Adam Green is not equipped mentally to do philosophy.

Because I wasted time again with following debates of this Jeem character as well as Eric Orwoll aka “Aarvoll”, I stumbled upon this arrogant guy.

He said to Eric Orwoll that he grew up as a Protestant, though at age sixteen YouTube came along – no joke! YouTube! This is their education! –, and he was influenced by the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism, as Vox Day calls Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Also, Matt Dillahunty was another influence! No joke, Dillahunty has admitted not even having read David Hume …

I stopped after this, instead listening to Eric Orwoll and Jad C. Farra talking about Orthodoxy. This was not as bad as I thought, except for Eric Orwoll kissing the feet of modern science again, which, as the COVID scam or the reproducibility crisis showed, is corrupt. Eric Orwoll thinks that we need evolution for modern technology … He ended with recommending Farra’s debate with Adam Green.

Now, I don’t understand why this Adam Green guy is of any importance anyway. But I did have it running for circa two hours – it is over three hours long –, but here, Adam Green really showed himself to be an imbecile of the highest order. When Jeem/Jad C. Farra asked how he derives at his morality, he said “logic and the effect it has on the world”.

At around 1:36:00, he was asked by Jad C. Farra what he would do about a God who is evil, really evil, to which he replied he does not believe that God is real and—I quote from the transcript—“[..] I’m trying to wake people up to not be scared of this God that wants to uh theologically enslave the world […]”.

The thing is I already was an atheist and hated life, I even hanged myself at age twenty-three. Adam Green is a hedonist and hedonists are not capable thinkers in many regards. It would not do me any good to return to my prior unbelief, since life now is awful enough, if someone could show me that what I experienced and now believe is a lie, that after suicide there is no greater suffering awaiting me, I obviously would kill myself since I hate this world and this life.

Adam Green does not see how his own moral reasoning—one cannot call it that, actually, because such “reasoning” cannot exist—is influenced by our Christian past. For example, when he talks about slavery having been abolished, and Jad C. Farra adding it was a Dominican priest reading Aristotle about individual rights who got it banned.

I don’t even think one needs to get much into this, because Aristotle is irrelevant. There is no reason to pick him over anyone else, or my own views on that matter. For example, for Aristotle, committing suicide is a sin against the state. Though why would I care? As if this is a good reason not to do it.

Further, Aristotle, like almost everyone during ancient times, supported killing weak and sickly infants. Infanticide as well as the slaughter going on in the Colosseum was abolished first by Christian emperors in Ancient Rome. Even today, female infanticide is accepted in countries like China and India.

Then, one of Adam Green’s supporters, calling himself Omega, wrote (as superchat) something along the lines of how would it be good for a tribe to say they speak for God and then wipe out all other folk traditions.

To which Jad C. Farra replied that in his belief system there is no reason to call it bad or good. I would add that the Germanic people were Christian for more than a thousand years, it has been an important influence on the history of the British, Germans, French and so on. Even Schopenhauer accepted that the Greeks and Romans did not have writers on the level of a Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe.

The Adam Green supporter Omega with another idiotic comment:

Roman Republic early empire were peak Western civ. Largest contiguous territory, architecture/aesthetics still copied, martial honor, law/order.

I only add that I reject that it was its peak, but side with Don Colacho who remarked that the times from Constantine to Dante was a golden age.

Still, Green’s answer is abhorrent:

I wouldn’t say that the peak of civilization because we’ve had 2,000 years of innovation in science and and you know sociological time for progress but they definitely were did have a huge Empire and great architecture and philosophy and stuff it wasn’t like Christianity built the west and we would have been a bunch of Barbarians without it and we needed the Bible and the chosen people to give us morality and give us um build society or build good building and stuff.

Plenty of people living lives with purpose before the Bible. […]

Since Adam Green is not a direct descendent of Roman people, instead looking more like being descended from British/Germanic peoples, he has to accept that his ancestors were painting their butts blue, to quote Vox Day, who also rejects his Aztec ancestors for their horrible cults (Vox Day does not tire stressing the fact that he is half Mexican-Indian.)

While the German tribes were superior to the Romans in terms of marriage and chastity, with Tacitus writing that nothing is rarer than a chaste Roman woman, they all killed infants, including the Romans, as I wrote above. Cf. Thomas E. Woods’ How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization which was even recommended by agnostic Stefan Molyneux some while ago. The Catholic Church also introduced the university, which did not exist during ancient times.

It is also questionable what he means with purpose. He simply asserts that such purpose exists, but it doesn’t. It’s just that God made suicide so hard and harsh that most refrain from doing it. That is all. I would certainly end my life, as I wrote a million times on here already. You guys are not equipped to do philosophy if this is how you view existence. I am a Christian and still see no purpose in this life. He just asserts this stuff and thinks that being a sex addict is “having purpose”. Disgusting and laughable.

Adam Green also thinks that the question where atheists get their morality from means resorting to the so-called transcendental argument, which is wrong. It has nothing to do with it; Vox Day put this question to atheists the whole time without going through this kind of argument. The problem of evil cannot be answered by atheists, Christians are in a way better position. As Jeem/Jad C. Farra acknowledged when he said that the Bible describes the world around us more accurately.

(I mentioned this before, but this is indeed a devaluation of the “life of the mind”: tossing around names of thinkers and arguments as if we are talking about sports.)

This Adam Green supporter called Omega then doubled down by writing one of the most stupid comments I read in a long time:

Torah messianism is bad inherently because it devalues life on Earth and also requires an apocalypse which is self-fulfilling. It’s a death cult.

As I wrote above, infanticide has been abolished by Christian emperors. Further, suicide is frowned upon too because of Christianity. It’s rather during ancient times that brutal killings were the norm, including the killing of weak and sick children. Further, why ought I like my life?

Back as an atheist, I devalued life, too. I simply hate my ugly and sick body, it is a prison, it is a torture chamber; add to that my personality and character—what today people would call being neurodivergent or so—, I don’t see why I ought to live. After all, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands as well as the state of Oregon have already legalized suicide. Why should I not try to apply for it if I were a citizen in one these countries?

Typical for such “great” thinkers, the word suicide does not even come up! Yet, not only were the deepest thinkers usually those who saw life as lacking—Nietzsche hated his life—, but the “classic” atheists like Voltaire, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre understood that without God, morality gets thrown out of the window, too. Voltaire even said that the people need religion to be moral, and Aldous Huxley noted that he wanted the world to be meaningless, Christian morality only interfered with his sexually immoral lifestyle.

Another commenter called The Blackfish wrote:

God promises jebus is coming back to kill the majority of the earths population. Thats what makes it bad. Let’s talk about the end of the book now.

Apart from twisting scripture, this is again assuming that the commenter is able to derive morality by himself and further assuming that we want to live. He is addicted to life, I am not. I would be glad if someone killed me. Why would this be less imporant than his life addiction?

It really gets tiring that Adam Green is constantly claiming we had morality before the Bible, adding that the concept of morality was found even in other species. Yet he could not answer why the Assyrians were wrong for thinking that theft is worse than murder, while the God of the Bible teaches the opposite. He was unable to answer. He could not answer it.

Adam Green also had a guitar in the background and called one caller a “beta”, which suggests to me that he is just another average internet joe with a sex obsession. This alpha/beta distiction has its origin in the animal kingdom, this is how they want to live their lives. After their logic, a black man like Nick Cannon is “alpha” and to be looked up to because he has twelve children with six women … no, this is just proof that we are going under, something even a liberal and Marxist like J. D. Unwin understood in his book Sex and Culture published in 1934.

Such “debates” are a waste of time. Jay Dyer—who is friends with this Jeem character—once even admitted that it is not “fun” to debate atheists. It is indeed a waste waste waste of time. Certainly, it does not make much sense to talk about such subjects with people who hardly read anything, but are using their affects as arguments.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila despised the modern world for a reason:

When he is stripped of the Christian tunic and the classical toga, there is nothing left of the European but a pale-skinned barbarian.

Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god.

Even for Buddhist compassion, the individual is only a shadow that vanishes.
The dignity of the individual is a Christian cast made out of Greek clay.

Cultures dry out when their religious ingredients evaporate.

The fool, seeing that customs change, says that morality varies.

To proclaim Christianity the “cradle of the modern world” is a grave accusation or a grave calumny.

The intention to engage in dialogue, today, presupposes the intention to betray.

Vulgarity colonized the earth.
Its weapons have been the television, the radio, the press.

The only pellucid dialogue is one between two recluses.

Because he heard it said that religious propositions are metaphors, the fool thinks they are fictions.

Without a certain religious childishness, a certain intellectual profundity is unattainable.

Modern man has imprisoned himself in his autonomy, deaf to the mysterious sound of the surge that beats against our solitude.

The radical negation of religion is the most dogmatic of religious positions.

Engaging in dialogue with those who do not share our postulates is nothing more than a stupid way to kill time.

Even in opposition to the intellectual language of a time one cannot help but write in it.

It is not the origin of religions, or their cause, which requires explanation, but rather the cause and origin of their eclipse and neglect.

At a certain profound level every accusation they make against us hits the mark.

Happily, the world cannot be explained.
(What kind of world would it be if it could be explained by man?)

The newspaper allots the modern citizen his morning stultification, the radio his afternoon stultification, the television his evening stultification.

The sincere dialogue ends in a quarrel.