Here's a short convo I had if any of y'all care. H is him, M is me. I'm not really looking for feedback on how I handled it, but if any of you enjoy reading transcripts of short debates, here it is.

H: I finished reading the Hebrew bible through English translation (Aside: he didn't specify which one). There is a man who does not have job but good and truthful and kind and there is a rich man who is evil and liar and unkind. who among the two is truly powerful?

M: Depends on your definition of power. In terms of society, the rich man is. It matters not his heart or intentions, he has more power since he owns more capital and is able to use that capital to influence the world to his desires either through funding political candidates or investing in certain businesses led by certain individuals, and funding them in such a manner that they succeed while other businesses fail.

In terms of “powerful” as some mythological and metaphorical construct the way biblical aphorisms tend to go, then the former would be true, since the Hebrew Bible asserts that the wicked will be destroyed (like Sodom and Gamorrah) while the good praised, regardless of social status.

H: Brian, which are powerful nations? the nations that do not have same sex marriage or the nations that have same sex marriage?

M: Both are. The US is a major world superpower. Powerful, developed world nations like the US, UK, and Canada have same-sex marriage. Other powerful countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq, namely Saudi Arabia prohibit same-sex sexual interaction of any sort. They are still powerful nations. Again, it depends. Certain countries in the Middle East are theocratic, so from their moral framework, they have the real ideas of what is and isn’t ethical or moral. It’s laid out in the Qur’an. For secular nations, it’s built on differing ideas. I don’t think you can compare the two in the way in which you’re describing. I am a moral relativist. I believe all morality to be subjective. Is it wrong to torture children for fun? For 99% of people, yes. It is. But there’s always going to be individuals who do torture children for fun. So it’s not an absolute moral fact. I personally fall into the 99% of people who think that torturing children for fun is reprehensible, and those that do should be thrown in prison to rot. But it’s my opinion. It is not objectively true, it’s just so widely shared among billions of people that jt might as well be. Does that make me uncomfortable that it’s not intrinsically true? Yes. But does the universe care about my feelings? No. So even if it’s uncomfortable it doesn’t make it untrue. Not in the sense that I believe you’re saying. I was raised in a particular sect of Judaism that says that god is not some magical sky man with a long beard. The idea of god, the idea of divinity and creation that we associate with god is just a residual force in humankind. That is what I was taught god really was in my sect of Judaism.

H: Do you accept that there is a maker of earth and heaven?

M: Not in the sense that I believe you’re saying. I was raised in a particular sect of Judaism that says that god is not some magical sky man with a long beard. The idea of god, the idea of divinity and creation that we associate with god is just a residual force in humankind. That is what I was taught god really was in my sect of Judaism.

H: Why are (sic) there evilnessess (sic) and lies in god's creation and why he put death on human beings?

M: You can not argue from an unsubstantiated presupposition. You claim that god created the world. You ask why there is evil and death in the world. Whatever answer you yourself have for it, I would call it what I’m naming now “argumentum sine fundamenta” or argument without foundation. You must prove your premises to be true or have evidence that supports it in order to argue from that point.

I don’t know why there are evil people in the world. My personal belief is that people who act and do, as you say, evil things aren’t doing evil things in their mind, since what they do is conducive to Goal X. And they use the means they think are right to achieve this goal. Their actions are only “evil” to the observer because the observe has different goals than the supposed “evildoer”

1. In my final remarks about argument, allow me to clarify what I mean. Hypotheticals are fine. What I meant by "argue from an unsubstantiated presupposition" I mean "assert to be true that which you haven't proven to be so". In other words, an extension of Hitchens' razor.

There's a difference of arguing about beliefs such as "I believe morality to be this, and here is why" versus "I assert that because morality is P, then Q". You have not proven P to be true yet, so you cannot argue Q. I hope that clears it up

2. When I singled out Saudi Arabia as a powerful nation compared to the other two Arab nations, I was referring to oil markets and economic power.