I will be debating Andrew Wilson, live on stage, in Nashville, Tennessee, this November 16.
Yes, that Andrew Wilson. I expect it will be a dumpster fire like it was with Sargon, and as experienced by Dillahunty last year with Wilson. But I’ll stick around. Because I only do this for real money now, as it’s clearly just being treated as cage match entertainment, and thus I am a performer working for a living. But that just means I expect Wilson will be unnecessarily annoying for the audience to endure, eyerollingly resorting to ad hominems, dogwhistles, and bad fascism-is-cool jokes. I will stay on point in educating the audience on just what Secular Humanism is and why it outperforms Christianity on every relevant metric, just as I did with the less ridiculous Joel McDurmon the last time I live-debated this proposition. And of course I’ll call out every single fallacy Wilson pulls to show you he can’t defend his ground without them.
There will be other curious and entertaining debates that weekend, as it’s DebateCon 6 hosted by Modern Day Debate. So entry gets you more than just this show. Check out the roster and other details and get tickets now! It’s pricier at the door and could be sold out. And I would really appreciate having more supporters in the audience—so it’s not just all Connor Estelles. It’s more affordable if you do only the one day (my debate is Sunday evening) but check the roster: you really might want to do both! Either way I should be available for the special-cost meet & greets and dinners Saturday and Sunday (though you should still ask the hosts to be sure, as instructed, since there may be limits on how many can get in on those).
I will be selling and signing some books at a venue table at select times (probably only Sunday) so look for that. And feel free to come up and say hi if you see me. I don’t plan to socialize much apart from officially (whether as audience or VIP). But if you are an organizer for a group out there who wants to talk to me about arranging another event in or around Nashville some other weekend, find me there or reach out anytime.
Thank you for what you do. Someday if my situation improves, I’d love to support your work.
Thank you. I genuinely appreciate that.
Hi Richard,
being here in the UK it is a little difficult to attend and support you in person. However, I am wondering if there are any plans to stream the debate as a ticket event on-line. It would be wonderful to follow the debate from across The Pond.
MDD eventually makes marketed videos of some of its content (these conference debates are all over their YouTube channel). But I am not in charge of that. This is their production. So it entirely depends on what they choose to do and, if they do publish this one, how long they choose to embargo anything they eventually published. Hence I cannot promise this will ever appear online, or when.
I would love to attend and support you Richard! I am, although, a bit worried about Andrew Wilson, and how the Dillahunty debate turned out. It was a big waste of time and money for some of us! His circular debate style, and the way he debated the room afterwards, was absurd. This would absolutely be a trounce of a debate, in your favor. Someone needs to defeat this troll.
Oh, most definitely there will be nothing worth hearing from Wilson. The only value such a debate has is, first, in his fallacies and histrionics being immediately pointed out and their significance instantly explained for the purposes of deciding which worldview we should promote (that this is how his side has to argue alone disproves his side as intellectually bankrupt), and, second, in more people being exposed to rational evidence-based reasons to replace Christianity with Secular Humanism. You can put headphones on and listen to white noise every minute he speaks, and still benefit from attending to hear my more rational and honest case.
This looks like thunderdome to me. I hope you are able to achieve your own goals.
That is to say, YOU WOULD EASILY dismantle this person’s argument. His debate style has been proven to be very tough to tangle with, but no emotivism can handle what Richard throws down.
Are there any denominations, sects, religious leaders you like? What do you think of Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, CFI, Bill Nye, Neil de Grasse Tyson?
Too broad a question to answer. You’d have to be way more specific (what does “like” mean?).
As for the listed folks, it’s no secret that I think Harris and Dawkins are terrible philosophers and wrong at least 80% of the time; Hitchens was the sharpest wit and otherwise most similar to me, just over-macho, though I think he was getting that and died too soon to see how that would shake out, but otherwise he was wrong at most 10% of the time.
Russell was important in his day and left a few lasting contributions but is mostly obsolete now and I have no thoughts on him as a person. Einstein had very little of relevance to say in philosophy and wasn’t a philosopher in the relevant sense here (however much theists want him to have been).
Sagan is an icon and by all accounts a good man but I know too little about him to comment. Likewise Nye and Tyson. But none of them even claim to be philosophers in the relevant sense here.
CFI used to do a lot of good debunking and skepticism work but seems underfunded and unfocused these days. It’s hard to point to any significant impact or contribution from them in the last ten years. But the LA unit led by James Underdown is the best of them and is still doing notable (if minor or low-impact) debunking work. Which isn’t particularly relevant here.
Einstein’s “Out of My Later Years” begins with some philosophical essays. In education he ponders the problem of science being unable to distinguish between good and evil, and so what should children be taught? Judeo-Christian tradition? Or make expanding scientific knowledge the goal? I think he felt that a first principle was that others are just as real as oneself. Perhaps he found this lacking in Nazi Germany.
By asking if you like any of the religious groups I am wondering whether you find their social activities beneficial despite your not agreeing with their belief in a god, that is provided they don’t revile you.
That’s just some guy with thoughts. Not formal academic philosophy.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=machiavelli
Scrolling down a bit one finds “Machiavelli is calling the masses” which is a short video presentation of some of his writing.
I don’t understand the relevance. Whose writings? And why not link directly to them? And how do they relate here? Please elaborate.
It is an excerpt from Machiavelli. I have not read his books so cannot link directly to the paragraphs given in the short presentation. What I thought relevant to your upcoming debate is what he has to say about most people being more interested in comforting illusions or profitable scams than in truth.
That concept actually originated in Plato’s Republic (which is the first philosophical treatise in defense of fascism ever composed).
If Wilson needs humbling, just bring out a pickle jar.
Right. I had seen that before. It’s a nice “I refute it thus” that only happy contingencies can create. But it is fun to see them happen.
OP: “…as experienced by Dillahunty last year with Wilson. ”
“Atheist Debates – I walked out of another debate…” YouTube. @SansDeity. 5 December 2023.
Video Outline
Introduction to the Debate Review
Matt Dillahunty introduces the video as a review of a debate he walked out of at DebateCon 4 [00:09].
Background on the Debate
The agreed-upon topic was “secular humanism versus Christianity” [01:05].
This was the second time a debate with Modern-Day Debates strayed from the agreed-upon topic, referencing a prior debate he also walked out of [01:43].
Dillahunty’s Debate Philosophy
He explains his long-standing practice of not researching his debate opponents to avoid bias and ad hominem attacks [02:27].
The Debate with Andrew
Andrew’s opening statement attacked Dillahunty personally and brought up unrelated issues such as “trans stuff” and “white replacement” [11:35].
Dillahunty clarifies his position on topics brought up by Andrew, such as laws regarding sex with minors and the trans community [14:04].
Dillahunty walks out of the debate, stating that he would not “dignify this” with a response [25:12].
Aftermath and Conclusion
Dillahunty announces he will no longer do events with Modern-Day Debates [30:41].
He condemns the decision by the organizers to keep Andrew on stage after he left, allowing him to continue mocking him and his partner [35:31].
He reiterates his commitment to honest debate about subjects and his refusal to give a platform to bigoted views [32:57].
I hope to one day see you discuss/debate “secular conservatism vs secular liberal humanism” in writing with a secular social conservative.
I specifically have Bryan Caplan in mind as a representative of the secular conservative side.
A debate between you and him on whether feminism is still warranted in the Western world would also be interesting.
I guess. I doubt he can even get past the Secular Humanism point, much less to the complicated subject of feminism. I have no confidence he could even recite the history and diversity of that movement much less its predominant working principles. I tire of debating people on subjects they know nothing about. Drunk uncles are boring.
He has a book on the topic called “Don’t Be a Feminist” which I haven’t read but I am familiar with some of its ideas from his blog.
I am also aware that he had a very recent debate about this topic with Holly Lawford-Smith on Louise Perry’s (of The Case against The Sexual Revolution fame) podcast.
I tend to find him very knowledgeable about the topics he talks and writes about even though I disagree with him more than I agree with him.
There is a possible debate like that in the works and I have suggested a lot of opponents like Caplan but none will agree to do it so far (some for legit reasons, like scheduling, others for more vague reasons). So that might never happen. But I’ll suggest Caplan to the organizers. If you have any other suggestions you think would be good let me know.
I suggested Caplan because I think he’s both knowledgeable and a decent human being. If another secular conservative (already a rare breed) example comes to mind, I’ll suggest them.
I do think that Louise Perry is another good opponent, but I am not sure if she will be capable or interested in a topic this wide. I have seen her debate against the sexual revolution on secular grounds which is a much more confined topic.
Destiny Wiki. wiki.destiny.gg. “A place to explore all things related to Destiny…” §.Andrew Wilson. “He also goes by Big Papa Fascist (BPF).”
You mean to link to this page.
Do you have an assessment of the use or value of that page?
(i.e. it’s just a catalog of videos; so, are they worth watching at all?)
As for Wilson being a self-described fascist, I already know that, of course.
Wow! I can’t believe this will happen! I’ve recently watched your debate with Joel McDurmon and I was thinking about you debating Wilson. I even thought about messaging him to make this suggestion. That’s great! I’m eager to watch it!
If you do the same. Ask Wilson to publish a pre-debate multi-faceted psychometric battery of tests that measure foundational personality traits, specific ideological attitudes, and core moral principles.
The Five-Factor Model, or Big Five, is a consistent predictor of worldview orientation
1. Openness to Experience
2. Conscientiousness
3. Extraversion
4. Agreeableness
5. Neuroticism
The HEXACO model adds Honesty-Humility
The Dual-Process Motivational (DPM) Model centers on Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
Psychological Constructs and Their Associations with Political Ideology
Openness to Experience
Conscientiousness
Moral Foundations
Care/Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degradation
Cognitive Style
Need for Cognitive Closure
Intolerance of Ambiguity
Given two disparate worldview groups A and B. And with the goal of differentiating the psychological and personality profiles of the given groups by clarifying the underlying psychological, cognitive, and moral mechanisms that predispose each groups worldview.
For Example:
i Hypothetical score for an A Devotee
ii Hypothetical score for an B Devotee
iii Rationale/Psychological Implication
HEXACO Inventory
i High Openness to Experience; High Honesty-Humility; Low Conscientiousness
ii High Conscientiousness; Low Openness to Experience; Low Honesty-Humility
iii Measures a fundamental preference for novelty, complexity, and fairness versus a preference for order, tradition, and self-control.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
i Low Score
ii High Score
iii Assesses a desire for group-based equality versus a preference for social hierarchy and dominance.
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)
i Low Score
ii High Score
iii Reflects a worldview driven by a fear of threats to social order, leading to a need for authority and convention.
Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ)
i Higher scores on Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating; Lower scores on Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation
ii More balanced scores across all five foundations; Higher scores on Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation
iii Illuminates the underlying moral architecture, explaining why certain arguments or values may resonate with one group and not the other.
N.B. research highlights the importance of gene-environment interaction, where the effects of genetic predispositions are modulated by external factors. The social environment, including family, upbringing, and media exposure, plays a significant role in shaping an individual’s beliefs. Personal experiences, such as economic hardship or social injustice, can also profoundly mold worldviews.
An individual’s worldview can evolve in response to new information, personal experiences, and social dynamics.
Childhood nutrition and other factors affect IQ.
Lower cognitive ability is associated with a potential greater belief in misinformation programs, difficulty with analytical thinking, difficulty with corrections.
Higher cognitive ability is associated with a potential tendency to process information in a way that aligns with pre-existing beliefs, identities, and political affiliations. In other words, people—regardless of their intelligence—are more likely to believe and share information that supports their political group and to reject information that contradicts it. They can construct elaborate arguments to defend their misbeliefs, making them highly resistant to correction.
Other Factors
Education
Media consumption
Etc.
I don’t understand the relevance of any of this.
And it looks suspiciously like AI-generated content, which is banned here.
I need you to stop posting things that look like this. Make it clear that you are writing coherent sentences and a flow of argument, not bullet lists that look randomly collected from a chat prompt.
I will be deleting comments that continue to look like AI.
[text too much resembling AI generated content is here being deleted as promised—ed.]
Please tell me this is going to be recorded and posted online…
That’s up to Modern Day Debate. And even if they choose to publish this one, they are likely to moratorium the video, and not post it for months or a year, to ensure attendance at the live event.
“secular humanism” Do you mean Judeo-Masonic morality?
No.