Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Atheist Debates - Dillahunty vs D'Souza discussion review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 кві 2020
- Full debate here: • GENDER, GOD & TRUMP - ...
A quick review of my discussion with D'Souza, the problems with his epistemology and how one of us is focused on money, while the other is focused on humanity.
Matt, my favorite part of his horrible toad analogy was when he just assumed that you'd be as much of an asshole as he is to somebody else.
He assumed you'd come slap him on the face and tell him to wake up, face reality, etc.
You were like "no, I'd ask if you were alright, and support you in expressing your identity if you're not hurting yourself or others."
He just doesn't understand empathy or humanism.
Your reason for it being your fave isn't very good. What you think it's being an asshole, is what some people think is the right thing to do. He could just as easily have a fan who says 'hey that was my fave cos Matt was being a delusional asshole' . This is a perfect example of how peoples preconceived ideas and bias will make them completely miss the merit of any debate or opposing view
Well, you certainly got a pointless word salad in response. And it is a recurring problem, how do we explain to some people that they should care about the well being and happiness of other human beings, even strangers?
?
Well if matt was consistent he would have said that the claim is false. Or prove the claim, prove that you are a toad. Reality is the way reality is and it wouldn't matter what you believe to be the case, it's demonstratively false that you are a toad. This has nothing to do with humanism or empathy. The fact that matt went woke to get some points in todays society shows his double standards when it comes to woke and religion
@@alekm4185 so if a friend comes to me and says they are feeling sad and are thinking of ending their life I should ask them to prove their claim. Thanks, I think I get it.
The discussion was very frustrating to watch. D’Souza kept moving the goal posts, changing the subject entirely and presenting straw man arguments the entire time. You should be given some sort of Nobel prize for patience.
@Austin Martín Hernández Projection is the only move the right has.
@@sknight874 I couldn't agree more.
Instablaster
Not really, he just decided to do what a normal polite person would do. The fact that D’Souza is a relatively well known person is why matt stopped being rude and condescending in the way he would treat some random nobody caller to the show.
@@sknight874 Yikes get off your knees! Hahaha (echo)
guess he was wrong about no one has been hurt from the bathroom debate 😞
this week in "How is this still a thing?"
Dinesh D'Souza
When contemplating getting into a "debate" with D'Souza, it might be wise to remember this old admonition: "Never get into a wrestling match with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig likes it".
I suspected that D’Souza would pursue a course of invalidating his opposition’s point of view rather than make a case for his own. It’s all they have.
Much like flat earthers
Attempting* to invalid his opponent's pov
Reminds me of when I was a kid, and the teacher asked a math problem, saying there were 8 red apples and 2 green apples under a cloth, and if you reached under the cloth and grabbed an apple, what were the chances that it was going to be red? And some of the kids were convinced the chances were 50/50, because either they would get a red apple or they would not; therefore the chances were equal.
This seems to be how people like DSouza attempt to put themselves on equal footing as those who do not believe, by suggesting that without evidence the chance of an afterlife must be 50/50, either it there or it is not, so the chances are equal.
Because the kids, like DSouza, were only relying on binary choices.
False equivalence
Edit: Dinesh, not you lol
If it's running the odds of an Afterlife, the entire claim is from those who believe that it exists. From a pragmatic point of view, it's not even an option. We know that the human body ceases most functions, and begins to deteriorate. That's what we actually know about the Afterlife.
@@rustlingbushes7678 "We know that the human body ceases most functions". Which functions do not cease?
@@studlord9970, the human body takes about a week to decompose after death. Bacteria and enzymes from intestines conduct the process. These symbiotic organisms continue to live off of the corpse, until the gas that they produce cause the body to rupture. Once the bacteria have finished consuming the corpse, they return to the surrounding environment.
Fun fact: mites eat the dead skin cells on our eyelids. There are many symbiotic organisms that inhabit us.
I lost count of how many times D'Souza changed the subject 🤯
237
And then:
Dinesh: What I think you've done here is ... change the topic.
...
Haha. So Dinesh D'souza, author of the “Life After Death: The Evidence” has nothing to offer when it comes to defending his FAITH in the after life?
@Mark Ford What *caused* everything? All evidence points to all matter in our local universe expandibg from a single point.
@Mark Ford NOT a point of nothing. I'm tired of seeing this everywhere. The big bang did not originate from "nothing", it was an expansion from an "initial state of very high density and high temperature". That is from the second sentence on the Wikipedia page on the Big Bang, by the way. Inform yourself before you try and misrepresent arguments, please.
@Mark Ford Hahah. I should have known that would elicit such a stupid response. All I was getting at that this is common knowledge, knowledge you could have obtained by doing something as simple as a google search. Read up on it, it will answer those questions. We are able to approximate how long ago the Big Bang occurred, shocking, I know. I don't see any need to continue this further if you are not willing to even attempt to inform yourself. It's simply pointless.
@Mark Ford Yes, and the bible is full of things that are not supported by anything but the bible and the word of a god that I see no evidence of. The fact that "google wasn't around for the big bang" is not even an argument, that also goes for you. You can't prove it did not happen, can you? Except for pointing at an old book written by people. Also, atheism is NOT a religion. Once again a very simple concept that you do not seem to grasp. I'm sorry, this is like I said, absolutely pointless.
@Mark Ford If you can ever show me something flopping into existence from clay, like the bible claims, maybe I'll believe you!
I suspect he thinks people would abuse a system of “free food” is because it is what he would do.
Then why was he complaining about it? Consider revising.
@@blancobasnett Ted Haggard is therefore irrational. And so are you, chief. And so is the original commenter.
And as such, I said revision should be _considered_
Watch plateform on netflix its a prime example of free food and what people would do. Hunger,Self preservation is a powerful thing.
@Flekk Bone Gnawer no its not what? how humans react to food? One if the world ending in any shape or form Self preservation takes place. If you are on controlled rations people will react differently. So yes free food and the movie plateform would fit on what people would do and create a hierarchy. Free food isnt free it came from some place and someones labor.
@@Anub6543 No, it's an example of what people in a prison, or any other system, that is contrived to create conflict would do if the creators of the conflict staved one group. The food being free isn't the issue here. It's the distribution mechanism.
It is interesting to me how apologists and conservatives seem to not understand how analogies and formal logic work. Maybe that's why they are apologists or conservatives. This idiot can't see how people in extreme circumstances is not an analogy for regular society. If your analogy begins with imagine a dystopian future, and ends with, that's why universal healthcare can't work....chances are, you're a fucking moron.
It's never a debate. It's always about theists making fallacious assertions, and atheists countering by pointing out known informal fallacies. There is never an exchange of ideas or anyone getting closer to the truth.
painfully apt
says the guy who believes in more than 2 g3nders.
not to mention matt said "we're not climate scientists", thats arguement from authority no?
@@FM-dm8xj I spent years working on a supertanker. It was most definitely a "she". If you denigrated it by not acknowledging it was a she you'd get your gimpy little @ss kicked. How can a machine with no genitals or chromosomes have a gender?
@@markburch6253 Bahahaahaaha?
"There is never an exchange of ideas or anyone getting closer to the truth."
"making fallacious assertions,"
AHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Alright k1d
straw-manning his opponent and indulging in overly-elaborate faulty analogies allows dinesh to run out the clock and subsequently force his opponent to waste even more time unwinding the straw-man and the analogy before his opponent is able to properly expound his own views. it also gives dinesh ample opportunities to divert down whatever rabbit holes strike his fancy. he's been doing this his entire career.
Hello Matt is there any chance you could debate Ben Shapiro on anything? I think that would be so awesome to see.
I would love to see matt and ben have a debate, but it would have to be divided into 2 different debates, the first would be a debate about the existence of god and the second would have to be a non-religious debate about politics
In all my 26 years, I have never seen another persons junk in the bathroom. I don't know how D'Souza and others piss and crap, but perhaps they need to change their tactics.
TheMarkSasuke64 yeah his point was actually stupid, the real debate should have been about how if you change the definition of what a woman is, and what sex is, and what homosexuality is, you cant protect it with laws. You cant have both gender identity and homosexuality, they are in direct conflict. You cant get a straight answer on what a woman or a man is from a TRA, and thats the problem. Imagine a trans woman escorted into an all female prison. Expecially if the convition is for rape. Imagine no more. It happened already.
And yet it doesn't matter at all.
I'm 69, and I've never seen another person's junk in the bathroom, either - including bar bathrooms. But maybe I've been going to better quality bars, huh? Heh, heh.
@@Bill_Garthright lol man lol just lol. I'm also drunk atm. xD. 2 hand grip on that dick XD
“I have never seen another person’s junk in the bathroom.”
ohokay.gif
Too bad you guys didn't get into slavery that would have been good. Dinesh's views on biblical slavery woulda had you boiling.
it's not hard to get Matt boiling
I would say Matt's general boiling level and frequency tend to be pretty reasonable. I also tend to get short with dishonesty and emotional sophist horseshit. Which let's face it, D'Souza invariably employs.
BTW. Koragg. I would be surprised if he isn't already fully aware of Dinesh's views on biblical slavery.
@@rationalmartian Consider the fact the Matt does this for a living. Taking calls from not just theists, but folks whose thinking is flawed - not just at _what_ they think, but _how._ It doesn't help them to yell and scream because they will double down that much harder. Matt needs to learn to be more charitable and take a basic course in psychology. Matt likes to be right, and as long as he's right, he feels he's justified in his methods.
@@dkazmer2 interesting that you think you know Matt's thoughts better than he does.
@@dkazmer2 you need to provide evidence for that claim. Matt doesn't rage at everyone, just those who tap dance or use other forms of dishonesty. These tactics are not used by apologists like Dinesh exclusively, many of the theists who call AXp have their own scripts and deserve to be derailed. There are plenty of examples of Matt treating theists gently when they're honestly engaging in discussion.
I didn't even know this D'Souza guy still existed. Wonder what he's up to, but I sure won't look it up. Cheers, Matt!
I don't say this sort of thing lightly, but he's a genuinely bad person.
The other day he suggested that just because an elected representative was moving their hands and was passionate about the things they talk about that they are crazy and there is nothing of value they are talking about.
Also spilling the same bullshit arguments for forever without bothering to reevaluate or sharpen them even one bit. The guy is a hack preaching to his choir.
He's still on the wingnut welfare gravy train.
I'm sorry but we need to be more respectful to this guy and use his actual name.
Its Convicted Felon Dinesh D'souza. Have some class.
@@ommurg5059 says the buffoon who thinks Mat Dilldumbass has class. You freaks are so stupid.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
Dinesh: I am a toad.
Matt: ...
@Matt Dillahunty I'm a trans woman and I appreciated your comments about the discussion on trans women in restrooms. They pretty effectively mirrored what my own comments might have been.
I have no problem with you being trans, just don’t legislate on what I am permitted to refer to you as.
@@Make_Boxing_Great_Again When have I tried to legislate how you refer to me?
@@flamingskeptic6245 You haven’t personally, however there have been examples where people have attempted to create such legislation.
@@Make_Boxing_Great_Again If I haven't personally done this then why are you coming at me with this bullshit! Take it up with the ones that are!
Personally I think that type of legislation is a ridiculous infringement on first amendment rights and I would never support it. But you didn't bother to find that out did you? Instead you saw me declare that I'm trans and came at me as if I was the one writing the bill! You say you have no problem with me being trans. If you're an ally do better. If you're not, then don't pretend to be.
@@flamingskeptic6245 I don’t know why you feel attacked or triggered, I am just making a discussion. You announced that you are trans in a public forum, that obviously has the potential to invoke discussion. You defeat bad ideas and viewpoints by discussion and not by cancelling people or closing them down or dismissing their sincerity’s as bullshit. That just makes people double down in their beliefs and no progress is made to help people understand each other. I genuinely don’t have an issue with you being trans, are you calling me disingenuous now? You appear to be. I don’t know what you mean by ally.
The issue I have with D'Souza is that he is so disingenuous. He is either maliciously lying or truly confused, and I don't think either condition is good, and he should not have the large audience that he does. He is a felon, a conspiracy theorist, a liar. Props to you for having discussions with him, but I would try to give him less and less attention over time.
ALL christian/muslim/jewish apologists are like that. Its their job, they make lots of money this way because it fools their gullible fans.
@The Immortal 2r3333(ADOS) Nobody "needs" to yet they still do because their paycheck depends on it.
@AT87 Only logic leads to truth. And the concept of fallacies IS defined. Not agreeing with definitions is pointless.
@AT87 *_"Logic cannot tell you what’s true about reality."_*
It actually does, every day, to solve every problem... There is no better method. If you have one, provide it. But you wont.
*_" The laws of logic are contradictory and tautologies at best and therefore must be taken on faith."_*
Everything that evidently works reliably doesnt require faith at all. Dont project your flaws onto concepts that actually produce reliable results.
*_"The liars paradoxes and Lewis Carroll’s tortoise have also shown that logic is paradoxical and leads to an infinite regress."_*
Who cares about them? I dont need deeply philosophical concepts to use logic to find out why something is broken.
*_"How do you know which if any of those theories is the correct one?"_*
Logic isnt a "theoretical concept". Its a practical method that works every day. If you dont understand logic then nothing I say makes sense to you. If you dont value logic then nothing I say could make you value it.
@The Immortal 2r3333(ADOS) Christian apologists look like geniuses compared to Islamic ones. I think it is because Christian apologists have actually faced a period of scrutiny, so they will at least attempt to be logical. Islamic apologists are just batshit crazy stupid and make no bones about it. It is very scary that a large amount of people actually listen to them.
That was such a great conversation. You had him on the ropes the entire time. I really hope you have another conversation with him soon.
don't hold your breath
When I was in London in the summer of 2018 I went into one public restroom associated with a large cafe. It did surprise me when I stepped in and saw that there were no urinals as I hadn't noticed before I entered that it was a unisex bathroom. I think it had male and female symbols outside the door. I thought I would enter and find two more doors off a little hallway. Instead, there were lots of stalls all of which had floor to ceiling partitions. Neither the females nor males using the restroom seemed the slightest bit concerned. "Problem" solved!!!
As I said in the debate thread: Dinesh is not a very smart man. He likes to talk about a lot of intellectual subjects (like politics, economics, philosophy, religion, social justice, history) but he always demonstrates a surface level knowledge of them, superficial and dunning-kruger like.
Whenever he starts an argument with "Let's say that you are...." analogy, that's where you have to stop him. Because his analogies are always overly-simplified strawmen of something that is far more complex than he can understand (they're also extremely long and repetitive). As it was, your biggest mistake was letting him go on these five minute analogy adventures without interruption, and then in your attempt to deconstruct the analogy that led to more tangents and sub-arguments. Because he can never stay on point.
That's why the two of you blitzed through a dozen topics in a little over an hour. You let him lead the way and he's not sufficiently knowledgeable in any subject to do a serious deep dive so he gish gallops, reaching for external arguments and conspiracy theories to prove each argument true.
Some may have found the discussion had merit. I found it a complete waste of time.
Dinesh is a classic example of Dunning-Kruger effect. He clearly thinks he's an expert, but he lacks knowledge, experience and intellect to understand how wrong he actually is.
He's smart enough to know that he's brown, doesn't sound like a complete idiot (to people who don't know what they are talking about or don't otherwise think about things) and speaks to an extremely conservative agenda, so he'll always have work. Him, Candice Owens, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, and Alen Keyes and Thomas Sowell before them. Smart enough to get a check.
Dinesh is basically the Evangelical Gen X version of Carlgon. Both are so persistent in their blatant lying that often they will say some of the dumbest shit imaginable in desperate attempts to cover up previous lies/fallacies.
Watching the discussion was worthwhile if only to see that debates with someone as vain and intellectually dishonest and shallow as D'Souza are not necessarily a recipe for disaster.
I've never come away from watching a debate feeling I need a shower more than from the few I've watched featuring Dinesh.
Griexxt How can that be, when Hitchens cleaned his clock ten years ago?
Dinesh is a flat out dishonest person. None of this is surprising.
Exactly. Its the republican way now. Lie your ass off! Another republican mantra? I got mine, screw you! Even though republicans in the south, that have almost nothing, keep voting republican because democrats are the DEVUH!
Says the dumbass who thinks Matt is honest.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
Warstar @2fast2block has no obligation to adhere to logic. Why do you hold him to such a standard? The materialistic and natural world could care less if the law of non contradiction were broken. The fact that you are appealing to logic, an abstract, non material idea, in the first place shows you don’t believe that this world is simply the material and natural. If it were simply a materialistic and natural world, you wouldn’t care. You would understand that things are the way they are and they couldn’t have been any other way since we are nothing more than biochemical, input/output machines, and therefore, what happens, happens, and there’s no other way it could have happened. It was determined, 13 billion years ago, presumably.
Chew on this, you say this 2fast guy made a post “replete with a dozen logical fallacies”? Are you certain about that? Is it absolutely true that there were logical fallacies? What if those laws of logic change tomorrow? Then what? See, you don’t know they will be the same tomorrow. They could be different, so you know nothing. You assume those laws will be the same tomorrow.
Warstar in the same vain, it seems you left the bacon and dressing off the salad and now I’m left hungry from your reply see as all I had to nibble on was some unwilling left greens. Full of nutrients I’m sure, however, not much substance. Clueless? Talk about pot calling the kettle black. You can’t know anything in a materialistic and naturalist world. Its the ultimate cluelessness. But then you claim it against me. It seems tu quoque is one of your specialities. And if you had done your due diligence, done a Socratic self critique, you would understand this. You are just spouting off arbitrary opinions.
Now enough with the pleasantries, nice silver tongue, I commend you for it, do you want to get down to the brass tax or what? Do you have any reason why we should adhere to logic? Or do you just like to fantasize about salads?
@Warstar "wow, what a word salad supreme there"
No, yours is THE one. I provide all the proof and you could NOT counter it but you orgasmed filling in space pretending all you could to appear smart.
Hey, It did NOT work, dumbass.
I'm certainly certain...
that Dinesh likes to try interrupt & overtalk if he can see you can accurately address his gish-gallop diatribes
Dinesh's bathroom trips sound far more exciting than any I've encountered in real life.
I watched the full discussion, and watched this summary. I loved both. This why I am a progressive and not a conservative. Dinesh D'Souza shows the traits of many conservatives. Fearful, negative, suspicious, meaness, lack of empathy, lack of generosity, and lack of clarity and consistency in argument. Conservatives want to narrow choice, want to crush life into a narrow little box because it is easier to control that way. They have the incredible entitlement that makes them believe that they get to choose what other people do.
Pretty sure its liberals are the ones who are making people have narrow choices and to control them.
Who allowed for easier and non vetted mass imigration in europe where rape and murder cases have risen 50-300% time?
Who punished people who decided to whom they would provide services(cake bakers etc for gays)?
Who punished parents if they didnt agree with their child opinions and demands about identity etc?
Who forced people to provide services to homeless and emigrant people despite their objection?(Italian left leaning goverment forced hotel owners to provide services to immigrants and others)
Who punished women in sports?
Who punished doctors who didnt want to provide abortions?
Who is going to be punished if they dont pay the increased taxes?
Who punished people who didnt want to take experimental vaccine?
Sometimes letting the theist speak more works in your favor. The more they speak, the quicker we can see how ludicrous their beliefs are.
As if Matt Dilldumbass speaks wisdom. What a freak stupid person you are.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
Just watch the documentary “Jesus Camp” the filmmaker didn’t have to say one word… Those people indicted themselves
Thank you Matt, for taking the time to allow D'Souza to frame his ideas with examples and reasoning. I hadn't watched one of your debates in a while and catching this and then your response (while on Covid-19 lock down) was a treat. Regardless of the poor logic, it did help this humanist understand where the logic for folks like D'Souza starts to unwind. And you, master debater that you are, identified ways to steer that "bad reasoning" into cognitive dissonance. And as you can tell by the date of this post, in the US, this is crucial right now.
I wish we could put little electrodes on people like D'Souza when they debate. Give him a little jolt every time he said "the atheist position is..." That was extremely frustrating and if nothing else yet another opportunity to show how level-headed and fair Matt is in the face of sheer ignorance.
Also a jolt every time he makes a proposition followed by "why?"
_I wish we could put little electrodes on people like D'Souza when they debate._
Put electrodes on Dinesh D'Souza and tell me that the proceeds are going to charity, and I'll empty out my bank account paying for the opportunity to push the button. :)
Oh, but Matt Dilldumbass can say as many stupid things as he wants and you freaks follow him.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
Assuming you are an atheist, as an atheist, why would you care if D’Souza mischaracterized Dillahunty? D’Souza has no obligation to being consistent, he has not obligation to the law of non contradiction. What happened is what happened. Are you saying Dinesh ought to to not mischaracterize Matt’s statements or positions?
@@2fast2block
_Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers._
Maybe you should call in to the Atheist Experience TV show when he's hosting, so that you can explain to him how wrong he is about everything.
PS. Please let us know when you're going to do that. I don't want to miss it! :)
I used a restroom in a gas station in Sweden last year. It was not divided for men and women, there were several stalls, completely closed and a separate area with urinals.
I loved this simple solution. Instead of debating who can go into which bathroom, simply build them in a way that allows for privacy for every single person and ignore gender completely.
plenty here in Scotland too but not really in Petrol stations more where you'd expect rational people to be ..certain pubs etc .
I really enjoyed this review! The discussion was particularly cringy-worthy, especially knowing his bad epistemology is influencing others. I think Matt handled it very well, despite his points not resonating with Dinesh. Keep up the great work, Matt!!
If you think Matt handles things well, you are a dumbass.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
Desouza was an embarrassment, both his arguments and his many equivocations. His many tangents and irrelevancies were mind boggling.
Thanks for putting up with him!
"Everybody Poops." I love Matt's literary allusions.
Would make for a great R.E.M.-song
Or the alternate version: "Nobody Poops. It's Just You. Your Butt Is Broken."
@@JackgarPrime That's some grade-A parenting right there. "They had to build toilets all across the country just because of YOUR broken butt! You better appreciate the work that went into this, you broken brat."
@@larschristianalm I'm sure I haven't had enough of that
Hi Matt, you are just fantastic in having conversations with people. I would love to see you have more conversations with people of
opposing opinions. Thank you for the work you do. Kind regard, Lars
I'd love some good faith actors.
Hi Matt - I've followed Atheist Experience for some time and came to this after watching your debate with Dinesh D'Souza.
I'll admit to being naïve in this area (I'd never even heard of him before), but his arguments made no sense throughout the debate, whether we're talking beliefs or economics. It's fascinating watching the last section of the debate from a UK point of view, where you discuss universal health care; I can assure Mr. D'Souza that I don't visit the doctor needlessly because it's "free" (we do pay via National Insurance) or because I'm lonely. I'm often struck in conversations with my friends in the USA how lucky we are to have our NHS, because their concerns over health-care costs are dreadful.
Anyway - once found, count me in as a subscriber to your channel.
Love you Matt , love how you answer and how clear you are , you're a great voice
Yup enough said,,,, thx matt
My favorite part in the whole discussion was at the very end of the trans talk, he said something along the lines of "why did you change the subject to this?" When he brought the whole thing up in the first place.
Sorry I am so late to the party. Watched the debate yesterday and enjoyed it … thank you Matt. Love your work.
just want to say Matt thank you for your work it has big impact on those of us who arent moronic. Keep it up please ty.
I felt that D'Souza discussed like a child. He came across as very immature and irrational.
As far as Healthcare is concerned D'Souza should have a look at how us atheist/secular european countries do it. We do much, much better than the US and it is even cheaper.
Concerning the part about claiming to be a toad... If D'Souza claimed to be a toad I would believe him, no questions asked.
Here in the US healthcare for all would be feasible if not for the bloated military budget.
I europe health care is affordable? We pay 40% tax minimum, then need private health insurance as well. What is better about that?
Oh, but wait, to you Matt Dilldumbass is rational. Damn, you're stupid.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
I'm a fan of The Atheist Experience and have a lot of respect for Matt. His content has helped me improve and clarify my thinking on any number of topics related to my atheism. With regard to this discussion, I am one who felt he was far to lenient on the charlatan D'Souza and allowed him far too much time and leeway. I watched waiting for the "angry Matt" to wake up but he never showed up. I hope this Matt is more present on the show when he excoriating some poor theist fool.
With regard to this review video, I vehemently disagree with Matt when he says D'Souza wants what is best for America and that he is simply misguided. This strikes me as incredibly naive. D'Souza is as venal and self-interested a propagandist as exists on the right. He is part of a class of pasty faced, pimply assed, prep school propagandists working away in the bowels of billionaire funded think tanks grinding out talking points for right wing politicians and media outlets and making an excellent living doing it. That is why he always reverts to his bullshit bag of right wing propaganda.
The point about CEO compensation is a fallacy of biased sample: even if we admit that a brilliant CEO like Steve Jobs deserves an extraordinary compensation, that's one in a million CEO. The immense majority of executives are still just old style managers; to quote the same Steve Jobs in the story of his hiring of John Sculley, the CEO of PepsiCo doesn't do anything more extraordinary than selling water with sugar.
I didn't know he had so many following him. Very good job, as usual.
"Let me tell you what you think. But don't you *DARE* tell me my god isn't real."
This is such an old thing. These kinds of discussions are never going to be honest.
God is real and I have proof
@@lisapriola7927 Share, then.
@@mischarowe ok ua-cam.com/video/-iuGn9jSPmQ/v-deo.html there's my proof
@@mischarowe If God didn't exist then free will wouldn't exist
@@lisapriola7927 Free will doesn't exist.
What you theists keep *calling* free will is actually personal agency.
Agency definition:
Being able to make decisions. Like what you're going to have for breakfast.
The real concept of free will:
Having control over EVERYTHING - from your fate to other people.
That's *impossible.*
And btw, you don't get to say "if god didn't exist then free will wouldn't exist" as if those are the only options.
I have WAY more options than that.
Also: don't use youtube videos for *proof.*
The existence of things like the universe or singularities *DO NOT PROVE GOD.*
Nor does comparing a suction cup to an octopus.
All these are wishful thinking and fallacious.
When I asked you for proof I should've been more clear:
*Please provide proof that is both REAL, unbiased, AND from a scientific source.*
All your so-called response to my question does is show you have no idea what evidence or proof even *are.*
Provide GOOD evidence for the existence of a god. Or admit you have nothing.
I'm assuming D'Souza's wife thinks people pee in sinks.
He was hooked-up with one of those scrawny blonde Fascists that love Trump. I thinks she's smarter than he too. Did Trump pardon him for his felony? I think he was caught screwing someone other than his wife too. A good Christian spokesman.....
@@Longtack55
He was caught screwing someone other than his wife because he made illegal campaign donations in her name! Heh, heh. So, yeah, he's a great Christian spokesman, huh?
I loved that debate Matt. Matt, I really look up to you and you inspire me to be a better human and to be honest, if I was on The Atheist Experience I would probably be more impatient than any of you are. I love that show by the way. I sent you a friend request on Facebook.
Hi Matt, enjoy your videos, just wondering if you have one about when you changed your mind about christianity. what changed your thought process? and how did it affect your life and family.
As though it's a surprise he approaches ethical issues from a short-term selfish financial standpoint.
He is a republican isn't he ?
95% of Dinesh content is him just bullshitting unopposed in an environment friendly to him. 4.9% is him doing a formal debate where he does just strawman all day long and it's hard to get the audience to notice how often he is strawmanning in that type of venue. In your discussion with him, that was the most effective way I've ever seen anyone engage with him. He couldn't get his bullshit through when you had a chance to stop him from pitching that bullshit.
what camera are you usin here matt, such great quality
Is there a way to get hold of Matt? I have tremendous respect for him. I don’t know if he reads these comments? Or a better way to get in contact with him?
People have a hard time seeing from the other side’s perspective.
I think the religious have a barrier about wanting to understand the other side. Atheists seem to keep asking for clarification of the other sides position and not getting it. You seldom hear any creationist ask for clarification of a topic such as Evolution. They have an incorrect understanding of it and are defiant about not wanting their misunderstanding to be corrected - even when you have explained it to them!
@@mtbee9641 not a theist vs atheist thing. Roger's comment is just generally true, no matter the side.
Daniel Kazmer I agree in general it is true. My point was that when it comes to theist-atheist discussions I find that it is very much one sided and you seldom see creationists wanting to see the other side.
You mean the grifter was was mainly focused on money? Say it ain't so!!
Matt, I'm trying to follow your twitch channel but it doesn't let me follow for some reason.
Hopefully you go live and I can watch you play games or something.
Very interesting, Mr. Dillahunty. Thanks for your patient and production for discussion. Would be interested to see what you think of some of Plato's and Aristotle's discussions of the soul. Also, have you read Wittgenstein "On Certainty"? Think it would inform some of the discussion on epistemology / certainty with D'zousa. Wittgenstein also has some interesting lectures on religion. I don't agree with Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion on the whole, but he raises interesting points that might help you understand the position of some of your debate partners. Peace!
Hes against healthcare? OK, im against the military. Are we ready for taxes to be purely voluntary?
repubs are literally blind to this argument. it doesn't even get processed.
You’d be branded as a traitor and America hater for using this argument. It’s a sound argument but I can see exactly how it’d be turned against you.
@Jimmy TheBold I mean if you can’t differentiate why we can’t have private militaries around vs a privatized healthcare system then there is nothing that can be said further. The duty of gov is to protect property, liberty, and life. A public military needed to do those. A public healthcare system is not, don’t look the the US as the example for that look at Switzerland systems they have a private healthcare systems. That’s the difference between the military and healthcare.
@segurall1 yeah cause health care doesn’t protect people’s lives. Good one.
@Mabatch why aren’t you arguing for nationalization of the food industry. For nationalization of housing, and water. That would “protect” people’s lives. Didn’t think out your position too well. The military is a common good and its non rivalrous vs healthcare which is a common good but rivalrous. This means me and you aren’t competing for the protection of military, but we would be competing for resources from a gov provided healthcare system. The government should only provide non rivalrous common goods.
Taiwan has a fantastic and very cheap medical health system for everyone (and is coping very well with the pandemic). People do abuse the system and doctors tend to give you five different types of medicine for everything, even when you've just got a common cold and they make you come back every two days to get more instead of just giving you a week's supply of meds. There are definite downsides, but on balance it's a fantastic system and the people are well taken care of.
Almost everything has downsides and it feels like both sides in (especially political arguments) just point to the problems in the opponents system of doing things and think that's the argument won. You need balance and the acknowledgement there usually is no perfect solution.
Normally, I view the debate itself before I dig into the reviews... this time, I think, I'm going to skip the long version (blood pressure issues...) - thank you for the summary!
Hey Matt, nothing to do with this video but do you see yourself ever playing Star Citizen?
DD, in almost every position is based one or more logical fallacies
Healthcare? What's next, free ferraris for everyone? /sarcasm
I know you said you don’t read a lot of messages but I will still say thank you. You have been the voice that has shined upon the hypocrisy of this nation. Although I can’t say you are for certain on everything but you have by what I think is the closest logical reason to truth there is.
Thanks Matt,
Chris
It's almost like D'Souza isn't a smart person and shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
16:03 Matt, while I agree that the "toad" analogy was pretty bad, I'm going to call you out on your suggestion that "the evidence" indicates that the only people put at risk by using the restroom for their gender, are trans people. You referenced one case during the debate, of an assault on a trans woman, which didn't even take place in the U.S.; is this your evidence? As a person who studies social-engineering for a living, I must also say that your referencing this case in such graphic detail was overtly emotionally manipulative and made me lose a huge amount of respect for you as a thought leader. If a stupid person used those tactics I might be able to excuse it, but you're not stupid... you knew exactly what you were doing and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Omg... he mentioned this happened in Puerto Rico, a US territory.... it did happen in the US, and even if it didn't his point would still count. Cite your sources on Trans people attacking people in restrooms please, or stfu.
Not interested in watching this debate: painful pseudo intellectual tripe from the likes of Molyneux, Peterson et al. Why platform these fools?
It boggles my mind when people argue against a _better_ solution because it's not perfect (and someone might take advantage but probably wouldn't) so we should just stick with the current solution which is demonstrably unfair to a non-significant number of people.
Maintaining the status quo is basically the cornerstone of conservatism, isn't it?
Matt Dillahunty’s deconstruction of Dinesh’s “trans people are equivalent to someone claiming they’re a frog” argument is perfect.
Although, I would’ve gone even further.
For example, Dinesh’s argument is a “false analogy.” The way he sets up the “frog person” is wholly erroneous. This is because transgender individuals don’t act like other species. Transgender people-no matter how they identify or express themselves-are always going to talk to other humans, be social, have feelings, suffer from pain and being ostracized, speak in the human language, indulge in culture and religions, etc. He just uses an asinine analogy so he can delegitimize what transgender individuals go through-because he’s preaching to his ignorant choir.
I just dont think you should legitimize a felon, who really isn't much of a debater anyway. You are rehabilitating a criminal.
what's wrong with "rehabilitating a criminal"? And no, he's not "legitimizing a felon"
Hey there! I enjoyed the conversation with D'Souza and I think you did a great job knocking down his argumentation. There is though one thing I noticed that bothered me. First of all let me admit that I might just be reading the data wrong. I'm not an expert in anything to be honest. But there is this popular myth about 50% or more of the marriages ending in divorce. I know it isn't true in my country, but I don't think it is true for yours as well. I am looking at the pew research website right now, and the numbers (2015) are WAY below that. If anyone reading this thinks I'm misunderstanding the numbers in some way, please explain them to me.
I would be interested to see, when we know enough about it - can we monitor which parts of the brain are being fired up in each 'debater' .
Would you ever consider having another debate with D'Souza over similar topics with a more formal debate style?
What use would that serve.
He is a disingenuous lying Twaddle merchant.
@@davidwatson8118 first it feel it would be entertaining and I think matt would be able to use the first debate as an excellent template for how to demonstrate what you say to a comical degree
I remember feeling that matt was not as combatative as he normally is. Thought he might have some sort of strategy in accordance with the format of the debate. But it kind of fizzled out.
I always feel that you are forced to say things you shouldn’t have to say. So many ignorant people have so many ignorant ways of thinking. Thank you for what you do Matt
I had to re watch the debate....that pimpin ass jacket, Matt! Nice!
I was so curious that you didn't ask whether he realized that he had the burden of proof on the after-life matter. I mean, the list of things you can claim without evidence is endless. How do we then distinguish between believing an after-life for humans and believing every possible assertion about the universe is true?
Wow. I think that’s the best rant that I have ever heard from you. Well done sir!!! It restored my belief that there are Americans with big brains. Are you sure that you aren’t Canadian LOL. Just kidding, but if you are ever in PEI Canada 🇨🇦 I would love to sit down at the pub and blow the froth off a few and have a nice chat
Comment #1: D'Souza is a terrible debater as commented everywhere else on this page. Your reason for choosing to debate him is understandable. Thank you for taking one for the team. I know, I know, just had to say it anyways. Don't come after me.
Hey Matt - you’re a very smart guy so I’m sure you’ve already considered this - but - if I were you - I would take some time to think about the traditional debate structure and find a good way to divide it into segments of 30 minutes or less. This (somewhat obviously) makes it easier to digest for casual viewers and will result in more UA-cam views and hopefully more revenue for yourself.
If you’ve already considered and just haven’t found a way to do so without damaging the flow or structure of the conversation - a next best thing would be to split the debate video into 20-30 minutes clips (1 of 4, 2 of 4, 3 of 4, etc) and upload them that way. As a casual viewer, I rarely click on any videos that are longer than 30 minutes as I don’t usually have time to watch them all in one sitting. So when I run out of time and pause the video - UA-cam thinks I was just “done with it” and will never recommend it again. If the video were split into smaller segments, the 2 of 4, 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 segments would continue to be recommended to me and be in my watch next list. Without that - I have to remember that I was watching a Matt debate and didn’t finish it - browse my history to find it - and then UA-cam seems to be hit or miss as to whether it remembers the point at which I stopped watching. If it doesn’t remember, I have to do annoying scrubbing until I find the right place to continue from.
Just thought I’d mention this as it seems to be a Win-Win for you AND for your viewers. I enjoyed this summary of your debate (and watched the entire 27 minutes) - but looking at the 2+ hour duration of the actual debate seems ominous and imposing and don’t know how much (if any) I’ll remember to come back and watch.
When he went into the "Toad" bit I lost it, your reaction was priceless.
The setup and pay off:
ua-cam.com/video/yR_ueXuBiww/v-deo.html
your eyes become more prominent the thinner you get. love you, Matt!
Comment #2: As a Canadian and a pharmacist, I have to address his whole grocery store taker bullshit as I feel it insults my nation's health care system. First off, only medical visits and procedures are included. Medications, massage therapy, dental and other services are a mix of public (for seniors, social services) and private (most of us). But your visit to doctors, walk-in clinics, emerg, hospitals are covered. Your cancer treatment is covered. We have been debating a national pharmacare program for decades.
There are those who abuse the system, but those who treat and prescribe (Dr's, Nurse Practioners) are the gate keepers to services. I have a small, annoying cyst on my scalp which my doctor will only do something about if it becomes worse. Our system discourages waste and unnecessary tests or procedures. Period. Each province and hospital has BUDGETS.
In contrast, when my dad's angina worsened while being a snowbird in Florida, the hospital there did so many unnecessary and expensive tests because he had Provincial as well as private and travelers insurance. In the end, he paid nothing, including the medical helicopter with doctor and nurse back to Nova Scotia's health care network. (He had a very successful quadruple bypass and lived another 20+ years until vascular dementia took him from us in 2018.) My point is, with 3 insurances, the hospital saw him as a cash cow.
D'Souza, how does Canada deliver better, more efficient health care for one-sixth the cost and get a higher rating than the USA on all world health comparison studies year after year?! He assumes too much and wrongly, and he has the results completely backwards for the absolutely wrong reasons. Check your data before you come for my national health care, Bitch!
I'm done.
PS Looking forward to seeing you in Austin if the Faithless Forum happens in June 2021.
Never forget: Dinesh is a mouthpiece for billionaires like Koch and Wilks brothers. It's not by chance or lack of intelligence that he denies global warming ("climate change" was coined by the Republicans in the late 90s to downplay the effects, not by climate scientists as he claimed, that lying P.o.S) and violently defends the ineffective for profit health"care" of the US. His attacks on transgender people and pretty much any social progress stems from the same source.
@@MrZauberelefant You are right on "the money". Dinesh is what I call an "Excusionist ". He makes excuses so that others (billionaires) can justify what they do, at least in their greedy little minds. So in that way, he is their mouthpiece and also their puppet. I'm sure he is ok with that as they let him live in their world. Such a pathetic individual.l
@@johnd.9 In my native tongue, we have a term for those people that translates to "mouth for hire" or "Mouth wh0re" which is a bit more to the point than the english terms.
The whole discussion regarding health issue in the US is such a weird thing to me. In Germany we all chip in. The more you earn, the more you chip in. There is a limit to the amount you have to pay monthly. However, I am more than happy to know that anyone can just go to the doctor and get treatment and not have to worry about working or losing their job. And no, you cannot just go to to the dentist and demand new teeth and other things. The dentist first has to write you a paper that in which they recommend that you get teeth renewed or replaced because otherwise you will just get more sick later. Then you send the whole thing to the insurance company. Then the insurance company decides if they will pay it all or just some part of it. There are a lot of factors at play in this decision too. if they are in doubt, they have their own doctors and dentists to examine you and decide if your dentist's recommendation makes sense. I am sure that some people could find a way and abuse the system, but it is still pretty well regulated and I think it is a small risk to have considering that it improves and maintains everyone's life.
And even if the whole system is flawed at first, it is not set in stone. You can add or remove services and tighten or loosen regulations depending on different cases. What is even greater is that the employer too has to chip in half of the amount.
The US has one of the worst healthcare systems on the planet. There's a reason that the number one cause of bankruptcy here is medical debt.
I enjoyed this talk. I'd like to hear more of your reasoning skills used for more political ideas. I think you could do a lot of good in that area.
Yeah, Matt. Show your reasoning. Oh, darn, you lack that.
ua-cam.com/video/dcEqnc2qdAM/v-deo.html
Matt says abiogenesis is not completely understood but possible.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Don't forget information, Matt. It's kind of important for life. And no, it can't come from chaos.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
He says how creation is not completely understood and probably never will be although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation any body's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good. Then Don throws in, so it's like a god-of-the-gaps thing, right?
Matt does the typical atheist two-step. He can't answer the question, ignores what we KNOW, brings up the big bang that he has no idea what he's talking about, then throws in how creationists stick God in there because it makes them feel good.
He brings up the big bang. Not only is it stupid as it is, but it has nothing to do with creation.
"----Misconceptions----
The following is a partial list of misconceptions about the Big Bang model:
The Big Bang as the origin of the universe: One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.----"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Then, if that was not stupid enough of Matt to bring it up, he also says of the big bang, ---"although the big bang cosmology is probably the best explanation anybody's ever going to come up with and oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math but there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Again, ----"oh by the way it's confirmed by observations and math"----
NO, it's NOT!
But wait, Matt has more stupid flowing from his brain, ----"there's still little areas where we don't understand so they stick God in there because it makes them feel good."---
Let's look at those ----"still little areas"---even though this has nothing to do with answering creation.
ua-cam.com/video/P-B2hACS0dQ/v-deo.html
creation.com/big-bang-smoking-gun
ua-cam.com/video/lRP3tA_leZw/v-deo.html
kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
ua-cam.com/video/HrNclw25jCc/v-deo.html
Dumbass Matt does not even know BASIC science that proves creation can't happen naturally. He says ----"creation is not completely understood and probably never will be"---yet we KNOW now that creation had to happen supernaturally. Now, if Matt has the science to prove that the laws were not present or needed when we got creation, he must offer proof of that. Matter of fact, Matt must offer how we got the laws of nature to begin with out of chaos.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but....., not to Matt. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
Matt can't get around that, period. Matt is a dumbass with dumbass followers. He's the typical dumbass atheist doing the atheist two-step to avoid facing the reality of what creation shows, a supernatural God.
@@2fast2block I realze you are probably not very bright but for sure you are very confused.
Do you feel he debated honestly? Wasn't he just waving at Turning Point to give him checks?
I think the assumption from the religious that their belief and others non-belief are on equal footing, needs to be highlighted a lot more because that is how most religious people operate. Once someone realizes they are not equal the religious claims can be more easily dismissed.
I hope there’s a part 2. I was a little disappointed that they moved away from Religion to other subjects. Matt’s great in that area.
On Dinesh defense, people that work in the housing market have never lied and have never been wrong, right?
It should be clear to anyone who plans to debate this D'Souza guy in the future, that one of the things that should be included in the reading of the rules/format for the debate is a clear description of the expression, 'Gish-gallop'. It will either prevent it, or at the very least make it very apparent for an opponent to point out, and for the audience to understand that objection instantly.
Love ya man. Hope your staying happy and healthy.
You crushed that debate.
Hi @Matt. Love the discussion and am great fan of you. People only hoard free stuf if it is needed and if there is potential scercity of it in outlook. or if it was scerce and now sudenly is free accessible and not regulated. - But no one wil hoard free stuff just because it is free... (have not seen people stealing sand from the beach just because it is free...) nor hoard yellow pages books
as to beliefe / disbelief - I think it is hard to grasp by most people - espacially when rised in religious beliefe that if you do not belive A you believe that A is not true - people seem not to be able grasp the idea of witholding judgment. thgey just immedietly jump to conclusion that you assume the oposite judgment. in which case where there is no evidence toward anyu of the propositions both belifs are un rational...
regardless great show - I would like to see more discussions/conversations like that...
I wonder if behind his bad analogy about milk being a right vs healthcare being a right, is the issue of abortion, rather than someone abusing the system in other ways. He might actually object to universal health care on the basis that women would have more access to abortion.
He reminds me of an ongoing debate I had with a climate change denier relative. I would be arguing my case with scientific evidence by climate scientists, NASA, etc. and he would respond with the opinions of economists, oil industry executives, etc. He would reject my evidence as untrustworthy as it was funded by the government, and of course I would reject his "evidence" as irrelevant or not supported scientifically. We couldn't find common ground.
But when you pointed out that there's plenty of evidence of oil companies and the Pentagon taking Climate Change seriously?
It didn't matter. He rejected that as propaganda since he had plenty of articles from business claiming climate change was a hoax or conspiracy. It wasn't worth continuing after a while. However if you want an insight into the opposite mindset, I could paste an exchange below.
NICE TO SEE Matt's view of that evening. I watched his "debate" with D'Souza, and was wondering why in the world D'Souza couldn't address the topics. Eventually I figured out that D'Souza was determined to ensure he kept the dialog limited to words Trump would approve.
I agree with your analysis of the debate. From my perspective Denesh D'Souza embarrassed himself with his clumsy claims and and his desperate and helpless analogies. But, I wonder how his followers think about this debate and your arguments. Did D'Souza publish a video in which he revises the debate, too? I would like to study the corresponding comment section. All the best!
I, Matt, and Billy corgan are about the same age. Its interesting how much we've all changed in the last 12 or so years.
It's not fair to compare Thanos's beliefs with Dinesh D'Souza's. Thanos may have been wrong but at least his motives were demonstrated to be altruistic as shown by the fact that his selection of who lived and who died was completely random, including himself. D'Souza on the other hand is clearly motivated by selfish interests as proven by the fact that he was concerned by what happened to his pocket book and the fact that he went to jail for trying to skirt the laws for one specific political party. If D'Souza had his hands on the levers of power do you think for one second that he would be fair in choosing who gets to enjoy certain privileges and who has to suffer certain consequences?
It was a great debate Matt. You did a great job exposing D'Souza for the subhuman he is. It's nice to see a new atheist not being a reactionary grifter. It would be great if you had a debate conversation with a leftist like Richard Wolff, Michael Brooks or someone similar. I'd love to hear you discuss the far left in terms of transitioning to democratically owned work places and things like that. Keep up the good work.
Where is the debate?
Normally these videos are about analyzing what went well and what could be improved. This one was more about rehashing the same points from the debate...
I wish you would steelman more. I liked that in recent times.