Hours and hours of debate and at the end of it all, not a single reason to conclude Scrivener's god is real. What a dumb god he must be. He wants everyone to believe in him so that they may be saved but he just won't provide any evidence for his existence. Actually, even worse yet, when people fail to reach the conclusion he exists, he blames them. Truly a wonderful god he is.
These are actually not contradictions. They are just problems with people not paying attention. Just as an example with the first one: Matt doesn't say we can use data and studies in some cases, but not in others. What he says, SPECIFICALLY, is that the Studies presented to him HERE, he thinks aren't good enough BECAUSE HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH THEIR METHODLOGY. He says this very clearly, straight out. He even gives an example (about self-reporting of happiness). So, if you listen to what Matt actually says, it's not that he cherry picks WHEN we can use data and studies, he is consistent with the fact that when you look at studies and data you need to do this CAREFULLY. Not ALL studies and data are equally valid. If you think that's a contradiction... do you think that ALL studies are valid, or that you can never question a methodology? So yeah... really not contradictions here. Just a problem with what people chose to hear and how much nuance they are willing to employ.
They absolutely are contradictions. Dillahunty regularly contradicts himself because he habitually adopts whatever position is most convenient for him to adopt no matter how many times he gets exposed for switching up his stances whenever anyone tries to hold him to account for his views.
Massive amount of word salad to justify the belief in some magical being that was created in ancient times. You summarise what the other said then attack the summary you, yourself make. Why are you so scared that someone may not believe the same thing you do? You realise you come off as pitiful.
@@Samuel-qc7kg How? I see no proof whatsoever. I see that the more we learn, the more we realise we are ignorant. But that is the curse of learning. Are you saying that where you see a lack of knowledge god must exist?
@@CraigGriffiths No, that would be putting God in to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. I am saying that there is a lot of phenomenon that can be explained perfectly with God, like the origin of the universe and the existence of things such as morality for example. You should check the information out, it is pretty interesting.
@@Samuel-qc7kg no I can say the same of puppies. So much can be explained by the existence of puppies. Morality is an outcome of evolution. Not god. Saying god is responsible for morals or that morals only exist because of god is completely wrong. It is like arguing with someone, the first person to say “you are inflexible” owns that truth. The other person sounds like a parrot just repeating. I am insulted to my bones by the notion that the only reason I am a good person is because of a fantasy you have told yourself. I don’t own a slave, but the bible says I can, I don’t call other people sinners because of who they love, but the bibles says I can. I have morals that would be lost if I followed the bible. Morals my ass.
@@CraigGriffiths Man, evolution can explain our actions based on how something helps us survive. It can explain where did we get some of our moral values, but it doesn't explain why those things are objectively morally good. And, lets say, I have the urge to kill and steal someone elses things because I haven't eaten anything for a week. It goes according to my instinct to survive even at the cost of that guy's life. But you can tell me that what I did is wrong. Evolution can explain why we act certain way to favor our survival but it only goes so far as to explain our whole moral values. And well, you can have your subjective morality and don't need God to have it. But to explain the existence of objective morality you need a greater being to ground its basis. It is clear us humans are not the basis as we disagree a lot on what is morally good and bad. And if you argue that morality is not objective then you must accept that you and I are not better than Stalin or Hitler, we all just have different opinions. It means that you saying "owning slaves is bad" is as moral as me saying "owning slaves is good". And as an extra, I find it funny how you mentioned love at the end there. I know you are talking about gays and lesbians but love is not the issue here. If I told you I will try to seduce someone elses wife because we love each other you would oppose to that. Love is not the issue here, that is a big strawman. Not trying to be rude here, but the examples of slaves and gays isn't very good considering that is not what the bible promotes. This comment is too long, so let me just put a link to a video explaining why if you are interested. ua-cam.com/video/93JdjLqBQqE/v-deo.html
This video reminds me of when I’m playing golf and I hit a horrible tee shot. Then I take another shot and hit it even harder to make up for the first bad shot, but end up just making it worse.
Good grief. You should be ashamed. Matt (I'll call him Matt, too, though it's not as if we are on a first-name basis) responded to your assertion of methodological issues within Paul's publication by pointing out that there are methodological problems inherent in some of the "data" within the (unidentified) studies you mention. He gave an explanation of such a problem with a specific example that is easily verifiable and debases a specific thing you mentioned (self-reported levels of "happiness"). When Matt later wants to go to data, you accuse him of contradicting his earlier claim that we can't trust any data. But that wasn't his claim. His claim was that your (unidentified) studies have known methodological problems, not that all data are unreliable. In fact, in your own attempt at a takedown (this video), you include the clip of him specifically saying that it depends what data are being looked at. But, of course, you should have known that he was never saying that we can't trust any data because he referenced the Paul data in the first place. So, well, you have no out here. It's just demonstrably wrong for you to assert that Matt said that we can't trust data. Worse, you did the debate/discussion, you did a post-mortem, and then you STILL thought that this was something that you were correct about and even led this video with it. If I were you, I'd be thoroughly embarrassed. I don't know whether you're actively being dishonest, *but* -- if not -- you're inexcusably sloppy. Seems to me you owe Matt and your watchers an apology.
Michael Tilley it’s a very simple point and you’re throwing a lot of rhetorical energy into making it difficult. For Matt, “the data” is contested and hard to measure when discussing religion’s contribution to present wellbeing, but we’re then meant think it’ll be straightforward to measure when it comes to a genocide’s contribution to future wellbeing. His use of a single 15 year old study in the face of a tide of research flowing in the other direction is silly enough (especially when its shortcomings have been repeatedly pointed out to him) but worse still is his faith that studies of potential wellbeing in the future could ever be a source of moral agreement. Of *course* it depends which data you’re looking at. That’s my point. If Matt’s prepared to privilege Gregory Paul over other data it’s laughable to think we can objectively assess “the right data” with the much more difficult task of assessing *future* wellbeing.
"it’s a very simple point" It is, but you lie about it. "and you’re throwing a lot of rhetorical energy into making it difficult." You're just lying. It's not difficult. He didn't say that we can't ever use data for this. Your argument about Matt's alleged self-contradiction relies upon the notion that he did. So, yes: Simple. You're lying. I could keep it that simple, but you keep piling on the lies. "For Matt, 'the data' is [sic] contested and hard to measure when discussing religion’s contribution to present wellbeing" There you go lying again. He explained one specific reason why one specific example that you explicitly mentioned shouldn't be relied upon. (That's it; that's all he could do with specificity because you always do nothing but hand-wave toward unidentified thousands of studies instead of citing anything concrete.) You are dishonestly extrapolating that statement to "we can't rely on any data about this entire subject," even though that is very evidently not his view based on things he *actually* said. Thou shalt not bear false witness, sinner. It appears that you think Lying for Jesus™ is cool. "in the face of a tide of research flowing in the other direction" 1. You keep representing Paul's paper as if it's the only one in 15 years to come to that conclusion. Now, I suppose that you might be just too uninformed to know of the plethora of others rather than you just being profoundly dishonest, but either way your argument fails. 2. You keep mentioning this tide yet not identifying any of it. At one point, I think you said "thousands" of studies. List them by title and publication, please. Two thousand minimum, per your descriptor of "thousands." "... Matt's prepared to privilege Gregory Paul..." Note that your first responses to Paul's study were the genetic fallacy and well-poisoning. Even if we were to grant that Matt were somehow being disingenuous or unfair, it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The hilarity is that you accused Paul of cherry-picking data, but he specifically looked at indicators that evangelicals (or at least, people named Glen Scrivener) insist religiosity influences in a good way: homicide rates, suicide rates, life expectancy, plus teen pregnancy rates and STD rates -- I'm not sure that you mentioned these last two, but I hear all kinds of emotional hand-wringing about them all the time from the religious. These are indicators that do not suffer from the same sampling problems as the self-reporting bias Matt objects to regarding asking Mormons to tell us how happy they are. So when you pretend that the objections are equivalent, you are either mistaken or (again) actively dishonest. And let's face it: If you're making these arguments while not *trying* to be dishonest, you have cognitive issues. Moreover, even if Paul *did* cherry pick those specific indicators but left out other indicators that the religious allege should be correlated to show the impact of religion, it would still debase the argument that religion has a special positive impact on these specific problems. I'm no Matt, but you suck at this.
Hey Glen, what about the contradiction of your position against mass genocide? You seem to be morally opposed to mass genocide, yet how can you explain the mass genocide commanded by God to the Israelites of the Canaanite women and children; and of God’s killing of all the Egyptian first-born sons? And before you argue that that was the Old Testament, isn’t Jesus quoted in Matthew 5:18 as saying that he has not come to change “a jot or tittle” of the [old] law?
4th, him stating that there are more than one way to define objective morals, in NOT a contradiction! Nice try though. No intellectual person would fall for this garbge.
Pointing out four inconsistencies in Matts arguments doesn't constitute a reasoned argument for the existence of a god. It merely proves that Matt is human.
Good grief mate he seemed pretty humble and calls himself at times in the debate "rediculous" at beginning...sooo if he can be humble at times and say some of his arguing can be rediculous I don't know what you want full submission to your ideals and values?
The key is, he didn't say you can't rely on studies, rather he said you cant rely on "the studies". This suggests that he found something wrong with how the proposed studies were done. Which may or may not be the case with other studies. So you would have to critique each study based on it's own merit.
Yeah... A bit of dishonesty going on hear adding to what was not previously in the debate. Plus the fact that bringing up these 1000s of studies instead of addressing the questions in the debate is also a bit dishonest because it wasn't part of the debate and Matt never came to debate these studies. It's a dishonest tactic....
@@mnguardianfan7128 Yes, I sincerely do. I think he thinks he knows what he is saying. But doesn't have the knowledge of God so therefore, cannot know. If you've been indwelled by the Holy Spirit, you know it. If not, you do not.
I wish Matt would respond to these contradictions to see his position on this. This debate could have went on for hours more and I would have been excited to listen to it. I have not b become dedicated listener of Glenn
You can actually figure those out yourself. They are not contradictions. They are just problems with people not paying attention. Just as an example with the first one: Matt doesn't say we can use data and studies in some cases, but not in others. What he says, SPECIFICALLY, is that the Studies presented to him HERE, he thinks aren't good enough BECAUSE HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH THEIR METHODLOGY. He says this very clearly, straight out. He even gives an example (about self-reporting of happiness). So, if you listen to what Matt actually says, it's not that he cherry picks WHEN we can use data and studies, he is consistent with the fact that when you look at studies and data you need to do this CAREFULLY. Not ALL studies and data are equally valid. If you think that's a contradiction... do you think that ALL studies are valid, or that you can never question a methodology? So yeah... really not contradictions here. Just a problem with what people chose to hear and how much nuance they are willing to employ.
@J w There's no such thing as "no proof to you". There either is proof or there isn't. Because somebody calls a personal experience proof, or picks out a bible story and calls that proof, that doesn't make it proof or even evidence. It's not about being "right" either. It's about holding the most rational position given the lack of proof.
@J w So you agree that billions of people believe something for which they have no proof? Can billions of people believe a God into existence? Most scientists, by the way, are agnostic or atheist. The ones who believe in God do not hold to their belief because science supports it. They leave God behind once they put on the white coat and enter the lab.
@J w I do agree that simply not believing doesn't mean God isn't there. But the time to believe it is there is when it is demonstrated. I'm interested to know what "evidence" you believe "leads to God". And is this "evidence" something that can be evaluated objectively?
Another bible apologist pretending not to have read what his book actually says about slavery. Glen acts like the Bible only talks about hebrews taken as slaves while ignoring what it says very clearly about foreign slaves. How pathetic!
Except that king who started the process of abolishing the slave trade. Began the process based on an economic view point. Same way those who were on the ships that did it, were highly paid both financially and socially.
Cowplunk I do, the problem is atheists skim across the top of the verses about ebeds (bond servants) in the shallowest of ways. I’d have to write a lot to explain it, go look up what theologians write, not atheists with an axe to grind who probably haven’t even read the ‘whole’ bible once, let alone recently
@@scubaguy1989 No, the problem is that the Bible's stance on the morality of owning human beings is as muddy as you can possibly get, and the fact that you need to write an essay to explain it just proves that.
You got to be joking 😂.Most of the time he has no idea what he is debating, you got to be his die hard fan to believe in his ideology which is not to have any of anything
@@sabyfernandes5804 I think the first century person who was called Jesus and is believed to be Christ by many is more convincing than Matt. What do you think?
??? Sounds like a retail worker who is the "weak chattel" in this Our Great Economy... Keeping this individual (with Downs Syndrome or not) out of a union will prevent Economicide... ??? Yeah, Matt buried your ass, with all off Matt's faults and meandering assertions aside.
When you say ultimate foundation and the skeptic side can't give that.. you are missing the point of the differences between us completely. We are saying we believe, sincerely, your claims come from men making things up. So saying you don't have an ultimate source to US is not something that resonates. We do not believe you do either, just a situation of our ancestors claimed a god wants this, so that's our answer. Having a nuanced position that says evaluate the facts of the case, is a correct answer.. Because what if the better fix is not "kill Hitler", but put in a better society that does not produce a Hitler in the first place? Saying my god endorses killing Hitler sounds like "justice", but how did you confirm this was blessed or not? If it was not blessed, how would you know? To me this is the fundamental problem of theism. Too many contradictory conclusions, each thinking they are right, but no means of clarifying what , IF ANY, are true.
0:37 - you didn’t discuss 1000s of studies. You stated that there were thousands of studies. Big difference. Please link the 10 best. Contradiction 1 isn’t a contradiction. In the first part well being has been defined and the method of data collection is being questioned. In part two Matt is talking about the data used to define welling in the first place. 5:10 - that is not humanism 101. It is much more nuanced than that. The main challenge is weighing up the benefit of the majority against the individual, which you both touched on. Matt was quite right to say he doesn’t know because it will depend on the circumstance. So again, not a contradiction. Contradiction 3 again not a contradiction just a failure to take off the apologist glasses. 9:08 - Matt says that he does not believe there is an objective basis for moral values. That is, once you have a subjective basis, i.e. well-being, you can apply objective parameters to assess whether it meets the criteria. This follows on the second example, so again no contradiction. Contradiction 4... see “contradiction” 3 above
So what about the entire debate you think contradicts the points mentioned here? Those contradictions from Matt, and others, you can see by watching the Atheist Experience and other debates of his..
@@rajeshshetty4862 Well said!! The Dilahunty dodge as usual!! One of the biggest problems with moral subjectivism/relativism and the elephant in the room is that it is clearly self defeating because its “truth” implies its falsity. The fact is that militant atheists such as Dilahunty conveniently claim that morality is “subjective”. But if this statement is “objectively true”, then it refutes moral subjectivism because if it is objectively true that "all morality is relative," then the statement itself is an example of an objective truth. So if “all morality is relative" is objectively true, it is objectively false. This is why theists find it unbelievably ironic when materialists/atheists appeal to logic and “truth” when “truth” and subjectivism is a metaphysical that is a philosophical claim and “truth” including the idea that subjectivism is “objectively” true, are metaphysical presuppositions that is transcendental categories and universal preconditions that have been borrowed from monotheism and can not be justified or grounded in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. Because everything is just atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities under the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. Secondly morality can not be grounded in the materialistic reductive account of reality and existence or the (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) without reaching an absurdity. This is because the appeal to material reductionism is a (Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness) as knowledge, teleology and ontology, that is conscious agents/beings who experience mental events, meaning and purpose and moral decisions are clearly more concrete than (Explanatory Abstractions) such as “material reductionism” and the (Appeal to Nature Fallacy). The (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) tries to draw a conclusion about how things “ought” to be based on claims (Explanatory Abstractions) concerning what “is” natural/physical, as if abstraction such as physicalism, naturalness and materialism was itself a precondition and authority regarding questions of value and “truth”. When it clearly isn’t as this claim can not itself be justified and is a “truth” claim that is a philosophical claim to a universal precondition and a metaphysical presupposition that ironically can not be grounded in naturalism/materialism itself. For example according to the prominent moral subjectivist, scientific populariser, pragmatist and utilitarian Richard Dawkins the belief that the rape and murder of a child is depraved and evil is as “arbitrary” as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. This clearly commits the (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) and the (Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness). Equally, the parents of children who have been raped and murdered, the parents belief that this was evil and depraved is clearly more concrete than Dawkins cold logic and callous (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) and appeal to explanatory abstractions. Because the burden of proof is on Dawkins to “prove” that the rape and murder of a child isn’t evil and depraved and is just unpragmatic, subjective and un-utilitarian. Most normal people naturally recoil in disgust from Dawkins callous response to the horrific rape and murder of a innocent child because it is clearly an (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) and a (Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness) and is a disgusting and repulsive response to get from someone who is supposed to be an exemplar of Humanism and science. Similarly, I found it chilling that Matt Dilahunty couldn’t even admit that all people have value just to hold onto a dogmatic atheism. It’s hardly surprising that many people find objective morality so unbelievably compelling and that for a lot of former atheists it was a big part of the reason they rejected their strict atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism. Or they rejected their atheism for deism or panentheism which is why Einstein rejected atheism for the God of Spinoza as it created a moral framework justified and grounded in the fundamental nature of a supreme mind and consciousness. Thirdly Matt commits the (subjectivist fallacy). Because if “truth” was a function of what individuals believe, then those people would be infallible and could not possibly be in error about anything that they sincerely believed. The Nazis believed they were achieving the greatest good for themselves and the greatest number of people who were compliant to their “superman” Nietzschean philosophy. But history clearly demonstrates that “Social relativism" suffers the same self-contradictory fate as moral subjectivism/relativism. “Social relativism” like the Nazis social theory initially has the illusion of appearing more friendly because it poses as egalitarian but if “truth” is relative to what’s most popular in society at best we reach an absurdity and at worst the results are horrific for the most vulnerable in society. Under the strictly materialistic/atheistic reductive account even the nurses and doctors who demonstrated empathy, altruism, compassion and unbelievable bravery and sacrificed their lives during the pandemic are reduced to nothing more substantive than biological and chemical robots. Equally, this view that peoples families and children are nothing more than biological and chemical robots is (Question Begging) of the highest degree because no one even knows what “matter” is. Under moral subjectivism we want to respect all societies as equal, social relativism is attractive. But, like moral subjectivism/relativism, if “social relativism” is “true” then the beliefs of whole societies cannot be mistaken. But the warnings from history in the form of the Nazis Third Reich clearly demonstrates that this is not true and is actually a very naive philosophy to accept as “social relativism” coupled with intellectualism, utilitarianism and cold pragmatism is at best absurd and at worst dangerous and horrific. The Nazis clearly demonstrated that you can’t get an “ought” not out of an “is”. So the fact is that the belief that “truth” and values such as morals and ethics can be justified and grounded in moral subjectivism is clearly a materialistic/atheistic fantasy as personal infallibility is, obviously, absurd, and incoherent and this weighs very heavily against moral subjectivism/relativism rendering it incoherent but very convenient for the agenda of evil dictators.
@@SpeakLifeMedia We give value to members of our species, exclusivley and to an extent beings that either look like us, look like a human, or have garnered some sort of meaning to us. The mind is where value begins and ends. That is why unless it's your pet dog, youre not actually going to waste energy bitching at china for eating dogs. It is the mind that one thing that gives value. That is why we like or dislike other people and despise some more than we do others in spite of the fact that theyre all supposed to be valuable. It all depends on a complex network of things that each person offers to the table, and that may vary from person to person on how that thing can be benefitial. Value CAN BE assigned to you, without you even doing a single thing for society, because we as a species value actual doing as much as we value potential of doing. If you're a pretty girl for example, you will be valued because the human brain has grown to recognize patterns of goodness and physical health in a pretty face, and most people who look at that will give value back because that physical attractiveness is something beneficial for the person who has a positive exchange with the attractive person. Just the fact that you're a direct descendant of someone else already puts you in a position where you MEAN something important to the other person without even intending to. Your mother or father would not treat as lovingly as they do now, were it not that theyve created a bond with you over the fact that you came from them. You were not intrinsically valuable to them. A set of circumstances following your development and birth have garnered you as valuable to them from the get go, but to anybody else you serve a lesser role and deserve less of their attention. Pure empathy is simply a side effect of our condition as a social species in order to cooperate and reach our goals in easier and better ways, which to the core pretty much means surviving(including beings of our likeness, aka. family), reproducing and experiencing life in easier ways.If you think really hard about it, it is impossible for a person to actually do anything virtually selfless. Even the most loving being: God who has been forward about loving others but despising others in the bible, died to save the people he DID choose and love, and has done so knowing that in exchange he would garner their entire devotion and exaltation. People who go out of their way to serve people they dont even know, at the very minimum do so because of a self conception they have about their selfelssness, and thus their status as moral beings, or the perception that theyre fulfilling THEIR purpose,or even because empathetically it FEELS GOOD and EMPOWERING to be a provider due to our drive to be social and cooperative to each other. There is always some sort of thing to be gained out of even the most selfless act, so there is no reason to believe that it is because you have a gravitational divinity about you that compels others to give or owe you and your.doings. We measure things in value to the things we consider as part of ourselves or as part of our goals, which serve only to serve us. This is how we pick freinds, partners, and lovers and why we value them, so that they will in exchange or hopefully at an understandable point continue to provide the things that we value them for. If in our heads the cons outweight the benefits at absurd levels, we then asses that it is better to leave the relationship or give less importance.We pick the ones that suit and fit us best, and put less emphasis on those that don't, because the things we value are usually the ones that guarantee an upward moving live. This is the real meaning that we have. We are or have at a superficial assumed level the potential to positivley benefit in the needs and lives of others. And by just looking or being a human being there is a wide array of things that you can do for those reasons that at the very least would make a stranger respect you. If we can put superhuman value to innanimate objects than so too can we give it to another living being who posesses as much of a possibility to become reliable to you as the object, Even if it is limp and cannot speak or hear, its parents already have deemed it valuable, or the simple fact that it breathes and therefore could become some sort of potential value in the future if its issues are solved later on. By just being that, we already give it value, but the underlying root behind it is that the value of their existence has been rooted by a set of factors that find some sort of value and so we still hedge our bets on it. Point is, that its really hard for any human being not to possess at least the appearance of potential value or push our sympathy due to how poorly its conditions may be. So value doesn't need to be earned in order to be something that does something for someone else
Mark Ballard totally agree. I disagreed with his points during the debate, but I had a great deal of respect for how he presented his views. Why produce this?
I have to ask since one of the trademarks of Dillahunty’s debates is that he tends to keep his views unclear to the point where anyone can be accused of setting up a straw man whenever attempting to pin him down on a stance
@@patrickmcardle952 I disagree, he is crystal clear to me, but I'd have to watch the video again, it's been a while. Since you've watched this video recently can you give me an idea where to start watching on the slavery issue?
Mark Ballard The contradiction here is that when Matt brings up slavery as his slam dunk argument against the bible he speaks as though slavery is objectively morally wrong and yet whenever they talk about his views on morality he talks about how he doesn’t believe that there are objective moral values. Christians online refer to this as the Hitchens two step - switching back and forth between morality being subjective and objective depending on which stance is more convenient to your narrative
Here's how you contradict yourself. You say that "all people are worthy of provision and protection" but then you argue that we would be justified in killing nazis. Well, which is it? You see how saying "all people are worthy of provision and protection" gets you absolutely nowhere in adjudicating virtually any moral issue? Matt was more careful because he saw the nazi problem. (also, just fyi, consequentialism is a form of objectivism) I don't agree with Matt about everything, but the idea that you get objective morality by making up a magical invisible being and basing morality on that is simply childish. It sure is easy to pwn people when they're not around to defend themselves.
Just because someone has human rights and dignity doesn't mean they're immune from prosecution for their crimes. It's precisely because they are fully responsible humans that we hold them to account for their crimes against humanity. My point regarding the unborn is that, as humans, they have such rights. And I'd further say that executing them for no wrongdoing whatsoever is the real crime against humanity.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Ah, so now you're saying people's right to "provision and protection" isn't absolute? So now you're saying "it depends on what they do"? That's exactly what Matt was saying. Regarding your second point, it follows then that you are in favor of the Government forcing you to donate your extra kidney while you are alive to people who need kidney transplants to live. After all, declining to do so will kill them. And likewise, according to your view, the Government should be able to force people to give blood and other organs and tissue they can survive without, in order to save the people who need them.
When did I say "absolute"? What I said was that all people are equally worthy of provision and protection by virtue of being members of the human family. I don’t know of any proponent of human rights who denies that the loss of liberty might still be a fit punishment for crimes, even if "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. You can take away a person’s liberty and do so precisely because you recognise in them an innate and equal human dignity that entails their full moral responsibility. Matt was saying something very different when Justin brought up the issue of the disabled. Matt was adamant that non-contributors to society do not *have* value, they must *add* value. He was very clear about that. If you think Matt and I are saying similar things on this issue, we must have been watching different debates. On the unborn, I’m simply saying (as does the hippocratic oath), that doctors should do no harm neither should they cause abortion. In normal circumstances the unborn will grow and be born. No-one need do any violence to any body. If we let nature take its course, we will have new life - and what a blessing that is. Add to this the fact that we have a duty of care to our children that we do not have to strangers. Further add the fact that the state has no right to redistribute our body parts and that there is a clear moral difference between intervening to cause death and refraining from intervening to cause life... what it all adds up to is good news! We can put down our scalpels. It would be absurd and wrong to mandate forced organ transplants and it is in fact most fitting to leave our children well alone and let them live.
He loss some sleepless night about the debate, and comeup with another video supporting this debate just to look arrogant and empty barell. Matt shows how Christian sounds like a scripted debate.
@Lucas Davenport Also said that you can beat your slave without punishment if the slave don't die in a couple of days... And it gives the reason why; "because your slave is your property".
Yes it absolutely does. Read Leviticus 25:44-46. Clear as water. If that immorality were in the Koran, or in *any other book* other than the Bible, you would condemn it without hesitation.
@@vejeke nonsense. like i said. recognizing that slavery exists does not promote it. that is clear as water. news flash ... the koran DOES promote slavery. islamic arabs controlled the international slave trade for centuries, and continue to this day. and i do condemn it. but i condemn islam in general for many more things than just slavery.
@Lucas Davenport Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they *are not to be punished* if the slave recovers after a day or two, *since the slave is their property.* I rest my case.
Matt’s saying that human life doesn’t have value in and of itself. WE give a thing (or a person) value. A dollar is a worthless bit of paper until we assign value to it, but it is valuable to us. My life is more valuable to me than your life, but I would put you before my computer if you were both stuck in a burning building. You should watch the debate!
I believe he was speaking about objective value. If you do nothing but sit and consume, you add nothing of *objective* value to a society... but when (at a minute and some change) he says something along the lines of “it depends on how you calculate wellbeing,” he was going to go on to say that there is *a* value in caring for the helpless. Like, it doesn’t matter (to me) how you treat my dead body when I die, but others in our society would be very disturbed to consider that their final wishes won’t be respected... It might not directly hurt our economy to kill the disabled, but it is going to have a real and measurable effect on my peace of mind if I know that I will be put down like a horse if I become paralyzed. That’s the secular reason not to be a nazi.
You actively haven’t read what I’ve posted on this comment’s thread, you’re late to the party, and you aren’t saying anything new. Humans don’t have an *inherent* value, just like a dollar is a only a worthless bit of paper. We give things an *intrinsic* value as a species. I’m not going to trade you my dollars for your computer paper, because dollars have value to me, and to our society. Taking care of the disabled, the sick, and the elderly has great value to me for many reasons. Mainly, I don’t want to live in a society where people are used up and cast away. Plus, a disabled person is still capable of contributing great things to the world. Another dude is commenting on this video and is putting it more eloquently than I could... Why don’t you read my posts, maybe read his, and watch the dang debate?
Correct.Christians have faith in Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and are saved by His grace. In such a condition they believe His word and by the indwelling power of the Spirit are able to grow in understanding.
@@HardKore5250 Given that God is by nature creator and sustainer he must intervene. If you don't think 'god' intervenes then you probably don't have God in mind. What attributes and qualities do you think God must have?
Sorry Glen but to refer to a study that asks the person how they feel about those topics is a self fulfilling loaded question Of course if someone “believes” their religion holds positive tenants and they want to follow those tenants it follows they are going to SAY they are being positively affected by them THAT IS NOT ANY KIND OF OBJECTIVE DATA, it is a self assessment that has cognitive biases ingrained within by design Asking about “how many babies do you have” is a loaded question assuming having a specifically designated to account for “well being” is utter nonsense. That’s the type of crappy entailment you have failed to recognize is contradictory to the idea of well being itself
I don’t remember the specific phrasing, but I watched the JP debate and the one that this video is about... in this video, Glen directly says something like ‘we’ve already tried secular humanism with the USSR’. I don’t want to watch the video again or I’d quote him. That is the point you all seem to be making, and if it isn’t, then why are you comparing secular humanism to communism?
My point was that secular humanism is a founding principle for communism. Communism has a foundation of humanistic science such as moral philosophy but didn't implement it much concerning the freedoms and rights of every individual. Rather it focused on the good of the society. Here check out this short article, it better explains the Connection of Humanism and Communism. Vgweb.org/manussa/MarxHum.htm
Abortion is not genocide. Abortion is just a termination of a pregnancy. Christians really tell it like it ain't. No one should debate this dishonest christian and give him free publicity.
@J w I would never be as arrogant as a christian and think of myself as a professor. However, there is one thing that's clear- I (and most of the world) are smarter than you!
@J w That's right! Keep spewing your piehole! You continue to prove the true hypocrisy of christianity! There's a reason why the bible and apologetics are the quickest way OUT of christianity! That is for those that can reason!
@J w Abortion is not genocide- Fact! Abortion is only a termination of a pregnancy- Fact! No one should give dishonest christians like this Glen guy free publicity- Fact! christianity is Hypocrisy- Fact! You are an asshat- Double Fact!
This kind of debates remember me the Matt and Peterson debate... and much like in that debate it really seems that they’re speaking different languages about different things... Matt is righfully addressing the problems that religions can bring and bring in a founded social morality... while Glen and Peterson are talking about the founded social morality and that cannot exist coherently without what they define as “God” (not the same classical definition of God)... argument that was made at the same lenght by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky... is like watching Marx and Nietzsche having a conversation about religion and morality, they’re both right at the level of analysis that they’re talking about; too bad that they’re talking about two different level of analysis and the conversation doesn’t go anywhere...
Petersons and Glens definitions of God are also different......one believes in an eternal creator who can literally create universes with the wave of a hand and peterson sees God as a metaphorical representation of all thats good with the western world/ everything we dont know/ cant explain.......... If peterson and Glenn had a debate about what god actually is they would disagree fundamentally.......which further proves how God can be exactly what you want him to be when you need him to be it. there is objective defintion of God......meaning that there is no True God, only millions of opinions about what the 'true' God means. Which is completely subjective.
matt is probably the weakest atheist apologist i've seen. He has only feelings and no science or good arguments for non belief. Inspiring philosophy embarrassed him pretty badly and you took his lunch money as well.....But his fanboys sure love this guy. lol
Matt is phenomenal when he’s debating uneducated Christians. When someone really pins him down he looks like a complete fool. Flip flop Dillahunty dodge.
I do not think the shrinking circle of humanity argument is a good one because everybody has a circle. If i took the stand that every egg a woman has is a human in the making, and therefore should be protected etc, it would lead to problems and abuse of women. They would basicly have to spend their entire life pregnant. You may think it is a silly stand to take, but i could say that you have an ever shrinking circle of what a human is......
I think why Matt's debate performances often look good is because he tends to take a position of incredulity or simply professes his ignorance when pressed on an issue, and so if the other side fails to convince him then it appears as though they lost and he won... but in a formal debate setting the goal isn't for interlocutors to change each other's minds, it's to persuade the audience. Can atheism deliver a better world? He doesn't know and won't say. This is why Matt lost. Exposing contradictions in his views is just salt on the wound!
@@michaeltilley7121 probably not, I'm a slow learner. Let's say, I'm not intellectually gifted. Any help you can offer to help me understand would be valued. Thank you so very much.
@@charlesmadison1384 Definition of materialism : A theory ( For many, a presupposition ) that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. This absurd "doctrine" teaches that this concept of the "fundamental reality" is rational. That this mindless source somehow has inherent causal power with the ability to manifest life and reason etc. Shalom/Peace
@@charlesmadison1384 Your welcome! It's the absurd belief that what is ultimately mindless, devoid of self-awareness and life, could have inherent causal power and accidentally cause life from non-life and beings who can think rationally. It is a belief that must accept the concept that our own selves are illusionary and therefore it is also self-refuting. There is much more that can be said as to why it is an absurd belief for understanding reality. It does not provide a logical foundation or a happy, loving, truthful social structure and behavior to live by. What Oneness can be derived from ultimate reality if it is ultimately mindless, lifeless and causeless? Shalom/Peace
Glen, God bless you continuously. Its the first time I saw Matt in such big dificulties. I hope soon or later he will realize how faulty are the atheists positions and he will find the path back to truth. He is an inteligent person and this will help
Religious give more than Secular to charities and in donations, at about a 9% difference. Yes, but they include what the religious give to Churches in that number. And isn't 10% the magic number when giving to your church?
Uber Sheizer nope. The New Testament contains no number. In the Old Testament there were set titles and optional offerings so you could end up giving around 30% some years. In the New Testament you give ‘cheerfully’ and ‘generously’ to the church and poor. Plus, the 9% more that you quote would not mean they were giving less than 10% of their income would it?
I don’t know what study Glen was citing when he said that. But remember that he is an Australian living in England. He might have been talking about English or Australian statistics rather than U.S. statistics.
@@petethorne5094 So the vast proportion of the donations by Christians go to their Churches. The Churches use that money to pay the clergy, employees, expenses. And they do not have to reveal where any of it goes nor how much to charities. Sounds to me like if you take the church donations out of the mix, Christians donate much less than humanists.
Uber Sheizer since you’ve given no source I can’t verify your claim. Do you have evidence for your view that Christians give less than humanists, or is that just a guess? Glen stated the opposite: that religious people give more to secular charities than non religious folks.
@Uber Sheizer You wrote, “And they do not have to reveal where any of it goes nor how much to charities.” You don’t say where you live, so I cannot comment about the laws in your country. However, in Australia, which is where I live, all churches, and indeed all organisations, must keep a set of books - account books. They detail everything about income and expenditure. And the books are audited annually by professional auditors. I would find it very difficult to believe that most, if not all, countries followed similar rules.
i'm a mormon for over 50 years ... and absolutely no one has ever asked me to present myself as happy. we are happy because we believe what we believe.
99.999% of people: the Earth is round due to solid evidence of the curvature of the Earth including different shadow length at different points, the horizon, and probably time zones. That one dude: out of personal animus, I went outside of my proper field of study and looked at the floor and saw it to be flat. Round Earthers destroyed. Don’t make so many hasty generalizations about the validity of MD’s arguments so that you can confirm your biases.
@@teamatfort444 yes. But I'm not speaking scientifically. I.e. when someone asks me if any animals live in my house. I'm not going to say my wife. Because that is obviously not what they are asking
These aren't really contradictions. In the first one he cleraly states that not all the data is trustworthy and that he doesn't always agree with the parameters. He says this again before his so called contradiction. Saying some data isn't a good representation of reality doesn't mean you can never use any data on that subject again. In the second one Matt makes an argument for secular humanism. (and justly points out that this clearly didn't exist in the sovjet union. Which Peterson tried to say.) Matt also in general thinks humans all have value making him a humanist. "In general" are the key words there ofcourse some people bring more value to the world through art, science and inventions. Some people also bring less value to world, like murderes for example. That's why he doesn't just say yes to the question. In the third one you clearly don't understand the more subjectif moralists like Matt. You're saying because he clearly believes slavery is wrong, he must believe in objectif morals. This is so wrong. He has made an argument about morals having to do with the general well-being of humans. Which is his opinion and for people with this opinion slavery is wrong. No objectif morals neccesary. I don't even agree that you religious morals ar objectif because the're based on the opinion that your god/religion is real. Saying matt acts like an objectivist is so wrong. The fourth one is kind of the same as the third one. For someone like Matt who believes that morality coralates to the general well-being of humans. Than yes, it is moral to fight the nazis. The nazis are slaughtering an insane amount of innocent people so killing the nazis will mean the general well-being of humans will rise because the slaughter would stop. But this only works if you agree with the first premise making it subjectif. The moment people agree with this premise you can look for the most objectif way to enhance the general well-being of humans (and yes the data about well-being isn't always trustworthy because of the different prarameters and how they were tested). I don't think you understood how matt's morality works but i still really enjoyed the debate.
Too many drugs have ruined Matt brain in some parts. He would of answered differently on the humanist question wow I was surprised. The answer is yes everybody should be cared for as long as they are not evil.
@J Gx7 I've already agreed that he is most likely citiing actual sources. Why are you having so much trouble with that? Any attempt at addressing the reliability of his sources will be a strawman fallacy.
@J Gx7 Did you just say that an ad populum fallacy is only a fallacy when you are referring to individuals without credentials on a specific topic? I'm going to assume that was a mistake because you appear to at least recognize fallacies. #1. First, that's not the argument from popularity fallacy. It's the (argument from authority fallacy) and you didn't describe that correctly either. #2. The argument from authority is not a fallacy because someone is citing someone who is without credentials. Saying that is the actual violation of the argument from authority. #3. You are thinking of an argument from FALSE authority which states that it is fallacious to cite someone who is the wrong authority, with respect to the wrong subject or field. #6. So what makes an argument from authority fallacious? It's when that's all the evidence you have. Is just the words from those you deem to be authorities. It's not a fallacy to say, (Hey look, these guys agree with me too!). It's a fallacy to say (Hey, these guys agree with me too, and that is why I'm right) #5. Lastly, I'm not interpreting anything. That would require me to be taking something he is saying, and attempting to rephrase it in a way that is analogous to his statement.
@J Gx7 But you shouldn't. Because that's not what the argument from popularity is. The argument from popularity is when you assert something is true because of the amount of people who believe in it or by how strongly they believe I it.
@@g3glo sorry, that you have not read all my posts. " orthodox christians " ... just like latter-day saints ... are christians. in fact ... some of the original christians. ( none of this protestant nonsense ) they teach theosis. theosis is humans becoming gods. that is the entire point of god creating and putting humans on earth. so we can become like him. ( let us make man in our image ) genesis 1: 26-28 logically, especially now that we understand that there may be multiverses ( perhaps an infinite amount ) we may become gods of our own universes. perhaps you should actually read john10:13.
You are a Mormon. In other posts you have admitted to Mormon doctrines such as Jesus Christ being Satan's spirit brother, Jesus being procreate by sex between god the father and Mary. Most damning of all you affirm you believe god became a god. These are not biblical doctrines nor have they ever been taught by the church. The question is, do you aspire to be a Christian? If you do then help can be provided. Do you want to be a Christian or Mormon? It's time to stop trying to be both and make a decision.
@@grayman7208 it seems you've made your decision to remain a Mormon and believe its teaching that god became a god, Jesus was procreate by god the father having sex with Mary and him being Satan's spirit brother. Now you're sticking with these beliefs would you now be willing to share, 'why I should believe what you believe?'
@@Stuffingsalad I'm just a wretched sinner with no hope of redemption of my own means. I simply depend on Jesus Christ and nothing but his righteousness. In fact, I'm not convinced debates like the video help. What's the point? Just read the comments. When did anyone say, you know I came in with this belief and he completely changed my mind? Both sides claim victory because neither side is able to give up their presuppositions. People end up being rude about their perceived opponents. Surely, it's pointless arguing. What's the point? is my question.
adrian clark Correct. A lot of people won’t change their minds or have no intention to. However, I wouldn’t say it’s completely pointless. People are sometimes swayed by both sides. People have converted and deconverted. Plus, sometimes it’s just fun.
@@Stuffingsalad people don't argue over pixies at the bottom the garden, the reality of Father Christmas or the FSM. Why bother arguing about gods which like pixies etc don't exist?
The slavery 'contradiction' is actually pretty easy to discern; if you say to someone "I'm going to leave now." and they say any variant of "You can't, I own you" that is patently, incontrovertibly immoral. You can call it 'slavery' or being a 'bondsman' or any number of other terms but if your relationship breaks down to one person claiming to own another as property it's wrong.
Can you walk away from a bank and not pay them without consequences? No you are a slave to them you must pay them ...of you do, you will receive the penalty for your actions...bond servants worked in this way.
I don’t think a god is humanist cause there is no choice but to follow gods commands. God’s commands are not all good especially all the killing that is not justified.
@@HardKore5250 the difficulty is that saying there are not absolutes but shade of grey is an absolute statement. There are ambiguous areas where wisdom is required. That's where we need to be gentle and considerate. Matt D needs to be treated with kindness and compassion, he's in a dark place mentally and spiritually.
@@HardKore5250 Mormons are some of the kindest and most likeable people you are likely to come across. However, kindness does not reconcile us to God. The bible says, "all our works are as filthy rags". I think Gray should be able to answer this question. He hinted before at the errors in Mormon prophets' teaching. If you follow their doctrines you're in relationship with imaginary gods not Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost as revealed in Scripture and nature. This is a helpful resource: carm.org/mormonism
I might be missing the point, but it's hardly surprising that religiosty increases wellbeing whether God exists or not. The sense of community and of security that believing brings is bound to increase wellbeing. That says nothing though about God's existence.
Point #2. Look at this dude, how dogma blured his morality just to retionalize slavery & defend his holy book. Maybe this dude is a pharoeh in his pass life.
5:08 - Contradiction #2 just proves that Atheism is rooted in racism and discrimination -- look at how Matt hesitates to admit that all humans have value.
There is no contradiction, and no, atheism is not rooted in racism in discrimination. All you need to do is look at the South during Jim Crow. What religion does the KKK follow? Oh, that's right, Christianity, you fucking turd.
docfate sorry bud not watching a 30 minute video from a radio show just for this. If you can summarize the point you wanna make that’s fine with me. Although I did watch a little of the video and I’ll go ahead and say that I don’t presuppose atheism.
It doesn't take long when listening to Dillahunty's responses/objections, to realize that no matter how sound the arguments against atheism are, how solid, justified, or powerful; he is going to reply with some kind of atheistic escape reply, "But... (and fill in the blank)". And absolutely none of his objections are knock down arguments proving the non-existence of God. I like what the former atheist C. S. Lewis had to say about the atheist, when he stated, "If you want to know the reason why someone is an atheist, just follow them home." Another of Lewis' quotes goes something like this: "A creature revolting against his creator is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower." What is hilarious is an atheist being angry at God whom they claim does not exist.
@@agnosticmoron6711 We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis. For example, we can prove that there is no living tyrannosaurus rex on the planet. You can prove that self-contradictory statements do not exist; such as there are no married bachelors. You can prove that there are no square circles. It is very easy to prove the non-existence of something. This is a popular argument in the atheist circle, but the sophisticated atheist does not use this argument because it is easy to dismantle. If you mean that you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don't exist.
@@WienArtist Thank you for replying to my comment. Do you think that atheists need to present a knock-down argument that proves the non-existence of god?
@@WienArtist Thank you for replying to my question. If we could use a geometric example, would you agree that there is no such thing as a four sided triangle because, that statement is self-contradictory?
Claiming it's just literature doesn't make it just literature. The bible is God's inspired word. It reveals the mind of God who is truth. It says mankind is made in his image. It is quite clear. The evidence is there for those who believe.
@@ephs145 it is a basic belief, however, I have not been presented with an argument to prove that it is true. I would argue that we attribute humans with relative value due to our development as a social species through natural selection, but to say that value is intrinsic implies that there is some sort of existential, cosmological, or spiritual purpose, which I am not convinced of either. I understand how one would come to this conclusion with a belief in a religion. For example: If I were to be convinced of Christianity, I would necessarily believe that the gods image argument supports intrinsic value. This, however, is a presuppositional argument that necessarily relies on, once again, the religion and it's scriptures being true.
How do I know I have the correct God(s)??? Is it possible I am donating my blood in the name of an Incorrect or False God??? Or buying or selling my slaves in the name of the Wrong Deity... ????
I thought you did a good job in the debate representing your viewpoints, and I appreciated the respect shown to each other. But this video does not shine a good light on you. Bring up those points during the debate, not afterwards. Or say I wish we would have had more time to discuss this issue. You come across as a sore looser in this video, and I am not sure you lost the debate.
why didnt you discuss this contradictions with matt? while he was in room with you?
instead of doing a video afterwards like a coward
Hours and hours of debate and at the end of it all, not a single reason to conclude Scrivener's god is real. What a dumb god he must be. He wants everyone to believe in him so that they may be saved but he just won't provide any evidence for his existence. Actually, even worse yet, when people fail to reach the conclusion he exists, he blames them. Truly a wonderful god he is.
Jack Burton the debate is about morality not about existence of God
@Robin Robbyns What evidence do they need that proves they don't believe?
@J Gx7 Kalam and fine tuning have been debunked. There is no 'flatline' on the topic of abiogenesis.
@@minutemansam1214 what do you mean, I'm interested in learning?
@@prayagjoy7201 If somebody claims morality comes from god proving its existence is an essential part of their argument
These are actually not contradictions. They are just problems with people not paying attention.
Just as an example with the first one:
Matt doesn't say we can use data and studies in some cases, but not in others.
What he says, SPECIFICALLY, is that the Studies presented to him HERE, he thinks aren't good enough BECAUSE HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH THEIR METHODLOGY.
He says this very clearly, straight out. He even gives an example (about self-reporting of happiness).
So, if you listen to what Matt actually says, it's not that he cherry picks WHEN we can use data and studies, he is consistent with the fact that when you look at studies and data you need to do this CAREFULLY. Not ALL studies and data are equally valid. If you think that's a contradiction... do you think that ALL studies are valid, or that you can never question a methodology?
So yeah... really not contradictions here. Just a problem with what people chose to hear and how much nuance they are willing to employ.
They absolutely are contradictions. Dillahunty regularly contradicts himself because he habitually adopts whatever position is most convenient for him to adopt no matter how many times he gets exposed for switching up his stances whenever anyone tries to hold him to account for his views.
very true he is very dishonest@@patrickmcardle952
This is poor and a misrepresentation of what went on. Poor show
Massive amount of word salad to justify the belief in some magical being that was created in ancient times. You summarise what the other said then attack the summary you, yourself make. Why are you so scared that someone may not believe the same thing you do? You realise you come off as pitiful.
Dude, that "magical being" is being confirmed more and more as science and oye understanding of the universe progresses.
@@Samuel-qc7kg How? I see no proof whatsoever. I see that the more we learn, the more we realise we are ignorant. But that is the curse of learning. Are you saying that where you see a lack of knowledge god must exist?
@@CraigGriffiths No, that would be putting God in to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. I am saying that there is a lot of phenomenon that can be explained perfectly with God, like the origin of the universe and the existence of things such as morality for example. You should check the information out, it is pretty interesting.
@@Samuel-qc7kg no I can say the same of puppies. So much can be explained by the existence of puppies. Morality is an outcome of evolution. Not god.
Saying god is responsible for morals or that morals only exist because of god is completely wrong. It is like arguing with someone, the first person to say “you are inflexible” owns that truth. The other person sounds like a parrot just repeating. I am insulted to my bones by the notion that the only reason I am a good person is because of a fantasy you have told yourself. I don’t own a slave, but the bible says I can, I don’t call other people sinners because of who they love, but the bibles says I can. I have morals that would be lost if I followed the bible. Morals my ass.
@@CraigGriffiths Man, evolution can explain our actions based on how something helps us survive. It can explain where did we get some of our moral values, but it doesn't explain why those things are objectively morally good. And, lets say, I have the urge to kill and steal someone elses things because I haven't eaten anything for a week. It goes according to my instinct to survive even at the cost of that guy's life. But you can tell me that what I did is wrong. Evolution can explain why we act certain way to favor our survival but it only goes so far as to explain our whole moral values.
And well, you can have your subjective morality and don't need God to have it. But to explain the existence of objective morality you need a greater being to ground its basis. It is clear us humans are not the basis as we disagree a lot on what is morally good and bad. And if you argue that morality is not objective then you must accept that you and I are not better than Stalin or Hitler, we all just have different opinions. It means that you saying "owning slaves is bad" is as moral as me saying "owning slaves is good".
And as an extra, I find it funny how you mentioned love at the end there. I know you are talking about gays and lesbians but love is not the issue here. If I told you I will try to seduce someone elses wife because we love each other you would oppose to that. Love is not the issue here, that is a big strawman. Not trying to be rude here, but the examples of slaves and gays isn't very good considering that is not what the bible promotes. This comment is too long, so let me just put a link to a video explaining why if you are interested.
ua-cam.com/video/93JdjLqBQqE/v-deo.html
This video reminds me of when I’m playing golf and I hit a horrible tee shot. Then I take another shot and hit it even harder to make up for the first bad shot, but end up just making it worse.
I get it, Matt is a mess. It's really hard to dismantle everything that he says that is wrong. It would take a lifetime.
Matt 'I have no idea' Dillahunty has no idea what he is debating nor why he exist, that sums up atheism
Why we exist is great question. Shall we just make up an answer that makes us feel good 👍
@@liamthomas2014 why we exist is a stupid question. it falsely assumes there is a reason, when there is no evidence to support that assumption.
Good grief. You should be ashamed.
Matt (I'll call him Matt, too, though it's not as if we are on a first-name basis) responded to your assertion of methodological issues within Paul's publication by pointing out that there are methodological problems inherent in some of the "data" within the (unidentified) studies you mention. He gave an explanation of such a problem with a specific example that is easily verifiable and debases a specific thing you mentioned (self-reported levels of "happiness").
When Matt later wants to go to data, you accuse him of contradicting his earlier claim that we can't trust any data. But that wasn't his claim. His claim was that your (unidentified) studies have known methodological problems, not that all data are unreliable. In fact, in your own attempt at a takedown (this video), you include the clip of him specifically saying that it depends what data are being looked at.
But, of course, you should have known that he was never saying that we can't trust any data because he referenced the Paul data in the first place. So, well, you have no out here.
It's just demonstrably wrong for you to assert that Matt said that we can't trust data.
Worse, you did the debate/discussion, you did a post-mortem, and then you STILL thought that this was something that you were correct about and even led this video with it.
If I were you, I'd be thoroughly embarrassed.
I don't know whether you're actively being dishonest, *but* -- if not -- you're inexcusably sloppy. Seems to me you owe Matt and your watchers an apology.
Michael Tilley it’s a very simple point and you’re throwing a lot of rhetorical energy into making it difficult. For Matt, “the data” is contested and hard to measure when discussing religion’s contribution to present wellbeing, but we’re then meant think it’ll be straightforward to measure when it comes to a genocide’s contribution to future wellbeing. His use of a single 15 year old study in the face of a tide of research flowing in the other direction is silly enough (especially when its shortcomings have been repeatedly pointed out to him) but worse still is his faith that studies of potential wellbeing in the future could ever be a source of moral agreement. Of *course* it depends which data you’re looking at. That’s my point. If Matt’s prepared to privilege Gregory Paul over other data it’s laughable to think we can objectively assess “the right data” with the much more difficult task of assessing *future* wellbeing.
"it’s a very simple point"
It is, but you lie about it.
"and you’re throwing a lot of rhetorical energy into making it difficult."
You're just lying. It's not difficult. He didn't say that we can't ever use data for this. Your argument about Matt's alleged self-contradiction relies upon the notion that he did. So, yes: Simple. You're lying.
I could keep it that simple, but you keep piling on the lies.
"For Matt, 'the data' is [sic] contested and hard to measure when discussing religion’s contribution to present wellbeing"
There you go lying again. He explained one specific reason why one specific example that you explicitly mentioned shouldn't be relied upon. (That's it; that's all he could do with specificity because you always do nothing but hand-wave toward unidentified thousands of studies instead of citing anything concrete.) You are dishonestly extrapolating that statement to "we can't rely on any data about this entire subject," even though that is very evidently not his view based on things he *actually* said.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, sinner.
It appears that you think Lying for Jesus™ is cool.
"in the face of a tide of research flowing in the other direction"
1. You keep representing Paul's paper as if it's the only one in 15 years to come to that conclusion. Now, I suppose that you might be just too uninformed to know of the plethora of others rather than you just being profoundly dishonest, but either way your argument fails.
2. You keep mentioning this tide yet not identifying any of it. At one point, I think you said "thousands" of studies. List them by title and publication, please. Two thousand minimum, per your descriptor of "thousands."
"... Matt's prepared to privilege Gregory Paul..."
Note that your first responses to Paul's study were the genetic fallacy and well-poisoning. Even if we were to grant that Matt were somehow being disingenuous or unfair, it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The hilarity is that you accused Paul of cherry-picking data, but he specifically looked at indicators that evangelicals (or at least, people named Glen Scrivener) insist religiosity influences in a good way: homicide rates, suicide rates, life expectancy, plus teen pregnancy rates and STD rates -- I'm not sure that you mentioned these last two, but I hear all kinds of emotional hand-wringing about them all the time from the religious. These are indicators that do not suffer from the same sampling problems as the self-reporting bias Matt objects to regarding asking Mormons to tell us how happy they are.
So when you pretend that the objections are equivalent, you are either mistaken or (again) actively dishonest. And let's face it: If you're making these arguments while not *trying* to be dishonest, you have cognitive issues.
Moreover, even if Paul *did* cherry pick those specific indicators but left out other indicators that the religious allege should be correlated to show the impact of religion, it would still debase the argument that religion has a special positive impact on these specific problems.
I'm no Matt, but you suck at this.
Ethan Rhodes Are you kidding? Check the info box.
Michael Tilley Yowser.
The studies are in the info box and always have been. God bless.
Ethan Rhodes the research article refers to 3000+ studies. Did you want me to have 3000 separate links in the description box?
101 an atheist in how to avoid a question which contradicts the truth. I don't know.
Hey Glen, what about the contradiction of your position against mass genocide? You seem to be morally opposed to mass genocide, yet how can you explain the mass genocide commanded by God to the Israelites of the Canaanite women and children; and of God’s killing of all the Egyptian first-born sons? And before you argue that that was the Old Testament, isn’t Jesus quoted in Matthew 5:18 as saying that he has not come to change “a jot or tittle” of the [old] law?
4th, him stating that there are more than one way to define objective morals, in NOT a contradiction! Nice try though. No intellectual person would fall for this garbge.
Good work. So many angry angry people in the comments though, how sad.
Pointing out four inconsistencies in Matts arguments doesn't constitute a reasoned argument for the existence of a god. It merely proves that Matt is human.
gedmcphail - and there’s the #1 tactic of frauds. If you can’t beat them with reason and logic, then try to discredit them
interesting concept to prove if someone is a human.
fourteatwo it's called irony.
Were they debating God? No.
Your kidding me right? That’s all Matt does is point out inconsistencies. And your defending him? 😂
You are so disingenuous and got schooled by Matt.
Good grief mate he seemed pretty humble and calls himself at times in the debate "rediculous" at beginning...sooo if he can be humble at times and say some of his arguing can be rediculous I don't know what you want full submission to your ideals and values?
"schooled"? Pathetic rhetoric. These are two intellectual human beings discussing their ideas and what they hold dear
The key is, he didn't say you can't rely on studies, rather he said you cant rely on "the studies". This suggests that he found something wrong with how the proposed studies were done. Which may or may not be the case with other studies. So you would have to critique each study based on it's own merit.
Yeah... A bit of dishonesty going on hear adding to what was not previously in the debate. Plus the fact that bringing up these 1000s of studies instead of addressing the questions in the debate is also a bit dishonest because it wasn't part of the debate and Matt never came to debate these studies. It's a dishonest tactic....
I see a man who couldn't grasp what Matt was saying.
Me too.
Matt rarely knows what Matt is saying.
@@amado4249 Do you honestly and seriously believe that Matt doesn't know what he is saying.
@@mnguardianfan7128 Yes, I sincerely do. I think he thinks he knows what he is saying. But doesn't have the knowledge of God so therefore, cannot know. If you've been indwelled by the Holy Spirit, you know it. If not, you do not.
@@amado4249 You aren't saying you actually know Matt's thoughts better than Matt, are you?
Instead of trying to bring down Matt, try thinking of 1 piece of evidence for a god. You can't. That's the problem you should be dealing with.
I wish Matt would respond to these contradictions to see his position on this. This debate could have went on for hours more and I would have been excited to listen to it. I have not b become dedicated listener of Glenn
i wish he discussed those contradictions then and there
You can actually figure those out yourself.
They are not contradictions. They are just problems with people not paying attention.
Just as an example with the first one:
Matt doesn't say we can use data and studies in some cases, but not in others.
What he says, SPECIFICALLY, is that the Studies presented to him HERE, he thinks aren't good enough BECAUSE HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH THEIR METHODLOGY.
He says this very clearly, straight out. He even gives an example (about self-reporting of happiness).
So, if you listen to what Matt actually says, it's not that he cherry picks WHEN we can use data and studies, he is consistent with the fact that when you look at studies and data you need to do this CAREFULLY. Not ALL studies and data are equally valid. If you think that's a contradiction... do you think that ALL studies are valid, or that you can never question a methodology?
So yeah... really not contradictions here. Just a problem with what people chose to hear and how much nuance they are willing to employ.
@@c.m.9369 Well stated! 👍
What happened to the 160k of untaxed revenue in 2023 that wasn’t spent on “charitable services”?
Finding self contradictory statements from an atheist isn't proof of God.
@J w Still isn't proof of God
@J w There's no such thing as "no proof to you". There either is proof or there isn't. Because somebody calls a personal experience proof, or picks out a bible story and calls that proof, that doesn't make it proof or even evidence. It's not about being "right" either. It's about holding the most rational position given the lack of proof.
@J w So you agree that billions of people believe something for which they have no proof? Can billions of people believe a God into existence? Most scientists, by the way, are agnostic or atheist. The ones who believe in God do not hold to their belief because science supports it. They leave God behind once they put on the white coat and enter the lab.
@J w And do you agree that no amount of people can believe God into existence?
@J w I do agree that simply not believing doesn't mean God isn't there. But the time to believe it is there is when it is demonstrated. I'm interested to know what "evidence" you believe "leads to God". And is this "evidence" something that can be evaluated objectively?
I'm sorry, when in the video did god appear and confirm his existence?
This is deceiving when compared to the actual debate.
Another bible apologist pretending not to have read what his book actually says about slavery. Glen acts like the Bible only talks about hebrews taken as slaves while ignoring what it says very clearly about foreign slaves. How pathetic!
Wow, after getting smashed by Matt, you've decided to make it even worse all on your own!
Except that king who started the process of abolishing the slave trade. Began the process based on an economic view point. Same way those who were on the ships that did it, were highly paid both financially and socially.
How can anyone possibly argue that the bible presents a clear, objective morality that is against slavery?
Cowplunk
I do, the problem is atheists skim across the top of the verses about ebeds (bond servants) in the shallowest of ways. I’d have to write a lot to explain it, go look up what theologians write, not atheists with an axe to grind who probably haven’t even read the ‘whole’ bible once, let alone recently
@@scubaguy1989 No, the problem is that the Bible's stance on the morality of owning human beings is as muddy as you can possibly get, and the fact that you need to write an essay to explain it just proves that.
Where does the assertion that slavery is wrong get its founding?
@@geoffstemen3652 looking at the effects it has on people.
1st, he said he didn't necessarily respect YOUR source data. Not a contradiction.
Matt put you to the sword which you had nothing to add but assertions!!!
For example...
You got to be joking 😂.Most of the time he has no idea what he is debating, you got to be his die hard fan to believe in his ideology which is not to have any of anything
@@sabyfernandes5804 I think the first century person who was called Jesus and is believed to be Christ by many is more convincing than Matt. What do you think?
??? Sounds like a retail worker who is the "weak chattel" in this Our Great Economy... Keeping this individual (with Downs Syndrome or not) out of a union will prevent Economicide... ??? Yeah, Matt buried your ass, with all off Matt's faults and meandering assertions aside.
I agree with the other commenters who say that you should be ashamed of yourself.
Paul Noland:
Shutup Liberal.
You would agree with anyone as long as they were opposing Christianity.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 strawman
When you say ultimate foundation and the skeptic side can't give that.. you are missing the point of the differences between us completely. We are saying we believe, sincerely, your claims come from men making things up. So saying you don't have an ultimate source to US is not something that resonates. We do not believe you do either, just a situation of our ancestors claimed a god wants this, so that's our answer.
Having a nuanced position that says evaluate the facts of the case, is a correct answer.. Because what if the better fix is not "kill Hitler", but put in a better society that does not produce a Hitler in the first place? Saying my god endorses killing Hitler sounds like "justice", but how did you confirm this was blessed or not? If it was not blessed, how would you know? To me this is the fundamental problem of theism. Too many contradictory conclusions, each thinking they are right, but no means of clarifying what , IF ANY, are true.
2nd, just because he wouldn't let you back him into a corner with YOUR definition of humanism, does NOT make a contradiction.
yes religion is comforting -- not sure how relevant that is to the truth of the belief
0:37 - you didn’t discuss 1000s of studies. You stated that there were thousands of studies. Big difference. Please link the 10 best.
Contradiction 1 isn’t a contradiction. In the first part well being has been defined and the method of data collection is being questioned. In part two Matt is talking about the data used to define welling in the first place.
5:10 - that is not humanism 101. It is much more nuanced than that. The main challenge is weighing up the benefit of the majority against the individual, which you both touched on. Matt was quite right to say he doesn’t know because it will depend on the circumstance. So again, not a contradiction.
Contradiction 3 again not a contradiction just a failure to take off the apologist glasses.
9:08 - Matt says that he does not believe there is an objective basis for moral values. That is, once you have a subjective basis, i.e. well-being, you can apply objective parameters to assess whether it meets the criteria. This follows on the second example, so again no contradiction.
Contradiction 4... see “contradiction” 3 above
I don’t understand what is sitting on your head that’s the real mystery Glen
Dillahunty flip flopping as always
you just disagree on 'value'
It seems clear that most of the people commenting haven't watched the original debate.
Yes, Have seen original debate. And Matt was found wanting.
So what about the entire debate you think contradicts the points mentioned here? Those contradictions from Matt, and others, you can see by watching the Atheist Experience and other debates of his..
@@rajeshshetty4862
Well said!! The Dilahunty dodge as usual!!
One of the biggest problems with moral subjectivism/relativism and the elephant in the room is that it is clearly self defeating because its “truth” implies its falsity. The fact is that militant atheists such as Dilahunty conveniently claim that morality is “subjective”. But if this statement is “objectively true”, then it refutes moral subjectivism because if it is objectively true that "all morality is relative," then the statement itself is an example of an objective truth. So if “all morality is relative" is objectively true, it is objectively false. This is why theists find it unbelievably ironic when materialists/atheists appeal to logic and “truth” when “truth” and subjectivism is a metaphysical that is a philosophical claim and “truth” including the idea that subjectivism is “objectively” true, are metaphysical presuppositions that is transcendental categories and universal preconditions that have been borrowed from monotheism and can not be justified or grounded in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. Because everything is just atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities under the materialistic/atheistic paradigm.
Secondly morality can not be grounded in the materialistic reductive account of reality and existence or the (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) without reaching an absurdity. This is because the appeal to material reductionism is a (Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness) as knowledge, teleology and ontology, that is conscious agents/beings who experience mental events, meaning and purpose and moral decisions are clearly more concrete than (Explanatory Abstractions) such as “material reductionism” and the (Appeal to Nature Fallacy).
The (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) tries to draw a conclusion about how things “ought” to be based on claims (Explanatory Abstractions) concerning what “is” natural/physical, as if abstraction such as physicalism, naturalness and materialism was itself a precondition and authority regarding questions of value and “truth”. When it clearly isn’t as this claim can not itself be justified and is a “truth” claim that is a philosophical claim to a universal precondition and a metaphysical presupposition that ironically can not be grounded in naturalism/materialism itself.
For example according to the prominent moral subjectivist, scientific populariser, pragmatist and utilitarian Richard Dawkins the belief that the rape and murder of a child is depraved and evil is as “arbitrary” as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. This clearly commits the (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) and the (Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness). Equally, the parents of children who have been raped and murdered, the parents belief that this was evil and depraved is clearly more concrete than Dawkins cold logic and callous (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) and appeal to explanatory abstractions.
Because the burden of proof is on Dawkins to “prove” that the rape and murder of a child isn’t evil and depraved and is just unpragmatic, subjective and un-utilitarian.
Most normal people naturally recoil in disgust from Dawkins callous response to the horrific rape and murder of a innocent child because it is clearly an (Appeal to Nature Fallacy) and a (Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness) and is a disgusting and repulsive response to get from someone who is supposed to be an exemplar of Humanism and science. Similarly, I found it chilling that Matt Dilahunty couldn’t even admit that all people have value just to hold onto a dogmatic atheism.
It’s hardly surprising that many people find objective morality so unbelievably compelling and that for a lot of former atheists it was a big part of the reason they rejected their strict atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism. Or they rejected their atheism for deism or panentheism which is why Einstein rejected atheism for the God of Spinoza as it created a moral framework justified and grounded in the fundamental nature of a supreme mind and consciousness.
Thirdly Matt commits the (subjectivist fallacy). Because if “truth” was a function of what individuals believe, then those people would be infallible and could not possibly be in error about anything that they sincerely believed. The Nazis believed they were achieving the greatest good for themselves and the greatest number of people who were compliant to their “superman” Nietzschean philosophy. But history clearly demonstrates that “Social relativism" suffers the same self-contradictory fate as moral subjectivism/relativism. “Social relativism” like the Nazis social theory initially has the illusion of appearing more friendly because it poses as egalitarian but if “truth” is relative to what’s most popular in society at best we reach an absurdity and at worst the results are horrific for the most vulnerable in society. Under the strictly materialistic/atheistic reductive account even the nurses and doctors who demonstrated empathy, altruism, compassion and unbelievable bravery and sacrificed their lives during the pandemic are reduced to nothing more substantive than biological and chemical robots. Equally, this view that peoples families and children are nothing more than biological and chemical robots is (Question Begging) of the highest degree because no one even knows what “matter” is. Under moral subjectivism we want to respect all societies as equal, social relativism is attractive. But, like moral subjectivism/relativism, if “social relativism” is “true” then the beliefs of whole societies cannot be mistaken.
But the warnings from history in the form of the Nazis Third Reich clearly demonstrates that this is not true and is actually a very naive philosophy to accept as “social relativism” coupled with intellectualism, utilitarianism and cold pragmatism is at best absurd and at worst dangerous and horrific. The Nazis clearly demonstrated that you can’t get an “ought” not out of an “is”. So the fact is that the belief that “truth” and values such as morals and ethics can be justified and grounded in moral subjectivism is clearly a materialistic/atheistic fantasy as personal infallibility is, obviously, absurd, and incoherent and this weighs very heavily against moral subjectivism/relativism rendering it incoherent but very convenient for the agenda of evil dictators.
You lost the debate.
...if I retained intrinsic human value, I'll take that trade.
What sort of response is that "Speak Life"?
You lost the debate, and this video is disingenuous and fraudulent.
Dran Black Nope
@@SpeakLifeMedia We give value to members of our species, exclusivley and to an extent beings that either look like us, look like a human, or have garnered some sort of meaning to us. The mind is where value begins and ends. That is why unless it's your pet dog, youre not actually going to waste energy bitching at china for eating dogs. It is the mind that one thing that gives value. That is why we like or dislike other people and despise some more than we do others in spite of the fact that theyre all supposed to be valuable. It all depends on a complex network of things that each person offers to the table, and that may vary from person to person on how that thing can be benefitial. Value CAN BE assigned to you, without you even doing a single thing for society, because we as a species value actual doing as much as we value potential of doing. If you're a pretty girl for example, you will be valued because the human brain has grown to recognize patterns of goodness and physical health in a pretty face, and most people who look at that will give value back because that physical attractiveness is something beneficial for the person who has a positive exchange with the attractive person. Just the fact that you're a direct descendant of someone else already puts you in a position where you MEAN something important to the other person without even intending to. Your mother or father would not treat as lovingly as they do now, were it not that theyve created a bond with you over the fact that you came from them. You were not intrinsically valuable to them. A set of circumstances following your development and birth have garnered you as valuable to them from the get go, but to anybody else you serve a lesser role and deserve less of their attention. Pure empathy is simply a side effect of our condition as a social species in order to cooperate and reach our goals in easier and better ways, which to the core pretty much means surviving(including beings of our likeness, aka. family), reproducing and experiencing life in easier ways.If you think really hard about it, it is impossible for a person to actually do anything virtually selfless. Even the most loving being: God who has been forward about loving others but despising others in the bible, died to save the people he DID choose and love, and has done so knowing that in exchange he would garner their entire devotion and exaltation. People who go out of their way to serve people they dont even know, at the very minimum do so because of a self conception they have about their selfelssness, and thus their status as moral beings, or the perception that theyre fulfilling THEIR purpose,or even because empathetically it FEELS GOOD and EMPOWERING to be a provider due to our drive to be social and cooperative to each other. There is always some sort of thing to be gained out of even the most selfless act, so there is no reason to believe that it is because you have a gravitational divinity about you that compels others to give or owe you and your.doings. We measure things in value to the things we consider as part of ourselves or as part of our goals, which serve only to serve us. This is how we pick freinds, partners, and lovers and why we value them, so that they will in exchange or hopefully at an understandable point continue to provide the things that we value them for. If in our heads the cons outweight the benefits at absurd levels, we then asses that it is better to leave the relationship or give less importance.We pick the ones that suit and fit us best, and put less emphasis on those that don't, because the things we value are usually the ones that guarantee an upward moving live. This is the real meaning that we have. We are or have at a superficial assumed level the potential to positivley benefit in the needs and lives of others. And by just looking or being a human being there is a wide array of things that you can do for those reasons that at the very least would make a stranger respect you. If we can put superhuman value to innanimate objects than so too can we give it to another living being who posesses as much of a possibility to become reliable to you as the object, Even if it is limp and cannot speak or hear, its parents already have deemed it valuable, or the simple fact that it breathes and therefore could become some sort of potential value in the future if its issues are solved later on. By just being that, we already give it value, but the underlying root behind it is that the value of their existence has been rooted by a set of factors that find some sort of value and so we still hedge our bets on it. Point is, that its really hard for any human being not to possess at least the appearance of potential value or push our sympathy due to how poorly its conditions may be. So value doesn't need to be earned in order to be something that does something for someone else
I listened up until the slavery part where Scrivener goes full tilt straw man.
Mark Ballard totally agree. I disagreed with his points during the debate, but I had a great deal of respect for how he presented his views. Why produce this?
Where is the straw man here?
I have to ask since one of the trademarks of Dillahunty’s debates is that he tends to keep his views unclear to the point where anyone can be accused of setting up a straw man whenever attempting to pin him down on a stance
@@patrickmcardle952 I disagree, he is crystal clear to me, but I'd have to watch the video again, it's been a while. Since you've watched this video recently can you give me an idea where to start watching on the slavery issue?
Mark Ballard The contradiction here is that when Matt brings up slavery as his slam dunk argument against the bible he speaks as though slavery is objectively morally wrong and yet whenever they talk about his views on morality he talks about how he doesn’t believe that there are objective moral values. Christians online refer to this as the Hitchens two step - switching back and forth between morality being subjective and objective depending on which stance is more convenient to your narrative
Here's how you contradict yourself. You say that "all people are worthy of provision and protection" but then you argue that we would be justified in killing nazis. Well, which is it? You see how saying "all people are worthy of provision and protection" gets you absolutely nowhere in adjudicating virtually any moral issue? Matt was more careful because he saw the nazi problem. (also, just fyi, consequentialism is a form of objectivism)
I don't agree with Matt about everything, but the idea that you get objective morality by making up a magical invisible being and basing morality on that is simply childish.
It sure is easy to pwn people when they're not around to defend themselves.
Just because someone has human rights and dignity doesn't mean they're immune from prosecution for their crimes. It's precisely because they are fully responsible humans that we hold them to account for their crimes against humanity. My point regarding the unborn is that, as humans, they have such rights. And I'd further say that executing them for no wrongdoing whatsoever is the real crime against humanity.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Ah, so now you're saying people's right to "provision and protection" isn't absolute? So now you're saying "it depends on what they do"? That's exactly what Matt was saying.
Regarding your second point, it follows then that you are in favor of the Government forcing you to donate your extra kidney while you are alive to people who need kidney transplants to live. After all, declining to do so will kill them. And likewise, according to your view, the Government should be able to force people to give blood and other organs and tissue they can survive without, in order to save the people who need them.
When did I say "absolute"? What I said was that all people are equally worthy of provision and protection by virtue of being members of the human family. I don’t know of any proponent of human rights who denies that the loss of liberty might still be a fit punishment for crimes, even if "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. You can take away a person’s liberty and do so precisely because you recognise in them an innate and equal human dignity that entails their full moral responsibility.
Matt was saying something very different when Justin brought up the issue of the disabled. Matt was adamant that non-contributors to society do not *have* value, they must *add* value. He was very clear about that. If you think Matt and I are saying similar things on this issue, we must have been watching different debates.
On the unborn, I’m simply saying (as does the hippocratic oath), that doctors should do no harm neither should they cause abortion. In normal circumstances the unborn will grow and be born. No-one need do any violence to any body. If we let nature take its course, we will have new life - and what a blessing that is. Add to this the fact that we have a duty of care to our children that we do not have to strangers. Further add the fact that the state has no right to redistribute our body parts and that there is a clear moral difference between intervening to cause death and refraining from intervening to cause life... what it all adds up to is good news! We can put down our scalpels. It would be absurd and wrong to mandate forced organ transplants and it is in fact most fitting to leave our children well alone and let them live.
Genocide needs a symposium but slavery is wrong... lol
He loss some sleepless night about the debate, and comeup with another video supporting this debate just to look arrogant and empty barell. Matt shows how Christian sounds like a scripted debate.
the bible did not " support " slavery.
recognition of something is not automatically support.
@Lucas Davenport exactly my point.
@Lucas Davenport Also said that you can beat your slave without punishment if the slave don't die in a couple of days...
And it gives the reason why; "because your slave is your property".
Yes it absolutely does. Read Leviticus 25:44-46. Clear as water.
If that immorality were in the Koran, or in *any other book* other than the Bible, you would condemn it without hesitation.
@@vejeke nonsense.
like i said.
recognizing that slavery exists does not promote it.
that is clear as water.
news flash ... the koran DOES promote slavery.
islamic arabs controlled the international slave trade for centuries,
and continue to this day.
and i do condemn it.
but i condemn islam in general for many more things than just slavery.
@Lucas Davenport Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they *are not to be punished* if the slave recovers after a day or two, *since the slave is their property.*
I rest my case.
00:45 Blanket statement fallacy
"They have no value. They have to add value...?"
"Yeah"
Yikes.
How does he define adding value? My Step-son is severely autistic and has taught me patience and empathy, would Matt consider that valuable?
Matt’s saying that human life doesn’t have value in and of itself. WE give a thing (or a person) value. A dollar is a worthless bit of paper until we assign value to it, but it is valuable to us. My life is more valuable to me than your life, but I would put you before my computer if you were both stuck in a burning building. You should watch the debate!
@@futurevegan8617 Matt admits that value can come in degrees based on what one does, or at least seemingly.
I believe he was speaking about objective value. If you do nothing but sit and consume, you add nothing of *objective* value to a society... but when (at a minute and some change) he says something along the lines of “it depends on how you calculate wellbeing,” he was going to go on to say that there is *a* value in caring for the helpless. Like, it doesn’t matter (to me) how you treat my dead body when I die, but others in our society would be very disturbed to consider that their final wishes won’t be respected... It might not directly hurt our economy to kill the disabled, but it is going to have a real and measurable effect on my peace of mind if I know that I will be put down like a horse if I become paralyzed. That’s the secular reason not to be a nazi.
You actively haven’t read what I’ve posted on this comment’s thread, you’re late to the party, and you aren’t saying anything new.
Humans don’t have an *inherent* value, just like a dollar is a only a worthless bit of paper. We give things an *intrinsic* value as a species. I’m not going to trade you my dollars for your computer paper, because dollars have value to me, and to our society.
Taking care of the disabled, the sick, and the elderly has great value to me for many reasons. Mainly, I don’t want to live in a society where people are used up and cast away. Plus, a disabled person is still capable of contributing great things to the world. Another dude is commenting on this video and is putting it more eloquently than I could... Why don’t you read my posts, maybe read his, and watch the dang debate?
Faith in scriptures does not bring us to truth claims about the world.
Correct.Christians have faith in Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and are saved by His grace. In such a condition they believe His word and by the indwelling power of the Spirit are able to grow in understanding.
adrian clark That doesn’t bring you to truth claims about the world either.
@@HardKore5250 Why would you make that significant claim?
adrian clark How does it? The god does not intervene.
@@HardKore5250 Given that God is by nature creator and sustainer he must intervene. If you don't think 'god' intervenes then you probably don't have God in mind. What attributes and qualities do you think God must have?
#4. You create ur own value. Nothing less nothing more.
Sorry Glen but to refer to a study that asks the person how they feel about those topics is a self fulfilling loaded question
Of course if someone “believes” their religion holds positive tenants and they want to follow those tenants it follows they are going to SAY they are being positively affected by them
THAT IS NOT ANY KIND OF OBJECTIVE DATA, it is a self assessment that has cognitive biases ingrained within by design
Asking about “how many babies do you have” is a loaded question assuming having a specifically designated to account for “well being” is utter nonsense. That’s the type of crappy entailment you have failed to recognize is contradictory to the idea of well being itself
matt actually did not understand the soviet union's history and philosophy.
Not surprising, Jordan Peterson exposed that years ago in their talk on stage.
Was the USSR a secular humanist regime?
No, but that misses the point I was making and what Jordan Peterson was trying to say. (But failed to)
I don’t remember the specific phrasing, but I watched the JP debate and the one that this video is about... in this video, Glen directly says something like ‘we’ve already tried secular humanism with the USSR’. I don’t want to watch the video again or I’d quote him. That is the point you all seem to be making, and if it isn’t, then why are you comparing secular humanism to communism?
My point was that secular humanism is a founding principle for communism. Communism has a foundation of humanistic science such as moral philosophy but didn't implement it much concerning the freedoms and rights of every individual. Rather it focused on the good of the society. Here check out this short article, it better explains the Connection of Humanism and Communism.
Vgweb.org/manussa/MarxHum.htm
Abortion is not genocide. Abortion is just a termination of a pregnancy. Christians really tell it like it ain't.
No one should debate this dishonest christian and give him free publicity.
@J w Before you respond again- please take a basic English Comprehension class. Asshat!
@J w I would never be as arrogant as a christian and think of myself as a professor. However, there is one thing that's clear- I (and most of the world) are smarter than you!
@J w That's right! Keep spewing your piehole! You continue to prove the true hypocrisy of christianity!
There's a reason why the bible and apologetics are the quickest way OUT of christianity! That is for those that can reason!
@J w Hmmm. I use facts and you use ad hominems.
Reality-1
Fantasy/christianity- less than zero
@J w Abortion is not genocide- Fact!
Abortion is only a termination of a pregnancy- Fact!
No one should give dishonest christians like this Glen guy free publicity- Fact!
christianity is Hypocrisy- Fact!
You are an asshat- Double Fact!
This kind of debates remember me the Matt and Peterson debate... and much like in that debate it really seems that they’re speaking different languages about different things... Matt is righfully addressing the problems that religions can bring and bring in a founded social morality... while Glen and Peterson are talking about the founded social morality and that cannot exist coherently without what they define as “God” (not the same classical definition of God)... argument that was made at the same lenght by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky... is like watching Marx and Nietzsche having a conversation about religion and morality, they’re both right at the level of analysis that they’re talking about; too bad that they’re talking about two different level of analysis and the conversation doesn’t go anywhere...
Petersons and Glens definitions of God are also different......one believes in an eternal creator who can literally create universes with the wave of a hand and peterson sees God as a metaphorical representation of all thats good with the western world/ everything we dont know/ cant explain..........
If peterson and Glenn had a debate about what god actually is they would disagree fundamentally.......which further proves how God can be exactly what you want him to be when you need him to be it. there is objective defintion of God......meaning that there is no True God, only millions of opinions about what the 'true' God means. Which is completely subjective.
matt is probably the weakest atheist apologist i've seen. He has only feelings and no science or good arguments for non belief. Inspiring philosophy embarrassed him pretty badly and you took his lunch money as well.....But his fanboys sure love this guy. lol
If life is chance we should use gene editing and Transhumanist technologies to get rid of viruses, illnesses, diseases, and abnormalities.
You won’t need religion just Transhumanist technologies to make you happy.
Amazing Glen!
I think even Matt realizes a few times throughout this debate how evil his worldview sounds.
Matt is phenomenal when he’s debating uneducated Christians. When someone really pins him down he looks like a complete fool. Flip flop Dillahunty dodge.
I do not think the shrinking circle of humanity argument is a good one because everybody has a circle.
If i took the stand that every egg a woman has is a human in the making, and therefore should be protected etc, it would lead to problems and abuse of women. They would basicly have to spend their entire life pregnant.
You may think it is a silly stand to take, but i could say that you have an ever shrinking circle of what a human is......
I think why Matt's debate performances often look good is because he tends to take a position of incredulity or simply professes his ignorance when pressed on an issue, and so if the other side fails to convince him then it appears as though they lost and he won... but in a formal debate setting the goal isn't for interlocutors to change each other's minds, it's to persuade the audience. Can atheism deliver a better world? He doesn't know and won't say. This is why Matt lost. Exposing contradictions in his views is just salt on the wound!
1. Count those countries under 3rd world category, they are mostly christians, muslims or both citizens
I feel like this video is super disingenuous.
How could it be more genuous please?
See my comment above. And I haven't even made it to the second alleged "contradiction."
@@michaeltilley7121 I could not see what you mean. How could he have been more generous please?
@@g3glo I'm not convinced you read anything correctly.
@@michaeltilley7121 probably not, I'm a slow learner. Let's say, I'm not intellectually gifted. Any help you can offer to help me understand would be valued. Thank you so very much.
3rd, Matt NEVER at any point reversed his view on slavery. OBVIOUSLY NOT A CONTRADICTION!
Awesome review! The Mindlessness of Materialism reduces to absurdity!
Michael Deo - Ditto that!
What, pray tell, is "mindless" about Materialism?
@@charlesmadison1384
Definition of materialism : A theory
( For many, a presupposition ) that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
This absurd "doctrine" teaches that this concept of the "fundamental reality" is rational. That this mindless source somehow has inherent causal power with the ability to manifest life and reason etc.
Shalom/Peace
@@michaeldeo5068 Hey, Thank you for the reply. BTW, what is it that makes you think it is absurd?
@@charlesmadison1384
Your welcome!
It's the absurd belief that what is ultimately mindless, devoid of self-awareness and life, could have inherent causal power and accidentally cause life from non-life and beings who can think rationally.
It is a belief that must accept the concept that our own selves are illusionary and therefore it is also self-refuting.
There is much more that can be said as to why it is an absurd belief for understanding reality. It does not provide a logical foundation or a happy, loving, truthful social structure and behavior to live by.
What Oneness can be derived from ultimate reality if it is ultimately mindless, lifeless and causeless?
Shalom/Peace
This guy has an accent. Because of this, he won the debate. Case closed.
What a well constructed analysis Glen and it was a pleasure listening to it all!
Look at the bright side, your video quality is good.
5:45 - Wow, just wow. At least Matt admitted it.
The bible doesn’t promise a happy life so from a Christian point of view the debate is a bit pointless
Glen, God bless you continuously. Its the first time I saw Matt in such big dificulties. I hope soon or later he will realize how faulty are the atheists positions and he will find the path back to truth. He is an inteligent person and this will help
Totally agree with everything you say
@Ethan Rhodes exactelly. Materialistic indoctrination.
@@mariusmihai918 There is no fault in the atheist position of god.
Religious give more than Secular to charities and in donations, at about a 9% difference. Yes, but they include what the religious give to Churches in that number. And isn't 10% the magic number when giving to your church?
Uber Sheizer nope. The New Testament contains no number. In the Old Testament there were set titles and optional offerings so you could end up giving around 30% some years. In the New Testament you give ‘cheerfully’ and ‘generously’ to the church and poor. Plus, the 9% more that you quote would not mean they were giving less than 10% of their income would it?
I don’t know what study Glen was citing when he said that. But remember that he is an Australian living in England. He might have been talking about English or Australian statistics rather than U.S. statistics.
@@petethorne5094 So the vast proportion of the donations by Christians go to their Churches. The Churches use that money to pay the clergy, employees, expenses. And they do not have to reveal where any of it goes nor how much to charities. Sounds to me like if you take the church donations out of the mix, Christians donate much less than humanists.
Uber Sheizer since you’ve given no source I can’t verify your claim. Do you have evidence for your view that Christians give less than humanists, or is that just a guess? Glen stated the opposite: that religious people give more to secular charities than non religious folks.
@Uber Sheizer You wrote, “And they do not have to reveal where any of it goes nor how much to charities.”
You don’t say where you live, so I cannot comment about the laws in your country. However, in Australia, which is where I live, all churches, and indeed all organisations, must keep a set of books - account books. They detail everything about income and expenditure. And the books are audited annually by professional auditors.
I would find it very difficult to believe that most, if not all, countries followed similar rules.
i'm a mormon for over 50 years ... and absolutely no one has ever asked me to present myself as happy.
we are happy because we believe what we believe.
Why should I believe what you believe?
@@g3glo who said you should ?
no one.
believe what you want ... but accept the consequences of that belief.
@@grayman7208 Why should I believe what I want and accept the consequences?
The exact response one would expect.
@@ubersheizer5398 the exact response one should give.
Come home, to simple Rick's
2:35 This is why blanket statements are fallacious. It only takes one example (like this one) to the contrary to demonstrate it to be false.
99.999% of people: the Earth is round due to solid evidence of the curvature of the Earth including different shadow length at different points, the horizon, and probably time zones.
That one dude: out of personal animus, I went outside of my proper field of study and looked at the floor and saw it to be flat. Round Earthers destroyed.
Don’t make so many hasty generalizations about the validity of MD’s arguments so that you can confirm your biases.
Matt's point is still more rational
... measure wellbeing? If there’s a smile on my face then I am in a state of wellbeing. 😁
Well being is what is demonstrably beneficial to the human species. You could have a smile on your face because you're an imbecile!
Wellbeing of who? Animals, humans? And does one trump the other?
@@joshs2986 humans are animals...
@@teamatfort444 yes. But I'm not speaking scientifically.
I.e. when someone asks me if any animals live in my house. I'm not going to say my wife. Because that is obviously not what they are asking
@@joshs2986 lol
These aren't really contradictions.
In the first one he cleraly states that not all the data is trustworthy and that he doesn't always agree with the parameters. He says this again before his so called contradiction. Saying some data isn't a good representation of reality doesn't mean you can never use any data on that subject again.
In the second one Matt makes an argument for secular humanism. (and justly points out that this clearly didn't exist in the sovjet union. Which Peterson tried to say.) Matt also in general thinks humans all have value making him a humanist. "In general" are the key words there ofcourse some people bring more value to the world through art, science and inventions. Some people also bring less value to world, like murderes for example. That's why he doesn't just say yes to the question.
In the third one you clearly don't understand the more subjectif moralists like Matt. You're saying because he clearly believes slavery is wrong, he must believe in objectif morals. This is so wrong. He has made an argument about morals having to do with the general well-being of humans. Which is his opinion and for people with this opinion slavery is wrong. No objectif morals neccesary. I don't even agree that you religious morals ar objectif because the're based on the opinion that your god/religion is real. Saying matt acts like an objectivist is so wrong.
The fourth one is kind of the same as the third one. For someone like Matt who believes that morality coralates to the general well-being of humans. Than yes, it is moral to fight the nazis. The nazis are slaughtering an insane amount of innocent people so killing the nazis will mean the general well-being of humans will rise because the slaughter would stop. But this only works if you agree with the first premise making it subjectif. The moment people agree with this premise you can look for the most objectif way to enhance the general well-being of humans (and yes the data about well-being isn't always trustworthy because of the different prarameters and how they were tested).
I don't think you understood how matt's morality works but i still really enjoyed the debate.
Matt was a humanist but not a humanist towards animals and is not now.
You cannot be a humanist towards animals. Humanism is speciesist.
futurevegan How so?
“Greg is a vegan, but he isn’t a vegan towards plants.”
Matt "Hitler" Dillahunty
Too many drugs have ruined Matt brain in some parts. He would of answered differently on the humanist question wow I was surprised. The answer is yes everybody should be cared for as long as they are not evil.
Matt doesn’t do drugs.
futurevegan On the contrary he talked about how he was high as a kite on The Atheist Experience recently.
Multiple identical replies because I’m on a phone, sorry about that.
Matt said he does hallucinogens lol.
Ethan Rhodes No he said acid too lol.
00:45 Argument from Popularity Fallacy
@J Gx7 I understand. That's what it appears as though he is doing.
@J Gx7 But, it's kind of a distilled point when it's also a blanket statement fallacy.
@J Gx7 I've already agreed that he is most likely citiing actual sources. Why are you having so much trouble with that? Any attempt at addressing the reliability of his sources will be a strawman fallacy.
@J Gx7
Did you just say that an ad populum fallacy is only a fallacy when you are referring to individuals without credentials on a specific topic? I'm going to assume that was a mistake because you appear to at least recognize fallacies.
#1. First, that's not the argument from popularity fallacy. It's the (argument from authority fallacy) and you didn't describe that correctly either.
#2. The argument from authority is not a fallacy because someone is citing someone who is without credentials. Saying that is the actual violation of the argument from authority.
#3. You are thinking of an argument from FALSE authority which states that it is fallacious to cite someone who is the wrong authority, with respect to the wrong subject or field.
#6. So what makes an argument from authority fallacious? It's when that's all the evidence you have. Is just the words from those you deem to be authorities.
It's not a fallacy to say, (Hey look, these guys agree with me too!).
It's a fallacy to say (Hey, these guys agree with me too, and that is why I'm right)
#5. Lastly, I'm not interpreting anything. That would require me to be taking something he is saying, and attempting to rephrase it in a way that is analogous to his statement.
@J Gx7 But you shouldn't. Because that's not what the argument from popularity is.
The argument from popularity is when you assert something is true because of the amount of people who believe in it or by how strongly they believe I it.
when you talk a about religiosity ... it actually depends what religion you are talking about.
christianity vs islam for example.
Or Christianity versus Mormonism for example.
@@g3glo sorry, that you have not read all my posts.
" orthodox christians " ... just like latter-day saints ... are christians.
in fact ... some of the original christians. ( none of this protestant nonsense )
they teach theosis.
theosis is humans becoming gods.
that is the entire point of god creating and putting humans on earth.
so we can become like him. ( let us make man in our image ) genesis 1: 26-28
logically, especially now that we understand that there may be multiverses ( perhaps an infinite amount ) we may become gods of our own universes.
perhaps you should actually read john10:13.
You are a Mormon. In other posts you have admitted to Mormon doctrines such as Jesus Christ being Satan's spirit brother, Jesus being procreate by sex between god the father and Mary. Most damning of all you affirm you believe god became a god. These are not biblical doctrines nor have they ever been taught by the church. The question is, do you aspire to be a Christian? If you do then help can be provided. Do you want to be a Christian or Mormon? It's time to stop trying to be both and make a decision.
@@g3glo news flash ... mormons are christians.
@@grayman7208 it seems you've made your decision to remain a Mormon and believe its teaching that god became a god, Jesus was procreate by god the father having sex with Mary and him being Satan's spirit brother. Now you're sticking with these beliefs would you now be willing to share, 'why I should believe what you believe?'
Adrian
Alex
adrian clark What topic do you wish to address? We’re both bored in lockdown I see.
@@Stuffingsalad I'm just a wretched sinner with no hope of redemption of my own means. I simply depend on Jesus Christ and nothing but his righteousness. In fact, I'm not convinced debates like the video help. What's the point? Just read the comments. When did anyone say, you know I came in with this belief and he completely changed my mind? Both sides claim victory because neither side is able to give up their presuppositions. People end up being rude about their perceived opponents. Surely, it's pointless arguing. What's the point? is my question.
adrian clark Correct. A lot of people won’t change their minds or have no intention to. However, I wouldn’t say it’s completely pointless. People are sometimes swayed by both sides. People have converted and deconverted. Plus, sometimes it’s just fun.
@@Stuffingsalad people don't argue over pixies at the bottom the garden, the reality of Father Christmas or the FSM. Why bother arguing about gods which like pixies etc don't exist?
The slavery 'contradiction' is actually pretty easy to discern; if you say to someone "I'm going to leave now." and they say any variant of "You can't, I own you" that is patently, incontrovertibly immoral. You can call it 'slavery' or being a 'bondsman' or any number of other terms but if your relationship breaks down to one person claiming to own another as property it's wrong.
Can you walk away from a bank and not pay them without consequences? No you are a slave to them you must pay them ...of you do, you will receive the penalty for your actions...bond servants worked in this way.
Really ? The bank can’t beat you to near death for nonpayment
Subscribed👍
I don’t think a god is humanist cause there is no choice but to follow gods commands. God’s commands are not all good especially all the killing that is not justified.
However, by nature God is the arbiter of what is just David, not us.
adrian clark I don’t think that things are always right or wrong there are shades of gray. Thats the problem.
@@HardKore5250 the difficulty is that saying there are not absolutes but shade of grey is an absolute statement. There are ambiguous areas where wisdom is required. That's where we need to be gentle and considerate. Matt D needs to be treated with kindness and compassion, he's in a dark place mentally and spiritually.
adrian clark How is he in a dark place? Does he treat the people on the phone kindly not really?
@@HardKore5250 Mormons are some of the kindest and most likeable people you are likely to come across. However, kindness does not reconcile us to God. The bible says, "all our works are as filthy rags". I think Gray should be able to answer this question. He hinted before at the errors in Mormon prophets' teaching. If you follow their doctrines you're in relationship with imaginary gods not Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost as revealed in Scripture and nature. This is a helpful resource: carm.org/mormonism
I might be missing the point, but it's hardly surprising that religiosty increases wellbeing whether God exists or not. The sense of community and of security that believing brings is bound to increase wellbeing. That says nothing though about God's existence.
Point #2. Look at this dude, how dogma blured his morality just to retionalize slavery & defend his holy book. Maybe this dude is a pharoeh in his pass life.
Even if religiosity were proven to be beneficial to wellbeing, that would have NOTHING to do with whether or not the religion's claims are true.
Mattrick Swazye:
Atheist,
That's not what the debate was about.
Pay attention please.
Great video, I’m a new sub.
Do you still troll all that stupid presup nonsense?
"On Matt's view, we've lost the category of 'Just War' ...there's just war."
Oh, you!
was wwII an unjust war?
5:08 - Contradiction #2 just proves that Atheism is rooted in racism and discrimination -- look at how Matt hesitates to admit that all humans have value.
There is no contradiction, and no, atheism is not rooted in racism in discrimination. All you need to do is look at the South during Jim Crow. What religion does the KKK follow? Oh, that's right, Christianity, you fucking turd.
Atheists are walking, talking contradictions..
docfate I am not a walking talking contradiction.
@@steggyweggy : Yes you are.
docfate how so?
@@steggyweggy :
ua-cam.com/video/l5XOaEHLQlM/v-deo.html
docfate sorry bud not watching a 30 minute video from a radio show just for this. If you can summarize the point you wanna make that’s fine with me. Although I did watch a little of the video and I’ll go ahead and say that I don’t presuppose atheism.
It doesn't take long when listening to Dillahunty's responses/objections, to realize that no matter how sound the arguments against atheism are, how solid, justified, or powerful; he is going to reply with some kind of atheistic escape reply, "But... (and fill in the blank)". And absolutely none of his objections are knock down arguments proving the non-existence of God. I like what the former atheist C. S. Lewis had to say about the atheist, when he stated, "If you want to know the reason why someone is an atheist, just follow them home." Another of Lewis' quotes goes something like this: "A creature revolting against his creator is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower." What is hilarious is an atheist being angry at God whom they claim does not exist.
Your words, "proving the non-existence of ..." Can you name something that has been proven not to exist, absolutely?
@@agnosticmoron6711
We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis.
For example, we can prove that there is no living tyrannosaurus rex on the planet. You can prove that self-contradictory statements do not exist; such as there are no married bachelors. You can prove that there are no square circles.
It is very easy to prove the non-existence of something. This is a popular argument in the atheist circle, but the sophisticated atheist does not use this argument because it is easy to dismantle.
If you mean that you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don't exist.
@@WienArtist Thank you for replying to my comment. Do you think that atheists need to present a knock-down argument that proves the non-existence of god?
@@WienArtist Thank you for replying to my question. If we could use a geometric example, would you agree that there is no such thing as a four sided triangle because, that statement is self-contradictory?
How would you prove that humans have intrinsic value?
Read your bible and believe what it says. The evidence is there for all who would dare to look.
Claiming it's just literature doesn't make it just literature. The bible is God's inspired word. It reveals the mind of God who is truth. It says mankind is made in his image. It is quite clear. The evidence is there for those who believe.
@@g3glo so what evidence has the word of God presented for you to determine objectively that humans have intrinsic value?
Isn't it a properly basic belief? It doesn't need proving - it needs explaining.
@@ephs145 it is a basic belief, however, I have not been presented with an argument to prove that it is true.
I would argue that we attribute humans with relative value due to our development as a social species through natural selection, but to say that value is intrinsic implies that there is some sort of existential, cosmological, or spiritual purpose, which I am not convinced of either.
I understand how one would come to this conclusion with a belief in a religion. For example: If I were to be convinced of Christianity, I would necessarily believe that the gods image argument supports intrinsic value. This, however, is a presuppositional argument that necessarily relies on, once again, the religion and it's scriptures being true.
How do I know I have the correct God(s)??? Is it possible I am donating my blood in the name of an Incorrect or False God??? Or buying or selling my slaves in the name of the Wrong Deity... ????
Dillahunty lost this debate
David the greatest: By a country mile
@J w - True J w
I thought you did a good job in the debate representing your viewpoints, and I appreciated the respect shown to each other. But this video does not shine a good light on you. Bring up those points during the debate, not afterwards. Or say I wish we would have had more time to discuss this issue. You come across as a sore looser in this video, and I am not sure you lost the debate.
I won.
A video by: Me
It’s not just his opinion lol ua-cam.com/video/QbiV-Q1wJrE/v-deo.html