Glen Scrivener & Matt Dillahunty • Morality: Can atheism deliver a better world? 

that was a snoozer....matt seemed jet lagged and the other guy seemed like he had too pee really badly...literally nothing was accomplished--nothing

and you derailed the whole conversation with the hitler crap

Matt claims that the Soviet union wasn't secular humanism, but he is only focused on the aftermath. When if first started, it sold all the same humanist dreams to the people. That was the hole point of communism, to produce a social utopia. That was the point Peterson was trying to make when they debated.

Matt's argument that you can't have a Christian moral code unless everyone agrees to it is weak. Western Civilization is rooted in Christian philosophy and has been furtile ground for Atheism. So Matt's existence is anecdotal evidence against his position. You can ground your social morality in God and still have Atheists accept the benefits without appealing to divinity. To say you must have a secular or humanist morality to appease the Atheist is sort of special pleading for his point. This doesn't even take into account the effect that the idea that an invisible omnipotent intelligence watching over all might have a net utilitarian benefit.

@@franklindzioba13 We are all acting out Christian moral values, we are all inculturated in it in the West. All our movies have religious themes. It happens either consciously or unconsciously. Morality isn't suspended until we all agree, we act it out every day. Matt's arguments are super weak.

I'm not convinced a drunk man is likely to be happier than a sober man

Gregor Samsa And i’m not convinced a religious man is happier than an athiest, what’s ur point?

@@lifestough5558 Not sure what you're confused about. I think my comment is self explanatory

@@gregorsamsa1364 The point of the quote was to demonstrate that one's feelings have nothing to do with what is objectively true. People may very well find the idea of god satisfying and comforting but in no way does that demonstrate that a god exists.

@@chrismathis4162 I understand that. I was saying that I think it might be a flawed analogy. There are studies which suggest that, on average(at least in the US), a religious man is happier than an atheist(which likely has something to do with the fact that we have to deal with all the religious people surrounding us), but I would suspect that, on average, a sober man is actually happier than a drunk man

People would rather go into delusions than admit there is a possibility that they are wrong.

David H as atheists do when they watch a guy like WLC dismantle a well known argument that atheists view as being a knock down. Theists and atheists are by and large cut from the same cloth with the main difference being that atheists will show far less self awareness through criticising theists for that which they are blatantly guilty of themselves

@@patrickmcardle952 I have yet to see WLC dismantle anything, so I don't know what you are talking about. I also have seen a huge lack of self awareness in the Theist community.

@@davidh5020 Clearly you haven't seen much of his content where he dismantles popular slogans and atheistic lingo which make for good soundbites but which fall apart when subjected to scrutiny. Either that or you're the kind of person that would rather delude yourself than admit you're wrong or that WLC has ever produced a logically sound argument. This is exactly what I was talking about when I touched on atheists lack of self awareness

@@davidh5020 As I said earlier and repeat again, atheists and theists online in forums like this when engaging those they disagree with are cut from the same cloth

I can visualise one and meeeen😂😂😂😂

Which is why religious freedom is a good thing. And why the Christian right wingnuts need to be opposed at every point possible

I was even shocked once I began seeing the critical academia with the quran. It is a long way away from where we are with the bible

I agree with you about the format as long as each participant cannot talk longer than some time T, perhaps two minutes, at a time and interruptions are prohibited. In the discussion of Matt and Glen there were a few interruptions, but not many.

Well, apologist James Tour just crashed the entire bus of apologists with his recent insane “debate” with Prof. Dave of RU-vid - he literally screamed at Dave while acting like an unhinged maniac - he also misled his own students regarding the chemistry that they were supposed to be discussing.

You might like Alex Malpass. He had a funny discussion with a jerk, John Lee. JL was rude and Alex was patient and lead him towards finally seeing his faulty logic.

m riggs trying? To convince people of theism?

m riggs so u like the more gentle approach? Like the Socratic method? I totally can understand that, it takes all types to finally put the seed of doubt within. Some respond well with debates, some don’t. Have u ever checked out Anthony Magnabosco?

@@UnRe4lSkat3r Anthony is brilliant 🙂

@@UnRe4lSkat3r 😀💚🐕🎸🎵

@@UnRe4lSkat3r I just learned about SE literally like 2 weeks ago such an interesting way to look at things let people just talk themselves into realizing that they have no evidence to support their claims

Time stamp?

Such as? Most just cared only about their community/culture and no one beyond that.

@ This small community also lead to the West.....it's not so much the numbers, as it's about the road.

Christopher Hitchens had a great response to people who say “there was no good before Christ” when Jesus talks about the Good Samaritan he tells the story of a man who did good to a fellow human being but the Samaritan man can’t be a Christian because Jesus is telling a story of him and it predates Christianity. Glen’s argument is so fallacious because he starts with a conclusion and tries to work it backwards.

@@psychicandice what conclusion did he start with?

So, as an Agnostic, you don't know if God doesn't exist then?

@@danielsmithiv1279 Yeah. There’s no way to prove that anything doesn’t exist. For example, you can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist. It’s very possible there was a creator that created all of “this” and I’m open to proof of that. I’ve just not seen anything as of yet that proves it or that provides enough evidence to convince me of it. And if there was a creator, who or what was it? Was there one creator or multiple creators? There’s just not enough evidence to convince me of it.

Same. I always tell people I’m a much better person now that I’m not a Christian.

​@@danielsmithiv1279 Yep. Agnosticism is the position that one doesn't know whether or not a god exists. We don't know whether or not OP believes one exists, but I'm guessing they don't, so they'd be an agnostic atheist.

Im much happier as Christian and kinder as Christian

I swear, this man has been dealing with these people f twenty years. If Nirvana were to actually exist he would probably be closer to it than the Dalai Lama.

I think he brings the fire and brimstone kinda talk with the no no no cutting off during discussions only on the A.E show because that's like what people expect when watching it for better or worse. He still has those traits during debates and similar discussions but their far more reigned in and he becomes pretty chill for the most part.

Eric Goodman true lol

Or maybe when you know your stuff you don't need to resort to disrespect.

He’s pretty obnoxious on his show

@Gabe Norman Because literally ever single "point" he makes is like "Baby's First Theology." Every point he makes could be debunked with even 30 seconds of honest investigation.

He, just like all theist like to refer to a script. They may even say atheist use a script,but the difference is theist script is about 2500 years expired.

I agree, Glen seems like a wonderful human. I am suspicious he uses flawless logic, except with his faith.

J w I don’t think you even believe the nonsense you espouse. You seem like a Sunday school ditto head. Many atheists align with Matt because he uses logic, Occam’s razor, skepticism, and rational thoughts to express his refutation of theist claims which many atheists have also considered.

@J w People follow whomever they choose, and Matt put it pretty clearly when he said there are some jerk atheists out there and some atheists who have not used the best reasoning. You can't avoid that. Glen was pretty irrational in his explanations. Matt was not. I think Matt was far too kind in this debate. When Glen brought up the trinity (God is the son. The Son is God. One is inside the other), he should have pounced on the illogical way that was presented, as well as the fact that the trinity is not in the bible. It was added scores of years later. Also, Glen went off on his "moral explanation" of God by saying "God is love". No, sorry. That's not how it works. You have a publication called the bible, and in it we don't read that LOVE created a universe or talked to people or wrestled with them. It wasn't LOVE that formed the basis for the Inquisition, Crusades, and witch burning. I was astounded that none of that came up. I was NOT surprised at how often Glen avoided answering direct questions.

Ever heard of the 10 commandments

@@petepayette6690 You mean the one Arthur not cooking a baby goat in its mother's milk, or the past where the Christian God went into great detail on how to buy and sell people, including how to extort a Jewish temporary slave into becoming a shave for life by holding their slave wife and children hostage? What period do you have that this story is even true, much less moral, and even more much less objective?

God drown the entire Egyptian army in the red sea. Moral of these accounts: God will destroy his enemies...

Suppose a god exists and presents a moral code. Also, suppose a panel of nine human moral experts presents a moral code. The codes are in writing and they are identical. Which code is objective? And why do you think so?

@@whittfamily1 can you please reiterate this reply? I don't really understand it.

Excellent quote.

@@danielsmithiv1279 Thank you, Daniel. "I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is." -Albert Camus All the best!✨

Exactly ;O)

To give a very brief rebuttal - stealing another person (or knowingly buying that stolen person) is grounds for the death penalty in the Bible. Slavery in the Bible was reserved for prisoner's of war (sure beats being put to death) or as a form of endentured servitude for being in debt. If you beat your slave they are released for chipping a tooth or loosing an eye. And they are automatically released after every seven years. Biblical slavery had ZERO to do with race. That's a fact. But again, if you are an atheist then you have no ground to ever say something is truly morally right or wrong. That is simply your opinion. You can disagree with Hitler (as I'm sure you do), but he was just bucking the herd mentality. If all we are is the evolution of single celled organisms then what a person chooses to do is no more "immoral" than when a lion kills a zebra.

@@OkieAllDay Levitical Law only applied to fellow Hebrews. That's why Leviticus25:44-46 stated to buy your slaves from the nations around you, you can own them as property for life and bequeath them to your children as inheritance. The foreigners were bought and sold as slaves. I doubt God would have inspired the author of Leviticus to write this if he didn't want Hebrews to have foreign bought slaves. Leviticus 25:39 states Hebrew servants were not to be treated as slaves but as hired workers. They were released after 6 years. Big difference in the way foreign bought slaves and Hebrew servants were treated. Apologists BS and insinuate all biblical slavery consists of the treatment that only applied to Hebrew servants whenever tap dancing about biblical slavery.

@@OkieAllDay I can say something is right or wrong just as well as you can. Its humorous when Christians spout morality especially when their foundation is their ultimate book of morality that endorses slavery and where their God commanded a number of atrocities such as the slaughter of the Midianite women and children as well as the Amalekite infants.

@@OkieAllDay By the way, guess what God's kill count by his command was in the bible? Over 2,017,000 not including 65 cities where the total slain wasn't given. Guess what Satan's kill count was? 10 of Job's children which were killed only after Gods permission so I guess you'd add that to God's total.

I was thinking that exact thing!!!

I'm guessing they came from good church abiding researchers, anything that could be replicated by peers would be an interesting idea and would likely be used to push religion.

Glen kept mentioning these studies as "univariate" as if that's a commendable quality in the studies. It actually means that religiousity (however defined) is correlated with x in one study and y in another and z in yet another. As we should all know by now, correlation is not causation and, equally important, a "univariate" study fails to control for other possible explanations of the relationship. That the consumption of ice cream is correlated with crime doesn't mean that eating ice cream causes people to commit crime. Instead, ice cream consumption and crime tend to vary with how hot it is outside, but a "univariate" study of ice cream and crime would discover a spurious or false correlation. On another level, the Quran champions the weak, the poor, the orphaned just as much as Christianity if not more so. Why privilege Christianity as the source for caring for the downtrodden. And oh yeh, there was that guy Gandhi. I don't believe he was a Christian.

"Literally thousands of studies!" Which I can't find.

Aswell as Dillahunty's scientific studies

They’re eye witness testimonies 😢

Like he said, Google is a great tool to start.

Nonsense. No basis of morality in his worldview, we are molecules in motion making it up as we go along. If a government passes a law, using logic and reason to state paedophilic behaviour is now legal, on what basis could you reasonably object??

As I heard Glen explain blood magic is not blood magic, I had the same thought. This guy knows what he believes is a lode of crap. Look at him squirm trying to explain BS.

​@@pabrinyThey couldn't reconcile the sunk cost that they feel digging themselves in so they couldn't bring themselves to being sincere and truthful

Actually, Matt was preaching atheism the whole way through - beliefs that he can't prove. Me thinks the boot was actually on the other foot to what you suggest.

@@scubaguy1989 "me thinks" you took the boot off and did the ol switcheroo seems you didnt hear anything in the video because athiesm isnt a belief system , its im not convinced. which is the default position.

@@scubaguy1989 another Christian asking atheists to prove that there's no god,lmao people like you are so indoctrinated to the point where you don't even have any common sense at all

@@scubaguy1989 Matt is pushing critical thought, he isn't preaching Atheism. If you want to understand the difference then just pretend that Matt is debating a Muslim believer or a Hindu believer. You will then see how much sense Matt makes and how the Muslim/Hindu point of view isn't something coming from good reasoning.

He was also constantly presenting christianity in this utopian view, "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak", and accuses other religions and atheism of not including everyone, creating this "circle". He makes it seem like that is the foundation of christianity. But we have seen throughout history that that is not the case, plenty of christians did not stand up for the weak, and definitely didn't always accept people with different viewpoints. For an example of the first, christians not standing up for the weak, well that is the reason why the protestant split happened, because the church was abusing its power, exactly the opposite of what Glen claims is the foundation of christianity. For the second point, he himself says "we're having a symposium when we should be fighting a war". This is the troubling viewpoint that we should fight people with opposing viewpoints, instead of trying to reason with them. He turns it around by bringing up Hitler, but clearly knows that he screwed up. While God extends his love to everyone, it's clear that he loves some more than others.

You fail to see that Judaism is fOreShadOwiNg for Christianity!

@@johanneskramer9490 Unless you're Jewish...

It is an even more appalling statement when you consider the fact that Zoroastrianism did come up with those ideas even before Judaisme

Contradictions and double standards are the cornerstones upon which every insecure foundation rests.

@@johanneskramer9490 Cant a muslim say that the bible is the foreshadowing of the Quran ?

you know as a studier of history i found it that it was always the people called crazy who always ended up being the right ones.

​@@fcchannel6162Of course. You will always have a convenient scapegoat from someone who's no longer useful to your cult so might as well take advantage of it. Fake Christians, anti-christ all sorts of labels

BINGO!!!!!!

@Melinda D What about all of the atheists that were once well payed preachers? What about Antony Flew? What about Matt himself? Matt was going to be a preacher. He had a lot of support behind him. He very well could have made money being such. You know quotes aren't full-proof right? Also, he was a well-payed writer for newspapers and author. He became wealthy from his views on socialism. He wrote many books about his views and all sold well. He could very well be an example of his own quote according to himself.

You don't think Matt is getting paid for proselytizing atheism? Wow...

Likewise, anyone who can say that he respects Jordan Peterson is barking up the wrong tree. I agree with you completely about Scrivener realizing he could make a living by being deceptive or dishonest..... That's why I was so annoyed with his opening talking points also including Peterson, a man I regard as a con-artist in love with crafting verbal roller coasters.

@@WhatsTheTakeaway He's not "PROSELYTIZING" anything. He's an intelligent debater and he got famous on youtube..... *FOR BEING ANGRY AND HONEST* like many other atheists are!!! Certainly, he's annoyed with the cynical dishonesty of the religious, and that's plain to see.... But he doesn't really do the "Beg For Money to Replace the Church Organ" schtick. He doesn't say, "Send me money and the Flying Spaghetti Monster" will cure your cancer. He never says "Atheism is the cure for all your problems." He's not demanding money for atheist missionary work to Africa to convert the heathens... Using a term like "PROSELYTIZING" carries connotations that Matt Dillahunty doesn't use. Figure out a better word.

At that point You don't need refutation, You need help lol

@@joanissac9966 That was the point, though. Glen was playing the tired "objective morality" card, claiming that the only grounding for morality is the Christian god and that somehow this is the default position -- that Matt must prove it is *not* the case. Matt was demonstrating that the fundamental grounding for morality is something that we choose for ourselves, and we typically choose human well-being as our grounding because we are primates who evolved to value human well-being. "No God required," as @BionicDance would say.

@@davidstorrs 1) He must be arguing for God's existence because of the existence of objective moral duties as we observe, not the Christian God per se 2)When take this view to its logical conclusion, doesn't that make morality subjective and arbitrary? But We do see that morality is objective and not subjective 🧐 Also, this view doesn't explain why should we be obliged to follow them? These are the ramifications of a non teleological perspective on this subject

@@joanissac9966 What evidence has convinced you that morality is objective? I have seen none and I'd be interested to hear yours.

David K. Storrs Matt has talked about objective morality many times on Axp. He also has video about it on his channel

I know atheists do hate the (1:19:38 why Nazis are wrong) point which shows his bias but that's exactly why he's a great moderator and example of how we should administer dialogues in the fields and points of view we diametrically oppose. He's not the idc type of guy who identifies as a Christian and takes the conversation wherever it leads, but you can see him clearly (obviously because he's Christian) siding with Glen. He's verbally on the side of the theist, emotionally invested in the conversation, yet he can at the same time take himself from the situation, dissociate from the conversation, battle his temptations (sounds Christian ik) not to give one side more weight, at least as a moderator, than the other. Truly as lesson for all of us

@@reda29100 Yeah, the Nazi discussion really went off the rails though. The apologist does not seem to know much about that historical period either. The "Judeop-Christian" moral sensibility of the "west" had nothing to do with WW2.

He's generally very good and professional. I'm not aware of any equivalent Christian presenters here in the USA. I wish there were more Christian shows like this. He genuinely seems to enjoy the conversations too which helps a lot because he doesn't come off closed minded.

"Burn? Such a limited imagination." - Pinhead

@Truth Matters What's around us is a natural universe and we're a natural result of it, shown by the fact that we're made of exactly the same stuff. It is not evidence of a creator. Did you parents create you? Or were you born, naturally, after growing in your mom's belly, naturally, after she was impregnated, by your brother most likely. If truth really matters to you, at least learn to think critically and study up on logical fallacies and syllogism.

@@stylis666 I keep things simple.

@Truth Matters Atheist propaganda? That's rich.

@Truth Matters HAHAHAH atheist propaganda? that's the most irony shit I've ever heard coming from a christian

Ya Matt caught that one

Well why shouldn't it be?

@@davidnoel8458 yes, obviously, but there's still a different world which results from it. Don't act like it's "just a belief" with no implications.

@@davidnoel8458 Being Atheist is not a simple concept, if it is impossible to define what you reject. You can indeed reject a conscious being, a creator. etc, but you can't also say that human life has intrinsic value and morality has value because it feels good. Not even an evolutionary argument is sufficient to validate such claim. It is like claiming that breathing is the right thing to do, because it increases your survival chances and I can share that opinion with all of mankind. However intellectually, you cannot claim that being alive is better than being dead, so the argument falls. Being Atheist is cherry picking meaning, just like religion is. There is only Nihilism, but being alive is a contradiction even in that case.

@@ocrancienthistory3326 It's not even a belief, and most importantly, it is not a worldview, why do theists have such a hard time understanding this. Atheism is the lack of a belief. You can get atheists who believe in helping others (altruism) as well as atheists who believe in helping themselves (egoism). Atheism is just a position about a single topic, the rejection of the claim that there is a god. It's as silly of a question as "Will having a mustache make men better people?", and then pointing out all the people who have mustaches who did good or bad things and linking their actions to having a mustache. It is not atheism in itself that will make a better or worse community, just as it is not the mustache, it is the beliefs that extend beyond these things.

One side was having a conversation and listening, the other was dodging and making assertions left and right.

@@strataverse you're not denying he was listening I noticed, which is the civil part of any conversation

setboy1 this is so true and sadly most often the case in these kinds of debates

Interesting that you would use an unsubstantiated character attack instead of a real comment

JxJxJxJx define real comment?

@@MrTHEtesters Not containing fallacious ad hominems

JxJxJxJx what makes it unsubstantiated, did you not watch the debate😂

Also the fact that the Nazi party was allied with Christianity, required Christianity in order to be a member and to hold any office, and sent atheists and non-Christians to the concentration camps as "asocial." The motto of the Nazi party was "Gott Mit Uns," "God is With Us."

There's a number of times I was surprised to see Glen say crap that Matt just let him get away with, w/out really addressing. Stuff Glen says, that I know Matt is aware of & knows how to effectively deal with! I don't know if Matt was just trying to be extra gentle, & extra polite ...because he's a guest in a foreign country or something like that But it is frustrating to see Matt let such foolish preaching, slide into what is supposed to be a good conversation

Eric Boczar I thought the same the first time I listened ed to this debate. Then I went and listened to what Matt’s responses where and it seemed that he was trying to not go down those rabbit holes and steer the conversation back towards the greater topic of secular morality.

@@puggydad it would point that way.

The USA became involved with the war against Nazi Germany 4 days after Pearl Harbour when Hitler declared war on the USA .

Par for the course I'd say. It seems all these apologists hitch there belief on god being their moral absolute and whem theu can't even show it exists it falls aparts

Most people that Matt has had debates are dishonestly not debating about the reasons why we believe a god. The majority of them will end up proselytizing than discussing the logic and rationality of god’s existence. The man knows the right intentions when asking precise questions.

@@asian432: I've now seen 4 debates where Dillahunty has had his ass handed to him on a plate. Michael Jones (twice), Dr Braxton Hunter & Glen Scrivener. Interestly, these guys are a lot younger than MD, so if Dillahunty is the cream of the atheist debaters, it's little wonder atheism is shrinking. Pew Research Centre data.

@@gavinhurlimann2910 if you're a Christian, of course you will lean in to your org. If Matt lost his debates, He would have been back as a Christian by now. Most of his debates against apologists, they never give good answers. They haven't convinced the man. Either his opponents are bad debaters or good liars. BTW - what's the purpose of inserting pew research center data? Does it mean something?

@@asian432: MD has lost 4 of his last debates, Michael Jones (twice), Dr Braxton Hunter & now Glen Scrivener. Interestly, these guys are a lot younger than Dillahunty. The reference to the Pew Research Centre data shows atheism decreasing to 13% of the global population over the coming decades.

It's not a criticism of the thing, but rather of the idea that it's free of religiosity because it's secular. The secular argument has long been "less religion is better than more, therefore let's make things secular". The criticism that the religious apologists are making is that an increase in secularism does not equate to a decrease in religiosity. In fact, what it tends to do is create spontaneous, spurious, ill-thought out religions, such as intersectional feminism, veganism, environmentalism, and cyclists. If you instead advocate for a traditional religion in your society then you'll at least have a rational lasso to throw on the human instinct towards religiosity as well as a foundation for morality and a way of giving people meaning and purpose in life.

​@@nono7105 yes yes, I get that point as well -- whether or not it's what is intended by individual apologists for religion. And I'm not one to assume Every thing associated with a religion must be bad for members or outsiders. There can be many benign or healthy rituals and bonding traditions, and some more than others get to enjoy a supportive community, all organized around their temple or faith, or funded by it. I just can't think of any beneficial element for structuring community or enriching one's human "spirit" which couldn't be achieved at Least as well without the other aspects of religion. i.e. Superstitious beliefs, and dogma. Pointing a finger at secular things, like a government or social justice movement, or people for the ethical treatment of animals... or cyclists, and exposing ways they are different and similar to religiosity can be productive. Whether those similarities are beneficial or toxic is just the next step in a diagnoses. I haven't heard much about dogmatic evangelical cyclists wielding their influence in government to restrict the rights of others much at all, though I may be out of the loop on that religious sport. (or is it a lifestyle)

@@anthonypc1 It's a virus.

@@nono7105 in the way that all commutable ideas are. the balance of harmful risks vs benefits of any viral ideas (or belief systems like faith-based dogma or scientific skepticism) is for us to judge.

@@anthonypc1 I found your response balance and truthful.

I agree, though he does tend to take up the apologist perspective and pursue it more often and with considerably more vigor than he does the opposition. He is a Christian so I understand this tendency to do so but, the result is the non-apologist ends up facing two opponents rather than one…

@@rowdy3837 Weakly I think, it's as neutral as you can as an apologist and a moderator. He is a Christian but he sure likes Bart Ehrman, if he is not careful he could move over to the dark side!

No, less theists please.

@@joerdim They are not all bad.

@@pinball1970 I mean that theism needs to be abolished which would result in lesser (or no) theists in the world. The less people who believe in nonsense the better. So less theists please.

Yep!🤘

He was gonna become a pastor and read multiple versions of the bible multiple times and knows it better than approximately 100% of the people that he debates with (atleast 100% of the debates i heard).

@Jarvis Gandy In English alone, dozens of different versions. And yes, I would consider different translations to be different versions. Because they generally are quite different overall.

@Jarvis Gandy He doesn't know & he wasn't suggesting that;-)

@Brother Sanguinary Matt definitely does not understand the Bible at all. I'm not sure who told you that, but if you did read it and try to understand it, you would catch MANY mistakes and misinterpretations Matt presents.

It's been well over 2 years by now. Looks like they learned from their mistake of having his sharp mind that close to their narrative...

@@noneofyourbusiness7055 🤣👍

Nice ad hominem fallacy. Goes well with the false equivalence fallacy. The tu quoque fallacy on top of that seems a bit much though, any kind of point that's not invalid crying about social norms might've been nice...

Magic, like a god speaking things into being? Magic, like a talking snake? Magic, like magically enchanted fruit granting knowledge of good & evil? Magic, like cursing all snakes and humans forever? And that's just chapter *1* of the dogma you believe, before the magic of miraculous healing, food multiplication, water walking, combustion and resurrection spells, and much more. A mind projection fallacy, then.

While I understand your point, atheism does rule out the possibility of a moral system based on divine authority and most theists claim such a system of morality. I assume the title was selected as much for keyword purposes as accuracy.

@@woolvey Atheism has nothing to do with morality.

@@shawncudjoe21 I didn't say it did! I said atheism rules out the possibility of morality based on god. You can't simultaneously believe in morality derived from god and not believe in god.

@@woolvey No it does not. Even if there were a god or gods, morality would be a seperate issue.

@@woolvey "atheism does rule out the possibility of a moral system based on divine authority " Atheism has nothing to do with morality in the same way that chemistry and astronomy have nothing to do with morality. "most theists claim such a system of morality" They can claim whatever they want, but there is no reason to believe that claim.

But the stakes to your credit

@@jsob_fl1171 how can we read what we don't have ? Seriously we don't have an original

@@jsob_fl1171 The oldest extant copy of a complete Bible is an early 4th-century parchment book preserved in the Vatican Library, and it is known as the Codex Vaticanus. The oldest copy of the Tanakh in Hebrew and Aramaic dates from the 10th century CE. Still not the original we have no original

@@jsob_fl1171 I see non of them as trustworthy and did you not see my link? Basically all bible say the same thing about witches

@@jsob_fl1171 meh it's ok dude you came in with every intention to have an honest discussion and I don't see that often so I appreciate it

Ok so your two points I agree with. The guy was bullshitting about evolution, what evolution says is that there's traits that are desirable that are passed down and nature selects naturally what traits are advantageous. And there's actually studies that say that traits like being caring and helpfulness actually lead to better outcomes and evolution favors these traits over others. The point that all these religious people bring up is divorce, and how evil it is. And my question is always the same what's wrong with divorce. Seriously, what is wrong with it.

@@neilsworldwide Well, if you're in an abusive, unhappy relationship, probably not a lot.

But, but, 1000s of studies!!

@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd He's Australian, not English. And I've encountered that tone of voice from Australians who almost always think too highly of themselves. I lived in Australia 30 years and visit the UK often. I don't hear this time of voice from anyone but snobs.

@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd All g brah

@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd they are all anglos. the anglos of canada, usa and australia are anglos at the end of the day.

The arrogance of ignorance. Faith pretending to know what is unknowable ad being smug about it.

TheBuilder and by that standard so is Buddhism friend. You’re going to have to do better.

@TheBuilder "Isn't"

@J w Except that's not what he said. No strawman. My assessment is what he argued.

The crucifixion of Jesus is actually another piece of evidence pointing to the fact that God does not exist!

@@whittfamily1 Explain

@@charliebravonova5075 Yes, I will try to explain. If you don't understand or don't agree, please let me know. 1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present but usually invisible, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. 2. If God did exist, he would not have arranged the crucifixion of Jesus, but would have prevented it, and it would have never occurred. 3. But the crucifixion of Jesus did occur. 4. Therefore, God does not exist.

@@whittfamily1 So God does not exist because of Jesus Christ? Is that your evidence?

@@danielsmithiv1279 No, of course not! I believe that Jesus was a real man -- a traveling minister of the first century who probably was crucified. There are many correct arguments that God does not exist which have nothing to do with Jesus.

Over 55,000 artifacts and documents says so and provide a reasonable explanation not to mention the eye witness accounts

It seems that atheist would better appreciate that "nothing" created "something", yet they will carry out a poetic explanation of how "the issue is more complex". Give me a break.

@@The02wooley There are claims of eye-witnesses but no one to talk to now. I dont know about the artifacts thing but there could be a million and that wouldnt prove a god. Documents saying something is not evidence that what they say is true. Got anything concrete?

@@iamreflective9624 I'm not sure what you are getting at. "Would better appreciate" ? What does that mean? And if asked about how/why there is something rather than nothing, I'd say I dont know. That's me being poetic? As far as something coming from nothing, excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't your god fall into that category?

@@russellh9894 here’s another prime example of Christians ignoring concrete objections to their faith

Though the same, always cracks me up 😂

Time stamp?

Tyr Of The Great Old Ones 50:00

I think Matt should've torture him a bit with that!

It was around this time when i lost hope in Glenn being an honest debate opponent. The first 30ish minutes he was ok but when he really wasn't able to defend himself he let his true character show.

Meson atheism is just lack of belief in a god. Whether or not someone is positive is up to them. There is no agenda or worldview attached. There are positive and negative atheists, as there are are in religion also.

Meson scientific method is not a worldview...it’s a method...literally in the name. And idc about atheists that make those claims, cause they are wrong. Just cause I’m an atheist doesn’t mean I agree with what all atheists say. I only hold the scientific method in such high regards, because it has provided the most advancement in understanding our universe and providing aspects to further improve on our existence. Without the scientific method, the human lifespan would be a lot shorter.

@@Meson10 science doesnt dismiss anecdotal evidence, it just doesnt hold it to a very high regard. If we relied so highly on eyewitness testimony then many innocent people would be convicted of crimes they havent actually commited. Science enhances our senses beyond those that we have by way of microscopes, telescopes, energy wave receptors, etc. Only relying on our human senses can only get us so far. I dont trust alot of things most people say, particularly my own government, because i am extremely skeptical all around and only come to my conclusions after extensive research. I would hope you apply the same amount of skepticism as most should.

@@Meson10 that is not being skeptical. You should not believe anything until evidence proves it. Seeing a supposed "possessed" person, your baseline should not be to believe it, but rather not believe it until proven. I'm deeply appalled by this example. Are you not aware cases like supposed "possession" has happened to people before that have had mental illnesses and their family refused medical treatment because of the belief they were possessed and that person ended up DYING for not getting proper medical care. This is simply a gross mindset you have and I deeply hope you do not look after any mentally ill people.

@@Meson10 you have to prove the supernatural exists to use it as evidence. I dont only use the scientific method. I use anecdotal too, just not to a high standard as i already stated. If a detective convicts without sufficient evidence, then sounds like ur detective in this scenario is sht and needs to be fired. In what way is the scientific method flawed? You do know the scientific method does not claim absolutes, only the best possible explanation and if there is a better one, the theory can be shot down or improved on. We dont only have 5 senses btw, we have more subtle ones like the sense of space and balance. I've already told you science helps to enhance our senses, so we dont only rely on those senses. There is a difference between someone witnessing something through their eyes and someone witnessing something through a video camera. A video camera can record and keep log of data for everyone to see, you eyes record and keep data for only you to see.

It is easier to appear stronger when you are defending nothing. I think Glen won this one. Although I also think that this may have been Matt's first defeat (with the exception being his conversation with Jordan Peterson which was a draw.)

@@orthodox9191 in what respect do you think Matt lost??

@@gabrielmartinez717 Glen provided evidence that religion has a net benefit to society while Matt admitted that we must wait and see what secularism will produce. Also, every time Glen tried to show that secularism has failed in the past, Matt's response was to say that that was just religion masking as secularism. I think Matt's problem is that he cannot accept that any attempt at secularism will always morph into some kind of a religion. Atheism is just a flawed way of thinking. Quite frankly, I would call atheism a mental disorder.

@@orthodox9191 Jesus lol what an "un-christian" way to end that. Hope everything is okay. Like Matt had pointed out, Atheism is just the state of not being convinced a God exists. Similar to Santa, there is no evidence. So to continue to believe would be, by definition, delusional. Also there's never been a secular humanist society so there's nothing to compare. Well what if everyone believed in Santa and that made the world a better place? It honestly might lol but that wouldn't make it true.

@@orthodox9191 Won?? Arguing that "atheism will bring down the Down population" when the deselection is happening in a world where most people claim to believe is ... unqualified. Trouble with religious types is that they define anyone on their side stepping out of line as a consequence of non-religious types doing stuff. It is a genius con: "Humans are frail so we can't allow dissent. You all have to behave as we would like you to for the greater good. The reward will be HUGE - and no one have ever complained. Questioning this is dissent and therefore harmful."

Especially given that Chrisitanity incorporated so many pagan elements into itself...

There book is based on what they knew at that time, some 2000 years ago. But than again they knew less than 5% off the world and its population.

like what?

Go listen to Tom Holland.

@@MrSiloterio 41:12 has a good example, where "its found in judaism but its a uniquely Christian idea."

@Paul Morgan it was very obvious in the way he kept phrasing his questions, rewording Matt to straw-man his position.

@Paul Morgan Well Matt's show is usually 2 people against 1 caller so I don't think he can complain.

@Paul Morgan : So god selfdefeated himself in ww2, because most of the germans and italians were christians and also those on the allied side, or am i misunderstanding the religiosity in ww2?

@@flipgsp AXP is not a formal structured debate like this supposedly was. But that's alright, Matt is also an expert at handling stacked decks.

@@Sydney_With_A_Why "Matt is also an expert at handling stacked decks." He IS an amateur stage magician...

same

He seems to be smart but I think he gave up his intelligence for a believe system. We do not know why, but I think he´s very delusional about Christianity.

theres never a difference. the smartest, most well versed professor of theology will use the same arguments that a regular joe theist uses...

@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl You can really see it when Matt starts to ask the hard questions, and Glen tries to answer with pretty, but meaningless platitudes.

Regardless of your degree or title, bad arguments are still, at the end of the day, bad arguments. That’s not to say the argument for a God isn’t out there somewhere but when William Lane Craig is the epitome of Christian apologists and one people like to cite as the absolute authority on everything then it’s just bad arguments from these well known apologists.

It was christian anti-semitism that gave us the holocaust, and you're totally right that the church was on the side of the fascists. Who beat the fascists and sacrificed the strong for the weak? Atheist USSR

Also, Nazi soldier had "Gott mit uns" written on their belt buckles. Many, Nazi's saw themselves as Christians, seems God was playing both sides in this conflict.

​@@patientfirbolg3299Nazi's god wasn't exactly the classical view of God

​@@zorrobatman1 The views of many Christians in Nazi Germany wouldn't be too dissimilar from modern interpretations. Having many of the major theological beliefs many Christians have today. Hitler, on the other hand, did seem to loath Christianity (though he would pretend to be a Christian for politics). However, it was pretty easy for him to take the antisemitism fostered by Christian leaders over the past centuries and turn it into something even darker.

Also Hitlers first ever treaty as the official head of the Nazi party was with the Catholic party of Germany, to dissolve the party and effectively made Nazis the only party in Germany unopposed. And Hitlers birthdays were celebrated from the pulpits of Catholic Churches across Germany, never forget that!!!!

How did he do that then?

@@ocrancienthistory3326 For example at 39:51 lies stating that survival of the fittest is the strong sacrificing the weak. This is a complete twisting of what that term means. Survival of the fittest simply put means survival of those who reproduce. It is not until reproduction occurs that "fitness" can be assigned.

Wow, Matt fan boys are specially butt hurt by this one.

@hatter00 YOU SAID: Martyn Jones 4 days ago Way to go, Glen! Thanks for making your position sound even more ridiculous!! MY REPLY: Matt said we need to sit down with Hitler to fix his morals...... What can beat that stupidity. LOLS! Matt said in his opening statement that factions, misunderstanding and divisions in the atheist community means they are true. Then later..... Turns to religion and say if God were true there should not be many religions. LOLS!...... Were you asleep in this one? Hahaha!

@@martinspear8928 Yes, many Christians have this ‘Nazis triumphant over the disabled’ mentality when it comes to their understanding of human evolution.

@Déjà Siku You miss the point. Don't suck off jesus and you don't get into heaven. There isn't anyone innocent, and no one has a choice about being a sinner or not due to the claims of the book. So it's jesus's decree that everyone is a sinner that causes us to go to hell, not the pure claim that we are sinners.

@Déjà Siku "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6

1:11:00 "the good life is the sacrifice of the strong for protection of the weak" excuse me but isn't it the deeply religious concervertive tea party that argues the strongest against healtcare for the poor, not caring about the deaths that causes.

Psalm 34:8 Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.

@@loveandfaithfulness4479 you know people like you should try to actually make a well thought out point , that addresses the original authors point , than endlessly quoting scripture as if an unbeliever will suddenly go, oh, right I'm convinced , alleluia

Um, no, he isn't. Christianity includes Judaism. They are not entirely separate religions. They have the exact same God, who is the source of all morality.

@@nono7105 So does Islam. Dou you believe that Mohammed flew around on the back of a winged horse with the head of a woman too? If not why not? Jews do not agree that your Christ is their Messiah.

@@corydorastube Obviously I do not. I do not believe that the God of Islam is the same as the God of the Christians and the Jews. That is not the point though. If a Muslim were to believe it so and he made a claim about some aspect of Islam that could actually be traced back to Christianity it's not some "gotcha" moment. Because he believes that Islam is the inheritor of Christianity. You or I or any others might disagree with him on that point, but it is irrelevant to his position. He is being internally consistent. So in this case Glen is _not_ debunking himself. The Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. The first five books of the Christian Bible are the Torah. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that the Christians believe the prophecy of the promised Messiah has been fulfilled, Jews do not. If you wish to critique Glen for failing to say "Judeo-Christian" instead of just Christian, then fine, you can say he wasn't precise in his terminology. But he didn't debunk himself.

@@nono7105 Then you are uneducated. Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Judaism, Islam and Christianity share the same God. So do the Druze, the Bahá'í and the Rastafari. Why are you lot always so ignorant on the theology of the religion you profess to follow?

@@corydorastube The theology is not the same. For example, Muslims believe Jesus is the messiah, but do not think he was crucified, or that he is the Son of God, which is central to Christian theology. Judaism and Christianity have more in common with their theologies than that of Islam in that Christians can take insight from the old testament. Islam does not and in fact deviates from it; Ishmael is considered the chosen one rather than Isaac. Jesus at the end of the day believed he was fulfilling the Jewish religion, he was actually a practicing Jew. So, no, you are factually mistaken on several points.

ron clark From within your worldview, what makes slavery objectively wrong, and what makes humans rights good. From within your worldview how do you account for logic and the uniformity of nature to be able to do science.

@@breambo3835 He's claiming Christianity is credited with those things. Yet, Christianity was stagnant on those issues for 1400 years. If your objective morality comes from a deity then that would not be the case.

ron clark How do you define good and bad from within your worldview?

@@breambo3835 The point. Your head.

ron clark So if it's just your opinion, then what reasons do you or anyone else have to believe you.

Déjà Siku no, like citing sources: a title, a year of publishing, and an author, for instance, are important pieces of information to share if you want to allow others to double check the data.

Its rare for an area of research to have that many accredited studies too.

​@Déjà Siku Matt literally cites the date (roughly) and the author lmao

@Déjà Siku 1. Matt did not make the point, thus he may have not been prepared with sources. But he does point you to a specific study. You really did not hear that? You might have a thick bias if you missed that, don't you think?

Also, the "scientific value or validity of religion" is not a topic that most scientists would consider a sensical topic, let alone a worthwhile area of study. After 100,000+ years of humanity, no one has managed to demonstrate any evidence for the existence of a god... let alone a particular god or religious philosophy... as everyone knows, otherwise there would be no atheists and only one religion. So if I'm a scientist, why would I spend my research grant money, my time, and my energy on this subject unless I have a pre-determined agenda from the source of the grant money or my own preconceptions? What good would come from it? Even if I was able to conclusively demonstrate that religion is toxic to society or that religion is beneficial to society, what have I accomplished beyond a talking point for people to argue about? That's not why people join religions and it's not why they leave. So, even though he provided no evidence for his "thousands of studies", it would be nonsensical for there to be that many studies by that many actual scientists on a topic that does nothing, solves no problems, creates no value for a company, informs no new areas of research... just nothing. UNLESS... there just happened to be TONS of money laying around in the pockets of organizations with no need for any ACTUAL scientific research that might yield useful results... and a vested interest in seeing an otherwise useless set of data. Can anyone think of any institutions that might describe? So first of all, no there are NOT thousands of actual scientific studies on the benefits or otherwise of religion on societies, which is why he couldn't name any. There are less than a handful. The only such peer-reviewed published studies that were not directly sponsored by a religious organization with a vested interest in the outcome have all concluded that in MANY ways, but not all ways, that secular societies have a generally higher standard of living. Second of all, even that doesn't actually matter, because the entire concept of these studies is very unscientific. Large human societies are way too complex to boil down to one sociological aspect, so all such studies must, by their nature, choose what aspects of societal data they will include, and choose whether to eliminate or include subjective self-reported opinions as part of that data, and they must choose a definition of human and societal well-being from their subjective perspective. And the people doing those studies must make those choices. And those people are capable of being biased, either intentionally or unconsciously. And thus, anybody who doesn't like their conclusions could immediately dismiss the study, and will, as you witnessed from both sides. So for a supposedly logical person to stand on that as evidence of Christianity supplying a superior moral construct for society whilst ignoring what all of the Christian texts literally say is absurd. Christianity (historically, literally, and currently around the globe) condones genocide, torture, rape, homicide, slavery, abuse, misogyny, genital mutilation, racism, and human sacrifice, among others. None of these things were problems in the Christian mindset until a secular renaissance fueled by the likes of Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, and many more led to the establishment of western NON-CHRISTIAN governments, like the United States. What Scrivener has done is tell the story of Hansel and Gretel without the child neglect, cannibalism, and murder where the kids go for a walk with their loving parents and meet a nice old lady and have a nice afternoon tea with her before going home to pet their dog... and claim that is what the Grimm Brothers meant to write, because he wishes that's what they wrote... and therefore it is a superior source of morality than Matt who just inherently told his kids to be nice to people, including the old ones, for no other reason than that the person is human, and the kids are human, and someday the kids will be old, and they'll want kids to be nice to them when they're old... whilst sneering at that line of reasoning saying it could lead to cannibalism or child neglect or murder... all of which was the ACTUAL starting point of his conversation that he just tried to excuse and ignore... and unfortunately Matt let him get away with it.

He doesn’t represent atheism, he represents fundamentalist anti-theism.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 lol that... Would be a form of atheism... You aren't the strongest thinker are ya 🤣

​@@pleaseenteraname1103 Someone wasn't being an impartial observer whilst watching this, were they? 🤦 What part of "I'm not saying I believe that god doesn't exist, I'm saying I reject the theist claim that God does exist, because there isn't enough evidence to back up that claim" would be fundamentalist anti-theism in your view?

@@craighambling OK I was mostly being snarky and that was a typo” it was supposed to say I’m not saying I believe that God exists, i’m just saying I reject the atheists claim that God does not exist” it was a response to how do atheists define atheism as merely the lack of belief in a god or gods rather than the rejection. No I’m not talking about all atheists.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Thank you for your clarifying reply! However, you weren't actually addressing atheists, you were specifically addressing someone else's assessment of Matt's position. You were addressing Matt's position *specifically,* not the various atheist nuances. That's disingenuous, my friend. You said that Matt doesn't represent Atheism, he represents fundamentalist anti-theism. That's not your position on atheists. That's your (incorrect) position on Matt's position. Which is why I said you weren't watching this as an unbiased observer.

He actually admitted that he probably would have been a nazi? And atheism is essentially relativistic morality at the whims of the PEOPLE in control Or am I misinterpreting this comment

@@jojohnviz12 misinterpreting

jojohnviz12 Well, according to the census directly before the war about 95% of the people in Nazi Germany were Christians. Of course pretty much everyone who grew up in that environment was a Nazi, there’s no mystery to solve here.😂

@@ramigilneas9274 Christians by name only but obviously not believing it because the ethos it's exactly opposite to what they did , it's like Jordan Peterson says you act what you believe

jojohnviz12 Pretty much every Christian who lived more than hundred years ago would say the same about all Christians who live today. They would most likely call you a heretic.

dSouza is a criminal and an asshat. Matt will destroy him, because Matt is honest and happens to be scientifically correct.

You mean, Convicted Criminal DeSousa?

@@ronaldmendonca6636 hey are you calling criminals as bad guys? We respect criminals in america, at least the religious people do, otherwise why would we elect as president a con artist who has used charities as his own personal slush fund, cheated on his wife, refused to pay people for their work, was recorded confessing to sexually assaulted women, and those are just the things we knew for certain before he was elected.

demigodzilla I think it’s still around. I seen it in you yt feed

on Pangburn Philosophy? I think I'll pass

its amazing that people think atheism should be taken seriously...

Oh, it might be the most important subject for debate.

Just noticed this on my headphones and kept taking them off thinking someone was shifting heavy furniture

He starts to writhe and squirm at this point. Its embarassing to watch honestly.

Sure, his articulation of trinitarian theology under pressure isn't great, but I wouldn't say it's cognitive dissonance, it is only his lack of clarity on definitions.

Trinitarians believe there are three distinct persons in the Godhead. In their mind the father the son and the spirit are three distinctly different persons. Matt was describing from a monotheistic perspective and Glen was correcting him which caused the confusion.

The moderator let’s Glen off the hook too, by steering the conversation away from the theology.

@@julianmartinez8954 and? That is his job unless you wanted the conversation to turn into a theological conversation about trinitarianism vs monotheism.

Thats what a religion does yes. A relationship doesn't leave anyone to blame. I greatly apologise for your wife's death though 🥺 I pray she sees God even in the afterlife

@@BearCrossStudio i hope she doesnt see a "abrahmic "god in heaven bcz abroahmic god is a evil monster

I’m very sorry to hear about your wife. The Bible however never says that every disease is a punishment from God. So I am curious where you got that idea from?

@@mattlannimusic He didn’t say it was from the bible. He said it was from a religion.

@@mattlannimusic it doesn't? Aren't we all being punished to suffer this life instead of a better one because Adam ate an apple thousands of years ago? If it isn't punishment and God created everything, what is his reason to create cancer?

Or not. We can do better by telling true stories than fictional ones.

One fable of aesop ( choose one with the animals of your preference) has ten times the moral value of the whole old testament. I hope you do not raise your children by reading them the revelation with the whore of babylon or how Lot had incest sex with his daughters..... Stories are great and they exist ages before the abrahamic god of israel. Myths, fables, epic and lyric poetry all have far superior moral value. Just the myth of Ikarus or of Narcissus or Pygmalion are like philosophical dissertation compared to the barbaric and hateful holy scriptures of abrahamic religions.

​@@whittfamily1 we already have that, it's called history. We humans are storytellers at our core, but we got stuck when some of us proclaimed that some stories are the absolute truth.

@@RobertLesac I agree. And also, some of us proclaim stories are true when they are false. The first verse of Genesis is a good example: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Not.

No, not even close. The best angle is "Where does morality come from?"

I don’t think this oversimplification offers any value. It certainly had nothing to do with this conversation. To sum up the Christian message and the Bible as sacrificing the strong would be revisionist. To suggest Matt advocated anything resembling survival of the fittest to completely ignore everything Matt said. He argued for humanism, the exact opposite.

I dont thnk I could like matt less

@@ceceroxy2227 matt is the saviour of religious ppl .he is guiding them out of religion saving them actually .

Sad for you. Listen to his talks on abortion and how he discounts the developing life as being worthless, and acts like the "poor woman" who got pregnant did so through no fault of her own. He thinks pregnancy is a disease and I guess that you do, too. THAT kind of thinking is what coarsens the culture and makes this world a more dangerous place.

@@jsmilers you think women shouldn't be allowed abortion? Based on what, if there is no law prohibiting abortion then nothing happens to you, if your wife doesn't want abortion she isn't forced to do one, if abortion is prohibited then the women wanting to get it are not allowed to, im pretty sure the fetus doesn't feel any pain until very late through pregnancy, what surprises me is that religious people tend to be pro life yet their dogma suggests people get stoned for working on sabbath or being gay or apostasy, why does a life of a fetus which isn't able to feel pain most of the time more valuable to them than a life of another fully developed human being

@@jsmilers Having a position on one thing is separate from a position on another thing. I like Matt for his stance, debates, and discussions refuting religion. I'm an atheist, and I would say for the most part I entirely agree with his positions outside of politics. When it comes to politics, though, I tend to disagree on key issues such as abortion. Were I hold the same view as political commentators such as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, I generally like most of their political positions, however, their religious stances are extraordinarily flawed, and lack merit as they've lost almost every discussion they've had on those subjects. The reality is we can appreciate people for certain positions they hold, however, as humans we hold varying positions on everything. Atheism isn't a worldview, and therefore, atheists will hold a wide array of beliefs about differing issues that differ from other atheists. I dislike Matt's stance on abortion, however, I appreciate him in these types of discussions.

In which way and at what point on the video I want to check it out? Thanks

@@deangailwahl8270 Me too.

bonnie43uk when he responded to Matt’s blood magic comment. He struggles to appropriately respond , there was no real substance to what he was saying to describe the sacrifice . Curious since it’s the single most important event in human history and he wasn’t able to distill a clear answer down that made any sense - I agree this is exactly when he was exposed . As it should be because it simply isn’t true and is sort of like blood magic - Matt was right.

Yip he got a bit stuck there but after the Downs Syndrome point was raised I have to be honest Matt was all over the place. He descended into utilitarianism which is never a good place to find yourself when talking about human beings - he was under pressure so perhaps he didn't have time to think it through properly and in the end he got very defensive. But again he made the point that if someone doesn't believe in your suppositions then its not a persuasive argument (which is true). But then that sot of makes Glen's point: in a society governed by a Christian view of the world you won't arrive to the conclusion that human beings have no innate value. In the absence of that - and what Sam calls well being - you could. So I think this was two way traffic. A very good conversation.

@@charlesd4572 "in a society governed by a Christian view of the world you won't arrive to the conclusion that human beings have no innate value" This is true, humans even have a shekel-value according to the bible (where girls are worth less than boys). I don't know if that value is "innate" though. Because that's just a claim. You can attach *anything* to what it means to be made in the image of god, and the bible does not make that clear at all.

Maybe Matt or another atheist could've achieved the same result, maybe Glen would've become another evangelist eaten by canibalsbif he tried. We can only guess. If instead of finding examples that support the premise have you considered finding examples that oppose it? For example depression in homosexuals who grow up in christian circles that condemn homosexuality?

@Trillions And ... ?

@Déjà Siku - now that's funny.

It is not the same if there is no burning blood and flesh to generate pleasant smell for the psycho God!

@@zenithquasar9623 -true, but in the big book of Jewish fables it was Cain who made a sacrifice of 'fruits of the soil' ... so I guess Yahweh isn't into fruit salad!

@@discoveringancienthistoryw5246 Yeah, he is strictly paleo...

zorglub667 it’s a hard thing to fight when you both haven’t read the same papers so you can argue specifics

completelly true and matt already got wrecked on that very subject by Michael Jones. Try harder next time.

Being a born again Christian brings you peace and joy.

@@jesusislord9758 And being a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddist can also bring you peace and joy! You have to understand, to an outsider they all look the same. Also, large portions of Christians telling each other that they are not "REAL" Christians.

moody rick how so?

You do realise this feeling isn’t exclusive to just your religion right?

@Mike Seork None of my experiences with drugs came close to the peaceful, joyous, and purely loving presence of God. No need for drugs at all, and it is a more real and rooted feeling than any drug could ever give you. Only Jesus gives you eternal life, drugs do nothing to help you in life or in the next one.. Psalm 16:11 "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

He kept stating without citation that thousands of studies show that Christians who were the happiest with their church were so much better people than non-believers. Well sure, if you pick a complete bullshit criteria and disqualify all the frustrated unhappy people who want to kill somebody from a group that contains them, you can show that the happiest people in a group behave better.

In our current reality, and throughout our history, one can show all the the horrible atrocities that people have, and are still doing, because of their religious convictions.

@@DavidJones-zg4od I despise religion as much as you, but you're making the exact same mistake. It's not true that all atrocities are done because of religion.

As my father used to say: ''I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!''

@@douglaspearce9129 Hyperbole will destroy the world!

I thought Glen was way less condescending than usual and I thought Matt was wonderful in his generosity towards the gaps in his ideas. Ironically Matt is much more comfortable than some of the people in these comments. You can see Matt over the years refining his ideas in conversation with strong objections and just being all around comfortable in his own skin. It's like all the conflict and rejection that he had to face made him a more rounded an mature human being. Lot's of respect. I'm pretty sure the man would have been a hell of a pastor - which I believe he actually considered before his deconversion.

How so?

Well, in Glen's defence, Matt could just rely on reality and his honesty and integrity. Glen didn't have this solid foundation to rest and fall back on; he constantly needed to make up shit to rationalize his bullshit. That's not easy.

@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 He explicitly became an atheist because of his quest to find truth. He had a roommate that did not believe in god, and he wanted to help him stay out of hell. Then he discovered that the "God" he was spoon-fed didn't make sense. I'm faced the same dilemma, followed the truth right out of Christianity. Honestly any god that claims to be truth, a concept of accuracy, should be left by the wayside.

I agree, I think Matt was very generous with Glenn. Matt conceded a lot of points he shouldn't have and didn't need to just to move the conversation a long. If Glenn would have called into his show Matt never would have done this. I almost wonder if there wasn't some type of arrangement/agreement before the debate started.

Isn't the atheist fundamental assertion that "religion is bad" and I don't want pow pow from "sky daddy" in itself false and meaningless?

@@GabrielGarcia-qz7je Atheism does not have any assertions, and how can opinions be false? Can you read minds?

@@GabrielGarcia-qz7je Atheism has one foundation. In that we do not believe God exists, based upon a lack of evidence. There is no other position. Now people who believe in Atheism hold different values/ideas BEYOND it. It'd be like saying Christians assert that Football is 'bad'. It doesn't make any sense because that's not what Christian are asserting. Now again some Christians MAY believe football is bad but it is holly beyond the idea of them being Christian.

@@euno17 oh please, you believe what you believe regardless of facts, if facts would sway you then you would drop the charade knowing that atheism has lead to the most genocide, murders, and overall human suffering throughout time. Why must societies be forced into atheism whereas in a Christian society there is freedom of religion 🤔

@@GabrielGarcia-qz7je 1.) religious belief in God is devoid of facts which is why its based on faith. Yet apparently I'm the one 'who believes what i believe' regardless of facts? Uhh no, that would be you, the believer in religion based solely on faith. Believing anything on faith is ill-rational. 2.) The charade is your logical fallacies. Good job presenting no evidence of this claim of yours btw. Wow, saying that atheism leading to the 'most genocide'. Also, its ironic that you mentioned genocides because the Bible refers to several genocides. The battle of Jericho for example where everything was destroyed. Every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. 3.) Where in the hell did you get the idea of societies must be 'FORCED' into atheism? And again the idea is not believing in God until reasonably justified to do so. Doing so by faith is not a reasonable justification. 4.) LOL christian society' and 'freedom of religion' is a contradiction of values. According to your religion, if you don't believe in Christianity, you burn in hell. Not to mention, its apart of your damn religion to try your damned hardest to convert people. Even in the U.K, where you say there is a 'christian society' . . . and 'freedom of religion' . . . lol i bet you didn't know there used to be a Blasphemy law, did you? or what that entailed?

He feels it in his feelz.

@Gabe Norman Oh that's easy to refute. There is no real evidence there but Christians ignore it.

Gabe Norman the Bible can’t be trusted as a historical document. First of all, the whole thing is a secondary source, written centuries after the events supposedly transpired. Secondly, there are no primary sources from the period it describes that verify it. Thirdly, many of its claims, are either literally physically impossible (resurrection and transmutation) or don’t match what we know about history from other sources (Noah’s Ark). You literally have to believe magic is real to believe the WHOLE Bible. Reputable bible scholars mostly believe a lot of it is metaphorical.

Gabe Norman It literally talks about magic. That’s enough to toss it out the window right there, because, newsflash, magic isn’t real. You can’t curse people or turn snakes into staffs like the pharoah’s men do. Also the Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt.

@Gabe Norman Like an Exodus that never happened or a global flood that the world never experienced?

It seems to be the reverse of the "Golden Rule".

I don’t know but what I do know is that I don’t know and you don’t know but I also don’t know what you don’t know the famous Matt “i don’t know” dillahunty

@@YeshuaIsLord135 “All I know is that I know nothing.” -Socrates

Hrishabh Singh I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s mind went strait to the Hindu avatars

Christians love crediting their religion for things that it had absolutely nothing to do with.

Agreed. I'd just add that the discussions concerning what is "the good" has been long discussed and examined well before God had a long weekend. Just looking at the ancient Greeks, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The other interesting thing people often overlook is that Greek philosophy actually examined and tested moral beliefs, whereas the bible just asserts moral platitudes and demands no question as to whether those platitudes are correct.

@edwardmashberg1 Well said.

edwardmashberg1 Can you say who first says “Do unto others as you want them to do to you”? You may be surprised. Don’t conflate crusades and other stuff with Christianity’s ethos.

Do you have an argument or are you just mad he pointed it out?

@@VACatholicThe Bible on salvery: Exodus 21 20“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. In addition, from the early decades of the 19th century, many Baptist preachers in the South argued in favor of preserving the right of ministers to be slaveholders , a class that included prominent Baptist Southerners and planters. Antworten

@@VACatholic it was humanism the ended slavery. Many non-Christian societies, such as Islam, don't have a history of slavery. Christianity and Jewdiasm have a sad history of slavery which is validated by their religious books what instruct how to keep slaves. More moral (by secular humanist morality) cultures simply don't engage in slavery at any level.

@@PhilipLeitch "Many non-Christian societies, such as Islam, don't have a history of slavery." HAHAHAHA You didn't just say that? Mohammad had slaves. And in the Koran black people are considered no better than slaves. There is still slavery int he middle east today, see the open air slave markets in Libya for example. ISIS has sex slaves. You're so far off in crazy land you don't even know where reality is. "Christianity and Jewdiasm have a sad history of slavery which is validated by their religious books what instruct how to keep slaves." Yes, and that's why the prodigal son returned to his father, because even his slaves were treated well. Something the sex slaves of ISIS don't agree on, genius. "More moral (by secular humanist morality) cultures simply don't engage in slavery at any level." Like where? Where? Show me where? The amount of sex slavery going on today is higher than at any point in history. You're a fool or a child. Either way, bad look for you. Pathetic take. Feel bad about this. Very bad. Then come and learn something and start spreading the truth and the light.

@@VACatholic Are there any secular humanist societies that have slavery? It is also funny how disrespecting god is punishable by death or life in prison in some of the christian countries.