Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. If this is your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I want to let you know we're a nonpartisan platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics, trying to give everybody their shot to make their case on an equal playing field. So we do hope you feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you are from. And hey, consider hitting that subscribe button if you love debates as we have many more to come. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, we'll have another tag team debate, in particular tomorrow with Tom Jump in Skyler Fiction partnering up against CJ and Smokey. So that should be a lot of fun and many more after that as well. So want to get into it for today. Very excited. It's going to be kind of a flexible format where it's going to be about 12 minutes and that's flexible, split by each side, followed by open conversation, and then Q&A. So if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And if you tag me with that Modern Day Debate, it makes it easier for me to get every single question in that list for the Q&A. Super Chat is also an option. If you do a Super Chat, you can not only ask a question, but make a comment during the question and answer. And obviously one of the speakers or several of the speakers would get a chance to respond to it, followed by, I have to mention really quick, we're going to, in that format, we're going to have our atheist friends go first, followed by our Christian friends and want to let you know as well that Super Chat will push your question or comment to the top of the list. So for today's debate, one also lets you know, oh, this is a general channel announcement. We are very excited that Modern Day Debate is invading the podcast world. So you'll see on the far right of the screen. Those are some of the podcast apps that we're on. We're on most of the major ones that we're not on your favorite. Let us know and we will work to get on there, folks. So very excited for our guests as they're speaking today. If you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that, I want to hear more. I have put their links in the description for you so you can hear more. And with that, we're going to get the ball rolling. First I just want to say thanks, though. I really appreciate Michael, rib or religion is BS, Maddox and Smokey. Thank you all just for being here, hanging out with us. Thanks so much for having us again. Thanks so much, James. Absolutely. So with that, we will hand it over to Michael and Rib. Thanks so much, guys. The floor is all yours. Okay, so, yeah, I would be absolutely remiss if I did not extend a massive, massive thank you to you, James, for having us now three times. So thank you so much for that. I also want to do a very, very quick shout out to Spark 344. You left a comment in the last debate saying that you want to hear more of my sexy Irish accent and James is in the business of, you know, giving the people what they want. So here I am. Okay, so talking about morality, it's a complicated issue. And from what I see, I could be wrong in the opponents tonight, but what I see generally is that they like to consider morality to be this simplistic thing, sort of like a carousel and a stick form of morals, obviously holding the stick being God. It's far more complicated than I think that a lot of people tend to kind of make it. We know that morals in their like base, their finest, their like their smallest form was an emergent property. So we can kind of picture if we were to be back in tribe like civilizations, like the first humans, if you were to ensure the survival of of your tribe, generally a good way, a good way to kind of go about doing that is to not kill each other. So don't kill was probably just a rule, you know, or it was like an unwritten rule. So we know where these sorts of things first came from. How I personally get my sense of morals and like on certain social issues as well is and I may be butchering his name, John Roll, who came up with the veil of ignorance. Basically, how the veil of ignorance works is if you were to be designing a society, not knowing who or what you are going to enter it as, what sort of rules would you impart? So just for argument's sake, to put examples if we are to assess whether or not we should have slavery. That's not just a foreshadowing moment, by the way, because that will come up later. If if you are saying you don't know whether you are going to be the slave or the slave owner, are you going to allow slavery? You have to consider there is a possibility because you don't know who or what you are going to enter it as. You have to consider the possibility that you are essentially signing away your own freedom. Liberty's rights, everything that you know and love. To give a second example and this will be my last point and that will be over to Michael. Same-sex marriage, if you were to enter the new thing as gay, but if you were to say, no, I don't want same-sex marriage, if you were to go as far as some people go and say that I think it should still be criminalized. Well, if you were to make it criminalized, if you were to do that under the veil of ignorance and then enter the new society as gay, you will have essentially signed your own prison sentence. So that's how I have kind of arrived at most of my things. I'm sure that that's going to come into question coming up, but with that I'm going to leave it over to Michael. Thanks a lot. This is going to be so much fun. Okay, so Christian morality is what I like to call big stick or might is right morality. You can't get a morality without looking at the Decalogue. So I want to look at those first. The first four commandments have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.  Commitment number five, honouring your parents is questionable. Think about how many children have been removed from the care of their parents because of abuse or neglect. Six, eight, nine theft lying, theft, murder and lying are moral questions, but we'll see how quickly they break down. For example, there are times when lying is in fact the most moral thing you can possibly do. Seven clearly know the Bible is flexible. It's about adultery. For instance, let's look at stories about Abraham where he had many wives. This certainly brings one man, one woman thing into question. This is special pleading and that I'm sure. Lastly, 10, I find 10 really interesting. The argument for coveting could be easily seen as the basis for the American Capitalist Society. So is God the basis of morality? Well, many Christians will argue that. What I'm referring to here is a Euthyphro dilemma. Is it God commands it because it is right? Or is it right simply because he commands it? You can't have it both ways. Now, our opponents do not like the Bible. John has a reference that even once during our talks and all smoke he's done is say how I misuse and misquote it without the capacity or the willingness to show me how or when I did. I love the Bible. So I'm going to go with more Bible. I like pouring out exactly how horrible a tome it is given that we are talking about Christian versus secular morality. I'm really curious as to how they're going to avoid using the Bible this time. How many times will I be told that I'm getting it wrong? I wonder how many times John will bring up 500,000 plus base pairs of something that coats for proteins that has absolutely nothing to do with morality.  The second is this, love your neighbors yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. I like to contract this with, contrast this with Luke 1426. If anyone comes to me, it does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters. Yes, even their own life, such a person cannot be my disciple. I really love it when Christians apply apologetics to this, try to get around this rather sticky verse. They like to apply verse 27 where it says, if you don't carry your cross as I did, you can't be my disciple. And then what they imply, what is meant by this is that you have to forsake the way people, you have to forsake people the way Jesus did. This is interesting because it contradicts the whole loving your neighbor thing because you wouldn't turn your backs on people you love. And it brings the whole honoring your parents thing into question too. When it comes to morality, I have opinions and so do others. I've heard the question asked, is it always wrong to torture a baby merely for one's own personal pleasure? This is used to try to demonstrate the superiority of Christian morality in some weird way. However, simple reading of Ephesians 111 brings us into question. All things are done according to God's plan and decision. And God chose us to be his people in union with Christ because it was his own purpose based on what he had decided from the very beginning. So all suffering and in fact every single immoral act ever committed was precisely what God wanted to fulfill his purpose. Cool. Christian morality is based on the Bible. The Bible is horrid. And if your God is real, he deserves nothing more than this. Thanks. Next up, we will kick it over to our Christian guests. So Maddox and Smokey will give it their opening statement. Thanks gentlemen as well for being here. The floor is all yours. I guess I'll go first. Everybody just so you know, after the debate, Smokey and I will be doing an after show over on Smokey's channel. So make sure you click the link in the description and head on over there for the after show. Now, as we enter this last and hopefully final round of debate because we hadn't really accomplished much. I asked the audience to consider how in the first two debates and this will likely continue today. Smokey and myself have made arguments in favor of objective truth, a creator which is neither subject to time or space and ultimately is a conscious entity to which we must answer. Our opponents desperately attempt to avoid this reality at all costs. For if there is a higher power which sets the rules, whether we like them or not agree with them or wish to obey them has zero influence on their existence. So listen to their arguments with intent. For I wager you will pick up on childlike rebellion and two men who inherently wish they could decide what is right and wrong and their words are nothing but juvenile anger at the logical structure of morality. They claim that somehow overarching moral principles cannot be applied to nuanced situations and perhaps the most myopic fallacy of logic I've ever encountered. Are you guys actually this narrow minded because you make this accusation towards us? It seems if I don't agree with you somehow there is no logical argument being made that must be addressed. But beyond this ask yourself, why is it that atheists claim to agree with the vast majority of Christian moral principles? With their primary objective just being who they are accountable to in regards to violating them and what is the source of their origin. They want the positive outcomes we enjoy when the rules are followed but to avoid the personal ramifications should they decide to break them. Now rather than waste more time on logic arguments to which the first two debates have shown beyond doubt our opponents will actually consider contemplate or respond to with any rational counterpoints. Prepare for triggered atheists, ladies and gentlemen. I yield the remainder of my time and let's rock and roll. Appreciate it. Thank you Maddox. Yeah, I didn't really prepare an opening because I was kind of curious which direction they were going to go with theirs. And sadly it's the type I was predicting. It's not really any type of genuine defense for their position of secular morality being superior. I mean granted Rib touched on a few pieces but all of it's through the lens of attacking. Ancient cultures as presented in the Bible not that we or me preach that there's objective codes to be objective laws because laws themselves by nature cannot be objective. But there's objective moral truths to be taken from the scriptures and carried forward into the structure of modern society with what we've been given and what we've been All the blessings of modern First World comforts that lets us sit in this lofty ivory tower and judge these ancient cultures is inferior to us because we can have a better civil structure. But Michael, I kind of want to just go into more general conversation than take a long winded approach to justifying this because your guys' approach is basically seemingly just to attack Christian morals rather than really seemingly try to defend your own. So I wanted to ask something, Michael, the last two debates you said something really interesting. You said you know the Christian God doesn't exist. Is that true? Yeah. Following the philosophical argument of fallibilism, meaning that I can have knowledge without absolute certainty. So because there's no way there's no way. No, I didn't say that. I said there's no way the Christian God can exist. Well, is it because he's immoral because he makes immoral dictations? Well, just to be clear, not that this I mean, yeah, this isn't even the topic. Just, well, no, just to be clear, if we're going to transition to open discussion, cool. We can do that. But I want to be sure that. Okay. Yeah, we can do one thing. Want to mention folks, as I mentioned, all of our guests are linked in the description and want to quickly smokey. Your audio is still just a bit high. If you're able to just turn it down just a smidge and I think that'll kind of bring us into is that a little better? That is a little better. Thanks so much. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. I continue. Go ahead. You want me? You want me to go? Well, I was, yeah, I was trying to glean from from your perspective, you know, your, your knowledge that God does not, the Christian God does not exist.  Right. Okay. That's not on the date tonight. Yeah. So, all right. But I'm going to address it because it's because it's just three simple points. That's okay. That's okay. I just want to just to kind of stress that point is that's not the date tonight. The Bible is wrong. Okay. It demonstrably wrong. Morally? Two, I do know to factually the Bible is wrong to the Christian God's morality in the from what we read in the Bible is contradictory. And because John was to touch so much on logic, we can say that something if something is logically contradictory, it can exist. And three contrary to what the Bible says, evolution is an absolute fact of population genetics. I don't care what you think. It doesn't matter what you think about it is irrelevant. Evolution is true. Also not on debate tonight. Get over it. So let's just get to also not on debate tonight. Yeah. So let's make a quick insertion here. So I think he's trying to dodge what I'm trying to get out here. I think is what's happening. You asked me my point. I answered your point. If you want to ask me another question, ask me another question. Go ahead. So Michael, you literally in you guys talked about 500 base pairs and whatnot.  So you're trying to open yourself up to good annihilated again or we actually going to talk about morality.  You still haven't mentioned your own guy. You keep on talking about a moral lawgiver morality at all. Yeah.  Okay. Well, I'm trying to gentlemen triggered atheists have entered the building. Okay. Entered the building. All right. So what we'll do is I think that I remember there is a question that I think Smokey asked.  I'm talking still. Is Michael, if you felt like you had plenty of time to talk mentioned, or I should say respond to Smokey's question. Cool. Then we can go to the next point. But you know, it was super simple, James. And thanks like for kind of moderating this point. I appreciate it. So Smokey asked me a question about how I could falsify the Christian God. I gave my three points and said it wasn't about the debate. So I'd really love to talk about the like Christian morality. Because you guys don't want to talk about the Bible. But let's talk about Christian morality versus secular. I'm actually trying to talk about the Bible, sir, but you're not even letting me get to my point. You criticize the Ten Commandments. And so basically you think the Ten Commandments are garbage. So, okay. Okay. So, so you know the Christian God. I hate to ask you, but I do need you to turn your mic down just a bit. There is a noticeable difference. I'm trying. I'm trying, James. That's a whole phone. Even if you just like create a little bit of space. Be quieter. I'm still talking is even if you create a little space between your mic and yourself, that might help them too. Yeah. Yeah, I keep doing that. Okay. Is that better? That is better. Thanks. Okay. All right. Yeah. And Michael, before you keep talking trash, I littered here. So here's a sentence from my opening. Why is it that atheists claim to agree with the vast majority of Christian moral principles with their primary objection being who they are accountable to in regards to violating late violating them and what is the source of their origin. And then I ended with saying something effective. You won't actually pay attention to the opening statements, which thank you for me be allowing me to be prophetic about the fact that you guys don't actually pay attention to the arguments that are made and the points that are presented. So go ahead and rewind and I'll let you retract your BS statement there. Cool. Okay, what are you saying? Okay. Smokey, I would actually kind of like to kind of help kick start this off. You at the very, very end of the last debate said, quote, there was wonderful progressive moral standards in the Bible. What are they? Sure. Um, the value of human life, the value of marriage rights, the value of integrity of the nuclear family and a culture that protects that those are some of the some of the key ones. In what way is that progressive because all of their contemporaries tend to like to murder slaves at random and win with absolutely no consequences and beat them that will enforce them into slavery in their temples, kidnap their children and roast them alive on altars to Molok and the Jews were trying to fight against it and stop all that. But apparently you don't know anything about the ancient Canaanite cultures that you condemn the Jews for going against.  Apparently. When did we do that? Just now. I'm sorry. If you didn't catch it, I didn't catch it. I think the audience did. Michael, your situation is a little bit worse because you've condemned the moral structure of the Jews. You've condemned the moral laws and the precepts in that culture, which were the more progressive and beneficial of any of their contemporaries at the time.   Calling me anti-Semitic. That's hysterical. I'm not and you can try to slam me in that way if you want. That's that's totally fine.  Okay, so I want to see you said a minute ago that you that the 10 commandments were a fine moral preset. I'd actually like an answer to my question. Why are you not going to? I am not going to answer your defamatory statement that implies that I don't think the God exists. If you're going to go down that road. This is this is going to get nasty really fast.  You clearly are. No, I'm not and you hate me. So let's get back to the actual topic. So, uh, with regards to Christian and secular ethics, right are the first four commandments. Do they have anything to do with morality? Sure.  It's something that secularism will never be able to synthesize in their wildest dreams is the reason to do something good instead of do something bad. That's necessarily good for yourself. Okay. So you're appealing to the undemonstrated standard. And if you and what happens if you don't do it? You, well, in the mind of the person doing it, they're going to face punishment, which means there's psychological deterrent against negative behavior. That's something that secular morality can never synthesize. So that's might as right. Like I said, thank you for proving me to be pathetic. Well, okay. If you want to put it that way, sure, go ahead. Yeah.  So I mean, I asked you for wonderful progressive moral standards.  I don't see that as being progressive in any way shape or form at all. Consider that the Bible. It's interesting that you guys open up the argument to what is progressive. I'm still making a point. Let's let him finish this point. And I promise we'll come right back to Maddox considering that the Bible also states that gaze should be stoned that women are lesser than than than men and that it allows for slavery. So where exactly the wonderful progressive moral standards fall inside of your book? I'm failing to see. Okay. You know, let's let's address that in the context of secular morality that you guys supposedly stand for. So in line with your points about homosexual activities, let's think about this for a second. According to secular morality, organizations like the Man Boy Love Association are getting legal protections are being defended by the ACLU and other organizations around the world. So per your secular morality. Is it acceptable for grown men to without legal ramifications have sexual activities with young boys? What is your position on that? Is that progressive secular morality? No. And the ACLU has also defended KKK in a court. They are a group that are extreme is the Man Boy Love Association. Should that be acceptable? Let's give him a chance to explain why he would say that it's not a part of secular secular ethics. They they stand for the First Amendment truly and they they said in in in court when they were not talking about the issue. I'm talking about the man. I promise Maddox. I'm still he's dodging the question. I'm not. That's not what my question was about. If you want to point that out after he answers, like totally cool and you can pounce. But if if we don't let him finish it, you know, like it's not really a discussion. So go ahead, rib. They said that they found the things that the KKK were saying were morally reprehensible and I have absolutely no doubt that they also think the same for the Man Boy Love Association. It does not fall under secular morality because secular morality is based on her well-being. The goal of the Man Boy Love thingy is that they want to have sex with with with children.  Therefore it harms their well-being. Therefore it is against secular morality by definition. Okay. So the places around the world that are removing the legal ramifications for young boys do having these relationships with adult men. Are you suggesting that that is not in line with secular morality? Of course not. Well, then, but it's happening. Well, okay. And I would fight. I would fight alongside you. I would fight alongside you to stop it. I'm talking now as what I know. The point I am making is what you guys are obviously dodging is that what is the objective moral position that makes that activity immoral when secular governments can say that it is no longer illegal. Okay, sorry, finish. So where is the line? Because in the not so distant past, it was also acceptable for and there are still places around the world where it is legal for young girls to be given in marriage or to be used as sex slaves and it is accepted in those societies. So if you're going to only try and operate from what's happening in the right now, right this particular second in this in United States or in Canada or Ireland, the and say, Oh, well, this is secular morality when across the planet there are things that are directly supposedly and directly in violation of your own positions. But what is the moral standard? Where does the moral standard come from that is not subject to dramatic paradigm shifts in very rapid periods of time? Are you familiar with the term consequential as I said, it was well-being. I like consequential ethicism. Please Michael elaborate. Yeah, so my actions have consequences. So when you're talking about societies that would allow things like child marriage that would condone in any type of societal situation that would condone children that don't have the capacity to consent with adults. All of those things are important and Ribbon. I would fight alongside you to end all of those types of things. It was my why my actions my because my actions have consequences and I seek to minimize the amount of harm that I do to conscious creatures and the same time same time try to maximize their flourishing. You're not all of those things. Ribbon putting it in young boys butts. Why is it wrong for him to do it? Not you if he was doing that. I would pay for all of our plane tickets to go to Ireland to take care of that. Okay, but that's not legal. But it's legal. Let's say it's legal in Ireland. So that it has to be changed. Why it's legal under the second under secular law. It's legal.  We're now the ones breaking the secular law. If we go assault him for doing something that's legal. It's sex. It's it's it's not harm law. I don't know why you keep saying that it's not secular law. There are there are places around the world where it is acceptable. Well, I think what I would talk to you guys reading under secular law. Yeah, I wouldn't say it's about I wouldn't say it's about secular law. It's about what what secular permissibility is really what it comes down to. It's the lack of the objective grounding the absolutist, you know that that even though I would probably agree with you guys that our Constitution in America is a secular document. It still draws to non secular principles such as absolutist ideals for personal rights and this is the type of thing that the UN has failed masterfully to protect, which is why you know it's member states for five of the member states that receive tens of millions of dollars every year in foreign aid to try to create entities that basically regulate legal slavery because these countries don't have any other method of which to operate. They don't have any infrastructure or economy to operate differently. So they operate mainly off of servitude and slavery. So they they sent sent millions of dollars to these countries to enforce it and regulate it and to try to keep the bad types of sex slavery happening. But they're failing and in a lot of these UN nations, particularly North Korea, Burundi, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, there's horrible atrocious forms of sex slavery happening right under the nose of the UN and it's not being stopped. But I hear you guys want to really criticize ancient color cultures for their moral standards. I don't see you on your high horses with some of these modern atrocities right under your noses.  All this bad stuff is going on right now. Where's your God stopping it? He's the only being that has the capacity. Not only does he have the capacity to stop it, but absolutely everything that's going on right now. He has 100% knowledge of it. He knows it's happening and he knows it's happening. I'm not finished yet. He knows it's happening before it's even going to happen.  Why doesn't why doesn't you? Why doesn't your God coming in and stop it? This is the most simplistic base unsophisticated pitching of the problem of evil, which means you've clearly never actually looked into it. If you're making this this level and you better make your answer really in small words so I can understand. Well, if you're not interesting and even looking at the base, assumptive argument dealing with that from philosophy that's been around for a hundred years. I don't know what you're expecting me to do for you, sir. You clearly are not interested in truth. You just, I mean, when you're willing to make an objection like that, the basic colloquial problem of evil that's been around for a hundred years and then been addressed dozens of times with hundreds of philosophers and you want to pitch the base level like it's never been discussed and expect me to jump in when it's not even on topic of the debate. You're stretching. Evil isn't a moral question. The concept of God, the moral God allowing moral evil is a question that challenges this character and it allows you to understand that you have a very unsophisticated view of the actual Christian God claim because the Christian God claim includes with it a protection of his righteousness and an environment of grace and an environment of free will, which means there are certain things he himself will not violate because he has set his own statutes and if he violates them, he makes himself a liar. Well, okay, then one, then, then he is morally inferior to me because if I had the power, I'd stop it. And two, and two, can you tell me where evil came from? How would you stop it? I smoke it real quick, real quick, real quick. Go ahead. I didn't mean to be so prophetic in my opening statement, but let me just reiterate. So listen to their arguments with intent. For I wager, you will pick up on childlike rebellion and two men who inherently wish they could decide what is right and wrong.  I yield back to you smoking. Cool. So where does evil come from? A deviation of good.  Sure. Which version of the Bible do you prefer? That's such a weird question. I don't mind any of the versions, honestly. In fact, I like to cross-reference versions and use interlinear. So it's really kind of irrelevant. Do you mind KJV? Sure. Go ahead. Familiar with Isaiah? Sure. Isaiah 45-7. I create light and I create darkness. I made good and I create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. Yeah. I create good. I create peace. That's in the Hebrew there. If you did a little bit of root looking. See, this is. I love that. Yeah, I love how you will only read it in English and figure you've got it.  Why don't you look up a commentary? Why don't you see what anyone other than a brain-dead atheist on the Internet had to say about a verse and then come back and talk to me and maybe understand a little bit about how Jewish literary structure actually worked. He's not taking this from anyone else. He's reading it to you. Yeah. No, I know. He's reading it with the most unsophisticated, unintellectual way possible. It's like dealing with the KJV only. I asked you. I asked you which version you preferred. Because I have them written down here. Would you would you prefer? Hang on. Yeah. Pull up the inner linear and go into the Hebrew then if you want to do it. Would you prefer NIV where it says calamity? Sure. OK. OK. Or or or. No, NASB and NASP says. You have to follow the structure of the language, sir, which you're completely ignorant of, which is what I'm saying. They do they do diametrics inside their structure. So whatever they mentioned first was something they were drawing a opposition to in the second contrast or a comparison to. OK, so if it's talking about peace, it's a it's a contrast to that word, which means non peace or calamity. It's not the actual manifestation of all general evil like you're trying to read into the text and none of the Jews ever read it that way either. Just just again, an unintellectual atheist that want to take the most unsophisticated approach possible to looking into a complex ancient text. Sorry. Is this a Christian triggered thing? Well, no, I just think you're being ridiculous.  This is right. Yeah. But you know what you're saying? The argument that he brought up, he called him. It's a ridiculous argument that clearly he's never looked at a commentary or a scholar. It was a let's hear from rib by doing here from rib. He's talking to him personally, which is an ad homodom, which is just ridiculous. Hey, whatever. You guys started off talking trash. Now you're getting counter.  Love it. Listen, listen, hold on a second. What we're going to do is return to the topic, whether that be Christian ethics or secular ethics, whatever you guys want to talk about between those. Let's talk about let's talk about how every secular society said that that's existed since the beginning of time has been an absolute delusion of blood. How about that? There's a great book that's available. It's actually, I forget the name of the offer now. It's called Drunk with Blood. And it talks, it actually goes through chapter by chapter, book by book through the Bible and lists all of the blood that's actually on the, on the God of the Bible's hands. And it's, it's an interesting read out there for anybody. I suggest it's a tiny. Yeah. I can't remember the name of the offer, but it's a nice attempt to save. Nice attempt to save. It's a tiny fraction of what secular societies have done just in the last 200 years. Which one do you want to talk about Hitler? Well, you want to talk about USSR? That was 60 million people. Sure. Yeah. That was horrible. Yeah. Okay. That was a secular society that believed it needed to weed out certain people that were a danger to the facility of the society of what it was trying to chase. So it killed. It was actually a form of state worship, not really secular. Yeah. Yeah. All that, whatever you want. I think atheists are religious enough. Two different things. So it's not just calling it whatever we want to. All right. How about China? I've heard a lot of atheists try to tout China, the PKC as kind of the modern utopia of secularism. What do you guys feel about that? Oh, no. None of us have brought up China. Why don't you address the arguments that we're making rather than other ones that you've heard from? Well, I'm just pitching that the idea that secular societies are just a cultural and civil nightmare. Unless you guys have an example to defend your position, I think that you guys are just basically a cancer on society. You guys justify every type of court, a treacherous act in all of history. Not one secular society that operates under the ruse of secular morals being well-being has ever advocated for slavery, yet your book does. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to talk about that? Sure. Absolutely. I want to talk about that. Absolutely. What other economic instituted system would you have replaced it with if you were God? OK, so we're not talking about indentured civitude. I would have said they shall not own a person as property. Yeah. OK. Well, that's a bit of a problem. That's a bit of a cultural problem, gentlemen, because we still own people today. We still own people in cultures today. We still own people in first world cultures today. Some of us are just more honest about it than others. For example, in America, our 13th amendment that was the abolishment of slavery. So the slavery is abolished except in instances of prosecution or basically breaking the law or after you've been tried in a crime. So we're at least honest about it in our country that our prisoners are still very much property of the state and slaves. That doesn't that doesn't really fit. And the only reason that it doesn't is because if they're so to draw a true analogy between this, I'd like to finish because there's a point at the end of it for you to respond to. I guess there's a point, but there's a problem with what I'm saying. So no matter how eloquently you say the point, I'm still going to have have an issue with it. So maybe we should iron this out first. As you wish. OK. In order to draw a true analogy, I'm going to be going off of Exodus 21 versus 18 to 22. Given your example of a prisoner in a prison, if a security guard or if a warden was to beat a prisoner so that he didn't, but he got up in two days.  Happens all the time happens every day happened in front of me and they are up in arms and they face punishment. No, no, they don't. True analogy. No, they don't. The thick blue line protects that. But but no, you guys just have a very, very pipe dream, you know, fairytale cloud version of reality. It's not fairytale and describing what happens. But no, I know, I know what happens over here and and and it happens all the time. What? Yeah.  So I know what's going on over there as well.   Well, what I'm saying, what I was trying to draw to my conclusion is that in a slave environment where people are in a subject of servitude, which by the way is still a lot of cultures today. That's how they have to function because they don't have the wonderful excess that we have to cultivate prison systems, which are basically just close confined anti social environments where they're still beaten, hit with chemical warfare and prevented from any type of way of rejoining society. They're institutionalized as opposed to an ancient culture that took their prisoners, took their deviance, put them into servitude positions and then made them contribute back to the society that they damaged. Maybe you can justify why you think today's system is more moral. Mike, who do you want to take this? But what do I think today's prison system is more moral than the slavery system where they contributed back to the society they damaged? Well, which slavery system we talk about anti-bellum slave or a biblical? No, let's talk about the Hebrew because I think that's what we're kind of on point on. We're defending Christian morality. So let's talk about the Hebrew slavery. So to be clear, the Bible lays out that Hebrew slavery was indentured servitude, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about where it says in Exodus 1, where it says, hang on, dude, just let me finish what I'm trying to say, where the Bible says your female slaves may come from the areas around you. I'm just paraphrasing it.  You can pass them. You can. No, no, no, no, you can pass them on to your children. Yeah, you can purchase them. You can purchase them. You can buy people. Right. Exactly. Um, and, and see that was actually moral. Yes. It was a mercy and I'll explain to you what can you name? Can you name? Well, hold on. I'm about to expose you guys as something really gross. So hold on. Wow. Can you name? You heard it here by one of the other contemporary. Can you just stop giggling like a little girl for a second rib so I can make my point? Okay. Um, can you name one of the other cultures nearby the Jews that they would have been purchasing from where the slaves would have been treated better? That's irrelevant because we're talking about we're talking about the Bible. We're talking about biblical slavery. It's perfectly relevant to the point, sir. Now you're just trying to run from it. No, so when they were purchasing a slave from a foreign nation and bringing them in and they were getting required days off better types of treatment, they weren't able to be killed at whim. They weren't able to be beaten at whim. They weren't able to be used as any type of sex slaves. They had to be given marriage rights. They had to be treated like actual people. All the other cultures around them treated them basically like animals the way that we treated them in the European slave trade, which by the way was a secular system based upon the incredibly amoral, disgusting evolutionary ideal that black people were basically animals and that's what fueled the European slave trade for years.  That's on you guys, not us.  Now I'm racist. Okay. So so we went from biblical slavery and we went right over into into antebellum slavery there.  Like did you not comprehend the entire point that was making? So I'd answer the question that was raised in the context of was there a dramatic difference in the outcome of that action between what the Jews were the Israelis were doing versus the secular cultures around. So all that really matters and answer the question and I know you're not going to like this, but I'm just going to answer the question so much. I'm going to answer it. Gross. I'm going to answer the question. At the end of the day, we were talking about people owning other people and the Bible lays it out really clearly. If you haven't, if you don't want to take my word for it, there's a guy on another channel. No, I'm sure answer the question.  Listen, I'm going to answer it the way I want to. He's already said this like four times James. He's saying he's repeating himself. Definitely you can definitely point that out. But we do have let's give him just even a short amount of time to finish. So there's because what we the point that was raised was was biblical slavery. There's a guy named Dr. Josh Bowen who runs a channel called digital Hammurabi and he published. He just published a book called does the Old Testament endorse slavery talks about excess 21 Leviticus verse 2544 to 46 a lot in that which really, really addresses it and at the end of the day we're talking about people owning people and I asked you I asked you before smoke even asked my question. I asked if owning a person was moral and the answer we got back was yes in certain instances. Yes, sir. Okay, well then I'll take my secular system. We didn't have if we didn't have prisons or police or courts or infrastructures or roads or buildings or jails or any of these things that allow us to do these things today that are not slavery. If we didn't have any of these things like a lot of these other cultures today that still need slavery. It wouldn't be an issue. You don't condemn these modern cultures. Do you? Yes, they have no other option. You also you condemn them.  See this is the problem.  You would you would integrate laws that would actually make things worse in your sheer grotesque ignorance of what your moral system is actually based on. You know what? You guys base your morals based on what your cultural surroundings are, which means if you were an Aztec, you would have liked gutting people alive. If you were someone that was born in ancient North Canaan opposite the Jews, you would have like roasting children on on altars to Molok. If you would have been born in Sodom and Gomorrah, you would have thought it was perfectly fine to rape people.    No wonder you guys can't defend it.  Hang on. So let's think about this from a logical based on common sense and well. Okay. So let's use common sense.  Okay. In what modern society?  I haven't talked very much. And James keeps interrupting to let you guys dodge questions. So it's my turn to talk now. The in what modern society around the world? The second that law and order breaks down and the anarchy returns in name one scenario where there has not been absolute collapse into moral degradation and anarchy, blood, violence, rape and theft. All the all the components that were discussed tonight from a moral perspective, they just magically vanish the second the barrier the barrier of force is removed from the equation. So how do you you claim you make these strong claims that I would never take part in any of this stuff really?   And so what makes you any different? Why wouldn't you do gone to my head? You could put a gun to my head.  Sorry, I will. I will never ever ever do that. So don't even try and try and pin this. You live in a more imaginary moral system. You think that I have because it just doesn't work. So why don't you go actively try and stop all the grooming gangs that are happening in Ireland and United Kingdom right now? Because I'm in college to be a social worker.  Oh, yeah, because it's because the social workers in the United Kingdom and Ireland are doing so much to stop that it's spreading out the wall zoo as I'm sure you know if you actually pay attention and you're saying that you're going to try and stop it because there's plenty of social workers in Europe right now that aren't doing a damn job. Huh? That would be my job to stop that.  Is it a secular government or the police? The police in the United Kingdom and all over Europe are not going they're refusing to go into the no-go zones to stop the grooming gangs and the sex trade that's happening in the United Kingdom right now. There was a report two months ago. There's over a hundred thousand sex slaves in the United Kingdom right now. I think we just need to tie this. I don't know if you kind of need to brush up on your modern history, but Ireland left the UK a long time ago. I said, did I make distinction between Ireland, United Kingdom and Europe multiple times? And when I just said, I'm pretty sure I did. Do need to tie this back to the main topic. If it is relevant, if there's a way in which it can be explained like how this leads back to that core issue of Christian versus secular ethics, we can keep going with it. Otherwise, yes. Sorry, James. I'm sorry. Good and the last point I'll make on this because I'm a little dodge artist over there. By the way, there's it's rather clearly stated in Irish news sources. There's a grooming gang problem in Ireland. So I'm not really sure why you're trying to make a dodge artist of trying to tell me what I don't do and do not know about Europe where I spent the first 18 years of my life. Go ahead Smoky. Yeah, I hope maybe you guys can understand that by your own system that based upon it, you know, basically increasing the best wellness while minimizing suffering that some of the worst things in secular government history have been done to justify the actual, you know, manifestation of what was considered to be the greatest good because it's the elites that always decide what is the greatest good and usually the greatest good is at the sacrifice of those on the lower scale. So what you see is the manifestation of evolutionary theory in an actual civil realm and you see the survival of the fittest to those that are the most powerful. Those are the most influential. They rise to the top and they basically try to equate everyone underneath them at the same level of form of socialistic type of higher art. So this is the type of thing that we've seen emerge throughout secular societies since they've been around and pronounce themselves as secular societies operating with exactly what you guys have presented as your moral standard to minimize suffering and maximize well-being and yet that was the exact mantra that was still carry forward in all of these manners of genocide, including the mantras you guys also chant, which is that religious people, people that have beliefs contrary to the ones inside the positions of power are dangerous to society and fitting to be cold. And this is the type of dangerous talking points you guys push forward and I worry that in your ignorance, you don't always know what you what you're actually saying. So you think that that that secular society calls for the culling of religious? Ultimately, yeah, once it gets in power, kind of like the Muslims. Yeah, it tends to. So I'll only speak for myself, but I certainly don't want to see anyone who has a faith position harmed. I'm wondering if it's possible here for a second because I see a lot of what I see. And I think I hope I think Rib sees the same thing is that you're you're attacking a secularity that Rib and I are not representing. So I'm wondering if if for a second you could you could apply a principle of charity. Could you please steelman our position and tell us what it is we adhere to as as secularists? I thought I just did. No, but but if that's what you think you're not have if that's what you think you could not have been further off the mark. It was in your opening. You said to maximize well-being while minimizing suffering. And one of the things you do that is genocide. You you get there. You can follow that half the genocide very easily and all the secular governments have done. So it's like it's like when they when the USSR was taking advantage of the of the farmers well-being to explain all explain. I'll explain it's exactly what you guys promote which is why you're really gross in your ignorance. But I'll explain it to you right now. The issue is that during the time like the USSR when they were taking advantage of the farmers they were starving them out taking all the food and giving it to the city because it was better for the government for the city to survive. So they were willing to wipe out and make all the farmers star for the greater good.  So even though we told you that's not what we promote you're still saying we promote that even though we've said that's that's not at all what we stand for. You're still saying that it was in your openings for her. So do you guys please explain to me how murder the aside. A mad except please explain to me how murdering anyone promotes their flourishing and well-being. I just did. Wow. I just gave you an actual real world example. Dude how slow are you?  Okay so if you if you're in favor of staying against genocide are you for against abortion. That that depends. I am okay. So it's it's a complicated situation. I'll objective. So hang on a second. I'll explain it to you.  I believe that life is precious that life should be protected. My pro life stance is only overshadowed by my pro choice stance in that that at the end of the day.  I'll just take a page from your book. Just sit there and listen for a second. You might learn something. Because my my pro choice my pro choice stance is that the at the end of the day when it comes to when it comes to abortion bodily autonomy must win out in what scenario is it I'm not finished yet. In what scenario is it acceptable. He's not because there's a whole body choice. When I'm not finished yet. When I'm not acceptable I'll tell you so bodily autonomy has to win out and that the final choice the final choice must be made between a woman and her health practitioner instances where I believe their instances where I believe abortion is is completely immoral for example if there are women who don't take responsibility and who just think you want to use abortion as birth control that's disgusting. But if a woman is raped or if there's a or if there's an issue of incest or something like that then having an abortion would be the most moral thing for that woman's health and well-being that could possibly happen. Okay, so that's like rape and incest. Okay, so in so are you stating that the only time it is acceptable to for an abortion to occur the only time is if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. No, there would be other circumstances as well. Oh, okay. So so when for example, so are you familiar with the process of amniocentesis where they check for things like spinal bifida or other deleterious if there's any care you're going to let me finish. You're starting to ask me a question. I'm familiar with where I'm familiar. He asked me a question. He asked me a question. I was familiar with the question. He asked if I was familiar with spinal bifida. Another thing. Yes, it's it's a long it's a long question. Okay, so something like something like amniocentesis is a medical procedure where they can test for things like spinal bifida other types of horrible developmental deficiencies within the within the fetus because we're not talking about a baby. We're talking about a fetus that would that would if the if the pregnancy was allowed to continue result in in the in the birth of a child that could have horrible health defects so much so that they may not even survive and they may live only a few short hours or a few short days in absolute agony. So in a situation like that, that would be another situation. We're performing an abortion would actually be the most moral thing you could do because the only life that that baby would have once born would be of pain and agony until it finally died a few days later. So the subject the subject of abortion is a complex issue. It's not just this that or the other thing. There are lots of issues to be taken to be taken into account. Okay, cool. So two things. Number one, you said fetus not baby. Okay, so what is your definition of baby? Is it not a baby until it comes out of the woman's vagina or has a born child? Okay, so post C-section. It's a baby. That would also be a born child. Yes. Okay, cool. So if a child is born at say the current record of survival, which is 21 weeks, are you suggesting that the same application of rights to the life, even though it was born exponentially sooner than what would normally constitute a natural birth? Are you saying that that child is not should not be a recipient of protection? Does it have that? What is it an autonomous being at that point? Is it surviving without without the support of its mother's body? After you're born, are you autonomous outside of your parents taking care of you? Well, no, no answer that question after not long until you can take care of yourself.  Yes or no. By autonomy, what I mean is yes or no, the question via capacity to perform life functions like breathing. No, life functions are like eating this metabolism breathing.  Are you going to die? Yes or no, because society would step in and take care of that. No, no, no, I said, no, society would constitute one of those entities. I just delineated so without a external force is able to give you the nutrients and help you breathe and all that kind of stuff without that entity after you're born, once you've come out of the birth canal, is that child going to live or die? It'll probably die. Okay, so it's not autonomous than is it? No, you're not. Is it autonomous? Yes or no? You're not understanding the definition. You have a daughter, correct? I do too. My daughter just turned 10 years old until my daughter, it was really even now. Could my daughter really take care of herself? There was no, if I wasn't around or some other I don't know how to care for her. Could your daughter take care of herself? Does your daughter have developmental issues? I don't know what your daughter can take care of herself. How am I supposed to know that? No, that's an interesting point. Can I jump in real quick, Maddox? It was an interesting question.   Do I get a trophy? Good. Yeah, I was just curious because you had said that like in your kind of moral framework that it would be okay to abort a child that had some sort of developmental disorder. Is there any moral issue? I guess you kind of take it that that's like a kind of mercy like not like not letting them have to struggle to live through life type thing. Are you referring to the specific example I gave? Well, sure. I mean, are there other examples other than that specific example? Like are there other like? Well, fuck, how long are we going to sit here and talk about it? Yeah, I mean, there are lots of there are lots of situations. This is why this is why they're this is one of the reasons why secular morality is superior to Christian morality is that there isn't just fine line words. Yes and no. We look at each individual situation and say, okay, in this situation, this this would be the best action to promote well-being, flourishing and minimize harm and suffering. Whereas in this situation, it moves. It's it's a continuum. It's not a God says so.  Got it. It's it's it's a continuum. So so is there really anything wrong with going ahead and just killing all the people that have those conditions currently that are living? That's kind of a mercy to right? No, I don't believe so. Well, why not? How did you determine how did you determine what their quality of life was? You did by saying it would be better for them to be we're talking. We're talking about this. We're talking about all of these people. First of all, who are all of these people? More dodging or that's what I said. It's going to continue later today. If later today, Michael, you're really dense. If later today, your daughter falls and has brain damage. She faces a life of potential pain. Agony not being able to take care of herself and a condition which does not optimal. Would you then take the position that it is acceptable to execute your daughter to execute?  Okay. So even though that she now has a condition that doesn't mean she's not going to be able to live a optimal life, right? I. E. Exactly what you said was acceptable to abort the baby fetus who is not yet a child who would be facing a very similar negative potential negatives in their life.  Is that correct? So so are you telling me in this that you don't see the difference between like a fetus that's 12 or 14 weeks old in utero versus a 23 year old adult? I just want to be clear. We will see the difference. Was your daughter also, you said how was she now 24? 23. 23. Okay. So was at some point, was your daughter a fetus in utero? Yeah. Okay. So if she had had a problem and you discovered it, would you have, looking back on it now, would you ever have aborted your daughter? What it would depend on what the consensus of the medical community was. If it was determined, if it was determined at the point, like at the point, let's say I'm trying to answer your question. So let me answer your question. I'm trying to answer your question if the consensus was like, okay, cool. No, no, no, no, no, no, you're not answering my question. You're not answering for me. I'm answering for you. I would.  If an amni, something like an amniocentesis had been done when my daughter was 13, 14 weeks. I'm not exactly sure on the timing of the process when they do those tests. Had been done and it had come back determined that there was some type of severe developmental issue that would have meant that her life would have either been very short with no quality of life or exceedingly painful. Then her mother and I would have had a discussion and made a decision. The first of all, I wouldn't have made that decision myself because it's not just my decision to make. And ultimately, like I said before, to be consistent, it wouldn't have been my final decision. It would have been, it would have been her mother who was actually carrying her, but I would have looked at it, I would have looked at it that way. And again, if you can't see the difference between those two things, I don't know how to help. It wouldn't have been your decision. Okay. So let's address the dumbassery of that position. So I'm going to give you a real world example.  I went and my mother and I went and stayed with my sister for six months because she had to be on bed rest and had three other kids because not one, but many doctors told my sister and brother-in-law that she needed to abort my nephew, that she had a 90% chance of her dying, that there was almost no chance of him being born and that, oh, she's going to bleed out. All this bad stuff is going to happen. There's no way this child will make it.  Well, interesting. That was not one. That was not two. That was over 10. They flew all of my sister and brother-in-law went all over the United States talking to the biggest experts to try and see if there's any new treatment, anything they could do to try and minimize that stuff. And they all said no. And the consensus was to abort. They refused based on Christian morality that no, every child was a gift of God. The life was unique and granted by the Almighty. Therefore, she was going to go to term. And magically, the condition rectified itself about three weeks before my nephew was born. And now they started to watch and make sure but my nephew was born fast forward to now. He's a six foot five brilliant young man. And if they had followed the consensus, he would have been executed. So your argument is a very myopic one and it's nothing but an attempt to dodge whether or not life is precious, whether or not we are unique souls and if we should just, oh, well, it's inconvenient or hey, we're going to be the ones that arbitrarily get to decide what is life and what people can and cannot have a chance in this world.  And when you think about the over 60 million babies that are aborted per year on a global level, fetuses, babies that are aborted per year by what? Secular societies that push it. So in a decade, more people get aborted than have been killed in every single war with which you try to throw all the people that died. It was nothing to do with secularism. Oh, it was just religious societies on their wars. Really? Well, yeah, more people have died based on secular principles in relation to abortion than in every war ever combined. So when you get off of your high horse and actually look at the reality of what's going on and go at your daughter's birthday today, ask her whether or not she thinks you should have aborted her if something bad had happened. So what's so what's interesting is and then I want to make sure that we get the chance to talk because he hasn't so you said there were there was there was your your nephew who at one stage of development had some problems. So if a decision had been made at that time without any for knowledge, right? Because you said that this I think your words were magically healed itself towards towards full term and before before your nephew was they knew about this in like the first four weeks. Sure. The pregnancy. So so I I don't know how I don't know how you would expect me to answer and other than other than did previously in that when when when your sister was operated on on the best information. So the best information at the time when this when this condition was discovered, I don't know how you could expect anyone to know that consensus. I'm still talking to the defense. Isn't it? Isn't that consensus? What I'm still talking? We gave you plenty of time max. So we'll give Michael a little bit more than one. Let you guys know that we will be going to Q&A pretty quick if one of you is willing to defer to the other on the last word. Awesome. Otherwise in about five minutes, I'll bring us into the Q&A. So at one stage of development, there was this problem and they decided based on their own moral system that they would not terminate the pregnancy. And then towards the end of the pregnancy, something happened and that makes me super happy. I'm glad that your nephew doesn't have problems and I'm glad that he's super healthy and all that other stuff. That's a good thing. But based on the available information, I wouldn't have thought that that your sister was immoral for terminating a pregnancy based on the best information that they had at the time. She didn't have a crystal ball to see what it was going to be like. Maybe she had hope that something would get better. So I don't think it's reasonable to say, well, based on that, well, look what happened. It turned out better. But you could also have the reverse happen where you could put a healthy fetus where something developed towards the end of the pregnancy and then had and then had a resulting birth with all kinds of problems. So it could have gone the other way as well inside that is the question. We are the autonomous beings that get to make that choice and I'm going to defer. Okay. So autonomous beings. Okay. So at any point you are not autonomous.  In fact, in my power of attorney and living will, my wife will. Okay, cool. So but what if you just can't move but you're conscious and you can talk still? Well, we have things like fMRI machines that can actually measure brain activity. So that wouldn't be a problem. No, I'm saying I'm saying you have a stroke and only half of your body works and you slur your words and you have pain because you got burned on the left side of your body. Sure. Now you're in a hell of a lot of pain. You can't use most of your faculties and your daughter decides, you know, I think the dad would be better off if he died. Well, that wouldn't be her choice. Like I said, right? Well, right. Because you're still my wife's right? It would be my wife's choice. It would be my wife's choice. Your wife's dead. Sorry.  You're just trying to dodge. So your daughter decides. I don't like to live in your fantasy. Well, I'm getting hurt. We're now flipping the script. We're now flipping the script. You earlier said you would be in power to execute her. I'm saying now flip the script. No, I wouldn't be her mother would have been. I never said me. I always said deferring to the woman. Okay. I always said deferring to the woman. Okay. So fine.  It would be acceptable for your wife to have executed your daughter now because she might have faced all these bad things in life flipping the script. Is it now acceptable for your daughter to execute your wife because she now faces a tragic future of pain and suffering? Um, actually, that wouldn't be the case. It's a complicated question. Should she have the privilege to do so? It's a complicated situation because it was just if I I'll tell you why in my answer, I'll tell you why I can't reasonably answer your question because it's not a play and you couldn't know this. Okay. But my current wife is not my daughter's mother. So, so, so it doesn't work out. You have to give you'd have to you'd have to give me an applicable situation. You'd have to give me an applicable situation. But and it's totally different because I love how you slip in. I love how you slip in. I love how you slip in execute because and you have to do that because it's dramatic, but we're not taught when a pregnancy is terminated. There is no intelligent argument.  I would not argue otherwise, but you're not executing it. It's not like it's not cutting something's head.  It's not the same thing, but I really want to make sure that that rib gets a chance to talk. Is he on? Hang on. Do you do you even understand how abortions are done?  Hang on. Hang on. No. Oh, give me give me 15 seconds. 15 seconds. No, I'll give you 50 seconds. 15 seconds.   I thought you were going to say a straw. I thought you were going to say a horrible secular doctor sucked it out with a straw. No, it's some of the vacuum.  I just have I have a well, I'll let Rip go ahead. If I could if I could then close, go ahead. Yeah, because we open. So you should get the last word. I just want to say, Michael, thanks. It wasn't because I didn't think that you could that sorry. It wasn't because I didn't think that I could argue it sufficiently for extremely personal reasons. I'm going to refrain from talking about this particular topic. That's the only reason why I haven't timed in in the last little while. I'm sorry, man. There was a moment. Where where I considered if I would. And I thought that I would.  I think that it is if we just kind of want to bring this back to the topic. I think it is absolutely shameful and I think that it is disgusting that I consider talking about why this issue was so personal for me. And I decided against it because of the type of Christian morality that has been shown here tonight. I did not think that I was going to get away with talking about my personal experiences on on skates. And that I think is one of the most tragic and the most upsetting parts about this entire thing. I'm sorry. I have to take a minute. All right. I just I just had a yeah, I wanted to have a little response to Michael in terms of this because your position, I guess on a base level really kind of concerns me, especially when you interjected with fetuses. You know, it's only a fetus when someone doesn't want it. And when someone wants it, it's the baby. It's a baby as soon as they get it. And you know, what's happened is it somehow become okay to classify life based upon the arbitrary decision of the person carrying it's basically the same argument for slavery that you guys would condemn. You're on my land. You belong to me.  That's the exact type of thing you guys claim to hate and yet and yet it seems to be the exact same type of thing you'll promote. And here's the issue. Here's the real issue. Let me make it real crystal clear for you, Michael of why your position is just grotesque. It's because with someone, if some baby has has has Down syndrome, whether or not that baby is a fetus or a baby has to do with whether or not the mother's willing to care for it. And that's gross.  Gotcha. With that, we will go into the Q&A. It's been a fiery one folks want to say we appreciate all of our guests. They're all linked in the description. So that way if you're listening and you want to hear more, well those links are waiting for you and we're going to jump into all of these questions. So thanks so much everybody. You do appreciate it. We'll fly through these as fast as possible to try to cover every one iPhone musings. Thanks for your super sticker. Appreciate the support speed of sound of gravity. Thanks for your question who said the raccoons will go hungry tonight. Who is that mad ox looking guy? You guys must be buddies. That's right. Next. No, speed of pudding is his actual name not speed of sound because that's really more descriptive of his brain.  Next up, thanks for your question from Jungle Jargon who says is it right for God to prove what is in your heart? That's a tough question. I'm not sure who that's directed to. There would probably be directed at the atheists, I guess. I think so. I know Jungle, so I'm guessing that would be going that way. Sorry, was that the God that doesn't exist, that one? The God you failed to demonstrate over the past two debates, that one? I don't very seriously it was aimed at us. Next up, Dwayne Burke, thanks for your question said atheists either have to say God is a fictional character and that the fictional character is immoral or except God is real and say he is immoral, but how can you be more right than an omniscient God, hashtag awkward? Maybe you want to take that? Sorry, I wasn't really listening, I'm really sorry. It's okay. So the first part of what they said kind of begs the question that the God is actually real in the first place. I can't tell you how happy I am that we don't have any good reasons to think this God is real because the world would be way shittier if the God was real because of all the things that this God apparently did in the Bible that at least Smoky had said one time, I actually could get him to say something about the Bible where he said the Bible was an errant. So if the Bible is an errant, then the stories in the Bible are true. If the stories in the Bible are true, that's way worse. So I'm actually glad we don't have any good reasons to think that it's real. Gotcha, and thanks for your question. This comes in from our dearest friend Jungle Jargon strikes again saying, why are the quote atheists unquote arguing for secularism? Atheism has nothing to say about what is good. Yeah, technically speaking that would be true. Atheism only deals with whether or not you believe in a God, but I mean everybody has some sort of moral system and whether you have the Christian moral system or whether you have a different, like it's not just one or the other, but like secular moral systems is the one that we have chosen and so like that's the one that we kind of operate under. Yeah, I think it's pretty typical that an atheist would follow a secular moral system. Gotcha, and thanks for your still waking up over here. Next up, thanks for your question. This one comes in from Nicholas Wittmeyer. Thank you. In the Queens English please. Okay, so I don't know that name. It sounds very sophisticated. Abraham, one wife two marriages mistakes. Can T.S. read? I'm confused. Who's T.S.? Yeah, who's T.S.? Not sure, I think Nicholas Wittmeyer. I think he might have been referring to Michael because he bought up the idea that polygamy was actually adultery, which in a cultural context was just a laughable point so I didn't even bother answering it. Hmm, I'm not sure, but thanks for your question from Lily R. Nicholas just clarified, Nicholas just clarified two marriage mistakes. Gotcha, who's T.S.? I think you might be muted, Rib. Am I muted? Not anymore. Okay, okay. Well, once we find out who T.S. is, we will ask them that question. Lily R.O., thanks for your question said, all of those offenses are forgiven by asking forgiveness and Christianity by extension makes it worse than any offenses they push on the pious. Yeah, you are very, very unsophisticated in your perspective of the claim of the Christian God. Maybe go read Romans one, two, and nine and you'll have a better perspective that you're basically just straw manning a God for you to defeat. It's just nonsensical. The Bible, in fact, does say that you will be forgiven for every sin except blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Yeah, there's more context. As much as I love you, you know, to be totally fair in case this is thrown back on us is the Q&A, so I don't know. Next, Nicholas Whitmire. Glad to have your question said, the skeptic team have obviously never done time. Slavery is preferable to prison. In fact, being a slave in jail was the best way I had to pass the time. Yeah, even though I'm an atheist he then you're right, I've never done time. I tend not to break the law. Gotcha. Sorry, I can't relate. Gotcha. Dwayne Burke, thanks for your question, said subjective morals. Child rape isn't wrong or right in parentheses. It just is. Hashtag awkward. What child rapes an abomination? Absolutely. Why? According to who? Because it does harm. Oh, okay. So you're probably an objectivist about ethics. Maybe this wouldn't apply to you. I think he's trying to suggest that you can't say it's wrong. I just did. If it's subjective. I just did. He's an objectivist when he wants to be. If it's subjective then of course you can say it's wrong because then it's just your opinion. Gotcha. And Tioga thanks for your question. Such a nasty, nasty soy addict. Good to see you, Tioga says Republican Christians in government are the ones who vote for institutionalized prison slavery, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Are you proud of yourself, Maddox, for voting for all of those? We'll let you respond. If that dumbass wants to have a political debate, let's set it up. And we'll see which one of us ends as the victor on which position A I take, B he actually supports and is probably too ignorant to realize and the historic evidence which supports my position. First of all, let's set it up. She didn't even insult you. They only asked their question. That was a veiled insult. If you don't understand that, James, you don't know enough about politics. Let's go to the next one. Blue Heron, thanks for your question, said, Smoky said, atheists are a cancer on society. There are between 200 and 800 million atheists in the world. Yeah, okay. Yeah, and it's good. It's fortunate for all of us that they haven't taken the majority control in any of these countries where they're in bloodbaths like they tend to do in the past. Gotcha. Next up, thanks for your super sticker from Rory Bjorkman. Appreciate it. I'm glad you appreciate the support. Tiffany Baer, thanks for your question, says, I was unwanted, put up for adoption and born with a painful genetic condition.  They usually push back on the pro-choice side. So I didn't hear it. Was that a statement or a question? It was a statement. Rib, do you have anything to say to that? No. I mean, if you're well and functioning well, I'm glad you're alive too. Next up, Shocking. Shocking. It's now acceptable. It's totally normal. R trashed IVF embryos a sin. As someone who actually went was my current wife and I did go through that process. So IVF embryos are referred to typically as blastocysts. Hopefully my wife doesn't watch this if I got that wrong. So we're talking about a small assembly of cells and after the process was completed on our end, we chose not to have them discarded, which they would have been, but they were used for embryological research. So I thought it was better that they be used for that rather than simply discarded. Any, let's see. Next up, thanks for your I think this was originally for Maddox and Smokey, if you guys want to respond. I think the very existence of them is grotesque as a whole. It's not the type of thing I think we should be engaging in. We've kind of tried to take the life, the giving of life, the regulation of life outside of the hands of God and we don't know the possible ramifications that could come from that at this point. So I don't the idea that we're doing these types of things in test tubes and laboratories, I think is a little bit grotesque to me. Gotcha. Blue Heron. Thank you for your question says Maddox, your words can be easily matched by stats. A new Ohio law says an 11 year old girl who was raped multiple times could not have an abortion. I doubt that is true. Next, Nicholas Wittmeyer thanks for your question says T.S. Who is T.S. I'm trying to think of how that could be interpreted. He may be going team skeptic. That might be what he said. That's possible. Yeah. Says autonomous makes right. So might makes right. Good point, Nicholas. I like that. That's a good question. I was going to say, I don't know how to really respond to that. Also, they're saying it sounds like they're trying to equivocate bodily autonomy with the whim of an imaginary being. Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. That's why I found it difficult to respond to. Yeah, I think it's a false equivocation. I don't think they mentioned a supernatural being there. Well, might is right meaning God. That's why I meant by imaginary being. That's the kind of typical usage of that phrase. So if he's saying that it's equal to then it's, yeah. Majority control is might. Might is right. Majority consensus. It's what governs society and culture. It's how the morals come from. That's what he was saying. Your argument about God being bad because might versus might is right is your own paradigm. It's just a different type. That's all. That's what he was saying. Next question. Sunflower, thanks for your question. Said, Atheist, would you feel worse or more guilty if you bumped into a two week pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry? Or if you just caused a sprained ankle? Oh, sprained ankle. Obviously. Because if the woman in that situation was planning on having the child, then it's not up to me or anybody else only her and her partner to decide whether like what you caused the miscarriage by running into her. Yeah. So like, so bumped into her and caused her to fall maybe. I mean, yeah, a lot of times asking what I prefer to have to bump and cause the miscarriage or bump and sprain her ankle. So I don't think I don't think that's what she meant by it. I think she said, would you feel more like that's the understanding that I would obviously feel more guilty if I I can try to clarify that because it is this needs clarification really. Wow. Imagine there's a person who is pregnant and if you bump into her all things being equal would you think it's worse or feel more guilty if the pregnant woman tripped and had a miscarriage or tripped and had a sprained ankle? Well, obviously the miscarriage. Yeah. Then yes, I would feel worse if she had a miscarriage. Gotcha. And fat man thanks for your super chat says Maddox and Smokey do you support the death penalty under any circumstance? I support the death penalty under many circumstances. Then you're not pro-life. You're not pro-life. You're pro-birth. Yeah, that's because yeah, the children are being held to a standard of criminals. Sure guys, that makes sense. Good equivocation. Okay, so let's think about this. State executing people then you're not pro-life. I haven't gone to the last level. I haven't responded to the last several. So, Michael you can respond. Don't ask me a question.  I have a gun in my hand. You have a gun in your hand. He's going to kill your daughter and he's in the process of raping her.   No, I'm going to kill him because we're not pro-life because we're not pro-life in every instance. Exactly. Isn't that the entire point of supporting the death penalty in certain instances based on people who have committed acts that are worthy of being removed from society? No, and the simple to feeder for that is because there have been lots of innocent people that have been executed. You guys are, and there have been lots of babies that have been reported that would have survived. I'm going to just to keep things moving. Fat Man, thanks for your other question says Smokey and Maddox, I'm not sure but do you support modern-day slavery for economic reasons? That's very complex. Come to my after-show. We'll chat it out. That should be his question. Yeah, that's no. The only moral answer to that question is no. Don't answer the question for me, sir.  Don't tell me what I would take if I invited someone to my show. You remind me of Darth. You could have just said no if that's what you actually think. Let's go to the next one. Robert Summers, thanks for your question said does God set a moral position because God thinks it's right or because it is inherently right? It's the youth of all. Yeah, they never addressed it. There is an absolute standard that's connected to what we I guess we would call in the Christian world, goodness that is tied to God's nature that couldn't be anything other than good because it's part of his nature it's an extension of him. In a way, the eternality of goodness is co-existing with God. Gotcha. Thanks for your question. Mystic Wolf says flat earth debate conspiracy cats versus Nathan Thompson let's make this thing happen. That would be a very fun debate. I think it's already happened. If I remember right, they've debated before but I don't think it'll happen again also because Nathan is not happy with me. So I've got no hard feelings. I hope he's doing well, but I don't know if we're going to see Nathan coming back. Angel Gray, thanks for your question says how many lives Christians have taken over opposition science and power on its history? You know that pretty much whenever they try to do that it's always blamed on the Catholic church and you know it's pretty much the only example atheists go to and they say look what Christians did. You know what, if you can find any other example other than the Catholics to fit your hyperbole, your specific example you're trying to draw to give me something other than Catholics, we'll have a conversation otherwise you're just noise. James, would you mind if I address that? Sure. You guys familiar with a lovely gentleman named Steven Anderson? Sure. He is not Catholic. You can watch a video of him where he's standing at his pulpit and he has one of those staples buttons there. He says if I could I'm not going to use the horrible language he used he said if I could press this button and every time I pressed it a homosexual would die he said I'd push it until my finger broke so there's a very specific example of someone who's Christian not Catholic who wants to exterminate people left. Well yeah, but isn't actively exterminating people and I think that's what the example was going to be. Thankfully the button didn't work. Well, yeah because that's not a realistic thing but okay yeah I guess if you're worried about that button bro you know okay great continue to be fearmongered I guess. Next up let's see Nathan Foster appreciate your question says it's funny how atheists enter the Christian world view to get their points across I mean if you don't believe why argue human reasoning maybe? Unfortunately we have to step or attempt to I try to step into the Christian world view but it's so silly that I have a hard time with it but you have to step in because you have to make all these silly assumptions in order to try some kind of understanding through argumentation because if you so many Christians will say well you have to start if you start with this then it all makes sense and it's just I don't know. I'm going to respond to that real quick so again in my opening statement which I literally wrote 10 minutes before we started I guess I was being inspired by a prophecy but beyond this ask yourself why is it that atheists claim to agree with the vast majority of Christian moral principles with their primary position being who they are accountable to in regards to violating them and what is the source of their origin so thank you Michael for yet again proving me to be a prophet and being able to anticipate the stupid positions that you guys take while saying that the moral position is correct but it's just wrong in how we come to it You're not prophetic it's just in your head next brothers thanks for your statement criticism I don't know says icky smoky they didn't use the word smoky but that's what I'm going to say I'll go to church if you just stop the laugh yeah that's rage that's the raging idiot and I'm just not you're the one that ran away from a debate we had a moderated debate on this platform you ran because you know your position is indefensible because you're a disgusting human being so you want to have a debate come on into modern day debate and we'll do it we're here to keep it short Robert Summers thanks for your question cool so we don't need God for moral positions thanks for making that point smoky okay beautiful thank you gotcha and thanks for your we can get through some of the standard questions as well thanks for your question I'm going to cherry a tear long timer says ask the theist from the secular worldview when you use science reason and logic for your defense the bible says just believe without evidence that is not what the bible says it says to test everything and to get rid of what is bad and keep what is good and to study to show thyself's approved again straw man christianity it's the only type of christianity that atheists can defeat good job dude go read a book gotcha and Chris thanks for your question says rib a question for rib if he was in a coma and completely paralyzed should he have a chance to come out of that coma probably yeah but in other people so okay so I kind of have to differentiate this between myself and other people I think that if this is about you buddy it wasn't actually your question but thanks for putting it anyway really I'm just clarifying it's about you it's my question so shut up stop dodging shut the fuck up let's let him answer and it triggered other people if they want to have the chance to come out of a coma then absolutely yes for me personally no I wouldn't gotcha and thanks for your question from cinius said do the Christians know that most of the nordic countries are secular and we haven't done any blood bathing since our Christian days oh yeah you're just a rape paradise good for you yeah you guys must feel so proud gotcha and 5000% increase in rape in the last six years treating oh so stupid when people say that gotcha let me just double check that we how I got in the last of the questions so I can't get to all of them folks but just do want to make sure that we let's see we are caught up and so thank you so much folks it is always a pleasure these all four of these gentlemen are linked in the description we hope to have them back it'll probably be for a new rematch as these guys have this is the third time they've crossed swords so for the next debate it might be but I do you guys are kind of natural tag teams I think you guys both work in sync in your respective teams and so maybe against other tag teams that could be really exciting or individually so want to say thanks so much everybody for hanging out it's always a pleasure and thanks most of all Michael, Rib, John and Smokey it's a true pleasure to have you appreciate so much all hey everybody thank you so this thing after party is kicking off over on Smokey's channel soon as we get done here head on over to Smokey's channel let's have some fun you guys come on talk about it Mystic Wolf thanks for your last minute super chat just squeezed it in said killing someone in the moment to save your daughter is not the same thing as the state executing a criminal one saves your daughter's life and the other has no impact on her survival only the survival of the criminal I guess that is okay that's just so dumb I mean this look at what's happening in the whole COVID madness right now we've been doing murders and rapists and violent people out of jail and what have they been doing not all but many of them have been committing the exact same type of crimes they can put them in jail in the first place as soon as they got let out so there's been multiple murders multiple rapes and other violent actions have been occurred from people who were let out of prison I mean I don't understand how that makes any sense when you actually look at reality got you and so much everybody for your questions we will be back as Skyler Fiction makes his return tomorrow it's been at least a month it's I think it's maybe been months since Skyler has been on he'll be teaming up with his twin brother Tom Jump they'll be taking on let's see CJ and you guessed it that cute and cuddly bear on the right side of your screen Smoky Smoky I couldn't find your picture I put Smoky Bear in your picture so next up fat man last minute super chat says Maddox I would never come to your after show you told me everything I need to know about you you're a hypocrite you know it's a common very common trend there's so many trash talking atheists keyboard warriors that somehow lack the proverbial CO Jones to come back up their statements mono E mono or man to woman whichever one you are so when you grow a pair let's have a conversation there'll be open mic if you want to come and talk some trash come on in we won't bite much gotcha and so with that thanks so much everybody we are excited it's always a fun time to be with you I am excited about the future folks you guys make it great you make it fun and so thanks everybody watching and once again thanks to our guests it's been a true pleasure thanks James thanks so much James absolutely with that take care folks keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable