Does God Exist? What Is a Woman? Dinesh D'Souza @dineshdsouza vs Matt Dillahunty @SansDeity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2023
- Due to thousands of requests, we are uploading this discussion again with enhanced audio.
#mattdillahunty #dineshdsouza #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #atheistvschristian #atheistsofinstagram #atheistrepublic #secularism #god #religion #religiousbeliefs #jesus #bible #christianity #pangburn #pangburnphilosophy #whatisawoman #gender #genderequality #genderidentity #climate #climatechange #climatecrisis
Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza
This is the first time Matt Dillahunty & Dinesh D'Souza have appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Town Hall Theater in New York City on March 1st 2020. This event was produced by Pangburn. The discussion topics begin with God & Trump, but as you will see, move very quickly into social issues.... Enjoy the discussion!
A special THANKS to our additional event investors:
Sally Jennings
Dana Macleod
Ben Lang
Jeremy Williams
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/n.gif)
IF YOU WANT TO SEE ROUND 2 BETWEEN MATT & DINESH, DROP A LIKE ON THIS VIDEO! Be sure to subscribe! We have new live events coming this fall. VANCOUVER! You're first! Tickets are selling fast for my discussion with Lawrence Krauss Oct 13th. Get your tickets here: www.ticketmaster.ca/the-edge-of-knowledge-with-lawrence-vancouver-british-columbia-10-13-2023/event/11005EA4E1634A30
Please this is awesome conversation 👍🏼
Ok for ME, the issue with voters who are motivated by their religious beliefs is, they often feel that they have to insensate those beliefs into everyone else's lives. Hence regardless of their own feeling about a decision like the need to terminate a pregnancy, they just can't help themselves insisting that they remove the option from everyone. But of course this also extends to allowing religious beliefs to creep into schools, OR having outrageous messianic or prophetic beliefs ABOUT a candidate overwhelm their rational thinking so they continue to vote against their best interests. An example is paid family leave, which SHOULD be a popular issue for anyone who considers themselves "pro family" yet they vote for someone who's completely opposed to ANY such worker benefit because they feel that person is "sent by god."
I don't think you could be 100% about knowing something. Are you 100% about knowing that?
@alvarovargasbag What are you referring to here? Lacks context, my friend.
but he is a busy body when it comes to making rational evidential facts about reality when it comes to christians
I never thought I would prefer a debate with Jordan Peterson.
This comment is underrated.
Their debate was fire.
Yeah, I like Jordan Peterson most of the time, but not in that debate. Still that was more fun than this. Seems like Dinesh constantly tries to change Matt's mind without even considering he might be wrong.
When evangelicals and other far right offal believe D'Souza is an intellectual leader, it says all that needs to be known about the intellectual poverty of those people.
MATT "Help me, help me atheist community - Dinesh is kicking my butt".
At least Matt did not run away this time.
Man I love listening to a person be calmly reasonable and correct in the face of someone being illogical. I could fall asleep to this.
Though having said that, watching his call in show where he snaps at people and calls them stupid has been really disappointing
Although I do agree... I feel that it was wasted time. Usually, both sides have good pionts.
@@spinnwebe_while it does bug me how he gets sometimes, I also understand that he has been doing call in shows for many years, and people do not listen to the questions being asked. It isn’t their show and they should be able to listen and follow discussion.
Agreed. He’s a bit of a grumpy old man. And mean. But his message is important
@@jordanhinderliter3784 yeah I don’t doubt it can be soul sucking. But it also means I’m sad that I thought I found a rational voice I could add a to my viewing rotation and he’s just too angry for me to do so
I notice that D'souza keeps misinterpreting Dillahunty's points. Grossly - to the point that I question whether he is actually debating in good faith.
Has he done anything in his career in good faith?
It’s Dinesh D’Souza, he has never to my knowledge publicly acted in good faith
I noticed that too.
After his bogus ideas about healthcare, I think he is a confidence trickster. I live in the UK where we have the NHS - healthcare we pay through our taxes. It's a wonderful system and people like D'souza terrify us as they would seek to destroy it for profit.
Dillahunty simply
Interrupts when he is not winning , and the virtue signaling is bonkers
Dinesh makes a point, Matt debunks it easily and Dinesh instead of admitting the mistake of his point/example, goes to another example he loses... geez.
Typical of the Religitards... Always moving the goal posts.
Dinesh makes a good point that it's irrelevant whether the source is religion or 'rationality.' So if I am against abortion it's okay if it is for a 'rational' reason instead of 'religious'?
Who decides that the reason is 'rational'? I am against a ban on abortion, but if a person opposes abortion because they find it gross, who decides if that is rational or not?
The correct argument is, the law should prevent individuals from EXPLOITING or ABUSING each other. So we should have gun safety and restrictions to prevent people ABUSING others with guns. Jim Crow laws should be illegal because they exclude a particular group from accessing economic opportunity and therefore they are EXPLOITED. Consumer protection laws exist to prevent individuals from being EXPLOITED by companies. Domestic abuse violence laws exist to protect women and men from being ABUSED by their partners.
This is a much better test, because it works for abortion. Is the pregnant woman exploiting or abusing the embryo by abortin git? Perhaps you could argue it is being abused.
Is the embryo exploiting or abusing the pregnant woman? Ectopic pregnancies are abuse - such a pregnancy has no viability, it will only harm the mother to continue. Elective abortions are harder, but I still think that the embryo is exploiting the woman to live. Therefore I do think women should have the choice to end a pregnancy. They also have in mind that the child would live a difficult life of abuse or exploitation. And I think this is unfortunately the interest of the state in the embryo- that the government has an interested in creating more people in order to exploit and possibly abuse them. And that it the TOP reason why abortion should be the choice of the woman made in consultation with a medical professional!
@@benb6527You don't know what 'rational' means.
@@mrbig99
"You don't know what 'rational' means."
Wow, way to take courage and really take a stand here! lol
Matt debunked nothing. His position is I only belive what's already proven, and I take a neutral position on everything else. Therefore his position is you prove everything and I say "I remain unconvinced " he is an idiot. Matt- " there is a biological difference between men and women " also Matt- " a trans woman is a woman" . Same conversation! Really?
D’Souza successfully ATTEMPTED each and every logical fallacy hoping Matt would be unfamiliar with ONE
It's like hes playing logical falacy bingo with himself.
D’Souza won this debate with ease.
@@William89809 I agree Matt was hammered in this debate. But at least he did better than Daniel Dennett.
And Matt did the same thing at times. lol It appears Matt actually has blind faith in far more things then D'Souza does. D'souza places his blind faith in religion while Matt places his in in many areas, especially in provably corrupt institutions which cause me to question his claim to be a humanist. Matt doesn't come off as well here as he did with Peterson as that debate stayed far more on the topic of religion which Matt knows best.
Hammed by the inane yapping of D’Souza.
D’Souza is the (word) salad that fills you up (aka distracts) so you can’t finish the main course. I was eagerly waiting for Matt to go off like he sometimes does on his podcasts and take control of the conversation. D’Souza is exhausting!
Yeah, though not as bad as Peterson.
"is the (word) salad". Perhaps you are too dumb to understand?
"(word) salad" I think that just shows your lack of understanding beyond a 5th grade level.
@@TBOTSSfound the DSouza fan
@@evanment88 am not a D'souza in particular. What is your point. The first poster clearly has some cognitive difficulties.
Why is "where the universe came from" one of the most important questions we can ask? And would we ever get the notion that something happens to us after we die, unless we haven't already made an assumption of a supernatural belief?
There is very subtle subterfuge in the question of where the universe comes from. Believers are very smug in falsely claiming they have absolute knowledge this was definitively created by god, whereas science takes the position it would like to know but is humble in admitting there are things that are yet unknown. History has not been kind to those believing in the supernatural as science has time and again shown natural causation for that which has previously been assigned as supernatural.
My position is that where tge universe came from is largely irrelevant to my day-to-day life and operations. It’s here and we’re in it. That’s all that counts.
@@scottgrohs5940 thank you
D'Souza: "Climate science is a multi billion dollar industry!"
... as oppose to fossil fuel, which is literal worth multiple Trillions a year!🥴🤣🤣🤣
You're right but it's established that fossil fuel can cause pollution, at least locally, if not globally. But certain global bankers, governments, and monopoly capitalists can take advantage of both fossil fuels and green energy initiatives to not only make money, but seize even more power.
And he neglects the fact that the polluters have spent tons of money hiding the pollution they were making.
Fossil fuel isn’t going anywhere. China is building coal power plants as fast as they can. Less than 5% of their capacity when the sun is shining is from solar.
And now corporations are moving away from fossil fuel for a very specific reason. Spoiler alert. It's not because of the environment
That’s because the power output of fossil fuel is an indispensable necessity for modern life to exist. Awkward fact, but absolutely true… 🤣🤣
Dinesh must be so tired! He kept moving goal posts for the whole debate.
I typically enjoy debates, but you’re so on point that this conversation began to feel pointless and boring pretty quickly.
Because matt likes to play games where he critiques every other world view besides his own.
"Trust the science", even though science is only an interpretation of the observable natural world
@@jacobostapowicz8188 isn’t view criticism a huge aspect of debating?
You might need to watch it again. Right when Dinesh was making a good point, Matt would insist on some pedantic reframing and force Dinesh to approach it from another angle.
@@edwardprokopchuk3264 yes. But if matt were honest he would critique evolution theory with the same skepticism. He doesn't.
Dinesh' healthcare position is wrong. Many Americans seem to be under the apprehension that healthcare in especially Europe is free. It is not. Tax is paid for it and in many countries people have to either pay for additional insurance - which is affordable, or have to pay nominal fees for all or some services. I've worked with Americans and I would never want to live in a country where people are treated like they're just customers of anything. The US is the most religious country in the West, yet more of its citizens struggle than people in Europe do.
Health care would not be expensive if Big Government were not involved.
Religion has nothing to do with our healthcare
@@williamsaaranen7672The government does its job collecting taxes for health care, but instead of providing the service, it gives it to insurance companies who raise the costs 1000% . We can have great health care at 20% of the costs we pay.
@@terrymckenzie8786 I.E. the gooberment getting involved in health care.
@@williamsaaranen7672Why is it the US gov. pays multiple times more for healthcare, than all our countries with "free" taxes paid healthcare ?
Even though Americas been suckered by propaganda to talk about "socialism" as if it's a sin 🤦♀️, & so makes you pay huge insurance $$$ for it, the US gov. STILL spends more on healthcare than any other country that gives it for "free" from paid taxes..
I am so sorry ( seriously ) Yous have been scammed into believing your way is better/ cheaper/ first-world..
Objectively it is not ..
Taxes are meant to be spent on essential services & citizens that need help to keep up..
That's literally what they were invented for..
Because a country/ society doesn't function as well when its services & citizens aren't all able to be a part of helping it thrive..
🤔 I honestly don't know how anyone who's not a psychopath, can say they won't give a little to ensure needy others get food , water, healthcare, housing etc..
Or that it shouldn't be a basic given right, and only just when you can afford it..
🤔☮️🌏
Why does every religious debater make the same silly misunderstandings despite having debated this multiple times. Do they get amnesia or have cognitive issues?
They are playing propaganda, not learning.
This one feels like D'Souza is talking twice as much as Matt without saying anything at all.
Ha Ha Ha... it's probably because you didn't want to listen.
It's pretty obvious where he wants to go with each analogy and if you understand some basic philosophy, you should realize exactly where they break down. What do you think: Does he not understand how his logic is flawed or is he knowingly presenting unsound and sometimes even invalid arguments?
That's often how these things go. Matt can be a very clear and concise speaker, and when it comes to logic and the truth there are a finite amount of things to say. I often see him finish his points under the time limit. But for religious apologists, it's all lies and nonsense anyway so there's no limit to how much you can make up.
He definitely seems better than Jordan Peterson, to be fair. I think Dinesh presents his position pretty well. It just doesn't go anywhere because it's already boiled down to the irreducible basics of his own assumptions and cognitive biases which he actively thinks are the truth.
when a christian has an argument with poor substance, they tend to attempt to fill the air with longer lines and fancy language. jordan peterson is especially guilty of this. if you can make your point in 3 bullet points with some minor additional information, then why would you ever talk for 5 paragraphs? it's because their points are weak and can't stand on their own so they need inflation.
Dinesh has the worst analogies ever! He should have learned from his debates with Hitchens.
You don't learn from debates with Hitch. You just try to survive his slaps and then to save your fanbase by doubling down on your stupid beliefs. ;)
He hasn't learnt . He doesn't want to learn .
It is incredible how he had learned nothing from any of his debates. It's even more incredible that he had fans that support his trouble apologetics
@@GameTimeWhy I really think he cannot learn this, because he'd loose 80% of his fanbase. That is why I lean towards him lying.
Take the icebear-population. I needed ten seconds to get to the information that the higher icebear population might be a result of better tracking methods, not more bears. Look at how he is phrasing that thing. I bet he knows it was fake news, that is why he put so much weight in pointing out that he trusts the scientists skills. Sounds like lying to me.
Matt is all about logic until it comes to trans people, then he becomes an utter imbecile.
Dinesh never had ANY argument beyond what he feels and believes. Zero evidence to back those feelings
like matts argument on gender yeah?
@@mra4955 How delusional can you be? You have to cope so hard that you resort to "no, you" fallacies? Matt provided plenty of evidence based on science, and provided sound arguments on how to treat people who are different.
If you don't know the difference between biological sex and gender identify, then you're more sexually confused than what you think trans people are. If you can't get the basics down, I doubt you understand how a civil society works, and thus you pose a threat to it.
You either think transness is:
1) ...a mental health issue
Amongst the wide variety of mental health issues that exist, a large portion of them are permanent, and lifelong. Those types of conditions are treated with understanding, support and increasing well-being by providing tools to support their differences.
If you can't accept that possibility and still believe it is ok to treat people with incurable mental health issues like they are evil, wrong for being different, and must be forced to live their lives as if they don't have that condition, then you are a threat to civil society, and immoral for causing suffering upon innocent people.
2) ...a choice, and you think it's ok to tell someone else how to dress, behave, or what to do with their own body (when those choices cause no real harm to anyone) for no reason other than you don't like it, then you don't stand for individual liberty and freedom. You then have fascist ideology for the intent to suppress individuals, which is immoral for its opposition to maximum well-being. Having distaste in something does not count as harm.
3) ...a result of variation in human biology which creates differences in people's physiology, resulting in physical and/or behavioral blends of things typical amongst the different sexes. Knowing this would suggest you also know about the reality of intersexed people (actually backed by real science) who naturally develop with a blend of male and female sexual and biological characteristics; thus, it would be illogical for you to stand in opposition to such a person's existence, and if you did that would by default be a threat to society and immoral.
in any perspective, whether it's based on reality or just for the sake of thought, no anti-trans "argument" I've come across succeeds in any way at supporting itself. They all crumble from ignorance of actual facts, and/or failure to form complete and sound arguments.
------------------------------------
for some common counter "arguments":
1) trans women pose a threat in women's bathrooms:
first off, there is no support to that claim statistically or logically. Being a r@pist is not part of being trans, and regardless of any law or social norm, anyone can go into a bathroom and assault anyone, regardless of gender identity or sex. People who do that do that because they are assaulters, not because they are trans.
the problem isn't trans people, it's isolated areas and r@pists. You don't solve that problem by gender regulation, you solve it with induvial one-person bathrooms. You can't even enforce genital inspection because that's violation of privacy, and do you even think about having to show your junk to some stranger every time you need to use a public bathroom? Id's don't count because they can be faked.
Also, if you don't understand how passable trans people can be and how HRT works, and you enforce birth-sex bathrooms, you're going to see a lot more burly looking men on testosterone in women's bathrooms, and dainty girls who may or may not have a penis in men's bathrooms. You realize the most trans of trans people literally have sex reassignment surgery, right? in both ways too.
2) Trans people are just confused about who they are:
That's not an actual trans person. Proper support and inclusion of trans people into society allows everyone to learn what it actually means to be trans, and because that doesn't happen, people get confused and don't have proper guidance on how to discover their true selves. Transness has always existed, and people will go through that journey of discovery whether they've seen it somewhere or it originates solely from their own internal experience. Do you even think about that? Transness isn't some doctrine or belief system that people get indoctrinated into.
3)Trans people are indoctrinating kids and trying to let them mutilate their bodies before being an adult.
Trans people exist, the science is there, if you disagree you are willfully ignorant. For most trans people, they've felt that way as far as they can remember. Many trans people wish they had proper support when they were younger. There are trans people who wanted to transition very early, during puberty, you know, when hormones are kicking into high gear. Early transitions lead to more effective transition, that's just a fact. However, none of this means there is a movement to indoctrinate anyone into transness. In fact, it's the opposite. The movement is for more support for younger people to be properly guided through their experience in an effort to ensure that a choice to transition is as accurate and necessary as possible. If you care about age, the practice of increased support means more time and care is put into their discovery, thus meaning a choice to transition is prolonged. While the science is not as abundant as other mainstream sciences, the existing science shows that with proper guidance the choice to transition is more appropriate and successful when it's made, and it prevents those who aren't actually trans from making a mistake, because they were properly guided. Proper guidance means support for who the induvial truly is, and it requires more science to improve that support. The only way to properly treat trans people is through support. Also, the very few times there was a transition before the age of 18, they were to prevent suicides. The goal is not getting anyone to be trans, and it's not to give kids at-will access surgical transitions, it's to let real trans people know it's ok to be trans, so they can explore that part of themselves openly and naturally, without pressure to be one thing or another. It's also because transitioning is a big decision that should be thought through thoroughly.
4) being trans is bad because it leads to a higher chance of suicide:
It's not being trans that leads to suicide, it's society's treatment of trans people that destroys their hope for a happy life of being themselves. If you can't imagine what it would be like to be attacked, harassed, and insulted on a daily basis, in a country actively fighting to make laws against who you are as a person and knowing that so many people like you are killed just for being themselves, then you lack the most basic level of empathy and pose a threat to society.
5) no one is going to tell me how to think or what to believe so I'm not going to respect pronouns:
Really? alright let me break this simple af concept down. Being trans is not about changing someone else's belief, it's not about anyone other than the individual's identity. If you can't understand that all trans people ask for is the most basic level of cordial respect, then you've got some learning to do. They just want to be called a very small set of words. If you can call a car she/her, you can call a person asking you to call them that she/her. If you don't see that FOR YOU it's no different than calling someone by their nick name, then you need more help than trans people. Are you going to call someone by their birth name if they legally change it? are you so fragile in your own understanding of gender that you can't trust yourself with calling someone basically a nickname that you wouldn't initially assume of them on your own? Are words really that hard for you?
----------------------------------
no matter how you look at it, you cannot justify being anti-trans. until there is actual science that say's being trans doesn't exist in any way, and that supporting is actually bad, grow tf up and learn how to live in a civil society.
This !
“Gender is a social construct”
“Trans women are women!”
How can a trans woman identify as something (gender: woman) that Dillahunty simultaneously claims is fictional and that be a logical and rational position? Dillahunty outsmarted himself into being a low brow dummy.
For real. His whole gender stance is nothing but feels. What were you watching?
5:39 Alabama Supreme Court just ruled using the Bible on IVF case. They cited the book of Jeremiah as a reason for their ruling
and thus why i call your country usakistan.
How do you know when you’re talking to a graduate of an Ivy League college? Don’t worry, they’ll make up a weird toad analogy and awkwardly find a way to work that in to the story.
That unicorn remark was so on point.
So was dinesh pressing matt on lgbtq
@@paulstedmond1765 no even relevant to what he is saying .. lol
@@_Stargazer_. I think many people are smart enough to see the connection he was making.
Matt - "A million trans people are murdered in bathrooms across America every year". Citation needed Matt.
The analogy of "do you believe in the dogs you havent seen?" is so hilarious to me. That analogy comparing dogs to god would only work if nobody alive has ever even seen a dog 😂😂😂
no one alive has seen a god though. There's a reason that seeing/speaking to god is a symptom of schizophrenia. It seems that whenever someone talks to god, it's whenever they're all alone and no one else is around. And they also forget to take a photo or video of this miraculous moment, every single time. What a coincidence lol.
@@shaqyardie8105Yeah because when someone has a divine encounter with the God of creation they should have the instinct or thought to take out their phone and record. Cmon
@@casperfevr7358 lol 😂 did you read anything I said. God is very shy that he only reveals himself to people one at a time and when they're all alone and no one else is around. I even referred to the delusion that is schizophrenia and you STILL come up with excuses like everyone is so starstruck that they just forget to take a photo, like oops I forgot to take a photo. I'll make sure I take one next time lol 😂. Every single person that has seen god, really? How can we tell the difference between seeing god and it being a figment of our imagination?
@@casperfevr7358 Exactly. Because we can take out our phones and record dogs, it is reasonable to believe other dogs exist.
I haven’t listened to a “debate” in YEARS and now I remember why.
It’s just entertainment if you’re entertained by a liar trying to find out which lies still work.
In addition to being a liar Matt also runs away very, very fast.
As far as discussions and debates go, this was a lot of meandering and little substances. I was disappointed. The one between Dillahunty and Peterson was much more interesting.
@@hanshananigan1233 Not as interesting as Matt's debate with Andrew Wilson.
@@TBOTSS haven't seen it, I'll check it out, thanks!
@@TBOTSSwhat did he run away from here the constant word salad being thrown at him or him being told what his positions were you obviously didn’t pay attention
It's Crazy, 6 minutes in and this video is already so relevant to the issues with the supreme court in the USA now.
Well, the video was uploaded just an hour ago
@@msabccbscnnoanfoxnewsthis debate happened in 2018
@@msabccbscnnoanfoxnews hahaha I like the dad joke, but yeah in the context of it being 5 years ago.
It annoys me when people say "the temperature has only risen by 1 degree". The difference between water and ice is a fraction of a degree. That 1 degree rise is a global average, which means that places which were cold enough for ice, and no longer cold enough for ice. The incredulity is solely based on the notion that 1 degree isn't very much, regardless of the simple truth that it makes the difference between ice and water.
I agree. Another comment that infuriates me is "the Earth goes through cyclical climate changes all the time." Ya, no sh*t, as if the climatologists hadn't considered that 🙄😤🤯.
We're technically still in an ice age, warming is to be expected.
@@hellooutsiders6865 Are you familiar with the astonishing rate that temperatures have shot up by since the industrial revolution? The rate far exceeds any natural rate that would be expected or has occurred in the past. Until you can look at the peer reviewed studies on the matter, you have nothing to add.
I don't know enough to disagree with you but at my age, the winters can be colder than I have ever seen and the summers hotter than I have ever seen. Say what you will about my life experience, but when you get things wrong, because you trust others to do the science for you, you no longer need a brain of your own. Has atmospheric density/volume changed in the past hundred years, yes. And there is more, much more.
No matter how anyone feels…No matter if one believes in man made global warming or one thinks it’s a farce. There really isn’t enough good data to project the future temperature of the earth. We are talking about a large scale temperature change - I’m not saying large as in degrees, but rather a whole planet. And there are lots of variables involved with temperatures, and all sorts of levels of co2, o2, h2o, etc in the atmosphere. All of each have their own effect. On a planetary scale, man has known global temperatures and atmospheric conditions for a relatively short amount of time. It’s even questionable how well they know it now. Besides knowing the conditions for a “blip” of planetary time, the earth “creates it’s own pollutants” without any help from man or animal. This should also be brought into the equation. Also, it would help the so-called climatologists if they stop making catastrophic predictions that essentially never come true. It’s happened over and over again and ruins the credibility of good climatologists. There is a lot corruption in many fields, no matter if it’s big oil or all the way into the “climate department”. World-view agendas and big money is involved with this topic…Unfortunately.
A woman/girl is interviewed a minimum of three times before she is granted an abortion. One of those interviews the patient is isolated so no one can influence her decision. Abortion is never approached indifferently or negligently.
My sister got an abortion and that didn't happen.
@@williamsaaranen7672 was it legal? I worked in a clinic as an escort for patients to protect them from protestors and sometimes as support for women who faced it alone. It was accredited and regulated. All OBGYN clinics are. Doctors go to prison for practicing without a license in this country, the USA.
Did your sister give you permission to talk about it? Online? Seems rather rude and careless.
@@johnnyegerhardt1109 yes it was.
Were you with her in pre-op and the operating room? You didn't answer about having permission to discuss it publicly.
Matt is way more patient than I would be.
Patiently WRONG!
I wish he was like this on his call in show
lol really? Have you not seen the debate with Andrew Wilson ?!
This was an incredible display of patience. I was frustrated just listening to it.
At least Matt did not run away this time.
Who needs a moderator when you have these 2 just having a decent conversation
This type of conversation rarely happens
@@Guys_Love_Each_Other decent? Dinesh keeps trying to come up with new analogies and doesn't really let Matt respond. Just like most people who don't know what they are talking about, they keep talking and talking but saying nothing.
It never stayed on any one topic for longer than a couple of minutes. Matt made no attempt to bring D’nesh back and complete a thought. D’nesh seemed to strawman a lot.
@@YoItsNeeksDinesh keeps going for analogies because Matt really doesn’t want to answer any.
@@JMPovoa oof, that is a stretch... Matt even stopped Dinesh multiple times to clarrify for the analogy and answered honestly to everything. Matt is too experienced to get pigeonholed. I do think this conversation was great, but really once again the person who holds the actual belief who needs the proof keeps trying to say you do not need evidence for anything ever for everyday.
This Dinesh character is such an intellectual lightweight, I don’t know how he keeps getting invited to these debates. Impressively though, no matter how often he gets schooled, he never seems to lose confidence.
dunning kruger effect
Nice gotcha. Boosted your ego and made you feel morally superior.
lighten up, they were just pointing out the obvious@@goldwhitedragon
I am surprised that Atheists think Matt Dillahunty is "superior" there.
Huh, that Dunning-Kruger effect!
Lol.
Nah, just you being willfully ignorant.@@MultiBigAndy
D'Souza claiming that there people who don't try and legislate what people can and can't do based on religion is laughable. "Provide one example." How about the politicians who want gay marriage to be illegal because it is immoral? Why is it immoral? Because my book says it's immoral and has said that it is a sin.
I love this, it is so much more fun to have the conversation over a debate format.
Depends on the interlocutors.
I forgot how much this discussion annoyed me. Dinesh is not an honest speaker to begin with, but he's always misrepresenting the other person arguments and statements and there is never really a good conversation. In the beginning, was he implying he doesn't believe people vote from a religious mindset?
Matt has just hit an important point- the difference between an atheist and a true believer when he talks about divorce
Matt said many things...he didn't believe enough in his first marriage rather than know. Huh...maybe it was faith and not hope.
Matt's view on divorce is hilarious from an Atheist stand-point, too. If you believe marriage is something you can just opt out of willy-nilly then don't get married. The marriage is not there because you love each other, it's not there for you to get a tax break, it's for the kids--And idgaf about how you feel as an adult, your marriage is likely that way because you chose it to be, I care about the kids who have to suffer through that divorce.
Being friends with your Ex's after they most probably got you rode through in the courts is the biggest simp move you can make.
@@infini_ryu9461 Well, I think you and I view marriages as totally separate things. I view marriages as an alliance of souls with legal/social ramifications and benefits. It sounds like you regard marriage as holy or spiritual. But it doesn't have to be. A lot of people don't have magical marriages and they don't need them.
@@GoodAvatar-ut5pq You say it's a bonding of souls and I'm the spiritual one? I just said it's for the kids, whether you think that's holy or not is your beef.
We all have to live with these bastards or children of divorcees at the end of the day, I'd like to lower my chances of getting mugged, thanks.
@@infini_ryu9461 Then you should be favoring atheists in any event. Because atheists tend to get divorces at much lower rates than the religious types. When those twerps allow divorces to begin with.
Why would you want to force a marriage on someone that doesn't want to stay in it? Seems goofy to me. Really silly. Like you didn't think things through or something.
“I don’t want to debate detail here, I want to look at the macro picture.” - Dinesh
Says a lot.
Think big to make it big.
@@flashgordon6670ignore the details to lose big.
Does he forget that the fossil fuel industry is a powerful industry with incentives to disprove climate science
I don't want a round two, Matt deserves better company.
So, Matt's quest is to prove that there is no evidence that God exists. Just because Matt's purpose is to do this (prove God/Jesus Christ doesn't exist) doesn't mean that God/Christ Jesus does not exist. If anything, it proves how prideful he (Matt) is because he can't humble himself before a wiser more intelligent being than himself. So sad! Jesus Christ died to give him the free gift of knowing our Creator/Redeemer and he refuses to accept it. So sad! No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing. Religion is merit based. Relationship is love based. God/Jesus Christ wants us to have a relationship with him (Spirit to spirit).
Lost any respect I could have attempted to muster for Dinesh after he bent the knee to the guy that pardoned him out of a decade of prison. Plus Christopher Hitchens used him like a punching bag for years.
You lost respect when he advocated for the best living present of our time?
What the heck do you have that flag in your pic for? Communism?
Look around dude, have you even seen the grassroots sentiment for Trump?
You're certainly in the minority of thought for the man.
But I digress; at least you're a Dillahunty fan.
@@McGeeRF wtf you talking about pal? I served this country and love it still. Aint nothing patriotic about your boy trump, he has done nothing but shit on America for years. Getting exactly what he deserves for betraying us like he has. Our constitution is the reason he is going down and I hope they throw his traitor ass in prison. Btw before you accuse me of being a liberal, I disagree with All of bidens policies, but its better than treason in my book.
@@McGeeRFTrump’s a snake oil salesman’s snake oil salesman and you bought the snek oil, bud. His presidency went about as tippy-top as his steaks, universities, and casinos. Well, you know what they say, it’s easier to con a man than convince him he’s been conned. Good luck out there, buddy. It’s a cruel world.
@@McGeeRF There is no metric by which Trump can be said to be a good president. Trump lost jobs cut taxes for the top 1% and his trade war was effectively the largest tax increase for average Americans. As far as metrics go Biden has been the best president for labor since FDR.
@basedgamerguy818 Check your job stats for after a shutdown. It's a natural rebound effect. Not organic growth.
I'm sorry, you're one of thoes. good luck.
May the dollar you use to purchase remain resilient.
Also, check the inflation rate, the open Boarder, the WW3 on the horizon, the BRICS nations response to the Petro Dollar, on and on and on.
Regarding the global cooling scare of the 70s:
Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; , which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]
Do you really think we can accurately measure the tempature of the plannet? Thats a joke.
Do you think the scientific comunity is willing to sign off on anything atithical to this doombs day cults orthadoxy, or would that be career suicide?
Co2 and aerosols are the same thing? You are quoting those who were wrong as proof of what?
Its astounding that people who otherwise seem smart and do so much in real life... turn into absolute cavemen who suddenly dont seem to understand logic and reason , as soon as the topic of god pops up. Its like "god " has a special place out of the bounds of reasoning in peoples mind .. they are ready to special plead it into existence .
Wish you all quick recovery! I see you have lost memory of already publishing all of these debates
Listening to Dinesh is freaking exhausting! Sheesh! I really admire Matt's patience and decorum.
It's torture. I'm 20 minutes in , I don't think I can take it much longer. What a pos
DerNesh DuhSnooza, the fraud that sells Christianity.
it's not exhausting, it's infuriating. how can a person who knowingly spews climate change denial and not be evil?
I skipped dinesh and fast forwarded to Matt. Dinesh is insufferable. He’s a pseudo intellectual. Don’t get it why would anyone debate with him. Respect for Matt for his patience! But I bet he would never do this with D’Souza again!
Listening to an individual like dinesh is exhausting, basically the debate technique of wearing you down.
Fossil fuel companies would pay HUGE for research denying the human connection to climate change.
no but you don't understand! the big hippie lobby is paying all of the 97% of the scientists to make up climate change because they have personal grievances with coastal house owners
On the bathroom thing, I'm Australian, and have been living in China for the past almost seven years. A whole lot of restaurants, bars and other public places, have single gender toilets. Men and women share bathrooms, you go into the stall, and lock the door and do your business. Never once heard of any sort of issues. Absolutely garbage argument, bad people who wish to do harm, will do harm wherever they think they can get away with it, regardless of the sign on the door.
While I am on your side regarding the bathroom debate. There simply aren’t enough cases where it matters, it’s a false equivalency to say that something happened successfully in one country and therefore it’s gonna be fine in a different country. Cause the culture in China is completely different in say America or Australia. Secondly. There’s a difference between someone who looks like a manly male walking into a woman’s restroom and a partially passing male masquerading as a female being inside the bathroom… the threat level of the disguised male is much higher.
Firstly because peoples guards would be down.
So the answer isn’t as simply as “bad opportunists are gonna do the bad thing regardless”… no.. even the barrier of a door psychologically puts the opportunistic attacker at a disadvantage, however minuscule.. put enough psychological barriers between the attacker and the target, they’ll see the risk outweighs the reward and be deterred.
This is why something as simply as a security sign on the lawn is a significant enough deterrent.
So while there aren’t enough cases for it to matter if transwomen go into bathrooms, there will be a slight increase in attacks because we have dissolved a safety barrier to convenience a marginalized group. Not saying trans people are the attackers… but yeah america has much more opportunistic violent attacks than in most Asian countries.
Sorry, that might not have been fully legible. I’m saying that it’s not as simple as “bad people are still gonna do bad so why not allow transwomen into bathrooms”… that’s just oversimplifying a complex issue. I do agree though we should allow in most cases trans people to use the bathroom of their choice.. but it shouldn’t be “if you identify as a woman, regardless of your appearance, you can go to whatever bathroom”.. I think the standard should be, whatever you present more closely to, use that bathroom. A public space for intimate activity is a transactional and mutual process involving trust and presenting as non-theeatening and safe.. so if someone who dresses and presents super masculine yet happens to identify as a woman, probably needs to bite the bullet and use a men’s restroom because of the fear and discomfort it could cause to smaller women and children.. bathroom should be neutral or for whatever gender expression matches.
@@Robisquickwe aren't default predators jerk
the bathrooms in your example are structured completely differently...
the US type you described is like a man walking into a women lockerroom
@@wasdwasdedsf women don't have cubicles in the bathrooms in America?
1:15:36 thos is pure gold, how on earth can any rational person propose that believing in something without any evidence and not believing in something due to a lack of evidence are equal.
Impossible :) You must leave The rational part of you outside to make that statement
The incredible part is that Christians saw this and were like "F yeah! Way to teach Matt!"
Matt cannot provide any evidence for his position, nor would he ever able to do so, and yet he defaults to a position devoid of any evidence, all the while demanding evidence from the only other position available. God is or God is not. It's that simple.
@@1974jrod why can't Christians provide evidence for their specific god? It isn't up to non Christians to prove the Christian god doesn't exist.
@@GameTimeWhy they can provide evidence. It's always denied. But that wasn't my point. My point is athiests want evidence all the while holding to the only opposing position that no evidence can be provided.
Nobody has been to the other side of the curtain (death) and reported back one way or the other says Dinesh. If there is no afterlife how exactly would they report back?
Surely you could only possibly report back if there is life after death?
“Climate change is a huge industry, who would pay the debunkers of climate change”
My dude have you heard of oil companies
Also what a fuckin dystopia it would be if I had to shop around for the cheapest deal for my medical treatments.
Also holy shit. Health care is expensive bc old ppl are lonely is a wild thought
Dinesh doesn’t just wander into the weeds, he sees new ones.
... and then smokes them, killing more of his limited supply brain cells
Like a rake through the reeds as to find the right tone, one must wake through the weeds as to find their way home.
How annoyed would Hitch be by Dinesh calling him "pro-life".....lol
Right?! Last week, I was literally listening to Hitchens saying we could end world poverty if we allowed women to have control over their own reproduction.
Hitch was against abortion, but not for making it illegal. There is a fine distinction. Therefore saying he is prolife misses the point
@@lifesquanderedhe said this all the time, that the best thing that can be done for a country and it's economy is the empowerment of women.
He was pro life. Surprising, granted, but he was. He spoke a little but about it and wrote an article on it
@@boxer12350 That's not exactly right. He said that logically and morally pro-life was the stance that he ended up with. He absolutely would detest being called a member of the rabid right wing pro-life movements in the United States.
Dinesh really tried trying. Especially his afterlife question. Believing in an afterlife will make you act irrationally by investeing heavily and preparing for an afterlife that may not exist. Meanwhile the nonbeliever has not been concerned with such things and helped design your new iPhone.
How would that be irrational? If you believe in an afterlife, it would be very rational to make preparations for it.
It's not rational as the basis of the action itself is irrational, i.e., the afterlife.@@michaelbernard1041
There are many "supernatural" events believed by many civilisations in the past that are now explained as "natural" because of science
Believing that nothing happens when you die takes the same amount of faith as believing that something does happen....
@@SKRATCH1988A well-put misinterpretation of the statements made. Not believing in an afterlife is not the same as believing there is no afterlife. Matt's point, and the statement made by the OP, do not say, "There is no afterlife." The statement is that there is no evidence that an afterlife exists, nor that it does not exist. The "non-believer" is free to move about their life unconcerned with the question of an afterlife.
Before watching this video, I spent exactly 0 minutes contemplating the question of an afterlife in the last decade. If someone presents objective evidence that an afterlife exists or does not exist, I am open to evaluating it. Still, unless science progresses in unexpected ways, I have no reason to expect to reevaluate my position anytime soon.
1:27:25 That appeal to the crowd like "surely someone has heard what I've said continuously for the last 75 minutes" 😂
A pity Matt doesnt have a fact checker in his ear. Because the one I just read told me, that the polar bear population increase might rather be because of better tracking, not more bears.
Also probably easier to track bears when they're driven to a smaller area more accessible to humans
Lol so by that logic the accounting of polar bears when they were supposedly declining was inaccurate too?
@@lazul6611 so what?
Clearly, Dinesh is trying to say there’s two main people there’s God and there’s Christopher
I bet you he would come back and tell you he was dead wrong now, being in hell
Can someone help clarify the definition of natural world as used by Matt? I've heard him use it before, but for instance at ~13:20 he states, "science only deals with the natural world". If the "natural world" here means the non-human aspects of the physical universe, I would argue that logic is a science, at the very least in respect to deduction, is non-physical, but created by humans, and that it concerns itself at times with human created subjects, like language.
Currently Al Gore is worth $300 million
He does make up to $200,000 in speaking fees, some which may be climate related and some not.
He has made $100 million from the sale of Current TV, $50 - $60 million from Apple stock, and millions more from other investments.
He is not not financially enslaved to climate change belief as D'Souza is implying.
I’m pretty confident that there are many more leaders in the carbon based energy industry that are worth much, much more than Gore. Regardless, it is a fallacious point. The question of whether human activity is negatively impacting our climate and the extent of that impact is a scientific issue. It can only be rationally addressed by science. By actual and verifiable data. There are always financial gains to be made in such a monumental issue by both sides of the debate, but that is not evidence of whether there is human made climate change.
Saying that a person making 25k a year at Walmart can just go to target and work is insane! Guess what dinesh? They are making the same at target! They are all in the same game!!
The look on Matt's face when Dinesh ventured into "Trans territory" was precious and meme-able.
Time stamp
the star example is perfect to argue polytheism with a Christian lol
*springs testicles*
@@aicram6258:39
That was such a detour on Dinesh's part, but man, Matt believing in multiple genders is so stupid. There are only two. They are not "social constructs". They are biological realities. My respect for Matt actually dropped quite a bit after his response.
To say “the problem of healthcare is very simple” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard
How much contortion is required to justify a belief in a god?
54:17
Great joke there, Dinesh. You got the whole auditorium laughing with that one 😐
The only joke is Mat and you
@@zose6289 You have no idea where I stand politically or spiritually. Christian or atheist, making jokes about killing cats isn't funny.
@@sterlinga.5410 It was not a joke, it was a hypothetical example through which he wanted to prove his argument. If that is what you hold against him, then I have to ask myself if you are an emotionally mature person or an immature child
@@zose6289If you can't tell that he was attempting to make a joke there by his body language and little chuckle afterwords, that's your problem, not mine.
@@zose6289no one laughed at that shit. It was awkward and cringe.
I am surprised that Matt chose to debate Dinesh again after the the last time.
That was my first thought when I saw this pop up too. Matt KNOWS that Dinesh is a bad faith debater and has expressed disinterest in debating with him again.
And this is BRUTAL to get through. I'm at the climate denial now and it's a BAD look.
It's a re-upload.
Only thing bad is Matt. It's why he shall burn in Hell. All heathens shall burn. YOU shall burn. 👈
@@AlexsGoogleAccount What debate are you referring to? I'd like to watch it.
I'm 69 and have a whole chorus of health issues. I would rather not visit a doctor even when I am being advised to. I'm posting this comment in the early hours of 10/30/2023 and I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow that I have been advised by several people to make and keep. If I thought I could stop the problem by myself (I have been trying home remedies for a while now and am still trying them) I would cancel the appointment. But then I might be a weirdo because outside a very few people I would rather not deal with most people in person. Commenting in a place like this isn't dealing with people in person.
Ever think that your avoidance of the medical professionals trained and paid to take care of you might be the reason for your slew of problems?
It's been 3 months since your appointment. How would you rate your experience?
@@blairhaffly1777probably dead. Colour me surprised.
Not one reasonable argument for a god…again
Dineshdsouza has balls, and brains I guess; all he needs now is some facts, logic, and an understanding of using analogies...
The guy is a known racist, liar and felon. I find it disgusting that he is given a platform.
Yes, he wishes for more civilized arguments...he just isn't very good at them.
He's like Jordan Peterson. He's a stupid man's smart person.
Debate is less common? I dont think so. The QUALITY of the debate might be poor but debate is EVERYWHERE all the time. I'd prefer more good faith conversations and people trying to empathise and "love their enemies" to reduce polarisation.
God told me that the climate is gendered - but I won’t tell you which gender.
When was this?
I expected a deeper dive on purported issues... Food for thought; whenever you acquiesce to "twisting yourself into a pretzel" to make a point, it is probably time to (re)evaluate your epistemology....
A genius debating the Dunning-Kruger syndrome
Not sure about genius but I can definitely see both showing signs of the effect :D
Genius 🤡
Dinesh is wrong on CO2/temperature relationship. CO2 doesn't cause warmth, its a lagging indicator of warming.
This is what the graphs from the 2001 IPCC Report said.
He, Dinesh, wouldn't like my favourite drinking hole. There are no men's or women's washroom. All they did was removed the urinals & added more stalls and no complaints from anyone! I've been in the washroom when a woman came in. We said hi to each other then went about our business.
Because your more than likely a decent human being, that doesn’t mean everybody is.
Is it or is it not reasonable to safeguard against bad intentioned people? Is it not reasonable to suggest that giving biological males access to womens safe spaces is dangerous?
What about in a nightclub if a young girl is being pursued and doesn’t want to be, their only real safe space to get away would be the womens bathroom, and you want to take that away. For the sake of not hurting some trans peoples feelings. (fraction of a fraction of the population)
I know I don’t want grown men using the same bathroom as my daughters especially as they get older and reach sexual maturity.
The world is full of creeps and to pretend it isn’t and this isn’t a risk is straight up stupid.
The Market is NOT "rational". It is a measure of the "feeling" of wealthy if not greedy people.
Animals are conscious too. My cat, my brother's dogs, they all have distinct personalities and are self conscious, same as you or me or little kids. They're just less intelligent, but much more cute than humans.
Its totally mad where Dinesh constantly try to move goal post and some where in middle , he forgotten what he is trying to say and move the goal post but didnt end anywhere. Crazy
My favorite part of this whole thing is when Dinesh said something like “oh let’s not strawman” and the audience laughed
I was really having a hard time following Dinesh. Matt was smart to just let Dinesh blab his mouth. I think Dinesh didn't even know what he was going to say next.
I understood what he was talking about, but Matt had a hard time understanding and listening to what he is trying to pinpoint.
@@MultiBigAndy I'm not saying that he wasn't making sense. I'm saying that he was having a hard time explaining himself. He was jumping around, topic to topic, without really getting his point through. Bad comparisons, bad analogies, bad debate. He has interesting thoughts, I just wish he knew how to express them better
D'Souza , a lot of people invested in stocks before Black Tuesday 1929 -- that was the wrong move, so much for wisdom of the rich crowds.
Epicurus settled this argument 2400 years ago when he said gods existence but they are not interested in what we do. Just because we create a new god does not mean that the previous gods no longer exist.
Why so many analogies?
From what I remember the criticism of the polar bear study says: there are more polar bears counted as the melting ice pushes them further towards the human population. Thus it appears that there are more polar bears. Lots of other scientists have seen that those polar bears are malnutritioned than usual due to them needing to swim more from food source to food source or even just for getting around. This also leads to the polar bears being more aggressive than usual which has been cited by many recent expeditions to the Arctic.
Yeah, he pretty much misrepresents every scientific position he brings up. When he tries the "it used to be global cooling!" schtick, it was still a minority opinion even in the 70s. Warming was the consensus opinion even back then. But because TIME magazine covered the cooling hypothesis, everyone thinks that was what most scientists thought.
There are a few things going on with respect to polar bear counts. As usual Dinesh misrepresents the facts. Dinesh was correct when he stated polar bears are difficult to count. Early counts underestimated their populations making it seem that their populations were increasing as we became better at counting them. Currently, they are monitoring the 19 polar bear populations as follows: 3 are in decline, 2 are increasing, 4 are stable, 10 there is insufficient data to determine. It is known that sea-ice is crucial to maintain healthy polar bear populations. It is projected that with the decrease in sea ice that by 2050 the polar population will decrease by about 30%. There are currently approximately 22-31,000 polar bears.
@@celeritasc9207 - "It is projected...". Follow the money.
@@celeritasc9207 thank you so much for the detailed information
@@celeritasc9207 they're also not hunted as much anymore.
I hate to admit that I have NOT spent any significant time contemplating my 'purpose'. Not sure if I know what it means. My purpose is to be the best happiest kindest person I can be.
I don’t think there is any purpose to our existence. I’m fine with that. Might as well just try to enjoy existence while we exist
@@drewj4297- The moment you think you’re special just wait until you get old enough to watch enough things suffer and die for no reason, then realize you’re next in line.
So, Matt's quest is to prove that there is no evidence that God exists. Just because Matt's purpose is to do this (prove God/Jesus Christ doesn't exist) doesn't mean that God/Christ Jesus does not exist. If anything, it proves how prideful he (Matt) is because he can't humble himself before a wiser more intelligent being than himself. So sad! Jesus Christ died to give him the free gift of knowing our Creator/Redeemer and he refuses to accept it. So sad! No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing. Religion is merit based. Relationship is love based. God/Jesus Christ wants us to have a relationship with him (Spirit to spirit).
@@drewj4297 So, Matt's quest is to prove that there is no evidence that God exists. Just because Matt's purpose is to do this (prove God/Jesus Christ doesn't exist) doesn't mean that God/Christ Jesus does not exist. If anything, it proves how prideful he (Matt) is because he can't humble himself before a wiser more intelligent being than himself. So sad! Jesus Christ died to give him the free gift of knowing our Creator/Redeemer and he refuses to accept it. So sad! No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing. Religion is merit based. Relationship is love based. God/Jesus Christ wants us to have a relationship with him (Spirit to spirit).
@@kingwillie206 God/Jesus Christ does not allow us to suffer for no reason. Suffering either draws one to God/Christ or pushes one further away. The choice is ours. All the suffering that is or ever has been comes from the evil one (Satan - the devil).
When was this recorded?
2020. Right before the pandemic.
D'Souza seems to think he knows what Matt thinks, but demonstrates over and over that he's wrong about it, which suggests the points he's trying to get to are false also. Peace ☮💜
I wasn't "flung into the world", I was cut out of my mother's belly. Because our heads keep getting bigger while those "birthing hips" are getting smaller as we continue to evolve.
That means your mum still got her bits intact 😏 she single?
Autism.
1:09:00 I guess Lance Armstrong should get all his titles reinstated and tell everyone else "sorry you just didn't manipulate your hormones enough to compete at his level". Lol
The whole peleton was juiced.
@dominicpardo4783 your right , I don't think they gave his titles to second place or 22nd either
@adamgibson9357 Marco Pantani tested positive for PEDs and cocaine. Alberto Contador for PEDs. Eddie Merckx tested positive for amphetamine numerous times. They all retained their titles.
@dominicpardo4783 consistency...
this man could sell word salad to people that dont like salad and know nothing about what his words really mean😂😂
"It's not science" says the non scientist who has an imaginary friend. While this is not proof he is a moron it is a massive indicator.
First Hitch now Matt destroys Dinesh, and loving it.
Sorry, heathens destroy nothing but their souls.
@@mikerodgers7620 prove to me what a soul is.
How was Dinesh destroyed?
@@xanderduffy6461 Every time he made a straw-man fallacy by claiming to know what Matt would say.
@@ArchlordZer0 I watched it, give me time stamped evidence.
Your claim was not exclusive to Dinesh.
But that does not count as evidence towards the claim Matt destroyed Dinesh.
Come on now. And I’m a fan of both of them.
But come on now. I know what I saw
27 min argument I wanted to thrown my iPad in the river - imagine Dinesh doesn’t rule out pixies, unicorns and middle earth dragons until he has evidence for it - he is literally as thick as mince and his street pigeons seem to have more reasoning than him - seriously why Matt would even entertain this guy is beyond me. 🤯
So, when did Matt become baptized if he wanted to become a Southern Baptist minister?
Wow, this is the first time I have ever heard Matt spew nonsense, in this case it was regarding the transgender topic. Stick with atheism arguments.
Changes the topic
Matt answers
Complains that Matt changed the subject.
Dinesh is one of the poorest apologists and thinkers of the modern age. No idea why he gets attention with arguments for god a 5 year old would say. 🤦🏻
What if you looked up at the night sky and saw no stars, would you have any basis to believe that stars exist?
Dillahunty really needs to brush up on his climate knowledge. There were so many missed oppurtunities to dunk on Dinesh’s tired talking points
I'm sure if he knew that Dinesh would bring up that topic, he would have brushed up on it more. When someone is debating in bad faith, they will usually turn to subjects that the person that they are debating is not as familiar with to score rhetorical points and it's quite blatant in this case. I think Matt did a really good job for what he was dealing with.
He honestly needs to brush up on his knowledge in general. He could have pointed out that home insurance on the coast is skyrocketing as a result of climate change. He also owes D'Souza a steak dinner cause healthcare over utilization is a big problem in socialized healthcare systems, but also one that can be managed.
Dillahunty has completely been shown as a fraud in his mule movie. Completely set up every seen.
It’s “scene” not seen, dipshit.
@@scottgrohs5940 auto correct. Get a life jerk off
Dinesh's comments about college pricing at 1:47:41 is the single craziest thing I've heard this decade. "The guy who is walking in the door, he's not paying. The college knows he's got a 10k Pell grant, he's got all these loans ... We [The universities] are conspiring WITH the student and his parents"
Absolutely fucking ridiculous. Students and parents have to PAY the loans! Increasing tuition ALWAYS and SOLELY hurts the student. I don't know what Dinesh was doing at Dartmouth, but you would have thought he'd have picked up the idea that you have to PAY BACK YOUR LOANS. He's acting like the student and university are fleecing the govt/taxpayer, when it is the govt handshaking university tuition increases because the government stands to make MORE MONEY from interest payments on HIGHER TUITION LOANS.
I have racked my brain for an hour thinking of what possible political position Dinesh's framing relies upon. There are, to my knowledge, precisely 0 republican initiatives, agendas, or talking points that require this to be true as supporting evidence. A misunderstanding at this magnitude of such a simple concept is only acceptable for someone who is genuinely illiterate. And at least you can teach the illiterate to read. Dinesh has already learned, and still can't figure this out.
It's a very deliberate and dishonest attempt to talk past his opponent and speak to the audience, whom he's banking on being stupid. At first glance, any moron could see a loan as "free money" or some BS. They are literally too foolish to realize, wait, a LOAN has to be paid back...and if it's NOT paid back, you have to pay even more back. They live in a world where people just declare bankruptcy to dodge loans, when they don't even understand how that process works.
Don't spend time trying to figure out why people like Dinesh argue this point; they are FULLY aware of the fallaciousness of their position, but they don't care. They appeal only to the dumbest, loudest members of the audience who have no idea how loans work in the first place.
Just the other day, one my own students asked me why everyone just doesn't get loans for school. it's "free money" that we're all paying for anyway. And I was shocked because here was some teenager who has been so thorough brainwashed by mom and dad, that he didn't even realize there is a serious penalty to NOT paying back loans. Had no idea what credit scores were, or how they're calculated. His parents legit just lied to him. But hey, to conservatives, mum and dad always know best! ...even when they're straight up wrong.
You just don’t understand then basics of economics. No biggie
One's man liability is another mans asset.
22:28 am I really listening to long, protracted version of, “how do you explain love, then?????” D’Souza is a child.
I mean @55:02 he says 'you just made an absolutely ridiculous statement'
It really is like debating with a baby
Interesting point of view on climate change- I wonder if prices of estates in Pompeii also did not change before Vesuvius exploded.
Sort of sad hearing Dinesh losing his calm manner of explaining things. I'm wondering if a longer discussion would have been better for reaching a stronger understanding. After the length of this video, I am left feeling more like I don't understand Dinesh more than I learned about Matt... To be fair, I think Dinesh didn't have a good focus with where he took the conversations. Was good to see a conversation with these topics, but I am left wanting to see the topics fleshed out a bit more.
Dinesh is out of his league. Matt is debating data and Dinesh is debating feelings.
Matt is just constantly interrupting and changing the topic to prevent Dinesh from building his argument.
@@nunziofortugno4854 : Not really. Matt gives Dinesh plenty of time to make a fool of himself.
@@nunziofortugno4854 no, matt interrupts to prevent his opponent from building an argument on fallacies and falsehoods. if the entire foundation of an argument is 15 false points and misrepresentations, and matt has to go through and debunk all 15 of those just to break down their argument, by the time he gets to 3 points his opponent will run from the point to something else. this happens literally all the time when debating christians and conservatives.
by interrupting, he snuffs out the bullshit immediately, and if they can't construct their argument on a pile of bullshit, it becomes weaker and weaker until it's just laughable how bad it is.
if you can't recognize this and think that people like dinesh building their arguments on poor foundations is good, then you genuinely lack critical thinking and don't know how to challenge your own views.
@@carcosa_tyrant9444 please provide evidence for this claim
There is no data that proves transgender women are women.
The beginning of this was interesting. I would say 0 for 3. Dinesh asks for a specific example, and Matt answers with a different generality. When people answer the question "does God exist" by talking about how people have done evil things in the name of God is like saying we should outlaw pencils because people have used them to hurt others.
Yeah and Hitchens was guilty of pointing to the evils done by the church a lot, and he wasn't as fixated on what actually _justifies_ belief in a god.
* belief in a god is justified if we know one exists (if we have strong reasons to think a being matching the definition of "god" shares reality with us)
* we don't. We don't have strong, logical evidence of a god.
* so belief isn't justified.
* a god may exist, or may not. But _currently humanity doesn't know, so we shouldn't believe._
@@majm4606 That's what happens if religion/atheism debates lean into a discussion about morals. This often happens when religious people claim some kind of a monopoly on morals and strawman a position that atheists are immoral by default.
@@JS-tm1gq It's really not those debates though, because often ( _usually_ ) it was Hitchens steering things in that direction because it was a pet topic of his (and something he had an unusual knowledge of, having studied people like Mother Teresa).
It's also not that Hitchens didn't make _some_ good arguments. One thing I think more modern atheists need to bring forward is Hitchens' arguments of how we should oppose dictators _out of principle,_ even if they're a god-tyrant and it's impossible to successfully oppose them. That's an admirable trait.
But ultimately neither of those topics relates to whether belief in a god is justified, which is the most important topic and something Hitchens only very rarely covered.
@@majm4606 But doesn't the Bible itself say "by their fruits shall you know them"?
Suppose the church and its clergy are shown that they are not and never were morally superior? Then doesn't that all by itself cast doubt, serious doubt, upon the supposedly all powerful God that is alleged to be behind it all? How come he doesn't seem to have an institution worthy of him?
And, how come the church did not know that both slavery and the divine right of kings (long doctrines of the church) would end up on the ash heap of history and be regarded today as actually immoral? God was so silent on topics like this, that it was just like God didn't exist after all.
Remember, too, that the Christians often argue that morals come from God and they have some sort of pipeline to moral truth because God exists and they have God's identity right. Wait awhile in any "does God exist" debate and that point is very likely to come up. Hitchens may or may not have dealt with it preemptively in some particular debate, but trust he, he knew it was coming and was glad to be on that ground because, unlike most Christians, he knew full well how weak an argument it is. And yet, it is core to the whole reason to believe for so many.
@@curious968 Well all sorts of things _should_ cast doubt, and to me the central issue is _whether the idea is known to be true or not,_ which rests on evidence of a god. But sure, things like contradictions can help too, including the second-order contradiction you've described.
_Personally_ I found it harder (back when I was a believer) to ignore _evidence,_ since it's the core thing indicating whether we know the truth of an idea (I didn't have a very developed sense of that back then, but it was enough that my friend asking me for evidence of a god led to my abandoning belief after ~2 years).
Whereas I feel like "by their fruits" is easier to ignore, since the theist (A) agrees those people are No True Christians, but (b) "knows" they themselves are a True Christian (and probably "knows" some close to them are too).
This is an example of how each side agree with the science until it doesn't support their politics or religion
If you just followed the Science you’d get tons of stuff wrong. Bc of faulty and or incomplete data and wild inferences, like Magical Evolution.
Lol magical evolution, your ignorance is showing 😂😂😂😂
All of us have a world view, but many of us don't try to impose our view on others 😮
Some people don’t have a valid view, bc they based their entire ethos and ideological opinions on a few throwaway headlines of tabloid news papers. Or were spoon fed incompetence and a torrent of pschobabble diarrhoea by the mass media. And they think they’re geniuses imposing their shite ontobothers.
But we do. All the time. Thus why jails are filled with people upon whom society's general world view has been imposed on. Those folks in jail went about life committing acts that were in accord with their worldview, but society said "nope, you're going to jail now as our worldview conflicts with yours." Don't be naive. Someone's worldview will be imposed. The issue is, whose?