Atheist Debates - Debate: Does science move us toward or away from God? With Jon Morrison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Does science move us toward or away from God? A debate between Matt Dillahunty and Jon Morrison.
Filmed in Red Deer, AB, October 17th, 2015. Sponsored by Alberta Secular Conference, Society of Edmonton Atheists and Living Stones Church.
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
Dig a pool in your backyard. Fill it with concrete. Leave a thimble sized dimple in the concrete and fill that with water. That pool is as fine tuned for Olympic diving as the Universe is fine tuned for life.
Nice..I'm copying this if you don't mind.
I love this too
@David Anewman I've decided to worship the sun but not pray to the sun I decided to pray to Joe Pesci a guy who can get things done unlike god who screws up everything ( thanks George C. )
David Anewman Said the adult man who still has an imaginary friend.
Grow up, dude.
Seriously. It’s time to grow up. Imaginary friends aren’t real.
Heath Kitchen, blimey, that’s a curve ball analogy if I ever saw one
Wow. I'm shocked someone can get a masters in "Christian Apologetics". I wonder if I can a doctorate in "Doctor Whology".
+Dean Strickson I want a Masters in Gummy Bear lore.
+Dean Strickson Whovians with a masters in timey whimey stuff
+Dean Strickson I need one in Peanutbutterology...
+Dean Strickson for money, one can a degree in any fucking thing
+Dean Strickson : More like Wooology!
*Lightning strikes the ground*
What's the likelihood of lightning striking this exact spot at this exact time? look at all the factor, weather patterns etc. the chance is so small, one could call it a miracle. this is evidence of Thor. is it not?
+MikeTall88 Same with any specific drop of rain hitting the antenna of my car, yet it happened thousands of times over the past two days when I've been getting rain here.
I do love the odds argument, mainly because since we don't know all of the details on how to create life (yet), you can't calculate the probability because we don't know the entire process nor the conditions.
+MikeTall88 Funny observation. Given the chaotic nature of the universe, put in to the right perspective, every single event can be made to look as infinitely impropable! What was the chances of all my ancestors to survive to make my parents meet and create me? The miracle of child birth. What was the chance that this specific blade of grass was eaten by this specific cow in this specific field!?? God is great! Halelulja! What are the odds of this specific water molecule touched this specficic water molecule at this specific point in time!??!?!? IT'S A MIRACLE!! PRAISE THE LORD!!!!
+MikeTall88 I may just use something similar to this next time...
+MikeTall88 Lighting striking at the same spot, that happens all the time. Like tall buildings get struck for a reason, it is the road of least resistance.
However... I have not watched the whole vid yet (atm around 18m, Matt about to speak)... so I may be missing your point here yet.
It's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You draw a circle around where the lightning struck and attribute significance to it post hoc.
I think Matt's continual use of Paul and his Damascus Road conversion is one of the most powerful arguments he uses in his debates with Christians. Jon Morrison has a masters degree in apologetics, and yet when Matt brought up Paul's conversion the only recourse Jon had was to throw up his proverbial hands and appeal to _"well, He must have a plan","we just have to trust in God"_ , etc.
The Christian God could save everyone, but he chooses not to because...reasons. Why would anyone find that kind of deity worthy of worship?
+Number0neSon @ what minute is this portion, or portions?
+Josh Smalley Check 1:15:18 and 1:16:00
+Number0neSon How does the conversion of Paul relate to the fact that God can save everyone? Does Paul represent the most staunch atheist that rejects God? No, he does not. Paul was a person who grew up with traditional Jewish belief that God exists and He needs to be worshiped. If God reveals himself to Paul and if Paul had a true conversion experience, it's due to the fact that Paul has an understanding of God, and chooses to put his ego and traditionalism aside and decided to change his views on Jesus.
The better example of an atheist rejecting God is Pharaoh as mentioned in Exodus. Throughout the encounters with God, Pharaoh hardened his heart, over and over again. Despite all the times Moses confronts Pharaoh, the King of Egypt still does nothing. He holds onto his own ego and pride.
And that is exactly why God cannot save everyone - because not everyone wants to be saved. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, their ego and pretentious nature demonstrates this clearly.
So as my own apologist, I wouldn't accept the premise that God even chooses *not* to save people, it is my belief that God cannot save all people because there are people who fully reject God, just like Pharaoh.
+justun chan "Throughout the encounters with God, Pharaoh hardened his heart, over and over again."
Once again we have a contradiction in the Bible, which is the reason why Christian cannot and never get any truth about God., if there is any to find.
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go. Exodus 10:20
And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go. Exodus 8:32
So, who hardened the Pharaoh's heart? Was it God or Pharaoh himself? Also, to call the Pharaoh an atheist is beyond funny. The ancient Egypt had a very sophisticated theology, which even the Jews and the Christians copied.
Holz Name it will say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the first go, but in all other instances it will read Pharaoh hardened his own heart.
Are you a Hebrew scholar, do you want to take this theologically?
Say I concede that God forced Pharaoh to reject God, how does that make the opposite suddenly true? That God is able to force people to believe in Him? That is your argument, isn't it, that God is able to force people to believe?
Matt impressed me so much in this debate.
+JesusFriedChrist great last question👍
+logik100 he's almost always impressive and supremely honest and knowledgable.
my only wish would be for him to adopt a tad of, say, Prof Krauss passion and pit bull aggressiveness (see Krauss/Tzortzis)
but just a tad, and only towards those that deserve it (the obviously dishonest fundie)
+rodluvan1976 lol matt has obliterated countless fundies rather abruptly
+rodluvan1976 Meh....I far far prefer Matt's approach. His debates with Israel Rodriguez are the best thing he's ever done, imo. And he had plenty of passion and energy in those 4 debates. But I find Krauss to be impossible to like. Everything about his personality annoys the ever living fuck out of me....even though I probably agree with damn near everything he's ever said.
+avedic im sure Krauss is heart broken that you dont like him lolll NOT
I love the format of this debate, sitting down and having a discussion is without a doubt not only the best way of cross examining each others points and coming to new understandings. It's also far more entertaining than just listening to prepared statements. Great job Matt, as always
+The Bible Reloaded Completely agree. Otherwise it's extremely easy to move on and ignore points and especially for the audience it doesn't always register whether a solid point was raised and *not* acknowledged because they're flooded with something else. *But*.. I _really_ enjoy listening to Aronra, literally watched every video I can find, but his personality definitely clashes in this style. There's specific people I really appreciate the way he debates, completely stopping someone from continuing to build an argument whenever it's already known they've got a faulty beginning. He won't let them waste another several minutes going on when the foundation is just atrocious. That's saying he interrupts a lot. That's not being negative, as myself, I'm sure I'd probably end up doing the same, especially in a timed scenario. But even then, at the most that'd only call for a a decent moderator, not for timed off sections to give parts of their script. I feel this way you get a much better grasp on what each person thinks and believes and how capable they are at defending their position *all around*, and not just solely the points they want to stick to that they spent the past week writing up.
Yeah i now skip to the cross exam in most debates since they aways make the same points in their opening statements and even rebuttals.
@@davelanger lol, i do too. But i kinda feel guilty because what if the believers skipped across guys like Matt all the time. Mind is already made up.
But meh. Is what it is. I've done cross examined the existence of God. I paid my dues. Left with no choice but to be Atheist.
Jon Morrison a Canadian, got his degree at Biola University in California, USA. In Canada institutions of higher learning do not offer degree courses in Christian apologetics just like they don't offer degrees in dragon taming or unicorn riding.
Stop making canada's pants jealous! :'(
@David, Transgender Taming? That's world wide degree, every Catholic school offer one as they all worship a woman who could give birth by herself, aka virgin birth.
Not to mention Catholic also offer cannibalistic taming degree since they all pretend to consume the flesh and blood of Jesus.
@David, everything has to do with virgin birth because unless you can prove it, otherwise you can't use it. There are no such case except this unless you want to talk about Greek God or Olympic God where they raped normal people and have demi-God children.
You should talk to Catholic then, they didn't forbidden it, they mean it literally to consume flesh and blood of Jesus everytime. I was surprised as well as an ex-Christian, but that is what Catholic is doing.
About halfway through, it becomes obvious that Jon is out of arguments and has resorted to preaching. The pretense of scientific rationality completely dissolves and all that's left is nebulous happy talk about his hope for mankind, how he feels as a Christian, and so on. Matt absolutely dominated.
he was hopelessly outclassed
Taking down religion, point by point, person by person, for the good of humankind. Well done, Mr. Dillahunty.
@Ncdcfan what ? Your comment was incoherent but no one "follows" Matt unless you're on Twitter or twitch lol , we either agree with his points or we don't, we don't idolize the man
@@just4931 why make the exception; history demonstrates countless examples of idolizing man, ,look Jesus of Nazareth...
Fine Tuning. When this is presented as the crux of the argument then the argument is over.
Fine tuning is egocentric to the degree that it's almost solipsistic.
Lawrence Krauss took just one sentence to end the "Fine Tuning" delusion. "We'd be very surprised to find ourselves living in a universe in which we could not live."
Absolutely. The anthropic principle in a nutshell.
He literally said that because the grass grows that a certain rate such that we don't have to mow it every day and that's proof of god. Wow.
Impoverished, desperate argument
1:09 Jon opening statement
21:11 Matt opening statement
41:54 Jon rebuttal
52:10 Matt rebuttal
1:03:14 discussion
let's see how many ways we can state the Argument from Design!
The Iphone analogy that Jon made in his opening was actually completely counter to his argument. If you study an I phone in depth you could learn everything you would ever need to know to use it effectively without having to know a single thing about Steve Jobs. In fact without knowing who Steve jobs was you could not learn who he was just from studying an Iphone. You would not have to care who Steve Jobs is or what he wants untill he comes and directly effects your phone at which point his effects would be detectible just by watching the phone.
Telling Matt that he would be a good pastor is like saying an iphone would make a good walkie talkie.
Well done, Matt. You just keep getting better and better. Actually, among all the current debaters on the atheist side, I think that both the arguments you choose to present plus your demeanor in presenting those arguments are likely being effective in causing audience members on the other side to seriously question their belief system. More combative styles of debate are unlikely to achieve such results except with fence sitters. This is a major accomplishment and I hope that your style becomes emulated by others in the future. Thanks for what you're doing.
+1140Cecile
Good cop, bad cop is always necessary.
Some listen more to the nice cop, some listen more to the mean cop. Some few need both or they wouldn't listen to either, even less need neither to incidentally come to the same conclusions, and even less than that are turned away from the road to the same conclusion by the presence of both. Just a guess.
David Anewman lol whoops
David Anewman go away troll
This was an excellent debate, I think it was one of Matts best performances. Great work Matt!
R
***** Anywhere between 40-60% of my arguments are Dillahunty learned!
R
+The Rational Channel
Lucky for you he was there to tell you to be skeptical. Some less ethical persuaders would have told you to simply not be skeptical. To believe, you must have faith, to have faith, you must believe. What a horrid brainwash that would have been.
+The Rational Channel great opening statement. It really went to the heart of debate
Jon made his first big mistake within 2 minutes ...
Matt has already been baptized. There is no reason to baptize him again, even if he were to convert on the spot.
And that's the kicker. Matt is very vocal about his baptist history. Jon has not watched a single video featuring Matt. He's clearly unprepared. I'm omnomming because this is going to be a slaughterhouse.
He was kidding. But even if he were serious, so what? It has no bearing on the arguments he was about to make. Just because he wasn't versed in matts history doesn't mean he couldn't present a convincing argument. Matt says himself that arguments stand or fall based on their own merits, not on how well the person presenting them studied his opponents religious background. I'm an atheist and think Matt kicked ass here, just saying.
+AbleAnderson he didn't say "because he didn't learn about Matt, all his arguments are wrong"
AbleAnderson I didn't say his arguments were wrong (mostly because I commented at the 2 minute mark). I said that he wasn't prepared.
I know it was a joke and it'd be a good joke against Lawrence Krauss or Hitchens. Against Matt, not so much because of his history. But that's just my impression of it :)
I was actually impressed by Jon, he held up much better than expected.
Ha. I'll accept any baptism or conversion from anyone and whatever religion. They have no actual meaning. I'd love to be accepted and convert to every religion, and then be excommunicated from every religion. Does every religion excommunicate, or just the cathlics?
Dear @Jon Morrison: Two minutes into your rebuttal, it is clear you did NOT listen. You did not hear the core thing, being you cannot just state "god did it." You lost the debate, soundly, right then.
I find John to be a rather likable, nice person. He has no argument to make. Just, "Well Science & religion can
all get along". Yes, they can. But when Science actually Answers Questions, knowing that Those Solutions, or
explanations might Change over Time/when New Information is seen *he* lacks any evidence/Burden Of Proof
This is a Long Winded shifting of a Burden Of Proof. He's simply "happy" to believe, ok. But it's not persusaive
+Bolgernow I also found him likable, but was dismayed when I remembered he supposedly has a masters in a related field. The arguments seemed like the musings of a nice guy who had never really thought about it before, not someone who is claiming a certain level of mastery on the topic.
+land1sea1lions Yes, that's a *very* good observation. If he deeply thought about it all, it'd be concerning to him
What does it say about a university that gives masters degrees to a person who acts like he has never really thought about his related field, and uses God of the gaps, circular reason, special pleading, shifting the burden of proof, and a host of other fallacies to justify a position that he cannot demonstrate to be true?
I've also had to add an automatic hanging for lying, dishonesty, straw man fallacies, and misrepresenting others positions.
Not much IMHO, but he has "thought" about it. Not, in 'Extensive' positions. And YES we both
agree Straw Man's bad, but him trying the best he can is OK. Him being a terrible evil asshole
being Machiavellian is totally different. Would you agree with that honest assessment there?!
Apologist: "blah blah blah that's obvious evidence"
Matt: "that's not evidence.... those are claims"
Apologist: "well I guess it comes down to my personal experience."
Matt: Ok that's nice you have feelings.
😄👏
"I know because i have faith and it has been revealed to me." Wow, what an argument.
Well... If we can't afford William Lane Craig at least now we know who to call, Discount William Lane Craig!
+Ian G
Generic drugs are the same as brand name ones w/o he slick package so why pay more for the latter. In this case the drug is a placebo so it doesn't mater either way.
Lol!
+Ian G Jon Morrison seems like a nice guy. I'd enjoy hanging out with him and just talking. I can't say that for the _large majority_ of theist debaters. But....his position and his arguments are absurdly unjustified and fallacious. I just can't respect his mind. But I like the guy. Maybe he's just a nice guy with a brain that's not up to par. Or...maybe he's subconsciously aware of how problematic his reasoning is on this topic. If the latter is the case, he'll be an atheist in a couple years.
He's much better than William Lane Craig...as a human being.
Thank you Matt, this debate looked relatively simple for you.
Matt is great, well studied, well read, keeps up on current events and he actually does fine tune his presentation. But let's face it, it's easier to debate your side when you are on the correct side!! I love listening to him.
oh crap, so the guy at the beginning was presenting hs opening statement! I thought that was just the moderator introducing the guests and talking about what the debate is gonna be about.
Holy smokes, I am 8 minutes in while reading through the comments and just reached yours. Wow, thanks, I too was thinking it was the moderator and not the debate.
The word soup is glorious, speed-up or skip time, he hasn't presented a valid arguement for such a long period, wow.
The theist side does this nearly all the time. Instead of arguing for their position in the opening argument section, they rebut the other side's position before its presented, and worse, put limits on what the other person can say such as by favorite: you can't use logic cuz you'll be borrowing from the Christian worldview,.... As if there's any logic in Christianity
"So do you agree with me or are you wrong?"
- Christians
When his best evidence is the cosmological argument...
If only for the format, this debate is sooo good! No silly non-back and forth, but an actual discussion. Not trying to score points and twisting or leaving thigsg out, but talking about the things in dialogue and not in separate monologues.
Jon acted cordial and civil, which was nice (unlike many other apologists).
Mattt, you did a great job on this one. Thank you for representing! :D
Excellent debate Matt! I really like this format. I think it is extremely more productive and realistic. It resonates with the listener/viewer much more because casual conversations with a believer is what we experience in real life situations. Thanks for all you do! You ARE making a difference.
44:42 "the more I study the iPhone, the less I need to know about Steve Jobs" the most ridiculous analogy I have heard so far from the theist side!
Minh Pham that’s what I said lmao
It was nice to meet Matt at the conference. He was extremely gracious to Jon, for the sake of his audience. It would have been the first such debate any of them had seen. I cant wait until next year, I hope we see some of them there.
Jon Morrison - Sad. You couldn't even bother to entertain us with a modern argument? You mine quoted every person you could, used every form of logical fallacy. You really don't seem convinced yourself.
Haha Brett Keane lol "quote mined"
With all his credentials and background, he makes arguments that Matt and the TAE guys would get on any given week during the show.
I really appreciate you posting these on your channel, Matt. :-)
Matt is approaching Christopher Hitchens level of debate destruction! Well done Matt.
Matt, how do you listen to an opening statement like this and not bang your head on the table and scream "Jesus, this shit argument AGAIN?!?!"
BillF1967
I think he consoles himself with the long game.. thats how i got through it anyway.
Same old apologetics vs Matt Dillahunty"s consistently impressive intellectual beatdown.
46:30 just what I need; a half baked version of the fine tuning argument
Haywood Giablomi
Woah. I saw what you did there. :D
I am still amazed that the fine tuning argument is still being used by apologists. This is a testament to the fact that humanity still do not understand probability and how that works.
This is now my favourite debate of yours. Very relaxed conversational style with great points and counterpoints. The theist did remarkably good for his first debate. Great job Matt.
At least this guy has a sense of humor. Not that it helps his arguments much. Cause y'know, opening with genetic fallacy is a bad move. As well as mangling big bang cosmology. And quote mining scientists.
Aaand a good old "free will" + "it's not my place to judge God" copout at the end of it. Fuck christianity, good people believing and *defending* bullshit for no good reason.
2:00:38 No you wouldn't you sorry excuse for a preacher. You would deny that it is a body of Jesus instead. We both know you would.
+Self-replicating whatnot I kind of find it funny that his one thing that would "convert" him is something that there's no way to find or identify if it did exist.
One thing I do like to point out, even though all of the Christians deny it, is that the Romans didn't let the crucifixion victims be entombed or buried, and some random person who says he's a prophet isn't going to get special treatment.
+Self-replicating whatnot Jon Morrison seems like a nice guy. I'd enjoy hanging out with him and just talking. I can't say that for the _large majority_ of theist debaters. But....his position and his arguments are absurdly unjustified and fallacious. I just can't respect his mind. But I like the guy. Maybe he's just a nice guy with a brain that's not up to par. Or...maybe he's subconsciously aware of how problematic his reasoning is on this topic. If the latter is the case, he'll be an atheist in a couple years.
Phelan
Hahaha I do that too, every time I'm forced to go to church by my fundamentalist family. (the "lets play find the fallacies" game.)
I make a list of fallacies, then make a hash mark by the ones they commit. For each hash mark, the preacher gets a hangman line. 6 fallacies per hanging. I haven't made it through a church service without at least 3 hangings for 18 fallacies. When you have compounding foundational fallacies, it gets harder to track.
I've added facepalming moments as bonus points in my game of hangman. Lol
Lol I started with the platform, and I've even modified the game so I can hang the guy on a cross. lol
I don't know, therefore god.
His obsession with Steve Jobs is weird...
Damn Matt, you were brutal. Straight to the throat.
I'm surprised the Kalam, fine tuning and the moral arguments are still being used.
Man, Matt's opening statements really hits all the marks. Well done.
im so excited for these debates. i made a weird woo woo sound :)
Somehow, I did not see this one before! Very good, Matt, great job.
Matt Dillahunty has such a trenchant mind. He's definitely one of the my favourite proponents for atheism.
At 13:10 he LITERALLY uses "not having to cut our grass every day" as an example of fine tuning.
Matt had one of the best opening statements I've ever heard.
Matt, you did very well but I felt like the whole debate went off topic completely a little after the conversation part started and was almost forgotten
So, Morrison havet spend all his life studying pretend?
+AakeTraak I think this could be part of the reason for why he defends it so vigorously. He's in far too deep.
+John
I think he mentioned that his livelihood is preaching Christianity... the Buddha said "seek out right livelihood instead" meaning be open that if your job is proved wrong/bad, you can easily go to one that hasn't been proved wrong/bad yet. I think capitalists call this: diversifying your portfolio.
I'm 15 minutes into the first opening statement, I already want Matt to go in and swat this guy with reason. Go Matt!
+BigWapiti And, I was not disappointed. Thanks.
Matt is right. My mom just passed away in July, and I knew I'd never see her again so I connected with her-as an atheist-more than my other family members who are christian.
Matt's answer to the question at 1:32:55 about hopelessness coming from giving up the belief in an afterlife is one of the best answers and most powerful I have ever heard from him.
ok, god did all these these horrible things...but he died on the cross for us so it's ok
it's as if christians have defined the dying on the cross as the most horrible thing to ever have happened
+rodluvan1976 Sometimes I think all conversations should start with Numbers 31:17-18. If they can't provide a decent answer to that, everything else is just tiptoeing.
+rodluvan1976
When the new apologist insinuated that Christianity (his) wasn't really about the meaningless crucifixion torture, meaningless dead weekend, but about the immense torture of bearing everyone's sins... I asked: why all the extra baggage then anyway? Obviously to increase confusion for the greater good then - WTF? Islam confuses me... oh wait so does Christianity (for those unthoughtful Christians who would think confusion proves their religion true since it is "professed" in their venerated scriptures, Islam has writings about how the enemy is confused as well "veils")
“Science closes the gaps into which theist try to insert their gods.”
❤️
this guy has actually no arguement at all
Matt does a great job of channeling his inner preacher at 1:33:54 . I think that taking on that stereotypical preacher voice and pacing has a much better job of forming the cracks in the armor of cognitive dissonance.
I so wish I could have made it to this debate (I live about 2 hour drive from red deer) :'( Matt is my favorite of all the atheist debaters, I hope you come back
Wait for it... Wait for it... Creating time... Now!
+frogsinpants I was screaming so loudly at my poor monitor in that moment. Worthy of an atomic head-desk, no doubt.
+frogsinpants This is one of the greatest weaknesses in the theologian's philosophy... that God could somehow exist independent of time, and yet, at some *moment* of his choosing, create time. The cognitive dissonance should make the theist's head explode. The fact that it doesn't must surely be proof of God!
SweetLiberty01 I noticed this too as soon as he said it.. I have such a hard time trying to follow the theists logic (because it's not logical) and yet I completely understand Matt's logic because it +makes sense+.
Listening to this playing in a background tab, I see Dinesh D'souza in my head whenever Morrison is speaking.
EDIT: And not just his manner of speech.
EDIT: And the comparison is not a compliment, in case anyone was wondering
1:51 Matt's "closing arguments" are probably the best I've heard thus far...especially his court room/juror explanation which I've hears him give and use many times.
Funny how most theists mention the cumulative argument but only in the positive belief for the existence of gods (forget about it being reasoning anyway). Yet when the ambiguous nature of a god that supposedly wants a personal relationship, and bone cancer in a 2 year old is brought up, they don't count that in the negative toward a cumulative reason to think there isn't a god (or that type), it just becomes "god's mysterious".
just few minutes into the debate and I actually find myself liking the pastor.. I 110% disagree with him but I do like him. He does come across as a good man.
its the canadian demureness
Don't be fooled, this guy is a real snake in the grass. I have known him personally for a while now and he really is not a great guy.
Christians have this term called "Wolf in sheep's clothing".
"I would argue that it was the bible that was the first one to brush aside the idea that there were thousands of gods out there."
...through civil discourse, I'm sure.
Matt, you really nailed it here. I love how you speak to truth regardless of the BS that gets thrown at you. You rise above the nonsense; by doing that you are really advancing the quest for human achievement and progress.
To give this guy some advice, watch The Atheist Experience BEFORE debating Matt. Citing smart theists as evidence is challenge level one.
Matt's beating up the children in the playground again...........sigh.......
Here's the resume: John Morrison is a Christian Pastor because when he examines the world using his personal biases, he's kinda convinced, that the Christian God is true.
THE BATTERY IN MATT'S MICROPHONE DIED AT 1:22:27 '' IS THERE AN AFTER LIFE '' FOR THE REST OF THE TALK ? LOL.
The debate would have been more interesting if the guy with a doctorate in Christian apologetics had more unusual and exotic arguments. Nobody can beat Bananaman himself in the quality of memes.
So, another theist who uses presuppositions and wild conjecture as the basis for him beliefs, and then tries to shoehorn random "facts" to try to justify it. How sad.
+Dienekes And a hefty dose of appeal to authority.
You already know that when you are making a point and your opponent is just going "..right... right.....uh huh...yeah....right..." that they aren't fucking listening.
Studying pretend? What the fuck?
I could get a degree in Star Trek...
+Scarecrow Sorry, idk what are you referring to - would you care to explain?
Matt, as usual - a great debate. Sorry our Canadian pastor tried your patience so much. He offers nothing new "if the Bible says God did it then he did". Keep sharing the knowledge - it makes a difference. You helped educate me into a whole new world.
The gish gallop is strong in this one!
I really do love watching debates, but it really does seem that every other debate I watch seems to have technical issues :/
No money in fighting religion!!
Love watching your debates Matt. I'm sorry that the real debates keep getting cancelled and you have to deal with this vague "deist" version all the time. Anyway, excellent points as always.
I find the "study" that he talks about the main reason scientists are leaving the church is because of bad church experiences.
Out of all of the atheists I know, maybe one or two may have left because of a bad experience. I know this is only anecdotal, but atheists that become atheists because of bad church experiences seems to be extremely rare.
It seems to me the 'bad experience' argument is empty. One with faith, and a strong attachment to their religion would switch from the church where the bad experiences took place to another.
The supping at the Xian buffet. If one does not like the flavour of one denomination, one finds a different table at which to feed.
Matt: "Why can't we have the same experience as Paul?"
Jon: "God gave that experience to Paul because he needed it for the propagation of Christianity."
Seriously, Jon?
Very enjoyable debate. Jon Morrison is quite likeable. He's the un-Sye. I think if he talked to Matt long enough he would become an atheist. He's open and intelligent, and not maddeningly dogmatic. Matt did an outstanding job, as always.
[36:00] The two minutes Matt deconstructs "little god detectors" who claim to detect the undetectable is absolutely priceless. Jon Morrison follows the standard apologetic script... 1) Mention things that seem mysterious (origin of the universe, "fine tuning", etc.), 2) Quote random scientists (without admitting that the majority of those sources quoted don't draw supernatural conclusions from their work), and 3) Claim -magic pixies-, er, God created the universe! Matt, on the other hand, offers refreshing arguments and food for thought unique to his philosophy. Conclusion: Jon Morrison is a simple parrot regurgitating Christian dogma and tired apologetics, Matt Dillahunty is an original thinker offering a fresh perspective. Great debate Matt!
1:00:53 Best Dillahunty line ever.
Obviously it was an honest mistake, but damn... you'd think that the organisers of the debate would have ensured that the batteries in the microphones were all fully charged before the event. Definitely made it hard to hear near the end there.
The *"who?"* argument that Matt brought up around 28:00 is absolutely true. That's something I've always found _bewildering_ about theistic arguments. They constantly bring up this "who?" question. It reminds me of a girl I once fell into a debate with at a coffee shop who asked me, _"How does the moon decide whether it's full or crescent or new?"_ And she literally meant it. I explained to her how moon phases work....and it went 100% over her head. So many theists seem unable to understand the absurdity of assuming personhood causality to the universe. They see faces in every cloud...and personal intention in every natural disaster. It's just baffling to me how people come to such conclusions. I totally get the evolutionary adaptive advantage to this "causal agent bias"....but it's 2015. We know too much to still be thinking like this....
Did any of you try "closed captions", for some reason Matt's still does't decipher properly, while Jon's does. It's more than just audio problems!
Damn, I live in Red Deer. I never thought in a million years that Matt would come here.
1:40:52 - 1:41:03 This is where I think that Jon lost the debate.
He's responding to what Matt said at 1:38:56 - 1:40:09, where Matt says that if he could die and be beaten to save the world, he would do it, and lots of people would probably do it also, even if you didn't get to come back to life after a few days.
Jon responds to this with the most absurd statement: "I believe that's hardwired into the very nature of the universe--is this idea of substitutionary, someone paying for something for the sake of another. Right, we have, um, in hockey..." and then gives an example of someone taking a penalty for another in hockey.
It's at this point where it becomes obvious that he's just making ridiculous assertions to defend his position. Substitutionary repayment...is hardwired into the nature of the universe? I literally rolled my eyes at how terrible his response was. Also, kudos to Matt, his arguments and rebuttals in this debate were fantastic.
+tricksock Yeah, if substitutionary repayment is so "hard-wired" into us, how would a rape victim feel if an innocent person went to jail instead of the rapist? Not very good, and society wouldn't knowingly allow it. One thing they didn't get into is also that such a view really warps one's understanding of "forgiveness." They like to say god forgives, but what they really mean is someone else getting punished. Forgiveness is saying "no one needs to pay," not "I'll get this other person to pay and then I'll hold it over your head forever."
Matt's opening statements were spot on.
44:50 I love the Steve Jobs argument! Because Steve Jobs didn't designed anything on the iPhone.
Science moves us toward an understanding of reality. Whether 'God' is part of that reality has yet to be confirmed by any form of reliable evidence beyond old stories.
2:38 That's just... tasteless, and Matt's response was great.
I don't know if my opinion will change through the course of this debate. But my initial thought is this: Science does not currently have a mechanism to prove or disprove the existence of a god. Therefore it should not move us toward or away. This is not to say that we will never have such a mechanism in science, just that we don't currently.
If people are using God of Gaps arguments, and the gaps keep shrinking, then it does move people away for God.
You can't get to a god with science if you haven't already got there without it.
Touché
Great debate Matt!! You were undoubtedly more prepared for the topic than Morrison was. Your responses provoked a load of uncomfortable body language signals from Morrison. Clearly, he has not spent a substantial amount of time to logically assessing his beliefs. Which alone shows me, yet another case of blind faith. At least Morrison did not rely on bible verses to address the conversation.
Another portrayal of the declining hold that theistic beliefs have on rational free thinking minds.
I like how Jon says, at around 1:29:40, that it's a logical leap to assume that the universe is meaningless because it appears that way... after several times using that same logical leap to presume design.
Jon is way in over his head against Matt. Also, he's way to nice, its almost like he's afraid to attack Matt's arguments. Matt is trouncing his guy.
Actually the more you learn about the iPhone the more you realize how unimportant Steve Jobs really is in relation to the end product, so that analogy totally backfires if you really think about it.