Atheist Debates - Discussion - Is there evidence for God? Matt Dillahunty and Satyan Devadoss
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2016
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Recorded in San Jose, in conjunction with The Village Forum and the Saratoga Federated Church - I sit down with mathematician Satyan Devadoss to discuss whether or not there's sufficient, good evidence to warrant belief in the Christian god.
Whenever someone wants to equate non-belief as another form of belief, it is clear they are not interested in an honest debate.
Zarkow It's tantamount to calling a non-smoker just a different type of smoker.
They seemed congenial enough. It was more about discussing there view points then a full on debate. These people live in San Jose and from there behavior are of the liberal Christian types. They tend to hold on to there views by letting people believe what they want to believe and try to find common ground when possible. There goal is most likely to build bridges between communities, humanism has a lot of commonalities with their kind of Christianity. San Jose is religiously diverse and it is not uncommon for different faiths to help each other out. If you look at it from their perspective they are likely just seeing Atheists as another group they are trying to find common ground with. I don't think they meant anything insulting by it.
+The baconized
"It's tantamount to calling a non-smoker just a different type of smoker."
Some comedian once said, "It's like saying abstinence is a sexual position".
Here's my example: "It's like saying 'falling asleep on the couch' is a sport".
Or how about this? It's like saying "not going to a store" is shopping.
People without children are parents. It's just that instead of having 1 child or 2 children, they have zero children... but they are still parents.
***** They see you as a group. And you do have a belief that there is not enough evidence for god. But the point is that Atheists have formed a group (and i think for good reason) and that they recognize that you are a group that they are trying to interface with you. I have not heard one peep about Atheists being a religion. I am trying to say that I don't think that they are trying to be malicious.
By the way Non-smokers are a group, around hear they are the majority and we don't like those damn smokers smoking around us. We pass as many laws banning the smoking in public places as possible. I have a right not to be exposed to the second hand smoke of those cancer sticks.
There is no conclusive evidence that shows second hand smoke causes cancer, and even though non smokers is a group it is not a class of smokers which is the point the comment maker was making. Would you consider a non smoker to be a type of smoker? Would you say this a group of all the different smokers, the cigarette smomers, the cigar smokers, the hookah smokers, the weed smokers, the meth smokers and the non smokers? Non smoking is not a subsection of the group "smokers", it is someone who doesn't fit in that category at all.
Satyan's courage to get into a debate without having any meaningful argument is just amazing.
But science can't tell us if we should nuke people... that must mean something?
Kidding of course
I'm a christian and I've been binge watching your videos. They've definitely caused me think harder on questions I've had for years. Questions I think a lot of christians have but push to the back of their minds. I have yet to come to any definitive personal conclusion but we're talking about 23 years of a belief built in my life. That's not something you just walk away from because someone has a really good argument or at least that's how I feel about it. I'll admit that fear is a factor in all of this for me. After all I've been told my entire life that if I reject God then I'll burn forever once I die. Perhaps my belief in a hell is bigger than my belief in a God at this point, I don't know. I just want to let you know that all these videos and debates have made me feel uncomfortable in the best way possible. Thank you for your work.
If you want to have a discussion, hit me up.
I'll give you a few points to consider, as a starter
1) It doesn't matter whether or not you believe you'll go to hell according to your own denomination of Christianity (whatever it is), you're going to hell in EVERYBODY ELSE's denomination. Are you Roman Catholic? Then according to Jehovah's Witnesses, you're part of a religion controlled by Satan. Are you Southern Baptist? Then for not acknowledging Muhammed as Allah's last prophet and for believing the heinous crime that a human can be God, you now deserve hell.
2) Every single person who has told you what happens in hell, who goes there and who doesn't...not a single one of them has ever gone themselves.
I'll leave it at that for now.
If I might just add another suggestion...research the origin and the history of the concept of "hell". Check out when, why and how it was added to Christianity. Good luck on your journey, my friend.
The biggest thing to understand is that there is so much more out there. As a Christian I felt like this was the only beauty left in the world but when you're out of it and really get to experience what is out there it will change your life. Just start listening to different ideas about life with an open mind, it doesn't mean you have to believe it but at least you will see a pattern in where the truth is if you do your research. Look up videos of other people who have left religion and see how they are living. Those are 23 years of a chapter in your life that has been going on for far too long but the fact that you're typing this and watching these videos shows that we are nearing the end. The great thing is that life goes on and the next chapter begins with you being a new person with a whole new adventure to get into, the difference is that now you have a lot of experience from everything you have learned.
Real D Hop just want to say I know how you feel. I'm a former Christian and became an atheist just a few years ago. It is scary but worth remembering that you are not alone. People of all kinds of religious backgrounds, including non Christian, have been indoctrinated using fear to prevent them leaving. Don't let your emotions define your beliefs.
Do you have an option in what you believe? This is not a free will argument but more a way to analyze how we believe things. If I tell you I fly but only between 4am and 5am do you have an option to believe me. You can surely try but that doesn't mean you do truly believe me and you might just stifle that feeling down in favor of another feeling for some other reason. Now if you I told you I would fly to your house and I showed up at 4:30am outside your window and spent the next 30 minutes showing you I am really flying and there are no strings and you can get 10 other people around to verify you are not insane do you have an option in what you believe. Right now you believe what you believe and christian or atheist you have to contend with what you believe to be true until something causes that to change. Don't fight against what you believe but always consider what you believe can be wrong and you should try to prove yourself wrong constantly in an honest way.
I use this sort of logic when speaking to a lot of christians when they tell me I should believe. I ask them if I have a choice and if I do how does that work. When presented with the argument there is a god I have found no reason to to believe it and I have searched extensively. If you want me to believe in your god I am all ears convenience that part of me that doesn't have a choice. Some argue pascal's wager after this, this is just fake it till you make it, this is not the same thing as believing it to be true.
If you still doubt this, think of something you are absolutely positive about and change your mind with no other evidence. If you can do this I would be very interested in talking to you about how.
The whole "Messy" argument showing his daughter an referencing his Chinese wife and his being Indian was pretty gross.
It was a wanton appeal to "aw shucksism", treacle, it made me cringe. As if "common folks" just know, that they can sense "God" like dogs or some other simple varmint, way past those Science Guys in their entitled cocoons.
His entire opening statement was absolute garbage. One very long argument from ignorance. Theres GOTTA be something else out there....am I right??
If you call another dog a varmint I will FBI you
@@johnpelosi4117 Absolutely well stated.
@@Her_Viscera 😭😭
@ 1:21:25 The great equivocation of the word "faith." That's a very common Christian apologetic.
I'm sorry, but you can't compare your "faith" about your wife not poisoning you with your "faith" that a virgin gave birth, or your "faith" that you'll survive your death.
The "faith" you have in your wife not poisoning you is based on statistics and inference based upon past events. What you're really saying when you say you have "faith your wife won't poison you" is that you are saying "it is likely the case she will not poison me based on the evidence I have about what's common for human behavior and the quality of our relationship." If you and your wife had been constantly fighting, your suspicion that she might poison you might go up based on that evidence of her past behavior.
Where as "faith" in a virgin birth isn't based on anything, nothing, nada. Some dude thousands of years ago said it happened, and you just BLINDLY accept that as true. There is no statistics involved her, or reasonable inference.
The equivocation fallacy you are making here is that because claim A is not absolutely certain and that claim B is not absolute certain, that therefore they are on equal footing. That's preposterous! Confidence in your belief is a sliding scale, and the further you go up the scale, there should be more and more evidence or trends that indicate this is more and more likely or rational to believe.
Trusting your wife based on your knowledge of human psychology, based on your past experience with your wife... those are perfectly solid reasons to trust her.
Believing you'll survive your death... that's nonsense. You've got nothing to support that.
It's very common amongst the faithful to make such equivocation.
Completely ignoring the way most Christians use faith. And probably the way they themselves use it - they might claim it just means belief, but in any other circumstance, they would say "I believe", not "I have faith"
Ashamanic Christians are typically confused by what they mean by "faith." They'll give you one definition, but then use the word in reference to another definition without themselves realizing it.
The faith a Christian has that they'll survive their death is the same type of faith that someone has that they'll be reincarnated or will go to paradise with a dozen virgins. None of these beliefs have any rational foundation. They just believe because they believe, or they just believe because that's what they were taught, or they just believe because that's what a holy book says.
It is not just faith without evidence. Your missing the important parts of the virgin birth. The Holy Spirit 'moved' upon Mary and she conceived that Holy thing. Think in vitro fertilization. This is why some people refer to Jesus Christ as God in the flesh. Another fact, In the beginning of mankinds creation, after Adam was created, he was used in the first recorded surgery we are told about, God put Adam into a deep sleep and removed a rib then closed up his flesh. Then another fact, then God took the rib and created a woman, Eve. So there you have the first recorded cloning. But to read and understand the Bible, you need help from the Holy Spirit. The mind of man struggles with this thing about God. The Holy Spirit is like the power connection to say the internet for computers. you could have all the necessary equipment, computers, servers whatever, but without electricity, none of it will work. Without the Holy Spirit your connection to learning about God is like a bad electric line with a short circuit. And I didn't just blindly accept anything as truth. I study for myself. I don't want to believe in fairy tales either.
mamaknows
*"The Holy Spirit 'moved' upon Mary and she conceived that Holy thing."*
Wow, so much wrong with this statement. I guess the main objection is "and how do you know that? Because a book said so?" The other objections would be "define holy, define spirit, defined "moved upon".
*"Think in vitro fertilization. This is why some people refer to Jesus Christ as God in the flesh."*
So... if someone today made a similar claim about giving birth while they were a virgin and claimed that it wasn't vitro fertilization but rather an act of god... you're telling me you wouldn't have a shred of doubt? You'd believe it on their word alone?
The point I'm making is whether or not belief in such a claim is reasonable given the 'evidence' we are given for it. In this case: someone's word and nothing else.
*"God put Adam into a deep sleep and removed a rib then closed up his flesh."*
And we have sound reasons to believe this claim because..... why? Oh yes... because someone said so, so it must be true. And why isn't god intervening old-testament style anymore? Why are there no loud booming audible voices coming from the sky like the bible said happened? Why does god only heal people that have alternative natural explanations but never heals people that are amputees?
*" So there you have the first recorded cloning."*
You're talking about Genesis as if it's historical fact. It's not. Not anymore than the creation stories of Hinduism.
*"Without the Holy Spirit your connection to learning about God is like a bad electric line with a short circuit."*
If god wants people to know he exists, he could have come up with a better way to know he exists besides requiring that people first believe he exists. What does any of this have to do with whether or not your claims are reasonable to believe about virgin births and surviving your death?
Compared to other debates Matt has been a part of, Satyan is much more respectful and enjoyable than others Matt has debated with (such as Slick or Sye). Although Satyan's primary arguments -- science cannot explain X, everyone has to believe something, and pointing to the presumed historical legitimacy of the Bible -- fall short of the goal, answering: "is there [good] evidence for god?", you can appreciate how excited and genuine he is in his rationalizations. He also admits how dubious his position might seem, especially considering he is a mathematician. Other theists in his position tend to be extremely intellectually dishonest and are not open to how strange it is to hold theistic beliefs in modern times.
Yeah. Good post sweatyeti.
I have very mixed feelings about Satyan. I find his mannerisms extremely annoying, but his content is good. I like the fact that he seems to show no interest at all in vilifying other points of view. He doesn't make a whole bunch of false claims. He has a sense of humor. He is a mathematician, and therefore logical. He also seems to be interested in reaching out to other points of view. There's a lot of good stuff there.
sweatyeti.....I agree with you. Satyan was one of the lease confrontational debate opponents I have seen Matt debate with. It was a pleasure to hear a well spoken debate on both sides (however Satyan did kind of go off topic a bit), and not have to suffer through that condescending attitude evident in the likes of Slick and Sye, or the out-right goofiness of Ham, Hovind and "The Banana Man".
I think the reason Satyan comes across that way- and I did find him quite enjoyable to listen to, which is a first for these kinds of debates- is that he didn't immediately leap to attacking Matt's position. Slick and Sye both did that, their statements didn't so much attempt to prove their own positions as they did tried to show that Matt actually couldn't make any kind of coherent statement without god, but Satyan came in with an actual, fleshed out debate position of his own that didn't boil down to "my opponent's doesn't count, so I win." It's amazing how often theists fail to do this in a debate.
DoctorDissonance
You made some great points here.
So often these debates are clearly about the personal anger of the 2 debaters which is unsatisfying and not constructive.
Matt has always come from a humanist perspective rather than anger, unlike Dawkins and others. For once Matt had a chance to have a discussion with a theist who was not angry and adversarial.
I found it kind of heart-warming to be honest.
I'm glad other people can relate to my thoughts.
Knowing how people (esp. trolls) appear to seek out confrontations for entertainment and sometimes try to encourage conflicts in comments or whatnot, I worry that these interactions will perpetuate misconceptions of atheists and theists; that both parties are terrible at having a productive conversation, and merely wish to get a laugh from their team, or appear "more correct" or dignified.
I hope that there will be more debates like Matt and Satyan's to help change these perspectives.
Well, this debate taught me one thing for sure. The most honest Christian is happy in his realization that there is no evidence for God.
What do you mean? Can you elaborate?
@@supersongiSo far, Christians either were honest enough to say they don't have evidence, or they had no evidence but made themselves believe they had evidence.
@@supersongi Christians can't really prove that God exists, and they're okay with that.
Ugh, yet another theist who invests more effort in the intonation & delivery of their "deepities" instead of actually trying to make rational arguments.
Yeah, since they have no rational arguments to make. The best they can do is try to SOUND science-y and reason-y-y.
I did get that impression as well. I love how cordial they both were but it was very clear who made arguments and who gave inspirational rhetoric. I have learned to accept that if that is the argument, there is still something that can be drawn from that in terms of discussion. In other words, it still gives Matt a position to approach and address. 🤷
I loathe “the preacher voice”! It’s so fake and loud! It’s a voice that is supposed to make saying absurd things out loud sound true and definitive.
Theists usually end up admitting that their faith isn't based in rationality, so it makes sense that their attempts to be rational sound inadequate.
If i was a theist and had such a poor hand I’d do the same thing
well, that was easy. Matt wins by default, because Satyan failed to show any evidence for God.
His argument was basically, "everybody worships something, therefore God".
I'm not worshiping anything, therefore, proof by counterexample, there is no God.
Thats what all of them do its pathetic i couldve debated him anyone with reason can its sad
That is not how it works.
[Everybody worship]=>[god]
[Not god]=>[not everybody worship]
[Not everybody worship]=\=>[not god]
[Pregnant]=>[woman]
[Not woman]=>[not pregnant]
[Not pregnant]=\=>[not woman]
Go back in math class.
iogssothoth666
I guess you are right. But, [Everybody worship]=/=>[god]. Even if everybody would worship, it wouldn't follow that there is a god. Worship entails just belief, not existence. That's why I wrote that Matt wins by default.
+iogssothoth666 these pseudo intellectual answers really get to me. What erwin said stands by that logic (even though it affirms a negative jokingly).
+Erwin Müller
"Even if everybody would worship, it wouldn't follow that there is a god. Worship entails just belief, not existence."
Yeah. That's the best way of dealing with this line of thinking.
18 minutes in and the guy hasn't even tried to present any reason to think his position is correct.
"I want. I want. I want". Ad infinitum.
Yeah he practically continued saying that neither of them can know and even in that he was wrong.
Appeals to emotion.
I agree. But admittedly, my beliefs, my emotions, and my feelings, do not, far as I know, follow a standard set of principal's, laws or scientific fact. Sometimes, I feel and do things, believe things, that are unexplainable.
Sure, we can break down the broken chemistry of my biological brain, but there are certainly issues that science can science, but can't tell is what is right.
His point about science and the atomic bomb, was a beautiful analogy. Sure science can mathematically predict and creat an atomic reaction, but I agree it can't tell is what to do with that knowledge.
Sure, he didn't make any good points for the proof of god.
But at least, what he said was an interesting thought exercise about the knowledge facts and science bring us, compared to the social and ethical dilemma e face when confronted with the question wether to use that knowledge, and where we draw the line on justification for doing so. And usually that justification is determined by our choice of moral system.
And then we can debate what morality is, and where it's values come from.
But I think he used his opening statement to give a fantastic example of the information dilemma many of us faced when confronted by facts, and the moral use and application of said facts.
His opening is interesting food for thought. Because in my opinion, only the most devout stoic, can make choices, both interpersonal and personal, based on pure facts alone.
I speak for myself only, but emotion is a very powerful force.
I still agree with what you stated, but there is more at stake in our personal lives and relationships, than simple facts and science. We complicate things with emotion and morality.
So in many ways, his position on emotion, love and morality and the value we place on those things, is correct, in the context that facts and science are often superceded by love, empathy, spite, malice and all the other slew of emotions we try to fight and gain control of.
And sometimes, those emotions feel like a force bigger than the universe itself.
How so?
He claims we're all religious and all worship something. Nope, no I don't.
come come William, surely you worship Richard Dawkins Lord of atheism :-)
Yes, this was a terrible point he made
It's his way of coming to terms with how can people be decent human beings without worshiping something. The complete absence of belief creates a paradox for him. I have a friend that is the same way. No matter what I say to her she insisted that I must believe in something, she can't get her head around the absence of belief.
I agree that Satyan made a bad point. I am an Atheist and the closest thing to worship I know is how I feel about my wife...but even that is ridiculous to claim it is worship in the theistic sense. I worship NOTHING!
+JONATHAN KISER While I completely understand what you were trying to say, I feel fairly certain you mean there is nothing in which I believe. There is a difference in saying I believe in nothing and there is nothing in which I believe. It's a completely semantic difference but it's one religion likes to hide behind.
Matt is leading the charge, he has to be on of the best speakers of reason there is at the moment. Nice Work.
Matt,
You managed to pack many of your best stuff into this one debate. Very well done!
"The bible is a steak that's hard to chew". I agree Satyan, it's a tough, bloody, mess that's hard to stomach.
appeal to emotion over and over and over again
from the guy who says he is mathematician, he has no emotions
bad joke
unbearable
He clearly loves the sound of his own voice. He also thinks he's brilliant. He's unbearable.
[I no longer feel this way, after finishing the video.]
After finishing watching the video, I no longer felt the way I did when I wrote my last comment.
Ugh, that was painful. Satyan Devadoss gets the 2016 rambling Award. Delivered no evidence. Seemed bewildered.
He has a twisted mind by using only a fraction ,stupid works great with Christian's (xtians)
"I'm a mathematician I have no emotions to satisfy." That is hilarious. Especially because so many famous mathematicians had such passionate and even crazy stories. Crazy sex lives and duels. You won't fool me with that one.
As an entomologist studying mosquitoes, I was able to find beauty in something that everyone else finds horrid. I love observing insects and wondering what types of evolutionary pressures caused them to end up looking the way they do, and what certain characteristics allowed them to survive for millions of years
Just more appeals to ignorance and emotion. You would think a mathematician would know better.
I have only listened to this guy for a few minutes and am so surprised that he has nothing intelligent to offer. His argument is what a simpleton would offer.
I lost all respect for Devadosse's intelligence when he said "science can't handle messiness"
Exactly! As a scientist, I nearly stopped watching. Science is messy; we are in a heaping ball of messiness and we are trying to make sense of it.
This took me by surprise too. Has this guy not researched the probabilities of quantum mechanics?
Phelan for sure, it's a nonargument. it's just a series of meaningless words
hes just defining messiness as the questions in life that he thinks can't be fully answered by science
Yeah, the guy was trying to appeal to a lot of fuzzy/mushy BS as if that was some kind of evidence for God. He said he loved science, but what he needs is a better understanding of logical fallacies. Gods do not make sense - they are not logical. One can only believe in them by ignoring logic, or, put more colloquially, by "turning off their brains." Not for me, thanks.
Matt is awesome.
We all know it, but sometimes it just has to be repeated.
There are scores of us who are thankful for knowing him.
I just wanted to give a shout out to the host. Great job.
He's a very comfortable public speaker. He set a nice tone right off the bat. He has a sense of humor. He gave some of his own thoughts on things without interfering too much. Great job.
A mathematician appealing to arguments of history? Has he never read secular NT scholarship? The NT is riddled with forgeries misdirection, and flat out lies. Satyan is better than this.
The very fact he addressed arguments from emotion, and dismissed them flat out, makes me wonder the exact opposite. Dillahunty hammers it home once again.
Awesome discussion! Matt, you were great as always. Though, I did feel you held back a lot ;) But understandably so. And I've really got to hand it to both Satyan and the "moderator" as well. They seem like very nice, intelligent people.
Christian : I love science! Now I'm gonna poison the well.
No no no, it's more like : I love science! now I'm going to throw science out the window and believe in magic.
It's more like: I love science! Here's some Aristotelian metaphysics that I'm going to pretend is backed up by modern science.
Or "I love science because i use modern medicine, fly in planes, use the internet and cook in a microwave. Except where it contradicts my religion because of bronze age stories".... how convenient how stupid
"I love science but I fucking hate wells!"
"That's a really nice well you've got there! It'd be a shame if someone were to... poison it..."
how is this even a debate topic? if there was actual evidence of gawd, religion wouldn't need faith.
Did anyone hear anything Satyan said in his opening that even touched on the topic?
Nope!
Not a word.
No, but I did hear how MUCH he really, really digs being in his personal relationship with god, who is so big and cool and groovy and great and beautiful and all that stuff and oooh, I can't even say how much he really really loves this god guy.
Capturing middle-ground theists gives more momentum against fundamentalism. MGTs recognise that though they disagree with your conclusions, your arguments are presented reasonably, unlike fundies arguments.
It's an important outreach work that Matt's taking on.
No, but there were plenty of attacks on the concept of evidence itself. :-(
This is a really good debate, a lot better than the last one with Matt Slick.
If one is encouraged to abandon reason to justify a theistic belief, one will feel he has the green light to abandon reason if those beliefs are being challenged. Theistic beliefs exist in a special treasure chest full of unwarranted and unexamined conclusions--wrapped up in circular logic, special pleading and personal incredulity.
@@maxanguiano6935 Big words, but no. Many arguments in favor of a god are based on special pleading. They're also often pitched as panacea, which is conceptually hollow and useless.
Michio Kaku just sort of plagerized Arthur C. Clarke. Glad Matt brought that up.
How so? (still listening to the debate so no idea if this pertains to something in particular)
When I heard Michio say this, he gave Clarke credit for it.
WisdomVendor1
Glad of that. Maybe Satyan should have said that.
Zeke Iddon
OK. Cutting onions makes me cry.
jmtnvalley
agreed
I don't get it - the consistencies of Christianity serve as evidence in its favour, and the INconsistencies serve as evidence in its favour?
Also, fine-tuning - why would the universe need to be tuned? Does conscious life have requirements that are outside the god's control?
Because the universe should be in Fsharp.
@@Thornspyre81 I personally think it should be Drop D but that’s me
I am impressed with how professional and well structured this was. Thank you.
I always thought it was funny that god designs a system where all humans are inherited the sin of adam and eve even though in deuteronomy is explicitly says that sons will not be charged for the crimes of their father and vise verse
Check out some other Old Testament rules. There's a great one where it says that someone who is born out of wedlock cannot enter into the congregation of the Lord to worship, even to the 10th generation. Says nothing about the fornicators, just the descendants. No provision is made if every descendant for the next umpteenth generations all get married and have kids in wedlock...nope, apparently, you're all bastards.
As an aside...just ignore that at least one of Jesus's ancestors was such a bastard (the genealogy in Matthew lists a woman named Tamar who gets pregnant on twin sons from her father-in-law, who mistook her for a prostitute)
There is absolutely no history or geograpy in the bible.
Great job, Matt. Thanks for doing what you do.
This was such an honest, respectful and legit debate/conversation.. I've watched so many and none have been like this one.. really enjoyed it!
Hell yes! Thanks for the two back to back debate uploads Matt! Love it!
This is probably the best discussion of this type I have ever seen. No matter what side you are on, it really makes you think. It's good hear people talk about it without the name calling.
I haven't watched the video yet but Matt won. How do I know this? You've got to have faith.
Or a history of watching Matt crush victims in the ring of logical discourse.
Hell I only had to watch Satyan opening statement to know that Matt would walk all over him. No faith needed here lol.
No theist can ever beat Matt because to do so would require credible evidence or rational argument for God, none of which have ever been presented in the past few thousand years. Using that standard, I have faith that a turnip could defeat any theist apologist, although Matt is infinitely more interesting.
Matt chose the red pill.
Matt is so enjoyable to listen to.
Very honest and positive mindset.
This was by far the most enjoyable debate I've seen in a long time. I really like the moderated discussion style that this took and it felt much more like each person had a chance to address each of the claims the other made.
I like these debates. I'm so glad the organisers allowed you to upload the video :-)
Always been a skeptic. Used to wonder where i belong. And you along with many others helped me realize what I am. And I am thankful for that. But the core idea that i understood from your videos is that morality should come from humanity and not from fear
Hey Matt! Glad to see you at this event. It was really good. Come back and do more!
That quote from Michio Kaku is actually from Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
I googled and actually Michio Kaku quotes Clarke, so Devadoss seems unsound even with his quotes.
Christians.... Using 4000 words where 4 will do.
Never ceases to amaze how many words theists can string together without actually saying a fucking thing...
Satyan's argument seems to be "I believe in God because I want God to exist."
Yep. And “because my life is built on this and I can’t accept it is all a load of shit”.
Incredible discussion to the the gentlemen in this video. I enjoy these type of discussions instead of most debate formats, and hope to see more soon. Thanks for the video
Best most respectful debate I've ever seen on this topic. Thank you.
The first argument compels me to make an Oompa Loompa meme that says "DEEPITY DOO!"
Matt is amazing. I wouldn't say he "won" this, or any, debate, per se. But, he's definitely more correct than anyone he debates.
And now, we have an image of a black hole... Where's God?
That said, I really enjoyed this debate. There wasn't any of the usual trying to strawman of a position or simply talking down like you tend to get, it was respectful, and Matt was a good example for the audience as to what an atheist is, sans horns and pointed tail, that now when someone says the word, they have a good, positive mental image of what that word means. Bravo Matt
The words of Matt make me think as a human
Yes and Christian's could think like a human ,Start thinking ask questions &fight against being brainwashed ,get your head out first
Thank GOD, I wasn't the only one.
At 59:45 ... IS THAT A FART?! I don't care who won or lost the debate, I wanna know who ate too many tacos!
That was Epic. Well done sir!
That's the best one of these debates I've seen. Loved it!
That was fun to listen to, thanks for posting it!
Matt, as usual it's always fascinating to listen to you speak. I've been watching TAE for many years, and many of the solid counter-apologetic arguments I've learned are taught by you, although I've always been an atheist. Thanks for that.
Keep up the good work. I wish people like you had more national recognition; maybe even a talk show or interview show on network television. If Oprah can have a show to spout inane nonsense, why can't rational thinkers have a show to actually promote critical thinking, skepticism, and educate viewers?
As usual, not one single good argument was presented by a theist. Devadoss's analogies were incredibly weak, and his arguments extremely illogical, ill-informed, and inane. I'll never understand how seemingly smart people can believe in such bullshit.
Is that guy kidding? I am 17 minutes in and he is talking gibberish.
He said that we can't use science to verify the Jesus story, we can use historical and literary tools. Spoiler those are sciences...
Not to mention the ton of claims the bible makes about the world and manages to get all most all of it wrong.
It's the same crap Blake Giunta tried to pull, which he got from Gary Habermas.
There's this fairly new line of apologetics where they claim that because lots of these events happened in the past, we can't apply science. We can only use history. The glaring, obvious flaw here is that the historical method is far, far less rigorous than the typical scientific method. Because of this, the proper course of action is to only accept trivial claims that the historical method verifies. Anything else, like miracle claims, should be dismissed as _impossible to verify_. Matt mentioned this both in the Giunta debate and AXP.
Then whenever some apologist objects to this reasoning and says "hurr durr, how are we supposed to verify these miracle claims?" The response should be "it may be impossible." And then explain that this is _not the skeptic's problem_. Not all claims are currently falsifiable. Tough shit. Whining that this is somehow not fair is infantile.
True. There is ZERO contemporary writings about Jesus, even in the bible. As Matt has said, just because we know NYC exists, throwing Spiderman in there doesn't make that latter true. Furthermore, there is zero evidence of anything supernatural so God is a non-starter too as God is for all intents and purposes, physically impossible.
The compilers, of our bible, left so many errors within it, to make certain no one would read it as literal history or geography.
This was just an awesome debate/discussion. I think Matt made some really great points and I'm glad the whole thing was so relaxed. The host was also really funny.
Really good discussion. Matt, your points and delivery were some of the best I've seen from you and the host/mod was one of the best I've seen.
Science is concerned with acquiring knowledge about reality.
If we want to make good decisions, we should care about having the most accurate information possible.
In other words, people who take potshots at science have nothing truly worthwhile to say.
Science can't answer moral questions. Like should we commit suicide.
From a scientific standpoint the answer would be "No" as it does not benefit the continuation of the human race.
oh sorry did I just prove your statement wrong? :)
You know what the funny thing is, Mandragara?
It's actually religion that can't answer moral questions.
Think about it.
Religion has no morality.
All it has is submission to authority.
Mandragara Of course science doesn't address morality directly. That isn't its job. Just like facts presented in court don't decide who is guilty or not guilty; a judge or jury does. Your statement of the obvious isn't helpful in illuminating any argument.
Turk I don't think you did, unless you define morality as Only whatever continues the human race. I think innumerable moral atrocities could easily be smuggled in under that banner.
Refreshingly civil. Personally, I _more_ enjoy the heated debates...but that's just me. I also appreciate the occasional civil conversation. And this was a good one.
As long I kept reminding myself "This is a discussion" it was great. Very civil, hopefully constructive. Great, thumbs up as always.
Good work Matt, Satyan, and all involved. It's great to see proper conversations and respectful interactions between those that believe in a god, and those that don't. Despite the fundamentally different concepts we may each accept or reject, we are all still just human beings seeking greater understanding of this amazing reality in which we find ourselves. If we are honest, then none of us actually know with any real certainty at all what the underlying truth is. And we should be happy to admit that. So seeking to use better methods to separate what we should accept and what we shouldn't, is the best way (we know of) to move all of our understanding forward. "Why" we believe something, is often far more important than "what" we believe. And it's also generally far more interesting and productive to discuss, and/or to hear discussed.
This was so motivational. I just dropped out of high school but now I'm looking forward to become a professor of mathematics.
How'd that work out?
@@ChainsawChristmas probably not good
Satyan's presentation sounds like a literary appreciation of the bible as mythology.
Great job, Matt. My dad is a pastor at a really big evangelical church. I would love if they hosted something like this. Very professional and respectful dialogue
I applaud everyone involved in this debate. You all seemed like the very nice genuine people.
This is one of Matt’s best articulated and overall best done speeches/talks/debates.
I still don't get the, "Just look at the trees!" idea. Someone enlighten me because its a non-sequitur to me.
i think it comes from the fact that they can't explain how the tree got to be a tree.(evolution) so when they don't know; "god did it". Argument from ignorance.
Trees are complex things of beauty, theists believe this is only possible through some form of supernatural creation; they point to the trees to say 'only a supreme being could have made something so complex and beautiful.' yeah it's basically an argument from ignorance.
it's often much more base than just "evolution didn't happen".
Trees in the fall are beautiful. christian believe that everything happens for us, so in the fall trees are objectively beautiful. Why would trees be beautiful if not for us. That's the non sequitor. We are not the center of the universe.
We like trees. Why? Not really important. I could make up a hypothesis about how fall is a good moment to fall in love because body warmth and having something active and fun to do during dark nights might help you survive winter but that's conjecture. It's besides the point. Most people like trees in the fall, we can't explain it. We don't even have to explain it.
We are primates who evolved from tree-dwelling animals. Trees were the source of nutrition for our ancestor species. In autumn they would gorge on ripe fruit and nuts to make it through winter. Colours are important for identifying ripe fruit; red berries among green leaves pop out to us, whereas cats and dogs, for example, can't see them. So an all-red tree is visually striking and it also means there might be plenty of ripe fruit and nuts on the ground.
What about ugly trees?
well done Matt...I was impressed with the moderator...very professional and good flow.
Well done gentlemen.
Great format for truthful discord.
1:29:40 Aw I love how Matt just said “thank you” in signed language!
To the Lincoln argument: The best explanation for the fact that everyone thinks it happened, is that it actually happened. In case of Jesus for example, the explanation that he was resurrected because god had sacrificed him to himself, is the worst explanation I can think of. That's the difference.
We have thousands of independent contemporary sources, from both friends and enemies, talking about Lincoln. We have ONE source, from unknown authors, with an obvious bias, talking about the Jesus character.
No Contest.
*We have thousands of independent contemporary sources, from both friends and enemies, talking about Lincoln.*
And even if this weren't the case, no one is adding extra importance to Lincoln's existence or claiming any of his accomplishments defied all human experience.
Theists, if you want to pretend Jesus should be viewed on a similar scale then you must accept it when historians immediately toss out the obvious bullshit like they do for every other historical figure.
Actually, there are zero contemporary sources for Jesus. The first writing was from Josephus and he was **born** a few years after Jesus' supposed death and resurrection.
***** This is true!
Denis Loubet It's amazing that not a single person wrote about a guy who supposedly performed miracles, walked on water, rose from the dead and claimed to be the son of God, isn't it?
This was such a delightful debate! Both Matt and Satyan were articulate, respectful, and thought-provoking. Often a side effect of debate is that it can further polarize listeners on both sides, but I think this one was an exception. It may not have changed any minds but I would be surprised if anyone walked away strongly offended. You gentlemen did well!!
Best debate I’ve seen from Matt. This is Hitchens-level quality.
“We can’t see black holes, but we can see it’s effects. Like Jesus.”
Let’s see how this argument will change now that we have.
I just have a kind of random question here: if I, as an atheist here in Sweden would tell a fellow Swede that I'm not a believer, they would just shrug and say "so what? So am I, please pass the salt". Here, being an atheist is a non-issue, so I don't really understand why it's such a big deal in the US? You have talk shows pro or antireligion/pro or anti-atheism, you have these town hall discussions - hell, I saw that an atheist has aonly a miniscule chance of becoming a president, even after a muslim.
It just boggles my mind that this is even up for debate.
The US is a much, much different country with a totally different history. Religion is deeply ingrained in lots of the culture here, especially in the more rural areas. I won't lie, you live in an excellent bubble. Most of the world suffers from these struggles. Have you left Scandinavia and Western Europe and traveled elsewhere? There are lots of countries where professing atheism gets you killed.
Good reply, and I think you might be right. Regarding travelling, yes, I've been abroad, but I would never go anywhere were there is a theocracy in place. Partly because I can't shut up when I meet religoius people, but also because I don't want to support that kind of system. The US is kind of a grey area there,
Great discussion Matt, I enjoyed it a lot. It helped a lot that Satyan wasn't at all obnoxious and the moderator was really good too.
Glad i stumbled upon this conversation. The guy who asked the first question was sincere and honest. Thank you for sharing this.
The quote is wrong, accurately it should be "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from *magic.*" The original quote is from Arthur C. Clarke.
keep watching
Reminds me a lot of Matt Slick's 32nd law, "Any sufficiently smug neo-Calvinist presuppositionalist is indistinguishable from a bag of cocks."
Stewart James but at least a bag of cocks (fully functional, of course) would make me happy
I must say, the guy who modded was fabulous. If only other moderators could manage to be so friendly, honest and even handed. Bravo, Mr Mod.
This was a wonderful debate. Both the debaters acted like gentlemen and the moderator was very personable and well
spoken. I always enjoy listening to Matt Dillahunty and this instance was no exception.
Excellent closing statement, Matt.
In pretty much all the debates I've watched where they have audience questions, the audience members (not all) that get chosen to ask whomever a question always waffles on and on before they actually ask a question, when the debate moderator explicitly says "can you just ask a question" . It's ridiculous that they almost always fail this simple task regardless if they're a theist or an atheist
totalanthony I think most people who tend to take the mike at these events are the kind of people who enjoy participating in discussions themselves. They are not really interested in simply asking a question and hear the response, but rather have a mini discussion within the debate about something they think could 'defeat' the opponent. Or they just like to hear themselves talk :P
"Is there evidence for God?"
Short answer - NO
Long answer - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
I liked the pastor. And Satyan too. It's great when you find nice, intelligent christians to debate.
Oh, and good audio too! :)
Great discussion. One of the more enjoyable theists to listen to. Makes the Slick debate look like visiting a children's playground.
Oh fuck he just claimed that he had a real theoretical model and tested it, on himself. Case closed, where is the nearest church I'm ready to convert
Satyan's arguments were unconvincing, but he was a damn sight more bearable than Matt Slick.
Great work Matt. Keep it up.
thank you for this vid Matt. I thought you were great! :D
in all sincerity, how do you define worship? because I have never met an atheists who worships anything
Equivocation fallacy right there. He uses worship in one sense (I'd define it as blind obedience to what he believes is a god) and then says atheists do the same...which is not true, at least, not in that sense. I don't believe there is a god, therefore I cannot worship anything as a god. So he has to be using a second meaning for the word worship, but he doesn't make that clear.
exodiathecoolone well put. I actually pride myself on not worshipping anything by default. I can revere and respect people and ideas without worship.
as I always say, equivocation fallacies are my favorite
he does the same thing with "faith". How he has faith that his wife won't poison him. It's a similar trick.
ahouyearno wow, you're absolutely right (I just finished the video). faith is chronically used in an equivocation fallacy. and it annoys me more than any other argument (aside from, say, hitler the atheist)
Michael Gorka Matt did Sayten a solid by interrupting when he was going to Hitler. He already said H-. It's nice to see Matt has too much respect for christians, because that would have been very embarrassing.
I would say the atheist hitler argument is by far the most cringeworthy. All arguments by religious folk are wrong but calling hitler an atheist just shows you're not informed.
04:46 -> host stops talking.
Can't wait to watch the Erhman & Price debate!
The comment ascribed to David Tomayo was an excellent point. Really like that way of looking at it.
"Is there evidence for God?" - Devadoss provided none so the answer's "no".
This is an engaging debate, though.
ua-cam.com/video/f3yM0aJBwfI/v-deo.html
When the religious guy says the Genesis account isnt a scientific document and it didnt mean 7 literal days...well many religious people do think that is what it is...Why? Because it directly says earth was created in 7 days...and they have Faith. This is the problem with religion. People believe whatever parts they want and think everyone else doesnt have a direct line to God like they do.
This one of Matt's best debates I think. Full of gems.
What refreshingly nice, inviting and seemingly honest Christians. Great as always, Matt.
"Richard Dawkins... evolutionary biologist... What authority he has to talk about death and life and morals?" well, I think a biologist is the best qualified person to talk about death and life. Biology is the study of living things. This is where I lost my respect for this man as a scientist mathematician talkibg about "God".