzzer, too. I know.

[00:58:40]Why God took out the world with the flood?

[00:58:44]That's what he was referring to. You know, God like taking everybody out.

[00:58:49]You know, he's mock He's mocking the flood basically that God, you know, took out his But does anybody know why?

[00:58:57]Here, I'll let you hear it again.

[00:59:02]ism works. What you've done is said we have got a set of rules by God that we can set out by we've got a norm we've got a normative authority to go to. But that normative authority also drowned the entirety of humanity because they didn't he didn't like what they were doing. To use a normative authority that is a psychopathic deity is a very silly thing to do. We don't need a normative authority. We need collective experiences and how that will affect humans in the future.

[00:59:27]>> Got it. So, I just want to make sure I'll steal, man. I'll steal man.

[00:59:30]>> Wait for the applause.

[00:59:31]>> So, yes.

[00:59:32]>> Come on.

[00:59:34]>> My gosh. Um, basically, yeah, you guys nailed it.

[00:59:39]It was God's judgment. He actually repented for making mankind because it grieved him that his own creation turned against him. He repented for making man mankind because he wanted a a relationship with his own creation and his own creation turned against him was wicked.

[01:00:04]So here let me cleanse it, let me purge it.

[01:00:10]Which is why later on uh he came manifested himself in the flesh to be that sacrifice so that he could get back into relationship with his with his uh creation which is us human beings. He wants a relationship, not a religion, not traditions, a men, a relationship.

[01:00:40]>> Thank you. Let's hear some real applause.

[01:00:48]>> All right, guys. Come on.

[01:00:49]>> My turn. Come on. Louder. Really?

[01:00:53]>> We'll return to the debate.

[01:00:54]>> Goodness gracious. These guys.

[01:00:56]>> Go ahead, Andrew.

[01:00:57]I just wanted to I just wanted to move back to this uh very quickly. I just want to make sure that I steelman your position in the best faith I possibly can.

[01:01:06]>> You failed so far.

[01:01:07]>> Okay, that's why I'm trying again. So, let's >> Why are they like these are grown Hold on. These are like grown men.

[01:01:14]>> I mean, they have like some seriously some serious aught against one another.

[01:01:18]These are grown men. I understand like some things during debate, but these are like grown men that almost like hate each other type of thing, like personal offenses.

[01:01:30]I have a word for it, but I'm not going to say it right now.

[01:01:35]>> You say it's the collective experience of us and the interpretation of this framework.

[01:01:43]>> It's the collective experiences and how that relates to the framework.

[01:01:46]>> Okay. In the collective experience of these of these people utilizing this framework, they would be able to utilize this framework to debunk that prescription. Correct.

[01:01:57]>> I just did.

[01:01:59]>> You utilize collective collective experience to debunk my prescription.

[01:02:04]>> Yeah. Collective experience of people being locked up and kidnapped and experimented on being a [ __ ] thing to do. The collective experiences would say that humanity wouldn't do that because the collective experience of humanity knows that that is a bad thing to do.

[01:02:16]that causes harm and doesn't help people. There is no way that secular humanism would lock people up and experiment on them because that causes harm. Secular humanism does not cause harm. We would not find a solution to something that includes >> purposely causing people harm. So you are coming up with this prescription because you do not understand what secular humanism is. You seem to think that secular humanism is anything.

[01:02:40]>> When I ask you question, please don't take two minutes. Right. Just give a quick answer. If you if you struggle to if you got as you watch a lot of shorts, should I play like a video of like subway surfers as I talk at the same time?

[01:02:52]>> Is that going to help?

[01:02:52]>> So anyway, back to this. The reason the reason is is because we can't get anywhere if you filibuster on a single answer forever and ever and ever.

[01:02:59]>> Again, if you got a short attention span, Andrew, that's not my problem. So the point the point is is that if it is the case that it's just due to collective experience using this as just a framework, what's to stop the collective experience from making prescriptions just like mine based on whatever their collective experiences are?

[01:03:15]>> It's a logical impossibility.

[01:03:17]>> Stop ask let me well can I finish asking it?

[01:03:20]>> Okay.

[01:03:21]>> Okay. So anyway, what's actually to stop the collective from coming up with Well, for one thing, they can change the manifesto itself, right? It's already been changed multiple times.

[01:03:31]>> So it's the Bible multiple times.

[01:03:32]>> Nobody's disputing that. But what I'm saying is that inside of this, if you have a collection of people who say, for instance, to I don't know, lock up all children, right? Prescriptively, that's what humanists decide is going to help the most when it comes to knowledge of the world being derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

[01:03:51]They're using rational analysis to determine children need to be locked up until they get to a certain age. What inside? Hang on. What inside of the humanist manifesto itself is demonstrating that that should not happen? What is it? What can you point to anything in it? The reduction of harm. Andrew, you keep which is where you keep where is it? Right. Again, I'm not going to use the exact words that are in it because >> because they're not in it.

[01:04:16]>> Because that's because they're not in it. Right. I'm not going to use the exact words. We're going to use what it represents and what it represents is to not do harm. You keep coming up with things that are harmful. Right? Let me get this through to you. Second humanism will not do something that purposely causes harm. You keep saying >> who determines what harm is.

[01:04:32]>> You can you let me talk.

[01:04:34]>> Who determines what harm is Craig?

[01:04:36]>> Collective experiences and empathy.

[01:04:37]>> So if collective experience says this isn't harmful, >> collective experiences say that it is harmful though. That is what collective experience >> But what if it didn't Craig?

[01:04:45]>> What if the collective experience of these people? That's not harmful.

[01:04:48]>> But they do Andrew.

[01:04:48]>> What if they didn't though?

[01:04:49]>> Right. Well, in the same way, what if God said that you could do whatever?

[01:04:52]>> What if he did? Answer my question.

[01:04:54]>> But but collective experiences don't.

[01:04:55]It's a logical impossibility under the frame answer loses Greg under the framework of secular humanism. That is a logical impossibility to do. Right? I do not have to answer things that will never happen.

[01:05:07]>> Let's start with what is logically what does logical impossibility mean?

[01:05:10]>> It means that it's something that is logically impossible as a conclusion.

[01:05:13]>> You can't use the words to describe the words Craig.

[01:05:15]>> Yes, you can.

[01:05:16]>> What does logical impossibility mean?

[01:05:18]>> It means that it is something that would not come as a result of conclusions of what's happening. If you look at the overall, if you look at the overall conclusions of what secular humanism gives and look at that the outcome would be a logical question is what does logical answer mean?

[01:05:33]>> I'm trying to answer it means that it is something that if you look at the overall conclusions of something and look at it logically, the outcome is an impossibility. If you look at all the conclusions of secular humanism, what it tries to promote, the logical impossibility of um locking people up and causing harm comes from looking at those the entirety of secular humanism.

[01:05:54]You keep coming up with questions of what if they lock people up.

[01:05:59]It's not something that would happen.

[01:06:01]>> Is Wolverine from the X-Men logically impossible?

[01:06:04]>> Wolverine is from the X-Men specifically um the the first character, the Wolverine from the X-Men, the adamantium clause, the healing power system. Is that logically impossible?

[01:06:13]>> Um, using Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics, no.

[01:06:16]>> No, it's not logically. So, Wolverine is not logically impossible, right?

[01:06:20]>> It could exist in a number of universes as far as we know.

[01:06:22]>> But what is logically impossible is that a bunch of people can't get together and change what the meaning of harm is. Uh, well, again, but Andrew, you are missing the point of what collective experiences show us. We look at collective experiences throughout the world and we can see what harm is. You are just saying, well, what if they changed what harm is? But as humans, we know.

[01:06:42]>> Yeah. Craig, what if they change what the meaning of harm is? Craig, >> you've got three words out there.

[01:06:46]Andrew, >> can you answer the damn question, Craig?

[01:06:48]>> I'm trying to, Andrew. And if you let me, that would be wonderful. The thing is that without answering the question, the question never gets answered. So, we're never going to actually answer the question because answering the QUESTION IS AN UNANSWERED QUESTION.

[01:06:58]>> YEAH.

[01:06:58]>> WHAT IF THEY CHANGE THE definition of harm, Craig?

[01:07:01]>> Yeah, Andrew, I'm trying to let me answer the question. They won't change the definition of harm.

[01:07:04]>> Oh, they won't. No, but Wolverine's logically.

[01:07:06]>> Okay. So secular humanism looks at what happens as experiences. And throughout humanity, we can know that locking people up and doing harm is a bad thing because it makes bad things happens. It makes people unhappy. It causes harm. It makes society a worse place.

[01:07:21]>> What about when it doesn't cause harm?

[01:07:22]Like when we lock criminals up.

[01:07:26]>> So the idea of locking criminals up at least in you know the decent kind >> Does it reduce harm? Craig.

[01:07:32]>> Yes. When you >> Yes. Wait. So, so wait. So, you just said locking people up. Andrew, locking people up is going to reduce harm. Well, >> am I am I allowed to talk?

[01:07:41]>> I Well, Craig, >> am I allowed to talk? Andrew, am I allowed to talk?

[01:07:44]>> Yes, Craig, you're Andrew, am I allowed to talk?

[01:07:46]>> Yes, Greg.

[01:07:46]>> Andrew, but how long are you going to talk?

[01:07:48]>> Am I Andrew, am I allowed to talk?

[01:07:51]>> For how long at once, though?

[01:07:53]>> Okay. So, you are being a flatearther here.

[01:07:55]>> You're being an ethical flat earther.

[01:07:56]>> What you're doing is you're not allowing the other person to talk and just laughing and thinking >> because you want to answer any questions. I'm trying to answer the question, but every time I do, >> that's not answers, filibuster.

[01:08:04]>> No, you don't understand that it's answers, Andrew. Maybe because you're not a very intelligent person, but I'm not sure.

[01:08:09]>> Okay, Craig, I'll get to your level.

[01:08:11]>> So, would you like me to answer any of your questions or are you actually >> answers? Here's the thing. I'll make a deal with you. If you treat this in good faith and you actually answer my questions, I'll actually answer yours.

[01:08:22]But don't filibuster. Hang on. Don't filibuster and don't lie. Simple. Can is it is it not the case that people change what the definition of harm is all the time >> and by necessity they have to do that Craig right you have to change what the definition of harm is so when you say Andrew it's logically impossible that people would change the definition of harm so that you could lock women up to do xyz to them that's not actually logically impossible is it >> under the ten of secular humanism yes it is >> then show me where >> sectorism is about not doing harm and no show me show me where the in The humanist document it conflicts with this since it says we can change our definition of what harm is anytime we want. But the definition of harm is what it is. We know what harm is.

[01:09:07]>> No, we don't know what harm is.

[01:09:08]>> Yes, we do. Our collective experiences show us how. If we make people unhappy, if we make people hurt, we make them die, we make them injured, that is harm.

[01:09:16]And as society, we can get together and say, well, we don't want those bad things to happen. What makes people depressed? What makes people Andrew I am in the middle of asking your question >> and it can reduce harm to you.

[01:09:26]>> Andrew I will answer your question but you might need to let me get there to set my set.

[01:09:32]The problem is that you do not want to hear the answers. You just want your script. I'm not going to stick to your script.

[01:09:37]>> Get to the answer.

[01:09:38]>> Right. Do not talk. Let me answer because I've let you yap for ages.

[01:09:44]>> Good boy. Right. So doing harm is everyone knows what harm is. Everyone knows that harm is >> No, that's what's in question.

[01:09:52]>> See, here we go. I I let >> That's literally what's in question is whether or not everyone knows what harm is.

[01:09:56]>> Lay my I'm trying to lay the foundation for my answer. If you let me get more than three or four words out, a few sentences at a time, Andrew, then this debate can happen. But you just want to over talk me.

[01:10:06]>> Give you a chance, Craig. Go ahead.

[01:10:07]>> For both harming me, >> right? So, as a collective, we can get together and say, "What makes you unhappy? What makes you hurt? What stops you from advancing as a human?" And that is harm. We can get a bunch of injured people together and say how did that happen? This is harm. How do we stop these things? This is harm. What makes you unhappy? This is harm. And we can look at what makes that happen. You are trying to come up with um a a situation where harm can just be changed and we can make harm not mean having harm. But that's not what secular humanism does.

[01:10:37]Because as a society, as collective um as a collective, as individuals, we would come up with to not do that to make everyone happy. People aren't going to be happy if we do that.

[01:10:48]>> Can I want to be honest for a second? I haven't really learned anything yet.

[01:10:53]Like if I was coming into this like unbiased like um like wanting to learn about Christianity, I haven't learned one thing yet because the the the debate is a it's Christianity versus secular humanism. Which is better? Y'all tell me which one is better as of being unbiased and coming into this like not knowing nothing. I haven't learned nothing about the secular humanism either except it sounds just like well we don't almost like uh population control and um okay they want to somewhat in a weird way take care of humanity but don't want overpopulation um don't really want growth it sounds like I don't know He hasn't really even got to his point. The opening statement was kind of confusing and all over the place and long-winded, which both of their both of theirs was actually. Um I Yeah. Um this is we're Yeah, we have about an hour left and this is what we've got so far. Um I don't think Andrew made a good point myself.

[01:12:15]Um, he's just asking questions and and feeding into this dude's trap by mocking him and playing the games. I don't think he's done a good job yet whatsoever.

[01:12:27]Um, but that's me. I mean, if he's maybe he said something, I've I've missed it.

[01:12:32]Um, yeah, the opening statements always confuse me. Uh, Quincy, you need to call Jesse for them. I'll call him in the morning. Probably not, but I'll think about call I'll I'll think about calling Jesse for them in the morning, but I shouldn't act on my thoughts.

[01:12:49]Oh man, they clearly need to learn how to act like men. Yes. Um, thank you Laura for the $5 super chat. Appreciate it. Hey, intermission. You guys, if you guys have Facebook, please go over to Facebook right quick. Hit thumbs up.

[01:13:02]Share it out on your personal page. Make sure it's public. come back to YouTube if this is your uh if YouTube's your primary source of uh watching videos and stuff. Just want to get uh the the Facebook page. Want to get the numbers up almost to uh 100k on there. So the more shared the better, especially on Facebook. Um also links are pinned on YouTube and Facebook if you guys like like to help out with anything donations or whatever. Super chats are open just like Laura did and Jay did earlier. So, appreciate that. Thank you.

[01:13:38]Um, we'll continue with this uh lovely cat. I've never seen like this. This is This is kind of crazy to me actually because you never really see this amongst men, I guess. Well, it depends.

[01:13:50]Maybe in real life you do out on the streets of Yeah. But this is this is weird for a debate >> being happy. Okay, then Craig, I just have a simple question for you. When it comes to child transition surgery, right, we have a split on whether or not that's harmful. Who should I side with?

[01:14:15]>> Who should I side with?

[01:14:16]>> Let me hear that again since I >> harm can just be changed and we can make harm not mean having harm. But that's not what second humanism does because as a society, as collective um as a collective, as individuals, we would come up with to not do that to make everyone happy. People aren't going to be happy if we do that.

[01:14:34]>> Secondism wants people being happy.

[01:14:36]>> Okay, then Craig, I just have a simple question for you. When it comes to child transition surgery, right, we have a split on whether or not that's harmful.

[01:14:46]Who should I side with?

[01:14:49]>> Not only that, but what about abortion?

[01:14:51]>> Who should I side with?

[01:14:53]Uh the position of um that is something that I wouldn't want to get into because >> am I allowed to get my thoughts out?

[01:15:02]What about harm?

[01:15:04]>> My harm. I didn't say I wasn't going to.

[01:15:07]I would say it's something I wouldn't want to. But again, I'm not allowed to get my words out here. Right. So, as a collective society, we would get together and see what happens. And that is going through changes at the moment.

[01:15:16]Personally, personally, I don't agree with that. Right. Um and the the current position within secular humanists uh seems to be that allowing children to transition is something that causes harm. Right? That and that is the position that I personally hold when I look at the evidence and what other second humanists are saying is that allowing children to transition causes harm because children are not at a place where they are able to make that decision. Their brain is not fully developed. Um and especially people with um uh if we look at neurode divergence who neurody divergent actually have a much higher percentage of wanting to transition and things like that and that could be an effect of them being neurode divergent. So we have to look at individual cases but personally children in transition because they're not ready to make that position that decision their brains aren't fully developed until like the age of 25. So letting children do that before they have the ability to is in itself causing harm.

[01:16:09]>> So so then what's going on here? So, but one thing he said that don't make sense.

[01:16:13]He said that we get together. So, basically, is it from what that sounded like? Oh, he has a Proud Boy logo. Um, from what it sounded like, is it that they're not freeth thinkers?

[01:16:26]Like they can't think for theirelves.

[01:16:28]They kind of just go along with what their community or group of people do and that's what influences them to make a decision. That's what it kind That's what it kind of sound like.

[01:16:38]It kind of sound like well we'd get together as a whole to figure this out which I mean obviously in times you need to do that but it's almost like it yeah group think but it's almost like they that's what he results to instead of like having his own foundation where Christianity you have your own foundation it's not a it's not a group thing yeah you come together with your brethren right iron sharpening iron edific ification, growth, correction, rebuke, restoration, things like that.

[01:17:15]But you're founded on your own and you have to do your calling no matter what the world or whoever thinks about it. Where it sounds like he's more along the lines of group think, which is more beta. Just so you understand, I just demonstrated something very important to you. You said we know what harm is. Yes.

[01:17:40]Our collective experience demonstrates what harm is. Then I ask you a simple question. There's two different collections of people right now. One who believes that this is very harmful and one like you who believes it's not very harmful.

[01:17:52]>> Which one of those is second?

[01:17:53]>> Which one of those? Well, humanists themselves disagree.

[01:17:56]>> Matt Dillah Hunty who's a humanist for instance is right as we speak probably sucking lady balls, right? Like that's that's actually true. So, hang on. Hang on. HANG ON. STOP. STOP. STOP. STOP.

[01:18:09]STOP, BRO. It's my turn. My turn, bro.

[01:18:10]My turn. Calm down. Calm down, bro. Calm down. Matt, >> calm down. I didn't say you were.

[01:18:15]>> I'm not going to run away from a debate.

[01:18:17]>> I didn't say you were. I didn't tell you to run. I didn't tell you anything. Calm down. So, anyway, back to where we were.

[01:18:21]What I'm saying is >> he's a humanist. You're a humanist.

[01:18:25]>> CLEARLY, YOU [ __ ] DISAGREE ABOUT THIS.

[01:18:27]>> M stop. Does he say specifically that he thinks should transition?

[01:18:33]>> Calm down.

[01:18:33]>> I'm just asking a question. Does that is that what he says?

[01:18:35]>> Yes. But anyway, calm down.

[01:18:37]>> I don't think that's >> humanist. Humanists themselves. Okay.

[01:18:40]Humanists themselves disagree. Stop, bro. Would you chill out for two seconds? They They disagree on even what a man is. They disagree on the prescriptions for children. No, they don't. They Yes, they do. And they disagree about all of these things within the very same framework you're talking about. The thing is is like that's fine.

[01:19:00]>> The moderators are weakates that humanists can disagree as the peanut gallery was telling you. You can make the same criticism about the Bible.

[01:19:08]Theologically, people disagree all the time. Totally fair argument. What's not a fair argument is for you to say that it's logically impossible for us to redetermine what harm is under humanism.

[01:19:18]Of course, we can redetermine what harm is under humanism. Why couldn't we? Why?

[01:19:24]Because the collective experiences humanity show us what harm is. And if we look at what has happened in the past with humanity and we try to change it to go back to when it was harmed, that would go against what secular humanism is. But to be clear, um, all secular, you are just lumping all kind of LGBTQ stuff as secular humanist. That's not just secular humanists that that hold those positions. So you can be someone that not be a secular not about LGBTQ. I'm demonstrating that within this worldview there's there's disagreement within it. That's fine.

[01:19:59]Right. I'm not I'm not making that as a critique.

[01:20:01]>> But just to be clear, that's not a secular humanist view though. That's just a human view.

[01:20:05]>> Craig, I'm not making that the critique.

[01:20:07]>> But you just did though, Andrew. You made that critique in front of all these people. Why are you lying? You made that >> I made was about harm, the principle of harm. I'm giving you an analogy to the principle of harm. and saying even if you say uh it's logically impossible for us to change what harm is based on collective human experience that can't be true because even we all right now share experiences and disagree about what is harmful based on those experiences when you say that that's logically impossible I need that actually demonstrated correct that's what I'm saying to you humanity demonstrates that I because of what has happened to humanity throughout history Right? That is what lets us decide what is harm throughout. Let's look at the last 200 years and the amount of harm that has happened. The amount of >> because of what's happened to society.

[01:20:58]That's what makes us decide what is harm. Because of what has happened to us because of history, that's what makes us decide what is harm.

[01:21:11]>> I don't know how I feel about that one.

[01:21:13]>> Wars that have happened. The amount of bad things that have happened. We can look back at the past 200 years and go, well, what about that has caused harm?

[01:21:20]And then we can look to the future to say, well, how can we stop that happening? And if we look at if we look at the suffering and the unhappiness and the death and destruction that has come from all the bad things that a lot of it is because of holy wars and fighting over whatever my particular god says.

[01:21:35]And we can say, well, how can we make the harm from that not happen?

[01:21:39]>> And all we have to do is look at what has happened to how that affects humanity to get to the decision. Okay.

[01:21:44]So, let's take a look here. When you say war is very harmful, right? At the same time, you also say population reduction is actually probably pretty good. I didn't care. I said lower birth I said a slightly lower birth rate is not a bad thing. Slightly lower birth rate still increases population.

[01:22:01]>> Birth rate is going to go down if more men are dead. Right, Craig?

[01:22:05]>> Uh, yeah. Because war, great. Um, so since we've established that, if I say I think that actually these wars cause less harm to society because well, it got the population down and that actually is good for us long term. I have now made an argument for how I've reduced harm.

[01:22:21]>> Craig, if you disagree with that harm principle, right, we both disagree with Would you chill out for a second? If we both disagree with that harm principle, right, our collective experiences can come to wildly different conclusions. If that's the case, I need you to have something I can default to to look at which would descriptively tell me why it is my harm principle or what I consider harm to be is wrong. But I have this thing called the Bible and church authority. You have a humanist manifesto to answer those kinds of questions.

[01:22:54]Where in the humanist manifesto can I find out that if I want to I don't know lock all the women up in breed that that's actually morally wrong. Okay Greg where so you are misunderstanding what the manifesto is for. The manifesto is a guideline and then based on that guideline people will get together and make decisions. Nobody is going to make a single decision that everybody then follows like in your screwed up version of the world where you can refer to magic skydaddy as the absolute normative authority. It's ridiculous.

[01:23:24]>> Instead of our earth daddy, >> right? You >> instead of your earth daddy.

[01:23:27]>> Notice how I let you talk.

[01:23:28]>> Oh, I can't believe God did that. Notice how I let you talk. And you don't need how I let you talk.

[01:23:34]>> Go ahead.

[01:23:35]>> Go ahead.

[01:23:35]>> So, once again, we don't need a normative authority. We don't need a one set of particular rules. What we need is a framework that we can get together and discuss to assess what is going to happen. We don't need a one particular person or one person's interpretation or one divine commandment to follow. We >> we don't need a normative authority.

[01:23:56]>> No, we don't. Why would we?

[01:23:59]>> Well, I I don't understand. When you have a collective of people who decide based on your manifesto and they're interpreting it to give you prescriptions, what do you call that?

[01:24:11]Not normal of authority because it what >> a normal >> What is it?

[01:24:14]>> IT'S NOT WHAT WHAT IS IT? It is a framework that you will get together and discuss.

[01:24:19]>> No, no, no, not the framework. I'm not saying that the framework is your normative authority. Like you said, that's a framework.

[01:24:24]>> Yeah.

[01:24:25]>> All the people get together to decide the prescriptions based on the framework would be referred to as a >> normative.

[01:24:36]>> No, that normative authority is a single thing, right? Not a collection of people.

[01:24:40]>> You know what authority even is. Craig, >> give me your definition about that.

[01:24:42]>> No, no, Craig, I'm not going to give you your definition for normative authority.

[01:24:46]What is it?

[01:24:47]>> It's a a single prescription for something coming from a particular set of rules.

[01:24:52]>> So from rules.

[01:24:53]>> Look it up real quick. Greg, I I'm going to stop. I'm going to I'll stop it.

[01:24:56]>> Tell me if I'm wrong.

[01:24:57]>> Pull up normative authority. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[01:24:59]>> So normative philosophically, right?

[01:25:02]It's like an ought claim, right? What we ought to do. If you have a normative authority, what is that doing? That's it's an authority expressing what you should be doing. So in the church in the church, right, we would be referring to our ecclesiastical authority as our normative authority. Meaning here's our framework. Here's our church framework.

[01:25:19]This is our normative authority telling us what we ought to do. Same thing with the Bible. A normative authority telling us what we ought to do. If you have a bunch of people who get together and they make prescriptions based off of this manifesto that you're supposed to follow, those would be called what?

[01:25:36]>> Okay.

[01:25:36]>> What would they be called, Craig?

[01:25:38]>> I can see that I'm wrong. Well, with Okay, got it. So, so hang on. So, hang on. By the way, just >> that's the first time ever.

[01:25:45]Congratulations, Greg.

[01:25:47]>> I I want to be >> I I want to be clear like this is only my second debate within this this field.

[01:25:54]And I might not be completely up to date on all the vernacular and everything.

[01:25:57]So, if I get certain words wrong and stuff, hey, I'm going to hold my hand up because I'm not going to hold that against you, dude. Right.

[01:26:03]>> I'm not going to hold it against you. Go ahead. the the the point I'm trying to make is instead of going to like a single um position like the god says, right? Instead, what we do is we get together and we decide collectively based on what what we feel is better to, you know, to stop the harm. Okay. And >> that's a normative authority.

[01:26:21]>> Okay. Right. I I can see I was wrong on that point. Absolutely. That is norm.

[01:26:24]>> So my whole point here isn't to beat you up about being wrong in a debate. I'm wrong in debates all the time, just not in this one. What I'm saying what I'm saying what I'm saying to you what I'm what I'm saying to you here Craig is just this if you have to have a normative authority people who get together who make prescriptions right what they're doing is they're using your framework so in Christianity we would do the same thing we're going to use the framework of the Bible the teachings of Jesus Christ and then we're going to have a normative authority an ecclesiastical structure which helps interpret that framework so that we know what we should or shouldn't do now this is the same exact thing you're doing.

[01:26:59]But the thing is is I I can use the framework, which is the Bible, to debunk the prescriptions that I've made against the manifesto. You can't do that with your manifesto. That's my point.

[01:27:15]>> Um, again, the you're you're using the manifesto wrong. The >> Okay. And and I've explained why, and I do feel like we're just going around in circles.

[01:27:24]>> No, no, this is actually important. I I would like to actually know how I'm using it wrong.

[01:27:29]I'm trying to because again it's not a set of rules like the Bible.

[01:27:33]>> Right. Like it's it's that's not set out the same way. It's not saying this is exactly what you need to do. Right.

[01:27:39]Right. It is something that we will get together as a collective and say right and this is how we think will make a better society and if um something in society happens and we need to adjust as society. How come it's okay for people like this to say they get together to think what will make a better society, right? And they're they advocate for it.

[01:28:03]But if God says what makes a better society, they oppose it.

[01:28:11]So let's get together as a group to talk about what will make a better society.

[01:28:17]Yet it's already established from God what will make a better society.

[01:28:22]But that's dismissed for what reason?

[01:28:27]But theirs isn't dismissed because why?

[01:28:31]Because they got together to talk about what what would make a better society.

[01:28:39]It's kind of crazy how that works evolves. But the overall um you know point of it is to reduce harm and increase flourishing. And you can't do that if you're doing something that is causing unhappiness, causing unhealthiness, causing injury and you know um feelings of of of not being happy. That is against what the secular human >> So this makes sense. So what you're saying and I'm just going to steal man again to make sure I'm not getting it wrong. I don't want you to to say I'm straw manning you. What you're saying is that this framework which is humanist 3 the manifesto >> this is a framework which is not giving prescriptions but rather it's a framework which is used by a collective body to give prescriptions right >> I wouldn't say prescriptions um more what you ought to do >> rules >> no um no what is better for helping society >> or should we do what's better >> it again it doesn't try to give rules it doesn't try to say this is exact exactly what you should do. I'm not saying it does.

[01:29:43]>> Right. It just says if you want to have a healthier society then this is the way to do it.

[01:29:48]>> So it's being interpreted right >> by a collective. Yes.

[01:29:51]>> Okay. Got it. So if a collective of Christians interpret this to say >> under one here >> that knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experiment and rational analysis. If the prescription they come up with is the birth rate is low.

[01:30:05]Therefore all women must be forcibly bred. Why are they wrong? Because they would have to show why birth rate is a bad thing for lower birth rate is a bad thing for humans.

[01:30:13]>> Why would they have to show that?

[01:30:14]>> Why don't they have to show it?

[01:30:15]>> There's nothing in the manifesto, the guiding stone from which they're making their prescriptions that says that that in any way contradicts with the framework itself.

[01:30:24]>> Well, in what we would do in that case again as humanists, we would get together.

[01:30:28]>> By the way, you guys, we're hour and 10 minutes into it and we finally seems like we might have approached something.

[01:30:34]Finally. Finally. There seems to be a dialogue actually going on. Give the grown men a round of applause, please.

[01:30:42]>> Ever. And we would say, "Is this going to cause harm?" Then yes. Well, then we won't do that.

[01:30:48]>> Yeah, I know. So, what if they got together and said, "Actually, I think that this will lower arm."

[01:30:52]>> What if God said lock people up?

[01:30:54]>> Yeah. No, but what if they said >> what if God said it was okay to do?

[01:30:56]>> Yeah. What if what if he did? So, anyway.

[01:30:58]>> So, would you Right. So, let's let's ask because you just moving the goalpost.

[01:31:02]>> Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. But all you've done so far is ask me questions about mine, right? So, I'm gonna ask you questions about yours. What if God said it was okay to lock women?

[01:31:08]>> What if he did? Let's just say Christianity is a complete lie. All of it's nonsense. All of it's BS. We're talking about the effects of society.

[01:31:15]>> Trying to get rid Yeah. Okay. So, if >> So, so how would Christianity deal with this then? Um, if we said, "Okay, it's a lower birth rate. Let's lock people up and experiment on them to make higher birth rates." What would Christianity say about that?

[01:31:27]>> Our ecclesiastical authority would say, "Not allowed to do that."

[01:31:29]>> Which one? uh all well in fact uh here's how I would define Christian if you want to make it easy people who believe in the Nian creed people who accept the Nyian creed all people who accept the Nian creed would now fit under the category of Christians all of them would have the same moral framework which would say that this >> and which moral framework specifically you know cite me the specific thing that says you can't lock women up and experiment on them to stop all birth >> you mean the ten commandments >> yeah where where is that you want me to you want me to pull up the ten commandments for you >> uh then go to the other 260 rules laws as well.

[01:32:01]>> You mean no high laws? Well, they're part of Christianity, right?

[01:32:04]>> No, not no highos.

[01:32:06]>> Christians would some Christians would disagree with you.

[01:32:08]>> Mhm.

[01:32:09]>> Not not the ones who believe in the nian creed.

[01:32:11]>> Well, okay. So, you are saying that Christians that don't believe in creed aren't Christians.

[01:32:16]>> Yes.

[01:32:16]>> Well, okay. They think they're Christians.

[01:32:18]>> That's what I'm saying.

[01:32:19]>> But they here's the thing. They think they're Christians.

[01:32:21]>> Well, right now I think I'm I'm a humanist. Am I?

[01:32:24]>> Um, do you think that >> am I a humanist right now, Craig?

[01:32:27]Because I made humanist prescriptions.

[01:32:28]Uh, do you think you're a humanist?

[01:32:30]>> Yes.

[01:32:30]>> Okay. Then you can be No, there's nothing.

[01:32:33]>> You can be a Christian. You can be a Christian and be a humanist. There's nothing wrong with that. You can be a Christian and be a humanist. Okay.

[01:32:39]Right.

[01:32:40]>> Then my prescriptions are humanist prescriptions.

[01:32:42]>> But if you if you can be a humanist, a Christian and be a humanist because humanism lets you um be have freedom of religion. But what you're saying right now is I'm deciding what Christian is, but you don't get to decide what Christianity is because other Christians would disagree with you. And to be clear, you are here to defend all of Christianity, not just >> I'm not here to defend Christianity at all. I'm here to defend the effects of it on society.

[01:33:04]>> Yeah. What what you're trying to do is why Christianity is better for society.

[01:33:07]So that means you have to go for all >> what it matter. Hold on. Let me finish my point, please. That means that you have to defend all of Christianity, not just the Christianity that you think is Christianity. Because there's a lot of Christians that disagree with your definition of Christianity. But that doesn't matter. as a Christian, you still uh you you are here to defend every version of Christianity. That includes the Christianity of Ethiopia that um hold the ancient texts you don't believe in because they still call themselves Christians. They're still better for society than humanists. Like what are you talking I All I'm here to do is to defend whether or not to Craig, my turn, Craig.

[01:33:43]>> All I'm here to do is to defend the effects on society of Christianity versus humanism. I'm arguing Stop. I'm arguing that there is no real effect from humanism on society because it has this intrinsic problem. The problem is >> doing no harm.

[01:33:58]>> No, >> I I went through it in my in my intro.

[01:34:01]Right. Chill out. Let's look at Christianity.

[01:34:02]>> Chill out, Craig.

[01:34:03]>> Andrew, right? Andrew, all you've done so far is attack.

[01:34:07]>> One second. I want Go ahead, Andrew.

[01:34:09]>> Yeah. Thank you. So what I'm saying to you, Craig, is that because you suffer from this problem of your framework, right, has to be interpreted by your authority, which is the same exact criticism you're having against Christianity, by the way. Uh you say it's logically impossible for the definition of harm to change because collectively we're just not going to change it.

[01:34:31]>> Well, no, it's possible. I say it's impossible to change to your definition.

[01:34:35]Give me Give me 10 seconds.

[01:34:36]>> Well, if you saw me, I need to just let you know that that's not what I said.

[01:34:39]Okay, calm down. You get a chance.

[01:34:40]>> I didn't say that.

[01:34:41]>> Get a chance, Craig. Calm down.

[01:34:42]>> Give you a chance to wrap up, Andrew, and then we'll kick it back to Craig.

[01:34:44]>> Yeah. Yeah. So, anyway, the point here is is that when I look at society, I don't see any effects from humanism. I see a lot of effects from Christianity.

[01:34:52]And a lot of them are really, really, really positive.

[01:34:55]>> Your humanist effects don't even exist because all you're saying is this. We use this like manifesto, this loose document of ideas that anybody, including a Christian humanist, can come up with the prescription that we're going to lock women up and forcefully breed them. And you can't actually use your framework to tell them why that's wrong. You have to appeal to something outside of it. In this case, I don't know, loose loose libertarian pr like I don't know what principles you're even adhering to outside of it that make you a humanist. Now, >> let's kick it back to Craig.

[01:35:28]So individual autonomy prioritizes human prioritizes human welfare. There is nothing about human welfare that says locking women up and experimenting on them is good.

[01:35:37]>> There's nothing that doesn't.

[01:35:38]>> Well, there is. It's human. It's um that is against ethics and justice. It's not it's not show me where it says it advocates for human rights and humans have rights.

[01:35:48]>> Yeah. What does that mean though? It's nowhere in your document.

[01:35:50]>> Again, these are things that you can from the humanist manifesto gather and >> No, you can't. I have it in front of me.

[01:35:56]I interpreted it totally different.

[01:35:58]>> But then you you don't get to individually decide what that is though.

[01:36:02]>> Why not?

[01:36:02]>> Because that you're not a collective.

[01:36:04]You're a person, Andrew.

[01:36:06]>> So let's look at the let's look at how let's look at Christianity and let me ask you some questions about how Christianity is better for society.

[01:36:12]Okay.

[01:36:13]>> How is stoning people to death that work on the same?

[01:36:16]>> Does anybody in any Christian nation stone anybody to death?

[01:36:19]>> It doesn't matter. The Bible says that you can. Does anybody are we talking about whether the Bible's true or the effects of Christianity on society?

[01:36:27]>> Is there a single society which is Christian where they stone people to death?

[01:36:32]>> That wasn't what I said.

[01:36:33]>> So then what the [ __ ] are you talking about?

[01:36:35]>> So but the Bible says that you can do that though, right? So if we say >> if the Bible says you could do it, Craig, why aren't Christians doing it?

[01:36:41]>> A lot of them do.

[01:36:42]>> Where?

[01:36:44]>> There is there is many horrible Christians around the world. There is a Christian family um that I was reading about where they had >> Can I see a show of hands for all the Christians who are here?

[01:36:52]>> You ever stoned anybody did that?

[01:36:54]>> Do you want me to speak?

[01:36:55]>> I do want to I want to give >> you look like the type.

[01:36:59]>> Am I allowed? Right. Go ahead.

[01:37:00]>> Just because you don't do that now doesn't mean that Christianity doesn't say right. You're not here to say why aren't they doing it?

[01:37:10]>> You aren't here to say well why aren't they doing it?

[01:37:12]>> Yes, I am. I'm here to say the effects of Christian society are better. You want me to demonstrate here? I got five words out.

[01:37:19]>> Five words out. I got five words out, people.

[01:37:21]>> Can you just show me where they're stoning?

[01:37:22]>> I got five words out, people. Christian boy here, Andrew. Can't can't sting people.

[01:37:28]>> I got five words out, Andrew.

[01:37:29]>> Okay. Go ahead, Craig. Tell us where they're stoning people to death.

[01:37:31]>> Right. Okay. So, the Bible says that you can stone people to death. The Bible says that you can beat your slave until his finances gets up. The Bible says that women shouldn't vote and read and all. So it doesn't matter that that is particularly what happens now. That is what Christianity says is okay.

[01:37:48]>> So >> So you should be able to point to a bunch of women.

[01:37:51]>> Did I get my question right?

[01:37:52]>> Did I get my question out, Andrew?

[01:37:54]>> Well, okay. Go ahead, Craig.

[01:37:55]>> Yeah. Go ahead, Craig.

[01:37:56]>> So take a deep breath.

[01:37:57]>> Yeah. Sorry I interrupted your interruption. Go ahead.

[01:37:59]>> All right. So Christianity has the Bible as its guidelines and the Bible says that you can do these things. Whether or not that happens now is because people are moral in general. But it doesn't matter.

[01:38:12]Christianity >> Christianity specifically says that you can do these things and it's okay.

[01:38:18]>> So yes, it does. The Bible absolutely says that you can uh beat your slave.

[01:38:22]That it >> Greg, I'm only I'm only to engage with you. So let me ask you, how does those specific things that the Bible say that you can do make it better for society?

[01:38:32]How does suppressing women women's rights and women's ability to read and talk? How is that better? Because the Bible says that you should do that.

[01:38:40]>> Okay. So, let's take him one.

[01:38:41]>> Only thing the Bible I ever talked about that you mentioned was a >> Christian nation I'm aware of.

[01:38:45]>> And women are getting started.

[01:38:46]>> I didn't ask about Christian Nation.

[01:38:47]Let's be clear. But you answer my question. I said how does the Bible >> debate? Yeah. Is a debate over whether the Bible is true or is it the effects of Christianity on society?

[01:38:55]>> No, it's not. It's about which is better for society, not the effects.

[01:38:57]>> Which is better. So, let's go over to which is better. when you're talking about what is better when he says the Bible makes prescriptions that you can stone people to death.

[01:39:06]>> The Bible makes prescriptions that women be oppressed. The Bible makes prescriptions that women not be able to read. The Bible makes these prescriptions, right?

[01:39:12]>> So, how are they?

[01:39:13]>> Let's assume for a second Bible does make those prescriptions. It does. And and we just very stupidly as Christians misinterpreted all of that to mean the exact opposite, which must have happened because in all of these Christian nations, none of that shit's happening.

[01:39:27]Nobody's getting stoned to death, Craig.

[01:39:29]Anywhere. Women in a Christian Women in Christian nations. Are you sure about that?

[01:39:33]>> Yes, I'm sure in all Christian nations, women aren't getting stoned to death.

[01:39:36]Are you sure?

[01:39:37]>> I'm absolutely sure. Now, Craig, let me finish. Craig, I'm also sure that in Christian nations, they could women can learn to read. Where are women oppressed in Christian nations? Where is all this happening, Craig? So either all of the Christians are really [ __ ] up documents real bad or or your interpretation of the documents must be really wrong. However, even if we're going to assume your interpretation of the documents 100% correct and all the Christians got it wrong, their societies are still great, Craig. They're fantastic. Nobody's getting stoned in them. No one's Christian. Which Christian societies in particular are great?

[01:40:15]>> You mean societies where the overwhelming majority of people are Christian? Um, which ones are they?

[01:40:21]>> Yeah, that would be uh all of the West.

[01:40:24]All of it.

[01:40:25]>> And whi Why are they so good in particular?

[01:40:28]>> Because they have an ethical framework which they can appeal to that's unchanging.

[01:40:31]>> And is the ethical framework of those countries Christianity?

[01:40:34]>> Yes.

[01:40:35]>> So Christianity set the ethical framework for all of these countries.

[01:40:38]>> Yes.

[01:40:39]>> Specifically.

[01:40:40]>> Yes.

[01:40:42]>> Even the ones would like me to say I'll demonstrate it for you. So hang on. I'll I'll explain it so that you know. I still haven't got behind my question.

[01:40:49]>> I'm going to explain it to you. You just asked me, so I'm going to explain to you.

[01:40:52]>> So your law, the laws that you're working with right now, those are those come from English common law. Okay.

[01:40:58]That's where it all comes from.

[01:41:00]>> The normative authority around English common law is Christianity. The very Yes, it is. The very guide for Yes, it is. And the very guidest stones for which not anymore. It's not >> for which you build law. When you're talking not anymore, I said the foundations.

[01:41:13]>> No, the foundations completely changed.

[01:41:16]We do not base our laws. There is nothing found.

[01:41:19]>> There is nothing in in English law now that is based on Christianity.

[01:41:22]>> Yeah. I'm talking about it foundations.

[01:41:24]>> We don't anymore. The laws have changed.

[01:41:26]>> The things in which you enjoy. Here's how it works.

[01:41:29]>> You're talking about a society. When you're talking about a society, >> the social order is defined by its ethical morals. For instance, Aztecs who put people on temples and cut their hearts out as human sacrifices, their society is going to be informed. Where's the >> by the moral? They're dead because Christians killed them >> that the Christians killed.

[01:41:52]>> They should have left those heathen heart cutting out people that come on.

[01:41:55]But anyway, the point is is that from Craig, Craig, I just want to finish one point in the talk. I promise.

[01:42:02]>> Okay, finish the point.

[01:42:03]>> So here it is.

[01:42:04]>> I I think and every reasonable sociologist would think the same thing >> that the social order comes from the foundational ethics. So it works like this. Theology is what informs society and you can see that happen with the political class as well who comes from society in general. If you have a moral political class generally speaking you have a good set of ethics or theology which you can appeal to right as we see Christianity being moved out of these nations from for secularists. Does it look less corrupt or does it look more corrupt? Well, I say it looks more corrupt because they no longer have the ethical foundations to appeal to. They don't have the theology to appeal to. It doesn't even matter if it's true. Like, let's say it's all false. All Christianity is totally false, totally fake. They made it all up. It's based on a noble lie, right? But everybody believes it. And so, it gives you all these great outcomes, right? What why why would a humanist even argue that?

[01:43:00]Why would you even want to argue with it? It makes no sense to me. Go ahead.

[01:43:05]Okay. So, none of that answers any of my questions about >> Let's take questions one at a time. Go ahead. So, when it gets down to it, Christianity, although modern Christians do a lot of different things to what happens in in the past, we can go back to what you said about the Aztecs. Oh, we killed those um people, heathens, cutting out the heart. Now, >> so >> back in the past, the Aztecs did those horrible things, but back in the past, Christians did horrible things, right?

[01:43:30]You you agree? So, who's to say that if Aztecs were in modern society, that cutting out the heart thing would not be part of society, right?

[01:43:38]>> Probably. It could be part, >> but it also couldn't be if we went if we followed if we followed Christianity as it was in the past, >> right? Then how would society be today if we were still stoning people to death for >> but we're not following >> we're not following those prescriptions.

[01:43:52]>> But if we were just to follow what the Christian um says and that says it's okay, right? Whether that's what you not >> where >> the Bible.

[01:44:01]>> Where are Christians demanding to be stone anybody to death? Craig, >> again, I'm not talking about what Christians say. I'm talking about what the Bible and what your normative authority says, right?

[01:44:11]>> Listen, if Christians really believed that the Bible was making prescriptions to stone people to death, Craig, they would do it. Do you know what a martyr?

[01:44:19]Hang on. Do you know what a martyr is?

[01:44:21]>> A martyr for Christ. There's people who give their entire lives to Christ their whole life forever and ever, forsaking all materialism. That's all they do. If those people thought that stoning people to death was part of the religion, they would do it. Greg, they're not doing it.

[01:44:36]>> Again, I'm not saying whether people think now that that is okay, but there's no denying that the Bible and people in the past did that because of Christianity. That was part of society because of Christianity.

[01:44:46]>> What would that have to do with the effects of society today?

[01:44:49]>> It wasn't part of society because of Christianity.

[01:44:51]>> Society today isn't just because of Christianity. Society today is a melting pot. If we were to right, it went back 500 years and took what Christianity was then and just carried that particular society on of just what they said Christianity was their interpretation of Christianity back then. Then society would be, you know, just for the people being stoned to death and people burnt at the stake.

[01:45:12]>> People are getting stoned to death.

[01:45:13]>> But they're not right now. But that's NOT BECAUSE >> WHEN WERE THEY like when were they?

[01:45:17]>> They were >> whenever the Bible was written.

[01:45:19]>> Okay. Do you realize that's the thing?

[01:45:21]But my my hold on my point is that the Bible is what Christianity is, right?

[01:45:26]>> And you you what you're doing is saying, well, as Christians now, we don't do that. But that's that doesn't matter.

[01:45:31]Andrew, >> that never happened.

[01:45:33]>> Let us without sin cast the first what?

[01:45:35]>> So are you saying that no one ever got stoned to death for working on the Sabbath?

[01:45:39]>> Oh, in Christianity.

[01:45:41]>> Yeah. Where >> does it not say that in the Bible?

[01:45:43]>> No. Are you saying there's not It doesn't say in the Bible.

[01:45:45]>> You're talking about Jewish law.

[01:45:46]>> It was Jewish law.

[01:45:47]>> Is that in the Bible?

[01:45:48]>> Yeah. That's Jewish law. That's not Christianity. That's not Christian ethics. Are we here to argue Jewish ethics or Christian ethics?

[01:45:54]>> But that's in the Bible and it says that's what you should do, right?

[01:45:56]>> No, it does. No, you have a set of prescriptions in the new covenant. New covenant. That's Christian ethics.

[01:46:03]That's the ethics Christians follow. We don't follow old covenant law. What are you talking about? Still Christianity.

[01:46:09]>> No, it's not.

[01:46:11]>> Why were the crusades about like wiping out half Europe? That was exact.

[01:46:23]Oh, they believe different to us, so let's go and kill all of them. How is that good for society?

[01:46:28]>> First of all, that's not what happened.

[01:46:29]>> That is what happened. They wiped out half of >> Are you going to let me respond? Do do you want an answer to this?

[01:46:34]>> Okay. The Crusades was a conflict between two different ide anytime >> ideology >> two different um ideologies come into contact there's going to be problems Spain had an enroachment from Muslims from the Moors forever and ever and ever there from the Bisantine Empire on there had been issues going on in the undercurrent with Muslims and Christians and it's because of land okay it's because of of land I don't know if you know this or not but there are two continent land bodies which are connected one of which has what religion on it and the other one of which has what religion on it Craig Christians and Muslims by the way Christians and Muslims right they start to fightism >> that's what led up to the crusades okay and the thing is sure you can make all sorts of justifications Catholics are crazy sometimes what do you want me to say for why it is that they wanted to go over there um >> Catholics are part >> depending depending on what it is they were fighting over but Muslims also were pushing the boundaries every chance they got for the purpose of expansion. Now, here's the thing, Greg. Humanists would do this, too. I can point to you a society which is secular by nature called the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had Sorry. Soviet Union is not secular.

[01:47:46]>> They had a secular constitution. Craig, >> it's not it's not a secular.

[01:47:50]>> They had a secular constitution. It killed all the Christians off immediately because they were bad.

[01:47:54]>> Let me be clear.

[01:47:55]>> They were bad.

[01:47:56]>> The Russians were never secular humanists.

[01:47:59]>> They were No, the Russians were never secular humanists. They were secularists.

[01:48:03]>> That's is a is a secularist a secular humanist.

[01:48:06]>> Can communist be humanist?

[01:48:07]>> Uh is a secularist a secular humanist? I did the same thing.

[01:48:10]>> No, I think in this case that the communists there have something very akin their ideology.

[01:48:16]>> Andrew, that's what not I asked. I said is is secularist the same as >> I'm already saying I'm I'm giving you distinct categories. I said no. That's >> right. Well well then it doesn't matter because I'm not a secularist. I'm a secular humanist. They're different >> and I'm tying them together so that you understand.

[01:48:28]>> But I'm saying you can't just tie your own things together. Secularists have been in charge before and if they have the same type of >> secularist or secular humanists.

[01:48:37]>> Are you going to ever let me talk?

[01:48:39]>> Yeah, but you're I'm not a secularist.

[01:48:41]This isn't about secularism. This is about secular humanism. So you >> No, I Russians were never secular humanists.

[01:48:48]>> Okay. Right.

[01:48:48]>> Fine, Craig. Let's back up. Let's just say for a second that they weren't, that Russians were not secular humanists.

[01:48:53]Then where are the effects of secular humanism? Where can we find them? Um, again, well, the the countries that are the happiest in the world >> are not secular humanist, Greg. Can't bring those up.

[01:49:02]>> They are secular.

[01:49:03]>> They're not secular humanist. Greg, >> the majority of the the majority of the people there in those countries are secular humanist.

[01:49:07]>> Show me one.

[01:49:08]>> Um, show me one.

[01:49:10]>> Show me one country where the majority of people are secular humanist. One, >> most of the Netherlands.

[01:49:14]>> No, they're not.

[01:49:14]>> Yes, they are. Show me.

[01:49:16]>> Demonstrate it.

[01:49:17]>> It's got Google, right?

[01:49:18]>> Yeah. Google it.

[01:49:20]>> Google.

[01:49:20]>> Google. Most of the Netherlands are secular humanist. Go ahead. Google it.

[01:49:24]>> What?

[01:49:25]>> You want to do it yourself?

[01:49:27]>> You can't do it. You want me to pull it up for you? I didn't want to get that off a pair. This is a two-minute warning that we have the Q&A coming.

[01:49:34]>> Warning. Two-minute warning. There's been nothing. That's sad.

[01:49:38]>> And folks, while you're waiting, we'll have everyone line up to my left. So, right here in this aisle is where everybody will line up for their questions. And that, like I said, will be in about two minutes. We'll start that Q&A. If you're watching at home, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. We have many more debates coming up today live here at Modern Day Debate.

[01:50:03]Okay, so um in 2021, a whopping 58% of Dutch people um uh said that they were secularly humanists and didn't belong to any religious ideological group. Well, while secularism still thing, it's like that many non-religious moratory don't specifically label themselves that way.

[01:50:18]But um of people aged 15 and over um in 2021 58% of Dutch people um identified as secular humanists.

[01:50:26]>> Show me >> um you can find the citation on on on >> Yeah, I'm bringing it up. Sorry. One sec.

[01:50:37]>> If you'd like to start lining up now for the Q&A, you're welcome to.

[01:50:45]was from with >> because I got 9.4% Craig, I'm just letting you know >> 9.4% was about five years of 2015. Um, so in 2003 it was 9.4%. Uh, so back in 2003, 9.4% of folks in the Netherlands um identified with secular humanism.

[01:51:02]Fast forward to 2021 and 58% of Dutch people aed 15 and over said they um identified as secular humanisms and didn't belong to any religious ideological group.

[01:51:12]>> Pull it over here so I can look at it.

[01:51:14]I can just find it.

[01:51:17]>> Just like to summarize it um the whole thing for me.

[01:51:28]>> Folks, if you're watching at home, don't forget to hit that like button as well.

[01:51:32]I just want to point out that that doesn't actually say that. I don't know what he's talking about.

[01:51:35]>> I'm trying to get the actual things.

[01:51:37]>> That does not say that, Craig. You just made it up, Craig. You made it up, Craig.

[01:51:41]>> I didn't I read it off a site. You read it off of I made it the [ __ ] up site.

[01:51:45]>> I read it off here. Go ahead. Let me see it.

[01:51:49]>> I got it to summarize. So >> Oh, you got it to sum. You're not Oh, is that >> Let me get that back up. Sorry. Give me one second.

[01:51:55]>> Okay. Okay. Give me a second.

[01:51:56]>> That got the information from that site.

[01:51:59]>> Yeah. Information from I made it up.

[01:52:01]>> No, not from I made it up.

[01:52:02]>> Yeah. Source Smithpipe.

[01:52:07]>> As mentioned, folks, we have >> three more debates coming up today.

[01:52:12]Okay, we're going to jump into the Q&A.

[01:52:16]>> Going to start with the first question now.

[01:52:24]>> I'm just going to hold for everybody to be sure that our questions will get you and because I did have it in my notes, but I can't find the site that I got it from. Right. But that's where my notes are from.

[01:52:36]>> We're going to go.

[01:52:36]>> So, source I made it up.

[01:52:39]>> Let me be clear, Andrew. I am saying to you right now that I will get you my source because the notes are actually on my computer at home which I couldn't bring with me to America. All right. And I didn't >> then what did you just read?

[01:52:48]>> Um my summary but the summary didn't have the link to the site that I got it from.

[01:52:52]>> Okay. So I'm saying to you right now that I will get you those details to show that I'm not making it up. I will personally give those to you right when I get home and find the thing the link on my computer at home.

[01:53:03]>> Okay. Great. Yeah. So just to be clear, >> by the way, it's 9% 9% 9% in 2015. 9% for your counter Craig.

[01:53:13]>> We have to go 9% in 2015. In 2021, >> we're moving to the Q&A. Remember, we want these to be as short and pity as possible.

[01:53:22]>> My question is to Craig.

[01:53:24]>> That's not very pathy.

[01:53:26]>> So clear. Go on.

[01:53:27]>> Yeah. So how would a secular humanist um respond to the topic of abortion? Um, it's whatever is less harmful.

[01:53:36]Um, there there's no secondhand doesn't give a decision on whether it's legal or not. It's what how much harm it does to people.

[01:53:44]>> That's what I said earlier.

[01:53:45]>> Um, so >> what about abortion?

[01:53:48]>> This question is for Craig and then I'd like Andrew to make fun of him for it.

[01:53:53]>> Yes, sir.

[01:53:54]>> Are you ready?

[01:53:55]>> Good to make fun of me. Just good. We're old enough to have gone through COVID and we saw and we're told that if we don't get the jab, we could not fly, not go out to dinner, lose our job. We saw parks filled with sand, surfers arrested on the water, uh bank accounts frozen, uh brutalized for not wearing a mask in Australia.

[01:54:20]Question is, >> uh thank you, pissed off nurse.

[01:54:23]Appreciate it. Good seeing you. Thank you for the super chat. Uh, let's catch up. Make sure you come back, my guy.

[01:54:28]It's been a minute. So, appreciate it.

[01:54:30]Thank you. Much love. God bless you.

[01:54:31]Have a good night.

[01:54:33]>> Is who will be invited to the group of secular humanists who will interp interpret the manifesto? Do you understand why anyone listening to you is skeptical that a group of people deciding on behalf of the world would not get things correct?

[01:54:51]Um, also, haha.

[01:54:55]Yeah, I don't think secular humanists were the ones that decided you had to have the vaccines.

[01:55:00]>> Yeah. Um, >> let's give him a chance to respond.

[01:55:04]>> Go ahead, Craig.

[01:55:05]>> Um, I don't personally agree with all the things they said for that they had to do for CO. Um, right that what happened at the time was put in place to potentially reduce the harm. We didn't know exactly how harmful it was going to be.

[01:55:21]>> We have to move the next one. But I I don't really see how it relates to secularism being better for society. I would just at the time I would have gone with what the science said, but so did a lot of the Christians that I knew.

[01:55:33]>> Um but but let's be clear going with what science says is not just automatically secular humanism.

[01:55:40]>> But my harm Craig.

[01:55:41]>> All right guys, if you want to have gentlemen, anybody who wants to have anybody who wants it Craig, give me one moment.

[01:55:47]>> Yeah. Sorry.

[01:55:47]>> Anybody who's talking, I need you to take the hallway distracted.

[01:55:51]>> Yeah. So just to be clear, um just because it goes with the science doesn't mean that that's automatically secular humanism. Secular humanism looks at the science for guidance. Just because science was used, that doesn't mean that therefore it's secular humanism. And science doesn't always get things 100% right. Science is an ongoing process. So I mean I I agree with a lot of the criticisms of what people did for COVID 100%. Um but for me, I I did the things they said because I didn't want to cause other people harm.

[01:56:18]>> Yeah. Do you see do you see what happens if you say a a group of bure of bureaucrats or just secular humanists are all going to get together and make the moral prescriptions based on a manifesto that makes no no moral prescriptions. You can interpret it however you want including with COVID restrictions just based on arbitrary [ __ ] nonsense. That's his entire point. And that's exactly what happened when you [ __ ] were in charge.

[01:56:42]>> We'll give I want to give the last word.

[01:56:46]Hold on, gentlemen. We're going to give the last question or the last word to Craig because the question was directed at him. I want him to have the last the last word to defend himself and then we're going to go to the next question.

[01:56:54]Go ahead, Craig.

[01:56:55]>> Yeah, secular humanists weren't the one that decided that's what should happen.

[01:56:58]It was like the WHO and stuff. So, >> we're going to the next question, >> Isa.

[01:57:03]>> Hey, um I have to a little bit from what Andrew said. My question is for you, Craig. Um what how would we define what makes one a secular humanist versus what is not a secular humanist? like he brought up the Soviet Union and you said that they're secularists. So what is what is the standard for what is a secular humanist versus what is not a secular humanist?

[01:57:27]>> Um hold on.

[01:57:30]>> I'm ready for what?

[01:57:34]>> Simply has an announcement.

[01:57:37]>> What's your announcement? Simply Pinko is ready.

[01:57:47]I learned today that Quincy does not know who Aaron Brockovich.

[01:57:53]I do not I do uh No, I don't. I've heard the name.

[01:58:04]He black. The guy back there, he's black.

[01:58:09]back back there.

[01:58:12]I've heard the name. Does that count? Do I get like one point?

[01:58:16]I know the name. I don't know the uh the history or um Yeah, it's that person back there. They don't Wow, you guys. Um No, no, don't know. What did they do?

[01:58:36]They did they free the slaves? Is that what happened?

[01:58:41]Why? Oh my gosh, you guys are just like Now I feel like I'm Craig. Thanks a lot, guys. What the what?

[01:58:51]Guys are just rude.

[01:58:54]I know, right? Quint, you're welcome to come on in the chat. Bill, what's a mess? There's nothing a mess. There is a movie of Thank you for being nice one day at a time. At least At least you're being respectable in the chat.

[01:59:10]I'm trying to ask somebody.

[01:59:13]Ask somebody.

[01:59:17]What a It's a mess. Bill, do you know who Aaron Brockovich is? Help me out.

[01:59:23]You're You're a guy. I have like women attacking me right now. They're tearing me down. Not cool. Where's Jesse?

[01:59:34]Where's Jesse? Who's walking out the room? Whistle.

[01:59:42]Julia Roberts player. Uh, I have assignment to watch the movie.

[01:59:47]Okay.

[01:59:49]Um, Mr. Bill don't know who it like. He didn't he didn't even respond back. Oh, Snooks, it's good to see you. Happy great happy night. I know who Erin.

[01:59:59]Okay, great. Thought you was on my side.

[02:00:02]Um goodness, I'm on my own. Thanks, Rev. Appreciate it. Love you, too. Um I don't know you guys. I like I said, I heard her name.

[02:00:14]Fun fact, fun fact about me. I got into politics like in 200 I guess probably.

[02:00:20]I'm I'm not helping my cause. Never mind. Um not Tina Cotch, help me out. Good to see you. Good to see you. Um, now he knows he knows who it is.

[02:00:36]Simply snitched on me.

[02:00:42]Good stuff. Good stuff.

[02:00:46]My own mods are turning their backs on me.

[02:00:51]T Do you know who that is? A Aaron uh Brockovich, tell me you don't know. Just help help a brother out. Help a help a fellow streamer out.

[02:01:07]Oh, goodness gracious. Okay, not Tina knows her for a different reason, I bet. Oh, Bill BBB.

[02:01:17]Okay, everybody knows. Mama bear, you're not helping me out.

[02:01:24]I didn't Thank you, Zth.

[02:01:27]I can breathe. I had pressure on my chest there for a second.

[02:01:32]Is that No. Um, Snook says, uh, she worked for an attorney, then took on a town that was being killed by chemicals and won a huge lawsuit for the town.

[02:01:48]All right, I'll look for I'll look for it. I'll look I'll try to find where it's at. Is it on Netflix, you guys? You know, if it's on Netflix, Enron, she started favors. The movie was based on a real story. That's the rumor.

[02:02:06]That's what I'm hearing. Um, you guys are brutal. Z, you must watch it. Z, you watch it. I'll watch it. We can compare notes and come back against the women who are attacking me in here.

[02:02:21]Um, okay. See, there we go. Not Tina Cotc.

[02:02:27]You're like right kind of like in my ballpark. You're in the field with me.

[02:02:30]Like you didn't know, you know, there's a movie, but you don't know who really plays in the movie.

[02:02:37]Um, yeah, I know it's a true story.

[02:02:43]All right, give it a shot, Z. I will, too. I'll try to track it down. Thanks, Simply. Appreciate it. Love you too.

[02:02:51]Love you too, S.

[02:02:53]Love you too. It's a true story of like a trashy single mother who helped some lowlevel attorney sue PG PG&E or something.

[02:03:07]All right.

[02:03:10]Oh, I thought it was like a major announcement, but it wasn't. I see.

[02:03:17]minism is just based on valuing individual autonomy emphasizing critical thinking and prioritizing human welfare upholding reasoned ethics and justice advocates for human rights and social equality emphasizes the search for truth promotes common sense and fairness based on solid evidence and ensures equal opportunities let's look at Russia and even though they were secularists by an authoritarian that decided what they had to do there was no um you looking at what is less harm they class themselves as secularists but they were definitely not secular humanists because whoever was running that country wanted to cause people harm if they didn't do what they were told. So there's, you know, just because you're a secularist doesn't mean you're a secular humanist.

[02:03:56]You seem to get a lot of people have the impression that if you're not Christian or you're not religious, you're automatically secular humanist, but that's that's not the case.

[02:04:04]>> Thank you for the question.

[02:04:05]>> Move to the next question.

[02:04:06]>> Uh my question is for uh Craig.

[02:04:09]>> No one wants to talk to you, Andrew.

[02:04:12]Um my question is how do you resolve the contradiction in your worldview which says uh the definition of suffering won't change and yet the framework of uh the secular humanism is ever evolving and can adapt as we go on. And what is stopping sec a secular humanist nation for adopting the same policies that Nazi Germany adopted using their same uh principles of science and the Jews are actually impacting us in a negative way that is harming us >> more than it's benefiting us.

[02:04:54]>> Um well one of the main things secular humanism is freedom of religion. So we wouldn't if you're Jewish we're not going to start attacking you just because you're Jewish. Um but there's no contradiction. Um sorry, could you just the first bit of your question again?

[02:05:07]I'm sorry.

[02:05:08]>> Uh how do you resolve the contradiction in your worldview that says >> suffering? The definition of suffering would not change but >> yeah well I didn't say suffering we were talking about harm but yeah suffering is is the you know I understand the point.

[02:05:20]Um >> again we would look at what actually how we define how we feel about suffering and and happiness. What causes suffering? what makes a person feel like they're suffering. Um, and we define it on on that. We wouldn't just go, well, we think that they're bad people, therefore we're going to go and kill them because that would then cause them suffering. Um, and we wouldn't want to just cause other people suffering because they don't believe what you believe. Now, would we defend ourselves against people trying to hurt us? Yes.

[02:05:50]But that's very different to just going and causing people actual pain. Um, we wouldn't change the definition of suffering to mean, oh, you don't have pain because that's part of it, right?

[02:06:01]That's how you I mean, me, I am in agony 24 hours a day. I've got injuries in my shoulder. I've got pins in my knee. I suffer all of the time. And that definition of suffering. I know what suffering is because I'm in pain and I feel bad. So, you know, suffering and and, you know, harm will always include those feelings of feeling bad and being bad. And secular humanism will just try not to make that happen. Does that >> You got it. Thank you very much.

[02:06:28]>> Also, guys, I've been in his position.

[02:06:30]I've been in Craig's position where the entire audience seems hostile, right?

[02:06:35]>> Oh, I love that.

[02:06:35]>> You don't have a ton of debate experience. So, let's do this one thing.

[02:06:38]Give him a massive round of applause.

[02:06:39]You went the whole round. You went the whole way, BUDDY.

[02:06:47]>> YEAH. I I do appreciate it, guys, that I'm I'm new at debating this particular side of things. I'm not I don't know all of the vernacular but I'm having fun and I hope I've done you know well and I hope you're all having a good time. Let's hear it for James everyone for organizing this. Come on.

[02:07:02]>> Is this over? Is there >> Who said that?

[02:07:05]>> There wasn't one thing I learned >> almost. There wasn't one thing I learned.

[02:07:10]>> Okay. So I just have a quick question.

[02:07:12]What do you consider like countries like Iceland? you brought up the Netherlands like Iceland would be like a secular humanist nation then or >> honestly I haven't particularly looked into Iceland um on YouTube such a low population it didn't really appear in many of my statistics that I looked up so I wouldn't want to answer that question if I don't have the particular answer and get it wrong >> okay so my my just followup to that is so like it seems that you're going off of things like harm technology science individual autonomy but in a country which is at least more secular like Iceland they had problems where like they got rid of Down syndrome in their country relatively quickly because they just tested them and aborted and got rid of them. So if you're going off of harm or human flourishing, wouldn't that be justified in that in your worldview? Um, >> we'll be there one day, Ze. One day we'll be there.

[02:08:06]One day we'll get to all that good stuff.

[02:08:10]People with Down syndrome don't necessarily suffer and have harm just because they are Down syndrome. And in fact um my personal story my uncle um had Down syndrome and when my my nan was pregnant with him the the nurses told him that told her just just abort. It's going to be you know he's going to have an awful life and everything. But because my my nan was a good person and didn't want to cause harm to her her fetus and thought that she could still give that human a good life, she carried on with the birth and my uncle lived for nearly 70 years with Down syndrome and he had a happy, healthful, productive life even a son with Down syndrome. Um so I I don't if we were look at to as humans to flourish in that situation both my nan flourished and my uncle flourished. They had good lives. they had love and happiness together. So I think getting rid of down syndrome just as a oh you you it's a bad for society. I don't think that's necessarily what secular humanism would do. Would they give the option? Yeah.

[02:09:14]And would a lot of people choose to not have that child because they don't want them to potentially suffer? Maybe. Maybe it was the option and people's individual choices that caused that. But there was certainly no law in Iceland, right, that said you've got syndrome, you can't have a baby. It was more down to personal choice, right?

[02:09:32]person.

[02:09:34]>> Hi, this question is for Andrew.

[02:09:36]>> Oh, finally.

[02:09:38]>> So, your >> Yes, I am the best looking man in this room. Thanks.

[02:09:42]>> So, your prescription of tenant one uh that all women should be forcefully bred um due to lower uh birth rates does not represent secular humanism because it violates consent which causes harm. So, I'd like to make my own prescription based off of a story in the Bible which the Bible is the Christian's moral framework. So number 30, Numbers 31 tells how Moses went into battle with the Midianites and afterwards took the virgin women probably as sex slaves.

[02:10:09]Therefore, sex slavery is moral under Christianity. Can you refute that?

[02:10:13]>> Well, I'm sorry. What was the tale?

[02:10:15]>> Um, so Numbers 31, Moses went into battle with the Midianites, and after the battle, he took the virgin women >> most likely as sex being that they're virgin women. And >> wait, what does most likely mean? You made it up.

[02:10:30]>> No. No.

[02:10:31]>> Does most likely mean you made it up?

[02:10:32]>> That's my interpretation.

[02:10:33]>> Oh, okay. Well, it's my interpretation.

[02:10:35]Your interpretation's wrong. But that was my answer to you.

[02:10:39]>> That's my answer. That's It's the same critique back and forth. Besides that, I don't have to listen to you. You're a woman.

[02:10:47]I'm kidding. I was kidding. I was kidding. I'm kidding. Kind of.

[02:10:52]First >> uh for Craig. Is it wrong to put an eight-week old corgi puppy into a blender and turn it to a smoothie for lunch? Would it be like harmful >> to the corgi? Most definitely.

[02:11:06]>> Okay. So, if yes, then harm applies to animals. A secular humanist who doesn't cause harm would then be a vegan, which you are not. You were talking MXXD about getting stakes on your prep stream while you were here. Special pleading is a fallacy, as I hope you know. And since secular humanism entails being rational, I would like to know what the trait is that makes it wrong to uh put the puppy into a blender but not to >> go ahead. Um >> secular humanism isn't secular dogism, but putting a blender a dog into a a blender. I know I mean it would taste really bad for a start. I mean >> cook it first and maybe I don't know.

[02:11:50]Anyway, um I don't think anything about secular humanism says putting a dog into a blender is something that could happen. Um I mean I really don't know where to go with that question because it's about a dog and not humanism and um you know I don't think a Christian or a secular humanism would do that. Um so I really don't know where to go with that question to be honest.

[02:12:09]>> Hi uh question for Craig. Um it seems that your ground of your worldview is built on the core values I see upholds reason, ethics and justice. I just would like some elaboration on that. Um these are super philosophically vague terms um that philosophers have not come to one agreement on. For example, the philosopher Emanuel Kant would argue that reason are uh uh commands us to follow ethics that follow principles whereas someone like John Steuart Mill utilitarian which you seem to more abide by would argue that we need to base it on outcomes. So how would secular humanism solve these debates in philosophy and give us just one singular reason, ethics and justice to follow?

[02:12:51]>> Um we would set our ethics and and moral standards based on what secular humanism says. So we would want an ethical world um based on people flourishing um and justice based on that. Um, you know, you you mentioned the utilitarian, you know, that's different to secular humanism. They, you know, would do things differently. Um, I didn't get into the the ethics and and um morals as much because this was particularly about society. I know, I know, but it's one of the core values, but I didn't you go into defining how secular humanism get gets ethics. Um, I have to refer to my notes because I did uh say slide two. Um uh sorry, could you just say your question again? I'm I'm tired.

[02:13:49]>> It's okay. I'm just asking you to define reasons in ethics and justice and like ideally also back up your uh reason for picking that definition because these are widely philosophically debated between just for example like deonttological ethics like someone like Kant and you seem to follow like utilitarian ethics like greatest flourishing greatest amount of people why do you pick that and like it seem because it seems like your ultimate ground for reasoning is these core values but if those are just assumed without definitions I don't see how that logically works. seems like you're just going to refer to your own ethics uh in a circle. So, I'm just asking you to define that so to give you a chance to get out of that circle.

[02:14:25]>> Well, again, um we would you not going to deny that um ethics and morals and reason they're debated hotly as to how you can define them, but um as I'm sure Lawrence Krauss will in his debate later um explain what the ethics and morals of um of secular humanism is um and and how they come about. But for me it's the ethics and the reason would be based on um looking at what happens to society and the harm done on people and how we can advance society and we would define our ethics and our reason and our morals based on on how you're going to help humans in the future. Um okay thank you.

[02:15:08]>> Hello Craig. Um >> how you doing?

[02:15:10]>> Good thank you. Uh before you said that uh it's impossible for secular humanists to it's logically impossible for them to change their prescriptions with this.

[02:15:19]You're >> you said that it's logically possible for them to change their prescription.

[02:15:24]>> No >> logically impossible.

[02:15:26]>> What I said was it would it would be logical or possible to come to the conclusion that that would be okay. Not that we would we couldn't change the the definition.

[02:15:34]>> But I came to the conclusion it was okay.

[02:15:37]But if you're saying that it's logically impossible, you're implying that both logic and morality are objective. So how do you how do you ground that objectivity in in both logic and morality? And then also you have to ground it outside of human perception, not just preferences. Because if you say it just comes down to your preferences, then what's wrong with Andrew's preferences?

[02:15:57]>> Again, it's not preferences, it's experiences. As humans, um, >> as a collective group of humans, we would experience and perceive as a bad thing to happen to us. And we would base it all on that rather than you know anything you specific. We would say okay so humans as a whole we experience this as bad. You we get hurt that's bad. We feel unhappy that's bad. We get depressed that's bad. We you know and then we would use that as our basis.

[02:16:25]>> That's not a thing.

[02:16:26]>> No doesn't have to be.

[02:16:28]>> Hello. My question is for Andrew. Um during the the Jewish you mentioned that uh the harm principle kind of relies on uh public opinion and so secular humanists might change their views as time goes on and uh perhaps allow for experimenting on women to produce fertility.

[02:16:48]>> Yeah. Sure.

[02:16:49]>> Um you mentioned also that the ten commandments somehow on the Christian worldview somehow stops that from happening. I don't really see cuz the >> No, no, that's not So I I'll give you the point again. So Craig said that it's logically impossible for secularists to change the harm principle, right?

[02:17:08]They're never going to be able to come to the same conclusion that I came to.

[02:17:11]That's logically impossible based on their how they perceive harm, right? My dispute is >> how how does that work? They already dispute between each other what harm is, right? So clearly it's not logically impossible. If Wolverine's logically possible, but it's not logically possible to come to my conclusions, that sounds absurd to me, right? That sounds absurd. So that's what that argument was about. Now, would Christianity also disagree with those prescriptions for society? Absolutely. Absolutely. Those who endorse Nian Creed and believe in the Nian creed would say it's absolutely immoral and unconscionable to lock women in cages and breed them.

[02:17:51]>> Go ahead. But that could that could also change because again interpretation could change. There's nothing in the nian creed or any other doctrine that explicitly states >> yes explicitly there is.

[02:18:02]>> Well so explicitly the nian creed is walking through the Christ the holy trinity the affirmation of the teachings of Jesus Christ that those affirmation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't see how could you ever get to lock women in cages and breed them from the teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't I don't see how that's being possible.

[02:18:20]that I don't see how you would have to really be stretching it. Go to the next question.

[02:18:26]>> Thank you, Andrew, for clearing up the old the Old Testament covenant and the New Testament covenant. Thank you for that.

[02:18:32]>> Um, also I have a gift for you and one for James and um, also I have a question for Greg, please. Thank you so much for being here.

[02:18:39]>> No worries. Thank you for the question.

[02:18:40]>> U, you were saying that secular humanism worries about the happiness and the autonomous of the people. Mhm.

[02:18:46]>> What if what if there was a society that was all pedophiles and they and they they were worried about reproduction and they became a big big society and they became autonomous. How would you contend with that? Uh >> well pedophile community ped pedophilia causes harm um the children. So I mean it would fall outside of the purviews of secular humanism. Um, we wouldn't have a society of pedophiles because that would inherently cause people harm.

[02:19:17]>> Can I tell you about a little island?

[02:19:20]>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, are these people secular humanists though? You I I brought that up in my intro. Uh, and about that little island. Um, and did you know that a study on the tribe in that island showed that they had one of the highest percentages of depression out of any people that had ever been studied?

[02:19:37]>> Yeah. How come it wasn't humanist missionaries who got them to stop that, but Christian missionaries?

[02:19:42]>> We'll go to the next question.

[02:19:43]>> There's no such thing as a humanist missionary.

[02:19:45]>> That's right. Because what are you going to spread? My preferences, >> right? But there would be no secular human.

[02:19:52]>> Excuse me, gentlemen. It's my preference. You stop that behavior immediately.

[02:19:55]>> My question, >> how you doing? Uh Craig, thank you for being here. Uh there's got to be a lot of pressure. I'm really impressed with your performance. So, thank you very much.

[02:20:03]>> Thank you. I mean that's >> I agree with much. This is my first ever live debate. So I'm extremely nervous and Andrew is he's the best debate I've ever faced because I normally talk to flat-earthers who let's face it can't tie their shoelaces.

[02:20:14]>> Yeah. Where's the flat earth? So I've got a quick question. Uh I don't really know.

[02:20:18]>> I confirm Andrew tied his shoelaces.

[02:20:19]>> Just checking.

[02:20:21]>> So I don't really understand the secular humanist uh uh this document that you guys are talking about. But you mentioned something about uh consent and ongoing consent. Is that a fundamental of this principle that says ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience? Is that where that comes from? And I have a question to follow on if that's correct.

[02:20:41]>> Yes. So um consent at least as far as I understand consent. Consent is two parts. Okay. Yes. And then the continued of yes.

[02:20:48]>> Okay.

[02:20:48]>> Right. So that's how I feel about that.

[02:20:50]>> So my question is could you defend that incest is good because the brother and the sister they they both consent. They continually consent. There's a potential that they could have a malformed baby, but it's not necessarily given. Is that something that you could defend with secular human?

[02:21:04]>> No, you answered it in your own question. There's a potential for harm there. There's a >> uh >> Yeah. What if they're sterile?

[02:21:11]>> Okay. Right. So, even if they're sterile, um studies show that uh incestous relationships often end in depression and suicide. So, >> studies show that about all relationships.

[02:21:23]I don't know what kind of relationships you've been in, Andrew, but um >> I'm sorry, but when it comes to marriage, relationships between men and women, all sorts of relationships.

[02:21:30]>> Let me finish my point. In particular, studies show that incestuous relationships have a higher percentage of depression, suicide, um and other issues. Um so incestous relationships, >> so do marriages.

[02:21:42]>> So incestous relation, but a higher percentage, Andrew, >> then what? A higher percentage than what?

[02:21:46]>> A higher percentage than non-incestrous relationships.

[02:21:49]>> Yeah. So, so if you have a higher percentage of people who get married and they have all of those like problems, right, when it same types of problems, depression, this and that, >> then wouldn't you wouldn't you have to say, >> well, then you shouldn't get married incestous.

[02:22:02]>> Yeah. But what my point is the question was about incest.

[02:22:04]>> Yeah. But don't you understand the point here? The entailment is if this causes if your only objection to it is, well, it could possibly cause you to become depressed. You would have to apply that to all interpersonal relationships of which if they break up the person could become depressed.

[02:22:19]>> But again, it's about looking at how much harm it does uh incess.

[02:22:22]>> How do you quantify that?

[02:22:24]>> If a brother if a brother and sister can't reproduce want a hump, >> who are you to say they can't? Craig, >> again, um you quantify it by how much harm it could possibly do in the outcome. Um but the law of the land isn't secular humanism. Um and >> yeah, but we're not asking about the law of the land. We're asking about secular humanist. How does a secular humanist tell a woman and a man who want to have a a consensual sexual relationship without the potential for offspring like homosexuals for instance they can't do it?

[02:22:54]>> How how can you make a prescription they can't do it? How it causes harm? It's been like I said studies shown that incestous relationships marriage causes harm Craig.

[02:23:02]>> Not as much it's and not as much as what >> as marriage.

[02:23:07]>> How do you know that? because of studies that >> studies no study shows no study is saying incest causes more harm than people who get divorced. There's no there's no comparative study for that.

[02:23:17]>> I can actually show you the studies.

[02:23:18]These are things I've researched.

[02:23:19]>> Ridiculous.

[02:23:21]>> Just because you deny the studies doesn't mean >> let's say that there was a study that says it didn't. Let's say there was a study that said if you have an incestuous relationship, it only has about the same amount of depression rate as anybody else who gets married. What would your objection to it then be? Give me a chance to answer, Craig, and then we got to wrap up.

[02:23:37]>> Just let's just say what would your what would your objective then be or objection then be? If the study said it's just like the normal population when they break up a marriage that has the same type of depression rates as that, what would your argument against it then be?

[02:23:50]>> That's it causes harm.

[02:23:52]>> Yeah, it doesn't though. Under those circumstances, it has the same harm as a marriage.

[02:23:57]>> Oh, it's some You're You're saying something that doesn't happen though.

[02:24:02]>> What?

[02:24:03]>> Yes. Incest happens, Craig.

[02:24:04]>> No. But no, you're saying uh what if it showed it doesn't cause >> Yeah. If the studies showed that incest didn't have any higher outcome of depression, but if it didn't, Craig, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast?

[02:24:16]>> I'll give I'll give you Craig. I'll give you a chance to answer and then this really is going to wrap up.

[02:24:20]>> All right. Um All right. Honestly, uh I disagree with it and secular humanists would probably disagree with it because of the potential to cause harm.

[02:24:28]>> Okay, >> we're going to wrap up with that. Folks, want to ask of you to join me in applauding our speakers. That wasn't >> I might be breaking news with you guys.

[02:24:48]>> Thank you very much.

[02:24:48]>> I'm pretty sure >> what we'll do is we're going to wrap up now. You're on Everybody is on their own for lunch and that'll be an hour and a half. So we'll be back at 1:30 for the next debate. Thanks very much folks.

[02:25:00]We'll see you at 1:30. Oh, and the restaurant on site is open. The what was it? Uh Bob uh Tom's.

[02:25:08]>> So, what' you guys learn? Tell me you guys tell me one thing you learned tonight. Just Just tell me one thing you learned. Just only one.

[02:25:19]I know you want to push for more, but just tell me one thing you learned.

[02:25:24]Be positive.

[02:25:30]Serious.

[02:25:33]Come on. To be something.

[02:25:36]What? Just one. We learned that that that ain't our pastors. Amen. I got a headache from this.

[02:25:48]Lip spit gross me. Lip lip spit.

[02:25:52]Lipstick gross me. Lip spit gross me out.

[02:25:59]Uh, whatever, mama bear. I'm not I'm just going No.

[02:26:05]So rude. That is so That's unacceptable language.

[02:26:10]unacceptable language there.

[02:26:13]Um, but there is breaking news.

[02:26:18]I'm trying to find it. Hold on. I mean, I just saw it. Trying to see if there's any There's nothing breaking. It's new.

[02:26:27]That's why uh Syria, Israel has bombed Syria.

[02:26:35]I don't know if that's breaking news, but it is breaking news.

[02:26:40]Uh Israel has bombed Syria.

[02:26:47]I don't know what the extent of it is, but that is what's coming out.

[02:27:00]Oh gee, what a surprise. I know.

[02:27:06]I'm trying to see if there's any videos.

[02:27:14]Uh, Israel artillery hits areas in western Dra, Syria.

[02:27:21]Uh, is this breaking?

[02:27:24]No, it's just a thing for dead in Israel air strike on medical center in South Lebanon.

[02:27:33]Oh boy, that's going to be fun. Here we go.

[02:27:40]Yeah. Hundreds of meteors from the border of Israel.

[02:27:53]So, yep. That's what's happening now.

[02:27:57]I need a war radio like KLW.

[02:28:01]Yeah, they're watching Cuba, too. Yep.

[02:28:05]We haven't invaded Cuba yet. I'm sure it might be this week. It might be tomorrow. Usually, these type of things happen on Friday, so it could be tomorrow. The Cuba invasion could be tomorrow, but with with with this just happening in Syria, who knows?

[02:28:22]Um, I agree.

[02:28:28]Got to forgive mama.

[02:28:33]I forgive Mama Bear. I forgive Mama Bear. There's There's nothing to forgive Mama Bear about.

[02:28:47]Nothing to Nothing to forgive Mama Bear about.

[02:28:53]Um, so regarding Okay, so since you guys are making fun of me, regarding I wonder if Simply is still in here.

[02:29:02]regarding Aaron.

[02:29:07]Um, regarding Aaron, she who this person is, I'll share it.

[02:29:23]Let me share this. Is this like a whole story on her? It is kind of like It's all right. There ain't nothing else going on. Mr. Bill is not live. Did you do your research? I have not done enough research. Yes.

[02:29:38]So, here's a little bit of uh some stuff on her.

[02:29:50]I guess she is fighting back against the data centers.

[02:29:55]That's what's going on. It appears um is back. Yep. this time. Let me see.

[02:30:04]She's coming from the AI industry calling out big tech's data center boom as a next great environmental shakedown of America communities.

[02:30:17]She launched a self-reporting map at there's her website.

[02:30:23]And within a week, over 1,600 residents had had filed complaints spanning noise pollution, skyrocketing utility bills, and serious water deplation, depletion concerns. The pattern she's seeing looks awfully familiar.

[02:30:40]Corporations dangling promises of jobs and tax revenue.

[02:30:46]Uh, yeah, big word. Not really. Just don't municipalities.

[02:30:56]That's not right. Anyway, I was horrible in reading in school, guys. I'm not going to lie. I hated all the sounding out a a e i o u sometimes y and all that junk. vows and downs and this before that and that upside down and this is this way and backwards is right and left is down and yeah it was horrible. I hated it. Hated it.

[02:31:21]So I'm not good at it. Just being honestly um the the water issue alone should be setting off alarm bells. Data centers gulp enormous amounts of water to keep their cooling systems running and some are being planted directly above critical.

[02:31:42]There's another one aquatic. It's not aquatic.

[02:31:46]Aqualifers I don't know whatever.

[02:31:51]So she is fighting back. That's the thing. The whole AI stuff the data centers which I've gone to a lot. I've gone to a lot.

[02:32:00]I've gone to a lot of data centers and they're high security. Like majorly high sec, like super high security.

[02:32:10]Like yeah, it's almost like more than going to an airport. I kid you not.

[02:32:16]Going to like a lot of these data centers, it's more it's harder to get through them than an airport. No, they don't frisk you, but to get into them.

[02:32:26]Yeah.

[02:32:28]Anyway, so she's starting to sound the alarm at data centers. Data data.

[02:32:35]See, even the professionals don't even know how to read. Is it data or data?

[02:32:41]A or ah.

[02:32:45]Um, yeah. So, she's pushing back on big tech. There's her website right there.

[02:32:52]If y'all want to get involved, get involved.

[02:32:56]But it's a big deal.

[02:32:58]It's a big deal. It really is.

[02:33:05]The next The next big thing.

[02:33:09]The next big thing.

[02:33:12]I told Nick Sor this was probably him.

[02:33:16]I did asked Nick if it was him.

[02:33:20]Oh, that's the real him.

[02:33:25]That's crazy.

[02:33:28]>> How to address those? And I >> That was crazy.

[02:33:30]>> You can't depend on Iran for anything to negotiate with a clear conscience to try to meet any of the objectives to adhere to the ceasefire.

[02:33:41]>> General Keem was with Dane and me yesterday.

[02:33:44]>> Who is it? I told Nick it was him.

[02:33:46]>> A complete mask.

[02:33:47]>> How to address those? And I wouldn't say after they're used, before they're used.

[02:33:52]So if Cuba was to be foolish enough to do that, I think the little short of the real objective here, the president has time.

[02:34:00]>> They took him out.

[02:34:02]>> There's my conspiracy.

[02:34:04]>> For all you people that don't like conspiracy theories, there it is. They took him out. He controls the strike capabilities.

[02:34:11]>> That's not him. They took him out.

[02:34:14]>> Why' they take him out though? That's the question.

[02:34:16]>> Something I'm sure they don't want. And aside from the drones, they really have nothing else to shortterm and longterm effects of >> you can tell that's a mask.

[02:34:26]>> You can straight tell that's a mask.

[02:34:27]>> Very astute in leveraging that time. And so I don't see it as you can't depend on Iran for anything to negotiate with a clear conscience to try to meet any of the objectives. They adhere to the ceasefire.

[02:34:43]>> That's crazy.

[02:34:46]They straight took that dude out.

[02:34:50]Why?

[02:34:52]Why is the question who is he UFO stuff? Good morning, UFO. That's who posted that.

[02:35:01]Yep. I asked Nick. I said Nick, that was you. Just be honest. I don't know if Nick responded yet.

[02:35:10]Let's see. I don't know if Nick hasn't responded yet.

[02:35:16]I told Nick that's him.

[02:35:20]I said, "Nick Sorder, just be honest. It was you, right?"

[02:35:27]That was bizarre.

[02:35:29]That Yeah. I don't know.

[02:35:34]I don't know.

[02:35:37]Has um Rev Gun, he was on he was on there again later.

[02:35:45]got better mask or he was there.

[02:35:49]He came on again. What do you mean was on twice?

[02:36:02]I don't think he was on again. I think it was just the the one time he was on tonight on Fox.

[02:36:08]He wasn't on again. He was only on tonight. That's a complete mask.

[02:36:15]That's a complete like what the what is that? How do you even do that?

[02:36:20]How do you even do that?

[02:36:24]How >> controls the narrative? He controls the strike.

[02:36:30]>> How did he do that? How the How in the world? That's a mass. Like a straight up mass.

[02:36:37]It it it it doesn't matter but it does because like the reason why what's he involved in intellig number of things I am certain what do you think the next best move is today?

[02:36:50]Well, I agree with the general completely with one caveat. Patience may be a little short of the real uh objective has time on his hands. He's controls the narrative. He controls nothing and he knows that the policy is set with the blockade shortterm and longterm effects on the regime and the people of Iran. So he's been edited leveraging that time. And so I I don't see it as negotiations. It really is capitulation. The president's made it very clear. You will not have a nuclear weapon. You will not have the material.

[02:37:32]Surrender that and you will ensure that reconfigured a number of things.

[02:37:36]>> It's not edited. What do you think the next best >> Everybody saw it. It's not edited.

[02:37:41]Promise you guys it's not edited. This was actually on news on Fox News Live.

[02:37:46]It's not promise you was not edited.

[02:37:49]The mask Jim Carrey Jim Car's under it.

[02:37:54]That is nuts.

[02:37:58]That's That's Oh, boy. It's going to get fun. This is going to get fun.

[02:38:05]This is going to get fun.

[02:38:11]Yep.

[02:38:17]That's crazy. Anyway, um, Mama Bear, Reverend Gun, have you done any new music? Any new song? Angry did another one. It's pretty good. I think it is. I haven't listened to it.

[02:38:31]Angry's He should be awake. I'm having him do one, but it's going to be a surprise.

[02:38:39]Has Revan Gun done one done one?

[02:38:48]Nick was on on Nick's order or surely tell him to check out my expos.

[02:39:06]Um sort of what do you think about the Henry Noalk story? I don't know. I haven't paid much attention to that.

[02:39:49]I told him check out the post is going to be another one like founding fathers.

[02:40:01]Um, no. It's not like Well, it could be like Founding Fathers. No, it's not like Founding Fathers. The next one he does is not going to be like Founding Fathers. No.

[02:40:11]Is Mama Bear and Rev is still in here?

[02:40:13]Are they gone? They stepped away for a second. BBB, are you going live? Are you going live? BBB, Mr. Bill, I want to know if you're going live. The chat wants to know if you're going live because I've not.

[02:40:29]I want to dismiss.

[02:40:36]I'm like I'm getting like allergies at night. Like last night I was sniffling.

[02:40:39]Tonight I'm sniffling.

[02:40:43]Um, I do have a new one. You do? Let me see.

[02:41:02]Let me see. Look at Look at here.

[02:41:07]I want to find it.

[02:41:11]I want to see where it's at.

[02:41:14]What's it called?

[02:41:20]What's it called?

[02:41:25]Is it the hard rock?

[02:41:30]Time for ruber float. That sounds so good.

[02:41:33]I've been trying not to eat ruber floats recently because I just started going back to the gym and my surgery and everything had me at home or incapable of going to the gym.

[02:41:45]So, you know what happens when you can't go to the gym and exercise.

[02:41:52]So, I've been trying to chill on root beer floats for a minute.

[02:41:59]Oh, you did one for the angry orgonian.

[02:42:02]I want. All right. I'm jealous. I'm coming for you.

[02:42:12]>> I'm coming for you.

[02:42:22]>> Went rock on him.

[02:42:26]>> He went rocking us.

[02:42:33]Okay.

[02:42:35]Uh-huh.

[02:42:37]Rev. >> Heavy metal.

[02:42:48]Not heavy metal, but definitely rock.

[02:42:51]Rock.

[02:42:57]through the nightour.

[02:43:02]>> I like chocolate strawberry toowhere.

[02:43:17]Now we're old WHEN THE HEADLINES RISE WHILE THE FIRE REFLECTS in tired eyes. We were kissed with borrowed fire. HEARTS TANGLED UP IN FEAR AND WIRES. NOBODY KNEW WHERE THE LINE BEGAN. JUST TRYING TO HOLD on to who we are. We were standing in the rain trying to survive the blame. Truth kept changing with the light. Wrong and right blood every night. Loyalty cuts like a knife. When every says, "Choose your life." Lost between the noise and pain.

[02:44:08]Still standing in the rain.

[02:44:16]Standing in the rain.

[02:44:24]Shadows and flood eyes and true. THE JACKET SOAKED IN storm trying to keep each other warm.

[02:44:42]CAMERA SPEEDING ON THE GREAT DIVIDE.

[02:44:45]TURNING LIVING SOULS into online fights.

[02:44:49]Quincy said don't lose your soul. EVEN WHEN THE CITY LOST CONTROL, angry Oregon held the line with gasoline running through his mind. WE WERE TIRED OF BEING UNSEEN. Drowning in somebody else's dream, searching every shattered spark for something real.

[02:45:14]We were standing in the rain, trying to survive the blame. Truth kept changing with the light. Wrong and right blade says choose your life. Lost between the noise and pain.

[02:45:38]Still standing.

[02:45:48]>> I like that.

[02:45:50]Maybe nobody's free.

[02:45:53]Maybe we're all just scared of what we're starting to be.

[02:45:59]SAINTS AND SINNERS SIDE BY SIDE.

[02:46:02]Looking for a place to hide. But when THE SMOKE ERASED THE LINES, I SAW YOUR FEAR.

[02:46:11]Look just like mine.

[02:46:26]We were standing in the rain while the world called out our names holding on to fractured truths trying not to come unglued. Loyalty and sacrifice came with shadows in our eyes. Through the chaos and the flames, we were standing in the rain.

[02:46:57]THE CHROME STILL SHINING THROUGH THE GRAVE. ANGELS ROAR BUT REMAIN. Angry or God rides again STILL STANDING IN THE RAIN.

[02:47:30]All right. All right. All right. All right. I like it. I like it. I like it a lot.

[02:47:37]I mean, I wouldn't say rock for myself, but I appreciate rock music. I don't hate rock music. I appreciate it. And this is, I think, one that Angry did today.

[02:47:52]I think this is on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

[02:48:16]Yeah, Angry's at it again, y'all.

[02:48:20]>> No, don't.

[02:48:21]>> Let's get down with some southern flavor this time.

[02:48:27]Oh, that's smoother than butter.

[02:48:31]You feel me?

[02:48:36]>> Okay.

[02:48:51]>> Y'all got some hospital.

[02:48:56]Don't matter if your sweet home is Alabama or you got California dreams.

[02:49:02]Cow tipping in a fly over state cruising through the keys. If you can make it in New York City or Wisconsin, don't you know? Standing on a corner in Winsow, Arizona shovel in Alaskan snow. It don't matter to me cuz at the end of the day we're all living in America and you'll probably hear me say don't tread on me cuz THESE COLORS DON'T RUN MY FREEDOM AND PAID for with the barrel of a gun. Love it or leave it. The choice is yours. But if you stay step up and a ride cuz you get what you deserve, you won't catch me slipping when danger comes to call. Straight up southern bad ass with a northern set of B. I got the best of both worlds as you can plainly see. I'm north of the Mason Dixon but got a rebel in me. Blue or gray, IT DON'T MATTER. I GOT AMERICAN PRIDE. AS LONG AS YOU'RE REPPING that red or white and blue. Come on, enjoy the ride.

[02:50:30]The American ride.

[02:50:37]Crossing those state lines with the wind blowing my hair. Straight pipes telling everyone I'm coming before I'm there.

[02:50:48]From the mountain to the VALLEYS AND IN BETWEEN. FROM east coast to the west coast. All the things I've seen.

[02:50:59]One thing is no matter where I go, I find patriots that are willing and ready for the show.

[02:51:09]Oh, don't shred on me cuz these colors don't run like the loaded POWDER DRY is how this country was.

[02:51:21]Love it or leave it. You had better learn. If you're staying, you best be fighting cuz freedom's always earned.

[02:51:33]The American.

[02:51:36]The American.

[02:51:38]The American ride.

[02:51:43]You won't catch me slipping when danger comes to call. Straight up southern bad ass with a northern set of the best of both the world as you could plainly see. I come north of the Mason Dixon, but got a rebel yell in me. Blue or gray, it don't matter. I GOT AMERICAN PRIDE AS LONG AS YOU'RE REPPING that red, white, and blue. Come on, enjoy the ride.

[02:52:22]>> The American ride.

[02:52:27]Come on, my fellow patriots.

[02:52:30]It's time to lead, follow, or get the hell out the way.

[02:52:39]mouth.

[02:52:46]I guess they didn't know. Now they do.

[02:52:50]Come on, y'all.

[02:52:53]>> Y'all ready for some planking?

[02:52:56]Let's head for them heels, boys.

[02:52:59]Grab that ammo case, Charlie.

[02:53:03]All right. It's tough.

[02:53:11]It's tough.

[02:53:15]That was good. Both of those were good.

[02:53:19]I like I like Look at like here. All right, you guys.

[02:53:25]Tomorrow night's debate will be better.

[02:53:34]It'll be better.

[02:53:37]Well, we'll see.

[02:53:40]Don't know for sure, but we'll see what it is. Tomorrow night, we'll do it again. Unless I can get some people on a show for a panel.

[02:53:49]Maybe maybe Rousel, I'll see if he has anything he wants to talk about and I I'll bring him on.

[02:54:00]Pastor Rousel, maybe do that tomorrow night.

[02:54:05]So, we'll see. Uh, might be on during the day tomorrow. Don't know what's going on. Um, I'm sure they're going to be talking about Syria and Israel. We'll we'll pay attention to Cuba. It that might just be a one night. Um, that might just be a one night thing like the last thing that happened down in Mexico. I will bring you on. You just, you're never, you know, Mr. Bill, you never say that you want to come on.

[02:54:29]You never say you want to do a panel.

[02:54:30]You never say what you want to talk about. I'll bring you on. What do you want to talk about? You want to come on now?

[02:54:37]What do you want to talk about?

[02:54:41]What do you want to go? I just did a whole debate. What What do you want to talk about?

[02:54:47]I'm not I'm not showing Portland's dreams.

[02:54:50]So, there's that.

[02:54:53]Anything else? Great. Okay. Let me know.

[02:54:56]We'll go on tomorrow or something. So you can come join.

[02:54:59]Yeah, you can just talk to me. Of course.

[02:55:09]What? BBB, you went on with me and you ate ice cream with the bowl clapping.

[02:55:16]The bowl was clinging and clanging around.

[02:55:21]So picky about talking. Not really.

[02:55:24]No, sir.

[02:55:29]BBB is just waking up from his nap, you guys. So, he's just arising.

[02:55:37]Um, how about tomorrow night, Bill?

[02:55:42]Do tomorrow night?

[02:55:48]See, he go he goes out during the day.

[02:55:49]He takes a catnap and wakes up at night and go streams till like 2:00 or 3 in the morning, which is fine.

[02:55:57]I think I know your schedule, Mr. Bill.

[02:56:00]Pretty much. I almost have it down.

[02:56:04]I will be rereaming Chaos. Okay. I guess we won't come on together then tomorrow.

[02:56:12]Maybe the next day.

[02:56:18]I know he I know Mr. Bill gets a nap in usually probably like a five fiveish six o'clock. after the after the the morning shift, midday shift, he gets like a nap probably like from 6:00 to 9:00ish depending on what's going on.

[02:56:35]Maybe 8 if there's actually stuff going on. And he'll stream from 8 to like if it's really cracking from like 8 till like 2:00 in the morning.

[02:56:47]Oh, do it. Do it, Mr. Bill. Restream church on Saturday. Do it.

[02:56:54]I'll be a good boy and just listen.

[02:56:58]Good night. Good times. Thanks for the info. All right, Beehive. Have a blessed night.

[02:57:04]Have a blessed night.

[02:57:08]All right, I'm going to I'm going to Ay Creek. Reream it, Bill. Go there and set up your camera and reream Ay Creek.

[02:57:14]Promise me you'll do that. I'll reream it for you. You stream Ay Creek while you're there, I'll restream it. How about that? Got a bet a deal?

[02:57:24]I I will do it.

[02:57:29]No, I want to see it from yours. From you. Not from their YouTube channel.

[02:57:35]From yours.

[02:57:38]Not the NIV. What's wrong with the NIV?

[02:57:41]Old woman of the hills. What's wrong with the NIV?

[02:57:48]Mr. Bill's going to come for you. You shouldn't have said that. He's going to come for you.

[02:57:53]All right, you guys. I want to get off of here. Um, yeah. I want you to use gas and go to church. Yes, I do. Use gas and go to church.

[02:58:07]Now, go watch Aaron. Okay, it's on YouTube for free. I'll do that. Thank you. Unapologetic. Thank you. All right, you guys. Have a blessed night. I'm gonna get off. All right. Good night.

[02:58:25]>> Yeah.

[02:58:29]>> On American streets.

[02:58:33]>> Yeah.

[02:58:34]>> On American streets.

[02:58:37]>> Yeah.

[02:58:38]Yeah. On American streets.

[02:58:43]>> On American streets.

[02:58:45]>> Truth in the light. Yeah. The whole world see faith front deep where breaks down free run prayer to the place we meet. Quincy Franklin bring truth on American streets. BCP preachers still standing and be days now preaching in the streets. Fight for God and the freedom we keep. Still stand strong on American streets. Truth truth. Let the truth bring our way. Faith, that's what we about. See both sides, but we stand on truth. Call this nation back to its >> at his father's knee where the roots run deep.

[02:59:16]>> Freed and rer stood tall in the heat.

[02:59:18]>> Now I sang fire in his heartbeat.

[02:59:21]>> Carry that truth on American streets from DC down to the Texas heat.

[02:59:26]Minnesota cold the Oregon street. Live in the streets where the people meet.

[02:59:30]More nationwide on American street.

[02:59:33]Truth. Truth. Let the truth bring about. See both sides on truth. Call this nation back to its roots on American streets.

[02:59:50]On American streets, thankful for family standing beside mods and supporters alone for the ride.

[03:00:02]Sponsors and friends who keep it alive.

[03:00:07]Truth in the word is how we survive.

[03:00:11]Then Peter says unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost on American street.

[03:00:33]on American Street.

[03:00:38]on American street.

[03:00:42]On American street.

[03:00:47]On American street.

[03:00:52]on American stra.