Atheist Debates - Yall just want to sin

[@myautobiographyafanfic1413]

"y'all just wanna think you'll live forever" "y'all just wanna think y'all are holier than anyone else" "y'all just want god to be real so badly"

[@myautobiographyafanfic1413]

Wtf

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@brucehunter8235]

Man, if I wanted to sin I would become a Catholic and get forgiven every Sunday

[@teavea10]

That's also a sin (look up sin of presumption), but then I guess you could confess that too.

[@leofst]

Well, I plan to sin the best I can and repent at the very end of my life! I mean, the bible makes it very clear that that's how it works anyway, right? haha

[@TheSnoopy1750]

Monopoly's "Get out of jail free" card is based on Christianity. :-)

[@brucehunter8235]

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are.” - Mark 3:28

[@TheTardstrong]

***** Pure Pwnage!

[@Ruud_Brouwer]

Matt, this is just dishonest, how dare you use logic when you know perfectly well that your oponents are not using logic themselves. It's just not fair.

[@sussekind9717]

Fair comes twice a year. The state has one and the county has one. Sometimes the world has one, but it's always so far away, it's practically impossible to obtain it before it does go away.

[@crazycrimess]

😂

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@topcat2069]

a magic decoder ring from a cereal box of "sugar and some form of grain" is what you're debating. 😂🤣

[@Cornwall1888]

If you like to sin you'd be a Christian, do whatever you want, accept Jesus then get into heaven. There is zero accountability or consequences for even the worst actions.

[@ThePharphis]

Yup. Even WLC admits this in one of his debates and says "well I wouldn't put it like that..." as a sort of dodge... I wish I remembered which debate it was.

[@Rayvvvone]

ThePharphis With Kagan, I think.. He said ( famous last words, I hope ) that no GENUINE Christian would believe that.. Yup, he actually said that, and some in the audience laughed at him, and Kagan could hardly sit in his chair... What an error ! He showed us his TRUE SCOTSMAN ideas...his true tartans...

[@ThePharphis]

Rayvvvone Yes, I believe it was Kagan, that sounds familiar. Shelly Kagan? Can't remember his name but too lazy to google atm... Yes, they were definitely in chairs and the audience laughed. I wonder if they were laughing because they agreed with Craig or they were laughing at the inherent flaw in his belief that bad people will be punished. I guess it depends on the audience for that debate which I don't remember.

[@Firstwho]

Cornwall1888 - You have never had someone explain the conviction internally that one gets when one has a relationship with Jesus right? (This is a concept you never thought of right?)

[@Rayvvvone]

Tom Bailey "(This is a concept you never thought of right?)" - We hear about it all the time.. But everyone has a different take on it... A conviction isn't a guarantee for a proposition. So it doesn't matter how CONVINCED someone is... that is not any evidence that what the person is convinced about is TRUE. It isn't any good at all to be convinced by something that isn't true. So, why are you convinced what you believe in is true?

[@MasterWolf73]

my response to that one is always "If I just wanted to sin I'd be a Christian, because then I could do what ever I want and just ask god to forgive me. being an Atheist my actions are on me and the only one I can ask to forgive me for my wrong doing is the people who I have harmed". That usually shuts em up

[@colourmegone]

Since when has Christianity kept anyone from "sinning"? All you have to do is ask for forgiveness. Christianity has *no* moral imperative whatsoever.

Also, everybody is a sinner by default.

[@Firstwho]

colourmegone How do you know? You are ignorant in regards to the indwelling of the holy spirit correct?

[@AdamFranks]

That's what I never understand. They always say "If there's no god then there's no reason to not be evil because there's no justice after death"... Yeah? There's no justice after death even if we assumed the bible were true. You're either once saved always saved, or have to repent/ask forgiveness but both ways basically mean you can do literally ANYTHING you want and still be good with god and duck the whole hell thing. Christianity allows for the possibility that someone like Hitler could be sitting in heaven right now as long as they were saved. So if we want to sin freely, we basically can do that either way we go. And as far as polyamorous being a reason for him to doubt jesus... Yeah, the bible says marriage is one man, one woman, and as many concubines as a guy wants and can support. Hell, it even says rape is a proper precursor to marriage. So there's no reason to doubt jesus just because someone wants to do those things. So, we could sin as much as we wish as a christian. We could be polyamorous if we want as a christian. We could own slaves, murder people, commit genocide... All perfectly allowed and legit with the bible and god. We don't need to be atheists to do those things if we wanted. We could be "good christians" and do all of it. So... Want to try again, bible thumpers?

[@Gnomefro]

Tom Bailey _"How do you know? You are ignorant in regards to the indwelling of the holy spirit correct?"_ That would be the spirit that compelled the Christians of the inquisition to torture witches and murder all the non-Christians in Europe? Am I right? There's certainly a strong moral imperative there via the salvation-from-Hell doctrine. Every confession you can torture out of a witch will make her more likely to be saved, and every infidel you kill reduces the chance of Christian deconversions(and subsequent trips to hell).

[@colourmegone]

Tom Bailey How do *you* know? You're obviously just ignorant.

[@raygowan1968]

[@BlueOceanBelow]

Just don't go after church gets out on Sunday, the place will be packed!

[@richardguyver6676]

as long as you didn't have goat boiled in it's mothers milk for dinner, I think you'll be ok!!!

[@FaiaHalo]

That precious little kitten? No way!

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@cadetsnf]

My standards of morality are far greater than any Christian I've ever met.

[@rijden-nu]

Are you sure? Aren't they more like about the same average level?

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@thewiseowl8804]

@compsciguyThat isn't arrogant at all.

[@SmartAss4123]

@compsciguyUnless he's right

[@beyondbeyondness]

I am a more moral person without Christianity.

[@galendulac]

So is everyone else as far as I have seen.

[@Mathgenius84]

Zac Ziller How do you determine if you are moral? What is your morality based on?

[@suleymanbabak1973]

@@Mathgenius84 well-being in a community of fellow humans.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@flawedobserver4057]

I do want to sin cause....buttered shrimp.... just sayin

[@jayleneellis9308]

Ham

[@theghostsofstonyclove]

Yas. I will wear a shirt to hell that says "Shrimp scampi was worth this"

[@lagodifuoco313]

I want to wear polyester cotton blends.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@scotty]

Matt brings sanity to a huge pile of madness.

[@vladtepes9614]

Telling me that I "just want to sin" takes a shit all over my honest efforts to find out what is true and what isn't.

[@linklawson5633]

A lot of Christian "morality" is nothing but PRUDISM, which I think people can do without anyway.

[@AakeTraak]

And Christians don't have a bias of Jesus existing?

[@FancyKerbloops]

AakeTraak I like your tree frog picture. Interesting animals.

[@Self-replicating_whatnot]

AakeTraak They are only ones who really have, because him not existing automatically makes their religion invalid. Atheists, on the other hand, wouldn't care either way, since Jesus existing won't in any way make him being miracle worker, which in turn is separate from his advices being necessary good ones.

[@Firstwho]

AakeTraak How do you contrast whether they know Jesus exists or just believe he exists?

[@AakeTraak]

Tom Bailey Well, when they say believe, they really mean know. And how they know? Faith.

[@Gnomefro]

Self-replicating whatnot You're assuming a Christianity based on a historical Jesus though. If mythicists like Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier are right, Christianity started out with a celestial Jesus who had nothing to do with the miracle working Jesus of Nazareth. Believe it or not, there exists people who self label as Christians today whose idea of Jesus also has nothing to do with the Jesus of the gospels, although these are of course a vanishingly small minority. And even they would of course be wrong with a more generic denial of existence that has nothing to do with him being a man.

[@johnadams4905]

My favorite video thus far that you have made

[@0110-d6s]

That and "You're just mad at god" are the most common

[@dracdrum]

Wonderful breakdown on this, thank you Matt.

[@amandine512]

That is a beautiful setting. Just saying.

[@juseschrustfush]

Yall just wanna smell flowers

[@magicbeam6821]

Y'all just wanna pollinate.

[@juseschrustfush]

@@magicbeam6821 hehe

[@jpats6124]

Love listening to you, Matt, especially in this setting. You can look pretty fearsome on the Atheist Experience.

[@pdoylemi]

The Tower of Babel reference was appreciated. I have made that point several times. And that is not the only place that the Bible makes a similar point. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, what was god's concern? That they might next eat from the tree of life and become immortal and be equal to god. This is a common theme in ancient religions. Prometheus was punished for giving fire to man because that would make us a threat to the gods.

[@TheZooCrew]

Pat Doyle That's spot on. It's maddening how believers can spot these themes in popular fiction but throw on blinders when it comes to their religion. Prometheus was infinitely more heroic than jesus ever was. THAT is what sacrifice looks like.

[@williamcooke5579]

The equivalent is saying a non-believer of Santa Claus just wants to be a naughty boy.

[@saintfreezy6914]

Santa comparisons are usually stupid to me but this is hilarious 😂

[@FoursWithin]

​@@saintfreezy6914 Why are they stupid ? Is it because Santa didn't write a Christmas bible, or because Santa wasn't sacrificed for naughty children?

[@LRGoodGame]

Welcome back Matt. Good trip I hope. Fantastic video as always.

[@Berniefthomas68]

I really enjoyed listening this from beginning to end

[@tikatowowplayer]

Gotta love people who dont read the bible but want to throw it at others.. smh good video Matt

[@shadowsnake380]

Working and uploading things on your Birthday? Man, take a break, you have been busy, you deserve it. Cheers.

[@tylermcelfresh3313]

That quite a beautiful background you've chosen, Matt!

[@andydonnelly8677]

Loving Atheist Debates, lots of great info, and so well put.😁👍

[@Nicholiathan]

When confronted with this argument I own it. Sin is a meaningless concern for me. It is unrelated to good & evil, moral & immoral or ethical & unethical. There is some overlap but no correspondence.

[@lennoxpb]

Another great video Matt! Thanks for all the hard work!

[@billschlafly4107]

If god has a message for me that has to do with my eternal existence, it has a responsibility to give it to me personally. The Bible doesn't count because it isn't a personal service of notice. Courts require respondents to claims of law be served personally and so do I because it's a logical way of doing business. If god isn't logical then I don't want anything to do with it.

[@timd1374]

Very excellent, Matt. I am sharing this as much as possible....and telling people to see the whole video, but especially as you summarize. Well done, sir!!

[@Fluffykeith]

Sin isn't even a valid concept to nonbelievers. Sin is defined as actions that transgress against the will of God. Since we don't believe in God that renders the idea of an action being sinful redundant. We care about how our actions effect others people, not if they offend some deity that we don't believe in.

[@Exploer8591]

You don't have to believe in something in order for it to exist. Isn't that true?

[@Fluffykeith]

Sure, the fact of somethings existence (or non-existence) is independent from what people believe about it. Though I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was making?

[@Exploer8591]

+Fluffykeith. You don't believe in the existence of God, but if he does exist, contrary to your beliefs, then, transgression against His will, sin, would be valid. I believe that there is much evidence for the existence of God and none against it.

[@Fluffykeith]

I think you missed my point. I'm talking about the CONCEPT of sin. Atheists do not believe in God, therefore we do not believe that there is a will for us to transgress against. So coming to us and saying "You just want to sin" makes no sense, since that is effectively saying "You just want to transgress against the will of the being you don't believe exists"....it's nonsensical. Why would we want to base our actions on wanting to transgress against something we don't believe in....since we don't believe in God, we don't believe its possible to transgress against God...because we don't believe God exists TO have a will that could be transgressed against. You might believe there is much evidence for God, but I do not. I have not been convinced by any of the so called evidence I've seen so far. And I will point out that since the time to believe something is when its been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to look for evidence AGAINST the existence of God...all we need do is examine the so called evidence FOR God....and realise that it's insufficient.

[@shadowbonbon3]

What evidence is there for god cause I know zero

[@charlesmarlowstanfield]

This was great, Matt. Happy to be a patron.

[@dragowolfraven3806]

Even as a child I never understood the concept of sin.How can I hurt someone who is literally impossible for me to see,touch,or hear🤔

[@kylebuckles2692]

The flowers are beautiful Matt! :)

[@jesse_cole]

What's up with the Gandalf goatee?

[@tomwalker389]

I thought you were doing all this videos in isolation because of how things are at the moment. Then I realized this was half a decade ago.

[@HogTieChamp]

But... LOOK AT THE FLOWERS BEHIND YOU!!! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!! (Hey, look! I'm trolling Matt Dillahunty ! It is kinda fun... I see why the Fundies do it... and ALL CAPS IS NECESSARY!!)

[@wendycanuck1019]

The tide goes in... the tide goes out... you can't explain that!!! LMAO! I hope Matt doesn't read your comment and think you're serious. He'll call you an idiot or something equally as funny. :)

[@djsichuan622]

ive actually gotta admit, i have in the past trolled on r/atheistvids and it is kinda fun. just take a strident radical ignorant view but keep it subtle, and the comments that come afterwards are hilarious something like "how can you atheists say theres no sin, i just dont understand how you can go through life just arbitrarily making decisions on morality. If theres no evil you cant say that something is bad or immoral, you can do it and not feel any guilt. you guys make zero sense". next day '30 replys' lol!

[@HogTieChamp]

Wendy Canuck Nah, no harm done... Literally, he has no clue who I am. Matt is not a "big consumer of KZbin content," as Christopher would say. And whatever... When I'm in a Hangout, I always refer to Matt as, "this guy that my friend Aron talks about who has a local cable access show somewhere in the States."

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Oh...I'm so tempted to troll Matt now, *****.

[@vladtepes9614]

***** And Jesus said to Thomas "Thou fool. How dare you doubt me? Just look at the trees and your reflection in the water." *NOT.*

[@catherine_404]

Is being good equal to not sinning? One of my reasons why faith/religion is bad is that I want to be good on my own. I want to be even better than you can be following a religion. Stealing, lying, murder are "sins" (things not to be done, bad things), but not because someone said so, but out of practical reasons, out of what we are. Which is actually good because you don't need anything vague to identify them as bad.

[@Shangori]

Is it a case of reflection? That christians actually dont like the idea of being under the 'yoke of god'? That they would understand our rejection, because they could accept it as a reason for themselves? Or even a reflection of their own dishonesty. Thinking that, because they can't properly support their position and have to resort to dishonesty, we have to be in that same boat? Tbh, the more I learn christian apologetics, the more I believe they understand that they know they live a lie. How else can they blurt out these things and expect people to take them seriously?

[@robertmiller9735]

While that's undoubtedly true of some Christians, I think most who say that aren't really arguing, but simply making a reflexive tribal-defensive comeback. Just like "Oh yeah? YOU look like dorks!" ;)

[@robertmiller9735]

***** Actually, I've always thought the "I'd rape and murder if not for God" thing is something they have to believe-or at least profess to-because the doctrine says so. And possibly, for a few more introspective Christians, that if it weren't so, their religion won't make sense, and they can't have that, now can they?

[@exodiathecoolone]

***** " The "Ya'll just wanna sin" is really an admission that they would be doing all kinds of crazy shit if they had no God to punish them. Says more about them than us." I don't know about you, but I have had discussions here on KZbin with professing christians who admit, flat out, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that they would go around raping and murdering if not for their belief in God. It terrified me to read those responses.

[@robertmiller9735]

***** You're quite right. Take the anti-vaccers, for example. They continue to believe even when the guy who made it up in the first place admits he lied. What's evidence when so many people are willing to disregard it?

[@BUGHUNTER6]

Thank you for sharing your great views and advice, Matt. I started watching The Atheist Experience about two years ago and ever since, you've really helped me not only to hold my ground in arguments with theists, but also truly inspired me. Keep up the good work!

[@FelixDegenaar]

Matt makes so many really great and eloquent points... some believers MUST become at least somewhat swayed by his arguments, wouldn't they? Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

[@UltimateInnerSpirit]

Matt was one of multiple you tubers that ultimately made me leave Christianity, so yeah, some of us were definitely swayed by him

[@iuconnecttokyo]

I'm not saying this is true of Carrier, but this is certainly true of some people "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantegous to themselves... For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." -- Aldous Huxley in Ends and Means, 1937 (according to Josh McDowell)

[@briangarrow448]

All religions are guilty of atrocities against humanity. some were just better at it than others.

[@Exploer8591]

The atrocities you speak of took place when secular powers exploited religion for their own earthly gain.

[@taurak84]

Love your stuff Matt Dillahunty You are the next Hitch. You are that voice of reason for a small but growing population of free thinkers and skeptics. Many people condemn religion but you go four steps further and show why they are wrong AND even which parts they got right for the wrong reason. You and the rest of the AE hosts past and present have also had an unbelievable impact on my life and the lives of other. Also the staff that work behind the scenes they give up time out of their schedule to make sure that the message gets out there so that there is hope for those that do not fit into the mold of Christendom or religious flavor of the week they were born into. You are all amazing people. Thank you

[@jayleneellis9308]

I like to ask them "what IS sin? If I do something to you, I have to make it up to you, How is it even possible to hurt some all powerful being?"

[@amandamiller5769]

That is a beautiful place you are in. Those flowers are awesome!

[@losoyo]

I need you to stop making me question things :p

[@submissionlaedenwinter4317]

Great take on the tower of babel. Nail hit squarely on head. Love the Atheist Debates Matt!!!

[@tedgrant2]

Being an atheist is great. I have no morals to hold me back I can do anything I like. I just had an ice cream. It was good. Now I plan to make a nice cup of tea, sit in my garden and watch the birds.

[@voiceofaliens]

Some hypotheses I'd like to examine more fully some day about the motivations of Jewish scribes. Any suggested reading is very welcome! So.. assuming, as I do, that scripture is written by the influential of their society, and is man made: 1. the motivation to successfully lead the society could encourage the kings and priests to write what they feel they have to to guide the people, whether true or not. Or, if they do feel they are writing God's word, it's at least based on their interpretation of their God in the context of their own reflections about what's right and wrong in their society, or what's best for everyone (keeping the kings/priests in power, of course). The idea of original sin could be one such controlling concept. 2. Because original sin is common to all humankind, there seems to be motivation to reflect on or even seek out behaviors that are common to all, such as "lust," that everyone would need to be forgiven from. Not everyone is a murderer, but everyone loves sex. And since sex has potential for so many complications among people, it's an easy target for spiritual leaders to "interpret" what they feel God wants. (Or, make up rules that they know everyone won't be able to follow, if the first part of point one is true.) Thus, by design, their writings make it nearly impossible to _not_ sin. Thus, sacrifice, atonement, and forgiveness is validated (keeps priests in power) by everyone because they can all reflect upon things they have done as clearly sinful. 3. Babel. Maybe because they were a group of wandering tribes who might have had difficulty communicating and agreeing with each other, to come across (and be a potential conquest of?) a society that _does_ work well together could be like a group of rebellious teens hating the man. That's a bit of a stretch, but following my thoughts on "what motivated scripture writers," that's one possible direction to take it. Like I said, these are just ideas that I'd like to investigate further, because I think it's key that if we understand why humans might have recorded scripture as they did, it makes it much easier to understand how they could have written things with truthful authority if they really had none. It does for me at least. Also.. like.. why would Paul and early disciples risk death for their beliefs? Well, first century Israel was a mess, where Jews and Romans didn't seem to get along well. I wonder if Paul had insight that maybe the power of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees was on the decline, and to preserve Judaic traditions they hold dear in a world ruled by Greco-Roman culture, there might be good political reasons to invent Christianity from other stories of the day and die for the myth if need be, like any good revolutionary. _To be clear_, I have proof of none of this but am definitely interested in finding out more since these things seem plausible to me.

[@RzzRBladezofoccham]

Dear Matt 'Thor' Dilahunty, A number of years ago I asked: "Who the fuck is Carrier?" Today I am a little bit wiser, I know a bit more of his theories/hypothesis, of which I believe that Carrier developed them through a process we normally call the scientific method, I believe we need to take them serious. I must be honest, I do not now his day to day means of his research, but I can claim that the objections most used against Bayes' Theorem in a science like history are objections I have heard about other theories. The objections are of the type one would expect when there is nothing else to object to, the opposing party has no evidence and tries to make claims to discredit a successful theory. I studied history as an integral part of a strategic study, we used a theory very successful, we tried the theory on a number of historical events, corporate decision making, political decision making and military decision making. I know with quite some certainty, on a mathematical level that Napoleon and Rommel, quite consistently made the best decisions possible, even when they failed, any other decision would have lead to even worse outcomes. We also know on a mathematical level that some were quite the opposite. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto wrote: Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. Game theory, the study of strategic decision making (An alternative term suggested "as a more descriptive name for the discipline" is interactive decision theory) suggests quite convincingly that the Political/military strategic decision of Japan to attack Pearl Harbour and the Philippines was the only decision possible to establish a high probability of long-term success for the Japanese cause, becoming a world player on par with Europe and the USA. "There was no officer more competent to lead the Combined Fleet to victory than Admiral Yamamoto. His daring plan for the Pearl Harbour attack had passed through the crucible of the Japanese naval establishment, and after many expressed misgivings, his fellow admirals had realized that Yamamoto spoke no more than the truth when he said that Japan's hope for victory in this [upcoming] war was limited by time and oil. Every sensible officer of the navy was well aware of the perennial oil problems. Also, it had to be recognized that if the enemy could seriously disturb Japanese merchant shipping, then the fleet would be endangered even more." Both Bayes' Theorem and Game Theory work more or less on the same principles, evaluating certain possibilities, outcomes, pay-offs, and who the players are. Bayes' theorem however is quite simple and rather effective, while Game Theory is more complex, one can use iterations and set theorists even used the theory in Infinitely long games, only ending when a certain 'goal' has been reached. I know the effectiveness of probabilistic theories applied to history first hand, I know I learned this Theory from an American Professor of mathematics, a guest teacher, whose name I forgot, but whose other 'hobby' I remember quite vividly, advisor to president Clinton. If it is true that Carrier is the only professional historian using probabilistic theory applied to history, than I am disappointed in most historians. Every, him-, or herself respecting President, King, Dictator, or Oligarch has a mathematician as advisor to calculate decisions, players, possibilities, odds, success, failure and many more things. When historical figures use probabilistic theories, than successful historians have no option but to apply the same theories, not applying such theories is a failure to apply new methods of science to science. One might even go as far as philosophising whether the failure to apply probabilistic theories is a failure to apply the scientific method, but that is in the end not my decision to make, it does make me wonder what Karl H. Popper would have made of that question. Yours unbelievingly, RzzR P.S. The news of the death of Dr. Nash and his wife just reached me, the Nobel laureate of the 1994 price in economics is no longer with us. A great loss because of his life long fight against schizophrenia, he was an example of 'crazy' people being perfectly normal and a great asset to the rest of humanity, in breaking the taboo surrounding mental deviation. Which are not illnesses or diseases, since they are nothing more than evolution trying to create plenty of variety for natural selection to act upon.

[@stephaniecuellar3192]

Dude, have you ever read Frank Herbert's Dune books? You're describing a 'Mentat'.

[@gspendlove]

Was that Beth who did the voiceover for "Y'all just want to sin"? If so, that's a nice callback for us who remember her famous, hysterical prank phone call to Matt on the AE.

[@munstrumridcully]

Another problem with "you are atheist because you want to sin" is that there would need to be some way to logically demonstrate that just because a god *is* (assuming such for argument only) that it somehow follows that man has some moral obligation to appease and obey this god, other than coercion. Namely "*if* you wish to avoid punishment (hell in this case) or gain reward (heaven) then you *ought* obey and appease god" or some other rational conditional. IMO, Moore's open question and Euthyphro's dilemma(which applies even if the apologist ties morality or good to god's nature rather than command, "is god's nature good because it's good, or because it's god's nature", same dilemma in a new form) and the lack of any evidence of moral absolutes or "moral oughts" to me indicates that the only reason an atheist would purposely deny a god they actually believe exists to better get away with sin is if they are so stupid they think that *professed* disbelief will somehow insulate them from the wrath of an *all knowing* god which they still "know" exists(so not *actual* disbelief), which according to most Christian teaching, is unnecessary anyway, since one need only ask for forgiveness through Jesus and all those sins will be instantly forgiven. In fact, scapegoating the sins of man onto Jesus is the main *point* of Christianity.

[@utubepunk]

Well said. Or typed, rather.

[@munstrumridcully]

utubepunk lol ^^

[@Firstwho]

munstrumridcully - "In fact, scapegoating the sins of man onto Jesus is the main point of Christianity." -Have you ever been told about eternal life before? In the scope of eternity how do you arrive at sin being the main point?

[@munstrumridcully]

Tom Bailey Uh, the main doctrine of Christianity is that man is sinful, which will keep him from heaven and/or damn him to hell for that "eternity" you mention, and that god sent his son, who is himself, to save us from this fate, thus Jesus is a scapegoat for sins of man. Are you seriously unaware that the main point of Christianity is to save mankind from sin, especially original sin via sacrificing Jesus? That *is* common doctrine across denominations. So how is scapegoating the sins of man onto Jesus *not* the point of the religion, because according to the religion, that scapegoating *allows* for eternity in heaven and can spare one eternity in hell and is *why* Jesus came down and Christianity *exists*. Are you *trolling*?!

[@Firstwho]

munstrumridcully I think you are one of the more rational people who posts on youtube that does not agree with me. Your points are always interesting and logical. When it comes to sin after Adam it worked this way "just as through one man sin entered the world and thus death spread to all men". It is that sin entered the world and there is not a scapegoat but a gift. Have you ever had salvation explained to you as a gift? Love is really the core not sin. If you read John 3:16 for God so loved, if you read Corinthians 13 without love nothing else matters and if you read the gospels you will hear Jesus talk about loving enemies, if you read John 15 Jesus talks about the greatest love being willing to die for your friends. If you look at the bible the first mention of love when Jesus came was loving enemies. Have you ever had "love" explained to you as the core over sin?

[@NotCapitalist]

"Professional Historian" I do not have hands large enough to make the air quotes necessary for that phrase lol

[@rowdy.rockers]

The word "sin" does not exist in my vocabulary. It's a word only relevant to religious oppression.

[@Exploer8591]

Jesus did not come to oppress but to set the captives free.

[@FaiaHalo]

How absolutely gorgeous that place behind you is! And thanks so much for sharing this with us, such a common criticism, if we can even call it that.

[@clintmatthew1]

I was waiting for god to pop up in the back ground this whole time 😂

[@Slanghappy]

But he was clearly already there, in the treeees and the flooowwwers....

[@byronmartin3978]

Wouldve been hilarious to have Aron Ra dressed up as god peak out of the woods with a “wtf?” look on his face😂😂

[@Teeg82]

Was that a subtle reference to Beth's prank call from years back at 0:05? :D

[@tinman1955]

What are the pretty blue flowers?

[@microbiologychick]

Tin Man Bluebonnets

[@bigsiskrishere]

Tin Man States other than Texas have the purple variation: Lupines

[@LisaEllerJobe]

It’s the State Flower of Texas

[@topcat2069]

These people want to live under a king , in a feudal state of servitude. I personally don't want to be a serf or live "under" a king, dictator or any other kind of oppression.

[@PhilHibbs]

Whether or not a historical character matching the depiction in the New Testament actually existed is pretty much irrelevant to my atheism. I accept that Mohammad existed. I accept that Haile Selassie existed. That doesn't mean that I believe in Islam or Rastafarianism, just because the founding figures existed.

[@Thor.Jorgensen]

It should also be noted that polyamorous is not the same as polygamy or even that the person in question has had sex with more than one partner. It simply means that the person in question can be in love with or fall in love with multiple people at once. Doesn't mean that they have to have sex with all, or even any of them. Heck, they could be a virgin.

[@grejen711]

Been watching a lot of your stuff, Dawkins, Hitchins, Krauss, and many others and this is the first reference to Gen 11 I've heard. I started reading the Bible a few months ago to see if I could figure out why it gets so much attention. Gen 11 was the first passage I read that really struck me as philosophically problematic. Even if your thinking its all just a fairy tale at least fairy tales have morals. Gen 11 just shows what a reprehensible character Yahweh is. btw the Bible version I have (HSCB) translates the passage as "...a tower with its top in the sky." - not 'heaven'. There is no translation to the word 'heaven' until 1 Kings. An atheist friend offered that God scatters them because He values diversity. However this is plainly NOT the case as there are many passages showing Him promoting racial purity of the Israelites. Especially notable: Num 36:5, Ezra 9-10. Even Jesus was racist! Matt 15:26. Still baffled as to how/why anyone pays attention to the Bible anymore except as a historic curiosity. Why in Hades were these 'books' even written? They're horrid. Medusa is easier to behold. The scribes that copied them must not have actually been able to read.

[@lorenyoung791]

Bravo, Greg Jensen! And let's go a bit further. Invite believers to go outside on a clear day, & look at the sky. See that beautiful inverted blue bowl over the Earth? No, you don't. There is no bowl. There is nothing (that is, no THING) there. There is a relationship: between sunlight & air. But both sunlight & air reach all the way to the ground or water surface. Even below the earth: we can still see & (usually) breath in caves. The "sky" begins at our feet! But wait, there's more! Sunlight has relationships with air (blue sky); water vapor *in* the air (rainbow); _&_ with melanocytes in our skin (a tan). Surely this should qualify as polyamory! Last point, for now: When Katrina struck, emergency personnel converged on New Orleans from all compass points, bringing with them their various dialects of radio 10-code. They had trouble understanding each other. A short time later they dispersed. Sound familiar? {Still smiling over the Medusa crack!}

[@TallSilentGuy]

I'm planning on robbing a bank next week. I am going to convince myself that the police don't exist to ensure that I never get caught.

[@fdk7014]

It's true, I do want to sin. But I don't call it sin, I call it living.

[@A-moose1234]

Well done on your pronunciation of Melbourne Matt, spot on. (Aussie here) Americans rare pronounce it correctly but you got it spot on :)

[@zzytrewq]

Matt, will you please stop being so calm, sensible and factual. You don't allow any wiggle room for the "true believers".

[@TheIronicRaven]

I always want to reply to that question with "no, but it helps!" But if it were a serious conversation I could never say that. Great video!

[@linguaphile9415]

Why does god not want humanity to accomplish amazing things? Is he afraid we could grow too powerful, more powerful than he is or powerful enough to question his authority? His alleged behavior according to this bible story about the tower of Babel is absolutely inconsistent with an omnipotent being. If he were indeed omnipotent he would't have to fear humans to grow stronger or more powerful than he is. There couldn't be anything more powerful. So what was his motivation? He didn't want humanity to be prosperous and happy? What kind of god is that?

[@operationalbattlestation5477]

There is also the fact that this and many other bible stories heavily suggest that God resides somewhere in the sky but after the invention of the airplane led the way for sky exploration Christians conveniently started saying that God exists outside of reality making it literally impossible for either side to prove whether or not God exists

[@HairyPixels]

Brilliant position on the tower of babel. I never knew that before and found it really interesting, thanks!

[@GarethLazelle]

It seems odd that Christians accuse atheists of 'wanting to sin' when the Christian view is that we are all sinners... It isn't like being a believer would absolve him off this... According to them, he's a sinner whatever he believes.

[@paulmarsh228]

I don't look at my disbelief of the Brothers Grimm book of the old and new testaments as a license to sin but as a relief that I don't have to suffer in guilt and fear of being punished for giving in to my innate urges that I experience as a human being. I still believe in the one very true moral code that I should not do harm to any other living beings.

[@hughjarce5014]

Yeah! Go Carrier! Who says nerds don't get laid?

[@stephaniecuellar3192]

23 : 40. 'Any being who expects worship isn't worthy." Made me stop for a few seconds to convert it to the question 'What of a being who denies worship? Would this make that being worthy, of at least admiration? Reconsider 'The life of Brian'. So much to learn from Monty Python.

[@lightningfirst689]

Any Christian who uses this argument should consider how convincing they would find it if a Hindu told them, "Y'all just want to eat beef."

[@grafinvonhohenembs]

Great video, beautiful background, nice shirt. ;)

[@liberalchristianchurch5331]

Yall just want to sin = yall just want your freedom and personal liberty, oh no, not that.

[@georgeromero3737]

Religious vs Atheist debates are pretty much similar. PRAY vs PROVE ...it has no end but still worthy of doing so. ...a big thanks to Mighty Matt Dillahunty. We hail you sir.

[@Fluffykeith]

Awwww did "Reasonably Sane" block me cos I called him on his tactics? Diddums.

[@nikolaneberemed]

He seems to be just a kid, at least he is reacting like a kid who heard that Santa is made up. He's prepared to ignore facts, refuse to look up definitions of words but still thinks he can use them in a sentence, and does what is usually expected of someone childish and intellectually dishonest when contested.

[@Fluffykeith]

nikolaneberemed Yeah I got that impression too. He asked for examples from me, so I gave examples...which he rejected because they didn't meet criteria that he hadn't stated when he first asked, so I gave him more examples and his response was pretty much "nuh uh".

[@KrakenZer0]

yeah, i am literally facing the same thing with him. incredibly intellectually dishonest. i have been destroying him on the issue of slavery, and his defenses have included: ad hominem attacks, gish galloping, tone policing, and outright denial of the clear biblical passages i presented to him. he says that i don't understand what they truly mean, when the bible is very explicit in describing slaves as property that can be inherited. he even brought out the 'ancient times' excuse, which actually works against him because it means that the message is neither timeless nor universal. he literally has the weakest arguments i have faced in a long time.

[@JamesR1701]

He threw a tantrum with me as well but didn't block me, just ended up refusing to speak to me because I backed him into a corner with logic and he wanted to deflect attention back onto me which I wouldn't allow. It's his pathetic post below, rather funny if you fancy a giggle.

[@Skyswindler]

Fluffykeith Join the club. He blocked me last year as well. :)

[@livingdeadgirl5908]

yup. i just wake up in the morning thinking of all the fun i'm going to have sinning, and talking to all my friends, planning our sinning, and bragging about all the sins we've committed and one-upping each other.

[@hyzenthlay7151]

As a single asexual woman, I would like to know what are those sins I wish to keep doing... apart from the sin of not believing in a god, but that's a sin in the eye of the beholder, and those watching are way to biased for me to take their opinion seriously...

[@tothesciencemobile4707]

Andrea Woodvine Not to mention surely all Christians sin too... I can think of a few who are sexually immoral, or have been sexually immoral even though they were a Christian at the time of their immoral acts.

[@hyzenthlay7151]

[sarcasm]Oh no, they don't sin, they just interpret the word of our Lord differently!![/sarcasm]

[@cavecookie1]

But, they are already forgiven for those sins. There's only the one unforgivable sin, so they are safe, as long as they believe...Hallelujah!!! Bring on the sin!

[@tothesciencemobile4707]

cavecookie1​​ lol So I guess we should get to sinning as much as we possible so, that way we know Jesus didn't die nothing!

[@cavecookie1]

LOL! How pathetic would that be? A god with no one to save, or torture for eternity. Christians should feel duty-bound to sin so their god will have a purpose.

[@PhilRounds]

Check out the butterfly at 5:40!

[@Dzilla64]

I love sin. Not a day goes by I do not sin.

[@Kruppes_Mule]

Generally this comes up exclusively regarding sex as well. Regardless of how you live your life in every other facet it is THIS they want to focus on. Mind boggling how fixated these people are on other people's genitals. It's just plain bizarre.

[@RubberDuckyToy]

If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.

[@AbnormalWrench]

Excellent point.

[@COEXISTential]

Matt Dillahunty It's interesting the number of times you mention that apologists, in the context of "Y'all just wanna sin" also call people liars. I've yet to find a Christian, when they're rattled at least, who can use the words 'lie', or 'liar' correctly.

[@shanedk]

Wow, another argument that sounds VERY familiar... "You libertarians are just selfish and don't want to pay your fair share!"

[@shanedk]

(My response to that, by the way, is largely the same as Dillahunty's to the theists.)

[@vivahernando1]

oh no the libertarians are here :-(

[@shanedk]

Amazing how they always complain when we point out they resort to the same arguments and tactics as theists, yet they never have any logical response to it...

[@vivahernando1]

Shane Killian funny I equate libertarians to theists. When you ask a libertarian where a society that uses their theories of governance exists they start stuttering. Libertarianism like Christianity only lives in books

[@shanedk]

vivahernando1 "When you ask a libertarian where a society that uses their theories of governance exists they start stuttering." No, we point out why it's a stupid and irrelevant question. There was a time when there had not been any secular governments, and a theist could say the same thing to you. And besides, the burden of proof is on the statists, as I show here from first principles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4rPoHiFrLCdoKM I also have an entire series on how statists are like the theists, using the same bad arguments and fallacies and tactics: kzbin.info/aero/PLSPi1JFx4_-H7dEU9enhqWPWoFX9rM7AW (One of them even uses this guy named Matt Dillahunty for support, even though Dillahunty isn't a Libertarian. All we're doing is applying these concepts to politics.)

[@MegaKootz]

I think jen did the voiceover work for the intro... That accent sounds familiar. great shows matt. love the personal channel and the atheist experience.

[@greyeyed123]

No, that was Matt's wife, Beth. She famously called the show once (before they actually met, AFAIK) as a "Christian", pretending to be very ignorant. Her famous line from that call was, "Y'all just want to sin all the time!"

[@stiimuli]

Its always been my response to the "just want to sin" accusation that I could still sin whether I believe or not. In fact I challenge theists to point out a believer who *doesn't* sin.

[@JeffreyIsbell]

Hi, Matt. I was thinking about the title. "Yall just want to sin" and as I often do, I asked myself "What do they REALLY mean when they say that". I think there's this whole collection of mantra-like phrases that the compliant mind uses to soothe itself. Those are the most interesting things people say because the truth of what they meant may be different than the words they used and sometimes it's possible to make a good guess about what they really meant. If what they say really makes no sense, that's a big clue. I've noticed that the word "just" is an indicator of abbreviated thinking and unjustified conclusions. So, maybe the human inheritance of evolution is at work here once again steering people back toward conformity for the sake of perceived group safety. Because what I get from "Yall just want to sin" is "Freedom is dangerous - freedom is sin" and/or "Compliance is safety."

[@MrPicaro2]

If I just want to sin, I don't have stop believing.

[@R2daE01]

Does your tour also includes the Netherlands Matt?

[@CyeOutsider]

Love how he pronounces Melbourne properly, lol. Onya mate.

[@MikeJB]

Good video, especially the second half.

[@brentstv5876]

james t. kirk: why does GOD need a Starship? haaaaa im sorry i had to say it.awesome talk man!

[@MadsFeierskov]

By that logic anyone who has ever sinned is biased against investigating it, and that pretty much means nobody is unbiased. Convenient.

[@TessaBain]

Well technically no one is unbiased. It's just a fact. What they're implying is that no one is capable of putting their emotion (and thus their bias) aside when it's necessary to do so. Granted, most people aren't able to do so well or in all circumstances that would ideally have it front and center, but they aren't incapable of doing so at all like they're implying.

[@mothman84]

Really? If I wanted to sin, I would assume that an imaginary friend, ready, able, and usually willing to absolve me of practically every conceivable sin, would be quite useful! Having a conscience you just can't escape from seems a far harsher deal by comparison...

[@PhoenixtheII]

Polyamorous is wrong, Except, if you're god.

[@withhernosestuckinabook2507]

Atheists: exists Frank Turek: So anyway how is your sex life?

[@seanmcpherson5595]

You are good man. No, no, no. Let me tell you, you are good. Your intelligence is a lighthouse for many people, like me, that is subjugate for your logic, and clarity. Thank you.