Join our discord server by using this link. This is a place to have good faith, helpful conversations with people from all around the world. All ideas are welcome to be discussed! discord.gg/VDE2UMuW8y
Dilahunty is dumb .. D'Souza higher intelligence is extermely tolerant of Dilahunty's ridiculous self-contradictions & fallacious perspectives as he desperately scrabbles out of his corners. " Dogs on Saturn .. " as a counter riposte! What a snake-oil dunce!
Matt’s position is always consistent. Truth doesn’t need mental gymnastics. The religious can only throw out poetic quotes from famous people and appeal to ignorance and deception to be convincing. Matt doesn’t need to jump through hoops because if his opinion on something is proven wrong, he will accept and adjust his opinion towards the truth. Matt will always win because he only has to remain honest. And he does.
As is the position for all atheists . They just have to remain honest in any kind of debate and that's why most of then win all the time. We win because we don't need to make shit up or make excuses
@zen-sean all he has to do is say "prove it" and sit back while they stutter their way into a corner. It used to be an enthralling watch back in the days of Chris Hitchens, now it just seems like a fruitless endeavour. D'Suza will probably use this same footage on his own page with "watch as I debunk Matt Dillahunty and his atheist bullshit"
“Okay, so you say there’s no evidence of God. Are you saying pizza isn’t objectively delicious”. This is the level of competence D’Souza displayed here.
Idk, I'd say D'Souza is very bright, just under a "grave misaprehension." I think the beauty of his mind would be a lot clearer if he wasn't beholden to iron age philosophy
in fact, and so I cannot quote him a verbatim, I believe Hitchens point was that no one would say that they’re not pro life. Of course he is pro life his point was that taking away the choice of a free individual based on irrational religious myth is inherently wrong. it actually is pedantic and rest on semantics. No one who is alive cannot be not pro life
For money. He's a grifter. If he actually cared about what he's saying, he'd spend some time thinking it through instead of just making it up on the fly.
actually, I'm pretty sure he watches these playbacks and perceives himself winning the debates (or sometimes being 'cheated' by bad faith arguments). ego is a powerful delusion....
Cant agree on that. Alex is as sharp as him, but dillahuntey imseens to be way more experienced and knows exactly when to interrupt his partner or when to let him dig his own grave. @@Relax_Rombey
@wtf1965 there's nothing particularly brilliant about Dellahunty and other famous atheists, all they have to do is say "prove it" and no one ever has or will.
In your mind. Matt relies upon sycophantic followers who know something, but not enough to know his error areas, which are large. Creator God reigns supreme, any way you cut it.
Public schools that are required to display the ten commandments (Louisiana) and teachers that are required to teach the Bible (Oklahoma) would be recent examples.
I'm not necessarily against teaching the bible. But let's teach it correctly and show every dirt passage in it, not just the cherry picked good parts. Show how it is demonstrably wrong, and does not teach good moral values.
@@tabularasa0606 "... But let's teach it correctly and show every dirt passage in it ..." - Now, that would be good way to increase the number of atheist.
@@tabularasa0606 Also to teach other religions too and have entire lessons on atheism instead of just give a definition like "they don't believe in god" and scuff at it. My class in the UK was all about Islam with no criticism and little talk about Christianity and especially atheism. SO horrible.
I disagree that those are the most important questions. Here’s some that are more important: Who am I? Where am I? Who are you? What’s that? How do I do my taxes? Why do we have taxes? Who should I blame for taxes? What is edible? Are you friendly? Should I be friendly?
Dinesh does a lot of work to propose scenarios that are easily defeatable. It's almost like he's trying to say so much that he confuses the issue and makes it difficult to refute his point, but he's not very good at that sort of obfuscation. At any rate, it's clear he doesnt know how to tie Matt in his knot, and all Dinesh is doing is delaying the point at which Matt gives an answer that completely unravels everything Dinesh says.
Dinesh uses a lot of distractions and unfortunately Matt let him do that. Alex oconnor did not let himself be distracted in a more recent debate than this one which is very old now and re released by Pangburn and presenting it as new which they have a habit of doing to make money out of old rope.
Mr D'sousa, your wishful thinking doesn't entitle you to set the boundaries of current nor future science. Also, there's a word and a place for people who're in love with people they can't even prove exist... Lastly, pointing to things that exist in reality, tells you nothing about what could be beyond reality.
I love how Dinesh constantly tries to take the wall in front of him and twist/move it. Even though Matt puts the wall firmly back in the spot it belongs. Right in front of him.
Goddammit Matt, all you had to do was tell him, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." He kept leading you through the maze round and round and this one line would've ended that tangent of lunacy.
Dinesh arguing about how we don't know what happens after we die is like arguing about what supermans' top speed is. What happens after we die is nothing, because we're dead.
Playing stupid about how influential religious beliefs about God can be in legislation ... asking for Matt to name even one example ... is as close to a concession of the debate as it gets.
and immediately takes Matt's comment and narrows it down to just 9 *Supreme Court justices* instead of the hundreds/thousands of of judges AND legislators across the country, which is what Matt is clearly referring to.
The most successful constitution ever was entirely built on Christian values, laws and principles whereas the most tyrannical countries in the 20th were anti God century ....don't make ignorant points without thinking
I am surprised Matt didn't shoot down the "do you believe other stars/dogs" exist by reiterating that while many have seen stars and dogs of various quantities, no one has physically seen a god. To infer there are more based on visibility, you need to start with at least one of the item being demonstrably visible.
In D’Souza’s star analogy, he later snuck in the knowledge of the universe. If we have knowledge of a universe, then yes we can infer there are more stars. But in his actual analogy where we know NOTHING else about what’s out there, the most rational position is to believe there are only 7 stars until more evidence arises.
Correct. We see seven stars. We may not have sight of all stars. There may be more stars. That’s logical. We see no god. We can’t see all realities - including supernatural. There may be a god. That’s logical too. But seeing zero gods isn’t a good reason to reason there is/are gods beyond our sight. That would be like “I see seven stars and no space dragons, but I can’t see everything. So I think there may be more stars and space dragons.”
No, the correct position is that there is evidence for 7 stars. It's not rational to believe there are only 7. That is the black swan fallacy. It is rational to say: we don't know if there are more.
Anytime D’Souza says "we find ourselves in a world" or "we're flung into the world" he's about to make a appeal to majesty. If you're going to appeal to the explanations you lack then that's where your sentence ends.
The fact someone can sit there and deny that religious groups want to force their religious ideals on someone else is beyond mind boggling. That's literally all politics is! Hoping enough people believe like you so you can all vote together to elect others who will make laws in line with your ideals.
You're just parroting the misplaced statements of some high profile atheists. Same result though, a big shock on judgement day when those 'fairies' turn up and you don't make it past GO.
@@daw60-gx3fo You could as well try to convince me that the easter bunny exists. Threat of punishment for the only unforgivable crime: to not believe in bronze age myths, against a non existing deity isn't convincing. What evidence would you need for to believe in the easter bunny? Provide that kind of evidence for god. Why did you lie?
Answer for DeSouza's first question: I can't buy alcohol on Sunday until a certain hour of the day. Where I live, that is 12:00. I don't want to purchase alcohol, but I don't like a prohibition based on someone else's religion.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a British-American author, journalist, and public intellectual. He was known for his outspoken and often controversial views on politics, religion, and social issues. Regarding abortion, Christopher Hitchens was not pro-life. He was a vocal supporter of reproductive rights and access to abortion. He believed that: 1. _Women have the right to control their bodies_: Hitchens argued that women should have autonomy over their reproductive choices, free from government or religious interference. 2. _Abortion is a necessary option_: He saw abortion as a necessary option for women in cases of unwanted pregnancy, rape, or health risks. 3. _Religious opposition is misguided_: Hitchens criticized religious groups for imposing their beliefs on others, arguing that moral decisions should be based on reason and individual conscience. Hitchens' views on abortion were shaped by his commitment to: 1. _Secular humanism_: He believed in a secular, humanist approach to ethics and morality. 2. _Feminist principles_: Hitchens supported feminist causes and recognized the importance of reproductive rights for women's equality. 3. _Critique of religious dogma_: He was a vocal critic of religious fundamentalism and its influence on public policy. Throughout his writing and public appearances, Hitchens consistently expressed his support for reproductive rights and access to abortion, making it clear that he was not pro-life.
Okay, D'Souza is asking some good questions. Let's see: 9:07 "Can science decided if there is life after death?" ~ That's already been done. However, neither Dillahunty nor D'Souza would be aware of it. Science also disproves an intelligent creator. 14:00 They are confused about belief and knowledge. They seem to be trying to use a philosophical approach. This isn't how human cognition works. Human cognition works more like engineering. 22:42 This is a waste of time. You can't determine things about real life using philosophy.
@@BeefT-Sq I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Logic is part of philosophy and what gives it its value as a tool. But, that's all philosophy is, a tool. When Ayn Rand tried to use philosophy constructively, she got almost everything wrong.
Why can’t religionists articulate their own views without starting out with incorrect assertions about whatever their conversation partner thinks or believes? Every time they are asked to explain their beliefs/assertions they begin their sentence with, “well, according to YOU, or YOU’RE saying that”
I go one step further. Go ahead and believe in your sky daddy. I’ve got no problem at all. My problem is with the atrocious beliefs such as ‘atheists have no morals’, ‘atheists can’t know anything without God’.
We are in the 7 star situation that Dinesh pointed out. Except, instead of 7 stars, we observed ~100M stars. And we have good reason to believe that there are approximately 10^24 stars in the observable universe, which is a dramatically higher number than the observed amount. But we have good evidence for believing them, besides counting them all individually.
His ideology shrinks every time we gain new answers and lose baffled awe. He has a vested interest in people looking at things and seeing them as magic because he can perpetuate that magic is a reasonable answer.
You can argue and counter argue until your'e blue in the face but in the end someone who believes there's a magic man in the sky isn't capable of rational thought. It's all just superstitious nonsense.
You say that with someone who was studying to be a pastor on the stage. People absolutely can have their irrational beliefs changed. I used to believe in god. Most athiests used to believe in god. I know it can be hard to see people with irrational views spew BS, but most of us have held irrational views in the past. It is exposure to rationality that helps change minds.
@@josephritchhart998 completely agree. I'm 28 and have believed in a god for most of my life until the end of last year, but now I'm so atheistic that I can't believe how unintelligent and irrational I was for all those years. People who believe in a god are ignorant to reasoning and logic, but a lot of them (not all) are capable of seeing sense and changing those views.
@@alexanderbrown8498 Explain to me how atheists say there is no God or there is no proof of evidence of God, but they say they know how God operates. Explain that
D'Souza playing 3d chess. In a debate if you don't want to answer a point just say "thats a tediously predicable response" and move on quickly. We should all be learning more from this titan of intelect.
@@RandomStuff-i4i " Matt and his knowledge of what he thinks he knows about God is absolutely humorous. " - And how did you come to that conclusion? Btw are you also a flerf?
@@garyferguson1105 That is a question of definition. For example, the laws of physics that govern the natural world are not themselves a part of it, are they?
Sometimes the assumption is that something will continue to be the same forever and you need evidence that it wont. Parsing evidential belief is so dificult to hear because it is mostly just grasping at a common lexicon. "the river isn't going to stop" is true enough to live your life by, but it isn't true. It IS a probablity game. And marriage is too. It being 50/50 makes sense to me, if it were 5% i dont know if i'd have done it!
Dillahunty is describing the epistemological position of fallibilism. This is the philosophical concept that all truth is provisional based on evidence, so when the fallibilist says something is "true," they mean it is "evidently true" and not above challenge to new evidence. This is an answer to skepticism, which says that knowledge is impossible due to our subjective access to reality. I just see a lot of people who call themselves skeptics are, in fact, fallibilists. A true skeptic would claim all knowledge is impossible
So should the "sceptic magazine" be called the the "fallabalist view" because philosophy has set the meaning of lingo in all other domains of language? And why are philosophical papers so eager to define words in their work, like words have various connotations? I guess the philosophers could just ask you what the words mean and save a lot of unnecessary inc.
Knowledge isn't impossible, 100% knowledge is. We can still draw our own, subjective view of knowledge from what we perceived around us. When we make a claim, sure, we could be wrong. However, if we have enough evidence, we can claim that we have said knowlege beyond reasonable doubt. I have knowlege that my shirt is red. This assertion is based off my subjective experience of the world. I have experienced all this color, and how the English language categorizes it.
@@Dutch_Vander_Linde_ you have described the fallibilist epistemological position "Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the truth of the belief." So perhaps I did not describe it well enough> I was simply pointing out that many people that are fallibilists incorrectly classify themselves as skeptics. A skeptic would take the position that knowledge was impossible (technically speaking, i don't believe it's lay usage is this way)
@@Censeo no I was just giving an, hopefully interesting, and admittedly pretentious factoid The context in which words are used must be considered, and obviously people use the word skeptic in alignment with Fallabalist in everyday usage. Just thought it was a "fun fact" So in summary I am fine with skeptics continuing to call themselves skeptics :) It might be interesting to learn some new vocabulary for some
@@NicholasLaDieu Philosophical Skepticism | Oxford Languages: "relating to the theory that *certain* knowledge is impossible." "CERTAIN knowledge is impossible." Its all just wordplay and semantics here. You have a definition of skepticism that doesn't align with what it actually means. Skepticism isn't that knowledge is impossible, but rather that 100% knowledge is impossible. Under the philosophical definition of skepticism, I am still a skeptic.
Matt missed one when D'Souza suggested that we are 'flung into the world'. That statement presupposes that we exist before birth and that we are somehow 'flung' from that pre-existence into our earthly existence. Of course the assumption of a pre-existent state leads nicely into the belief of a post-existent state after death which D'Souza naturally postulates. An alternative possibility is that our sense of self is an emergent property based on the structure of our brains. This view nicely sidesteps the complexity of the religious model of pre-existent and post-existent states and further eliminates from consideration the concept of 'meaning' in life. If my sense of self is simply an emergent property of the structure of my brain, then before my brain was fully formed, there was no 'I' and after my brain dissolves there will be no 'I'. So what is the 'point' of 'I'-ness in the first place? Most likely it's the most efficient method of directing complex moveable organisms (i.e. members of the Animal Kingdom) in their quest to stay alive individually and as a species. In the case of humanity, our ability to radically affect our environment in our quest to add ever more humans to the biosphere may be more a case of this I-ness run amok than it is a case of us being somehow favored by a mythical celestial spirit!
I like to imagine a dumb theist watching this clip, hearing dinesh saying the unicorn nonsense and being like "yeah! He got him!" Then crying after matt responds, then losing their faith.
D’Souza is use to media where a zinger wins you the news cycle. Matt argues with people trying to land these attacks for a living. You can see D’Souza's body language contort when he gets fed his dig.
No one is telling you or forcing anyone else to believe, or not to believe in anything.Looking for evidence?Do your own unbiased research. Don't let pride and arrogance fog your vision.
damn the 2000 mule`s loves to hear himself talk. and how he just denied that he talked about dogs on saturn without any details. it is precisely what what the god people claims.
I was thrilled when he began talking about what Socrates would have seen and thought about the situation. As we all know who have studied philosophy, what socrates, used to some knowledge was basically that… The wisest man knows he knows nothing. I wonder where that would have left his argument
D'Souza: Let me reframe. Dillahunty: Your reframing depends on what you mean. D'Souza: Let me reframe again. Dillahunty: That also depends on what you mean. D'Souza: Hang on, let me search for a way of reframing that'll make you sound like a hypocrite.
You do not "come in " to the world, you "come out" of the world. Organism and environment are one. The fact the we don't "know" or understand something does not automatically default to "God". Even though I believe the physical and the metaphysical meet in the quantum field. I have no desire or right to impose my belief on anyone else. Tao.
Human existence is futile. We know that all our memories are physically stored in our brains and when we die, our brain ceases to function and our memories evaporate just like a program in ram when we switch our computer off. The atoms that compose us don't change or disappear, they just lose their organisation and eventually return to the biosphere. That is why when after we die, even if we could somehow have some sort of consciousness we would not remember even that we had existed because we have to have a working brain to store the memory of being and everything that this entails.
Half way through this I enjoyed it .... Then I realized D'Souza just kept jumping to another analogy to try and trip up Matt while getting more and more frustrated, while rarely if ever responding to Matt's points. Slightly sad.
Blessed are those who read my "Evidence of God", for they shall obtain proof of God. Find my "Evidence of God" in the comments. To make that easier, change the comment settings on the video to "Newest" and then scroll down gently. Take care!💫📚✍️
Dinesh said at the beginning he was going to give proof of god. When tried he thinks " well that proof was shot down, lemme try this.....well that was obliterated... lemme try this..."
Dinesh’s argument: Why are you talking about this? But there’s these questions that I think are really really cool. Oh, so you’re saying (realizes Matt’s position for the 5th time)?
I asked AI a question. If you had a chance to run the human race to better mankind, what would be the first order of business? If I were tasked with improving the human race, my first order of business would be to prioritize education and critical thinking. By ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality education, people could make more informed decisions, understand complex issues, and be better equipped to solve global challenges like climate change, inequality, and health crises. An emphasis on critical thinking would also reduce the spread of misinformation, foster empathy, and encourage collaboration, all of which are essential for a more just and sustainable world. Education is a powerful tool for empowering individuals and, by extension, society as a whole. Amazing, AI for Global President.
'if you can't name a single supreme court justice who is only influenced by god and not by any other source, therefore you should just be quiet about religion' This is the intellectual prowess of the brightest minds of theology.
He asked that can science determine whether there is life after death? The answer, if there really is life after death, it has to obey laws of some kind of physics, maybe not know to us yet, so yes.
Dinesh is not a good at these. He’s also being incredibly dishonest for him to insinuate there is not a religious right that tries to legislate based on their religious beliefs, and some will tell you “God told me” whatever nonsense they made up.
Join our discord server by using this link. This is a place to have good faith, helpful conversations with people from all around the world. All ideas are welcome to be discussed! discord.gg/VDE2UMuW8y
I really hope Matt will debate Christian Prince
mmm...perhaps its you that is not only not so bright but more importantly are spiritually lost...like Matt
@@daw60-gx3fo Matt make some really good points. Whether you like it or not
D'Souza is talking to Matt like he's dumb, when Matt is 5 steps ahead of him...
Because he's used to talking to Christians, whose dogma instructs they never question its teachings and they lack critical thinking skills.
I was knew where D’Souza was going and I’m a dummy.
Matt had this types of conversations a thousand times, of course he knew where Dinesh was going.😂
Dilahunty is dumb .. D'Souza higher intelligence is extermely tolerant of Dilahunty's ridiculous self-contradictions & fallacious perspectives as he desperately scrabbles out of his corners. " Dogs on Saturn .. " as a counter riposte! What a snake-oil dunce!
Always five... steps... ahead.
Matt’s position is always consistent. Truth doesn’t need mental gymnastics.
The religious can only throw out poetic quotes from famous people and appeal to ignorance and deception to be convincing.
Matt doesn’t need to jump through hoops because if his opinion on something is proven wrong, he will accept and adjust his opinion towards the truth.
Matt will always win because he only has to remain honest. And he does.
So true
As is the position for all atheists . They just have to remain honest in any kind of debate and that's why most of then win all the time. We win because we don't need to make shit up or make excuses
@zen-sean all he has to do is say "prove it" and sit back while they stutter their way into a corner. It used to be an enthralling watch back in the days of Chris Hitchens, now it just seems like a fruitless endeavour. D'Suza will probably use this same footage on his own page with "watch as I debunk Matt Dillahunty and his atheist bullshit"
You obviously haven’t heard his ramblings on transgenderism yet 😂
@blue24563 yeah that's where he loses me too, he only seems to want to stick to facts in some areas.
The confidence that D'Souza exhibits while getting annihilated at every turn is both hilarious and depressing
I went to a gay bar and my rectum got absolutely destroyed in the bathroom. It was way less brutal that this clip though.
I think he shows up because he gets paid and he's confident that whatever happens will not be seen by the people that he's grifting.
I know right.. It’s like every reply he gets, he shuts his ears and just confidently pushes on with the next fallacy.
“Okay, so you say there’s no evidence of God. Are you saying pizza isn’t objectively delicious”. This is the level of competence D’Souza displayed here.
I only listen to Dinesh to hear him get clobbered for his ignorant beliefs.
Listen harder...you're arrogant and lost
My taint is infected.
Listening to Dinesh makes me feel soooo much smarter than I actually am 😂
@@AntiTheist_Atheist
Always.
The ol Dinesh and dash
D’Souza really is not very bright. His argumentation is truly bizarre. Who falls for this?
Did he say therz only 7 stars . Planets ok . Was the north star one of the 7
@@StevenWolfe-lx8js He hasn't been outdoor.
Idk, I'd say D'Souza is very bright, just under a "grave misaprehension." I think the beauty of his mind would be a lot clearer if he wasn't beholden to iron age philosophy
MAGA.
Who falls for the ignorance of Matt Dillahunty?
D'Souza invoking Hitchens as if he is the Jezus of atheists.
in fact, and so I cannot quote him a verbatim, I believe Hitchens point was that no one would say that they’re not pro life. Of course he is pro life his point was that taking away the choice of a free individual based on irrational religious myth is inherently wrong.
it actually is pedantic and rest on semantics. No one who is alive cannot be not pro life
@@chef-magooso Hitler was Pro Life?
@@chef-magoo
God was very pro life when he drowned everyone and ordered the slaughter of women & kids. Should we all follow YHWH's example?
@@SinbadAkinayes pro aryan life
If there were to be a jesus of the atheists, I'd take hitch.
After 2000 Mules, it's safe to assume D'Souza jumps to conclusions and he manufactures evidence.
Ok groomer.
I bet you are for transitioning kids lmao freak
Again??? Why does D’Souza keep doing this? Alex O’Connor obliterated him just recently. Why is he doing this to himself?
Precisely. Alex completely buried him. The question is: did he notice?
He might be fully delusional.. There are levels of delusion. He may have reached one of the highest levels.
All these people need money and this channel is paying right now.
To be clear though, this debate happened in 2020 before the pandemic and the lockdowns.
For money. He's a grifter. If he actually cared about what he's saying, he'd spend some time thinking it through instead of just making it up on the fly.
I haven’t watched this yet, but why would this man willingly step onto a stage with a Dillahunty after getting clapped by Alex?
This is an old recording rereleased for algorithm
And Hitchens...and Harris...
actually, I'm pretty sure he watches these playbacks and perceives himself winning the debates (or sometimes being 'cheated' by bad faith arguments). ego is a powerful delusion....
i mean alex is a better debater anyway
Cant agree on that. Alex is as sharp as him, but dillahuntey imseens to be way more experienced and knows exactly when to interrupt his partner or when to let him dig his own grave. @@Relax_Rombey
D’Sousa should refrain from having conversations with intelligent people.
I will always encourage people like him to keep having these conversations. Maybe he will want to learn in one of them instead of debate a side.
Yeah. I'm pretty tired of seeing his swirly nonsense.
D’Souza is a 5watt bulb visiting a floodlit Olympic theatre
He’s a colouring book left on the bench next to a Van Gogh
Nicely stated.
@wtf1965 there's nothing particularly brilliant about Dellahunty and other famous atheists, all they have to do is say "prove it" and no one ever has or will.
In your mind. Matt relies upon sycophantic followers who know something, but not enough to know his error areas, which are large. Creator God reigns supreme, any way you cut it.
@@mofobecksin the mind of the deceived. Creator God rules.
D’Souza talks a lot without really saying anything. Reminds me of Peterson
Because you simply cannot understand that perspective, it’s much beyond you
@@Leela31825lol 😂
@@Leela31825
I'm not a benzo addict with brain damage, so no, I don't understand.
@Leela31825 the fact that you don't see how hilariously smooth brain Dinesh is is further evidence that all right wingers are braindead.
@@Leela31825wacky assumption.
Public schools that are required to display the ten commandments (Louisiana) and teachers that are required to teach the Bible (Oklahoma) would be recent examples.
Unless those are private schools. That's illegal and unconstitutional. David from the secular atheists actually sues institutions that do that.
I'm not necessarily against teaching the bible. But let's teach it correctly and show every dirt passage in it, not just the cherry picked good parts. Show how it is demonstrably wrong, and does not teach good moral values.
@@tabularasa0606 "... But let's teach it correctly and show every dirt passage in it ..." - Now, that would be good way to increase the number of atheist.
@@tabularasa0606 Also to teach other religions too and have entire lessons on atheism instead of just give a definition like "they don't believe in god" and scuff at it. My class in the UK was all about Islam with no criticism and little talk about Christianity and especially atheism. SO horrible.
@@tabularasa0606 clean slate. I'm on board too. But most people wouldn't be receptive to a critical reading.
How does this guy even get to debate matt? His ignorance (stupidity) is astounding.
Your gotcha ability to boost your ego and make you feel morally superior is astounding.
@@goldwhitedragon do you think their is a man in the sky watching over your every move
@@firedome8 nope
His statement doesn't contain a gotcha. Evidently you don't understand what a "gotcha" is. @@goldwhitedragon
@@HaveAHuff Evidently.
Believers, when you listen to Souza do you actually think he makes sense?
D'Souza is so bad at this.
RUclips asked me to rate your comment, I rated it as highly as I could.
It's telling people would report you, yet never write back.
Oh I have seen him do way worst. He was laughable when he debated Alex O'Connor
@plmunger5221 I saw that, too. Why does he keep coming back? Is he so completely lacking in self-awareness??
@@stefkukla8533he loves the money, and his fan base eat this up. They don’t care about objective reality, they just want to get mad and own the libs.
@@stefkukla8533💰💰💰🤑🤑🤑
I disagree that those are the most important questions. Here’s some that are more important:
Who am I?
Where am I?
Who are you?
What’s that?
How do I do my taxes?
Why do we have taxes?
Who should I blame for taxes?
What is edible?
Are you friendly?
Should I be friendly?
"...one must accept and use reason in any attempt to prove anything".
-Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist
D'Souza still seems to have Hitchens PTSD.
He should, he got spanked and still has the handprint to prove it.
My urethra is on fire. In fact I've had blood in my piss for like 3 weeks.
I applaud Matt's patience. I was starting to get frustrated with D'Souza but Matt was very calm.
"Men can deal with each other only by means of reason."
-Ayn Rand-
Dinesh does a lot of work to propose scenarios that are easily defeatable. It's almost like he's trying to say so much that he confuses the issue and makes it difficult to refute his point, but he's not very good at that sort of obfuscation.
At any rate, it's clear he doesnt know how to tie Matt in his knot, and all Dinesh is doing is delaying the point at which Matt gives an answer that completely unravels everything Dinesh says.
Dinesh uses a lot of distractions and unfortunately Matt let him do that.
Alex oconnor did not let himself be distracted in a more recent debate than this one which is very old now and re released by Pangburn and presenting it as new which they have a habit of doing to make money out of old rope.
The good ol' Gish Gallop. Lol.
Your thumbnail is inaccurate, Matt never got hit once
Flawless Victory
That debate was a real meeting of the mind.
Only if Matt sat there and debated himself in the mirror.
Mr D'sousa, your wishful thinking doesn't entitle you to set the boundaries of current nor future science. Also, there's a word and a place for people who're in love with people they can't even prove exist... Lastly, pointing to things that exist in reality, tells you nothing about what could be beyond reality.
Like you speaking in circles 😊
@@Leela31825
Even as a troll, that's just pathetic. Perhaps you shouldn't use terms you clearly don't understand.
@@XarXXon pathetic is you calling me a troll.. I speak as a qualified medical postgraduate doctor/ professional.
@@Leela31825 that's a fallacy, even if we assume you are what you are. The evidence is pointing towards troll...
@@Leela31825 "Man's choice is either to accept reason or to consign his conciousness and life to a void."
-Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist
I love how Dinesh constantly tries to take the wall in front of him and twist/move it. Even though Matt puts the wall firmly back in the spot it belongs.
Right in front of him.
"Feelings and emotions are not part of the method of logic".
-Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist
How the fuck is this what theism has to offer?
Well its theism.
It's not. D'Souza isn't the standard bearer for theism.
@@brandonsmith9098 who in your opinion is the strongest opponent matt has debated?
@@seef279 I couldn't say, but it definitely isn't D'Souza or Peterson. I'll need to look around and watch some more of these debates.
because true believers dont waste their time trying to prove the unprovable, thats why its called faith/belief
Goddammit Matt, all you had to do was tell him, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." He kept leading you through the maze round and round and this one line would've ended that tangent of lunacy.
Dinesh arguing about how we don't know what happens after we die is like arguing about what supermans' top speed is. What happens after we die is nothing, because we're dead.
7:55, three of the least important questions you could ask. All three make no difference in your actual life regardless of answer.
How many times will Dinesh get his a$$ kicked by non believers?!
The problem is, he doesn't understand that's what's happening.
This is a common occurrence, silly people don't realise how silly they are.
Hardly, you just don't follow Dinesh's arguments on the critical points. Puts Matt to shame.
@@daw60-gx3fo he doesn't and never has.
@@daw60-gx3fothat's hilarious, cope harder
@@daw60-gx3fo
You are irrational.
Playing stupid about how influential religious beliefs about God can be in legislation ... asking for Matt to name even one example ... is as close to a concession of the debate as it gets.
and immediately takes Matt's comment and narrows it down to just 9 *Supreme Court justices* instead of the hundreds/thousands of of judges AND legislators across the country, which is what Matt is clearly referring to.
The most successful constitution ever was entirely built on Christian values, laws and principles whereas the most tyrannical countries in the 20th were anti God century ....don't make ignorant points without thinking
Any reasonable person could cite abortion and gay marriage as examples in less than 5 seconds.
Matt, so far you haven't said anything I can disagree with. I've only put a few hours listening to you, thanks for your fair approach.
I think Alito and Thomas are issuing opinions directly from their religious point of view.
I am surprised Matt didn't shoot down the "do you believe other stars/dogs" exist by reiterating that while many have seen stars and dogs of various quantities, no one has physically seen a god. To infer there are more based on visibility, you need to start with at least one of the item being demonstrably visible.
D'Souza thinks he's interviewing Matt and like all religious people, he probably thinks he won the argument 😂
i like both of them and i respect them both . this is a really good discussion. everybody should listen and learn.
In D’Souza’s star analogy, he later snuck in the knowledge of the universe. If we have knowledge of a universe, then yes we can infer there are more stars. But in his actual analogy where we know NOTHING else about what’s out there, the most rational position is to believe there are only 7 stars until more evidence arises.
Correct. We see seven stars. We may not have sight of all stars. There may be more stars. That’s logical. We see no god. We can’t see all realities - including supernatural. There may be a god. That’s logical too. But seeing zero gods isn’t a good reason to reason there is/are gods beyond our sight. That would be like “I see seven stars and no space dragons, but I can’t see everything. So I think there may be more stars and space dragons.”
No, the correct position is that there is evidence for 7 stars. It's not rational to believe there are only 7. That is the black swan fallacy.
It is rational to say: we don't know if there are more.
I know with 100% certainty that Dinesh’s analogies are irrelevant and pointless
And on that wild statement of ignorance, I know with equal measure that my pet fish is smarter than you.
@@daw60-gx3fo
Works well enough for you to keep coming back here, engaging the yt algorithm & spreading atheism. Sagan bless 🤘❤️🤘
@@daw60-gx3foPerhaps you per fish is imaginary just like your God.
Anytime D’Souza says "we find ourselves in a world" or "we're flung into the world" he's about to make a appeal to majesty. If you're going to appeal to the explanations you lack then that's where your sentence ends.
What is the purpose of a bacteria a virus a fish ,a butterfly,adog ,a lion a monkey etc etc
Typical religious person talking solely in metaphors and analogies that are too specific to answer the broad questions being asked or vice versa
It's a common trait of someone who doesn't understand or has no learning in the basics of epistemology.
The fact someone can sit there and deny that religious groups want to force their religious ideals on someone else is beyond mind boggling. That's literally all politics is! Hoping enough people believe like you so you can all vote together to elect others who will make laws in line with your ideals.
D'Souza believes in imaginary friends, just like my daughter at age 3 1/2. She grew up.
You're just parroting the misplaced statements of some high profile atheists. Same result though, a big shock on judgement day when those 'fairies' turn up and you don't make it past GO.
@@daw60-gx3fo You could as well try to convince me that the easter bunny exists. Threat of punishment for the only unforgivable crime: to not believe in bronze age myths, against a non existing deity isn't convincing. What evidence would you need for to believe in the easter bunny? Provide that kind of evidence for god. Why did you lie?
@@daw60-gx3fooh no! The threat of Hell! Get a life dude
@@daw60-gx3fo
Either provid3 evidenc3 or keep seething & coping. Facts don't car3 about your feelings 😊
@@daw60-gx3foyou do know you can’t commit sin in other peoples religion right
Answer for DeSouza's first question: I can't buy alcohol on Sunday until a certain hour of the day. Where I live, that is 12:00. I don't want to purchase alcohol, but I don't like a prohibition based on someone else's religion.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a British-American author, journalist, and public intellectual. He was known for his outspoken and often controversial views on politics, religion, and social issues.
Regarding abortion, Christopher Hitchens was not pro-life. He was a vocal supporter of reproductive rights and access to abortion. He believed that:
1. _Women have the right to control their bodies_: Hitchens argued that women should have autonomy over their reproductive choices, free from government or religious interference.
2. _Abortion is a necessary option_: He saw abortion as a necessary option for women in cases of unwanted pregnancy, rape, or health risks.
3. _Religious opposition is misguided_: Hitchens criticized religious groups for imposing their beliefs on others, arguing that moral decisions should be based on reason and individual conscience.
Hitchens' views on abortion were shaped by his commitment to:
1. _Secular humanism_: He believed in a secular, humanist approach to ethics and morality.
2. _Feminist principles_: Hitchens supported feminist causes and recognized the importance of reproductive rights for women's equality.
3. _Critique of religious dogma_: He was a vocal critic of religious fundamentalism and its influence on public policy.
Throughout his writing and public appearances, Hitchens consistently expressed his support for reproductive rights and access to abortion, making it clear that he was not pro-life.
It's a life, he chose to kill it, groupies sure do write a lot.
Thank you, ChatGPT
@@titusgray4598 I will not waste my time with Dsouza...lolll
@@titusgray4598 It's just do the research...no it was meta AI lolll
@titusgray4598 even Meta AI is a better argument maker than Dsouza lolll
I've had a pretty good life. But I went through some extreme love lost hardships. I would prefer I had never been born.
Okay, D'Souza is asking some good questions. Let's see:
9:07 "Can science decided if there is life after death?" ~ That's already been done. However, neither Dillahunty nor D'Souza would be aware of it. Science also disproves an intelligent creator.
14:00 They are confused about belief and knowledge. They seem to be trying to use a philosophical approach. This isn't how human cognition works. Human cognition works more like engineering.
22:42 This is a waste of time. You can't determine things about real life using philosophy.
"Reason" is one of the central concepts in the philosophy of Ayn Rand."
-Leonard Peikoff- Objectivist
@@BeefT-Sq
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Logic is part of philosophy and what gives it its value as a tool. But, that's all philosophy is, a tool. When Ayn Rand tried to use philosophy constructively, she got almost everything wrong.
What do any of the examples D’Souza bring up coordinate with the question whether God exists?
Of course! Every newborn is thinking to himself: where did the universe came from? 7:20
Your sarcasm is wonderful.
I am a former newborn and I never thought that.
Both men make a living sounding smart to people but one actually is.
That would be Matt.
A guy who wears black and white striped socks with tan pants and brown shoes should stay home.
Why can’t religionists articulate their own views without starting out with incorrect assertions about whatever their conversation partner thinks or believes?
Every time they are asked to explain their beliefs/assertions they begin their sentence with, “well, according to YOU, or YOU’RE saying that”
I don't care if religious people's beliefs are reasonable - they can believe what the hell they like. Just for Christ sake don't impose it on me.
That's part of their beliefs though
That is fine. Reality may impose it on you later.
You're not clever or funny but you are blasphemous....careful
I go one step further.
Go ahead and believe in your sky daddy. I’ve got no problem at all.
My problem is with the atrocious beliefs such as ‘atheists have no morals’, ‘atheists can’t know anything without God’.
@@gospeljoy5713 Convenient answer.
We are in the 7 star situation that Dinesh pointed out. Except, instead of 7 stars, we observed ~100M stars. And we have good reason to believe that there are approximately 10^24 stars in the observable universe, which is a dramatically higher number than the observed amount. But we have good evidence for believing them, besides counting them all individually.
Does Vivek understand how the actuarial tables used by insurance companies are developed??
Dinesh has such terrible arguments that it's hard to know if he doesn't understand what Matt is saying, or he is purposely misunderstanding
His ideology shrinks every time we gain new answers and lose baffled awe. He has a vested interest in people looking at things and seeing them as magic because he can perpetuate that magic is a reasonable answer.
@@imawake805what nonsense, you happy to forfeit your soul on this false atheist gospel?
@@daw60-gx3fo boring. Prove souls or else your magic threats mean nothing. Seethe liar.
@@daw60-gx3foyou instantly show how dumb you are by saying atheism is a gospel💀
It always amazes me how D’Souza brings his own goal posts to every debate.
You can argue and counter argue until your'e blue in the face but in the end someone who believes there's a magic man in the sky isn't capable of rational thought. It's all just superstitious nonsense.
You say that with someone who was studying to be a pastor on the stage. People absolutely can have their irrational beliefs changed. I used to believe in god. Most athiests used to believe in god. I know it can be hard to see people with irrational views spew BS, but most of us have held irrational views in the past. It is exposure to rationality that helps change minds.
@@josephritchhart998 completely agree. I'm 28 and have believed in a god for most of my life until the end of last year, but now I'm so atheistic that I can't believe how unintelligent and irrational I was for all those years. People who believe in a god are ignorant to reasoning and logic, but a lot of them (not all) are capable of seeing sense and changing those views.
@@josephritchhart998 most atheists in America maybe.
Atheists have no concept of God.
Matt is a magician
and an atheist
He uses his own delusions and illusions.
@@alexanderbrown8498
Explain to me how atheists say there is no God or there is no proof of evidence of God, but they say they know how God operates.
Explain that
D'Souza playing 3d chess. In a debate if you don't want to answer a point just say "thats a tediously predicable response" and move on quickly. We should all be learning more from this titan of intelect.
This is actually a good educational clip for god believers.
Really?
Matt and his knowledge of what he thinks he knows about God is absolutely humorous.
to unlearn?
They don't dare to watch.
@@RandomStuff-i4i " Matt and his knowledge of what he thinks he knows about God is absolutely humorous. " - And how did you come to that conclusion?
Btw are you also a flerf?
Dinesh : "that's a tediously predictable argument"
Irony. Yum yum yum.
❤❤❤ Matt wins.
No he doesn't
Just like a reasoning human wins a debate against a jelly fish.
@@RandomStuff-i4i😂
Where is the rest of the debate?
It seems to me that people have a very different understanding of what the supernatural even is.
People have different understandings of what everything is
I don’t think anything is “supernatural.” There’s only the natural (what we know), and the natural that’s yet to be discovered.
@@garyferguson1105
People do what's natural
God does what He does in the supernatural.
@user-fq9ij4we4r that's at least one claim.
Can you demonstrate that claim?
@@garyferguson1105 That is a question of definition. For example, the laws of physics that govern the natural world are not themselves a part of it, are they?
Sometimes the assumption is that something will continue to be the same forever and you need evidence that it wont. Parsing evidential belief is so dificult to hear because it is mostly just grasping at a common lexicon. "the river isn't going to stop" is true enough to live your life by, but it isn't true. It IS a probablity game. And marriage is too. It being 50/50 makes sense to me, if it were 5% i dont know if i'd have done it!
Dillahunty is describing the epistemological position of fallibilism. This is the philosophical concept that all truth is provisional based on evidence, so when the fallibilist says something is "true," they mean it is "evidently true" and not above challenge to new evidence.
This is an answer to skepticism, which says that knowledge is impossible due to our subjective access to reality.
I just see a lot of people who call themselves skeptics are, in fact, fallibilists.
A true skeptic would claim all knowledge is impossible
So should the "sceptic magazine" be called the the "fallabalist view" because philosophy has set the meaning of lingo in all other domains of language? And why are philosophical papers so eager to define words in their work, like words have various connotations? I guess the philosophers could just ask you what the words mean and save a lot of unnecessary inc.
Knowledge isn't impossible, 100% knowledge is. We can still draw our own, subjective view of knowledge from what we perceived around us. When we make a claim, sure, we could be wrong. However, if we have enough evidence, we can claim that we have said knowlege beyond reasonable doubt.
I have knowlege that my shirt is red. This assertion is based off my subjective experience of the world. I have experienced all this color, and how the English language categorizes it.
@@Dutch_Vander_Linde_ you have described the fallibilist epistemological position
"Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way. Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the truth of the belief."
So perhaps I did not describe it well enough>
I was simply pointing out that many people that are fallibilists incorrectly classify themselves as skeptics. A skeptic would take the position that knowledge was impossible (technically speaking, i don't believe it's lay usage is this way)
@@Censeo no I was just giving an, hopefully interesting, and admittedly pretentious factoid
The context in which words are used must be considered, and obviously people use the word skeptic in alignment with Fallabalist in everyday usage.
Just thought it was a "fun fact"
So in summary I am fine with skeptics continuing to call themselves skeptics :)
It might be interesting to learn some new vocabulary for some
@@NicholasLaDieu Philosophical Skepticism | Oxford Languages: "relating to the theory that *certain* knowledge is impossible."
"CERTAIN knowledge is impossible." Its all just wordplay and semantics here. You have a definition of skepticism that doesn't align with what it actually means. Skepticism isn't that knowledge is impossible, but rather that 100% knowledge is impossible. Under the philosophical definition of skepticism, I am still a skeptic.
I love the smile that Dillahunty gives at 21:50. It means; “i have heard theists say all sorts of insane things, so i actually had to be sure.”
The difference in these two is staggering, Poor Dinesh is way out of his league
Dillahunty is a liar in a laundry bag.
No, the difference is bigger. D'Souza is like a 3 years old.
Matt missed one when D'Souza suggested that we are 'flung into the world'. That statement presupposes that we exist before birth and that we are somehow 'flung' from that pre-existence into our earthly existence. Of course the assumption of a pre-existent state leads nicely into the belief of a post-existent state after death which D'Souza naturally postulates. An alternative possibility is that our sense of self is an emergent property based on the structure of our brains. This view nicely sidesteps the complexity of the religious model of pre-existent and post-existent states and further eliminates from consideration the concept of 'meaning' in life. If my sense of self is simply an emergent property of the structure of my brain, then before my brain was fully formed, there was no 'I' and after my brain dissolves there will be no 'I'. So what is the 'point' of 'I'-ness in the first place? Most likely it's the most efficient method of directing complex moveable organisms (i.e. members of the Animal Kingdom) in their quest to stay alive individually and as a species. In the case of humanity, our ability to radically affect our environment in our quest to add ever more humans to the biosphere may be more a case of this I-ness run amok than it is a case of us being somehow favored by a mythical celestial spirit!
De snooza is a hack
Coming from you...what have you achieved by comparison?
@@daw60-gx3fo
Coming from a guy with invisible friends... hilarious.
Let’s drink every time D’s says “what if”
Lol im hitting bongs
I like to imagine a dumb theist watching this clip, hearing dinesh saying the unicorn nonsense and being like "yeah! He got him!" Then crying after matt responds, then losing their faith.
D’Souza is use to media where a zinger wins you the news cycle. Matt argues with people trying to land these attacks for a living.
You can see D’Souza's body language contort when he gets fed his dig.
Aaaaah if only such a thing were possible 😢
6:07 YES. Education. Reserve belief until evidence.
No one is telling you or forcing anyone else to believe, or not to believe in anything.Looking for evidence?Do your own unbiased research. Don't let pride and arrogance fog your vision.
damn the 2000 mule`s loves to hear himself talk.
and how he just denied that he talked about dogs on saturn without any details.
it is precisely what what the god people claims.
I was thrilled when he began talking about what Socrates would have seen and thought about the situation. As we all know who have studied philosophy, what socrates, used to some knowledge was basically that… The wisest man knows he knows nothing. I wonder where that would have left his argument
Godzilla is an awesome God!
He reigns
It angers me that Disouza is still given a platform.
D'Souza: Let me reframe.
Dillahunty: Your reframing depends on what you mean.
D'Souza: Let me reframe again.
Dillahunty: That also depends on what you mean.
D'Souza: Hang on, let me search for a way of reframing that'll make you sound like a hypocrite.
Why is Matt”s volume lower than the other guy?
You do not "come in " to the world, you "come out" of the world. Organism and environment are one. The fact the we don't "know" or understand something does not automatically default to "God". Even though I believe the physical and the metaphysical meet in the quantum field. I have no desire or right to impose my belief on anyone else. Tao.
Not sure why Dillahunty has bruises in the thumbnail for this video. He didn't take a single shot.
I love how his "What if I talked about unicorns" quip got completely slam dunked by Matt so hard that he started to stammer
Human existence is futile. We know that all our memories are physically stored in our brains and when we die, our brain ceases to function and our memories evaporate just like a program in ram when we switch our computer off. The atoms that compose us don't change or disappear, they just lose their organisation and eventually return to the biosphere. That is why when after we die, even if we could somehow have some sort of consciousness we would not remember even that we had existed because we have to have a working brain to store the memory of being and everything that this entails.
It's not a huge leap of faith. You have some history of that person on which you can base your decision. And you have reason to take a chance.
Wonderful argument by Matt dillahunty
Half way through this I enjoyed it .... Then I realized D'Souza just kept jumping to another analogy to try and trip up Matt while getting more and more frustrated, while rarely if ever responding to Matt's points.
Slightly sad.
Blessed are those who read my "Evidence of God", for they shall obtain proof of God. Find my "Evidence of God" in the comments. To make that easier, change the comment settings on the video to "Newest" and then scroll down gently. Take care!💫📚✍️
Dinesh said at the beginning he was going to give proof of god.
When tried he thinks " well that proof was shot down, lemme try this.....well that was obliterated... lemme try this..."
D'Souza is incredibly dishonest. What a shock.
Dinesh’s argument:
Why are you talking about this?
But there’s these questions that I think are really really cool.
Oh, so you’re saying (realizes Matt’s position for the 5th time)?
I asked AI a question.
If you had a chance to run the human race to better mankind, what would be the first order of business?
If I were tasked with improving the human race, my first order of business would be to prioritize education and critical thinking. By ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality education, people could make more informed decisions, understand complex issues, and be better equipped to solve global challenges like climate change, inequality, and health crises.
An emphasis on critical thinking would also reduce the spread of misinformation, foster empathy, and encourage collaboration, all of which are essential for a more just and sustainable world. Education is a powerful tool for empowering individuals and, by extension, society as a whole.
Amazing, AI for Global President.
Great place to start: Stephen Meyer - the God Hypothesis. So much more. My statement will easily hold up. Depends how serious your search is.
'if you can't name a single supreme court justice who is only influenced by god and not by any other source, therefore you should just be quiet about religion'
This is the intellectual prowess of the brightest minds of theology.
Such a BS strawman. 100% cringe argument.
Dinesh, i mean.
2:27 answer Amy, Coney Barrett, and her views of abortion come from her faith and she overturned precedent to her religious way
" Most human cultures, with rare exceptions, have been ruled by what I call ' witch doctors '. "
-Ayn Rand-
How can you be so educated yet so delusional? I can never understand how intelligent people justify their irrational beliefs. It's truly astounding.
Imagine reaching into the shallow end of a pool not touching the bottom then deciding it must be infinity deep and diving in head first
He asked that can science determine whether there is life after death?
The answer, if there really is life after death, it has to obey laws of some kind of physics, maybe not know to us yet, so yes.
Dinesh is not a good at these. He’s also being incredibly dishonest for him to insinuate there is not a religious right that tries to legislate based on their religious beliefs, and some will tell you “God told me” whatever nonsense they made up.