Matt Dillahunty vs. Israel Rodriguez: Whence cometh our Morals?

[@AlleyBetwixt]

Rodriguez is like an infuriating combination of Chopra and Craig. Lots and lots and lots of words, that sound 'deep', name-dropping and obscure references, but he never actually says anything. Moves the goalposts from sentence to sentence and commits so many fallacies that I couldn't keep up with him if I was writing them down. Yikes. Dillahunty did a fantastic job. Consistency and clarity. Straightforward approach. Nothing superfluous. Bravo.

[@saidmuhammed6717]

chopra craig and oprah.. the nuclear option.. when you need a city leveling dose of bullshit!

[@AdamJamesNoyce]

I find him to be one of the best (i.e. worst) apologists out there - because he does the best job of showing how poor these old and tired arguments and typical apologist reasoning really is.

[@ahouyearno]

plus a good dose of sye ten bruggencate's presuppositionalism. this guy is so wrong, and annoying to boot.

[@user-ue6hn9mx2r]

He comes across like a smug douche. He's incredibly condescending, and he has no reason to be condescending to anyone.

[@AmaranthOriginal]

I don't know, I think I'd rather listen to him than WLC or Chopra. Not that I like his arguments or think they're _good_, I just want to throw myself out a window slightly less.

[@avedic]

*"I DON'T KNOW."* - The very thing some people seem to find most frustrating about Matt....is, ironically, the very thing I love _most_ about him. Being able to say "I don't know" is a beautiful thing. Ignorance isn't something to be ashamed of...unless it's _willful_ ignorance or the _celebration_ of ignorance, as Matt so poetically put it. I don't know why reality exists to begin with. I don't know what consciousness is whatsoever...even though I am apparently consciousness itself. I don't know what happens, if anything, after death. These mysteries are gorgeously sumptuous and fascinating. I simply don't get why some people seem so _terrified_ of not knowing something. All it does to me...is spur me on to investigate more, support those who are doing the _really_ hard work of finding the answer, and fill me with a sense of truly holy awe at the reality I exist within. Reality is fascinating....and utterly mysterious, on so many levels and so many ways. But.....that's a _good_ thing! It's a wonderful thing. If only religious people were able to understand and appreciate the *_thrill_* of not knowing. They're missing out on so much....

[@SUPER_BOUY]

He says "I don't know" yet He is sure he is correct? Ironic!

[@Poggy]

@@SUPER_BOUY No, Matt has never claimed to be sure that he's correct about anything. In fact he adamantly rejects absolute certainty on anything. Maybe learn what his position is before assuming you know and trying to call him out on something you aren't even educated on.

[@veganatheistandmore]

If I was not an atheist already, this debate would've de-converted me. Matt, you were fenomenal. You did a great job. Thanks for sharing this vid :)

[@sleepyd1231]

Matt- I don't know I don't know I don't know. Israel- I know I know I know. "Matt you are a closed minded person." I knocked myself out with the face palm.

[@JoeS-sy1lc]

Thank goodness people still say i don't know.

[@JoeS-sy1lc]

That is true honesty and humbleness

[@vladtepes7539]

since we don't know, we don't know that.

[@daniellima2973]

Claiming you know doesn't mean you do. When you don't have evidence the beat answer is I don't know

[@lakabaka]

Your opening statement Matt is so fucking good,

[@adamkahn883]

i'm thinking about going back and typing it up. so freaking good

[@Evitable]

Devastating closing as well.

[@typicalgymrat22]

he has a way with words... a very good one!

[@imthebossthere]

he actually destroyed any religious claim/argument to be made in advance

[@g0lanu]

Best part of the 3 night debates. It's how atheists should appeal to undecided Christians. It kind of sounds like preaching :), they're used it, but it's an appeal from heart and we can all relate to such messages.

[@1_underthesun]

I watched the first 2 nights about a year ago and stopped because I just couldn't take any more Israel..... wish I'd have seen this 3rd one sooner. Matt came out HOT!!! Haven't seen him that fired up in a debate in years. Matt not only whooped Israel in this debate, he straight destroyed him in every single aspect. I kept thinking to myself "what it must be like to be there being a member of that church while Matt made it HIS church! Great job Mr Dillahunty.

[@HandsomeMoose]

Once again Israel Rodriguez is really painful to listen to. Not only because of all the errors and flaws in his arguments but also because he has an attitude of someone who thinks he is superior to all and everything (only exception might be the god he has selected to put all his faith in).

[@Thornspyre81]

Stealth. Oh man thank you for saying that! It's so cathartic to know I'm not the only one who can't stand that guy in the way you described

[@avedic]

Ha....you are _by no means_ the only one... Indeed, Matt said he was contacted by several of the church members after the debate to basically say they thought Israel was super dishonest and that Matt really made them think about the validity of their beliefs. This is by far the best debate Matt's ever done(all 4 videos that is)....and that's saying a lot, because he's always brilliant in debate. But this 4 night debate series was something special...

[@nickshaw6085]

"Jesus only relayed what God had deposited to him." Oh, OK. Also, WTF? He's a word salad shooting idiot. How anyone can buy a word he says is beyond me.

[@Zyfe]

I absolutely LOVED hearing Israel try to explain that the scriptures VERY CLEARLY talking about slavery is actually talking about keep prisoners who broke the law. Can really tell he's grasping at anything he can at that point.

[@irkerux333]

Zyfe...Matt's question regarding biblical slavery is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. It is effective only with those who, for whatever reason, refuse to consider everything the Bible says about slavery. As I stated in our discussion, Exodus 21.16 (Old Testament) and 1 Timothy 1.10 (New Testament) clearly demonstrate that God was against a certain type of slavery (the kind that Matt had in mind, which is determined by his reasoning on the subject) while other passages and verses reveal that He (God) was in favor of other types of slavery (viz., indentured servitude for those with financial problems and punishment for the wicked). The remnants of these types of "slavery" still exist today and are not to be confused with the type of slavery that Matt describes. You can listen to the fourth video of our "Closing Remarks" for a more thorough explanation of the issue of slavery in the Bible. Like I said in the video, Matt thinks he has something with this issue, but he has nothing, and it's not the same "nothing" of Lawrence Krauss.

[@New_Essay_6416]

irkerux333 Israel, that is about kidnapping. Those verses are talking about stealing people, not owning people. This is very dishonest.

[@LouisGedo]

Dillahunty destroyed Rodriguez by presenting far more reasonable arguments

[@angryfishmonger]

This Israel guy is completely clueless as to how terribly he preformed in this debate. He was so outclassed as to be a child in comparison with the other man and thinking people.

[@tomatensalat7420]

Yes, he seems to think if he only preaches slooow and clear, people will believe. Or maybe he tries to hypnotize the audiance ;) Sometimes it is like he simply puts word after each other, that sound cool.

[@AdamJamesNoyce]

oggi mog Indeed. Israel could really do with some elocution lessons. These sound bites that he keeps using (how many times did you hear over these debates his tired old saying about how the bible is the most "celebrated, decorated, authenticated and so on", as if it is some sort of war hero, something he might even agree with!), the use of this slow (painfully slow) manner of speaking and putting strange emphasis on certain syllables. It was an awful attempt to put this gravitas to his words that are in fact terribly hollow. Whether he has a message that should be heard, is very difficult to discern from his very poor public speaking skills. Unless he gets some help on his basic presentation, he will continue to come across in a very inaccessible manner regardless of whatever his message and arguments may be.

[@g0lanu]

I was about to point a similar thing, but in a debate pre-prepared you basically have no other choice. He set out to make a point, get a message across, just like Matt did, so he needs to beat the same drum over and over again. Just because Matt refuted his conclusion, it means nothing, as he also refuted Matt's claims. As far as debates go, it's a sound strategy, and Matt should have challenged him more in the first parts of the first 2 debates...

[@ufodeath]

+oggi mog Speaking very slowly in a debate is usually a sign of trying to think about what to say, usually because they don't have a good way to respond in the first place.

[@g0lanu]

Sokami Mashibe It might also be a cultural thing. There are people who talk slower all the time. The french in the northern regions are the opposite of that, they speak very very fast by comparison to any other nation I've dealt with so far. But I've met people from certain areas that speak as slow as this guy.

[@aegisgfx]

"Matt is closed minded because he does not agree with my position". If I was in the audience and I heard that, I'd get up and leave.

[@GR8MAITREYA]

This is by far the best talk given by Matt. He always does well but this is on a whole new level. And I've heard a lot of Matt's debates. Well done Sir. 😎

[@heywoodjablowme1624]

Israel sure likes to preach and preach and preach and preach, but his response to *every... single... topic...* in this video series just boils down to two assertions: 1) God is real and 2) The Bible is true

[@galaxy2699]

It's obvious that you haven't watched the debate then because it demolishes your worldview.

[@NatCo-Supremacist]

she's not wrong at all @Galaxy, stop it with the self projecting

[@trippytraveler6773]

whats really horrible is at 1:03:40 Israel states the exact answer that Matt has been saying with the dumb assertion that Matt cant account for gods origin so he has no reason, for the piece of wood measurements and science! That there needs to be a standard that all can agree to so progress can happen, yet he refuses this answer when it comes to origin and destiny

[@vladtepes7539]

don't people hear the nonsensical sound of the sentence "the bible is true"? i don't even quite get what is said by that.

[@cocotlan]

01:18:40 "Those he commanded to be enslaved." God commands enslavement. You lose.

[@debo98433]

When he said that being able to reach a moral position without a god was good enough, he was referring to it being good enough in order to be a person who behaves in a moral way, consistently. He was saying that no god is required to be moral. And he was absolutely correct in that statement.

[@avedic]

Matt is SO fucking good at this. Best atheist communicator ever. By far. I like this side of Matt. He's actually quite charming.

[@ToastyMcGrath]

Israel just has an overly simplistic, elementary-school understanding of every topic he touches.

[@jennifer97363]

Wow! What a terrific debate. I loved the calm, respectful tone, the thoughtful intellectual approach of both speakers. Man there was a lot of knowledge on that stage. All things considered, I was won over by Matt’s ideas and answers. I love that morality can be summed up, if I understand correctly, as based on an assessment of a person’s well being in any given situation. In this debate I am once again impressed by Matt’s brilliant mind.

[@deathislife1993]

Israel just pisses me off in this video. There's a reason that, while I usually listen to Matt's opponents every time I listen to a debate, I always skip Israel. And I know this is his own personal channel, but the arrogance and bullshit he spews on the slavery issue, where the Bible does, in fact, promote slavery, is just stupid.

[@irkerux333]

deathislife...Yes, the Bible does promote slavery, so what! It does not, however, promote the type of slavery Matt is making reference to in this debate and in his entire worldview. People need to stop approaching the subject of biblical slavery with preconceived notions. Not all slavery is bad. This is why I attempted to draw the very fine distinction between what we could call "wicked slavery" (the violation of a person's natural right to be free, who is without reproach, and unjustly subjugated by an oppressor) and "just slavery" (debt resolution and a form of punishment with a view to rehabilitation). The word slavery is ambiguous and emotionally charged, due primarily to its history and negative connotation. However, if people would carefully consider what the Bible actually says about slavery it is consistent with all things moral. In fact, the Bible metaphorically describes Christians as "bond servants" or "slaves" to God's righteousness (Romans 6.15-23). Is all killing wrong? Or, is there such a thing as murder (a type of killing) and justified killing (a type of killing that is consistent with morality; for example, capital punishment)? Despite the negative connotation of the word "kill" or "killing" any reasonable person will recognize that there are different types of killing. So it is with slavery. Please consider our final discussion where I go into greater detail about what the Bible teaches concerning slavery, because some had requested a more thorough explanation.

[@ChrisMM65]

irkerux333 1:12:20 is about where Matt explains exactly what you're objecting to.

[@Plutodog419]

Israel pisses me off as well (and I haven't completed the series or taken the time to review it all), but I wasn't real pleased with Matt's performance either. There are also limitations based upon the debate process used here but I don't like how Matt explained how people came to believe there was a god(s) and distinguished that from people "creating" god(s). I suppose really driving some of these basic points home allows debate to continue and the series of debates to continue without breaking down in anger and refusal of the one side or the other to continue (generally the theist in cases of debate but it can also be the atheist/agnostic who grows tired of the repetitious refusal to engage directly with the atheist/agnostic argument on it's own terms). But the atheist view of how god came about is that humans invented this inscrutable being as an explanation for all manner of things they could not otherwise understand, explain. It begged those questions but it was a mental/emotional way to end the discussion at any given time or at every given time that it comes up so you can go back to doing life and give the mind a break when in frustration you figure out that at this time you can come to no satisfying answer to any given question about reality and how it operates. -------------- Note, after having more time to see it all and reflect further, I'm happier with Matt's performance given that he was trying to break through a preacher's preachin' and thus the parishioners may not have been reached via reason. The debate format did kind of suck, though.

[@avedic]

irkerux333 Are you _actually_ Israel? Because if so...your written "arguments" are just as terrible as your spoken "arguments." You do realize you're debating with intelligent people, right? Because you seem to not realize that.

[@irkerux333]

avedic...Yes, I am Israel, the one debating Matt in these four videos, which I have posted for everyone to consider carefully. As you no doubt know, I have in no way censored or limited anyone from expressing themselves fully about the debates. That is everyone's right (I believe it to be a God-given prerogative). The debates are for everyone to consider and decided for themselves. I am fully aware that although these are my videos (and I could remove posts if I wanted to, which I have not done), and that the comments are overwhelmingly in Matt's favor, I'm ok with that. But, what does that really prove? I already know that the majority of society is confused about the subjects Matt and I addressed in our debate. I also understand that there is a growing disdain for religion mostly due to corrupt forms of religion. Having said that, I respect your opinion about my "arguments" (as you put it), but in the end that is just your opinion. A perusal of the posts under this video demonstrates your bias and renders your assessment of my apology null and void. It is obvious that you are not here to discuss the issues Matt and I touched upon objectively, as many have also proven themselves by their comments under my videos, and can have no other purpose but to serve as Matt's cheerleader. I'm sure everyone who has taken the time to read all of your posts under this video about how amazing you think Matt is, and how great a speaker he is, and yada yada-2, 4, 6, 8 who do we appreciate...MATT! Yay!-has well taken your point. With respect to your comment about me dealing with "intelligent" people I have yet to come across one truly intelligent argument for atheism. If fact, atheism is a negation. It has no arguments. It makes no arguments. It is not a system. It offers no solutions to life's conundrums. It has no hope. It offers no life. It is literally nothing. Uh huh, very intelligent!

[@AustrianA340]

"Did a rock whisper to our ear and say: hey this is how it is?" Nope and neither did god

[@MMDelta9]

Man, this Israel Rodriguez is a joke.

[@KamasutraButterfly]

No, he isn't. Jokes are funny

[@aviatortrevor]

This Israel guy takes way too long and takes way too many tangents when asking direct questions from Matt.

[@karlschuch5684]

rodriguez seems to not hear anything Matt said, then he uses arguments that have been debunked so many times I can't believe he's actually repeating them... Geez -what is wrong with these people? Must be Dunning - Kruger.

[@B2BCreditandCollection]

Karl Schuch Exactly what I expect from sheep

[@avedic]

+Michael Dennis I _want_ to like your comment...but good fucking god, I cannot stand when people use the word "sheep" in the context you did, even though I agree with the sentiment. I don't know what it is...it just seems *_SO_* teenager-ish. There's better ways to express the same idea. At least you didn't say _"sheeple"_. That one is just stomach wrenching.... o__O

[@trippytraveler6773]

unfortunately these are people whom havent heard an idea beyond the walls of that church or the book of lies.

[@debo98433]

When he spoke of us being no better than dogs; that we are just organized matter, he sounded the most rational I have heard him through all 3 of these debates.

[@glutinousmaximus]

Good post - Thanks. Matt just gets better and better!

[@FleaCircusProduction]

Mr. Israel Rodriguez is a textbook example of how human intelligence can be limited by religious dogmas.

[@rationalmartian]

WOW!!! This Isreal character is turning himself into a complete joke by this stage. And his ridiculous slave shenanigins is downright dishonest. Though when ones whole reasoning is based on a ridiculous immoral outdated cobbled together superstitious old book, it's hard to imagine any other outcome. I've yet to hear a reasonable apologist. Or argument from one.

[@MrMattSax]

Whence cometh?? There’s no way that title came from anyone other than the preacher. Talking in Ye Olde King James English is just biblical cosplay.

[@yomamma.ismydaddy216]

This feels like what would happen if a freshman college student challenged their professor to a debate on the first day of classes. It’s actually pathetic that many religious people look at this and see a religious guys putting a atheist in their place. No wonder they read the Bible and become convinced it’s of divine origin

[@olivia362436]

Poor Israel is stuck in neutral on the slavery issue and is just preaching to his sheep who must love to hear his voice

[@debo98433]

Regarding my last post, do you think that other animals require a god in order to be moral? Do they need to understand the bible and be baptized, too? Should ants worship the "Almighty" as well?

[@grandmastershek]

Matt should have asked IR if the condemnation of homosexuality was literal or needed to be interpreted, and if it is literal, what specific methods he uses to determine which passages of the laws outlined in Leviticus are literal vs allusion.

[@verstwo2]

OMG the universe is 3.82 billion years old and Matt said it was 3.5 billion years old? Checkmate atheists!

[@Draycko]

I'm melting! D:>

[@acerbicatheist2893]

Oh dear. I am so impressed with the patience MD can summon when attempting to argue with persons(to use the term loosely)like this. It would drive me utterly batshit! Give me strength,oh heavenly flying Spaghetti-Monster...please?!?!

[@paulcontursi5982]

in his own way, Israel Rodriguez is a better spokesman for atheism than Matt is!

[@land1sea1lions]

Yeah prisoners are just slaves. You know, because we beat prisoners and keep all their descendents as our property. Right.

[@brianmonks8657]

+land1sea1lions If you are an American, this is the 13th amendment to the US constitution, the one outlawing slavery. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Prisoners are the only group that can be legally made slaves, in the US.

[@MyBozhidar]

morality and reality are as real as a rock; morality being a reality inside our skins and the other, outside our skins.

[@jm3153]

1:18:30 Israel: "God never sanctions abuse. And he never sanctioned abuse of those that he commanded to be enslaved." I just can't. Every word out of his mouth is an insult to everyone's intelligence. I can't understand how some people can't see through arguments like his like it was cheap toilet paper

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

about 1:15:00 onwards: Matt sits there, winning a debate without having to say a word. (i almost see him think: _"please talk on, you're doing great"_) (hope I don't blow my chance of having a conversation with mr. Rodrigues, by saying this, though, cause i have a few sincere questions. (well; I'm always sincere, but you know what i mean) and only now I got to the end of this video, and i'm shocked. Completely unfounded remarks about the bible's _superiority_ compared to the older Asian philosophies, you say, mr. Rodrigues, while at the same time showing to have no understanding of them at all. (in those few words alone i could name half a dozen mistakes you make about them). I can think of only one word for that: _arrogance_ (or, actually, since you don't come across as an arrogant person, maybe _ignorance_ is a better one. _Unbelievable_, none the less)

[@jeffersonianideal]

+Boris B One important to remember when viewing a debate like this is theist hawkers such as Mr. Rodriguez are not concerned with winning or losing the discourse. It is only compulsory that Mr. Rodriguez's God emerge victorious. The mandate is to be accomplished by any means necessary and at any cost. For Mr. Rodriguez to make any concession at all would mean a defect in his God, in the words of his God and quite accordingly in Mr. Rodriguez's faith in such a God. That cannot and will not be permitted to happen, regardless of the circumstances. Mr. Rodriguez is in a similar position to that of a defense attorney. Mr. Rodriguez's God is the criminal he attempting to defend. Mr. Rodriguez knows his client is guilty of the charge but his legal obligation is to defend his client to the best of his ability. It is not important that Mr. Rodriguez play a mistake free game, as Mr. Rodriquez is only a mere mortal. What is imperative is that his God and his God's book be shown to be free of errors. Mr. Rodriguez knows that his entire emotional and spiritual livelihood depends upon his ability to exonerate his God. If it means imposing ad hominem arguments, twisting the truth, outright lying or attempting to defame the opposing side, Mr. Rodriguez has no moral dilemma in doing so. As long as his client is cleared of all charges, wrongdoing, actions and motives, and is able to exit the courtroom with his name and character unblemished, that is Mr. Rodriguez's sole concern and objective.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

***** I'd say _attorney_ Rodriquez' client _God_ will be found _not guilty_ of existing any time, in any courtroom.

[@jeffersonianideal]

And of course, if the defendant does not exist, that defendant can not be charged with a crime. This leaves only Mr. Rodriguez remaining to defend himself. Some of us are familiar with the adage about the person who insists on acting as his own attorney.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

***** having a fool for a client, you mean? ;-)

[@jeffersonianideal]

Exactly!

[@avedic]

Damn....Matt was _stunning_ in this one. The best of the four. I love how forcefully it ended....after building up so strong. I dare say he de-converted quite a few people in that audience. If he _didn't_, then I truly fear for humanity....because that is a _bad_ sign. Honestly though, I'm a long term optimist, as Matt himself outlined. Humanity _is_ getting better. We have some *_big_* problems on the horizon to solve...but, interestingly enough, when you look back at our past, aside from a few outliers, we solve damn near *_every_* problem and social ill...eventually. It's getting better all the time....

[@avedic]

That ending though... The final few minutes where Matt closed it out...that was very compelling. I really wish I knew what that audience was thinking and feeling at that exact moment..

[@frankkush8143]

God feels the need to test his people even though he created us and know's what we are going to do before we do it? That's just crazy talk!

[@2tonetony319]

Ouch! That was an epic beat down. Does anyone know if Israel ever got back up after this one?

[@irkerux333]

2 Tone Tony In what part (specifically) was I knocked down? Enlighten me Tone Loc.

[@2tonetony319]

My comment is a parable. Whether or not you get the correct interpretation from it is a test....

[@irkerux333]

2 Tone Tony Hahahaha.....touché. I’m glad you understood that point.

[@2tonetony319]

👍

[@JoeS-sy1lc]

Why didn't you say anything about the verses he read on Leviticus? You can't. Its plain and simple what it says. There is no refuting that.

[@thealisters815]

Thank god I'm a atheist

[@avedic]

heh....Matt would've made a good preacher. He has that sort of vibe to him. Luckily he's using that skill/gift in a way that's causing FAR more positivity in the world than would be possible had he become a preacher.

[@grandmastershek]

Wow...@ 1:14:00 IR clearly lies, or maybe he just chose to delete the inconvenient fact from his memory, that MD directly discussed "man stealing" and how that implies property.

[@andresreal8261]

Matt: "Why doesn't God just outright say "Slavery is shit"?" Rodriguez: "God uses parables to test his people's faith." Me: "Then why God just plainly states "Thou shall not kill"?" ... Rodriguez: "I must leave. My planet needs me."

[@sombraenlaluna]

It was painful to watch, but Israel was just clueless. No válid argument.

[@Steve0272.]

Would be great to hear what the audience attending thought of both positions after the discussions

[@vitaeprimus4674]

I feel sorry for Matt Dillahunty and audience, who had to listen to the nonsense Israel Rodriguez spewed from his brainwashed mind....

[@debo98433]

"Why be good?" Well, I think he's already addressed this point. I'll paraphrase what he said. We do not live in a vacuum. We operate within a society, and our actions have consequences. In order for a society to survive, the participants must behave in ways that are beneficial to the society. If everyone was killing, raping, and lying to each other, then the society would break down. We are social animals. Behaving morally, or being "good", is a fundamental necessity to our survival. In a philosophical sense, we are good to others because we would want them to be good to us, generally speaking. This is commonly referred to as The Golden Rule. Jesus alludes to it in the bible, but it predates him, and it predates the bible. People have recognized this simple axiom throughout all of recorded human history. And I would venture to wager that humans have always recognized it, as long as they have lived and acted within societies.... which is always, since we are social animals. By the way, it is clear that all social animals recognize this on some level. They don't have a language through which they can relay this to us, but biologists and zoologists have studied social animals for a long time and have reported that these animals behave in ways that are generally beneficial to others within the society. This notion of morality and treating others well is not exclusive to human societies.

[@grandmastershek]

Very telling about IR that he thinks admitting you do not know is "dancing around". Remember, "True wisdom is in knowing you know nothing". Also telling is that b/c IR believes not knowing leads to anarchy and chaos. Sorry, totally smacks of an appeal to consequence. Even if such was the case it would bring IR not one step closer to validating his position.

[@ufodeath]

"And he never sanctioned the abuse of those he commanded to be _enslaved_." wow, wow. Apparently slavery isn't abuse, doesn't lead to abuse and slavery itself doesn't get to be considered wrong according to Israel Rodriguez who derives his moral authority from a book and gets to completely ignores the reality of how harmful, and wrong it is to own others as property, because a supposed god in a text says otherwise.

[@verstwo2]

there were not "dark" jedi's - they're called sith. He doesn;t even get his starwars analogies right. WTF?

[@irkerux333]

Matt Hoyte...In Star Wars the side of evil was referred to as the "dark side." Although evil Jedi were primarily known as Sith they were also referred to by different descriptions: "While the Force can be used for good, it has a dark side that, when pursued, imbues users with hatred, aggression, and malevolence. The six films feature the Jedi, who use the Force for good, and the Sith, who use the dark side for evil in an attempt to take over the galaxy. In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, many dark side users are Dark Jedi rather than Sith, mainly because of the "Rule of Two" (see Sith Origin)." Please know what you're talking about when you try to correct someone.

[@verstwo2]

irkerux333 ". The six films feature the Jedi, who use the Force for good, and the Sith, who use the dark side for evil in an attempt to take over the galaxy." _ My point proven. 'Jedi' is the name of those who use the force for good and 'Sith' is the name for those who use the dark side of the force. The Sith are never referred to as "the evil Jedi". I really do know what I'm talking about. I generally don;t comment unless I do. You might want to follow your own advice though.

[@Shinigami188]

Matt Hoyte It is true , that in the movies the followers of the dark side are called Sith, but originaly the Sith were the species, that lived on the Planet Korriban at the time when the dark Jedi (which were i believe exiled or fled) after the Second Great Schism arived there. These Sith worshiped the dark Jedi as gods and from this originated the Title "Dark Lord of the Sith".

[@crunch9876]

There are many Jedis who use the force for "bad" or "evil" and are not members of the "sith"

[@MikeTall88]

irkerux333 even in your comment, you show that the FORCE have a good and a dark side. And the users of the force, Jedi and Sith, are good and dark. Not yet seen a reference to an evil Jedi.

[@2tonetony319]

This is Israel at an all time low. Matt didn’t even need to show up.

[@beastshawnee4987]

I do agree that we treat prisoners like slaves and think that should stop!

[@undeaddanny4]

Deciding on our origins definitely shouldn't come before epistemology. We don't know how to go about investigating our origins without already having our epistemology in place. It all starts with making the minimal amount of epistemic presuppositions that we need to in order to have a foundation for further investigation and I've never heard a coherent case made for the existence of God being a necessary presupposition

[@MugenTJ]

Whence cometh (this word gives me spelling error btw) our Morals? Whence a person learn to reason and philosophize, study science and history. Only then one has a chance at moral and ethics. Having someone else telling you what to do and how to live your life is a crime unto yourself, sort to speak.

[@shawnwilson5401]

Israel is the most boring speaker i'v ever heard. He says a lot of nothing very slowly as if he is getting across some amazing point..

[@vannic6955]

+Shawn Wilson LOL SO TRUE!!! I THINK HES TRYING TO SOUND INTELLECTUAL!!!

[@utubepunk]

I think this is a common preacher tactic taught in seminary school.

[@Thornspyre81]

AHAHAHAHAHAH

[@eddieking2976]

This video appears to be the third lecture.

[@grandmastershek]

LOL @ 1:07:00 "It has that thrust". Right....stealing. Stealing implies property. You can steal a slave. That still means he is a slave. You can only steal property. Nice mental gymnastics. Silver medal quality. You would have had the gold, but you didn't stick the landing. The sad fact is your god clearly condones and provided means to regulate slavery, and distinguished between Hebrew servitude and the inheritable property that foreigners could be made into. Property which can be beaten until near death.

[@galaxy2699]

Sheere ignorance

[@shawnwilson5401]

+Galaxy Ignorance of what?

[@Shannareef]

Matt looks so AWESOME behind that pulpit! I wish he had stayed behind one. ;)

[@call4sorrow1]

you wish he still believed in god?? matts much too smart for that.

[@ufodeath]

Morality is based on our ability to understand that our actions can have negative consequences to other peoples in a large variety of ways, whether physically, mentally, emotionally, materially etcetera. We can compile evidence to determine how certain actions can produce these negative consequences, for example, when we hit someone, they feel pain. However indirect actions can also produce a numerous number of harmful consequences to people, for example, Capitalist in corporations can pollute the environment and add toxins to our food which we all have to live with, just so that they can maximize their profits. A second example is how in slavery, one class of people gets to automatically own the labor of another class of people, thus stealing from and materially depriving those that actually did the labor. Capitalism has the exact same process where the capitalist class automatically owns the labor of those that actually do the labor, and sells the product of their labor in the markets so that as they draw in revenue, they keep the vast majority of it for themselves and give a fraction back to the workers, thus creating the harmful effect of exploitation. These are things we can gather evidence for and know in reality that the really do create negative consequences for other people. Now when we examine and analyze how religion derives its morality, Rather than relying on evidence and reality to determine what is right and wrong, they rely on authority based claims of what is right. Their argument is essentially that "this is right/wrong because this book says that this god said that it was wrong/right vice-versa". They completely ignore what reality tells them, to the point that if they took this thinking to the illogical extreme, They would have to argue that the reason they wouldn't murder someone else is because a god said it was "wrong", not because they themselves are capable of realizing that it is wrong. This type of behavior is similar to psychopathy which prevents a person from caring how their actions affect others, or putting themselves in other peoples shoes, and at best rely on what others says is right or wrong say that they can somewhat go about their business normally in society.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Great debate n by great I mean matt kicked his ass much respect to him

[@g0lanu]

So basically, slavery is not ok according to Israel Rodriguez, if you steal a man that is not yours, than you should be stoned to death. Does that verse get interpreted the same way by all christians, or you understand it in the context of "thou shall not steal"?

[@adg9704]

He's wearing a bow tie, so he must be intelligent. Right?

[@Animuldok]

All he needs is a white lab coat and then he'll be as trustworthy as John Pendleton. XD

[@debo98433]

Maybe he thought that was what Bill Nye had going for him in the debate against Ken Ham; that wearing a bow tie would help his arguments. But nothing can help those weak arguments.

[@grandmastershek]

God commands genocide, putting people into forced labor, and taking slaves as plunder after battle: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17Completely destroya them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)

[@davidcadogandc]

Goodness me! This Rodriguez guy should have brought his tap shoes! :)

[@edandstevesand7382]

Matt Dillahunty says "I....Don't....Know" because he is honest, to call him out for saying that you are saying that you DO know, which is fucking bullshit. Rodriguez first point he makes is that god is an easy explanation for these questions so it must be the truth

[@Ferretszest]

a dead fish also naturaly rises to the top(ichtius) matt is awesome as always here israel provides fairly lame ...arguments(?) imo, and his constant preaching, the fletching of teeth when he thinks he has a point - is quite annoying anyway its a good watch, thanks

[@debo98433]

When Matt spoke of taking a few minutes to study the "nature of logic and syllogistic reasoning", it was obvious that he was kidding. He even said, "perhaps a bit more" (or something to that effect) in a joking manner. Go back and review it. It's obviously that he didn't meant that it would literally only take a few minutes to learn this stuff. And it's clear to others who have listened to him prior to this debate that he understands that this stuff is difficult and requires a great amount of study. I don't know if you were intentionally caricaturing his position, but it certainly was distasteful and dishonest.

[@imthebossthere]

that gold-analogy was very good.

[@jeffersonianideal]

+seelefantman Mr. Dillahunty's at the 16:46 mark or one from the comments field?

[@imthebossthere]

***** I was speaking of Matt's remarks.

[@jeffersonianideal]

Mr. Dillahunty certainly knows his stuff when it comes to his counterarguments against theism. Fractional-reserve banking, not so much.

[@imthebossthere]

***** I hope you're not implying that you think gold has some intrinsic value.

[@jeffersonianideal]

What I am expressing is Mr. Dillihunty appears to be ill-informed about the influence and origins of the Federal Reserve system, factional-reserve banking and sound money principles. He's in good company, however. I have heard Dr. Daniel Dennett proclaim something similar. At least Mr. Dillahunty had the good sense or good fortune to retain the word "fiat" within his remarks. I am not too worried about his inadequacies in this area. It does not detract from his expertise within the particular discourse he is engaged in. Just so long as he isn't appointed the new FED chair. The present one is inept enough.

[@jeffersonianideal]

Mr. Dillahunty occasionally demonstrates his pulpit tone and timbre.

[@roybaines3181]

Theatre, assertions and blatant preaching is not debate.

[@javdan73]

I´m not convinced ,Mr. Rodriguez. Better luck next time perhaps.

[@todbeard8118]

Leviticus 25:44-46 Clearly states your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. In what way does this tell Rodriquez you can't have slaves? What is he smoking?

[@westingtyler1]

You can also scam your Hebrew servants into remaining your slaves forever by giving them a wife and kids, who he can't take with him when he leaves.

[@todbeard8118]

EricAdamIdeas Very good point. And a way to keep them for life. You know this, but if they want to stay with their family, they have to declare their love for their master, go into town, they pierce the slave's ear and presto- life long slave. Good job EricAdamIdeas.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

1:26:17-1:26:21 For the briefest of moments, inexplicably, Israel suddenly turns uruk-hai.

[@SideBerner]

Matt walked all over Israel about slavery.

[@henrysamaniego6422]

+irkerux333 Israel, my name is Abraham. I come from a place of respect. I'm sorry for any hostility in these comments. I was a Christian and like Matt, went to the seminary to become a pastor and ended up abandoning my faith and now proudly consider myself an atheist or secularist (which ever term you may prefer). Now, my comment is a constructive one. I can see you mean well and try very hard to defend your belief with passion. something I truly respect and admire from anyone. however, as someone with a bachelor's in philosophy...I must say that there's a great deal of misuse of words and fallacies on your part. I would love to recommend books that could help you become a strong debater. I come from a good place. with all the respect I can muster

[@irkerux333]

Abraham Samaniego...Hey Abraham. I appreciate your comments and would love to have your list of books. Thanks.

[@vannic6955]

Matt D: Like a boss!!!

[@TajFaerie]

1:00:30 what Preacher Matt looks and sounds like

[@grandmastershek]

"God never sanctions abuse" I guess killing children en masse is not abuse.

[@PhrontDoor]

Wow, the theistic point opens RIGHT up with the lying. Facepalmingly painful.

[@AmaranthOriginal]

This is the first time I've seen this debate in the series. Israel sounds really beat down by this point.

[@zen-sean]

Without seeing the screen, I thought Matt was debating Jack Black 😂

[@ELNENEPR50]

It is incredible how these apologies do not realize how they contradict themselves, for example: Mr. Rodriguez clearly reads a verse on the Bible that It's the place that God is not able to commit any sin and hes not able to do anything bad or wrong, Because he is holy and holy means that he is a all good being. Also in The Bible explain why God decided to bring the flood clearly says that he was tired of the sins of men. Therefore he decided to bring the flood but my question is why the animals have to die and suffer? And at the end same still within us after the flood man came back and still sent him so God did not solved that problem. But going to the point of been all good and not able to do bad, What good does he have to kill an entire world including the innocent animals?

[@galaxy2699]

1:06:46 Amazing response to Matt's objections to Slavery.

[@galaxy2699]

Until 1:23:09

[@thecloud3781]

+Galaxy It really isn't... It's a cherry-picking response. It completely ignores the entire context. The bible makes it very, very clear, that it's allowed to own other human beings. The apologists always ever look at individual verses, and ignore, that most of the times, the verses they pick are only in reference to other Jews. Look, there are two options: Either the bible is against slavery... and yet has laws in it clearly explaining the rules, how much you have to pay for your slaves, and so on... AND is at the same time against slavery, which would make the book completely inconsistent... OR the bible IS pro-slavery, and has different rules for different groups of people, which cannot just be picked out of context. Let me spare the trouble: It's the second option. But if you want to say, that it is the first one... hey, go for it. And do NOT come with the lame "You're thinking of American slavery" bullshit! I don't! When I talk about slavery, I'm talking about OWNING HUMANS AS PROPERTY AND BEING ALLOWED TO BEAT THEM! I don't need to make a reference to American Slavery here, I can simply go by what the bible says!

[@jeremyleyland1047]

Rocks can't provide the scientific method, but burning bushes can provide the ten commandments?

[@MsDjessa]

1:16:57 He talked about imprisonment seemingly to point out how Matt should view it as slavery even though it is not called slavery and yet he talks about hitting a child with a stick and seemingly defending it by saying it is not called abuse. Perhaps I misunderstood but this seems contradictory. But I'm sure Matt will point out that the Bible is not referring to people who have broken the law. After all Bible talks about people other tribes and prisoners war was that can be taken into slavery. Including "little ones".

[@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.

[@vibrant151]

According to the bible god supposedly came down to earth as a man, sacrificed himself to himself, and then skedaddled back upstairs and has never been seen, or heard from since.

[@B2BCreditandCollection]

Nigel Hornbean Yes.. it was indeed a bad weekend which we now call easter

[@debo98433]

Your idea of "origin" is vastly different from mine, because I do not accept the biblical view of "in the beginning God created...". I accept the scientific, evidence supported version of the origin of the Universe, which does not require a god.

[@skepticalbystander]

At about 1:20:00 dude says if god wanted it, why didn't he ask me plainly? And he says god speaks in parables to see if the person is paying close attention or not. Bro, did you forget your god supposedly knows the future? If he knows the future, he knows if you'll be paying close attention or not before you even get to the passage in question. A better answer (and i don't mean to give ammunition to the other side, but) would be that god wants YOU to find that out and understand it for YOURSELF, so that you can learn and grow and see how your god is working your mind! He would already know! What, are you gonna surprise god? I don't think so.

[@joserbalbuena474]

Method 1: using the distance light has travel from the furthers stars seen. 13,700,000,000 years Method 2: measurement, changes and distribution of background radiation 13,820,000,000 years ((13820000000-13700000000)/13820000000)*100 = 0.868% Less than a percent difference, I say that ends the argument. The universe is APPROXIMATELY 13.xx billion years.

[@bearpio92]

instead of israel being honest and admitting that the bible failed in the subject of slavery, he has to adhere to a doctrine that says the bible is infallible, hence that makes him close minded by default.

[@russellhoughton2132]

Prisoners are not slaves, they are not owned. Nor is that a justification for Biblical slavery, where you could purchase children AS slaves. And how is hitting a child with a stick not abuse?

[@irkerux333]

Russell Houghton...I was drawing a comparison between our prison systems and slavery to make a point. Obviously, you are unaware with various studies that actually substantiate my point: www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/gilmoreprisonslavery.html Furthermore, corporal discipline of any kind (which would include hitting someone with a stick, but not limited to that mode) is only abusive when done in a manner that violates reason and justice.

[@russellhoughton2132]

irkerux333 I appreciate you taking the time to respond, Mr Rodriguez. I've not read this particular article, tho I've very little doubt of it being similar to what I have read. I will read it, just in case. Still, I find your point invalid. Prisoners are not sold into prison, they are not owned, nor are children sold into prison, nor are prisoners offered wives and children to tempt them to stay in prison, nor do laws say that female prisoners do not ever have to be released from prison. Then there's the whole beating them to death thing. While I acknowledge some disturbing problems with how prisoners are treated, the differences between imprisonment and slavery as described in the Bible are vast and readily apparent.

[@grandmastershek]

irkerux333 Sorry, but the Bible condones hitting any slave only to the limit that they recover in 2 days. That could mean beating them unconscious, and based on what the Bible says that's fine. If you consider that a reasonable form of punishment for anyone, let alone children, you should be forbidden from ever having children or being in charge of others in general. Just another example of how the U.S. is not based in Judeo-Christian values: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (Amendment 8 of the U.S. Constitution)

[@debo98433]

Through anthropology, we know that polytheistic religions developed way before monotheistic ones, so for you to say that polytheistic religions came after monotheistic ones is completely and demonstrably false. Either you are unaware of this empirical, verified data, or you are ignoring it. If the latter be the case, then you are exhibiting willful ignorance in order to try to make your point seem logically consistent. After listening to these last three debates, up until this point, I think that you are just a dishonest person. I don't think you care one bit about truth. You just want to try to finagle your position to make it seem logical. But it's not, and you are failing at every attempt to do so. And when you say things, such as this, which are demonstrably false, then your credibility is ruined. There is no reason that anyone should take you seriously.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Great debate matt kicked his ass but one criticism. When he said religion doesn't cause harm. Well I disagree. If u have fir example a homosexual and a religious person who is against that. the mentality of "gay is wrong because the bible says so" will affect the ppls rights. Like he said beliefs affect us all and when u have these false ideas based on a book that will affect the mentality of the people in that society and thus affected by its laws therefore negatively impacting society. U can see whenever a society has religious influence it negatively impacts that society or it isnt agln influence at all. its the people regard pf religion that create progress and when religion specifically gets involved it creates atrocious behavior. the most religious societies (middle east) are the nost suppressed and the least are the least suppressed and most educated. Yes religion isnt an only cause but many of the laws and societal norms are based off of religious aspects like shariah law or suppressing women. Religion gets into politics and government and becomes dangerous becaue it is a psychological issue as well because beliefs affect us all and criticising beliefs is what prevents that from harning societies. Religion isnt immune to it. The societies that have deemed that are worse off. So hes partly wrong on that religion does caue harm

[@floridafishing123]

is this a discussion or a preaching? why is this guy Isreal keep quoting verses from the bible? it was really annoying.

[@jeepersca2157]

When christians implore that "god reveals himself," I cannot help but see god sheepishly raising his toga to show a little leg and giggling shyly.

[@Omerta_1964]

When something has not or cannot be proven "I don't know" is the only rightful answer. Not "I know! and the reason why is because some old contradicting ,error filled , man made book say's so! Only a fool uses the "Holy bible" as a source for absolute truth.