วีดีโอ

Other than arguing about whether DD is playing the role of either Jeff Daniels or Jim Carrey, you're right.

Yeah, that comment was pretty hard-core surreal.. lol

I would think that anyone could actually voluntarily describe their own physical appearance online, even though not actually posting photos of themselves. It would not be infringing on anyone else if they decided to describe themself, and he has actually did this before in at least two instances that I know of. As far as describing others, or posting photos of someone else, I would agree that he has no business describing what another person looks like, or posting photos of them , unless he either had prior conscent from them or the photos were already previously posted online in a public format. This is just my personal take on it.

@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE In that case... I'm a super model and loom better than 90% of other men. And all my photos are fake. They aren't me.

@@adamjacksonmedia Yes, I think what you are suggesting is actually similar to what he did. In his own self-description, which I have downloaded, he compared himself to the celebrity Taylor Hicks. th-cam.com/video/i-BEv065_1c/w-d-xo.html Granted, at that time, there may have been a few similarities. We now know what he actually looks like because of the 4 photos found on Social media. th-cam.com/video/ffepd0VYcU8/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/UppprPIUSZw/w-d-xo.html It's clearly not the case that he currently looks like Taylor Hicks, because of his involuntary face reveal in a live stream which occured relatively recently. th-cam.com/users/shorts3tE4NNVWoLo?feature=share .

@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE This is very interesting information. I heard in a video yesterday, that he claims his face reveal was a deliberate practical joke. He unquestionably has many traits of either Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or Borderline Personality Disorder. He is most certainly not honest. And one trait of Borderline Personality Disorder is black and white thinking. Darth absolutely demonstrates black and white thinking. He is completely incapable of accepting a nuanced answer... everything he believes and everything he talks about is black or white, right or wrong, 100% factual or 100% wrong, up or down etc. As well as all the other obvious traits such as not allowing others to talk over him, while talking over others constantly and many other hypocritical behaviours that are too numerous to list. I would suggest Darth is very unwell mentally. He has a large following for the wrong reasons.

@@adamjacksonmedia His idea of what he refers to as a "practical joke" is pretty psychologically warped and twisted. He already used that line when he justified his behavior in the Patrick Rivelli case, th-cam.com/video/FojZnWKEWns/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/phQU5CHNJws/w-d-xo.html which is where he edited and pre-arranged a fake video, using the video of a deceased person in an attempt to deceive others into thinking that it was himself. He later laughed about it, calling it a "practical joke," so it doesnt surprise me that he is claiming that the face reveal wasn't actually him. Even if we are incorrect, and it was not him, we still have the 4 photos that we can know are him, and we also have: * his financial records, which show his name attached to the name of his ex, and * her personal information is also available online in Social Media. *The fact that we also have her on video, on one of her local TV stations, where her full name appeared in the credits, and also the fact that * we have court documents that have both Gary's and her name attached to the same address and multiple financial records/documents, and * we have a PHOTO OF BOTH OF THEM, WITH HIS EXs' PARENTS AND SISTER, standing in front of the house they used to live at, showing the house number, all of this is pretty strong evidence to use as verifying his/her actual identity. He can deny it all he wants - there may even be a few people on the face of the entire planet who are naive and gullible enough to believe him and his filthy lies and deception, all done in the name of his Christ. The evidence and information available online that reveals his actual identity is definitely strong enough to hold up in any court of law.

Yes, he has idiolized Donald Trump, in his former term, and now in his relection. He also idolizes Greg Bahnsen, and especially Cornelius Van Til. (The Second Commandment against idolatry is recorded in Exodus 20:4-6: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.) but Gary clearly doesn't pay much attention to it. Based on what I have heard from listening to thousands of hours of DD, one can be speaking to DD, and say a lot of defamatory remarks directly against God/Jesus/the Bible, and in the worst case scenario, DD will accuse him/her of giving God the double-middle finger, but, say anything defamatory or insulting about his idol Cornelius Van Til, and Gary will start WW3.

Right, and who could possibly ever think otherwise? 😆😅🤣

Oh, come on! Christianity also saves lives-just ask the folks who miraculously find cash in their pockets after passing the offering plate! 😆

@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE yes, all the workers in jet plane factories know they've still got jobs to go to 🤣

A legend is his own mind.

@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE and I'm afraid to say, some others too!

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE And lunchtime 😂

@ What about lunchtime?

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE A legend in his own lunchtime.

Also had JiL come in before they did. So they moving in flocks

I never spoke to him. The only interaction I had was his single text message and my text reply.

Darth Dawkins: the Law of Transitive Property exposes his "Transcendental" position as being false.

Right, he also likes to refer to Paul and Stephen as an excuse for his obnoxious behavior whenever someone criticizes him for it.

Otangelo Grasso is stunningly stupid, as is Darth Dawkins.

@@musiclover9361 Yep, birds of a feather flock together.

Well, that’s certainly one way to make an entrance! 🔥 But let’s just hope Lord Trump doesn’t start turning Diet Coke into water anytime soon. 😆

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE Do NOT take the Lord's name in vain for your PERVERSE joke. You are to stand AGAINST and AWAY from the atheists, heathens, and those who oppose our Lord's return to His Kingdom! He is striking down His enemies day by day, and creating a true peaceful world of Christ and God for ALL of us.

@@Szriko You think I am an Atheist, heathen or I am opposed to God? If that's the case, where did you get that idea from?

@@Szriko Oh, by the way, I checked out your TH-cam channel. Pretty cool stuff.

I use a variety of resources and online tools, but I am like a magician doing a magic trick, I never tell my secret. lol I was actually asked the same question you are essentially now asking, and I was asked about it during a live feed. Another TH-camr, Godless Girl, asked how I do it. She didn't get much out of me : ) Several of my tools are very little known, even hard to find if doing an online search. For example, one of the tools I use allows me to "sweep" all of the information off of a website or channel. For instance, I can go to a large TH-cam channel, with hundreds of video, and sweep all of the info I need from that channel. Take Tom Rabbitts channel, which is a well know "DD content" channel. He currently has 917 public videos. I can get all of the information off of his channel in a manner of just a few minutes, but not only that, I am also able to find anything I want from those 917 videos, sometimes obtaining the relevant information in only a manner of a few seconds. Another tool I use allows me to find relevant information by only having a specific "keyword(s)." For example, I may not know or remember the title to a particular website or video, but if I remember and/or use a certain word, sentence or phrase, I can sometimes find the relevant information in only a manner of a few seconds. I also have an intermediate knowledge of coding, and it definitely helps.

Lightning is not Energy. Lightning has energy as energy in physics is defined as ability to do work.

How could he know that? The same way he knows anything/everything he says he knows. If you could possibly bring Gary to the most fundamental level of his entire worldview (assuming you could circumvent all of the constant over talking, constant interruptions, vulgarity and insults) and actually ask him your question, he would say he knows it because the bible says so. He would even admit that he is adopting circular reasoning to arrive at that conclusion.

I read your comment from a few days ago, and I left you a reply. I wanted to answer your questions but wasn't sure what you were referring to.

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE on the paul ross issue? I repeated my earlier comment but without the link, it seems to be still there.

Maybe for some reason tbe comments are dropping on my end. I have had that problem recently with another person. Could you please start over from the beginning.

@@milenahoffman1870 yes the one about Paul Ross

Hello, and thank you very much for the comment. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. *I am going to reply to your comment. In order for you to understand the video properly, you need to have at least a basic grasp on what DD himself is claiming. My video is based on his claims, and this reply is also based on his claims. If you were to point out some type of a contradiction, then you would actually be making my case for me, and it's the whole point of the video. So, when I am replying to you, I do not want to mischaracterize what YOU are saying VS what he is saying. You could be correct on something about his view, or you may be incorrect on a certain point. Whjat's important for you to understand about the video, and this reply, is that I am providing you with quotes based on what he has said about his worldview.* *A little about myself. Relative to Presuppositional Apologetics, I have had this TH-cam channel up since June 13, 2017. I did not post my first video related to DD until May of 2019, so I have 5+ years of experience and knowledge related to this issue. I have created over 1600 videos, all dealing with either contradictions or inconsistencies in his worldview, the majority are currently either Private or Unlisted. The point is, I am very familiar with his claims and statements, and I have listened to not hundreds, but thousands of hours of videos related to his claims, so I definitely do not consider myself to be confused on what he has said on virtually everything he says online.* First, when we are dealing with Darth Dawkins, we are dealing with someone who has admitted (a) that everything he knows about Philosophy, he learned by reading on his own and (b) that he does not have a degree, not even a BA, in Philosophy. His main Philosophical heros are Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. Remember, in my videos and on my websites, I am using HIS STANDARD AND HIS CRITERIA, not mine. Where did he get his "standard" from? Darth is a Vantillian - he learned most of what he says from either Van Til and/or Bahnsen. Both are deceased, but it is easy to find their work. DD's worldview is a combination of things he adopted from Van Til, Bahnsen, the Bible, other sources, even quoting or citing non-biblical sources, secular sources, and even Atheists. He also advances ideas he arrived at on his own, evidently not from either Van Til, Bahnsen or even the bible. He sometimes advances ideas that are even clearly and directly opposite of that which would be viewed or held as the Orthodox Christian or Mainstream Christianity position. Secondly, a question for you: If Darth Dawkins were to actually say something that would contradict himself, and/or would be inconsistent with something else he had already said, do you think he is going to announce his error before he does it? In other words, this is not going to be a case where he would say to his listeners, "Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, I need to let you know that in my next sentence, there will be a contradiction." The point is that whenever he has contradicted himself, or has made some type of a statement that is inconsistent with another statement, far more often than not, he is not even going to be aware of what he had just did. Remember, he claims to have been debating now for 14+ years, so if that is true, this is actually a negative strike against him, as there is plenty of room for making contradictory/inconsistent claims. So now, your comments, I will take them in order. _The problem is I can say concrete and describe what the floor is made out of and concrete as in existing in a material or physical form_ *Correct, and that is literally what took place in the clip I showed. Remember again, I am using this word "concrete" in the same way DD himself is using it. His interlocuter actually raised the very issue you are now alluding to. When DD told her that God is a concrete object, She replied by saying, "No, it's not, I can't touch him," to which DD replied with, "You're not understanding, okay, that's not what concrete means. It means it's something that is actual and real but it's not an abstraction of the mind." DD was making a distinction between the two ideas. In the next clip, he was even more specific when he said that "If something is a concrete one, it is NOT an abstract one."* _Perhaps he did mean both of these words in the way you need them for the argument, as for the video, you didn't clearly present that that was the case._ *Remember, my video is a representation based on things he may have repeated dozens or even hundreds of times. It is not my objective to create a 6-hour long video that will show each and every case, but If you need me to, I am definitely prepared to show more instances where he is using this word concrete, and I will post those links at your request.* _It's just important to remember that when he says one word one day and the same word another day, it might be different meanings, so make sure that they have the same meaning whan putting them together like this._ *Exactly, but here is the problem: (c) Darth considers the Laws of Logic as being *"ABSOLUTES* and he loves to deal in absolutes, (d) His entire framework is based on that idea, and he pushes this idea very zealously off on others. In my video, it actually shows a case where he IS consistent in his handling of the words he is using. So, to his credit, and in this case, he is not being inconsistent in his usage of the word "concrete."* _At the end all that argumentation gets you is that he has to decide if either God is abstract or the Laws of logic are concrete._ *There is little doubt, especially if he has been debating his views for 14 years, that HE HAS ALREADY decided what HE means on this specific point. It's not as if he needs to sit down and deliberate what he means - he is already completely convinced, thinks, and believes and in some cases, literally says that HIS VIEW is THE correct view. (e) He says that there can only be one true worldview and (f) that all others are false, as I indicated in the video.* _There is one inconsistency in his worldview, that doesn't make it entirly false._ *In this case, YOU would DEFINITELY be contradicting DD himself, as well as both Van Til and Bahnsen. PhD Greg Bahnsen said (g) that one CANNOT contradict oneself in the Christian Worldview. He said (quote) "Within the theistic worldview. You *CANNOT* contradict yourself, because so do you engage in the nature of lying and that's contrary to the character of God as we perceive it." Furthermore, DD has said that (h) there are no contradictions in the bible and, referring to the bible, said (i) "We either accept it (i.e. the bible, from Gen 1:1 to the end of Revelation) on the whole or we reject it - you can't take by piecemeal, so, if you don't accept the Christian worldview then, philosophically, it is the denial of Christian worldview." Darth said that (j) "A worldview, in terms of its ultimacy, is either true, IN ITS ENTIRETY, or IT IS NOT ENTIRELY TRUE." He said that his worldview is all encompassing. (k) "When we speak from our respective worldviews or models of reality, a model of reality from which we speak is all encompassing whether you realize that or not, so that model of reality, that frame of reference which will be all encompassing, that frame of reference is either true or it's not true. Now, before I complete my explanation, do you accept that a model of reality that we each speak from is either true or not true?"* _If I miscalculated the force of gravity, that wouldn't make gravity wrong._ *Believe me, you don't want to even mention anything about gravity when it comes to DD. He is all over the place on his statements concerning gravity, and he argues this point, assuming virtually opposite views, and depending on who he is speaking with. I am prepared to provide direct quotes of him on this subject which illustrate that he contradicts himself on a grotesque level concerning this point.* _Likewise if he is wrong on either god or logic, being concrete or abstract, that doesn't mean he's wrong on anything besides that those propertys don't align in that particular way._ *DD cannot, ACCORDING TO HIMSELF, be wrong/contradict himself on anything related to his worldview. But, the fact is, on THE most fundamental and foundational level, my video explicitly shows, (and I am drawing this conclusion not just from one or two instances, I am drawing this conclusion from an array of multiple videros where DD repeats the same script, on the most fundamental level), DD IS contradicting himself about his own God, and it cannot get any more fundamental than the topic of the nature/essence of God himself when DD is speaking about his own worldview.* _I am also not Darth Dawkins or even know him (as he seems to be a different person from richard dawkins (?or smth?) (I don't like richard dawkins either, but I know him at least a bit)) That's where my confusion set in._ *I have not met him personally, and I have only directly spoke with him on an extremely limited basis, only a few minutes. The exchange was virtually a totally meaningless waste of time and literally some of the most unfruitful minutes of my adult life.* a) th-cam.com/video/piKunnM0qXY/w-d-xo.html b) th-cam.com/video/fhHfAIYVMwE/w-d-xo.html c) th-cam.com/video/5hzPkiRm0Do/w-d-xo.html d) th-cam.com/video/rK34n_5wckc/w-d-xo.html e) th-cam.com/video/uCw2RrqqR_c/w-d-xo.html f) th-cam.com/video/zfgW7XIdUG4/w-d-xo.html g) th-cam.com/video/BoDYf0BdrWk/w-d-xo.html h) th-cam.com/video/VpKJQj_CU0Y/w-d-xo.html i) th-cam.com/video/BmrtzF-BRiM/w-d-xo.html j) th-cam.com/users/shorts-FOiLfOHdp4 k) th-cam.com/video/5k5PlCO6OTk/w-d-xo.html You have a nice day too, and feel free to reply to any of the above.

Hello and good afternoon. The video is not about Atheism, it is about his specific personal worldview and the contradictory claims/statements he has made about it.

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE Hello thanks, I realized that when watching. haha. I thought it was about Richard dawkins. Have a nice day

@@FinnA07 Ok, thanks for making that clear - and you have a great one.

The divine headquarters, Darth Dawkins’ brain, a place on permanent vacation and fantasy.

I would love to see any of his minions put up some type of an argument.

Some day I might write a book about Presuppositional Apologetics. I already have the title picked out. *Presuppositional Apologetics - because a mind is a wonderful thing to waste."* lol

Yes, at THE most Fundamental level of his entire framework, this guy can't even give a straight answer about who or what this God is supposed to be. For example, in one instance, he said "The Bible teaches that God has a mind, a will and emotions," (th-cam.com/video/qpv9oa9q5Ok/w-d-xo.html) but in another chat, he was asked, "Does God have a mind?" and his answer was (quote) "NO, God is a mind." th-cam.com/video/xC0rHuj5Ue4/w-d-xo.html If I say that I have a kangaroo, there is a hell of a difference between saying that versus saying "I am a kangaroo."

To my knowledge, his Autistic son is about 30 y/o by now and isn't in the same household. He probably can hold his own against a 63-year old.

His "tactics and strategy" are not Transcendental, Spiritual, Biblical, Truthful, nuclear strength, or unbeatable. They are cannon fodder for the extremely mindless, naive and gullible individuals out there who are looking for a do-gooder, ultra-hypocritical Authoritian who is happy to tell them what they can and cannot disagree with, and even what they can or cannot think.

Sorry to see you go, but I have learned something in my 5+ years online, and as a content creator, it's one of the things I live by - it goes like this (a quote): “You can please some of the people all of the time, You can please all of the people some of the time, But you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” ~ John Lydgate, a 15th-century English poet. I will not give you any criticism for leaving - you were never obligated to subscribe. Have a great one!!!

Yuppers

That definitely is a "simplier" approach, but not my style.

I have seen him argue with them, so I would say no, he's probably not.

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE Darth isn't a Flat-Earther but if he claims to take the Genesis account "literally", then he should be a Flat-Earther. That is my point. He is being inconsistent with his worldview. He is "leaning on his own understanding" on how the world is based on our fallible human understanding of the cosmos rather than using his scripture as his ultimate authority of what the world is like.

@@FloydFp Do you mean that there is something in Genesis that indicates a flat-earth? Or why should he be one, for what reason(s)?

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE The former. The Bible is consistent in describing a flat earth. According to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, "The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round, covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11, 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen 1:6,7, cf. Psalms 24:2, 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12,8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20;Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33;Isa. 14:9,15)."

Yes, I am well familiar with his childish immaturity and pathetic double-standard. It's pure speculation on my part, but I think his behavior and social interaction "skill" set was a major contributor to why his ex divorced him.

ChatGpt *You don't want me to reply again.* You definitely don't want to read what DD has said about gravity, which is just another contradiction in the already existing long list.

@jayb5596 ChatGPT ### 1. **Title and Thumbnail** - **Title Idea**: - *"The Cymbal-Banging Monkey vs. Darth Dawkins: A Worldview Crumbles"* - *"Circular Reasoning and Cymbals: A Critique of Darth Dawkins"* - **Thumbnail Concept**: - A close-up of the cymbal-banging monkey in action, with the text: *“Repetition ≠ Reason”* - Overlay Darth Dawkins’ signature debate style (e.g., yelling or an exaggerated “checkmate” expression). --- ### 2. **Opening Scene: Hook** - Open with dramatic music and a slow-motion shot of the cymbal-banging monkey clapping. - A narrator says: *“Meet the cymbal-banging monkey: relentless, repetitive, and loud. Sound familiar?”* - Cut to a soundbite of Darth Dawkins making one of his signature circular arguments. --- ### 3. **Main Content Structure** **A. Introduction to Darth Dawkins’ Worldview** - Briefly describe his debate approach: - Heavy reliance on Presuppositional Apologetics. - Aggressive tactics, dismissive tone, and insistence on absolute certainty from opponents. - Use the monkey to illustrate his key behaviors: - Cymbals = Repetitive talking points. - Erratic movements = Jumping between topics without addressing substance. **B. Critique Through Satire** - Use the cymbal-banging monkey as a metaphor for Dawkins’ debate style: - *“Ask a question? CLANG! It’s presuppositions.”* - *“Challenge his worldview? CLANG! Back to ‘You can’t justify X.’”* - Add captions to the monkey: “Darth: ‘You’re borrowing from the Christian worldview!’” **C. Addressing His Tactics** 1. **Circular Reasoning**: - Visualize a spinning circle with the monkey clapping in the middle, repeating a line like: *“How do you know that? You can’t justify that without God!”* 2. **Dodging and Aggression**: - Show the monkey banging harder and faster when confronted, symbolizing escalation rather than reasoned engagement. - Include a clip of Dawkins interrupting or dismissing someone mid-sentence, paired with the monkey’s cymbals. 3. **False Certainty**: - Slow down the monkey to a comedic halt as you explain the flaw in claiming certainty without evidence. - Add a voice-over: *“Louder cymbals don’t make the argument stronger.”* **D. Offering an Alternative** - Briefly contrast Dawkins’ tactics with constructive dialogue: - Show a calm, thoughtful scene with visuals of open books or a peaceful setting. - Frame the cymbal-banging monkey as the past, while reasoned discussion is the way forward. --- ### 4. **Ending Scene: The Cymbals Break** - The monkey’s cymbals fall apart, symbolizing the breakdown of Dawkins’ worldview under scrutiny. - Add a voice-over: *“Debate is about engaging with ideas, not drowning them out with noise. Let’s leave the cymbals behind.”* - Fade out with the text: *“Reason > Repetition.”* --- ### 5. **Tone and Music** - **Tone**: Lightly satirical but not overly aggressive. Let the humor land without being mean-spirited. - **Music**: Start with playful, circus-like tunes during monkey segments, transitioning to calm and thoughtful music for the critique.

The one's I have encountered so far are quite the social caveman type.

My view is that, with the exception of a very extremely tiny percentage of all existing DD "debates," I personally would categorize them as being anything but an actual debate, and I have viewed thousands of hours of his interactions. In an actual debate, there is freedom of thought and freedom to express and form a meaningful exchange. In an actual debate, there is what could be called a level playing field. The speakers are in a relatively free environment where there is no suppression (constant interruptions, rudeness, insults, overtalking, muting, controlling the mic for unrealistic amounts of time) and the speakers are allowed a reasonable amount of time to put together a complete thought, and not be coherced to move in a specified, premeditated direction. Also, the fact that DD has changed his script is very telling, especially due to the fact that he says his worldview is a "nuclear strength worldview" and is "undefeatable" , to which I would reply, "Why edit, change and even delete aspects of an "undefeatable" worldview? An undefeatable worldview would never, if it's the one he tries to push on others, wouldn't need to be modified or changed in any aspect if it already was what he claims it to be. th-cam.com/video/fghlckf374c/w-d-xo.html Also, he even admitted, for example, that he used to think that taking a position of Agnosticism (neutrality) was intellectually and Philosophically above the table and he even told an unbeliever in one interaction that the best position one could take in order to distinguish himself from an Atheist was to call himself an Agnostic. Now, you'll never hear him make such a statement. Instead, he'll tell his opponents that it is impossible to be neutral. So, if that is true, he would also, to remain consistent, admit that he once held to a position that was impossible to hold. So he did something impossible? I think not.

@@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE I wholeheartedly agree with your points, but I would go so far as to say that pretty much the entire "Debate community" isn't debating jack, they're just having arguments and jerking themselves off.

Why isn't the debate community not debating Jack? What did he do? I'm just kidding.

Thanks for commenting & watching. 👍🏼👍🏼