Paganism Vs Orthodoxy Debate: Flashback! - Jay Dyer Vs Boglord Dave Martel

All right, we are going live and I want to know if you guys can hear me. Let me know in the Jays Analysis YouTube channel, audience, if you can hear our discussion before we start rambling and nobody's listening. I just want to make sure it says we can here. All Right, Dave talk a little bit, so can hear you?

Jack one chick too?

Everybody here, Dave? All right, it sounds like we're good. Okay, welcome. We finally found a person who wants to finally step up to the neo pagan heathen plate and play a little bit of that a little bit of that heathen baseball at the Heathen Diamond. We're gonna see if our opponent has the stuff he says he wanted to do it. So I'll tell you what so I don't I'm new to you. Tell my audience who you are, what took you down your path? Take as much time as you need.

And before I get started, like to thank you again for letting me come on here and have the opportunity to test my steel against a formidable opponent such as yourself. You are a master of your craft and had quite a few friends to tune into your content. Speak highly of you, so, you know, thank you for having me on,

Okay, the first thing I would ask is, uh, what are the the convincing things? What are the things that

Well, I mean those are all kind of material reasons, and those are certainly positives when it comes to to Ostro, like the tribe, the kindred kind of format, the folkish for Matt, the uh, you know, just the idea of of your your ancestry also being tied with your spirituality. That's not what brought me to it. All of those things actually came later when we started getting into the

Okay, So my first question would be, there's two points here, if one would be and I'm not trying to offend you or challenge the claim that you didn't have a spiritual experience, but number one, how do you know that those spiritual experiences are good or that they line up

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a subjective. I would say, you know what, Now, Now, I'm not a biblical scholar by any by any stretch, so correct me if if I ever like paraphrase anything, that's incorrect. But uh, what what did Christ say about knowing whether or not people or divine teachers were actually divine. He said, look at the look at the fruits of of their of their words or something like that. Correct, you know I look at go ahead.

Well, I would say that's one thing that we look at. Yeah, but he gave a lot of different, uh kind of test cases, litmus tests for how we know that you're in the falls. So just because in other words, I might I mean, if I already believe that what I am interested in is true, then I will I will interpret the fruits too to vindicate that. I'll have a kind of verification bias if I already believe something is true.

Well, I mean that's a that's an argument that a lot of times atheists used in order to kind of you know, beat up on on spiritual truths or perennial truths or things like that. But uh, with the thing that that Christ said, I measure the metric that I used to know whether or not my path is true is the fruit that came from it. You know, when I when I converted. I was, you know, I come from I mean, I caught poor, white trash. I came for a single mother household. I had a really rough

But like so, I mean, similar things could be said about somebody who has a moral reform or a change of life that goes into any cult or religion. So in other words, a person could conceivably say the same things about going into scientology. A person could say the same things about Oh, I was a you know, a bad alcoholic and I got involved in AA and then I joined a I don't know, a yoga cult and

Well you know number one, Like, I understand why you're using this argument, but this is essentially an atheist argument to kind of bring spiritual truth back down down and try to force it into material metrics and stuff. I mean, that argument could be used against people that say they've had spiritual experiences in Christianity, or how do we know that the Word of God is true? How do we know that the Bible is true? Well, you know this is that?

Well you say that, right, I use that argument a lot. Yeah, as a Christian apologist, yeah. So, But the fact that atheists use this argument doesn't mean that it's in quote atheist argument. But yeah, I'm atheists will use logic. That doesn't mean the logic comes from atheists.

But it comes down to what is the metric of good? How do we know that? What? How do we define good? What is what is these things that happened in my life? How are they good compared to somebody that joined scientology. Well, the things that that good that have been happened in my life are objectively good. They're objectively good. I mean I I had a family, I had children, I started to get financial success, I have a career, Like these things are all just all you know easily you know,

But how do you how do you determine what's objectively good? And and now on what basis are there objective truths and principles?

Because well, how would you you define good? Define good?

Well, ultimately, it's a transcetional category that applies to God. So God is the ultimate absolute, and because he's omni

But you're saying that there is. You're a Unitarian obviously, so you're saying that there is a universal, uh primordial perennial truth.

Right, Well, I'm a monotheist, I'm not a Unitarian.

I mean well, I mean we can get into that too.

Well, I mean that's a specific heresy that that's kind of in was invented, you know, in the last few centuries after the Puritans, with you know, people like Horace Man and h. Thomas Jefferson. We're Unitarians, So that's a specific kind of Jovah's witness style type of cult.

My apologies, my apology.

I'm just saying that it's monotheism is at unitarian But so how how does that I don't understand the argument here, So, so what if it's monotheists, how does.

That Okay, Well, if you want to talk about monotheistic, I actually disagree with the idea that European brands of Christianity are monotheistic. I think you know, you talk about you believe in the Trinity, correct, you believe in? Uh yeah, the Trinity you believe in? Do you believe in angels and saints and stuff like that? So how is that monotheism?

Well, because the source of all life, the source of all existence, the source of all those creative beings, as God the Father.

Yeah, and you you would pay homage to the saints, and pay homage to the angels, and pay homage to these these manifestations of the divine correct.

Right, because paying homage or reverence is different than worship.

So you essentially are a polytheist.

No, we consistently argue against polytheism because there's only one God, one divine nature.

Yeah, we have a very similar concept. We believe in the overarching primordial divinity as you know, what Christians call God. And then like Christians, we have you know, our gods, which would be I guess sort of like you know, in the Christian pantheon. I guess like angels or lesser kind of entities and stuff like that, and then we have heroes who are we believe to be divinely inspired men like saints. So it's the exact same concept, but with different semantics.

No, it's actually very different concepts because we don't think that any of the saints or any of the angels actually possess the divine nature. So we have a very specific reason why we believe in a distinction between created and uncreated things. So the creative world has beginning in time, it's held in existence by God, and it has a certain te lose that God is determined for it. But that's different than the kind of being that God, that

Well, first of all, I'd like to reject. You know, sometimes there's people get used to using like weaponized language, And one of the examples of weaponized language that you're kind of rolling out here is saying, oh, well, you believe in the oneness, but it gets convoluted and clogged up because then you have all this chaotic stuff that comes down down the And I reject the idea of

So but but I mean, the whole history of various mythologies and different cultures. Isn't the gods fighting with one another and cheating with one another and stealing wives and connecting humans and practicing vctiality. That's not in the history of the gods.

Well no, but you know it kind of you're boiling it down. I mean, you're you're you're a spiritual guy. You understand when you read scripture that you you're not supposed to get hanged hung up on the details. Atheists make this argument all the time. They'll read like the story of I don't excuse me, let me finish, please.

So, first of all, it's a big difference between saying that David sinned and God or Jesus committed sin. Those are different things because we believe that God is God, and God doesn't He's not fallen, so he's not going to commit the kinds of actions that you would speak of in terms of that kind of deity. And so that's very different from saying, well, the Bible has men committing atrocious actions. Yeah, because that's part of the mess of the Bibles, that we're falling human beings. That's why

First, I didn't I didn't imply that. What I'm saying is that atheists are essentially just they're here to tear They're Discordian, They're just here to tear it down. They're just using weapons. They're not. I mean, I agree with you entirely. If you if you in uh in Heathen theology, we say the same thing. We know, uh human nature, logic, reason, mathematics, all of these things are completely in tune with our

It's very different to say that there's one God with omniscience and who, by his divine providence, is the basis by which we ground these principles in universals that are offer in nature and by and contrasting that was saying, well, there's a chain of being and that the top there's odin and then there's all these kind of conflicting you know, gods or whatever. So I mean, are the gods fighting

I mean all of the above. It's here's the thing about in uh in Heathenry, we don't try to pretend that we understand and our little human minds can express and really define what is divinity? What are the cosmic mechanics of the universe. We're not gonna So we have the gods to teach us it through story and allegory and scripture, how to understand it and behave properly during our short time on this life. In our earthly vessels until we pass on to the next life.

How do you know? How do you know when you're supposed to enact revenge? And how do you know when you're supposed to not? I mean, where there's no consistent ethic.

In this at all? There is absolutely.

How do you know? How do you know what? When is a good action? When is a virtuous action?

When is it not?

When are you supposed to go to war? When you're supposed to have a vendetta? When are you supposed to not?

I mean, it says clear and day in the ed is it says in the Havamal. There's there's plenty of clear as day, succinct descriptions on how you should behave in certain things, how things should be done, and how to live your life and how to make decisions and stuff like that.

However, how do you know those aren't the How do you know those aren't the details that don't really matter that you're supposed to overlook and find a universal principle.

How do you know that the ones in your scripture are well.

We have a we have a way of a pattern of knowing this, because it's not just me reading this book there's a whole history that goes into where this came from and fulfilled prophecies. There's no fulfilled prophecies in in Uh in.

Paganism, absolutely there is, absolutely there is Ragnarok. Look at look at the story of Uh. You know, the cyclical nature of time. It describes to a t the cyclical nature of civilization, and it's coincides contradiction if no, no, no, no no no, it coincides with the stories that come into Vedas. What they talk about in Sonata Dharma is like when they describe the Yugos.

Those are completely different philosophies there just because they are, just because you find a similarity. The basis of that religion is that you need to uh destroy your ego and and find unification with the thusness of the universe. That's why you see, that's why you see Yogis sitting out there in their shit, because that religion is ridiculous. It's not the same religion as what you're talking about.

First of all, you're you're implying that I'm saying that the totality, the entirety of all of Hinduism is exactly the same as that. You know, what I'm talking about is the original scriptures written in the Vedas are hail from a similar ancestral spiritually philosophical root. And we know that in science, we know that we've uncovered these people, the the you know, the Indo Arians, they all hail from the same kind of root philosophy, and that's where

Oh so, in other words, it took as it took secular academics to dig up and prove what is the true revelation that's the skeletal thing that's been corroded throughout all these millennia, which you're arguing is somehow.

In some skeletons, you're going to deny truth prophecy. By the way, so what you're saying is you're going to not deny truth because it comes from a source that you don't like I thought you were just said.

I'm saying that you are your arguments here are all subjective because you're lying not they are. You don't see that they are, but they are because you're relying on principles that are mathematical, that are universal, that are that are supposedly scientific. But the arguments that you're giving to ground this are subjective. That's the problem.

It's not subjective. You just said a few moments ago that you are in line with logic and reason and science and and what we do know and what are mathematical truths. If we uncover a mathematical truth, if somebody that we don't like that we're not in line with discovers it, does that make it not true? No, that would be that would be a sinful act, right to

I think you're again you're begging the question because I'm asking how you're getting a universal truth or a universal claim, and then when you explain where it comes from and how you get it, it's a bunch of places that you go to that don't make sense, that aren't co that aren't consistent with the philosophy that you have. That's what I'm trying to say.

Well, I just I just you know, no, I made the case that it is consistent, and in fact it's consistent that it's and I'm making the case like if you read do Mozill, he points out many, many, many different religions across the Northern Hemisphere, and even in you're talking like Iranian and like Zoastrianism, and all of these faiths have similar universal truths. And how do you know what they are? That's the question.

You're just saying these things. There's no clear there's no You've not given a single clear example of how do I know in a certain instance whether I should enactive indetta or whether I should run away from it? Well, that's say, Well, there's a lot of general general principles.

Up we're talking about. How how do I know that it's universally true? How do I know that my spiritual philosophy is true? I know? Well, number one, and how do I know that the mathematics and the metrics in which I used to measure it is true are in fact true? And I'm saying that one of my metrics, one of my my pieces of evidence. Is that it coincides and it's parallel with many, many, many other cultures around the world that came to the same conclusion and have even more more.

That's just, that's just, that's just an appeal to uh a large number. That's a fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people. That's appeal to consensus is a fallacy.

But that's how science works. How does how do we come out? How do we establish that?

As you about scientific consensus, I'm asking you for a logical justification, and you gave an appeal to consensus.

No, but what we're doing is we're I'm proving that consensus is a legitimate thing. It's a legitimate system all the sciences fallacy, it's but it's not. It's it's absolutely based on consense, and consensus is the whole reason we have scientific theory in the first place.

Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.

But you asked me what evidence, and I'm giving you one piece of evidence. I mean, you can I didn't ask for evidence.

Also like fallacy, So there's a difference between a a logical justification and empirical evidence or data. I agree with you that we can bring forth pieces of evidence and data. But I asked a more specific question about logical justification for a claim or knowledge of a claim or a metaphysical principle that you're talking about, And you can't justify that by giving me an appeal to consensus, which is a fallacy.

Well, I mean I also don't. I don't like the idea of logical fallacies because it's just a way to cop out of an argument.

So no, it's not you believe You just said you believe in logic and universal principles.

Yeah I know you don't. No, No, I totally do.

You don't believe in the logical fallacies?

You don't, Well, I will take I'll take a logic and reason and scientific consensus and real world evidence over just some like subjective you know, argumentative you know tactic.

Yeah, a lot. The the appeal to consensus is not a subjective tactic. It's it is a tactical fallacy. Do you not understand what fallacies are?

Yeah? Yeah I do. But it's just it's just some ship that some guy made up. So he get it.

Now you just have loss of debate.

Okay, okay, okay, but yeah, let's get back. Okay, let's get let's get back to the to this stuff here. But what was it? What was the original topic? We kind of like went went crazy around in some crazy.

So we were talking about, uh, the ideas of the gods and the ideas of I was talking about fate and the problems that I see in kind of trying to find a basis for for paganism in in like a perennialist approach. I did a debate a few months ago with a guy who's a perennialist. It was a very similar discussion to what you and I are having.

Now I will completely admit to you, and I'm gonna it's gonna be completely honest, and I know you're gonna you're gonna jump on me on this, but you know it's it's it's fact that a lot of our our history, our artifacts, a lot of our our our literature, and a lot of our stuff is lost in time and we have to do a lot of stuff to put it back together. And we have a lot we still have some work to do to put the our faith back together. And that's why we were called. I reject neopagan,

So let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say that, Let's say I have a dream, and I'm being serious, I'm not trying to be a clown. I'm like, look, what if I had a dream and I felt like it was my duty to restore the true teachings of Peyonic Egypt. And so what I do is I go and I kind of construct from all of the from the Mempha, the Memphi, the Memphi Creation Document, and the Hermitica and these different ancient texts that we believe come

Well, what is what? What? What is the fruit of this guy?

Like you?

What are you? What are you proving? How are you religion that I have constructed? Those are good fruits, bro, that's that. But that's not fruits. That's just claims like you got to produce something to show that you have veg I.

Really do this, and I really do have a harem and a whole bunch of uh supermodel babes and I and I act like I'm a god emperor, Like, how is that not the fruit's consistent with my revelation in my religion?

Well, how would if a guy came out like that, that said he is the next Messiah, and how would you take him?

And he could prove it, well, I would argue with him the same way I'm arguing with you is that these these contracts kind of break down because you ultimately have when you're gonna compare these kinds of systems, you have to go back to things like logic. You have to go back to things like universal claims and principles, and that's gonna involve pulling out things like logical fallacies, which I guess you said it doesn't really matter.

Well, do you know I actually agree with you one hundred percent? Yah. You were is twenty nineteen, like we we're a current year. So it's going to be kind of hard for a guy to prove to me that he is, you know, the son of Odin and he's here to establish galactic pagan supremacy and he's got a whole harem full of you know. Okay, but let's say you're not.

Let's say that I do this off over on my own libertarian island somewhere and I'm not even messing with your people. Your people. What I'm saying is, is there any basis that you have to say what I'm doing is wrong.

I mean, sure, if you're if you're going against the the you know, principles of Frith and oath set forth within the the halve of mall and within the head is then you're you're not doing constructing.

I'm constructing the true Pharonic religion.

Yeah. Well, okay, so number one, if you're constructing the Egyptian religion, I would question you, you know, right away, because you're not Egyptian. You're you're a white guy obviously.

So, but there's a good argument to be made that the upper class of Egypt, the upper cast were actually uh perhaps Arian, So I actually agree with that.

But but even so, but even so, so, what why do I have to.

Be part of that racial h haplo group in order to be that maybe maybe the gods have donned me the new initiator of the new Pharonic religion.

Well okay, so this this gets into the the debate of focism versus universalism and perennialism, and that divinity. In our school of thought, divinity is expressed differently among different peoples because different people are you know, as we know in these you know, in these circles out here on the internet. Different people are are biologically different, they think differently, they have different attributes, they have evolved in different places.

There's nothing wrong with my with my wad deep God Emperor cult. I'm the Quizat's hotter rock. I gotta hear them. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, there is something wrong with that because you're just coming out with it. You're not. You're there's no basis in ancestry that shows that it's a tradition.

Yeah, but you just said that you had spiritual experiences that led you to your religion. So I'm saying the same thing. I have had a spiritual experience. It happened in a dream. I was told that I need to set up the pyramid in my backyard. On what basis is that going to be degenerate?

Yeah? Well, number one, it's it's not like Okay, So here's the fundamental misunderstanding about Heathenry is that people that look through a universalist lens still keep looking through a universalist lens. It's not a universal religion that you could just pick up. It's not something that you could just practice. It's not Buddhism, it's not Christianity. It's not something to use. It is an ancestral tradition.

It is a okay, But ancestral traditions are particular, right, They're specific areas or locales within history, geographical places and so forth. But earlier in the debate you were making a point to try to say that the point of Odin is that he is a connection to or a manifestation of universal logical laws and principles in mathematics. Is that's why those two things don't make sense.

I'll make it sense. Make it makes sense right now. Odin is the german Man. Is the Germanic deity that has come to explain to us of Germanic descent how divinity works. He speaks our language, he looks like us, he is he is part of us. He's the guy that came to teach us how divinity works. That's that's what that is.

But how does he look like you, if he's the ultimate perennial god nature, that's beyond all things.

We mean, look at the depictions of him when he reveals himself to people. Yeah, that's how he manifests. That's how people understand him, that's how people have seen him, that's how people depict him. That's how he's expressed in our folklore.

And that's universal, but he appears to specific cultures.

Odin is not universal. Odin is not universal. Divinity is universal.

Okay, So is it the same principle that's revealing truths to all these different religions over time and space that maybe it's not Odin, but it's like an avatar of this same divine principle.

Yeah, so like an equivalent of Odi.

What's that it's perennialism basically.

Essentially, essentially it is a very similar to perennialism.

Okay. So the problem with perennialism is that you can't clearly, just clearly say what is degeneracy and what's not. Is uh a giant orgy of but sex? Is that degenerate or is that just part.

Of the right absolutely degenerates it's a degenerate Why on what basis. Well, because it's a it's a dishonorable act, it is a disgraceful act, it's a it's a an act of the flesh.

That's a that's a reification.

Okay you Okay, so it's bad because it's bad. No, okay, So within within USO true, we understand that. Uh for uh. In order to achieve a higher level in order to like what you should strive for in your in your life is you should find a balance between all of the all of the natures of being, all of your levels of existence, which you I'm sure, I mean, I know you Plato, Guy Plato talked about the tripartite soul. Many other people, philosophers talked about the tripartite soul. Everybody

Okay, But Plato also thought playing around the little boys was good.

Well, it doesn't mean everything he said was good, you know.

Okay, So we're back at the pick and choose cafeteria approach.

You're picking it chuse it too. You like Plato, I don't tell me you don't like Plato, and then you.

Must not be you must not be familiar with what I talk about, because that critique Plato more than I praise Plato. I mean, yeah, I talk about when I think he says things correct. But so most of my talks are critiques.

But you are picking and choose, and you say that he does say some good stuff.

But I believe, but I have a basis for him. Believe in universal logical principles that directly relate to the mind of a personal God. And you're telling me that it's both subjective and irrational and coherent and rational at the same time. That's the problem. There's a dialectic between a universal rationality that you want to have to make truth claims and to say something is objectively wrong in X,

Now, this goes back to why I think it's a lot of it's semantic because like when I hear you talk about, well, it's the separation between one and many. We just have the one and then there's the many. But then you also pay homage to the many. But then it's not it's not worship, it's homage. It's different. It's just a bunch of these semantic arguments. I feel like we're both like we're both wearing like green shirts, except you're telling me your shirt's not green.

I mean, it's not semantics, because even you yourself have already said that the I mean, presumably the terminology that you would differ in when you read the Vedas and you find things that you don't agree with, that's on the basis of the terminology and the words that are there. So yeah, all all differences are semantic. That what's But but semantics matter because words match up to reality.

Well, what you're saying is that there's a universal mathematic understanding of things that create an objective metric to measure things. Right, Sure, that's what I'm doing. I'm saying that you know, in this these guys came up with two plus two equals four. These guys came up with two plus two equal four. My stuff says two plus two equals four. Therefore two plus two must equal four. That's what I'm coming up with.

That is the metric, except that that's not what you were saying in the first half of the discussion. I was saying no, because mathematics is directly related to logic. Logical laws can be formulated most of the time, many

I mean, we see it every day. It's everything is an expression of the divinity. So it's monistic, yeah, sort of.

Okay, So if monism is true, this breaks down at a really fundamental philosophical level. If monism is true, then ultimately everything is at root one.

Right, everything? Okay, So it's not everything is the root one. Everything is at root one. Okay, Well, so what monism what you're talking about is that everything is part of the great oneness. Everything is involved in the great oneness. That's not necessarily what I'm saying. What I'm saying is everything is an expression of the great oneness, including the gods, including you know, which are different for each people. And you know, that's that's what I'm getting at here. Now.

Because you said that the peal to consensus is not a fallacy, and it is therefore everybody who would do logic and basic logic would know. Then appeal to consensus is an informal fallacy. But informal fallacies are nothing more than examples or instant instantiations of universal principles that are that are formal fallacies.

Yeah, it's just uh, when when I'm discussing stuff with people and it's just a lot of time, I'm sure you've ran into this. People that are masters of sophistry. It's the logical fallacy thing is is a very easy escape for them to get out of.

Ark, there's not going to be any debate that an appeal to consensus is fallacy.

But why is it that science relies so heavily on appeal to consensus.

Because science deals with the domain of empirical research and data. It's not dealing with the domain of rational justification, conceptual justification, epistemic justification.

So shouldn't spirituality be based on research and data as well.

Aspect there's an aspect to religion, which is experiential and existential, but there's also an aspect which is a priori and conceptual or even mathematical.

But it should be we should absolutely still be logical, reasonal human beings. Yeah, so I just don't I just don't understand the disconnect here.

Because I'm making a presubpisitional critique of your approach, your worldview. Again, the metaphysics, the ethics, the epistemic claims, they don't cohere.

But I'm saying that they do. And it's just we're using kind of I know.

You're saying that, but that doesn't you know, doesn't make it so. And I've already kind of been illustrating through going through each of these points how it doesn't cohere. The there's a bunch of conflicting claims.

It's like you're you're saying this is true over here, this is not true over here, and you're just kind of like mixing it up, so it just all sounds jumbled. But the fact is that I'm saying that you asked me why is it that, or you asked me what is the metric? What is the objective metric to prove the stuff that I'm talking about, you know, And then you said, you know, well, in spirituality, we should absolutely use logic and reason. We should be scientifically minded because

Because again there's a distinction between what the domain of science and empiricism and investigates and the question that I'm asking. That's a higher level question, which is how do you justify claims? And this is pretty normative in philosophical discourse. I'm not trying to be a douchebag and I'm trying to be a sophist. It's just like, if you listen to the debate that I would JF for example, we talked about justifying claims or how do we make sense

Which is which is a A?

I mean, this comes up in perennialism, this comes up in the history of Greek philosophy. This is not an out out there like I didn't make this up. This is the Yeah, if you took a philosophy class in the history of Western philosophy, you're going to deal with the justification of claims, the justification of epistemology. How do we know? How do we know the difference between believing

Well, it's not just the consensus.

You know.

You asked to be about it a metric, a scientific metric in which I could prove it, And I look to the first thing that I know about science, and that is appeal to consensus. So I gave that as an ex as one example of truth. Another example of truth that I gave was, you know, the fruits that it bears, How these things that come out from this faith are objectively true, and how these things that come out from this faith are objectively good?

You know.

Yeah, I can't imagine in a million years, you would argue that having children and living a traditional life and getting back to the simples and rejecting degeneracy is bad. I can't ever see you say.

Yeah, But again, you're missing the point. The question is about knowing and justifying beliefs and claims. How do you know what's degeneracy and what's not degeneracy. That's kind of the question I've been asking from the get go. Andy, Well, it's just objectively good to have kids. That's called a circular argument. That's restating the thing that you think is good. And I'm saying, how do you know how to adjudicate between the two. That's why I gave the analogy of

Okay, Well, when we got started, when I was talking about by spiritual experiences. That was to explain how I got here. That wasn't you know this this later stuff that we're talking about is as my spirituality, my understanding of the philosophy developed and became more refined. That's how I you know, now I look through different lens.

Let me ask you this question. So, if do you understand the idea that that morals or propositions are theory laden? In other words, if in my belief system, I believe that, and I'm acting on the whether I actually I don't

But they're they're not subjective because you know, I know, you're we're going to go back to the fallacy of consensus or whatever. But it's parallel with what other people are objectively saying to the fruits of what happens. You can't, I can't let that go. You understand that that's not you.

That's not a justification of a claim, but.

It's one one piece of a justification. You can have multiple angles that come together into one full thing.

You believe that a lot of people can a lot of people be wrong about something?

Give me, give me one secon here. And this is what we're running into here. I'm trying to give you like a multifaceted justification, and you're kind of like stopping me on this and stopping me and like picking apart of the ballacy.

Then it doesn't work as a justification.

But it can when it's mixed together. Yeah, of course it can. Of course it can. Yeah, Okay, then get.

Rid of that pallacies to justify a proposition or belief system.

Okay, So here's another justification. It says that these behaviors are how we're supposed to act clear as day in the Eddis, and that was written by divinely inspired men. That is the word of God.

Okay, on what basis do we know that that's the word of God when you were also appealing to like ancient texts like the beta is to say that it's the same idea there that's in the betas.

I'm just confirming. I'm just confirming that it's saying other things for other people, that the mathematics and the metrics are true.

How do you know that that confirms that?

Though?

How do you know which things are the right things to pick out when it's literal and when it's not. Because you said a minute ago, don't get caught up in the details, Well, maybe the detail of a situation or a story about Vendetta is a detail I need to pay attention.

Well, how do you know that? What is your process for justification? Then?

Well, we have a process within the church, which is where you actually go into the catechisis the whole mindset of the church spread throughout the world, because there is an objective revelation given in scriptures. No, it's a mystical experience, it's initiatory experience.

So you're you're how do you know that your experience is better than mine? Then because of this coherent How is it coherent?

Because I can give a justification, a basis for all these things that I'm talking about. How there are these categories, how there are these principles that reflect in the mind of a single personal God, And I don't think you can give me a basis for it.

It kind of sounds like you're just creating this like logical uh, this like lot uh, like this giant straw man logical trap, so you could like pick everything apart, put it together, and knock it down when you're really just kind of describing the same exact thing you're saying. You're saying, you're saying, you're but no, no, no, know what you're saying. It's called sofist string is what it's called. It's called your point out things. I think.

I think, I think I think that anytime you see a fallacy or get called out, you think that sophistry.

But yeah, no, I'm doing philosophy. But it's the intent behind it. The intent behind it is to you because you're because we know what the intend is. That's why we're here. We know what we're here to debate and stuff.

So you know you're saying that my intention is to be to be sophistical and not to be rational or to do philosophy. Now I'm doing philosophy when I'm asking you these questions. The basics of philosophy are ethics, metaphysics, epistemology. Uh. So I'm going to be looking at your worldview, your paradigm, your belief system, and seeing if what I see their coheres. I don't see a coherent uh starting point in any

It sounds like you're described been kind of the same thing. You say. Okay, well, it says in the in our texts that this is true. It says through spiritual mystic experiences that this is true. And it also says that throughout our church, throughout the time and the world. You know, the consensus of the church says the same exact stuff I'm talking about.

No, but the difference is that our paradigm has no Our paradigm has a basis for how to justify these these beliefs in each of these three categories of philosophy. So what I've been doing is critiquing, critiquing your paradigm, critiquing the basics of where you start the system. Uh, And I'm saying that it's not coherent, and I'm saying that if you look at ours, it is coherent.

So what I said was essentially texts, uh, spiritual experience, consensus, and then you said text spiritual consistence, spiritual experience, and then consensus. Right.

But the point is that the explanation of those things was not coherent.

But it's the same thing at its at its core.

You can use the same words. I know you're talking about semantics, but I showed you earlier that it's not consistent. How do you how do we know if the guy who starts as cult is did you or not?

Okay?

How you said, because it's objectively not true and there's a scientific consensus. But actually there's not a scientific consensus about whether having a bunch of kids it's true or not, because much of science is bought off and now promotes the idea that you shouldn't have any kids. So there's not even a scientific What is science anyway? What is the scientific consystem?

And there's a whole other debate, there's a whole nother debate is it is?

But but so, and I appreciate the rejected scientism, but again, there's not going to be a clear definitely. You said, well, the EDAs tell us this, okay, But you also said that the EDAs have a thing where we shouldn't get caught up in the details, like things like, well, you know, the gods seem to act like men, don't they They seem to be personified human beings.

Yeah.

So what I'm saying is that I think at root here what the problem of paganism is that it's relativistic. And I know that you're really reaching four ways for it not to be relativistic. But I don't see how that is justifiable or inescapable.

But you know, I'm just gonna go back to the bottom line, is what's the similar about both of our face describing you know, get rid of the debate, tactics and all of this. Is you know, your justification for spiritual truth is what is said in your texts? What is spiritual experiences? And uh, you know, consensus. And I would say, I would go further, and I would say

I mean, I mean you can pick and choose and do that. I could pick and choose and say that, well, there's similarities and all these other religions to my religion. Therefore there's a skeletal outline of how my religion is the true religion that that doesn't really I mean, that's so that's so vague. It could be anything. I mean, we can find similarities in anything between anything by doing that.

Well that this is the problem with universalism, as you think that you're you have the one universal truth for all of the world, and which has led to multiculturalism and all kinds of this other stuff that has gone down. I'm not saying, though, I'm not saying that the Orthodox Church has led to this. I'm not saying Catholics have led to this, but just the general idea of universalism has been fundamentally, absolutely destructive for all of the world entirely.

This is another contradiction. Do you think that your position is true? You've been arguing that there are objective truths, that's a universal claim in a universal position, and now you're trying to make a fallacy argument about how Christianity is the source of and Judeo whatever history is the source of universal claims and universal religion. That's what I just tried to argue a few minutes ago, that your position has universal moral claims.

No, no, no, no, my position has My position has universal truths. There are universal truths, but universalism isn't universal truths. There are things that are just that are universally true, like you said, mathematics are universally true, but that's not universalism. Universalism is taking all of your philosophy and believing that all people around the world works for them, which is just fundamentally wrong.

Yeah. Well again, I think that what you think is sophistry is again doing philosophy, and this is how philosophy works. This is doing philosophy, is asking questions about assumptions. If you read the Apology, know you were talking about played too Socrates. I mean, that's essentially what what Socrates does when he goes out in Athens is he questions everybody's presuppositions,

Yeah. No, I made the clear distinction that just because there are parts okay universal, you admit that there's a different parts of your religion, yet it doesn't matter because its matter. Remember, words matter, definitions matter. You said, you said that.

You believe there's universal truths in your religion.

Because some aspect there are parts that are universal, because there are some things that are absolutely universal, but as a whole, it is not philosophically universalism.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter whether you tack on the ism on the back of it, because you still believe that it's wrong for me to have the harem and the magic butt sex.

Yeah. Well, you know, why do we got to talk about butt sex? Like? Can we just make it in a lot of pagan literature? That's what it's not pop prominent. I've read all of the I've never seen a single uh butt sex, no butt sex, and and and uh.

You mentioned Plato earlier Plato talks about it.

Well, Plato is not Germanic pagan and in fact, a lot of people argue thatism.

And you're trying to you were appealing to Plato. You were appealing to the no no no, no, no no no.

I gave. I gave an example that I knew you were familiar.

So only the Germanic tribes were the ones that were that refrained from butt sex. Okay, yeah.

In fact, and Tacitus, you know, he explained how the Tutons would throw sodomites and bogs and pile rocks on top of them and disappear them. So sodomy has not been historically something that we are, you know, tolerant, tough.

Well, whether it is or it isn't, I don't say on what basis is it wrong?

I mean, I mean you just made the claim that there's gods having butt sex in the head is which is I you know, it's just so I said, I talked, I said the Greeks, all right, well I'm not Greek.

Yeah, but you're you've been appealing to other religious traditions as a universal way to vindicate the skeletal outline.

Because I thought that it would be a better I thought it would be better than just appealing to myself, which is what the argument you're doing, And so.

The appeal outside of yourself doesn't work as what I'm trying to say.

Well, I'm saying that the you know, the appeal to yourself is kind of a you know, it's like saying, you know, uh, it's you know, appealing to yourself is also subjective, and it's kind of you know, it's kind of sketchy. You know. I'm saying like, there's these other examples all over the place, and you're saying, oh, my examples come from in house.

No.

I appealed to how you justify claims in philosophy when you when you go to a debate, you kind of there's the assumption that they're that both parties are going to be subjected to the same rules and laws of logic.

Yeah, well, but but it doesn't get past my point here, is that Why is it that my justification I'm using are contradictory. No, they're not.

The exampt doesn't make them not.

But they Yeah, you say, there's there's there's gods having butt sex in paganism all over the world, doesn't make it true because it's not true. But here's the here's the bottom line.

Is that true?

It's not? Okay, read the edis. If you read the edis, I will bet I'm a thousand dollars a thousand dollars, you will not find one single examits why.

Are we supposed to follow the EDAs? Why are we not following Zeus? And in the Greek myths? Like why is one true in the other? Well, I said, well, it's this is from my people, so it's relative, it's subjective, and I'm saying that you need a way to adjudicate between true and false, between evil and good. You don't get that in your religion.

Well, okay, here's here's a good metaphor. So like, uh, I'm though, like what is like say, you're trying to describe, You're just trying to express what a light is to multiple different people. Light, a light is light. You mean, we know what light is there. But if you go to you know, in India there's a different word for light, still light. If you go to Germany there's a different

That's different than trying to say that the same religion is manifesting itself across all these different cultures and that there's a basic skeletal outline between all these different religions. They're fundamentally contradictory.

There's a difference between religion and God. There's a difference between religion, philosophy and divinity.

I said, knowing that that is true and that you're actually accessing true propositions about the the divinity that's beyond the different avatars or whatever, there's no way to know that because system is completely contradictory and relativistic.

Okay, debate stuff or argument of tactics society is there yes or no? Is there an overarching entity in the universe? Yes? Or no?

Do you understand that the debate tactics aren't tricks, that you're actually appealing to things that are real principles, they're not they're not tricks.

Well it is, because Okay, here's the thing you're you're trying to prove to your audience by making me pick apart my I could say something that's universally true. Like just now, I know you would have said yes, but you avoided the question because you're trying to pick me apart and you're trying to make a display that you and your position are superior to mind as opposed to having you.

Trying to make a point to you about how and what the debate is and how universal claims and logic works. And you see it as kind of like a sword that you bring to the battle to whey, that that you like rhetorically kind of sneak around people and make them look bad. And I'm saying I do not view it that way. You can think that I that I do that, But the way I view it, and I'm being honestly when I tell you this, is that we are actually our minds are tapping into actual universal metaphysical

But this is a performance, this is this is a production, is a.

How do you you don't know my motives? You're just assuming that this is like theatrics and Hollywood or something.

No, no, no, no, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that you have the the intent to defeat taking it because you know, I mean, am I wrong? Am I wrong? That you have the the intent of promoting your faith and kind of knocking down mind? Yes or no?

That's part of my intention.

Okay, let's go back to my first question. Is there yes or no? And overarching divine entity in the universe in all of creation? Sure? Yeah, So why is it that you're avoiding these universal truths and using essentially pill pull to kind of pick apart something that's also universally trial.

I've been sitting here arguing for universal truths and claims only consist that they're only consistent with they personally revealed God, and that is distinct from the idea of all of creation being a kind of pantheistic manifestation of God. So that's very that's very important for us because we don't confuse the Creator and the creature. They're two different realms

But it's so what, Okay, let's let's take a step back. What is your were metric? What is the justification that your metric for analyzing this is true?

Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna utilize the justifications in philosophical discourse, right, the justifications in logic, the justifications in uh epistemic analysis, the justifications that also are at times empirical. Sure, there's nothing wrong with putting forth empirical evidence, but that's again, it's different than the way that we justify a claim because that has to do with universal claims. And the only way you can justify universal claims is not ultimately empirical. It has to be a priori.

Okay, So you're going to go back to you're essentially using the same justifications as me. You're just using a a more I mean.

You've missed the entire argument I've been making the whole time, and you're saying, you're just saying it's pillpol it's talmudism, it's it's this kind of stuff. Uh No, I mean, philosophy is not pillpool, But.

You know, debate tactics is.

Yeah, it's because I mean, have you are you not familiar with debate?

Like I mean, I'm not very.

Rude to you, but I mean justifying claims is not semantics and tricks.

But when you when you split hairs and you try to pick apart every single little detail before.

Well, I don't think having a harem and but magic butt sex is splitting hairs.

I mean that's a simple question. Well, I mean I've I would never, you know, advocate for any kind of butt sex ever.

I know I'm not saying you are. I'm asking the question, how do we judicate between whether that's degenerator or no.

You're keep you know, you keep bringing up butt sex, and I'm just saying that it triggers me and I don't want to talk about butt sex. That's all I'm saying here.

Okay, Well, we can pick a different human sacrifice, to pick a different thing that we think is degenerate.

Okay, So I made the I made the distinction that you know, just like you did that. The justification for why my faith is true is holy text is consensus is results. The fruit of what has happened results the conclusion. That's the same thing you said. So it's just like all this other stuff to see kind of like fluff to me, you know what I'm saying.

All right, Well, do you want to you want to go? I mean, I'm not mad or anything. I think it was a great discussion, but uh, you want to do like a Q and A. We've we've we've been going for a good while here. Yes, yes, sir, So you want to do a Q and A and we'll take maybe some super chats and all that and uh then we'll do like maybe closing statements towards the end.

Is that cool? Yeah? Absolutely, yes, sir.

Okay, So everybody, if you want to, if you send some super chats and we'll do some Q and A and I'll read the ones that are here. What do you think of this is wamp want five dollars. What do you think of borrowing some pagan ideas like throwing these people in the bog? Well, actually, well, you know, the Old Testament laws about that were pretty strict, and of course in the history of Byzantinem you have pretty strict laws about that kind of stuff.

So I don't think it really has to.

What the pagan perspective in dramatic tribes or amongst degenerate Greeks is. In my view, it doesn't doesn't really have any any bearing on what a Christian civilization could enact on the basis of their understanding of divine law. Do you have any comments on that?

I'm the fucking bog lord. Yeah, yeah, I'm all. I'm all for the bog cowards, shirkers, traders, sodomites.

All may We don't want to get the channel taken down. So all right, so you we have a strong view on that, gotcha. Corneliu Corneliu Cordeliau fifty knocks Jay debate Steven Anderson. Uh no, I'm not going to debate those guys. They're not they're not they're not goodwilled opponents and debates. Uh Imperium five dollars. How is perennialism any different than relativism? By the way, I love how my like low iq

Yeah, I would say, it's the Oh, go go ahead, I'm sorry if you have any comments, so free. Yeah, well, relativism is it's it's kinda this is kind of a hard thing because some things, you know, I don't believe in these dichotomies, Like you can have things that are that are objective and then also subjective. You could have things that are both simultaneously true. You can have pieces of this and pieces of that. Because the divinity is in like spiritual philosophy is isn't just like bound by

Eric Jewel timbucks, how do you feel about the practice of uh drink looking male fluids as a as practiced by Odin. I'm not aware of.

That, but I'm not aware of that either. I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.

I think he's trolling. But let's see Lawrence Ballynag two dollars. Anyone want to match my chat? Well, I don't know, do they? All right? So a little bit of super chat action there. Let's see you want to do a closing statement. I'll let you if you want to do a closing statement to go first, and then and then I'll give mine.

Sure, absolutely, And mister j oh we got another super chat here. Let's do it.

Let's do it. Jake Berg five dollars as Ortho, can you explic explicate how our faith is the fulfillment of the expectation of nations. Yeah, I would say that if you look at a lot of those Old Testament predictions, like Genesis twelve, Justice fifteen, Justice seventeen. You know, God says to Abraham that the Gospel will expand out of

Well, yeah, mister j thank you so much once again for allowing me to step up to the plate here. I hope I presented my position in my faith with tact and cunning, and it's been quite the pleasure to stand up with uh and class swords with an intellect, intellectual giants such as yourself. You are, as I said before, master of your craft. And uh I hope I uh, I hope in this time David fared well against Goliath. So uh, you know, thank you so much? Uh do you? Yeah? Let me go.

What's your final statements on on paganism if if you have any funds? Yeah?

Okay, So my final statements for paganism for us true specifically because uh, paganism and ostu are not synonymous. My final statement is that you know within the clown world, within our the sea of degeneracy and darkness, that is the that is racked rock. As we approach our final days, it is very hard to kind of find our way back home. It is very hard to find, you know, continuity. And you know, we're homesick for a place that we do not we don't even know exists, We've never seen it.

I would say in closing that I think that the neo pagan movement is a reaction to reaction to things that are degenerate, that are problematic obviously across not just the Western world, but eventually and as we're seeing now global degeneracy and toxicity. However, I don't think it is ultimately the correct solution. I think that Orthodox Christianity is what is the right solution and has been there is

And this is a shining example of how we can get together and we can speak like gentlemen like in the West. This is what the West is based on is guys coming together and having your battle of wits and intellect. And even a guy like Jay who is a philosophical guy. Man, I'm just I'm beering the porch nationalism. I'm just a blue collar guy. The fact that he would bring me on and let me talk is just an example of how we can act civilly and be gentlemen and and in our quest to defeat the generacy.

Yeah, and I've got your your your link there below, but sure go ahead.

Yeah, you guys can find me on Twitter at Big Dave Martell, Gabin Minds at Dave Martell. You go subscribe to my YouTube channel which is called Dave mar Tell. You can also find me tonight on verbo timpestus YouTube channel with the Conduit, where we dig into all kinds of crazy esoteric conspiracy theories. And also find me on Wednesdays at a pm Eastern on Roffen Folk channel where I talk about all kinds of other heathen pagan context subjects,

Now they look down from their heavenly thrones and disgust. Pick up your father's swords on the Republic and reclaim what is yours. God wills it conquer or die. I am big Dave Martell. Thank you everybody for tuning in Hail Victory.

It's like the Viking. Alex Jones there all right man, Thank you good talk and yeah, so his links will be below. Thank you guys for the super jazz. Thanksverybody for watching checking out Jay's analysis. Be sure subscribe to my stuff if you haven't, And until next time,