HEATED DEBATE: Christianity or Secular Humanism, Which Is Best? Andrew Wilson Vs Craig/FTFE

e e welcome everybody to debate con 5. My name is Thomas shidi, president of atheist for Liberty, a 501c3 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 just knew atheist for Liberty had to be one of its first sponsors.

Before we begin, I have to address a very disheartening reality. My friend Alex o'conor, many of you know is Cosmic skeptic, was supposed to be here as one of the debaters. 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. 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. They can't even agree on whether women are people, and they want to control what we say. No, we will not cave into terrorism. Free speech will go on.

[Applause]

And that's what all of us are ensuring. That's what all we're ensuring here, just by being here. We are saying no to radical Islamism and censorship. Whatever side you fall on today's issues, you are affirming everyone's right to hold an opinion and peaceably fight for it. By being here, we are proving that threats made by cowards do not have the power to shut speech down. So thank you everybody for being here. Thank you James and modern day debate for organizing this once again. I'm Tom hasidi, president of atheist for Liberty, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to debate con 5. And now, I am going to hand the microphone to the head of uncensored America, Sean CCO.

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. We host people that are censored, cancelled, and just generally controversial. We discuss all kinds of topics and issues. We've hosted people like Mopius, Gab, McGinness, Alstein, 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've 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 to hand it off to the moderator and host of the event, Dr. James Coons.

Thank you. Thank you very much for being here, folks. We are thrilled for this epic event. Going to go 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. 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. You can predict outcomes. And they actually partnered and sponsored us this time for debate con 5, in which we'll have a market where people can predict who will be most persuasive in the debates. This is only for two of our debates today. But the way it'll work is we're going to have people raise their their hands. 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. Give me a thumbs up when you got that number. Excellent. And then, if you haven't lean toward Andrew Wilson, our Christian guest. Excellent. All right. So 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. Right. Yes, I have to. But Craig Mcneil, representing secular humanism today, is a nuclear engineer turned YouTuber. He's a globe-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.

[Music]

Hey James, can I say something just before we start? Of course. Great. 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. But he was, but he was. And the Christian showed up, and they didn't, they didn't show up. He bowed to the threats. We didn't bow to the threats. So, no, I'm not willing to give you the slack. [Applause] Sorry. We have 10-minute opening statements from each guest. Andrew, the floor is all yours for your 10-minute opening. It's like, it's like a funeral in here, you guys. You can make some noise. It's okay, right? You can, you, yeah, there you go. Going to enjoy yourselves today. 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 Craig here. 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 Humanism for Society and Its Consequences. Note, while drinking in my cramped hotel room last night at an airport Holiday Inn, 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 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 is here in case the low IQ MDD liberal scum wants to whine and cry for another two hours of Q&A after their man-humping 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? I'm going nowhere. Okay, great. You can leave the F. 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's 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. Yet Christianity does. He offers offers descriptions, I offer prescriptions. 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? 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? One, first tenant, Humanist Manifesto: 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. 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. 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. Tenant three: Ethical values are derived from human needs and interests, 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 Darth 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. Tenant five: 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, revolution, 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. 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. 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. 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 do we even doing here? My society has produced obvious good results on, 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 is in, not one, as in zero societies on Earth are run off the Humanist Manifesto. If Craig claims the manifesto itself is 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, I'm strawmanning me, okay? Which he also doesn't understand. What Adam, 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 strawmanning Craig, because these are my views, they're not your views. He'll say I'm strawmanning humanism, but I'm literally reading line by line, then giving prescriptions based on reason, uh, in regards to its tenants. So I, I don't really know what the problem is. Craig will not be able to refute a single prescriptive claim I have made by using his manifesto. All of my prescriptive claims are humanist claims. This is why humanism is the Flat Earth of ethical systems, and that's what Craig is. You're a moral flat earther. [Applause] We'll kick it over to Craig for his 10-minute opening statement as well. Thanks very much, Craig. The floor is all yours.

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. So I guess I just go to my presentation and explain why secular humanism is better for society. Maybe Andrew forgot what the debate was about. I'm not sure. Um, okay. So, um, who am I? I'm Craig Mcneil. 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. Uh, okay, sorry, one second. Just deleted my script. Bear with me. 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. Um, secular humanism centers on upholding reason, ethics, and justice as foundations for a 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, 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 old-timey texts 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 human 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 taps, 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, than 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. Champions facts over fiction, leading to real-world solutions that improve lives. 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. Secular humanism adds a, uh, 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. 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. Whether it's condemning non-believers or marginalizing communities, it's more about ingroups, um, and outgroups than universal brotherhood. Now, um, I'm going to debunk some of Andrew's more outlandish claims about secular humanism, starting with his, um, peculiar fixation on necrophilia. I don't know why he brings that up so often. Um, let's say 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 ensures, ensures respect for both the living and the dead, advocating for laws that uphold dignity for all. Moving on to intriguing cultural practices that Andrew likes to also bring up. Um, Andrew tends to highlight a 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. And about that favorite narrative of Andrew's, that secular humanism supposedly opens the door to moral relativism. 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 ethics. We find deep meaning in human connections and logical thinking, striving for a society that values real outcomes over theoretical purity. Andrew, well, 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 final 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. Now, um, the ethical failings of Christianity through both historical and modern lenses is an interesting thing. Historically, Christianity has found itself on the wrong side of morality. Crusades, inquisitions, where violence is not only justified but glorified as a divine mandate. Then there's the endorsement of 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's lingering effects in discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and the suppression of women's rights, often justified by some ancient texts. These aren't just old tales. There are 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 sets 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 interpretations of what God's will looks like. Turns out it's super flexible if you want to justify just about anything. 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 bedroom activities. So while 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, and scriptures, we end up with policies that genuinely improve lives. This isn't about lofty ideals, it's about real benefits like better healthcare, advanced education, and robust welfare systems that actually work because they're built on evidence and not faith. Here's something Andrew might find hard to swallow: the happiest countries in the world are overwhelmingly secular. Look at global happiness indices. Nations that embrace secular governance aren't just a little happier, they're leading the charts. 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 afterthoughts, their 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 Andrew and his followers might yearn for the good old days of divine rule. The rest of us are enjoying the fruits of a 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, it's the blueprint for a thriving, progressive society. Let's remember what's at stake. We're not just debating ideologies, 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, but because it leads to 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 texts 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. And James, thank you for bringing me here for my first ever in-person debate. And thank you, Andrew, for being my opponent.

No problem at all. Thank you very much. I appreciate those openings, gentlemen. We'll kick it into the 60-minute open dialogue. The floor is all yours.

Yeah, so, uh, if you don't mind, if I ask a quick question. Uh, do you have a copy of Humanism 3? No. You know, you do follow Humanism 3. Uh, it's a framework. Yes. Okay. It is your framework. Uh, can you, using the document of Humanism 3, debunk a single prescriptive statement that I make? Well, your prescriptive statements were just something you made up based on your personal interpretations of it. And so, second Humanism 3, yeah, I was in the middle of talking. Andrew, if you want to calm down while I'm talking, 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 hominem and things are. Trust me, I debate flatterers all the time. 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. Um, what I'm just going to ask you is very simple. Humanism, humanism. Yeah. What I'm going to ask you, Andrew, is very simple. How long you going to filibuster, dude? I was literally about to ask a question. If you, you calm down and let me finish my sentence, then you can respond. Right. What I'm going to ask you, Craig. I'm like three words away. Craig, stop speaking. Calm down. Calm. Get to the question. Go ahead, Craig. Ask. Need a moment. Andrew, calm down. Craig, if you need a moment to like, take a breath, that's absolutely fine. Craig, this is a great time to ask the question. What I'm going to ask you, Andrew, is, um, because you failed to do that in your opening, could you explain to us why Christianity is better for society, um, instead of just attacking your own views? So let's make this really simple, right? 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. 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. Okay, you are asking about Christianity. 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? Yes, Andrew, I completely understand that. So doesn't that have an in society entailment? A societal entailment? Craig, would you like me to answer the question or you just going to talk when I talk? Can't wait. Go ahead. Do you need a minute to calm down? It's fine. We can take two minutes and you can. It's fine. Yeah, get to the answer, please. 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. What you 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, you are 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. 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 what ethics, what morals? Yeah, because when I make prescriptions based on a humanist manifesto, I can debunk those prescriptions using Christian ethics. You can't debunk those prescriptions using the humanist manifesto. That's why it's better. Okay, here I'll show you. Let's give you an example. If we can go through these, we can get through that. 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 humanism. This isn't about feelings, about reason. Let's do this. Perhaps so that we're not talking past each other. Are you willing to steal man my argument here? Can you steal man it? Well, uh, your argument would be based on, um, your particular version of Christianity, which is, um, which again, can you steal man my argument, Craig? Which argument? The one I just made. Craig, your, your argument is you don't like secular humanism. These are the things I don't like about secular humanism. So I'm going to say secular humanism can do these things, and that means that secular humanism is bad. That's what you've said. Andrew, you have given me a list of things that you think you can prescribe based on a humanist manifesto, right? That's what you've done. Correct. Uh-huh. Right, right. So therefore, you are saying, well, these are prescriptions that I think I can give based on secular humanism. Why do I think Christianity is better? What's my argument? Christian. 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. Okay, give me specifics related to Christianity debunk the things about secular humanism you don't like. So far, you've given me no reasons why Christianity is better. Craig, I'll do it. 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? Uh, that's what I said. If we go back to the slide, which you didn't present any. Why do I need to present a slide? 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 I have a slideshow. 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, if, can we get back to this? Do, do you agree? Yes or no? Tenant one, knowledge. I did say yes. Maybe you have problems hearing, but carry on. Greg, you need to calm down, bro. Oh, I'm, I'm fine. I'm waiting for your calm. What I'm doing, Andrew, is I'm waiting for your argument. But you, yet, I just, I just want to make sure that we're, we're clear. Yeah, we are clear. So you haven't yet given an argument for your position. Okay, so my, my prescription to that, Craig, is the birth rate is low, 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's bad? So still no reasons why Christianity is better. That's what I'm asking here. What you're saying is explain why this is good, but I've yet to hear under. Okay, let me explain. You said you can debunk that. You, Christianity. 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. So because of that, Christians would say, no, you can't lock women up and forcibly breed and experiment on them. You're not allowed to do that. Craig. 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. Let's do it. Well, so your prescription is a straw man of secular humanism. It's right. I can explain why, right? Because secular humanism doesn't say, does 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 prescript, read the tenant again for me. It says, knowledge in the world is derived by observation, experiment, and rational analysis. And then what was your prescription? 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? 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. 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, is, is locking women up and breeding them a bad thing? Would that's not a bad thing or it is a bad? When I'm in the middle of a sentence explaining something, that's when you'd be quiet and listen at. Maybe I know you're used to talk 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. Okay, go ahead. 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, you know, broken families, people being homeless, 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 sec human is, this, uh, 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, less, um, children being abandoned, less 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. 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, and it's not what any secular humanist would say. In fact, that prescription is a logical impossibility based in secular humanism because it includes doing harm, and secular humanists 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. A prescription is a straw man. Your prescription is because your prescription is based on interpretation that no secular humanist would come to the conclusion of. It is a logical impossibility that sec Lo people and experiment on them. So to think that a humanist manifesto could include that as a prescription means that you have no clue what sec humanism is. And that's fine if you don't know what sec. I've just let you ramble for forever, right? Um, but so you said, Craig, calm down. Now, okay, carry on with your point. Sorry, I've had the red. Apologize. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, rational analysis. This is a descriptive claim, correct? Okay. Could do, do we make prescriptive claims off of descriptive claims? If you want. If you want. So if I were a humanist and I read that, who's interpretation would it be up to as to how it was applied or what the prescription was? Hang on, hang on. Was I done? Calm down. You asked the question. 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, there's a logical impossibility because secular humanist wouldn't do that. It doesn't tell us, Craig, I'm giving you a prescription based on your first tenant. Hang on, 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 nobody gives a what you like. Show me the humanist manifesto where it is that it actually debunks this prescription or says this prescription's wrong or says this prescription isn't humanist. What I'm claiming is that that is humanism. Okay, that is a humanist doctrine. You need to show me within the humanist manifesto how it's not. I already did that by explaining that the sec, the humanist manifesto doesn't say harm. It is about not doing harm. 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. Secular humanism is based on a collective, the shared experiences. We, we don't take the Bible. We, we don't take one person. We need you in the audience to remain quiet, please. 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? Yes, because that's a group of collective experience. Kidding. You have collective experience and put them in a manifesto. You want me to answer the question or are you going to jump in? Let me. How you going to take to answer the question? Well, I let you talk for a while to give the question. So let me answer. Are you afraid of me answering the question? I just want you to actually. I'm trying. Andrew, if you're afraid of me answering the question, just say. Let me pull you. If you're afraid of me answering the question. Gentlemen, hold on one second. Let me pull you apart just to reset. Here. Andrew, can you ask your question one more time? Yeah, it's very, it's really simple, 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 Humanist Manifesto to debunk that prescription? Tell me why that prescription is wrong using the manifesto itself. 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. Once again, 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. Are you done? Yes. Go ahead. Okay, now take a deep breath and let me talk. Okay, good boy. There. Calm. Right. Once again, Humanist Manifesto says no harm. 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 secular humanists, we would get together and say, how do we deal with this thing? It's not a particular, particular prescription or 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? Secular 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. 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 to do 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 matters. So you individually deciding this is the prescription of secular humanism is not how secular humanism 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 would affect humans in the future. Got it. So I just want to make sure. I'll steal man. I'll steal man. Wait for the applause. Come [Applause] on. Thank you. Let's hear some real applause. All right, guys. Come on. All right. My turn. Lou. All right. We'll return to the debate. We'll return to the debate. Go ahead, Andrew. Never. I just wanted, uh, I just wanted to move back to this, uh, very quickly. I just want to make sure that I steal man your position in the best faith I possibly can. You failed so far. Okay, that's why I'm trying again. So let's say you're very trying. Yes. When you, when you say it's the collective experience of us that matters, yes, and the interpretation of this framework, it's the collective experiences or and how that relates to the framework, 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? Just did you utilize collective, collective experience to debunk my prescription? Yeah, collective experience of people being, uh, 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. 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 have come up with this prescription because you do not understand what secular humanism is. You seem to think that secular humanism is anything. When I ask a question, please don't take two minutes. Right? Just give a quick. Sorry, 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? Is that help? 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. We, again, if you got 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, uh, 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? It's a logical impossibility. Stop. Let me. Well, can I finish asking it? Okay, okay. So anyway, what's it actually just to stop the collective from coming up with? Well, for one thing, they can change the.

The manifesto itself, right? It's already been changed multiple times. So, it's the Bible multiple times. 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, "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. They're using rational analysis to determine children need to be locked up until they get to a certain age. What insight? Hang on. What insight 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 coming, 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. Because that's 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. Secular humanism will not do something that purposely causes harm. You keep saying, "Who determines what harm is?" Can you let me talk? Who determines what harm is?

CG: The collective experiences and empathy.

So, collective experience says this isn't harmful. Collective experiences say that it is harmful, though. That is what collective exp...

What if it didn't? Craig, what, what if the collective experience of these people say that's not harmful? But they do.

Andrew: But if they didn't, though, right?

Well, in the same way, what if God said that you could do whatever you want?

What you did. Answer my question.

Well, but collective experiences don't. It's a logical impossibility under the frame, under the fram...

Craig's question: 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. Let's start with what is logically.

What does logical impossibility mean? It means that is something that is logically impossible as a conclusion.

Use the words to describe the words. Correct? Yes, you can.

What does logical impossibility mean? 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...

What does logical mean? 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 of the entirety of secular humanism. You keep coming up with questions of, "What if they locked people up?" I, I just make sure it's not something that would happen in secular...

Is Wolverine from the X-Men logically impossible?

Uh, Wolverine is from the X-Men, specifically, um, the first, no, the character, The Wolverine from the X-Men, the adamantium claw, the healing power system. Is that logically impossible?

Using Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics? No, no, it's not logically.

So, Wolverine is not logically impossible, right? It could exist in a number of universes. 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 change what harm is?" But as humans, we know what...

What if they change what the meaning of harm is? Craig, you got three words out there. Andrew can answer the damn question.

Craig: I'm trying to.

Andrew: And if you let me, that would be wonderful.

Oh, well, you see, the thing is, 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...

Unquestionably. What do they change the definition of harm?

Craig: Yeah.

Andrew: I'm trying to. Let me answer the question. They won't change the definition of...

Oh, they won't? No, but Wolverine is logically possible. 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 happen. It makes people unhappy. It causes harm. It makes society a worse place.

When it doesn't cause harm, like when we lock criminals up. So the idea of locking criminals up, at least in, you know, the decent countries. Does it reduce harm?

Craig: Yes.

Andrew: When you... Yes. Wait, so, so wait, so you're just saying locking people up is going to reduce harm? Am I allowed to talk? Am I allowed to talk?

Craig: Well, Craig, am I allowed to talk?

Andrew: I'm allowed to talk.

Craig: Yes.

Andrew: C, you're allowed.

Andrew: I'm allowed to talk. Yes.

Andrew: But how long are you going to talk?

Am I, Andrew, allowed to talk?

How long? It once, though. Okay. So you are being a flat-earther here. Oh, you're being an ethical flat-earther. What you're doing is you're not allowing the other person to talk and just laughing. And because you want to answer any questions.

I'm trying to answer the question. But every time I do, that's not an answer.

Filibuster. No, you don't understand that this answers. Andrew, maybe because you're not a very intelligent person. But I'm not sure.

One day, Craig, I'll get to your level.

Well, so would you like me to answer any of your questions, or are you going to...

The 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. But don't filibuster. Hang on. Don't filibuster and don't lie. Simple.

Can 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 tenets of secular humanism? Yes, it is.

Then show me where humanism is about not doing harm and show me where, show me where 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.

No, we don't know what harm is.

Yes, we do. Our collective experiences show us. If we make people unhappy, if we make people hurt, we make them die, we make them injured, that is harm. 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'm in the middle of answering your question, and it can reduce harm to.

Andrew, I will answer your question, but you might need to let me get there. Go ahead. To set my, set my stage. Calm down.

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.

Get to the answer. Go. Right. Do not talk. Let me answer because I've let you yap for ages.

Good boy. Right. So doing harm is, everyone knows what harm is. Everyone knows that harm.

That's what's in question. See, here we go. I let. That's literally what's in question is whether or not everyone knows what harm is.

Try 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 overtalk me.

Give you a chance, Craig. Go ahead. 30 seconds.

Thank you. 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. 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. 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. Second humanism wants people 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? Who should I side with?

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? What about harm? Yeah. My harm. I didn't say I wasn't going to. 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 happened. And that is, is going through changes at the moment. Personally, personally, I don't agree with that, right? Um, and the, the current position within secular humanists 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 secular humanists are saying is that allowing children to transition causes harm because children are not in 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 neurodivergence, who neurodivergence actually have a much higher percentage of wanting to transition and things like that, and that could be an effect of them being neurodivergent. 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 they're like the age of 25. So letting children do that before they have the ability to is in itself causing...

So, so then what's going on here? Just so you understand, I just demonstrated something very important to you. You said we know what harm is. Yes. 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. Which one of those is secular? Which one of those?

Well, humanists themselves disagree. Matt Dillahunty, 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. Bro, it's my turn. My turn, bro. My turn.

Calm down, calm down, bro. Calm down.

Not calm down. I didn't say you were. I'm not going to run away from a. 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. What I'm saying is, he's a humanist. You're a humanist. Clearly, you disagree about this.

Stop, stop, stop. Just ask. Does he say specifically that he thinks a transition?

Calm down. I'm just asking a question. Does that, what is that what he says?

Calm down. Yes. But anyway, calm down. I don't think that's human. Humanists themselves.

Okay. 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. You can grant that humanists can disagree. As the peanut gallery was telling you, you can make the same criticism about the Bible. 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.

Why couldn't we? Why? Because that 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 harm, 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 humanists. That's not just secular humanists that hold those positions.

So you can be someone that just demon. And not be a. Demonstrating something. Making it about LGBTQ. I'm demonstrating that within this worldview, there's, there's disagreement within it. That's fine. Right? I'm not, I'm not making that as a critique. Just to be clear. That's not a.

Secondly, humanist view, though. That's just the human view.

Craig: I'm not making that the critique.

Andrew: 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.

Craig: That's what I'm saying to you. Humanity demonstrates that.

Andrew: 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 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?" 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, a lot of it is because of holy wars and fighting over whatever my particular God says. And we can say, "Well, how can we make the harm from that not happen?" And what we have to do is look at what has happened through our history and how that affects humanity.

A great decision. So like, so let's take a look here. When you say war is very harmful, right? At the same time, you also say, "Ah, population reduction is actually probably pretty good."

I didn't say population reduction. Let's be clear. I said lower birth. I said a slight lower birth rate is not a bad thing.

Slightly lower birth rate still increases population. Birth rate is going to go down if more men are dead, right?

Craig: Uh, yeah, because war.

Great. So since we've established that, I, 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. Craig, if you disagree with that harm principle, right? We both disagree with it.

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. I have this thing called the Bible and church authority. You have a Humanist Manifesto. To answer those kinds of questions. Where in the Humanist Manifesto can I find out that if I want to, I don't know, lock all the women up and breed them, that that's actually morally wrong?

Okay, Craig, 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 sky daddy as the absolute normative authority. It's ridiculous.

Instead of our Earth daddy, right? You, instead of your Earth.

Notice how I let you talk. Oh, I can't believe God did that. Notice how I let you talk. And you notice how I let you talk. Go ahead. Go ahead.

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.

You don't need a normative authority? No, we don't. Why would we?

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?

Not normative authority. Because it... What, what is it? It's not. What, what is it? It is a framework that you would get together and discuss.

No, no, no. Not the framework. I'm not saying that the framework is your normative authority. Like you said, that's a framework. All the people, all the people get together to decide the prescriptions based on the framework. Would be referred to as a normative.

No, that normative authority is a single thing, right? Not a collection of people.

Normative authority, even. Is correct. Give me your definition of it.

No, no, Craig. I'm not going to give you your definition for normative authority. What is it? It's a, a, a single prescription for something coming from a particular set of rules. Look it up real quick. I'm going to stop. I'm going to. I'll stop. Tell me if I'm wrong. Pull up normative authority, right? Tell me if I'm wrong.

So normative, philosophically, right? It's like an, a claim, right? What we ought to do. 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've been referring to our ecclesiastical authority as our normative authority, meaning here's our framework, here's our church framework, 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?

Okay, right. What would they be called?

Craig: I can see I'm wrong.

What got it? So, so hang on. So hang on. By the way, just, just that's the first time ever. Congratulations, Craig. I, I want congratulations, Craig. I want to be clear, like this is only my second debate within this field, and I might not be completely up to date on all the vernacular and everything. Everything. 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. I'm not going to hold it against you. Go ahead.

The point I'm trying to make is instead of going to like a single, um, position like "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.

Okay, right. I, I can see that was wrong at that point. Absolutely. That is. 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. I'm, 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 and 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. But the thing is, is 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.

Right. Um, again, the, you're, you're using the manifesto wrong. Okay. Will, and, and I've explained why. And I do feel like we're just going round or in circles.

No, no, this is actually important. I, I would like to know how I'm using it wrong. Go ahead.

I'm trying to, because again, it's not a set of rules like the Bible, right? Like it's, that's not out the same way. It's not saying this is exactly what you need to do, right? Right. It is something that we will get together as a collective and say, right, and this is how we think we make a better society. And if, um, something in society happens and we need to adjust that, we can adapt as society evolves. But the overall, 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, feelings of, of, of not being happy. That is against what the secular human 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 say I'm straw manning him. 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?

I wouldn't say prescriptions. More, what you ought to do. No. Um, no. What is better for helping society?

Well, should we do what's better? It again, it doesn't try to give rules. It doesn't try to say this is exactly what you should do.

I'm not saying it does, right? It just says if you want to have a healthier society, then this is the way to do it. So it's being interpreted, right? By a collective?

Yes. 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, 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 why would they have to show that? There's nothing in the manifesto, the guiding stone from which they're making their prescription, that says that that in any way contradicts with the framework itself.

Well, in what we would do in that case, again, as humanists, we would get together and we would say, "Is this going to cause harm?" Then, "Yes." Well, then we won't do that.

Yeah, I know. So what if they got together and said, "Actually, I think that this will lower harm." What if God said, "Lock people up"?

Yeah, no, but what if they said, "Yeah, what if God said it was okay?"

Yeah, what if, what if he did? So anyway, right? So let's, let's ask, because you, you're just moving the goalposts. That's fine. But all you've done so far is ask me questions about mine, right? So I'm going to ask you questions about yours. What if God said it was okay to lock women? 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 on society. You're trying to get right. Yeah, okay. So if, so, so Chris, 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, or ecclesiastical authority would say, "You're not allowed to do that."

Which one? All. Well, in fact, uh, here's how I would define Christian, if you want to make it easy. People who believe in the Nicene Creed. People who accept the Nicene Creed. All people who accept the Nicene Creed would now fit on the category of Christians. All of them would have the same moral framework, which would say that this is...

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 a lower birth rate.

You mean the Ten Commandments?

Yeah. Where is that? You want me to pull up the Ten Commandments for you?

Then go to the other 260 rules as well. You mean Noah High Law?

Well, they're part of Christianity, right?

No, not. Noah High. Christians would, some Christians would disagree with you. Not, not the ones who believe in the Nicene Creed.

Well, okay. So you are saying that Christians that don't believe in the Nicene Creed aren't Christians?

Yes.

Well, okay. That's, they think they're Christians.

Well, right now, I think I'm, I'm a humanist. Am I? Do you think that am I a humanist right now, Craig, because I made humanist prescriptions?

Do you think you're a humanist?

Yes.

Okay, then you can be. No, there's nothing. 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, right.

Then my prescriptions are humanist prescriptions. But if you, if you could 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. Yeah. What, what you're trying to do is why Christianity is better for society. So that means you have to go for all matters.

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 are here to defend every version of Christianity that includes the Christianity of Ethiopia that, um, hold the ancient text. You don't believe in because they still call themselves Christians. They're still better for society than humanists.

Like, what are you talking about? All I'm here to do is to defend whether or not...

Craig, my turn. Craig. 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.

No, I went through it in my, in my intro, right? Let's look at.

Chill out, Craig. Andrew. You, Andrew, all you've done so far is second.

One second. I want to go ahead.

Andrew: 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 levying against Christianity, by the way.

You say it's logically impossible for the definition of harm to change because collectively we're just not going to change it.

Well, no, I said it's impossible to change to your definition. Give me, give me 10 seconds.

Well, if you mean, I need to just let you know that that's not what I said.

That's okay. Calm down. You get. I didn't say that. Get a chance, Craig. Calm down. Give a chance to wrap up, Andrew, and then we'll kick it back to Craig.

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, and a lot of them are really, really, really positive. 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 forcibly 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 principles. 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.

Individual autonomy prioritizes human. Prioritizes human welfare. There is nothing about human welfare that says locking women up and experimenting on them is good.

There's nothing that doesn't. Well, there is. It's human. It's, um, that is against ethics and justice. It's not. It's not where. Show me where it's. You have advocates for human rights, and humans have rights to. Does that mean though it's nowhere in your document? Again, these are things that you can from the Humanist Manifesto gather. And no, you can't. I have it in front of me. I interpreted it totally different. But then you, you don't get to individually decide what that is, though.

Why not? Because that you're not a collective. You're a person. Andrew. 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. Okay? How is stoning people to death that work on the Sabbath better for society?

Does anybody in any Christian nation stone anybody to death?

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?

Is there a single society which is Christian where they stone people to death?

That wasn't what I said. So then what the hell are you talking about?

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?

A lot of them do. Where? 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 who have ever stoned anybody to death?

Do you want me to speak? I do want to. I want to give you. Look like the type.

Give Craig a chance. Am I allowed?

Right. Just because you don't do that now doesn't mean that Christianity doesn't say that that's okay, right? You're not here to say, "Well, then why aren't they doing it?" You aren't here to say, "Well, why aren't they doing it?"

Yes, I am. I'm here to say the effects of Christianity on society are better. You want me to demonstrate it here? I got five words out. Five words out. I got five words out.

People. Can you just show me where they're five words out?

Andrew: People boy.

Andrew: Andrew can.

Andrew: Can. Where are Christians stoning people to?

Five words out. Andrew. Okay, go ahead. Craig, tell us where they're stoning people to death.

Right. Okay. So the Bible says that you can stone people to death. The Bible says that you can beat your slave until it's fine as he gets up. The Bible says that women shouldn't vote and read and all. So it doesn't matter that that is not particularly what happens now. That is what Christianity says is okay.

So, so you should be able to point to a bunch of countries where women...

Did I get my question out, Andrew?

Well, okay. Go ahead, Craig. Go ahead.

Craig: So take a deep breath. Yeah. I'm sorry I interrupted your interruption. Go ahead.

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. Christianity, Christianity specifically says that you can do these things and it's okay.

So, yes, it does. The Bible absolutely says that you can, uh, beat your slave, that it, it...

Craig: I'm only, I'm only to engage with each of these. So let me ask you, how does those specific things that the Bible says that you can do make it better for society? How is suppressing women, women's rights, and women's ability to read and talk? How is that better for society?

Because the Bible says that you should do that.

Okay, so let's take them one at a time. There is no Christian nation I'm aware of where women are getting stoned.

Didn't ask about Christian nations. Let's be clear. Can you answer my question? I said, how does the Bible...

Yes, is a debate over whether the Bible is true or is it the effects of Christianity on society?

No, it's not. It's about which is better for society. Not 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, 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? So how are they? Let's assume for a second the Bible does make those prescriptions, 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. Nobody's getting stoned to death.

Craig: Anywhere.

Andrew: Women in a Christian, women in a nation are...

Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure. In all Christian nations, women aren't getting stoned today.

Are you sure?

Absolutely. 100% absolutely sure.

Craig: So you're absolutely sure.

Craig: Let me finish. Craig, I'm also sure that in Christian nations, they can, 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 their own documents real bad, or your interpretation of the documents must be really wrong. However, if we're going to assume your interpretation of the documents is 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 getting to death in them.

Which Christian societies in particular are great? You mean societies where the overwhelming majority of people are Christian?

Which ones are they? Yeah, that would be, uh, all of the West. All of it.

And why are they so good in particular? Because they have an ethical framework which they can appeal to that's unchanging. And is the ethical framework of those countries Christian?

Christianity. Yes.

Specifically? Yes. You even, you like me to demonstrate for you? I'll demonstrate it for you. So hang on. I'll explain it so that you know. Still haven't got back my question. I'm going to explain it to you. You just asked me, so I'm going to explain it to you. So your law, the laws that you're working with right now, those are those come from English common law, okay? That's where it all comes from. The normative authority around English common law is Christianity. The very guid... Yes, it is. The very guidestones for. Yes, it is. And the very guidestones for which anymore? It's not for which you build law when you're talking.

Not anymore. What I said, the foundations. No, the found. It's completely changed. We, we do not base our laws.

There's foundation. There is nothing in, in English law now that is based on Christianity.

Yeah, I'm talking about its foundations. But we don't. We don't use that anymore.

Are the laws of change? The things in which you enjoy? Here's how it works. You're claiming not 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.

Oh, that's good. Oh, the Christians killed them. They should have left those heathen heart-cutting-out people. Come on. But anyway, the point is, is that from so down. I just want to finish the one point in the. I promise, okay? Finish point. So here it is. 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? Why would you even want to argue with it? It makes no sense to me. Go ahead.

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? Do 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. Probably it could be part of. But 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 any of those prescriptions. But if we were just to follow what Christian, um, says, and that says it's okay, right? Whether that's what you do or not.

Where the Bible? Where are Christians demanding to be stoned? 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?

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?

Hang on. Do you know what a martyr is? 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.

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.

What would that have to do with the effects of society today?

Nothing. Yeah. Yeah. But society today isn't just because of Christianity. Society today is a melting pot. If we were to, right, went back 500 years and took what Christianity was then and just carried that particular society, society on, of just what they said Christianity was then, 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.

What people are getting stoned to death? But they're not. Right now. But that's not because. When were they? Like, when were they? Whenever the Bible was written. Okay, right.

Do you realize that's the thing? My, my hold on. My point is that the Bible is what Christianity is, right? And you, you, what you're doing is saying, "Well, as Christians now, we don't do that." But that doesn't matter.

That, Andrew, never happened. Let he who without sin cast the first. What? So are you saying that no one ever got stoned to death for working on the Sabbath in Christianity?

Yeah. Where does it not say that in the Bible?

No. Are you saying there's not? It doesn't say in the Bible. You're talking about Jewish law. Is that in the Bible? It's that Jewish law. That's not Christianity. That's not Christian ethics.

Are we here to argue Jewish ethics or Christian ethics?

But that's in the Bible, and it says that's what you should do.

No, it does. No. You have a set of prescriptions. And the New Covenant. New Covenant. That's Christian ethics. That's the ethics Christians follow. We don't follow Old Covenant law.

What are you talking about? It's still Christianity.

No, it's not. So what, what were the Crusades about then? Like wiping out half Europe?

Right. That let's. So we can get into the Crusades if you want to. Let me give. Right. Let me give you the stoning to death. But let's talk about the Crusades. Oh, they believe different to us, so let's go and kill all of them. How is that good for society?

First of all, that's not what happened. It is what happened. They wiped out half of.

Going to let me respond. Do you want an answer to this? Okay. The Crusades was a conflict between two different. Anytime two different, um, ideologies come into contact, there's going to be problems. Spain had an inroad from Muslims from the Moors forever and ever and ever there. From the Byzantine 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.

Christians and Muslims, right? So what happens when they begin to intersect? They start to fight. 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? Catholics depend, depending on what it is that we're fighting over. But Muslims also were pushing the boundaries every chance they got for the purpose of expansion. Now, here's the thing, Craig. Humanists would do this too. I can point to you a society which is secular by nature called the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union is not secular. Had a secular constitution, Craig. It's not. It's not a secular. Had a secular constitution. He killed all the Christians off immediately.

Let me, because they were bad. Let me be clear. They were bad. That Russians were never secular humanists.

Were no, the Russians were never secular humanists. They were secularists. That is...

Is a secularist a secular humanist? Are they the same thing?

No. I think in this case that the Communists there have something very akin their ideology. And that's what.

No, I asked, is secularist the same as?

I'm already saying I'm, I'm giving you distinct categories. I said no.

That's not the case. Well, well, then it doesn't matter because I'm not a secularist. I'm a secular humanist. They're different.

I know. And I'm tying them together so that you understand. But can't just tie your own things together.

Have been in charge before. And if they have the same type of of.

Stop. Secularist. Secular humanists. Are you going to ever let me talk?

It's. Yeah, but you're. I'm not a secularist. This isn't about secularism. This is about secular humanism.

So you. No, I said the Russians were never secular humanists.

Okay, right. Fine. Craig, let's back up. Let's just say for a second that they weren't. That Russians were not secular humanists. Then where are the effects of secular humanism? Where can we find them?

Um, again, well, the countries that are the happiest in the world, like not secular humanist.

Craig, bring those up. They are secular. They're not secular humanist.

Great. The majority of the, the majority of the people there in those countries are secular humanist.

Show me one.

Um, show you one. Show me one country with a majority of people are secular humanists. One.

Most in the Netherlands.

No, they're not.

Yes, they are.

Show me. Demonstrate it.

Uh, Google. Right. Yeah. Google.

It Google. If most of the Netherlands are secular humanists, go ahead. All right, what do you want to do? Do it yourself. You can't do it. You want me to pull it up for you? I didn't want to get that off of here. This is, this is a two-minute warning that we have the Q&A coming shortly. 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 Debate.

Okay, so, um, in 2021, a whopping 58% of Dutch people, um, uh, said that they were secular humanists and didn't belong to any religious ideological group. Well, well, secularism is still a thing. It's likely that many non-religious minors don't specifically label themselves that way. But, um, of people aged 15 and over, um, in 2021, 58% of Dutch people, um, identified as secular humanists. Show me, um, you can find the citation on on [Music] on, yeah, I'm bringing it up. Sorry, one sec. If you'd like to start lining up now for the Q&A, you're welcome to. It's from, because I got 99.4% Craig, I'm just letting you know. 9.4% was about five years, 2015. So in 2003, it was 99.4%. Uh, so back in 2003, 99.4% of the folks in the Netherlands, um, identified secular humanism. Fast forward to 2021, and 58% of Dutch people, age 15 and over, said they, um, identified as secular humanisms and didn't belong to any religious ideological group. Pull it over here so I can look at it. I can just find it. Just to summarize it, the whole thing for me. Folks, if you're watching at home, don't forget to hit that like button as well. I just want to point out that that doesn't actually say that. I don't know what he's talking about. I'm trying to get the actual things. That does not say that. Craig, you just made it up. Craig, you made it up. Craig. I didn't. I read it off of her site. You read it off of I made it the up site. I read it off here. Go, let me see it. I got it to summarize. So, oh, you got it to sum. You know, go, oh, is that? Let me get that back up. Sorry. Give me one. Okay, give me a second. That got the information from that site. Yeah, information from I made it up. No, not from my made it. Yeah. Sor smth pipe.

As mentioned, folks, we have three more debates coming up today. We're going to jump into the Q&A. Going to start with the first question now. I am just gonna hold for everybody just to be sure that our questions and P as because I did have it my notes, but I can't find the site that I got it from, right? But that's where my notes are from. We're going to go. So, source, I made it up. Going 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, right? And I didn't. Then what did you just read? Um, my summary. But the summary didn't have the link to the site that I got it from. 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. Okay, great. Great. C. Yeah, so just to be clear, by the way, it's 9%. 9%. Just 9%. 2015. 9% in for your counter. Craig, we have go. 9% in 2015. In 2021, to the Q&A. Remember, want these to be as short and piy as possible.

Hi, my question is to Craig. That's not very piy. So quicker. Come on. Yeah, so how would a secular humanist, um, respond to the topic of abortion? Um, it's whatever is less harmful. Um, there, there's no, SEC, humanist doesn't give a decision on whether it's legal or not. It's what, how much harm it does to people. Um, so, yeah. This question is for Craig, and then I'd like Andrew to make fun of him for it. Yes, sir. Are you ready? Good. To make fun of me? Just ready. Good. We're old enough to have gone through COVID, and we saw, and we told that if we don't get the jab, we could not fly, not go out to dinner, lose your job. We saw parks filled with sand surfers arrested on the water, bank accounts frozen, brutalized for not wearing a mask in Australia. Question is, who will be invited to the group of secular humanists who will interpret the manifesto? Do you understand why anyone listening to you is skeptical that group of people deciding on behalf of the world would not get things correct? So, um, also, haha. Yeah, I don't think second humanists were the one that decided you had to have the vaccines. Yeah. Um, let's give him a chance to respond. Go ahead, Craig. Um, I don't personally agree with all the things they said for that they had to do for Co. Um, right. The, 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. We have to move the next one. But I, I don't really see how it relates to secular humanism 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. Um, but let's be clear, going, going with what science says is not just automatically secular humanism. But my harm. Craig.

All right, guys. If you want to, anybody wants to, anybody who wants to, Craig, give me one moment. Yeah, sorry. Anybody who's talking and need you take the hallway, it's distracting. 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 Co, 100%. Um, but for me, I, I did the things they said because I didn't want to cause other people harm. Yeah. Do you see? Do you see what happens if you say, uh, a group 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. We'll give. I want to give the last. Second. Hold on, gentlemen. We're going to give the last question or the last word to Craig because the question was directed at him. On him. The last, the last word to defend himself. And then we're going to go to the next question. Go ahead, Craig. Yeah. Consecutive humanists weren't the one that decided that's what should happen. It was like the, the W and stuff. So we're going to the next question.

Isa, hey, um, I have to push a little bit from what Andrew said. My questions 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? Um, secular humanism 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, they were run by an authoritarian that decided what they had to do. There was no, um, you know, looking at what is less harm. They classed 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 secular humanist. 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. Thank you for the question. Move to the next question.

My question is for, uh, Craig. No one wants to talk to you, Andrew. My question is, how do you resolve the contradiction in your worldview which says the definition of suffering won't change, and yet the framework of, uh, 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 principles of science and the Jews are actually impacting us in a negative way that is harming us more than it's benefiting us? Um, well, one of the main things SEC humanism is freedom of religion. So we wouldn't, if you're Jewish, we're not going to start attacking you just because Jewish. Um, but there's no contradiction. Um, sorry, could you just, the first bit of your question again? I'm sorry. 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 the, you know, I understand the point. 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, 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? That's how you, 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.

Also, guys, I've been in his position. I've been in Craig's position where the entire audience seems hostile. Right. I love it. You don't have a ton of debate experience. So let's do this one thing. Give him a massive round of applause. You went the whole round. You went the whole way. [Applause] Buddy, yeah, I, I do appreciate it, guys. I'm, I'm new at debating this particular side of things. I'm not, I don't know all of the vernacular arguments, stuff, 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. Andrew, a dick. Who said that?

Okay, so I just have a quick question. 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, it's 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 though I don't have the particular answer and get it wrong.

Okay, so my, my just follow-up 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, people with Down syndrome don't necessarily suffer and have harm, uh, 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, 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 get 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 as someone with Down syndrome. Um, so I, I don't, if we were look at 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, it's bad for society, I don't think that's necessarily what secular humanism would do. Would they give the option? Yeah. 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 is certainly no law in Iceland, right, that said you've got sound syndrome, you can't have a baby. It was more down to personal choice, right?

Hi, this question is for Andrew. Oh, finally. So you're, yes, I am the best-looking man in this room. So your prescription of tenant one, uh, that all women should be forcibly 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. Therefore, sex slavery is moral under Christianity. Can you refute that? Well, I'm sorry, what was the tale? Um, so Numbers 31, Moses went into battle with the Midianites and after the battle, he took the virgin women. Mhm. Most likely as sex slaves. Being that they're virgin women and he, wait, what does most likely mean? You made it up. No, no. Does most likely mean you made it up? That's my interpretation. Oh, okay. Well, it's my interpretation. Your interpretation is wrong. But that was my answer to you. That's my answer. This is it's the same critique back and forth. Besides that, I don't have to listen to you. You're a woman. I'm kidding. I was kidding. I was kidding. Relax. I'm kidding. Kind of.

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. Okay, so if yes, then harm applies to animals. A secular human who doesn't cause harm would then be a vegan, which you are not. You were talking MX xxd about getting steaks 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 blender, no, I mean, it would taste really bad for a start. I mean, yeah, kick it first and maybe I don't know. But 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 Christian or a secular humanism would do that. Um, so I, I really don't know where to go with that question, to be honest.

Hi, uh, question for Craig. It seems that your ground of your worldview 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 that philosophers have not come to one agreement on. For example, the philosopher Emanuel Kant would argue that reason, uh, uh, command us to follow ethics that follow principles, versus someone like John Stuart 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? 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 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 know, go into defining how secular humanism get, get, gets ethics. Um, I have to refer to my notes because I did, uh, say slide two. Uh, sorry, could you just say a question again? I'm, I'm tired. It's okay. I'm just asking you to define reason, 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 deontological ethics, like someone like Kant, and you seem to follow like utilitarian ethics, greatest flourishing for greatest amount of people. Why do you pick that? And like, it seems 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. It 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. Yeah, well, again, um, we would, you, yeah, I'm not going to deny that, um, ethics and morals and reason, that 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 roles of, um, of secular humanism is, um, and, and how they come about. But for me, it's the ethics and the reason will 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.

Yes, hello, Craig. Um, good. Thank you. Uh, before you said that, it's impossible for secular humanists to, it's logically impossible for them to change their prescriptions. With this, you're, no, no, no. You, you said that it's logically possible for them to change their prescriptions. No, um, logically impossible. What I said was it would, it would be logical possible to come to the conclusion that that would be okay, not that we would, we couldn't change the, the, the definition. But I came to the conclusion it was okay. So clearly. 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 my preferences, because if you say it just comes down to your preferences, then what's wrong with Andrew's preferences? Again, it's not preferences, it's experiences as humans. Um, what, as a collective group of humans, we would experience and perceive as a bad thing to happen to us. And we would base it 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. So it's not objective. No, it doesn't have to be.

Hello, my question is for, uh, Andrew. Um, during the, uh, open discussion, you mentioned that, uh, the harm principle kind of relies on, uh, public opinion, so secular humanists might change their views as time goes on and, uh, perhaps allow for experimenting on women to produce fertility. Yeah, sure. Um, you mentioned also that the Ten Commandments somehow on the Christian worldview somehow stops that from happening. But I don't really see because the, no, no, that's not so. I'll give you the point again. So Craig said that it's logically impossible for secularists to change the harm principle, right? They're never going to be able to come to to the same conclusion that I came to. 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 the Nicaean Creed believe in the Nicaean Creed would say it's absolutely immoral and unconscionable to lock women in cages and breed them. Go ahead. But that could, that could also change because again, interpretation could change. There's nothing in the Nicaean Creed or any other doctrine that explicitly states, yes, explicitly. There is. Well, so explicitly the Nicaean Creed is walking through the belief in Christ, the Holy Trinity, the affirmation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. That those affirmations of 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, I don't see how that's been possible. That I don't see how you would have to really be stretching it. Go to the next question.

Thank you, Andrew, for clearing up the old Old Testament covenant and the New Testament covenant. Thank you for that. 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. No, I thank you for the question. Um, you were saying that the secular humanism worries about the happiness and autonomy of the people. Mmm. What, what if there was a society that was all pedophiles, and they, and they were worried about reproduction, and they became a big, big society, and they became autonomous? How would you contend with that? Um, well, pedophile community, pedo, pedophilia causes harm, um, to children. So, I mean, it would fall outside of the previews of a second humanism. Um, we wouldn't have a society of pedophiles because that would inherently cause people harm. Can I tell you about a little island? Yeah, yeah. Um, are these people secular humanists though? You, you, I, I brought that up in my intro, uh, uh, about that little island. And did you know that a study on the tribe in that island showed that it had one of the highest percentages of depression out of any people that had ever been studied? Yeah. How come it wasn't humanist missionaries who got them to stop that, but Christian missionaries? We go to the next question. There's no such thing as a humanist missionary. That's right. Because what are you going to spread? Right. My preferences, right? But there would be no secondary. Excuse me, gentlemen, it's my preferences. You stop that behavior immediately.

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. Thank you. I, I don't agree with much. This is my first ever live debate, so I'm extremely nervous. And Andrew is, he's the best debater I've ever faced because I normally talk to Flat Earthers, who, let's face it, can't tie their shoelaces. So I've got a quick question. Uh, I don't really know. Andrew, tight isue laes, just checking. So I don't really understand, uh, the secular humanist, uh, uh, this document that you guys are talking about. But you mentioned something about 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. Yes. So, um, consent, at least as far as I understand consent, consent is two parts. Okay. Yes. And then the continued OB. Yes. Okay. Right. So that's how I feel about that. So my question is, could you defend that incest is good because the brother and the sister, they just, 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, uh, you could defend with secular? No, but you answered it in your own question. There's a potential for harm there. There's a, sure, yes. Yeah. What if they're sterile? Okay, right. So even if they're sterile, um, studies show that, uh, incestuous relationships often end in depression and suicide. So studies show that about all relationships. I don't know what kind of relationships you've been in, Andrew, but I'm sorry, but when it comes to marriage, relationships between men and women, all sorts of relationships. 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 incestuous relationships, so to marriages, so incestuous relation. But a higher percentage. Andrew, than what? A higher percentage than what? And higher percentage. The non-incestuous relationships. 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, wouldn't you, wouldn't you have to say, well, then you shouldn't get married? Mar people aren't incestuous though. Yeah, but what my point is, the question was about. 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. But again, it's looking at how much harm it does. Uh, in, how do you quantify that? If a brother, if a brother and sister can't reproduce, want to 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 humanists. How does a sec 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? How, how can you make a prescription? They can't do it. How it causes harm. Uh, it's been, like I said, studies shown that incestuous relationships, marriage causes harm. Craig, not as much. It's, and not as much as what? As marriage. How do you know that? Because the studies that I've read. No study shows. No, no study is saying incest causes more harm than people who get divorced. There's no, there's no comparative study for that. I can't actually show you the studies. These are things I've researched. Ridiculous. 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 you a chance to answer, Craig, and then we got to wrap up. Just let's just say, what would your, what would your objected then 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? That's it causes harm. Yeah, it doesn't though under those circumstances. It has the same harm as a marriage. Oh, it's some. You're, you're saying something that doesn't happen though. What? Yes, incest happens. Craig. No, no. You're saying, what if it showed it doesn't cause as much? 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 this morning? I'll give you a COR. Craig, I'll give you a chance to answer, and then this really is wrap up. All right, um, right, honestly, uh, I disagree with it. And secular humanists would probably disagree with it because of the potential to cause harm. Okay, we're going to wrap up with that, folks. I want to ask of you to join me in applauding our speakers. That was amazing. [Applause] Thank you very much. What we'll do is we'll 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. We'll see you at 1:30. Oh, and the restaurant on site is open. The, what was it, uh, Bob, uh, Tom's, the vot again? Oh, you're right. Oh, hold on one second. Thank you very much. Hold on one second. We have to do the vote again. Okay, we are going to do the vote. So folks, somebody seal off the door for me. All right, so what we're going to do is the same vote that we did beforehand, really quick. If you would agree more with fight the Flat Earth, aka Craig, would you slip your hand up, please? Give you a chance to count, and then if you agree with Andrew, you're more, uh, leaning on his side. And remember, it is by a percentage, so percentage is what we look at at comparing the before and after. Let give them a chance. Oh, you can put your. Thanks very much for that. Let's see a chance to, uh, do the math on that. Do you have a winner? Looks like you got it. And that's by percent though. You got it. Okay, thank you very much. Andrew Wilson, we will. You bet. Thanks, folks. And then that's Tom's Grill is open. There's also a little cafe shop nearby. We'll see you at 1:30 for the next debate.