@TussBeatbox
Found you through Tom Rabbitt and I'm really happy about it. I love this type of content and how you go about it! Very well done!
@lanceindependent
Danny was 100% correct. Win for Danny. Chris kicked him off because Danny appropriately pointed out that Chris claimed to understand Danny's point and he probably did not, because he was unable to answer a direct question when asked. He then treated the rationale for kicking Danny off as though it's because Danny wanted to "throw out philosophical terms." This is ironic, because in the very process of objecting to this, he was demanding a "justification." What was Chris asking for, if not for Danny to provide an account that satisfied the conditions of *a philosophical term*: justification.
@BruteFactsPodcast
Wow. So he assumed your position multiple times then refused to answer legitimate questions. Good job keeping cool Danny.
@lukasrodriguez5864
interesting how Danny been a dualist threw Chris out of his script
@GrrMania
Iâm not familiar with Chris Claus but he was very unreasonable here. You did great, Danny. You gave your reasonings, repeated back to him what he said, and yet he couldnât do the same. You kept your cool too. I get that deep philosophical topics can be hard to follow, but Chris seemed to not only be incapable of following, but seemingly refused to even attempt to.
@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1
Itâs funny seeing people go through their âAngry Apologistâ phase.
@allisonsutherland1144
This Chris guy claims to hold to both moral realism and divine command theory? That sounds straightforwardly contradictory.
@chipperhippo
So bad on Chris's part. Blow by blow from 12min on... Chris: tries to set up the "but how can anything be wrong if we're JUST matter in motion etc." retort by assuming that Danny's a physicalist by virtue of his atheism Danny: discourages chris from this approach by pointing out that he's not a physicalist and that either way it's really irrelevant what metaphysics we assume here, as theism won't help regardless Chris: again suggests that Danny is committed to the "on atheism morality is just fizzy brains" view Danny: reiterates that he's not a physicalist Chris: abandons line and just asks how atheists can have morality again Danny: reiterates position (again) Chris: isn''t that subjective? Danny: reminds chris that antirealism is the position that he's been arguing the whole time Chris: abandons line and asks how an atheist would explain moral intuitions (different question entirely) Danny: idk Chris: (I guess under the impression he's cornered danny?) that's not good enough Danny: this isn't relevant, we don't need to be able to explain "how..." to know "that..." Chris: abandons line, asks why danny thinks objective moral values don't exist Danny: reiterates position AGAIN, asks if god is good by definition or not Chris: dodge Danny: asks again Chris: god doesn't have to 'fit into'... philosophy?... logic? ---- (cut) Chris: asks about moral intuitions again (even though brought up earlier and abandoned after danny explained not relevant) Danny: discussion of justified true belief/ reasons Chris: ignores danny's point Danny: asks if chris understands what he said Chris: "I understood you and I'm not a 4yo, if you're going to speak to me like a 4yo..." Danny: challenges chris to rephrase danny's point Chris: realizes he has no idea what danny's point was and that he's been completely checkmated; ragequits. On a side note, I spoke to Danny briefly on a digital gnosis livestream re: philosophy of mind and had no idea he was a dualist until watching this video, as he spent the majority of the discussion steel-manning identity theory. I think Chris could learn a thing or two about charitability from him.
@uninspired3583
Nicely handled. We had a talk offline a while back, so I know quite well you're very easy to talk with. Charitable without giving up precision. Unfortunate how this ended.
@kevinshea8493
Lol. Seemed a bit too slow on the draw for Dannyâs simple elegance. Seemingly daft.
@NymphaeumVox
Bob the Builder thing in the prayer made me spill my drink...
@joshridinger3407
do these people not understand that once they reach for the claim that god is utterly myeterious/logic doesn't apply to god, the concept becomes incomprehensible and nothing more can be said about it?
@JerryPenna
Youâre bring up philosophy! lol I could see the tone change around this time.
@j.gairns
When an atheist says "I don't know what it means" it means the theist has failed to adequately explain their point.
@HarryNicNicholas
if morality is written on my heart by god, where did my free will go, i want to be evil, sinful and wicked, but my morals stop me.....
@iSkulk
Damn, I'm not sure what I could have possibly gained from this discussion other than the obvious fact that Danny's opposition wasn't interested in listening, only talking.
@davec-1378
Lol, wants to âdebate objective moralityâ but doesnât want to hear philosophy
@BobLeach_DarkWolf
Wow. Good job Danny. You're wicked smart and you kept your cool in the face of some nonsense. :)
@davec-1378
Danny, trying to explain the difference between synthetic and analytic truths is just gonna throw their train off the tracks You cannot reason with a position not reached by reason
@williamlight2393