GOD BELIEVERS CAN'T DEFEND AGAINST MATT DILLAHUNTY!

#mattdillahunty #god #religion
Full discussion here: • GENDER, GOD & TRUMP - ...
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.

[@Pangburn]

Full discussion here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4PCppiOqqecrdk

[@kennethmckenzie294]

Ultimately, at the end of all of these debates, there remains no evidence for any god - ever!....

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

The fine tuning argument is taken seriously as evidence by many scholars.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

​@@mrshankerbillletmein491And not taken seriously as evidence for design by many others. Most scientists don't take the 'fine tuning' as evidence for a creator

[@timg7627]

@@mrshankerbillletmein491maybe by christian ‘scholars’ but not by anyone with a serious academic background

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I have heard many scholars speak of the multiverse in an effort to explain the fine tuning that Fred Hoyle observed.

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@timg7627 Steven Hawking saw things looked just so, Fred Hoyle etc

[@totallypoetic]

"God is a manifestation of an undeveloped mind." ~A.S Rana

[@totallypoetic]

Just because some scientists also believe in god doesn't mean their belief is based on scientific evidence.

[@IR17171717]

"No it isn't" - Someone who is aware that not all smart people agree on everything

[@lennonkelly-james2693]

​@@IR17171717Nothing smart about magic belief.

[@IR17171717]

@@lennonkelly-james2693 You can think that belief in God is silly. You cannot think, reasonably, that people far smarter than you or I don't believe in God. So "underdeveloped mind" seems a little misguided as a term.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Dinesh D'Felon's first question, asking who is trying to legislate based on their interpretation of christianity shows exactly what a disingenuous person he is.

[@DanielRodriguez-zj5il]

Absolutely. I witnessed several campaigns against amendment 4 (abortion). When I asked, all of them based their reasoning on christianity.

[@GraavyTraain]

Yep which is the whole point of these debates. So people see good ideas vs bad ideas. Thank god he had the confidence to come up on this stage

[@malirk]

Dinesh learned that political people eat up lies. You just have to say things with confidence! However, Dinesh hasn't studied the Bible or philosophy. Sadly for him, Christians see him as a bad debater and philosophers know he is a bad debater. The same tactic of boldly telling lies doesn't work outside of politics! Sorry Dinesh!

[@DamBlairFam]

More important questions than “what happens after I die?” “What/Who am I?” “What do I need?” “What am I capable of?”

[@totallypoetic]

"Religion is where you follow everything. Science is where you challenge everything." ~A.S Rana

[@saerain]

Do have to say Dinesh has gotten a lot less angry shouty since his days with Dawkins. No less disagreement with him but that's cool.

[@thunderbird3694]

With religion "Faith" is required to "Believe In Lies"... With skepticism "Evidence" is required to "Discover the Truth"

[@MrMattSax]

D’Sousa pointing out that there are gaps in human knowledge. Those gaps are the perfect size to fit a one-size-fits all god into.

[@stefiz]

Dinesh is insufferable…

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Totally agree

[@steveath]

I just left an innocent comment on a Michael Knowles talk ( can’t remember who he was with) saying I was an atheist & just believed in treating everyone as I would like to be treated. The responses came in thick & fast from Christians. I found it disconcerting that people don’t understand their beliefs are not mine. There was an underlying aggressive desperation to get me to try to have their faith. I do not believe but I have never said to a religious person you should not believe. Is it a form of Stockholm Syndrome they have? Our closest friends became born again after marriage problems but we never discussed it. They were our closest friends until sadly, they both died in their 50s. I do believe that the promise of a wonderful afterlife is the most compelling factor in religions. I am in my 70s so a third ager as they say here in Spain. I am certainly not afraid of death - only how I get there.

[@corneliahanimann2173]

Well I don't think stockhold syndrome is actually a scientific thing, it is an observed phenomenon, but not something that actually gets real research on it. I would compare it more to a sunk cost fallacy, but not in terms of financial investmemt, but emotional investment. You spend so much time of your life making up excuses for why bad things happen, you accept on a deeper level, that there is an afterlife, so once you already came to accept so much, you tendnto further seek excuses to believe, than to do the reasonable turn around because so much emotional weight has already gone down the religion drain.

[@TheRabidPanda]

He believes in God because we don't know the answers to Life the Universe and everything.

[@Jimunu]

It's 42

[@peterlaanguila5098]

Not knowing the answer to those questions makes him certain that god exists. Well, not knowing the answer to these questions obviously don't prove anything

[@RC6790]

Buy a house in Florida and try to pay for the insurance, you will find out immediately about climate change and it's cost.

[@fettbub92]

I will say this, for all the disagreements I may have with apologists and religious philosophers; they have the mental fortitude to go rounds with really good debaters. Takes a level of professionalism and confidence to step into these rings.

[@DavidDancs-ei7pr]

I take him on.

[@Texan_Aces]

Notice dillahunt didn’t name a single Supreme Court justice or legislation.

[@cirrostratus481]

Matt smoked Christianity over a decade ago

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

smug /smŭg/ adjective Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent.

[@rocko-go4vf]

1 cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[@toreoft]

(a) What is atheism? The answer is given in the word, some say: A-Theism = NO-God-belief. - My name is not Jokp Fylox, what is my name? I don't live in Nuioh, where do I live? My code is not 20321 what is it? None of these questions can be answered with even microscopic probable certainty. Nor, what is atheism. Only well-defined pairs of 2 opposites can be answered with, NOT; like this: I am not she = I am he, not night=day etc. (b) What about to believe?: It is; to be quite sure, but not absolutely sure. Absolutely sure is: To Know. So: Not believe: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure. The same as ´to believe´! The concept of God is only implied as something higher and more powerful than us, to define or describe it more accurately is impossible. So what does NO-God belief become in this clarification: To be unsure but not absolutely unsure, whether something higher and more powerful than me, but not more precisely defined, exists, in this case God. (c) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence or proof rides the same humanity like a demon. The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: TheSquareRotOf 3 is not a fraction of integers with different primefactors. Proof: If sq(3)=a/b -> 3=(a/b)^2 =(a^2/b^2) then a^2 is divisible by b^2, contrary to the condition that a and b have no common factor, contradiction. So as in sq(81) = a/b -> 81=(a/b)^2 = ((9*c)^2/(3*c)^2) here a=9c and b=3c have many common factors. - Now how is a method like that to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel proved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be prooven. Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. About the World and Reality, we must use the method of observation. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. Thus, existing phenomena may have inaccessible evidences. Demanding the Creator be visible as the created, implies he would have created himself: Impossible. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. - I have no evidence, just a question: (d) The answer to whether one believes in or the outlook on life one has can, because the word ´belief´ is fluid and the term God is only implied as something elevated over us, cannot therefore be answered with: I do not believe in God, I am an Atheist. The question must be clarified like this: I didn't ask what you don't believe, I asked what your outlook on life IS, what IS being an atheist, or what is the content of atheism? Someone will then try to rewrite NOT with other words: Rejection of, refutation of, lacking, dismissing, absence of, not responsible of etc... It doesn't help much. If the atheists have someting to say at all, the question must have a NOT-free answer. (e) Then I get lectured in that atheism is no beliefsystem, has no message, no philosophy, no answer, nothing; just ordinary people that has not got any evidence. But this is just a rewriting of NOT, so I ask: What are you lacking evidence of? "God" they answer. I ask then: What is that, describe that? - no answer - Then the atheist instead proudly explains: "We are not from the stoneage, we are modern. We have lazer tools, microscopes, telescopes, satellites, computers and cars etc., we dont need to believe in anything." - These tools give us greater opportunity to see how things happen, why things happen is in lesser degree revealed, and they often generate more questions than they answer. They do not explain why matter organizes, and things (forms) are assembled, and the nature of consciousness is still inaccessible to science. (f) Then the atheist deliver one spectacular devastating selfdestructing blow after another: "God belief is exactly parallel to this: Believer(theist): I believe unicorns exist. - Nonbeliever(atheist): I do not believe unicorns exist." - But unicorns are well defined and described fantasy animals and that gives us opportunity to search for one, and noone has ever found one on Earth. The idea of God is neither well defined and possible to describe in any detail, and this idea does not even belong to the category of ´things´. The atheists now clames that I have a personal problem that dont concerns them if I dont accept definitions with; NOT. But I only want to know what atheism contains. So that claim is synonymous to; If anyone want to know what atheism is, they have a personal problem! (g) Now the atheist tries to divert the subject by asking; why he should believe in the Christian god, out of 1000 other hungry gods who have to be fed with newborn children and people, drink blood and torture animals and humans to death? - In that case, the Christian God (Christ) is the opposite to all of this, so that could be a good reason for the atheist to become a Christian, but does he want that? "No, the 1000 gods dont exist", he say. "Ok, I understand, but describe in all details what it is that doesn't exist." Now the atheist gets angry and fights for his life; ridicules my horrible english and tells me to seek professional help, and tries a last desperate attempt to save himself by claiming that the burden of proof that God exists is on the believers, not the atheists. But Kurt Goedel proved in 1931 that there exist true statements that cannot be proven even in the well defined logical systems of consistent theories. So the burden of proof that they are true cannot possibly be on Kurt Goedel, exactly because he proved that they cannot be proven true, but STILL are TRUE. So the atheist are in urgent need to explain why they dont think such statements are true, contrary to the Goedel principle. When atheists reject this proven principle the burden of dis-proof is on the atheist, but that cant be done. That leaves the burden of disproof of God on the atheist. But noone gives it! (h) Hundreds of atheist videos have got this comment, but not a single factual counter-comment. No-one gives anything but worplay, or accuses me of making a meaningless wall of word-salad and word play, or personal attacks and characterisations of me as an idiot that tries to look wise by cooking soup with advanced words(even though I dont use any). Never a comment that explains what is nonsense and why. - NOT ONE! - So every such harassing counter-comment is proof that I hit the rotten point where atheism collapses. (i) But once again I give atheists a chance to explain what they positively without negatives, stand for: I want an answer from an atheist about the CONTENT of atheism without not, absence, rejection, dismissing etc. I am not satisfied with their wordplay with negatives; What is left of the atheist when all the NOTs (negatives) have done their job? Science? I also believe in science, but I am not an atheist. "We dont believe in God", they shout a bit louder, as if that helps. Describe that? I ask. And the atheist cannot answer, and even ask me for what evidence I have, or tells me to ask those who believe in God about it! So the atheists depend on the believers to tell them what not to believe in! But the believers cannot define or describe God, noone can. And round and round it goes, . . so I will give my answer: (j) Even though atheism by the atheists own clame is nothing; the atheists are something. Millions og people deprived by satanistic propaganda, of any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration in life what so ever. That is dangerous, extremely dangerous! The theists, while having the same definitional problem as atheists, at least have the humility to look up to something higher unfathomable in wonder, awe, inspiration and longing. This the atheists cannot do, and they cannot accept that others have it. They are driven by self-satisfaction and self importance. They want to ridicule those who have perceived something they do not see, all atheist videos show that. Atheism is therefore pride in the strongest form and therefore the original sin. The origin of sin! The origin of human degradation. When one does not want to look up to something higher and more powerful than oneself, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that can be seen. When you think yourself are at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, then: Down you go! And in this context that means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to death and unconsciousness. And in time it will spread to everything, both personal, cultural, scientific, artistic, moral - EVERYTHING. That is WHAT Atheism is. Don't go that way! (k) If, on the other hand, one has something higher which is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept, but a supreme concrete example - Jesus Christ son of God - which we can visualize through concrete sources, then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the highest.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@aaronkuntze7494]

Science doesn't care what you believe or not! 😂 Science and superstition are binary words. End of debate. 😊

[@michaelwjonesGolf30]

Absurd.

[@jebaker2]

Horrible title for a clip of an unresolved debate in which Matt barely made any points. Big 👎👎

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@iderbolis]

Dillahunty lost all credibility when he got frustrated and walked out of the Andrew Wilson debate. I can't take him seriously any more.

[@Mavuika_Gyaru]

Why did he walk out?

[@hardyalsinghgill6548]

It was his behaviour or temper that particular day as happens with all the human being at different times in their life. I have seen same behavior with religious and non religious folks too. Do you expect dillhunty or any other human being for that matter to be perfect all the time? You should try to critisize him based on points he makes in his debates.

[@daverobertson623]

So you dismiss his arguments based on 1 debate where he walked out rather than refuting his points, which you obviously can't do. Great.

[@traceler]

He destroy nothing at all! Real " God" is not a thing that you can see, or know but the source or the space that allow every knowledge..... study Advaita Vedanta or Buddhism to know for yourself the essence of what some people may call God, Emptiness, Atma, Clear light, I AM, Sat Chit Anananda, etc but we may call God. " “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God” ACIM

[@timg7627]

No true scotsman fallacy

[@easterlake]

Prove it

[@Texan_Aces]

Dillahuntu is a joke. Andrew Wilson made him ragequit a debate.

[@daverobertson623]

Tacit recognition that you can't actually refute any of his points with logic. Nice job.

[@traceler]

“Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God” ACIM. He can not attack God or the source of consciousness at all.

[@mickberry164]

There is no evidence for God. All claims for God are human ideas. And human ideas do not dictate reality. If anything, human ideas are often antithetical to reality.