matt dillahunty vs abdu murray - debate - should america be a nation under god [mirror]

matt dillahunty vs abdu murray - debate - should america be a nation under god [mirror]
originally published by WTAMUweb
as
Debate - Should America be a Nation Under God?
• Debate - Should Americ...
visit:
/ wtamuweb
www.atheist-exp...
WATCH AND VOTE FOR WTAMUWEBS ORIGINAL VIDEO ... !!!

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

It's a shame that Matt has to teach Americans about American history and the constitution. Matt is a well educated man and he did a great job here.

[@JMUDoc]

"I have inalienable rights" is, to me, akin to "I can turn invisible, but only when nobody's looking".

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

The thing I am most curious about is Abdu stating that something is subjective because it comes from people. I think he is completely misunderstanding what the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is. It isn't that the source is human that makes it subjective, it is that while it comes from a person, it is taken OUTSIDE of a person and validated, verified, refuted, challenged, experimented upon, tried and tested such that it is not ANY ONE PERSON'S answer. The act of doing this could in Abdu's own words be considered "transcendent" because it transcends any one person or any one group. this makes it completely objective because it is devoid of any one specific group, belief or point of view being the driving force behind it. By stark contract, coming from the book of ONE SPECIFIC religion, where it is irrefutable, undeniable, beyond challenging and dictated rather than discovered as a natural consequence of the reality we live in, then it is monumentally SUBJECTIVE as it is driven by the specific point of view that dictates it. Is he purposely ignoring this fact? Or is this just one of those things where he purposely and selectively chooses the definition of objectiveness he wants to use because it suits his cause? That in itself is proof of how bad it is for a religion to claim it has the ONLY answer, and that without that answer coming from them, nobody can reach their own fair conclusions for everybody.

[@RandomPerson-fd9wu]

WHY can't the theist EVER stay on topic?!? At the drop of a hat they take off preaching the good of a theist existence. This debate, very quickly, turned into a debate on "morals", and completely from "Should America (USA, I assume) be a nation under God". Matt posed an excellent question.........WHICH GOD?? No answer........... Then on to morals...........

[@starlaminde8436]

Wonderful job Matt you never disappoint!

[@MrProudAthiest]

Matt is so good at explaining his opposing views to Christianity.

[@avedic]

Around 1:04:00 Murray said, *"Sharks don't rape other sharks."* I simply adore just how _convoluted_ religious arguments end up being when the debate really gets down to the core of what's being argued about. Religious people, by virtue of their utterly absurd axiomatic propositions, end up saying(and sometimes _doing_) some of the most absurd, unintelligent and often unethical things imaginable. Why do they burden themselves with such an impossible world-view? They make saying ridiculous things unavoidable in defense of those beliefs.

[@soulman71901]

+avedic Stay away from those dam dolphins though. They are some freaking perverts. Like the Bill Clinton of the sea perhaps? :)

[@23mazs]

+Mark Mullins Well that's quite the non-sequitur. But it does say something about you.

[@avedic]

+Mark Mullins -___- You know what's _also_ a pathetic myopic dogma? The anti-feminism "white knight as a *_pejorative_*" movement. Humans love their precious dogmas...regardless which side of which debate they're on. It's fucking boring. *_IF_* you *_seriously_* think feminism is _more damaging_ to humanity than religion...then personally, I find you to be an uninformed idiot who's clearly got a chip on their shoulder because they nauseate women but don't have the introspective capacity to understand _why_ that's the case. Hopefully you were just being hyperbolic....which is another thing humans love to do. Surely you don't seriously think feminism is doing more damage to women in the Middle East than religion. But...maybe you do. Ever since Trump, I no longer give people the benefit of the doubt in assuming they have some semblance of informed intelligence, ethical reasoning skills, and/or sanity.

[@avedic]

Hyperbole much?

[@aksajose]

Mark Mullins feminism has it's origins in atheism ironically

[@pdoylemi]

Abdu Murray is a fool to pretend that our rights cannot be taken away. But they were not "given" to us by some group of men - we took them for ourselves. The only rights men have are those rights that they will not surrender. If rights came from god, then why didn't any of those kings who ruled by "divine right" ever grant those rights to people?

[@rationalmartian]

Man!!! That's a great point. I've never heard the Kings and divine rights bit before. And yes Abdu is a tool. I find it astonishing educated adults can talk that way.

[@pdoylemi]

vernonclassic OK, maybe he is not pretending. Maybe he is the stupidest human being birthed in the past 200,000 years.

[@never_give_up90]

vernonclassic o.O WOW! I pretend that pretending is too much of pretending because you just pretend. :D

[@avedic]

Murray's claim that "you have a right even if you don't have a right" is SO absurd. THAT sort of thinking is precisely what keeps people complacent in bondage. Admitting that you do NOT have a right is what gives you the motivation to DEMAND it. If you think you have a right to liberty...AS you have no right to liberty...that would diminish your motivation to obtain that right. Why bother obtaining what you already have? It's such an absurd idea. He's basically saying, "You have NO RIGHT to liberty...BUT...you have the right to liberty." WTF? How could people clap for that?? 1:18:33 lol...notice how people clapped to what he said there? Christian Guilt at it's finest. I find it hilarious how, anytime a theist disparages the character of their fellow Christians, Christians will.....applaud them! Isn't that nuts? It's almost a form of sadomasochism. They like being told they're worthless and undeserving of happiness or pleasure. They like being told they're worthless sinners who DESERVE to be tortured forever. So strange...and creepy

[@DaddyBooneDon]

Because they recognized that their divine right was not their's alone but granted from above, so their granting was a recognition of a divine right in someone else. Sort of like "namaste"...

[@1369Stiles]

"rights cannot be taken away"? anything can be taken away at anytime by anyone. whether or not it is done is a moot point; it can be done.

[@gowdsake7103]

What is worse is that most Americans treat rights as tho they can do anything they want All the hoo ha about gun ownership A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. NO 1 any gun owner must be part of a well organised official militia NO 2 you can own any amount of guns from 1790 or previous. None from 1800 onwards without background checks, no concealed carry, no full auto or modern military, yearly fees and accreditations on a range for safety

[@themomaw]

As far as I'm concerned, the resolution of this debate is at 43:00 "What good does it do to have a law that can't be enforced or a right that nobody is going to grant you. What good does it do to have a right from a god if that god is not going to guarantee that you have that right."

[@spaveevo]

for some religious think its not possible to know how to be good without a daddy figure in the sky who has to tell them how to be good. They cant figure out how to be good on their own and they get upset that you know how to be good without being told like your 5 years old.

[@spaveevo]

man I cant type. lets try it again. For some reason religious people think...

[@Big74Mike2012]

YourArgumentIsInvalid No..... no you can't.

[@Orbital_Dew]

YourArgumentIsInvalid CHECKMATE EDITHEIST

[@kykle90]

How did you figure out how to be good?

[@jeffc2630]

​@@kykle90 Google it if you're a bastard !

[@sbushido5547]

When he asked the audience "do you have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness?" I wonder what their response would have been if they'd been black people living in the time when the document he's apparently holding sacred was penned. His argument is baffling to me, given that it's outright disproven by the very era of our history that he's referencing...without even touching the concept of slavery and rights (or lack thereof) described in the bible. -edit- Posted this before the Q&A section. It was pretty funny seeing him try to jump through hoops to justify how a slave had those rights while simultaneously not having them.

[@lockshore1]

The argument is pretty simple actually. They always had it in the same way they were always persons, human beings, even tho at some point people regarded them as objects. The same way rape is wrong even when it's legally and socially acepted and the same way protecting pregnant woman is right even tho a nation would deem it illegal and morally reprehensible. People always had their rights, they just werent recognized.

[@Sir_Dickbag]

Then what's the point of saying they always had the right if it's completely taken away and not in any way evident?

[@jeffc2630]

​@@lockshore1 Jesus, that's a toddlers world view ??? People have had their rights taken by tyrants all over the world ?? You can read about it in the news every day ! Curfews set up ! Terrorist instances ! Prison ! They are given and taken by people !

[@Kudu300]

Good show. Matt Dillahunty hits the nail on the head every time!

[@Newwaver2007]

I am happy they had this debate. Its cool how Matt puts his honesty into these things, and chrisians who i think were a lot of them in the audience, were hopefully seeing someone who would show a different atheist than they were expecting. I did at the begin think the cheering was a little bias, but maybe its because they have expected Matt to be different. And Matt did get cheering on his end aswell while talking. So the dialog is there. Thank you for the upload :)

[@Purenrgy]

6:40 skips to the beginning of the actual debate (Abdu) 16:05 (Matt) 26:09 (Abdu) 31:10 (Matt) 36:56 (Abdu) 40:47 (Matt) Questions from the audience 45:11

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

Rights are a social construct and do not exist outside of the society in which they are enacted. If nobody thought a person has a right to a particular standard of living, then they simply wouldn't have that right - it wouldn't exist. Rights are the result of human empathy towards one another but are also highly subjective, which is why it is important to be prepared to defend rights that you find agreeable. This is something that I think is also written into the American Constitution right?

[@glutinousmaximus]

..."Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."... He may well be there, justly convicted under the law - _but tell that to some guy on death row._

[@alexshields6971]

The camera work is horrifically bad in this video.

[@bensonbrett30]

By the response of the crowd when the kid revealed his religion at 1:04:25, I'd argue the enthusiasm heavily favored Abdu and did not represent a crowd truly open to Matt's points.

[@Poseidon6363]

How can America be a nation under something that doesn't exist, should America be a nation under Zeus?

[@avedic]

+Poseidon63 What's more interesting.....is the fact that "America" doesn't exist either. It's *_just as real_* as Yahweh. It "exists" _entirely_ within the minds of those that believe in it. Period. As does the idea of a "nation-state." So....by saying *"America is a Christian Nation"* what you're really saying is, *"Pretend Concept A is a Pretend Concept B Pretend Concept C."* -___-

[@googleuser7771]

+avedic you think America is just as real as god?

[@ALEXFVHS]

if Zeus believers were a majority, there's a good to fair chance you will see them push for same thing. but Christians are under attack i hear, they're so weak and if you listen to the news you might think Christians are minority.

[@Xarai]

+avedic that was dumber than anything i have ever heard especially that the country is verifiable

[@avedic]

+Xarai _"...especially that the country is verifiable"_ Well, then you clearly didn't understand what I was saying, as I never claimed what you said I claimed. In fact, I made the _polar opposite_ argument. Did you even read what I wrote before responding?

[@lukusblack6442]

In the opening statement, Abdu just finishes his explanation that a right is an abstract, and therefore transcendent, and goes on to say that reason cannot be the source of rights due to the fact that reason can not create something that already exists. He gives the example of the light spectrum existing whether we see it, or not. The light spectrum has a proven scientific basis. It exists. He just finished saying that rights are an abstract. So, which one is it?

[@lukusblack6442]

He's also screwing up the definition of the word moral. Reason does not make someone moral. It creates morality. It doesn't make someone moral, it allows him to judge what he believes is moral. There are several definitions to ay given word, and they are usually similar. Using more than one definition screws up an argument.

[@lukusblack6442]

If you believe you have a right, and your god believes you have a right, and your government doesn't.... you don't have that right. Just because you get a warm and fuzzy feeling because you think you do, doesn't mean anything. Your god tells you it's fine to kill your kid for cursing. Guess what? If you kill your kid for cursing, you are going to prison. The word inalienable has nothing to do with gods. It simply means that it's a right that can't be taken away. Rights, god given or otherwise, are taken away in this country all the time.

[@madgodloki]

You know its odd, I have seen a lot of objections in his opening statements already too. Like why is subjective a bad thing? It matches what actually has happened, how does lying about it make things better? And why does he think reasonable has to be selfish? "Uhhh I think its unreasonable to do something thats not for yourself so its immoral" uhh no, letting your species die out because your a selfish bastard is like murdering your children its against people's nature for our own sense of self preservation. If you look in nature dozens of species have an even more extreme version of our "morality" its called hive minds. Yet they still argue we have inalienable rights that transcend reality and yet ants, and bees are just insects that we have dominion over. Although from the bee's perspective we're just a big lumbering animal trying to steal their hard work toward honey. The thing about religious people I guess is they're selfish, and blind.

[@adam1780]

To argue that a country should be a nation under your god, in a pragmatic sense, is to argue that you should be allowed to legaly impose your religion on me...I'm not easily offended, but I find that actually offensive. This guy seems nice enough, I'm going to do him the favor of thinking he doesn't really believe that.

[@zawarudowryyyyyy]

27:00 Okay then Abdu, can you demonstrate that this "transcendent being" exists in the first place so we're not just wasting time and energy? How are you also certain that a god exists that actually doesn't grant us any rights at all, and that people were just making this shit up? 1:09:35 Maybe there's a transcendent, inalienable definition of the word "faith"! :o

[@chefloco9032]

Who said our rights are inalienable, look to history and tell the American born Japanese in the 40's that their rights were given by god as we locked them in internment camps. Don't like that example, how many people do we put in prison every year ? George Carlin once said and it is ever relevant here "a right isn't a right if they can be taken away you have a bill of temporary privileges "

[@amindlost]

"How is it a flawed argument to compare a god to fairies by the way?" Because one is real, and the other is imaginary. I have proof, too. Fairies are always hiding my car keys. I put them down, and they disappear. When I find them, I am totally sure that I didn't accidentally forget that that's where I actually left them!

[@Aguijon1982]

If, acording to christians, God is a person (a subject), and morality comes from him, then what makes that kind of morality objective?? That is NOT objective, that is a SUBJECTIVE and arbitrary morality, substantiated with pure authority. The fact that they keep inventing and adding "superpowers" to this subject is completely irrelevant and it doesnt make it objective. Christians DONT have a objective morality, but an arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE morality based on pure authority.

[@Philoglossos]

Not only that, but they fail to realize the difference between "absolute" morality and "objective" morality. Since secular moral systems are based on the social contract and are agreed to by many, they are inherently objective. The idea that morality needs to be "absolute" is ridiculous, since moral systems that deal with humans can obviously only apply to humans. You wouldn't say that it's immoral for a female praying mantis to eat its mate, as that is simply how the species was designed (evolutionarily speaking). As such, the notion that morality is somehow law that applies to the universe as a whole is completely absurd. /end rant

[@IAmIntelligence]

Matt Dillahunty deserves the same type of applause as the other guy, remember religious people are supposedly more loving than non-religious people (insert sarcasm here_____) Oh, also you can be non-religious and do more good deeds, and be more loving and caring of others; because you think logically. :~)

[@calebgomez8992]

I think i as a Christian i definitely agree. Some non believers are more moral and do more moral things 😊

[@robbiebobbie2011]

@@calebgomez8992 why do you think this is ?

[@calebgomez8992]

@@robbiebobbie2011 well many people can do good things, great things, more excellent things at certain times then religious people, but good according to what standard? What is meant by good should be the first established premise.

[@robbiebobbie2011]

@@calebgomez8992 if we both agree that human flourishing is a goal then working together to stop child abuse would be not good

[@calebgomez8992]

@@robbiebobbie2011 so what do you mean by wrong?

[@yanasto]

Weirdly, Abdu's argument doesn't make any sense even if it was true. Let's say that inalienable rights are endowed on humanity by a transcendent god. If they are given by divine edict - what is to stop the god from taking them away? It's another version of the "can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" question. Can god create rights so inalienable that he can't revoke them? If Abdu is enamored of the idea that without god, there can be no inalienable rights, he hasn't done a good job of explaining how *with* god we are certain of our inalienable rights. He says that with no god, rights are based on the whim of the people. Well, I posit that WITH god, rights are based on the whim of the god. I'm sure that Abdu would say that it's against the nature of the god to violate anybody's rights. Well, that's all fine and good to assert, but you haven't made an argument until you've demonstrated that to be the case. You can start with the proposition that a god even exists, then move on to defining and proving its "nature". Quite to the contrary, it would seem to me that we can be sure that humanity has its best interests at heart, but we can't possibly be sure that a god does. What if it's a malevolent god? None of his argument validates the assertion that "without god we can't have inalienable rights." It just supposes another entity to be in charge of either endowing or revoking those rights, and, moreover, the entity that it supposes isn't even demonstrated to be real. Terrible argument, in my opinion.

[@lockshore1]

That's quite an interesting point! I have met Abdu before, in fact I just spoked with him some ours ago and for your knowledge he is a Doctor of Law and was a very good lawyer when muslim. i have talked with him and talked about this topic, and also discussed with a lot of constitutional lawyers. The rights are not defined as wether their objectiveness, they are just defined as things that exist and that's it, it's a closed system, they exist because we say so. I find it similar to the papal infalibility dogma: "The pope dogmatically proclaims he can dogmatically proclaim stuff". Full circular reasoning. About your position, it's a looong tradition, someone asked Plato "The gods do that which is right, or it is right because the gods do it? So, moral values and rules are always arbitrary no matter which is your answer. Seems similar to what you are saying about God doing arbitrary rules, and I completely agree with you if that were the case, but let me explain you a bit about christianity. We believe that God is a maximum absolute being, similar to jews and muslims (Actually that is a point in which muslims loose almost all the time, they dont have a good argument about God being a morally maximun being). So that if He is good, then He is the good-est. God does good because he IS good. Therefore God CANNOT lie as it is stated in the Scriptures, not can he tempt us nor do evil, because He is the definition of Good. So that if He says something is correct is not arbitrary, He defines good by his own being. We know that by the definition of God himself, and I believe it makes perfect sense.

[@acerbicatheist2893]

If that is true then you are barking mad. Just FYI.

[@MelodieKate]

What a solid and interesting debate. Wish the sound quality were better.

[@JenB81]

While I enjoyed what content I could hear, the audio and video quality of this video are just horrible. I hope this was a personal video and not supposed to be commercial quality because it was just awful. They need to loosen up their tripod to maneuver it without squeeking and grunting or put some lubricant on it at least. Could have been a great video but was messed up by too much zooming and too much moving around.

[@JenB81]

Oh shut up tard, I said I enjoyed the content I heard. Stop trying to be a douche.

[@never_give_up90]

Jennifer Gordon I dont think anyone really cared. I didn't even notice until you mentioned it cuz it really didnt matter to me. If it was a movie I'd be concerned too.

[@JenB81]

LUVAKAT I only cared because I like to pick up on visual cues like facial expressions and hand gestures and it was difficult to do on here. It's not like I expected Michael Bay production but half the time it was blurry or not even focused on the speaker.

[@never_give_up90]

Jennifer Gordon Fair enough!

[@RePlaylist1]

Jennifer Gordon I like knowing the audio sucks in advance. If ur wearing earbuds it's disconcerting. Thanks, I won't wear em.

[@Poseidon6363]

You would think that if god cares he would show it to the billions of people who pray to him everyday, but no,they receive nothing, no answer, no help, no sympathy. According to the bible he supposedly came down to earth as a man, sacrificed himself to himself, and then scuttled back upstairs and has never been seen since.God ceased to exist after the last paragraph in the bible.

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

Your forgetting... "sacrifice" requires something to be lost. If nothing was lost then there wasn't any sacrifice. It makes it contradictory by its own admission.... somehow it doesn't stop people from just ignoring the obvious :)

[@Poseidon6363]

Enigmatical Jedi Very well put.

[@never_give_up90]

Enigmatical Jedi I'd also kill myself if I knew that I can't die. It's a cool trick to show!

[@never_give_up90]

Enigmatical Jedi Enlighten me!

[@enigmaticaljedi6808]

LUVAKAT I just did

[@thesmity31]

1:04:18 why did they cheer? its as if it is a hard thing to 'admit' that you are a christian.

[@BloodwyrmWildheart]

Tom Smith Groupthink.

[@avedic]

Around 1:04:00 Murray said, *"Sharks don't rape other sharks."* I simply adore just how _convoluted_ religious arguments end up being when the debate really gets down to the core of what's being argued about. Religious people, by virtue of their utterly absurd axiomatic propositions, end up saying(and sometimes _doing_) some of the most absurd, unintelligent and often unethical things imaginable. Why do they burden themselves with such an impossible world-view? They make saying ridiculous things unavoidable in defense of those beliefs.

[@Narutofan825]

Matt is the best =D

[@williamstrumfels3305]

Heres the problem with Abdu Murray Types and what they want. Lets say we all believe in God . So whose God are we under Who rules the day over god beliefs. Who makes the rules / laws that we all live under. We all know their are many religions and then many divisions of those religions. Does YOUR religious beliefs trump mine. The biggest question is to all Americans is Are you willing to live under some other Americans religious beliefs. What are you willing to give up ?

[@paleoclipper6771]

That is the format for debate in formal debates. It prevents people from talking over one another and allows each talker to get their points out. I prefer it over the show actually.

[@RBGHfam]

abdu has no argument on the subject, so debates another topic :) If objective morals are innate in us and we have free will, do objective morals matter in the least ..and if you disprove free will aren't you cutting off you nose to spite your face. Our 'tribes" create laws based on experiences/survival instincts. Man's experience the last 5000 years shows this to be true. I really don't see any relevance to Mans relation with the creator of existence based on the subject of objective morality, but it is brought up by every apologist I have ever listened to for some reason.

[@exiledfrommyself]

As the religious guy was talking about inalienable rights I kept on saying to myself it's people who believe in a god who are against that. We've always been a nation with an overwhelming religious majority and those are the same people who have denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to others.

[@goscott2]

This was actually a good debate. Both presenters were very civil to each other and presented valid points. I am a Christian but have to respect Matt's views, intelligence and reason although I disagree with his overall conclusions.

[@goscott2]

ATHEISM: In the beginning there was nothing. Then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything. Then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.....Yes. Makes perfect sense.

[@jamesteekirk6011]

Scott Williams no.... atheism refects the belief in a god (who incidentally created us from nothing...)

[@jamesteekirk6011]

Scott Williams straw man much?

[@goscott2]

I will help you out: WIKIPEDIA: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. You accuse me of the Straw man when my original intent was to make a very respectful comment to the Atheistic side on Matt's debate.

[@jamesteekirk6011]

Scott Williams no where in that definition does it say nothing created anything. atheism ONLY expresses the refection of a god claim. atheism holds no standing on any argument for intelligent design.

[@want2learn809]

(cont) - that's intellectual honesty right there. Now lets get back to your other posts.

[@TheMichlink]

Thanks for posting this video... both debaters did very well!

[@gregorypdearth]

"Gnostic" refers to what you claim to know whereas "theism" refers to what you believe. This generates four categories. A gnostic atheist would claim to know no gods exist. An agnostic atheist witholds belief in god claims based on a lack of evidence but does not claim to know for a fact that no god can possibly exist. A gnostic theist claims to know for sure their version of a god exists whereas an agnostic theist believes in god, but does not claim to know for a fact that their concept is the true version. It is simple. Saying you are just an agnostic or just an atheist does not clearly define what you beleive or know as the terms do not cover both sides (belief vs knowledge) on their own.

[@jetgem6251]

1 - agnostic atheism does not exist as it is both an oxymoron and is also non-prescriptive. There is no intellectual that claims to be an 'agnostic atheist'. 2 - If 'agnostic atheism' exists, then 'agnostic theism' exists, along with 'gnostic theism' and 'gnostic atheism' (to fulfill the dichotomy). However, there is no person in history who claims to be such - or supports the possibility that 'gnostic atheists' or 'gnostic theists' or agnostic theism' exists. 3 - belief or lack of belief is based on personal choice - specifically, on how the person develops their rational to form an subjective opinion. Some people belief in the contents of the Christian bible, others choose not to believe in such stories and characters. The bible is objectifiable - it is a real book with anecodotes written by people hundreds of years ago.However, various people will either believe, lack belief or disbelieve in its contents. If you want to claim 'agnostic atheism' or 'agnostic theism' exists, reply with the name and author of the book you gained the terms from. Is it too challenging a task?

[@Deter_Muriel]

G gemini do you honestly think there exist no people that say "i believe and god exists and i know that that god is real?" im an agnostic atheist, cause i lack the beleive in any god but dont claim i have explored the entire universe so i could be wrong. understand?

[@Derrythe01]

G gemini It seems that your comment presupposes that the Christian bible is the only real god claim. There are almost as many definitions of god as there are people. An agnostic atheist would state that, in light of all of the possible god claims, there are some that I cannot obtain certainty about their existence or lack thereof. There are others that can be determined to be true or false. So as an agnostic atheist, I would state that I do not believe any of the god claims I have heard, but do not hold a level of certainty in lack of existence in some of those claims to claim any kind of certainty beyond simply not having enough evidence for me to be convinced in them.

[@jetgem6251]

Joseph Bonnette My comment presupposes nothing. That is your projection and desire to attempt a confirmation bias by pigeon-holing me. I am not religious - now, you have some gnosis! You just gave a definition of soft atheism in trying to define 'agnostic atheism'. That is rather fallacious, even if you are unwitting of what you just did.

[@Poet1968]

G gemini" However, there is no person in history who claims to be such - or supports the possibility that 'gnostic atheists' or 'gnostic theists' or agnostic theism' exists." And you know this because you know the opinions and beliefs of every single person in history? You have frequently made this claim that "agnostic atheism does not exist" but have yet to produce any evidence to support it. Instead you try to shift the burden of proof onto the opponent by asking them to cite sources. Why are you unable to support your own claims and why is it so important to you that everyone accepts your point of view? If you label yourself as an "agnostic" then what right does anyone else have to tell you that your label is incoherent. In your opinion the term "agnostic atheism" is an oxymoron - but so what. If people choose to label themselves as such why does it bother you? Why should anyone have to prove anything to you? Are you so astronomically arrogant that you actually believe your opinion is the only correct one? It's healthy to have debates with people as long as you are open-minded enough to see their point of view - but you are not really interested in what anyone else thinks, your soul purpose here is to show everyone how "clever" you are because no one can refute what you say. Does that bolster your ego? And when anyone does refute your claims you just ignore the comments and continue with your ranting. I have not seen a single person, whether theist/agnostic or atheist support or agree with anything you have said - doesn't that tell you something? You have chosen to focus your comments on me because I have exposed you as a belligerent, arrogant know-it-all and you didn't like it. Get over it and move on.

[@adambomb42x]

I hate the idea of "granted rights". Rights do not get granted, only restricted. I don't lose my ability to speak in the absence of government.

[@EDTHEWATERGUY]

+adambomb42x This is one problem that seems to plague my fellow atheists.They give up one dictator(god) for another,government.

[@VemundVR]

I had no idea America is a nation.

[@want2learn809]

Horus is a complicated deity, appearing in many different forms and his mythology is one of the most extensive of all Egyptian deities. Indeed, he has so many different aspects that we must limit our discussion to those that are significant. At the same time, a judicious examination of the various Horuses and the sources relating to them supports the possibility that the roles in question are closely interrelated, and so they may be understood as different aspects of the same divine persona.

[@TheGizmoskate]

We're in this together, and we're on our own!

[@adparker314]

I did, over multiple posts. And quite the reverse of derailing; I attempted to go back you your original assertions, to PREVENT this discussion derailing into other areas!

[@nefaristo]

Good; only, next time place a microphone somewhere in the surroundings.

[@Poet1968]

To whom it may concern: - I (G Gemini) make the following claim: "To all atheists, 'agnostic atheism' does not exist!" But instead of fulfilling MY burden of proof (as predicated by the rules of philosophical discourse) I will instead ask YOU (the atheist) to provide sources of literature which contradict MY claim. I do this because I have no evidence to substantiate my assertion, nor can I provide any argument in my own words. So in order to win the debate all I need to do is challenge the slow minded atheists to prove the contrary. Yes, I know that's cheating and intellectually dishonest of me but because I lack the mental capacity to prove anything I say, it's the only thing I can do. So, please help Khawar Asif with tis ridiculous challenge, even though he has proven that I am a total hypocrite and just enjoy trolling the internet hurling abuse at atheists. Thank you. G gemini

[@bensonbrett30]

No. Separation of Church and State. The best evidence throughout all of history shows that idea is 100% necessary.

[@eliehasteiner3167]

I hate hearing this pathetic denial of reality. Humans are animals with highly evolved and sophisticated modes of existence but, nonetheless, humans are animals. Interestingly enough, humans are so complex that they have evolved the ability to deny animality and mortality. However, the denial of reality does not change reality, in the same way that the imagining of a deity does not manifest a deity. We can pretend our ethics come from a magical place or we can simply acknowledge that they come from us. Either way, we still end up having these conversations - a clear indication that it is humans who invent and codify morality. On that note, the debate was diverted and should have remained focused on American sociopolitical theory.

[@paulwilkinson1539]

Oooops! Wrong video. I watched this anyway, Thumbs up!

[@want2learn809]

Post 3 1) Propositional knowledge - This is knowledge of facts, knowledge that such and such is the case. 2) Personal Knowledge - knowledge by acquaintance 3) Procedural Knowledge - knowledge how to do something. The claims to know how to juggle and how to drive are claims to have procedural knowledge. Epistemology is concerned with Type 1 (the other two also contain elements of propositional knowledge - but require more than just that). You do not differentiate between them

[@want2learn809]

Post 8 We’ve all got our beliefs. That’s the way we are. I’ve got them, and so do you. It was Feynman who said “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”. This is more true than you realise. It’s true because when you’ve fooled yourself, you don’t know it. You convince yourself that you haven’t fooled yourself, and you develop a conviction, a faith, a belief about it. (not my words - but very apt all the same)

[@Leshkaka1]

Matt was brilliant.

[@bonnie43uk]

Damn the audio, I've suffer from tinnitus which makes it doubly harder to hear the debate.

[@38Gaucho]

I may have already brought in a definition of the word "believe" with you, but here goes again: Believe: 1. To accept as true or real. 2. To credit with veracity. 3. To have firm faith. 4. To have faith, confidence, or trust. 5. To have confidence in the truth or value of something. 6. To have an opinion; think. I think in the sense we are using the word, we are asking the question "Does God exist?" in relation to the claim that God does exist. (Continued)

[@adparker314]

Wow! You are correct, I can't see how (as I am using the definitions as I understand them, not yours) NOT knowing something and NOT believing something counts as a belief. Unless not having a belief counts as a belief now!

[@Graylord88]

Well the cameraman certainly is new at this, the camera-work is really distracting, making it hard to follow.

[@ApostateltsopA]

If something is denied you, you don't have it. Doesn't matter how you claim to have it all you can say is you ought to have it.

[@Catrambi]

You should provide sources for your home made definitions of the words "atheism" and "agnosticism". Can you? I've asked many many times.

[@Syeal7]

That camera-man must be put to sleep.

[@adparker314]

Yes, exactly. That is precisely the problem my 'friend' here seems to be having...among others.

[@Poet1968]

"Belief is a choice." That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Choice implies decision, deliberation. How did you arrive at your belief that if you jump off a tall building you would most certainly fall to your death? Did you choose to believe in the force of gravity - or do you just believe it by intuition? Not every belief is a choice.

[@agota108]

That's why it's surprising for me to see a Christian saying that slavery violates "god given rights". Which God gave those rights then? Definitely not the one in the Bible.

[@Andres64B]

Thomas Huxley coined the word. "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: *In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.*"

[@want2learn809]

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. (cont)

[@taylorbriggs6741]

Why isn't a healthy society a good enough foundation for unalienable rights?

[@zatoichiable]

You are correct. As a Muslim you are completely right. Allah said he is the Hidden One. Who am I to assume i have knowledge to know him. Thanks.

[@adparker314]

Yes, I want to know what you think the difference is. I understand the difference between the definitions I use: An agnostic doesn't KNOW (typically "if gods exist" unless a context is given) and an atheist doesn't BELIEVE in the existence of gods exist. by those definitions the terms are not mutually exclusive.

[@38Gaucho]

Yes, a lack of evidence is a reason to not believe a claim. Not to believe that the claim is untrue, but to withhold judgement and thus not "believe" that it is true, in lieu of persuasive evidence.

[@MrBlondieZero]

Matt Dillahunty for president!

[@DaddyBooneDon]

Dillahunty asked why inalienable rights could not be granted by the consensus rather than by God. Putting aside for now the notion of replacing God with Humanity which is the goal of Humanism, the problem with the consensus granting inalienable rights means that at a certain point in time when it is no longer advantageous for the consensus to grant these inalienable rights, then the consensus can remove these inalienable rights. Which one of us marginalized groups wants to get the short stick in that game? Who would want to live in a society like that, which grants and removes rights in this way? I hope the founding fathers thought this through better than this. If rights can be granted and revoked by the consensus then they are not inalienable.

[@Poet1968]

(continued from below) On the topic of "faith" - strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence. Using your theory that "belief is derived from knowledge" please explain why people have faith...belief without evidence, and how you can claim to have knowledge without evidence. When I use the term "belief" I am referring to the "belief-in" as opposed to "belief-that"...and going further, not commendatory belief but rather belief in existential claims.

[@want2learn809]

(cont) how do you expect to validate your argument. Please answer the following questions: - 1) What do you understand by the term "knowledge"? 2) What do you understand by the term "belief"? 3) Is theism/atheism a false dichotomy? If so, explain. 4) Do you believe that the Abrahamic God exists? 5) Why do you think the "disbelief in X" is the same as "belief in not-X"? 6) Do you think there are any mythical antecedents to Christianity from the Hellenistic religions? Answer these and we (cont)

[@ShawnMenchaca]

Matt dominates another debate!

[@adparker314]

Exactly. I have asked him if he believes in the existence of gods (more than once.) You are correct; one has to believe or not believe. His answer however has always been "I don't know." Which of course means: "I don't know if I believe in the existence of gods." Which neither makes sense, or seems to be what he wants to say.

[@Poet1968]

This is the response I have come to expect when you have no counter point - well done for sticking to type.

[@want2learn809]

The "Reply" feature does not work all the time - as you can see,

[@martyngmeyers]

(in the Church Lady voice) "Isn't that special." LOL

[@Poet1968]

"Of course, if you wish to claim that belief operates beyond cognitive processes and held knowledge - then, go right ahead" Belief comes before knowledge - if you already hold the knowledge then you can claim to "know" something. Before you hold that knowledge you can only claim to "believe" that same thing. Beliefs can be true or false. By your logic every belief must be true since you already have the knowledge to confirm it.

[@jscottupton]

No serious theist apologists are saying "you can't be good without god". That is NOT the argument that is being made despite what some (below) are saying. The argument is that "objective good and evil do NOT exist without god and therefore all morality would be merely a social construct". In other words..."who are YOU to say that Hitler was wrong. That's just your opinion in a world without god".

[@want2learn809]

Part 8 of X Your argument above that there is not a shred of medical evidence to suggest 12 foot tall people exist would be sufficient to justify your position in rejecting the claim...but not for asserting the contrary. 2. It's because of your misunderstand between belief and knowledge that you also think that there is no such thing as agnosticism (or an agnostic atheist) - but they are two different positions, belief and knowledge are separate and therefore not mutually exclusive.

[@bensonbrett30]

Matt's opening segment was near flawless. The only part I would add is the "establishment clause' in that the writers of the 1st amendment understood that any specific religion could not be endorsed by the government. Why? Read history and see how that goes.

[@adparker314]

"Science" and "viewpoint"! Wow, where did you get that from?! I certainly never mentioned, implied or hinted at any such thing!

[@PGBurgess]

I think the 'inalienable rights'-case is more clear when you use examples, not of when those rights are trampled, but when they are concidered to be 'justly' taken away. (inprisonment, killing under certain war-circumstances, selfdefense...) Prisons are full of people that do not have the right of 'freedom and the pursuit of hapiness' .. Is it my mistake or did Murray concede the debate (on the actual topic) at 0:53:00 He litarally says that people have the right to disagree that 'america should be a nation under god'.

[@Catrambi]

I'm asking you for ONE SOURCE in support of your definitions of atheism and agnosticism. "KZbin comments" isn't a source. Give me one source. OK?

[@want2learn809]

Part X of X argument. Being an Atheist yourself I expected some common courtesy and decency but it was severely lacking. Your ego is a little bigger than your ability and this has manifested through our exchange. Your reason for "debating" is to get one over on your opponent - mine is to try to learn something and try to understand why people believe what they do. I will not be responding to any further posts. thanks for taking the time to reply and have a good evening.

[@malkirion]

Debate begins at 6:40

[@want2learn809]

Cont) Hindu texts are classified into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered"). These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, Vedic yajna and agamic rituals and temple building, among other topics.[5] Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Manusmriti, Bhagavad Gita and Agamas.[5] The Bhagavad Gits is just ONE of the texts, you don't become a Hindu because of one book. Hinduism is a complex religion, you have no idea. (cont)

[@land1sea1lions]

I'm going to through Atheist Experience withdrawal. Don't know if I can make it till April 19th.

[@Catrambi]

I'll make this easy for you. Agnosticism is commonly defined as "the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable". Huxley said: "follow your reason as far as it will take you [...] [and] do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable". Atheism is commonly defined as "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities". (cont.)

[@BZdaKritta]

damn matt ... that so mean. ripped him limb from limb with no dignity left

[@want2learn809]

Both were conceived of a virgin. 2.Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh) 3.Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary. 4.Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph. 5.Both foster fathers were of royal descent. 6.Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

[@adparker314]

Really, it is more accurate to say that I realized that I wasn't a theist any more, hadn't been one for a while. In conversation I have found that it often happens like that, no "road to Damascus" conversion events for us. Now; I couldn't become one again (believe in any gods) without good reason - strong evidence.

[@adparker314]

Exactly! I even told him, plainly, that he doesn't have to wear the label, especially if he thinks agnostic describes him better. It's a strange kind of dogma; this 'extreme/pure' agnosticism. The way they tie themselves in knots to avoid what they assume to be both extremes, to stay dead center on the fence. Leads to inanities like: Question: "Do you believe in any gods? (simple yes/no question)" Answer: "I don't know." Crazy!

[@agota108]

Okay, can you please point me to a passage in Bible, where god says that men and women should have equal rights?

[@plaguebringer420]

Hey buddy, I didn't delete any of my posts, and as I am here on this video I can still see them. I apologize for getting frustrated with you, I just brought my newborn son home from the hospital and am in a positive mind set. I stand by my assertions, but my time is now limited and I will cease to continue this. Best of wishes to you and I remember you saying you were a father so best of wishes to that as well.

[@want2learn809]

27.Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount. 28.Both were crucified. 29.Both were crucified next to two thieves. 30.Both were buried in a tomb. 31.Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days). 32.Both had their resurrection announced by women. 33.Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.

[@38Gaucho]

eah, I absolutely used wikipedia, and it took about 5 minutes. Like I said, I'm really not interested in doing any hunting for academic sources for a youtube comment debate. I looked around on google for 5 minutes. And I didn't read the articles... but you apparently did. Bravo. I don't give a much of a fuck about this, but if you want to give me "three sound writers"who argue that an atheist can't be agnostic and/or vice versa now, that'd be great. Or, you know, explain it in your own words...

[@want2learn809]

PS I did not say "knowledge is truth" I said "knowledge = true" (as in knowledge is defined as being true). Hope that helps.