Atheist Debates - I'm Dishonest in Debates?

[@brianharris7243]

Your honesty and knowledge of logic are intimidating for those who talk out of their arse.

[@usgamechamp2323]

He is a rage quitting baby

[@Billiepippen]

when he uses it. hes a believer just like the guy he talking to

[@usgamechamp2323]

Wow, this comment didn't age well. He can't even defend his position without rage quitting. What a loser to look up to!

[@flying_spaghettimonster]

​@@usgamechamp2323 Projection

[@jersydvl]

Is this Matt's burner account?

[@josh899100]

I say this with all respect possible. I've watched a lot of your debates, and while I don't think you're dishonest in debates, I do think you could do a better job of hearing people out. I know a debate is kind of competitive, but I believe showing a bit more patience and empathy could serve the oposition's viewers well. You're quick to jump to raising your voice, and always seem to be trying forcing people into a corner as quick as possible. Give people enough rope, you know? I completely agree with most of your views, I appreciate what you do for the atheist community, and have a lot of respect for you. Wish you the best!

[@SansDeity]

I don't think you've been watching my debates...I think you've been watching calls to my shows. And you're still wrong.

[@josh899100]

Maybe I'm conflating the two. I definitely watch you debates though. I've learned a lot from you! Just want to say again, with all due respect. I'm a fan, and appreciate what you do.

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

I think it may be cultural, a fierce delivery etc. Other places it comes across stronger if you deliver your truth with less or no emotion. I agree and prefer the latter though. Knock ‘em down, laugh ‘em off, don’t let it even look like they’re really getting you riled up.

[@retr0incomments]

Um are you sure? Cus only time I've seen him do that is when in a calling show there's an apparant dumbas$ or troll.

[@jrskp3677]

Mr Dillahunty, Dishonest people make claims that others are dishonest because they have no way to combat the losing position theyre arguing from. Stand proud of yourself and we'll see you in your next debate, you're a good guy.

[@nitehawk86]

"Anyone that disagrees with me is dishonest" has the same energy of "everything I don't like is Woke."

[@UMBR.]

Yeah at this point "woke" basically seems to be synonymous with "things and people I don't like/understand". Someone, please define it BEFORE you complain about it. Too many times I've seen people deride and complain about something being "woke", but then the moment they are asked what "woke" means, they are stumped, and sit there going "Umm... it's... 🤔 well, umm" 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[@ConspiracyPundit]

Or everyone I do not like is Woke, which would be almost true, almost because I dislike so many people. If only the world was full of b lack crippled Muslim lezzy mi git Eskimos life would be perfect. Mrs Hawk are you woke by any chance? Then I must be one of those supreme pizzas you whamens bang on about in between wage gaps and communism, sorry equality.

[@BMTroubleU]

​@@UMBR.woke is a broad term that identifies a modern, far left, authoritarian movement. It can often be identified by the inclusion of elements and combinations of elements such as: - Victimisation status - Purity status / black and white thinking - Ultra progressivism - Cancel culture - Activism - Relativism - Identity politics - Language control and Orwellian double speak - Group think - Tribalism - Intimidation, name calling and other methods of social pressure - Cry bullying - The belief that the ends justify the means - A general unwillingness to engage in conversation and attacking people for dissenting opinions

[@Garett.1214]

@@UMBR. I can explain it to you if you want?

[@advancedomega]

Ditto "Everything I don't like is Hitler/Nazi/Far-Right." Heck, there is a song from Rusty Cage about it.

[@arkdark5554]

Matt, I’m glad I happen to know you. I learned a lot from you, already. Salute.

[@fadeawayX]

People often confuse their abject inability to even intellectually entertain perspectives that they disagree as dishonesty. When someone accuses you of this, it's 100% a condemnation not of your integrity, but of their own intellect.

[@CrouchingscarabflyingJ]

Intellect is not humanity's greatest asset

[@krisaaron5771]

@@CrouchingscarabflyingJ If intellect isn't our greatest asset please tell us what is and support your assertion with some form of evidence. I believe our greatest asset is intellect combined with opposable thumbs AND our ability to work side by side with total strangers toward a common goal.

[@denverarnold6210]

​@@krisaaron5771 i agree. It's one of our best assets.... when used properly.

[@krisaaron5771]

@@denverarnold6210 But the definition that includes "when used properly" changes the question. A gun is a tool for protection (self defense) and providing sustenance (hunting food). But in the hands of a psychopath it's a deadly weapon of intimidation. As our brains developed a pre-frontal cortex that genie flew out of the bottle and we began using our most magnificent asset for both good AND evil. Using something properly is an issue of choice; one person's definition of "properly" can be and often is another person's "evil".

[@denverarnold6210]

@@krisaaron5771 welcome to morality. Do you want to continue to be pedantic about fringe cases that go against society at large, or you wanna understand what I mean, in the casual sense?

[@Joe-un1tl]

A wealth of Epistemological information here. Amazing stuff Matt.

[@a.nhonig3311]

I appreciate your honesty, Matt. And I admire your patience! How you manage that is truly beyond me 💜

[@cerealpeer]

i still feel like he should get into mythicism. a little occult knowledge never hurt anyone (mostly). its also not faith if its a _rational_ mysticism. whatever satanism has done, true religion has done worse. welcome, matt. join us!

[@flying_spaghettimonster]

​@@cerealpeer You should become a pastafarian. The one true religion.

[@cerealpeer]

@@flying_spaghettimonster pastafariabism doesnt have any creed or requirements so anyone who says they are one is one in effect. i dont call myself one because i dont want to insult people who take creed and belief seriously.

[@cerealpeer]

@@flying_spaghettimonster ill call myself a spaghetti atheist, though, how bout that? i think thatl ring in the ears more gently than "pastafariab"

[@cerealpeer]

@@flying_spaghettimonster im a pan-atheist. as in: pan with butter and basil marinara.

[@robertmiller9735]

Oh, how dare he take debate positions that don't give his opponents extra advantage...🙄

[@jeffhough7460]

Matt i enjoy you because if you ever have been dishonest it seems to be not intentional, and when you're shown to be incorrect or see it yourself, you call yourself out and fix it, its the ability to re examine and to go with the available evidence and adjust your claims is what makes you an honest interlocutor

[@skyinou]

I think it's worth mentioning again and explaining why an unfalsifiable claim is worse than "I don't know". A lot of people may believe the other way around, because having *an* answer *feels* better than not having even one. But in the context of looking for what's true, how reality works, any ascertained uncertain answer closes the door to go search for a good one, or even evidence for that previous one.

[@howardtitman]

Thank you Matt. I continue to enjoy your videos!

[@Apoplectic_Spock]

My dumb, autistic brain just visualized "Identity, Non-contradiction, Excluded Middle" for the first time and I'm feeling quite satisfied with myself! lol Feels like understanding, rather than just more knowledge. Love you, Matt!

[@hail_satan]

The people that call Matt "dishonest" are the same people that consider apologists honest and truthful...so i would take their opinion with a big ol grain of salt.

[@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος]

A pillar of salt perhaps 😁

[@ShutUpWesley]

​@@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος I'd take it with a 42 square mile salt mine.

[@stylis666]

I advice against taking that literally, you'd need far more salt than any human body can survive. Rather, I would advice to assume that theists don't know the difference between making things up, lying, and telling the truth. If they're ever not wrong, it's by chance, not because they aim to. Their aim is to believe that reality is different from what it shows to be and using and training to use only fallacies to "justify" that position. Using any and all manipulation tactics to dismiss criticism and adversaries is an inevitable consequence of that. If despite the fallacious (and pathetic) methods they happen to be correct, that's by accident, not on purpose.

[@suzannagriffin2318]

You're not dishonest, people are stupid

[@linkeron1]

Damn it. You beat me by 3-4 seconds to commenting first.

[@2ahdcat]

👍

[@_Omega_Weapon]

Well said.

[@kain7759]

A person can be honest, people is a scared, violent and ignorant monster that want to destroy everything it cannot understand.

[@sdwone]

Well yes... To a certain extent, there are PLENTY of stupid idiots running around! But in this case, the person who phoned in to criticise Matt's stance, simply doesn't understand that the question of "God" is... To put it frankly... BEYOND ALL HUMAN COMPREHENSION! And one can really only appreciate such a statement, if one has a good understanding on what we know... Verses what we DON'T know! And currently, when it comes to the incomprehensible size and scale of the Universe... We actually know VERY little! So to go even beyond that... Is simply nonsensical! This question simply cannot be reduced down to childish basics: God either exists... Or God doesn't exist! We are simply not in a position to even tackle this question! So Matt, correctly, adopts a sceptical stance... He doesn't have any answers! So all he can do is scrutinize the claims of others. It really is as simple as that! And that's what I like about Matt, and people like him... They are more than HAPPY to claim that they... Simply DO NOT KNOW! And that is the default position that we should ALL take, until compelling, objective, empirical evidence says otherwise! Faith... Warm fuzzy feelings... Subjective personal experiences... Simply isn't going to cut it! Because ANY one of us is capable of making shit up on the spot! Either to fool others... Or fool themselves! Not Good Enough! So Matt's stance is the correct one! He isn't making a claim... Because he knows that we simply cannot even begin to answer the "God" question... Hell! We're still grappling with a Universe in which we barely know approximately 4%... And on that 4% we have highly limited information! I mean, we don't even know if Life exists beyond our planet! I mean it should... Given the conditions but, we NEED evidence to settle that question once and for all! Going on gut feelings? Not Good Enough! So all Matt, and other critical thinkers can do, is challenge those who make claims upon questionable foundations. And this IS a worthy cause, since some religious individuals, in positions of power, can hold great sway over masses of people... In some cases, compelling them to do Evil acts! So these rebuttals against religious claims, has far reaching implications for our entire Civilization! And so, if Matt's efforts in challenging Religion, without coming up with his own "answers" isn't good enough... Then you have obviously missed the point!

[@Zen_1g]

In my limited knowledge, ive noticed a few things. The way you approach debates is highly more intellectually honest, once you explained how you prepare for the topic, not the person, this completely shifted how I view not only you, but debates and life in general. 😮 on that note, and knowing that, its funny to see how often the people you debate do that and squirm away from the topic to try and attack you personally, Andrew Wilson being a prime example. I think that intellectual dishonesty is a projection of ones insecurity in subtle little cookies youre supposed to follow to the bigger perspective of their world view. Keep doing what you do Matt, ive learned so much from you in the short time ive known about your channel/debates. Keep fighting the good fight.

[@CoreyJohnsonMusician]

I think you’re always honest when debating. I don’t agree with you 100% of the time, but I don’t agree with anything 100% of the time. But you’ve got a solid 99% with me, and that’s good enough to keep me watching your stuff since the old school atheist experience days. Keep up the good work.

[@GronTheMighty]

That's about as good a statement as I could make - I'll lean on yours with my thumb and a nice hug emoji 🫂

[@alekhinesgun9997]

He agree's with me for 99% of things therefore he's honest? What :p

[@CoreyJohnsonMusician]

@@alekhinesgun9997 That was not me making an argument… it seems like you don’t listen to him, nor have good reading comprehension. I was just saying that the reason I continue to watch him is because his values and logical frame work matches my own, for the most part. And at the beginning, I just simply said I think he’s honest when debating. Those two things aren’t contingent upon each other. I never said “x therefore y” so wtf are you talking about?

[@alekhinesgun9997]

@@CoreyJohnsonMusician Oh okay, I see what you're saying now. The first part said "he's honest when debating" and the rest was all idiotic nonsense that didn't support your claim. Essentially "I think he's honest because I think he's honest". that's pretty flawless reasoning. You surely don't get the personal attacks from matt tho that's for sure

[@CoreyJohnsonMusician]

@@alekhinesgun9997 once again, great reading comprehension. I already said that I wasn’t making an argument. I was just saying what I think about his honesty when debating. I’m sorry you don’t like what I have to say, I guess. The second part of my statement was a secondary statement on why I enjoy his content. Which is also nothing to do with the imaginary argument you’re trying to saddle me with. You’re arguing against no one.

[@kazuya17]

Thank you Matt for all the work that you do, Keep it up!!

[@allenmciver1888]

Love your logical mind.

[@grayintheuk8021]

Great video Matt. It seems so hard for believers to understand your views here. I think the same way and have come about this view after researching my way out of religion. This is why I know what you are saying is more rational. Thanks

[@troyajohnson26]

Love how well The Line is doing. Find it hilarious that AEX is always using Matt's content to this day even though they ran him off the show.

[@SansDeity]

They didn't run me off. I quit

[@troyajohnson26]

@@SansDeity Fair enough. I Just recall there being a lot of acting in bad faith from the video you made several years ago.

[@jersydvl]

​@@SansDeitysemantics. You knew you were gonna lose.

[@masterthnag105]

A being once came close to having all knowledge in the universe... thankfully the hero we didn't deserve showed up. THANK YOU PHILIP J FRY.

[@optimus_rhymes6955]

It’s wild that Matt has to make this video. I started watching him about a year ago, and I’ve heard him say all these things, numerous times. Either you’re not listening or just in denial.

[@jamesfarquhar8507]

My brother played the Athiest Experience when I was visiting him in California, it was one of the first times I’d ever seen or heard a professional athiest defend their disbelief, and the first thing I noticed about Matt Dillahunty was this man’s eyes where so clear, like really nobody I’d ever seen, I realized he was presenting the most honest version of himself and his opinions that he knew, I’d never met anyone in my life before who expressed themselves so honestly, I grew up in a Christian pipeline so everyone around had cloudy eyes. 8 years later and Dillahunty still one of the most honest people I know of. I can see this man’s intent behind those eyes and it made me realize everyone around me had secrets, doubts, fears, and attractions that took nearly all their spirit to suppress, as what’s left over is often more like a husk than a human with spirit, but not this guy ^ he’s helped me change my life with an honesty-first approach.

[@haydenwalton2766]

this is an excellent presentation by matt. I wish more people would understand these simple, but important concepts. one point reminds me of much of what hitch's message was - it's pointless to be a deist and ridiculous to be a theist

[@30yearsoldiam1]

Matt is honest in debates. Matt's also bailed on two recent debates on MDD when it's obvious to everyone but him that MDD had been all about train wreck dramatic nonsense for years. Maybe it's time to value his viewers time and do a few minutes research on opponents beforehand. He's said before and recently that he should vet his opponents .........just do it!

[@enmanuelrondon9700]

As soon as Matt said he didn't research Andrew Wilson, I knew he was going to bail. Andrew is almost always like that.

[@FartPanther]

​@@enmanuelrondon9700Matt's honesty extends to expecting others to be as well. James should have known better. He almost lost Matt before due to trolls in the live chat. He cleaned it up then allowed a troll as a guest. Not cool.

[@30yearsoldiam1]

@@enmanuelrondon9700exactly. Matt's a bright man but quite naive as well

[@30yearsoldiam1]

@@FartPantheryou are mistaken. MDD debates are as goofy ad ever, they haven't changed. They've had ludicrous debates all last week. James simply has a double standard. He giggles while moderating when insults are flung but with Matt he suddenly gets righteous. Try again

[@saulssecrets8167]

The world of Internet debates. Andrew did "Internet blood sport" debates, it's the style of debate he grew used, debates which have some banter in the mix. MDD has had IBS (Internet blood sports) type debates in the past; if James hasn't told the debate etiquette he expects, Jesusfreak Andrew did nothing wrong, if we're being fair.

[@altakiri4001]

My favourite argument. "Pics or it didn't happen." of course I will phrase that to the situation at hand, but most of my arguments boil down to that.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Are you concerned at the possibility of modern technology lessening the value of 'pics or it didn't happen'?

[@altakiri4001]

@@alisterrebelo9013 true, but the the overall sentiment is, rather, that Evidence trumps Emotion. Say, your mate tells you he caught a fish thiiiiiiis big. But never snapped a picture. You can take him at his word, or call bull. Later, you see a photo of another angler in the same area catching a fish of similar size as the one claimed by your friend. The probability that your friend was telling the truth increases. However, if a local environment study group is complaining about a lack of oxygen levels in that same area as your friend was fishing, resulting in algae blooms and fish kills, then the evidence that your mate is telling a porky, is increased. Rather, "Pics, or it didn't happen," is just a simplification of the act of shifting the burden of proof back on the one making the claim. In neither case above, did you confirm your friend's story, merely established precedent for whether the likelihood of falsehood was lesser or greater.

[@jamiegallier2106]

Always such clear and concise explanations, I really appreciate these videos.

[@warrencolegrove1]

Love you Matt! Thank you for your hard work!!

[@johnroemeeks]

Hard work for what? The only work Matt is doing is for Satan himself. He will die and go before God on Judgement Day and be held accountable for causing people to stumble. Then he will spend eternity locked away with the evil entity that deceived him, along with all the other people that Matt influenced into Atheism and Secular Humanism. Yeah, great work Matt! You are one of the devils best tools!!!

[@bodricthered]

Love the xxth obvious projection of 'you're being dishonest' for saying I don't know... Makes it clear where the key problem in their thinking.

[@someguy-k2h]

It's not the job of the con to provide a method to falsify the pro. It's the job of the pro to clearly identify how to falsify their position and to prove it's not false. If you come with a proposition you show is unable to be tested, then you are arguing for an illogical conclusion. Other than tautologies, all arguments that are logical can be tested.

[@spherinder5793]

you make a completely arbitrary distinction between "pro-statements" and "con-statements"

[@someguy-k2h]

@@spherinder5793 Not really. In a philosophical debate, pro is a statement that supports a positive proposition. Con is any statement that disproves the proposition. It's been well defined since the ancient Greeks developed formal logic and how to debate it.

[@spherinder5793]

@martinautours A positive position on statement S is a negative position on statement ¬S, and vice versa. It's not at all well defined.

[@someguy-k2h]

@@spherinder5793 After 10 years of formal debate, it's clear you have never been in one. It's too bad you can't go back 2500 years and correct Protagoras of Abdera using your "logic".

[@scotthullinger4684]

The problem with those who claim to be Woke is that nothing they say or do actually demonstrates a higher level of awareness or intelligibility on any supposed worthy topic. In brief ... the wisdom was drained out of the Woke Universe many moons ago. The only thing left over as a result is total gibberish and empty meaningless garbage.

[@clydewillis]

Dishonest? Never. Rude and inconsiderate? Yeah, I see that.

[@irrelevant_noob]

Shouldn't the amount of consideration Matt gives be dependent on how much he receives? 🤔

[@clydewillis]

@irrelevant_noob sure, that's a factor. Common decency and respect are other important factors. I've watched Matt blast people with profanity and throw temper tantrums for not answering a question the way he thinks they should. In my opinion that type of behavior is unacceptable for those who claim to want open intellectual dialog. When is the last time Matt debated or had a public discussion with a truly influential theist? They don't want to be treated the way he treats people, and even though I'm an atheist I understand completely. Nobody wants to be treated that way.

[@irrelevant_noob]

@@clydewillis hold on, are you saying there are *_any_* "truly influential theist" that do debates/public discussions? o.O

[@clydewillis]

@irrelevant_noob here are 5 I've see in the last few years: John Lennox, James White, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, J Warner Wallace. I certainly don't agree with them, but they are influential and actively debate. But you won't see any of them debat Matt and I don't blame them.

[@FerencDojcsak]

11:50 - one of the most important statement that I also have tried to convey to people so many times. It's also true for yes and no - they are not dichotomies. Yes and not yes are.

[@benjaminerickson9732]

The liar's paradox is only a thing because humans are not at times all that logical, a purely logical species would probably never come up with such a statement or put so much thought into it. That is what is so fun about being an emotional entity striving for logical thought. I also wonder if that is part of the fear of AI, they would presumably start where we strive to be and we tend to image they would strive to be emotional like us.

[@kimsland999]

Plus the answer to that question or liars paradox, is the question is invalid.

[@marasmusine]

"This sentence is false" is just wordplay. A sentence is a string of sounds or shapes, it can't hold a truth value. A sentence conveys information about something else. Edit: Am I alone in this opinion: I just looked at the Wikipedia page and I don't see this in the "possible resolutions" section.

[@kimsland999]

@@marasmusine Oh I've since changed my mind. The answer is: On the truth point: Its not true. On the false point: Its not false. It has 2 positions or points or whatever that term is. Also I meant to say the sentence is illogical, kinda like a married bachelor, that type of thing.

[@tommy32408]

In debate the negative is always the easiest route to go. Roll on Matt.

[@charliejackson6192]

I’ve never found you to be dishonest. You were instrumental in my deconstruction because of your honesty and integrity. If someone is accusing you of dishonesty it’s probably because they are frustrated with not being able to defend their own position.

[@docsavage30]

I've never heard Matt infer Noah's flood from apparently heart shaped rocks - so there's that.

[@StoicFlame]

Answer to the question in the video title: YES.

[@mercedesf1fan176]

You’ve been debunked on Politics discord

[@Shellackle]

>"stoic" in username >philosopher bust as pfp >provoking comment with no actual substance You couldn't get closer to being a textbook debate troll, congratulations

[@AEstud77]

Good stuff! I've seen the comments to the "conspiracy websites", and they eat up stuff that Howard talks about. Say things like "Thank you for showing us the light". Bible verses everywhere in the comments. Honestly it scares me reading them. It's like watching the blind leading the blind. I would never go to the church I grew up in for legal advice.

[@ImEnemy608]

*attacks Christianity* Smiles *gets attacked* Runs away

[@Mark-bg1ue]

@@jessejones1420what was said about Matt’s personal life?

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

What are your god claims. Debate me if you think you have the chops. I'll wait.

[@Mark-bg1ue]

@@evangelicalsnever-lie9792 do you want me to set up a debate on the crucible for you?

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

@@Mark-bg1ue How are you involved in this? You do know how comment sections on YT work right? My post was directed to the OP, even if it was posted after yours, capish?

[@Mark-bg1ue]

@@evangelicalsnever-lie9792 did you get my other message mate? So wadayareckon?

[@seanmcmichael2551]

Bizarre that Matt even has to put out this video. Respect. In my lifetime I've never seen nor heard anything close to reasonable evidence. At least I have some respect for theists who admit they've no evidence that could be shared, beyond some "personal relationship with god". And all of this doesn't even touch on whether I'd respect most gods, even if one were proved to be the real deal. It's baffling to me that folk not only believe, but that they believe and worship such monstrous characters.

[@kevinshort3943]

As Aron says "religion reverses everything" . Therefore your honesty is viewed as dishonesty.

[@michaelanderson18]

I look forward to a conversation with you, about inspiring the world to be more kind. Less cruel 😢

[@Gr33nB4st4rd]

Embarrassing loss/rage quit against Andrew Wilson haha. Massive L for Matt and audience. Such soft crybabies

[@HisZotness]

@SansDeity You gave me the confidence I needed to finally let go of Hell, well into my adult years, and I'm very grateful. You and I have a lot in common, excepting reptiles (heh), and I hope to meet you before I leave Texas, if only to thank you in person. In any event, I and many others appreciate your passion and integrity.

[@kimsland999]

We threw out Christian Hell and Jesus sins long ago. As both don't make justifiable sense.

[@BlessYourHeart254]

You’re NOT dishonest, religious people are just fond of special pleading. And agree with others that your intellect and logic are superior 💪💪

[@revvanmev2885]

What else is the debate about? Putting the other guy on mute, calling him names, then hanging up on him?

[@MrSkittlez6969]

I cannot remember a time where you have been dishonest Matt - keep debating !

[@sypherthe297th2]

I can remember one but it was a matter of applying rhetoric to one group that he vociferously objects to the same language when used on another. He didn't appreciate being called out on it and lost his temper. Other than that I cant recall any dishonesty either.

[@stylis666]

@@sypherthe297th2 I can see why that can at times be dishonest, but it could also be justified in many cases. I would, for instance object to using clinically scientific language to define a woman when it comes to deciding what gender persons are because it won't apply to all individuals, making it useless to figure out the gender of the persons, which was the goal in this context, but it's fine to use the same rhetoric when talking about ratios withing populations. Could even be the same group of people.

[@sypherthe297th2]

@@stylis666 No. It was completely unjustifiable. To lay out the facts of the situation, Matt was speaking with an MRA loon about how men shouldn't have to be responsible for children if they don't want to because women control the process yada yada. Anyway, Matt got fed up and started screaming at the guy that he just wanted to have consequence free sex etc. His rhetoric was identical to the language language that Christians and other right-wingers use to justify outlawing abortion. Its not appropriate to shout that drivel at females and its not appropriate for males. It was the only time I can recall Matt being a dishonest hypocrite. He even called me a liar when I questioned him on it in the live chat. But he said what he said. I'd encourage anyone who doubts my veracity to dig up the clip. It was towards the end of his tenure on AXP and fairy long. I'll try to find it after finishing this comment since 2 hours of sleep seems like its all I'm gonna get. . . But at the end of the day they were both right in a way but with vastly different impacts. Matt was right for the obvious reasons. The nutter was right in that its not fair females can opt out later than males. Well life isn't fair and there is no way to square that circle. Females physically carry the pregnancy so its happening in them. Of course they have more options on a longer timeline. Males can't simply opt out because, at minimum, financial support is the right of the child who is an innocent third party who was not a participant in whatever decisions the two jagoffs who spawned it may have made. As an aside, gender is a completely useless concept akin to race. It, like race, is a social construct so of course science isn't going to be able to define it. People attach far too much meaning to it without reason which is why right-wingers insist there are only two while other people think they have their own unique ersatz gender all to themselves. And everything inbetween frankly. But that's a headache I'd rather not get into because I'm already a groomer AND a violent transphobe depending on who you talk to. I'm not remotely either but this is time we live in.

[@sypherthe297th2]

@@stylis666 On Male Reproduction Rights AXP 24.46

[@stylis666]

@@sypherthe297th2 I can see why you'd think that Matt was using a bit of a double standard. I'm pretty sure that the context would show it isn't. Even the context you provided where the woman does have the option to not care for a child already shows that there is a relevant difference. The woman has the same responsibilties when the child is born. The same standards apply, they're just not relevant before birth. Gender, like race are useful descriptors. So not useless. I could say the same thing about names and insist on calling every person ape. That would be useless. Same for calling someone a woman who presents as a man because you happen to know what their chromosomes are and those are typical for females. Everyone else sees a man and not.chromosomes, so your refusal would be counterproductive, and it is transphobic because you're implying that someone's identity doesn't exist, the same way I would imply that your idea of having a name is useless and I call you ape. Effectivele it's gaslighting and abusive because I'd be implying that thinking you have a name is delusional.

[@knotlock]

I’d like a bit more thoughts on Probability… obviously Bertrand Russel’s Tea Pot in Orbit is the classic example of an unfalsifiable assertion - and I think it is fair (I can’t be 100% certain no such pot exists) - but isn’t it also perfectly rational to claim in response: “probably not” to a weird claim like that? Curious what Matt would think about this…

[@SilortheBlade]

You calculate probability by the number of positive outcomes divided by the total possible number of outcomes. So how many times is there a teapot there and how many possible outcomes of one being there and not being there there in total? I'm sure you can understand now how probability isn't useful in situations like this. What you could say is how difficult it would be to get a tea pot into orbit anywhere. The cost and effort and why would anyone do that. You could look at if there are any naturalistic causes to eject a teapot from earth and send it into an orbit of another body (no way that I know of), Then after looking at that conclude it seems very difficult and there is no motivation for it to be done artificially, and no known cause for it to happen naturally, so it seems pretty unlikely. but I don't know of a way to give a number to it.

[@knotlock]

@@SilortheBlade were I to use Bayes’ Theorem -I suspect that number would approach 0%. Given present evidence. I am trying to find a problem with that method. I’d like to learn where its limits are. I’d just start at 50% Prior and weigh the evidence like Hume did when engaging in hypothesis comparison; each against its direct logical negative. Using this method seems to be a valid way to prove empirically that *probably, Gods are not real.*

[@AndBenC]

Hi Matt, great video! Just a side note, your atheist debates videos tend to be very quiet, I generally have to max volume them and still struggle to hear. Not sure if anyone else has this issue or if it is isolated to my phone, but thought I would mention it. Thanks for all you do!

[@RickReasonnz]

You mean these videos? I experience no sound problems. Just to add some data for you.

[@stylis666]

Same as Rick's experience. Sound's fine here.

[@TallSilentGuy]

The caller was just trying exploit the old problem of "impossible to prove a negative" by putting Matt into a position whereby he has to prove a negative to win. There's your dishonesty - RIGHT THERE!

[@caflorosi7686]

you can tell the difference in reality because one side calls you "dishonest" but never gives up on debating with you, meanwhile, people like Kent Hovind are costantly ignored as they are called the same except with an actual valid reason to

[@BrianFedirko]

Atheism existed for millions of years before the invention of language, which proves we can exist and progress without religion. ☮

[@bestmonkeyrat7266]

Matt doesn't realize that his best days are behind him, many of us are fans of the old Matt, not this new Matt who is a science denier when it come to biological sex, and he constantly makes his political views loud and clear but yet refuse to debate someone who knows what they are talking about with regards to politics, like Ben Shapiro, that's being dishonest with regards to politics, at least Alex O'Connor has the balls to have some kind of debate with Ben, Matt is no longer (that great atheist debater) he has become (that woke guy) look how the mighty has fallen

[@SansDeity]

Roflmao

[@AdamKlownzinger]

Yeah it’s bizarre to preach about scientism when denying the realities of transgenderism

[@oumarou_a_god]

@SOGOEducation on the I-V Demonstration channel made a great video showing Matt’s flagrant dishonesty and appealing to a logical fallacy to “beat” His opponent. The video title is “Matt Dillahunty’s Projection of Dishonesty in Debate Part 2 [Metaphysics: Perception]” Matt’s best years are definitely behind Him

[@BrianFedirko]

Big Bang: Wasn't something from nothing. Matt: I wish when apologists bring this up, that you would point this out. It was a very little point, but it didn't just "magic and poof, there was nothing... and then there was something" is not the understanding of the great physicists of our time. It's this precise point that allows us to ponder whether it was continuing from an expanding/contracting universe, or is one point of many in a multi-verse, and on and on... The universe has always been. The concept of a finite universe doesn't logically make sense, as you could shoot the arrow past the limit you draw... quadrillions of years have existed to start off the infinite amount of time just to start. And yes, we could provide alternative works of theories like a unicorn put the point there, or a leprechan made a wish into existence... these all have probabilities, but serious scientists don't waste their time with the insanely improbable theory to work on. Gr8! Peace ☮💜

[@timothyhoft]

I had a Christian tell me recently that I had to prove that Adam didn’t live for 900 years. Apparently the burden of proof was on me.

[@phileas007]

well since we know for a fact that Adam didn't exist, I'd say this one's easy

[@josephbelisle5792]

Thank you for testifying on the behalf of reality.

[@markderamo9229]

Are you kidding? Matt lives in a fantasy world in a galaxy far far away on every topic except religion.

[@markderamo9229]

@AnonYmous-yj9ib THIS......coming from someone who wants to remain COMPLETELY AnonYmous without even a pic. 😄 🤣 😂 😆 😄 🤣 OMG you gave me such a good laugh today!! 👍 A+ comment !!! 🤣

[@markderamo9229]

@@AnonYmous-yj9ib 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

[@GrowYourOwnGYO]

Whilst having a husband he calls his wife? Reality folks...

[@hippios]

the same reality where men can get pregnant?

[@philiplynx6991]

If not trying to falsify an unfalsifiable claim and sticking with 'I don't believe you, what evidence do you have?' is 'dishonest' then that term has lost all meaning.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

My view of Matt's debates is that there is chasm in the definition of 'evidence'. When Matt debated Trent Horn and said historical writings of any sort (religious or not) are not sufficient evidence, it shocked me. Having data on how many skeptics would side with Matt's definition would be interesting.

[@writerblocks9553]

When they can’t attack your ideas they attack your character

[@dimitrioskalfakis]

the people who accuse you of that are those who are not used to having their blind or unjustified faith challenged using reason, evidence and science. i am impressed by the amount of self-control you exercise when dealing with both dishonest and poor thinkers.

[@L_o_c_a_l_G_u_y]

This is so super useful!! I've been trying to wrap my head around the falsifiable issue, and now I think I have it. It's not that "if you can't falsify a claim, I don't have to accept it." It's more "why do you present a claim that can't be falsified? What criteria did you use to verify it if there was no chance of it failing?" Not that "it isn't right" but rather "there's no way to prove it not wrong". Wait, is that it?? I feel like it slipped away from me again. 😵‍💫

[@sudo4598]

If a claim is non-falsifiable, how can you devise a test to see if it it is true or false? Falsifiability in a nutshell.

[@L_o_c_a_l_G_u_y]

@@sudo4598 yeah, but that doesn't MAKE the claim false. That's where my brain gets hung up. It's not saying the claim is wrong. A person's acceptance of the claim is unjustified, not the claim itself. 👍🏻

[@nulliusinverba5703]

​@@L_o_c_a_l_G_u_y By presenting something unfalsifiable, you are presenting something that cannot be deemed true or false, because you are unable to test its validity. The key takeaway from unfalsifiable claims, is that the rational response is to dismiss the claim because its standing on irrational grounds. (because noone can ever prove if its true or false. So Matt's basically saying that unfalsifiable claims, should be dismissed due to the fact you cannot demonstrate them empirically.

[@L_o_c_a_l_G_u_y]

@@nulliusinverba5703 right. Do you think there are true things that are unfalsifyable? Like, I can imagine a Christian saying "🤷🏻 it's not my fault that the truth is ALWAYS true. That's just reality.". It would suck to not consider a true claim, just because it's nature makes it unfalsifyable. But I can't wrap my head around what that would look like.

[@nulliusinverba5703]

@@L_o_c_a_l_G_u_y There's very likely things that are unfalsifiable (now) which might very well be true. But note that things being unfalsifiable is relative to our current knowledge (and access). If we had perfect knowledge, nothing would be unfalsifiable. But the key takeaway, is that whilst it is POSSIBLE for unfalsifiable claims to be true, anyone would be unjustified in believing it, until it can be falsified. That might suck, but if sound epistemology is the goal, that's unfortunately just a bullet one has to take.

[@vivahernando1]

Idk Bart Erhman doesn’t debate people that would personally insult him,so I’m okay with Matt doing the same. I think it just needs to be clearly defined and Matt needs to investigate his debate opponents more closely. Problems solved

[@charliejackson6192]

After 2000 years Jesus finally came. That stuff was everywhere and he won’t pay the cleaning bill

[@lifesquandered]

😂😂😂😂😂 He didn't bring a sock

[@AC-qk9tk]

Oh wow you really are the master debator.

[@TurinTuramber]

School boy classic.

[@mojuy11]

My god I just watched the “debate” with Andrew and I have never seen someone so unhinged. It’s honestly kind of creepy. He’s now just ranting to a visibly uncomfortable crowd and he’s so twitchy and buggy. How did he even get a place on stage? What a joke

[@Astro2024]

It's cool to see topics from philosophy of science given thar I'm taking a course in just that at the moment

[@robinhood20253]

Well we know one thing for sure, you are honest to the point of brutality. The fact that these people fail to understand logic and claims, is not our fault.

[@Conserpov]

Only when it comes to atheism. When it comes to politics and science, he's just like Sam Harris.

[@robinhood20253]

@@Conserpov so, are you a scientist or a political scientist? I like Matt's politics and his science too. Maybe you are who is wrong, not Matt

[@cinemaipswich4636]

If someone is successful against their religion, they will always be hateful. There is no greater hate than Christian love.

[@cerealpeer]

"science is the best way to know things when it comes to empirical, testable claims about reality" i feel like thats an empirical, testable claim about reality that can be addressed by science... oh shit. wait we did that one already. it is... _and it is_ .

[@cottawalla]

The question should not be "does God exist?" but "does a belief in God make a unique difference?". That IS falsifiable.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Running away from debates is pretty funny *cough*Andrew Wilson*cough*.

[@hippios]

@@Maximex123 having an axe wound between your legs is what your revelation promotes, doesn't it?

[@hippios]

@@Maximex123 so why did you castrate yourself

[@jonathangrimwood310]

Just a quick grammar suggestion, you forgot to remove the question mark at the end.

[@joelblack2591]

The problem though is that Dillahunty doesn’t ever clarify what he considers to be convincing evidence. He provides no tangible framework for his interlocutors. Sure, he defines what ISN’T convincing. But never what IS convincing. As a result, this allows him the freedom to often disengage from arguments at will by resorting to the lazy, cop out response of “I’m not convinced”. He does this to the point that it becomes unreasonable. This is why his debate tactics are often referred to by his opponents as the “Dillahunty Dodge”. In fact, in his debate against Mike Winger, Dillahunty acknowledged that he didn’t know what would convince him. More to the point, he went on to say that even if faced with evidence that met his own (undefined) standard, he still would not necessarily be convinced. What exactly are Dillahunty’s interlocutors supposed to do with that?

[@coletrickle1775]

They're supposed to not be logic illiterate asshats. I'm so sorry that bar seems to be insurmountably high for theists. And all the things you complain about are just a skeptic being honest.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

What is your god claim?

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

Of course you're dishonest in debates because you're honest in debates. That's what people who are dishonest say about honest people.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

Matt has more faith in science than I can muster. Matt lives in an alternate reality.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

@Vistacism Are you talking about the biological and nuclear weapons or something else? Just because you can push a button on a cell phone doesn't mean it's beneficial. Before cell phones I didn't know we had so many ignorant people. I would say I was happier before cell phones.

[@jameswright...]

@@Kenneth-ts7bp Those nuclear bombs work right? Using atomic THEORY! Do you know what a THEORY is in science? Because the THEORY of evolution is the most proven THEORY in science. Back to nuclear weapons though... Who are we most afraid of getting a nuclear weapon? Theist or Atheist?

[@Conserpov]

Don't worry, Matt is a science denier just like you. You deny evolution and cosmology, Matt denies Little Ice Age and biology of womanhood.

[@BrianPeters110]

@@Conserpovbiology and gender are not the same thing

[@Conserpov]

@@BrianPeters110 Gender is neurophysiology (i.e. biology), unless you use anti-scientific "alternative" definition that amounts to saying that "gender is a fashion choice".

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

All you need to be an Atheist is DOUBT. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt is the opposite of certainty. I am almost certain that no god exists, but I always have and always will accept that a god could exist. But the likelihood of any specific god existing is so small as not to be worth serious consideration. In my mind, I am more likely to win a lottery jackpot WITHOUT buying a ticket! That's why I am atheist and why atheism isn't a claim. It's not belief, it is doubt.

[@Mark-bg1ue]

Then you’re agnostic

[@randomizeds]

​@@Mark-bg1ue More like the combination of both atheist and agnostic. His views represent both, and I think they lean more towards atheism.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

​@@Mark-bg1ue I'm agnostic in that there _could_ maybe possibly be some form of a presuppositional, so-called "god." Perhaps we are alien seeding remants of some sort. Perhaps it's a simulation. Perhaps it was some "god" that no longer exists, or just doesn't GAF. There are boundless possibilities. I am atheist in that I damn sure don't believe in your complete POS supposed "god." You Magical Invisible Daddy. Your Magical Invisible Sky Genie that you want people to believe in. Hence, agnostic-atheist.

[@Mark-bg1ue]

@@randomizeds that’s a contradiction.

[@randomizeds]

@@Mark-bg1ue Care to explain how its a contradiction? It's possible for someone to identify as both atheist and agnostic, as they pertain to different aspects of belief and knowledge.

[@tonydorsett33]

I don't think Matt is dishonest, but I do think he's a poor debater. I think he has a good grasp of the info needed to debate, he's good in the arguments and philosophy I just think he let's his emotions get the best of him. He starts to insult, get loud, and get frustrated, and I get it, but it's bad optics IMO. I realize it's hard, and some of these people are very dishonest, but Matt gets easily triggered and rebutts in a way that I believe is beneath him.

[@Crashawsome]

One day he’ll work out when he’s getting trolled

[@deathdealer312]

He's by far the most to-the-point debater I've seen, which is really good, and he doesn't let people off the hook when they start doing something stupid. If you think thats his emotions getting the best of him, you want him to be a push-over

[@tonydorsett33]

@deathdealer312 It's not about being a push over. He wants to "win" the debate and sometimes it isn't about that. It's about presenting your case and letting the audience decide. He just gets really frustrated and starts to get angry and curse etc. I just think it looks bad and detracts from the points he's making.

[@denverarnold6210]

I've only ever seen him get angry when people are dishonest.

[@SirNicholaiClippingshire]

A god too busy to meddle in our affairs, preoccupied with the obsession of the knowledge of all things. That's badass

[@professorgremlin1425]

Matt’s not dishonest, but is he an illusion? 🤔

[@Time_Is_Left]

There is no god, art is dead, nothing is real. Lol

[@BaronVonQuiply]

I outright deny your baseless accusation that Matt was pulled out of a hat by a rabbit at 2:34 pm this afternoon and that I was the very confused photographer which is why the video is interrupted by that annoying "Wtf did I just see?!?" voice before someone calmed me down with some spare chloroform. I don't even know why you would say such an outlandish thing.

[@BrianFedirko]

A Deist claiming they know? Proves that it is a god that isn't good at being undetectable, and so there still isn't one of those."☮

[@realitypreferred7084]

Of course they are going to complain about the way you debate. You make fools of them at EVERY turn, and they don't like that.

[@samcolserra2425]

At 13:00 or so, you mention deism and that it’s unfalsifiable. Why do you consider it appropriate to demand scientific level of evidence from a philosophical proposition (only talking about deism here, not theism)? Isn’t it in a completely different category? Wouldn’t it then depend on pure logic and reasoning to prove it (like the contingency argument)?

[@markjamie4002]

I think you are honest in debates, but I also think you sometimes unfairly accuse your opponents of being dishonest.

[@identityfor]

Looking good Matt 🤟

[@pansepot1490]

They call you dishonest because they are projecting. 😎

[@phrozenwun]

Never ever heard a definition of god(s) that is simultaneously coherent with reality and supports a meaningful 'ought' that I implies that I should accept/believe it. Not one, and until such a definition is forthcoming, I will tentatively hold the affirmative position that no such definition exists. My position has been clarified in no small part by watching you engage with others from a serious and well informed position of understanding, thank you Matt!

[@cptsolfege6283]

yeah you're super dishonest from what I've seen of you in debates

[@lobo2367]

The Sunday show? Link? Where, what? Who is your social media manager?

[@Linkaless]

Apologetic 101: 'Stop doing what i'm doing' Brought to you by: Atheism is a religion, you believe in science, you have faith too!

[@michaelcrawford3796]

Dishonest huh? I just dont see that when im listening. What i do see is no real evidence which you prove every time ? Great work Matt.

[@Crashawsome]

Matt wins every debate when the person he debates isn’t there, and when he can control the mute button

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Get ready for his fangirls swarming this thread.

[@SansDeity]

And all of the ones I've done on stage in churches and events where I'm in control of nothing.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@SansDeity You mean Churches and events where you were punching below your weight class? Do you have a response to Andrew Wilsons argument yet or you wanna bail again?

[@YeshuaIsLord135]

@@SansDeitywhy did you run away from Andrew Wilson if you think you win every debate against a Christian. Btw you got destroyed by Jay Dyer

[@kennethanderson8770]

@@SansDeityno you take on the debate moderator role and make up rules like evidence is not evidence or Christian’s can’t say that. You have no evidence for your view and make no points at all. And because you’re so bad at debating you just treat your opponents like crap. It’s a wonder people listen to you. Andrew treated you the way you treat Christian’s and you threw a tantrum and stormed off. Doesn’t feel good to be treated the way you treat others does it? The letter cult is mental illness pushed on people by society now. Abuse on a national level. But that’s what secular humanism teaches so I guess you would fall for it.

[@TheBruce571]

Andrew declawed you by granting that his world view didn't exist. All you had was the same old shtick on Christianity. Secular humanism covers many topics including trans issues. You weren't prepared to debate it. You ran in a huff and Andrew won by default. If an atheist can show your ideology is ridiculous you have nothing. Andrew was taking the stance of an atheist arguing that the things you believe in contradict reality and moreover you know it contradicts reality.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

What is your god claim?

[@darkdragonite1419]

Are you dishonest? No. Stubborn? Absolutely.

[@TheJustice35]

Bro you literally ran from the debate after the opening. Andrew challenged your worldview and your overall argument and instead you ran.

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

What is your god claim?

[@TheJustice35]

@evangelicalsnever-lie9792 I don't believe there is a God, but I'm open to the idea that there could be a God. If your asking my morals I'm still figuring that out philosophically

[@evangelicalsnever-lie9792]

@@TheJustice35 Oh, ok. Answering morals isn't hard. It's merely tribal agreements for how the tribe operates. They are fluid and change over time as the evidence shows. Christianity itself demonstrates how their "morals" *change* over time. No Magical Invisible Daddy can be shown. Only humans and their actions can be credibly proven.

[@TheJustice35]

@evangelicalsnever-lie9792 Did you see the Andrew Wilson vs Dillahunty "Debate"? Because instead of debating his ideas he just threw a tantrum and ran away rather than contend with the ideas

[@heathens516]

With Howard, he tried. With Andrew, he didn't. I'm also disappointed. Matt leaving the debate has provided Andrew and "his side" with fuel they're still crowing about. While I agree with not approaching debates with a win or lose mentality, opponents like Andrew... that's all they care about. I think Matt should have fought (with words, of course) for what he believes in. This was an opportunity to do that.

[@MrYourDry]

I... I'm not sure I have come across a time where Matt Dillahunty was dishonest in a debate. I would say unwilling to accept some Theistic assumptions that allows for their argument to play out but he is under no obligation to do so. 🤷‍♂️

[@JagnarLothbrok]

Matt you got OWNED by Andrew Wilson. Hahahaha. Did you relay his best wishes to your Husband?

[@drsatan3231]

No he didn't. lol. He got fed up with his dishonest tactics Wilson still can't prove a god exists 🤦‍♂️

[@JagnarLothbrok]

@drsatan3231 doesn't believe in God but believes men can be women? Lol. Keep playing your video games, Mr. Satan. U like Matt, are obviously losers in life.

[@Mark-bg1ue]

@@drsatan3231which tactic was dishonest?

[@drsatan3231]

@Mark-bg1ue perhaps not dishonest but a personal attack against his wife used as a deflection was what caused Matt to walk out Did you even watch it? You agree with his tactics of attacking people's character who's not at all related to the subject? If so you're just as much of shit-cùnt as he is

[@justaguy6100]

I think of these debates as the affirmative claim being "there is sufficient proof of the existence of (a) God" and the contrary being 'there is NOT sufficient proof of the existence of (a) God."

[@jonmorris7815]

I'm a HUGE fan but I do think you have been dishonest with the last 2 debates on secular humanism. The first one everytime the guy stated his issues with the Humanist Manifesto, you replied "well that's not what I believe", then the last debate you walked out because the guy rose issues with humanism in regards to trans people and instead of doing your job (to debate and refute bad ideas) you simply left, like a petulant child who is leaving and taking his ball with him. It was not a good look on your part, was unprofessional, and immensely disrespectful to the people who paid to see you debate. I'm still a fan, but it would be a lie to say I hadn't lost some respect for you.

[@SansDeity]

Then you're an idiot. I presented a case for secular humanism. That guy agreed to debate and defend the Bible and Christianity. He lied. He had no interest in defending that. He made no attempt to. He conceded my entire world view at the outset. He then demanded explanations about my personal positions on trans issues... which wasn't the subject of the debate and isn't relevant to secular humanism vs the Bible. He then mocked trans suicide. He's a trip who was there to promote his own channel, with his own film crew, to get clicks and sensationalize an attack on me, personally, and trans folks in general. I got an apology from the organizers (WI continued to platform this fascist bigot after I left). Happy to lose your respect. Go learn some decency.

[@hippios]

@@SansDeity Oh please dude. Don't grandstand. You ranted for half of your time on the new Speaker. Transgenderism is a consequence of your worldview and raising up the absurdity of believing something so unscientific is a perfectly legitimate strategy, just like you constantly deride Christians by bringing up random people. Just admit that you were personally offended and chose to run. Is this the best atheism has to offer?

[@DavisJ-ln6fw]

@@hippios Funny how everything Matt said above is true and correct and everything you have said is utter bullshit. Kindly squirm back under the dung heap crawl out of

[@DavisJ-ln6fw]

@@SansDeity Props for not letting people pressure you into participating in that farce. And sham on MDD for letting an unserious bigot on their platform. And don't let people shame you or create false narratives about what happened . You were in the right hands down.

[@jonmorris7815]

@SansDeity and you reply with an ad hominem personal attack on one of your fans just because I didn't think you did your best work? Classy. He conceded (for your benefit) that there was no God, but that the ethics of Christianity (whether bases on a real or imagined deity) were better than secular humanism tenents. He then showed (in his opinion) how that world view would lead to the issues he brought up regarding transgender people and the seeming conflict he sees with secular humanism and actual human flourishing. But instead of DOING YOUR JOB and showing why his ignorant, uniformed, and stupid views were.......ignorant, uniformed, and stupid.....you said screw your fans (who paid money to see you), screw the platform, and screw actually fighting against his hateful rhetoric. All because you got butt hurt and left like a petulant child who "is leaving and taking your ball with you." I am still a fan, but you should do better. Better for your fans (who you disrespected) and the trans community (if you support it). I'm willing to bet they would have benefited much more from you intelligently and artfully destroying his position than the hissy fit you threw. Have the day you deserve, sir.

[@bendybruce]

I grew up in a very secular society and for most of my life I have described myself as a spiritual agnostic. Note I don't use the term spiritual in any remotely religious way but more as an expression of my basic sense of wonderment as to our own existence and apparent unique ability to perceive of non materialistic concepts and ideas. I've never had much time for religion, and especially in the earlier days enjoyed listening to someone like Richard Dawkins taking religion to task using cold hard empirical logic which to my mind at least often lead the religious advocates looking very silly. I was a little disappointed however when I heard Richard describe agnosticism as a very weak position, and that I ultimately lacked the strength of my conviction. It did not at all move me into wanting to declare myself a hard atheist, but it did make me feel as if my declared position as an agnostic was not perhaps being precisely described with that particular label. I just kind of shrugged my shoulders on that and went on with my life. More recently however I've been thinking about it some more and have actually come up with a new label that I call an Agodstic. Since I am effectively the first ever official Agodstic to grace the face of the Earth I thought I might offer a description of what it is to an audience that might be at least partially receptive to the concept. The axiomatic belief system which itself can neither be proved or disproved, is that God can neither be adequately comprehended and therefore defined by the mechanics of the human mind. With this belief firmly in place, I now feel I am justified in refusing to answer the question, of whether God does or does not exist, Because in essence I am being asked To confirm whether or not I believe in something that can neither be comprehended nor defined. This is at best a completely useless question and at worst a completely nonsensical one, like asking what is north of the north pole. Whether or not being an Agodstic makes any sense to you, the bottom line is I think it offers a legitimately valid option for those that would otherwise position themselves as either an agnostic or atheist.

[@kimsland999]

I think there is something in your diagnosis but its not word labels! The fact remains if theism didn't exist then there'd be no use for the term atheist. Just as there is no use for the (non) word of aFairist. Atheism is a RESPONSE to the theist's claim of a God existing due to the harm theism causes. If theism had as much concern as present day fairy believers (generally children) then we wouldn't require the word atheist, just as we presently don't with the word aFairist. Matt, and basically 100% of online atheists, propose the God question is clearly a logical question of A or not A. But if this is true then where are all the aFairists? Why did logic break down here? The real question of: Are you a fairy believer or NOT? Is exactly the same as asking are you a God believer or NOT? Both are ridiculous illogical unreasonable questions, as the question is implying the mere CONCEPT of a God could be true! As such the question requires NO logical answer. However, we presently use the term atheist, because: Atheism is a RESPONSE to the theist's claim of a God existing due to the harm theism causes.

[@bendybruce]

​@@kimsland999 I can't say I disagree with anything you have said there but the issue for me is that the colloquial usage of the word atheist and agnostic too for that matter, both presuppose that you are providing an answer to the question, does God exist. Either yes no or I don't know. In that sense neither of these words properly describe my actual belief system, which as you have alluded to is that the question itself makes no sense. So by describing myself as anAgodstic, I am making it clear to the general layperson that the question is one that you cannot ask me because my underlying belief, unambiguously Implies how absurd the question is. Of course no theist is going to agree with my premise but that's fine I stress this as a personal belief which is necessarily the case no matter what your stated position.

[@kimsland999]

@@bendybruce " _both presuppose that you are providing an answer to the question, does God exist_ " Consistently I am informed that atheists are not making a positive claim. Merely they are responding to the theist's positive claim of a God existing, by saying: I don't believe you. Thus if theism didn't exist, so wouldn't atheism! Lets say its 50yrs time, and theism is less than 1% of the world. Asking the 99% of the world: Are you atheists? Would be met with as much ridicule as by asking reasonable people today: Are you aFairists? What a ridiculous question, that deserves no answer.