Danny talks to Andrew Wilson

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @dannyphiltalk

[@NN-wc7dl]

Andrew Wilson hasn't got a clue what logic is. He's all whistle and claims. A mouth, that is.

[@Tristan-lx3iz]

This guy is just like Darth dawkins 😂😂

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

Andrew knows less than darth

[@abuabdullah9878]

Don't insult Darth like that

[@21stcenturyrambo16]

Remember hes not authorized to do apologetics

[@murderparker7968]

Came here to say this😂

[@HarryNicNicholas]

💯💯

[@mrwhite2039]

Speaking on grounding foundations like god or no god isnt apologetics. How are you people this stupid? Its painful cause you're the ones who think you're so smart cause of "muh science". Yet are to stupid to understand very basic things.

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

The funny part is Andrew thinks that normal. What actually happened was someone from his church heard him speak and they were like damn we gotta find a way to shut this retard up 😂

[@jonathanmaroon-dr8dk]

Who authorizes?

[@coul]

Asking someone if they're gay and then dropping them when they confirm in 2023? That's your brain on religion.

[@utubepunk]

Exactly. Then his reaction immediately after. 🤬

[@coul]

@@utubepunk cringe

[@MarioEstevez-re1us]

I can flip that around on you: Danny goes straight to gay marriage when Andrew ask for an objection to the Christian worldview. Because of course he does. You know what’s cringe? Having an entire worldview based around being gay. Because when push comes to shove that’s all it ever is with you ppl some arbitrary LGBT identity that has no basis in biology none of it does never did still doesn’t and that’s the hill you want to die on. Human flourishing is state sanctioned gay butt sex wow fantastic is there anything else? can we please come up with something else?

[@ChairFoldersUnited]

Sounds based to me

[@utubepunk]

@@ChairFoldersUnited Are you always thinking of gay people?

[@hudsontd7778]

Danny is bi? now everything makes sense.

[@LordPastaProductions]

now I know that I have a chance

[@roger5442]

"What is the incentive for a materialist to have children in 2023?" Has to one of weirdest questions I've ever heard. I'm a materialist and my 'incentive' was simply because my wife and I wanted to start a family together. We never considered having children to be a 'burden'. Andrew's claims about materialists are just utter nonsense.

[@DeaconShadow]

They talk about materialists like without god just believe everyone in our lives is now just a pile of leaves and stained tea towels.

[@MarkReidAtheism]

You can also be a materialist and care about propagating your genetic line or providing generations to continue humanity - nothing non-material about that. I think perhaps Andrew is one of those guys who strawmans materialism and atheism, mistakenly thinking they are nihilism.

[@roger5442]

@@DeaconShadow Yeah, Andrew's view of materialism is a caricature.

[@roger5442]

@@MarkReidAtheism I don't know if Andrew is 'strawmanning'. I'm willing to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt here and just say he misunderstands what materialism is. Either way - his idea of materialism and atheism are caricatures. That's right - neither entail nihilism. Even a nihilist can have desires to have children.

[@KennyEvans-rr6we]

wrong distinction... i think he's more referring to an indulgent self centred vanity motivated shallow materialist which there are many

[@kyleferguson1729]

Dang he almost ran, but stayed on once he was getting compared to Dillahunty. He had some nervous laughter in the end once he realized he couldn't defend his claim. What a Dilladodger running from Danny

[@mrwhite2039]

Who ran? He spoke to him the whole time. You people just lie even when people can watch the video?

[@RangerJ602]

@@mrwhite2039he has nothing to support his claim. Nothing but conjectures.

[@mrwhite2039]

@RangerJ602 it's literally tied into meterialist worldview. You have to be to dumb to understand that. Athiest means mechanical reality. No mechanical output is any better or wore than the other. And it's a claim that the brain is a accidental machine no one built that you are trusting. It's absurd.

[@joshridinger3407]

'he won't engage with what's being said' says the guy who just dumped a barrel of non sequiturs at danny's feet

[@MarioEstevez-re1us]

No because Andrew is arguing as a theist. If a theists grounding comes from a higher power, then necessarily an atheist does not have such a grounding as a logical extension. It’s an implicit claim there is no argument that needs to be made

[@joshridinger3407]

@@MarioEstevez-re1us that's just identity politics. it's flailing. if it were actually true, christians and atheists could literally not understand the words coming out of each others' mouths. we'd sound like literal (not merely metaphorical) gibberish to each other. you wouldn't even be able to process my words and respond to them. andrew, like most theists, is a moral subjectivist who can't even imagine what an actual objectivist meta-ethics would look like. so they assume everyone else is a subjectivist, only the atheists don't have the 'grounding' of a big Lawless Lawgiver in the sky to enforce its preferences/commands on everyone.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@MarioEstevez-re1us it;s dumb. basically it's "you have to believe cos i say it's true" it's dumb. and it's been shown to be dumb a zillion times and even religists say it's dumb. it's dumb.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@joshridinger3407 i don't think andrew has morals, he acts like a c***

[@MarioEstevez-re1us]

@@joshridinger3407 literally makes no sense this isn’t complicated. You can object to the principal of the thing, which it sounds like you are objecting, but that doesn’t actually matter towards the validity of Andrew claim and I’m granting that you’re not an idiot so you are being bad faith.

[@uninspired3583]

Danny: you're trying to change the subject by asking me questions Andy: Danny are you a homodexual? Dude was chomping at the bit to prove danny right.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

That was after Danny had already derailed it completely

[@uninspired3583]

@@lightbeforethetunnel I haven't seen this in a while. What was the topic and how did Danny take it off course?

[@ethansy2978]

@@lightbeforethetunnelderailed by asking him to support his claim? I love how committed you are to defending your ilk no matter how silly they look 😂😂😂

[@ethansy2978]

@@uninspired3583don’t bother. Just another unsupported assertion from this dude

[@dceezy15]

seems like danny didn't hold that dudes feet to the fire enough imo

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@dceezy15 I tried, but he kicked me

[@dceezy15]

@@DannyPhilTalk fair enough

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

@@DannyPhilTalkIgnoring the obnoxious first half. You agreed to the conclusion of his argument that actively arguing for atheism is immoral and then contradicted yourself; “I am not trying to convince people of atheism, but I convince them of the problem of evil is a problem”.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@ILoveLuhaidan when did I say that arguing for atheism is immoral? Also, that’s just not a contradiction…

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

@@DannyPhilTalk you agreed that religion helps people, and then you are arguing for atheism *all the time*. This is like having a drug store and then blaming the people who go to you. Sure, people shouldn’t listen to theses discussions, but they can mistakes and having them in the first place facilitates deconversion. Please explain how “I am not trying to convince people of atheism” and “I have a tendency to convince people the problem of evil is a problem” are not contradictory??

[@popsbjd]

Its wild how overconfident he is given his inability to form a coherent argument.

[@mrwhite2039]

Everyone understands the argument. We know secularist have no reason to not lie, which we can see constantly, but please stop the cope.

[@popsbjd]

@@mrwhite2039 what is the argument that atheists cannot hold to objective morality?

[@mrwhite2039]

@@popsbjd no, see. You're asking questions now but made a declarative statement in your comment. More dishonesty. How surprising

[@popsbjd]

@@mrwhite2039 I'm talking about the first part of the video where Andrew says atheists can't be moral realists. He doesn't give an argument for that. Given your initial reply and the subsequent reply, I am not hopeful here but... can you render a valid argument that atheists can't have objective morality.

[@mrwhite2039]

@popsbjd oh sorry it's almost like I'm purposefully acting like I don't understand. Remind you of anything? The questions stupid on its face. Do I have to teach you philosophy from the last thousand years? Seriously?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

matt ought to have stayed and kept on subject, he fell for the playground bully trick, silly. andrew is pond residue though, and i think even christians think that, his manner alone makes people want to puke.

[@pavld335]

what do you mean he fell for the playground bull trick?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@pavld335 okay: well you know the thing called "school"? you know schools have "playgrounds" where you can play? you know some kids think they are tough and can push other, smaller kids around? that's called "bullying"? (are you following cos i don't want to waste my time here) well, that's called "playground bully" when a "bully" pushes a kid around. or does that verbally (talking) have i got through? can you repeat that back to me so i know you've understood, cos you'll get detention if you don't listen in class.

[@pavld335]

@@HarryNicNicholas no, I'd rather not continue talking to you. Your tone is unnecessary.

[@jaypacic]

I'm curious as to when the definition of secularist means that a person doesn't believe in God? When you look at the people who signed the first Humanist Manifesto, some of them are Unitarian Ministers, and I think there are a couple of Universalists on there too.

[@Lmaoh5150]

Secular Humanism branched out of Humanism. They’re two “separate” movements

[@jaypacic]

@@Lmaoh5150 My question was about whether a secularist is someone who necessarily does not believe in god or gods? I understand there is somewhat of distinction between secularism and secular humanism, but I'm referring to a person being either a secularist or secular humanist, by definition, not believing in god or gods.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

secular means giving a voice to all, it doesn't mean god isn't allowed, it means god has to stand in line like the rest of us. secularism WANTS religion - but ALL religion. here in the UK we are one of the most secular countries in the world, but we are also OFFICIALLY christian. like secularism christianity doesn't mean ""you cannot have other beliefs" it just means they get an equal say - long live the satanic temple!!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@jaypacic secular means giving a voice to all, it doesn't mean god isn't allowed, it means god has to stand in line like the rest of us. secularism WANTS religion - but ALL religion. here in the UK we are one of the most secular countries in the world, but we are also OFFICIALLY christian. like secularism christianity doesn't mean ""you cannot have other beliefs" it just means they get an equal say - long live the satanic temple!!

[@bosco008]

Is Andrew mentally handicapped? Just curious.

[@zeebpc]

just a typical conservative

[@natikfire]

Danny, this was your best video yet! I love watching people smoke that Turkey.

[@mrwhite2039]

He got beat on every point and basically agreed with Andrew.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@mrwhite2039 what a world we live in eh, where fantasies are allowed for all. andrew is a pig of a human.

[@AsixA6]

@@mrwhite2039 You’re quite dumb.

[@MrPeterref]

Andrew is just incredibly disingenuous

[@darth_mb]

Bro called a sophist, see this shits funny. Sophistry is a property of an invalid inference or critique though all u did was ask for a the argument.

[@vladdrac3927]

You don´t get it, Danny: you gae, therefore I run away.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there's probably a manual explaining how spellcheck works on whatever device you're using.

[@ManicPandaz]

5:02 check and mate… Andy did exactly what Danny said he would do. Andy couldn’t even wait for Danny to finish his sentence.

[@edluckenbill9382]

White Christian nationalist guy .

[@edluckenbill9382]

Comfort and security

[@akindelebankole8080]

The Christian religion has been good to control a lot of men for the most part in the west. Especially, where the Jesus gentleness humbles most believers' narcism and toxic behavior, like the one he showed at the beginning. Now, although the bigot was better when Danny called back, I still think his true bigotry was exposed at the beginning.

[@whitebroccoli694]

What was bigoted that he said?

[@akindelebankole8080]

@@whitebroccoli694 His beliefs. By definition, Christianity is a Xenophobic system, and bigoted by default. Believers can't help but be bigoted. Except if they are not truly believing and not taking the text at face value. Many so-called Christians are influenced from the outside of the Bible and are much better than their book. For those believer, like the believer in this video, who believes every word in the Bible as truth, he is a bigot by definition. Hope that help explain the way I see Christian belief. Ty

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@whitebroccoli694 why not take a long hard look at the things andrew siad and has said elsewhere and see if you can spot - for yourself - where he is a pig of a human.

[@Detson404]

I love how China can be atheist when it’s bad and theistic when it’s useful.

[@craiggoldberg1539]

Why would you need another mind for your objective stuff?

[@cajohnson130]

Yeah it's ridiculous. Of it comes from a mind, it's not objective. But remember, it's God so it's ok.

[@rewrewrewrewr2674]

One reason for arguing for sophisticated atheism like you do is that it raises the bar of modern apologetics and it takes theistic arguments and claims seriously. This is far more likely to convince an atheist of theism than any of the garbage arguments we would have ended up with if skeptics just chose to remain quiet.

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

Danny you gotta take this guy down a peg he is riding high after his glorious victory debating Matt irl.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i don't think it was a victoy, he is so sickening in character i think even christians throw up in their mouths when he comes on.

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

@@HarryNicNicholas his goal was to clearly piss Matt off so in that sense he won

[@acason4]

"Victory"...🤣 Immediately conceding your opponents worldview right out of the gate isn't a "victory". It's actually a concession to then attack via ad hom his interlocutor. It was actually a huge L because refused to give Andrew what he wanted which was a WWE match about "trans".

[@AsixA6]

@@Aaron-rw3lv Andy lost because he didn’t address the debate topic and Matt did. Matt won.

[@BrendaCreates]

Andrew "won" against Matt because for these people winning means being a bully and triggering your opponent. They count that as a win. And sadly, a lot of people Left and Right have the same standard.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

Why does he like want you to make his argument for him?

[@benswartz6387]

How many smokes for Mr. Wilson during the chat?

[@troelsvestergaard6644]

The good thing about Andrew chain-smoking is that each cigarette shortens his hateful, ridiculous life.

[@lordsneed9418]

Danny later that day in between swallowing Lance Bush's semen : "well of course moral realism is complete baloney"

[@abuabdullah9878]

I don’t agree with Danny’s positions, but it’s sad that you had to cope like this just cause your favourite debater can’t debate shit.

[@lordsneed9418]

@@abuabdullah9878 I agree that it is disappointing that Andrew did not show what a tenuous , contrived nonsense position it is to believe in objective morality while being an atheist , but never the less the catamite Danny is being dishonest and bad faith pretending that he thinks atheist moral realism is a serious , viable position just in order to give his interlocutor extra work to do and it's not cope whatsoever to point this out.

[@abuabdullah9878]

@@lordsneed9418 Danny didn't operate in bad faith. My recollection is that he's dualist. The problem is that you just don't know what an argument is. As a Muslim, I believe in God. But I'm not clear on why an atheist can't believe that objective morality can exist without God. Perhaps you can provide the argument for that here which Andrew pathetically failed to do. Go ahead.

[@ethansy2978]

@@lordsneed94183 months and no support for your claim 😂

[@MarkReidAtheism]

Wow he goes on a week long undeserved victory lap about Matt running from a debate, doesn't understand the difference between a claim and an argument or what a non-sequitur is then quits the debate....well done Danny.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

andrew is the pits as a human.

[@DeaconShadow]

He’s a garbage human who found a religious ideology that supports his garbage nature. He probably larps as an eastern orthodox on discord like all crypto fascists.

[@judahguerrero1090]

His argument was made in premise one, premise two logically follows if the opponent accepts premise one. That's the definition of an argument, it is your job to refute the argument, not to deny the concept of argumentation, because now you're rejecting basic concept.

[@mrwhite2039]

@@judahguerrero1090 100%!

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

@@judahguerrero1090 what was the argument for premise one? If you are saying premise two logically follows from premise one what was the inference rule?

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The problem is atheists don't understand that worldviews are non-contingencies, meaning there is no position of neutrality or withholding judgment. This entails that if you "just don't accept" a claim about worldviews such as "all secularists have no objective standard, and therefore default to subjectivism" then you are NECESSARILY making an implicit counter-argument that there is a Secularist worldview which DOES have an objective standard. But, since you don't understand non-contingencies, you think you can just appeal to a position of neutrality or withholding judgment like you can for contingent claims. If this isn't it, then I'd say what Andrew said at the end is the issue.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

Seems like a lot of confused gibberish.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@DannyPhilTalk It's actually fairly basic Philosophy. Non-contingent claims only have two available options to choose from: 1. Necessarily true, or 2. Necessarily false So there is no third option of neutrality or withholding judgment like there is for contingent claims. Feel free to research this if you don't believe me. But, I've found this is a major, major issue that almost every atheist I speak with is not getting. And it messes with the burden of proof continually in all these debates. I've been researching the best way to try to help you guys actually understand this or at least take it seriously enough to research for a while because it is clear to me at this point that every atheist I've spoken with isn't getting this point, which is causing an entailment of a plethora of constant intellectual errors whenever debating worldviews (which any debate about God's existence necessarily is)

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@DannyPhilTalk Because worldviews are non-contingent claims, not contingent claims. This is why it's not possible for anyone to just have no worldview at all. And so any argument about worldviews will be an argument about a non-contingent claim... meaning just "not accepting" claim X about worldviews is an implicit counter-argument of not-X. So, both sides have equal burdens for justification... not just the theist. For example, if i claimed "ONLY the Christian worldview entails knowledge is possible" and you didn't accept that, you'd necessarily be making an implicit counter-argument that your own particular non-Christian worldview entails knowledge is possible instead. You cannot appeal to "no worldview at all entails knowledge is possible" since then you wouldn't be able to assert anything... including "I don't accept that."

[@OnlyGnosis]

​@lightbeforethetunnel i've seen you around getting outed as someone who is illiterate in logic so these comments from you parroting the same talking points is hilarious. You've been asked for a reductio to prove TAG, how's that coming along?

[@OnlyGnosis]

"There is no position of neutrality" That's cute, considering TAG relies on making worldview neutral claims regarding the 'transcendentals' Do you even understand the argument you falsely think gives you absolute certainty?

[@pavld335]

This guy isn't a serious person.

[@whitebroccoli694]

Sounds like Danny has a lot of nice things to say about religion. Sounds like they’re almost on the same page. Danny just hasn’t done “enough research. Hasn’t looked enough at the empirical data” he says repeatedly. Maybe he’ll get there in time.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

I don’t see why that data would be relevant to any of my philosophical positions.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

does it matter?

[@cajohnson130]

How can Danny say that religious is a net positive? Look at the world and politics in America.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

I'm inclined to think that the ills of society are more related to economic structures than religious ones. Keep in mind also, that the benefits of religion aren't as easily measured using standard political metrics. For example, I think religious commitments can seriously relieve anxiety about death and the death of loved ones. How is that to be measured?

[@NoBullSavage]

Because it is a net positive

[@General_Idea]

Andrew’s voice resembles DD Gary’s croak, n’est-ce pas?

[@handstandish]

Great job Danny. Funny too.

[@anitkythera4125]

He’s sooooooo bad Danny. Nicely done not getting distracted.

[@mrwhite2039]

Nicely done on what? Danny agreed on most of Andrews points and never established any defeater then whats the good job?

[@RangerJ602]

@@mrwhite2039Andrew had no argument about secularism not having any bases for morality.

[@mrwhite2039]

@@RangerJ602 it's arbitrary. How is it not? It's not even a debate about if it does or doesn't. It's about which ethical system is better for society. Please for the love of God, try to pay attention

[@RangerJ602]

@@mrwhite2039 how is it random? Society is better off not a theocracy. America was founded on secularism, just like most of the modern world. You want an example of a theocracy go live in the Middle East. Andrew is definitely full of shit and silly to think otherwise.

[@Greyz174]

​@@mrwhite2039thats a claim followed by a question to be proven wrong, not an argument

[@HarryNicNicholas]

personally i don't say "get rid of religion, we'd be better off" - i have religious neighbours and they are welcome to their fantasies, i have fantasies, but, the world would be better off if there were no religion to begin with, the world will be better off when people have the intellect to realise it's superstition and not religion. *_at the moment_* we _need_ religion, but only cos it's already 3/4 ths the population.

[@MarioEstevez-re1us]

I just don’t get this and I’m not even religious mind you but as a thought exercise I’ve come at it from many different angles and I can’t make it work. See, a higher power or authority is just an appeal to something that out ranks people. And what this does is circumvent the relativism that would be inherent within any other framework. We aren’t appealing up each other instead we are collectively appealing to some authority that transcends our capacity to dehumanize it. It’s kind if you have a game, like a classic board game, you need a set of rules and you need that set of rules across space and time. Every alternative just seems to be about moving the goalposts arbitrarily and that is what we get with progressivism-essentially the antithesis of theism. A problem today is abortion, which I will state is unequivocally murder and just such a morally bankrupt precept BUT I will be charitable to the Tik tok thots celebrating their abortions and say that it could go either way. A case can be made either way. Fine. Well the reason we can’t settle the abortion debate is that from a secular worldview in a democratic republic there isn’t any possible path to a definitive resolution to this debate. It has to be determined by an appeal to some arbitrary authority that supersedes humanity. That is the only way to resolve the abortion debate.

[@wabolicyri2143]

How do you know?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@wabolicyri2143 nip over to the middle east and ask them whose side god is on.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@MarioEstevez-re1us i have many theories as to why religion was invented, i think basically it started as an explanation to death - someone is there one moment living breathing, gone the next - where did they go? but christianity i think was started in order to (attempt) to make people honest, thou shalt's probably made more sense to fishermen than philosophers. and then the bible came about to cover all the holes in the basic plot, there is a god watching you 24/7. humans are also prone to superstition, it's a survival trait to give agency to things and run, but we aren't predisposed to gods, that has to be taught. here in the UK abortion has been decriminalised, but when i went to the NHS website to look up "when does life start" i got distracted by "abortion is a matter between the doctor and patient" and that basically is all anyone needs to know - each case taken on it's merits, same as the morality situation, we take each case on it's merits - god just kills people who disagree - great eh?

[@MarioEstevez-re1us]

@@HarryNicNicholas so you are prescribing moral relativism, which is ground zero for ground zero, and like who cares about god--literally no one needs to believe in god you you can disregard god altogether and now you have the burden of moral justification without being able to play the "god not reel doe" card.

[@craiggoldberg1539]

The incentive to reproduce would be that you want to raise a child. Which is probably better than reproducing because you think someone else wants you to. You might not really want children but you are compelled to doesn't really seem good.

[@NN-wc7dl]

A thing doesn't become true because it is better in some (undecided) way. In the long run, all lies are devastating.

[@mind_onion]

If morality comes from a god then it follows that morality is subjective. Because its based on a subject, being god. Objective morality can't be based on any subjective viewpoint, including any god's.

[@youtubespag]

What happened to matt dillahunty? That name drop was unexpected.

[@utubepunk]

You missed all that?! Matt & Andrew were starting a debate hosted by Modern Day Dumpster Fire at their live convention. Andrew was so much a transphobic troll that Matt quit.

[@youtubespag]

@@utubepunk oh. In the context I thought Danny went against dillahunty and dillahunty was acting like Andrew. But I think I understand now. Andrew met dillahunty and acted like Andrew.

[@FentonMulley-cz8pv]

It was brilliant on Danny's part because Andrew was running away due to a feeling of disgust. That's exactly why Matt quit the debate. It put Andrew in check and made him more reasonable than I have ever seen him. He was actually polite after that.

[@mrwhite2039]

He ran from Andrew

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@mrwhite2039 you can say that but what happened was andrew conceded the debate in the first few minutes, then changed the subject to a personal insult about matt's relationship - but i guess people who would back a pig like andrew are pigs too and think andrew is some kind of hero when he's actually scum, i've seen him in other discussions and hes just a pig. and he has no argument either, presup is the dumbest of arguments.

[@geraldharrison5787]

If morality is grounded in God - which I believe to be the case - then it's subjective, not objective. Two distinct notions are being conflated. There's the idea that morality is 'external' to use. And then there's the idea of morality existing 'objectively'. Morality is external to us, but is not 'objective', for that is incoherent

[@WernerKerschbaumer]

Pray for a fixed 🪑

[@ezbody]

So, this is just a basic argument of Religious Narcissism: 1. MY God exists. 2. I believe in MY God. 3. MY God is The Grounding of MY moral values. Conclusion: Anything I do in the name of MY God is MORAL!!!! That's what they believe, and that's exactly how they live.

[@mizsery6085]

Danny didnt do well here. Neither did wilson. Shifting the goal post on both ends, and arguing circular results to argue. Wasnt good

[@DannyPhilTalk]

What should I have done? If I pressed him on anything, he would have just kicked me...

[@lezlibarrett1453]

No

[@WaggerFiggot15]

Funny that danny doesnt understand the logic of andrews argument / stance or premise. Glad danny came back to give it another try .

[@DannyPhilTalk]

What didn't I understand?

[@AsixA6]

Seems he understood Andy’s unsound argument better than Andy.

[@mrwhite2039]

It was so simple and Danny like the typical lying atheist pretended not to understand only to come back and fully engage, showing that he did, in fact understand.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

I think you watched the wrong video or something@@mrwhite2039

[@mrwhite2039]

@DannyPhilTalk how? You knew exactly what he was saying. You acted like it was a big deal the first time you came on. Right? Yes. Then you can on the second time and had no problem engaging. You can't get past me. I know what you did. We have seen atheist do this before. You thought in your little head "ah ha! I see something wrong with the prompt and this is what I will get him on, not what he's actually trying to argue, hehe then I will be the smartest!" You got your little clip and then decided to come back. But, when you actually engaged you majority agreed with almost everytning Andrew said and the things you didn't, you simply lacked the knowledge or information.

[@Bilbo383]

Holy shit, pinecreek was right... Andrew is totally an atheist

[@nietzschescodes]

That is what I think too.

[@edluckenbill9382]

Depend what your demolition is . Christian fundamentalist is not in the constitution.

[@49perfectss]

Woof I usually like listening to Danny but he really dropped the ball here. I don't think he's experienced enough to understand how much he gave away for free especially when it was granting something that is not true. We all miss here and there though 🤷‍♂️

[@DannyPhilTalk]

What should have I not given away do you think?

[@49perfectss]

@@DannyPhilTalk NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I sent a reply last night. It was a nice reply. Several paragraphs (small but still). Calm reasoning and character analysis of Andrew.... And links to studies to support what I was saying. I forgot KZbin has been deleting comments with outside links... And it's gone. (Insert EVERY crying emoji here) I'll respond again tonight or tomorrow with a much shorter reply. I just don't have it in me to do that again haha. I'll describe and name the studies so you can easily find them but leave out the actual links this time. I can't believe I made that mistake 😫

[@49perfectss]

@@DannyPhilTalk I want to beat my head against the wall. I was smart this time and copied my reply before sending it. Now the problem is every time I try to add the comment it gets deleted. I don't even know if you will see this or if it'll be deleted. Do you have something I can message directly? I don't think this comment section is going to be anything but infuriating and that way I can send you links to studies instead of describing them. Really sorry about this! It's happening a lot lately I have noticed.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@49perfectss just message me on discord

[@zeebpc]

@@DannyPhilTalk you simped for his christian nationalism bro

[@crazystart8581]

I think Danny really dropped the ball here especially with the is religion a net benefit. We only see these better outcomes in Christians because of our secular state not in spite of it. Also with the population portion of the debate although generation by generation population increases are important however increases to population overall is a much more nuance conversion. In addition creating an environment where citizens freely choose to procreate is the governments job not a responsibility of individuals.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

I’m open to any studies you have that show that religious commitment is a net negative for today’s society.

[@Jidom_101]

@@DannyPhilTalkI don’t think the commenter meant to say that it’s a net negative, just that there isn’t enough to go on to say it’s a net positive. Probably the best thing is to say it’s kinda neutral

[@crazystart8581]

@@DannyPhilTalk So my push back would be that sure within a secular state religion could have a net benefit within that system. However under religious governance the extent of iniquities can be as numerous as the claims made by the religion. I would also site the numerous laws that marginalize minority groups in religious states and the countless wars attributed to religious conflict.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@crazystart8581 do you have any studies that support the claim that religious commitment is a net negative?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@Jidom_101 thing is, i don't think religion or lack of has any bearing on some metrics of how a society is doing, unless it's blatant like places where you get parts lopped off, but for most of europe i think it would be hard to assess what effect religion or humanism have on the overall quality of life - here in the UK the church (to my mind) is pretty much the same as atheist, they do good things for the most part, but not enough to have an obvious impact. i think if religion disappeared overnight in the uk you might not notice until sunday.

[@zeebpc]

why is appealing to some deity not also subjective? does the deity not have a mind or something? its nonsense

[@Nelsonstephenson7654]

He doesn’t even claim that his objectivity comes from god. He has claimed it from the Orthodox Church before. So basically you can write down a semi coherent basic outline of morality then have a group of people decide what the outline says and …. There you go, you can call it objective by his standard. I actually think alit of time he is great at debating many topics. His and many people on his channel go off the rails with their mortality, grounding, and reproduction arguments.

[@zeebpc]

@@Nelsonstephenson7654 what is the definition "objective" in this context?

[@tartarus1478]

Danny is bi? Aight, I want a piece of that. Danny embarrassed this dude. You need to have an argument for the claim without god atheists can’t have moral grounding. If you don’t then why make the claim? If it’s not for the set of reasons that justify the claim then you’ve made it irrationally.

[@trafalgarlawn7124]

He asked Danny his basis for objective morality multiple times. Danny refused to answer this simple question multiple times. That's a concession in my book and Danny made Andrew's argument for him.

[@tartarus1478]

@@trafalgarlawn7124 Danny could personally not be a moral realist and it’s still not his job to prove the claim. The claim is that it’s not even possible to be a moral realist as an atheist. You’re dumb if you don’t understand that.

[@trafalgarlawn7124]

@@tartarus1478 People can demonstrate points with cross examination. Danny called into Andrew's show and was asked a simple question on the topic. When he called back in the second time, Danny was readily capable of answering simple questions on topic. You confuse burden shifting with mere pedantry. You're dumb if you don't understand that.

[@tartarus1478]

@@trafalgarlawn7124 you’re a low iq idiot. It’s pretty simple. Dude didn’t have a defense for his claim and Danny played nice to keep the conversation going. Cross examination won’t prove his claim. Danny personally may lack grounding for morality, hell idk if he’s even a realist at all, but it’s not his claim. Stop being stupid and try keeping up

[@AsixA6]

@@trafalgarlawn7124 Cross examination doesn’t demonstrate Andy’s claim true. Try again.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

Wait you really think religion is good for America?

[@cajohnson130]

That hit me as well. Not sure how anyone can claim its a net positive.

[@andrewmava272]

Andrew for the W. This wasn't even close.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

Do you disagree with him then?

[@lezlibarrett1453]

@@DannyPhilTalkyour sad

[@timtooful]

I used to like a nice cheese dip for my arrogance, but now I feel it is better with a sort of cinnamon sugar dusting. Of course here we've seen a more wrapped in rice with raw fish sort of arrogance. Quite tasty, but even better with that hit of wasabi burning up the sinuses. However, at the moment, this has all got me craving the some sweet arrogance flavored ice cream for some reason. Maybe with an indulgent drizzle of lack of self-awareness on top. Anyone know where I could get some at this late, late hour?

[@GMRVC1]

From the sound of it, you have plenty of it very close by...might check your fridge.

[@timtooful]

@@GMRVC1 excellent advise, my friend. I'm sure there's several forgotten dips in there - hopefully not yet too moldy! But I find there is half a big carton of sang-froid I really need to get though first. If only my only currently clean utensils weren't chopsticks? Oh well, one must make do.

[@edluckenbill9382]

Just repeating the claims .

[@bv7078]

I knew this one was going to go downhill quickly! Haha lol.

[@johnnybickle4116]

This guy is like every believer's incorrect ideal of the unbeliever come to life !

[@KennyEvans-rr6we]

Religion has been the suppository for not only wisdom but also for quite a bit of science for a good part of human history ..Talking about christianity based upon the concept of a sinless christ an example to emulate this has been quite a good applied modifier to counteract the vile barbaric toxic proclivities of human nature especially the proclivity of men to turn toxic concerning power ,wealth and overt sexuality,, This modifier slowed down moral entropy enough for great civilisations to be created based upon christian morality.. That's just a fact but as we know entropy is dominant in this universe so nothing has longevity and nothing can be perfect.....

[@Overonator]

Big Papa Fascist was steering the conversation toward empirical evidence and Danny was trying to steer it toward conceptual analysis/logic.

[@mrwhite2039]

Danny should be consistent with his worldview which is nihilism and stop thinking he has any ground to even push anyone towards anything at all. Nothing in his world is better or worse than anything else so he should just shut up. Its all part of the same bluurb

[@OnlyGnosis]

​@@mrwhite2039would you kill a baby if Yahweh commands you to?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

part way in to "andrew being nice" and i'm thinking, as i do, NEVER TRUST A CHRISTIAN. he is going to turn and bite.

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

Danny reminded me of when you see a boxer dodging punches. Andrew was just there pretending to be nice and every once in a while throws a huge punch but he can’t land one because Danny is 10 steps ahead of him.

[@edluckenbill9382]

He is so dishonest !

[@CainMadness]

Bro literally doesn't understand that objective moral grounding DOESN'T have to come from just god. He can't comprehend it, literally associates it with god and no other ways.

[@MCJustJ420]

Ok so what are they grounded in?

[@dbt5224]

"Objective morality" from God is subject to God. One of the most important rules, made the top 10, Thou shall not kill. Until God says, "Those Amalakites (sp?), yeah, go slaughter them."

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

​@@dbt5224learn the difference between (thou shall not) murder and kill

[@dbt5224]

@@Rocky-ur9mn Is killing innocent people murder? Infants most often are considered to be so. The big G had them simply killed? What crime were they guilty of? Sure, they were born sinners, but aren't we all?

[@AsixA6]

@@Rocky-ur9mn Learn the difference between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. If your supposed ‘god’ doesn’t exist, is punching a baby in the face immoral? If yes, then your imaginary friend is irrelevant to that fact. If no, then it’s SUBJECTIVELY immoral. To even have a chance at being ‘objective’, morality can’t be SUBJECT to your imaginary friend’s existence.

[@WokuYT]

5:13 Are you Homosexual Danny ? What does that have to do with anything ? that is so ignorant it is scary SMH.

[@BrooklynA785]

I'm not really a fan of how Andrew communicates with people. There's a hostility to it that... I don't know, it smacks of some weirdness. With respect to Danny, the thing he seems to still be learning is what it means for one premise to "follow from" a prior premise. I agree with him that there is such a thing as a non-sequitur. But the fundamental misunderstanding sometimes is that Premise 2 is non-sequitur, when in fact it does follow as a natural result of the truth of Premise 1. For example... Think of it like the relationship between Light and Heat. The Light coming from the sun emanates from the Heat that the sun generates. Put another way, the Light (Premise 2) emanates as a direct and natural result of the Heat (Premise 1). To go one step further, the nature of the Light is a direct consequence of the nature of the Heat, because the Heat is that from which the Light emerges. Therefore.... Premise 2 is not a separate, isolated claim that needs independent verification, but rather, it is that which emerges as a direct result of Premise 1 (provided Premise 1 is True.) So... If someone denies the existence of a transcendent, Objective reality that stands as the fountainhead from which all other realities emerge, then *by definition*, that individual's convictions, whatever they may be, are rooted in their own Subjective beliefs. Why? Because there is now Objective reality to verify whether or not those convictions are Objectively True. A more localized example of this would be the question of Objective Morality. Morality is that which pertains to the domain of Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil. As a result, Morality is governed within the domain of Volition. What I mean is, there are no examples of a non-volitional entity or objective engaging in moral decision making. All examples of Morality exist within Volition Entities, like human beings. Therefore, in order for there to be Objective Morality, there must be an Objective, Volitional Entity from which that Objective Morality emerges. This is why atheists and secularists who do not believe in an Objectively Volitional Entity, like God, have no basis for Objective Morality. All of their morality is rooted in their own personal, subjective beliefs. Therefore, they have no basis from which to claim that anything is Objectively Right or Objectively Wrong.

[@olexalex8874]

Yeah, you can't have God-morality without God

[@BrendaCreates]

Light does not emanate from heat. Heat literally IS light, i.e. infrared radiation. The radiation from the sun is caused by nuclear fusion.

[@abuabdullah9878]

You typed up so much crap that just exposes that you’re illiterate in formal arguments.

[@LucretiusDraco]

Ur gay dude checkmate. Wow. No argument

[@lezlibarrett1453]

A good argument

[@squidwardtennisballs3390]

W Andrew

[@RangerJ602]

Lmao no 😂

[@edluckenbill9382]

Wow we did that come from Deflection. Projection 😢

[@NN-wc7dl]

"Do you believe religion is good for America?" Well, genius, take a closer look at America of this very day. Do you like it?????

[@DannyPhilTalk]

I don’t think religion really explains much of the ills of society. Seems like certain economic systems are more to blame.

[@NN-wc7dl]

@@DannyPhilTalk I suggest that Andrew consider the role of religion in the US, a country with a strong religious presence. However, it is unclear what he thinks about that matter. Perhaps he thinks it's ideal, who knows?

[@ManicPandaz]

⁠@@DannyPhilTalkReally…? So Roe vs Wade was about economics… not religion? Are the anti-lgbt problems in Florida a new Republican economic model? The American population’s obsession with an omnipotent strong man at the top to dictate laws/ethics, Republican/Christian persecution complexes, desire for a saviour figure, thinking humanity can’t alter the climate because it’s god that will end the world… all of that has nothing to do with religious thinking… but economic issues… I really like you Danny but damn… think you got a blind spot buddy. I’m not even American and the weird religious thinking causing so many of your problems is obvious from a country away.

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

👌

[@ubersheizer5398]

Even though he is an ass, I feel bad that Andrew will likely die young from smoking cigarettes.

[@edluckenbill9382]

Because they are lying 🤥

[@edluckenbill9382]

Take a community college philosophy course . Wow 😮

[@edluckenbill9382]

Your claim is not grounded !

[@davec-1378]

I would tend to disagree that religion is an overall good. Andrew is an example of a person ignoring reason and is bigoted based on his religious beliefs. There are kind people that do so based on their theology but it seems the bigots are beginning to outnumber the kind.

[@mrwhite2039]

Calling reality bigoted is the mentality of a child. "look at that wolf eating that animal, what a bigot!" screams the delusional atheist.

[@Janeausten5030]

Hahahahaha

[@HarryNicNicholas]

why didn't dillahunty do dat?

[@BrendaCreates]

He's not a philosopher.

[@pavld335]

@@BrendaCreates how is that relevant? Andrew was making transphobic jokes about Matt's girlfriend.

[@pavld335]

do what? Danny seemed to mostly agree with what this guy said. Am I missing something here?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@pavld335 matt walking out played right into andrew's hand, i don't blame matt for being upset, but matt ought to be a grown up - this is a bully's ploy and matt fell for it. andrew is an obnoxious **** but danny handled this much better, although i think he was actually soft on andrew, considering. and why do you care what i say?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@BrendaCreates well to be frank, that was rhetorical. i mean, i know the answer.

[@achillesgarchitorena292]

Andrew for the W!!👏👏👏

[@DannyPhilTalk]

It's weird that you said that, because he himself admitted that he made a mistake trying to formulate his argument in the first half of the video. Do you disagree?

[@NoBullSavage]

​​@@DannyPhilTalk I'll disagree. No disrespect intended but it looked like Andrew had to change his tact because you wouldn't engage with basic principles. If God exists, his rules in the universe are objective. If not, everything is subjective/relative. Do you disagree?

[@lezlibarrett1453]

@@NoBullSavageDanny is brain dead

[@edluckenbill9382]

No

[@benhaylock7097]

Not a fon of this Phil guy. He concedes too much to the facists.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

What should have I not conceded?

[@MarioEstevez-re1us]

@@DannyPhilTalkAndrew doesn’t need to make an argument about your moral grounding if the presupposition is that it comes from a higher power. No higher power = no moral grounding. He doesn’t need to make an argument in that case that was a bad start It is way too obvious when you come into this with a hot head trying to prove something. Never makes for a good debate.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@MarioEstevez-re1us I don’t know what the duck youre saying

[@benhaylock7097]

Apologies for the spelling error and mistaking your name. I appreciate the start as you were spot on about his argument. I understand the challenge in not getting kicked from the conversation. Backing away from the dangers of theocracy and you seemed to concede the happiness point.

[@benhaylock7097]

I had a quick listen again. You seem to feed him what he wants to hear on Dillihunty and Ra both who deserve respect for their commitment to humanism and fight against theocracy. And the birthrate stuff that is perhaps the number one dog whistle employed by white nationalists. I have no doubt that you know your stuff but it seems as though you concede too much or alternatively let him control the convo and don't push back on some of his BS. Easy for me to say though as I am not a live debater