Glen Scrivener & Matt Dillahunty • Morality: Can atheism deliver a better world?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ม.ค. 2020
- For more debates, updates and a bonus clip of Matt and Glen discussing the Trans controversy that divided The Atheist Experience sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience, and Glen Scrivener, director of Speak Life, debate whether atheism or Christianity can deliver the morality we need for a better world.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Episode 6 | Season 2 of The Big Conversation
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. Dave Rubin & John Lennox Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
5. Tom Holland & AC Grayling • Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
6. Matt Dillahunty & Glen Scrivener • Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
For a bonus clip of Matt and Glen discussing the Atheist Experience Trans controversy sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Many people have also requested links to the studies cited by Glen to show the positive effects of religion:
Meta-analysis of 3000+ studies on religion & spirituality and health: www.researchgate.net/publication/237200852_Religion_Spirituality_and_Health_The_Research_and_Clinical_Implications
Mental Health: meta-analyis of 850 studies www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540260124661
Other studies and meta-analyses:
veraznanjemir.bos.rs/materijal/Values%20and%20religiosity_a%20meta-analysis.pdf
tonyjack.org/files/2013%20April%20poster%20Religion%20Dogmatism%20-%20Intersections%20Prize%20winner%202nd%20place%20Social%20Sciences.pdf
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054
dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/545/docs/Wendy_Wood_Research_Articles/Social_Influence/hall.matz.wood.2010.final_why_dont_we_practice_what_we_preach.pdf
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429810377404
www.jstor.org/stable/1387984?seq=1
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013164497057006007
that was a snoozer....matt seemed jet lagged and the other guy seemed like he had too pee really badly...literally nothing was accomplished--nothing
and you derailed the whole conversation with the hitler crap
Matt claims that the Soviet union wasn't secular humanism, but he is only focused on the aftermath. When if first started, it sold all the same humanist dreams to the people. That was the hole point of communism, to produce a social utopia. That was the point Peterson was trying to make when they debated.
Matt's argument that you can't have a Christian moral code unless everyone agrees to it is weak. Western Civilization is rooted in Christian philosophy and has been furtile ground for Atheism. So Matt's existence is anecdotal evidence against his position. You can ground your social morality in God and still have Atheists accept the benefits without appealing to divinity. To say you must have a secular or humanist morality to appease the Atheist is sort of special pleading for his point. This doesn't even take into account the effect that the idea that an invisible omnipotent intelligence watching over all might have a net utilitarian benefit.
@@franklindzioba13 We are all acting out Christian moral values, we are all inculturated in it in the West. All our movies have religious themes. It happens either consciously or unconsciously. Morality isn't suspended until we all agree, we act it out every day. Matt's arguments are super weak.
The fact that a religious man is happier than an atheist is of no more significance than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober one.
I'm not convinced a drunk man is likely to be happier than a sober man
Gregor Samsa And i’m not convinced a religious man is happier than an athiest, what’s ur point?
@@lifestough5558
Not sure what you're confused about. I think my comment is self explanatory
@@gregorsamsa1364 The point of the quote was to demonstrate that one's feelings have nothing to do with what is objectively true. People may very well find the idea of god satisfying and comforting but in no way does that demonstrate that a god exists.
@@chrismathis4162
I understand that.
I was saying that I think it might be a flawed analogy. There are studies which suggest that, on average(at least in the US), a religious man is happier than an atheist(which likely has something to do with the fact that we have to deal with all the religious people surrounding us), but I would suspect that, on average, a sober man is actually happier than a drunk man
Matt’s final statement: Restates his position clearly.
Glenn’s final statement: Intentionally mischaracterize Matt’s position, never provide support for his own belief.
m riggs trying? To convince people of theism?
m riggs so u like the more gentle approach? Like the Socratic method? I totally can understand that, it takes all types to finally put the seed of doubt within. Some respond well with debates, some don’t. Have u ever checked out Anthony Magnabosco?
@@UnRe4lSkat3r Anthony is brilliant 🙂
@@UnRe4lSkat3r 😀💚🐕🎸🎵
@@UnRe4lSkat3r I just learned about SE literally like 2 weeks ago such an interesting way to look at things let people just talk themselves into realizing that they have no evidence to support their claims
Guys I sincerely envy you. As an atheist from a Muslim background, I can not see such a calm and open exchange between an atheist and a member of the Islamic "clergy" happening anytime soon.
I can visualise one and meeeen😂😂😂😂
Which is why religious freedom is a good thing. And why the Christian right wingnuts need to be opposed at every point possible
I was even shocked once I began seeing the critical academia with the quran. It is a long way away from where we are with the bible
As a former Christian, I’m a much happier, kinder, giving person as an agnostic. No yoke is lighter than one removed.
So, as an Agnostic, you don't know if God doesn't exist then?
@@danielsmithiv1279 Yeah. There’s no way to prove that anything doesn’t exist. For example, you can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist. It’s very possible there was a creator that created all of “this” and I’m open to proof of that. I’ve just not seen anything as of yet that proves it or that provides enough evidence to convince me of it. And if there was a creator, who or what was it? Was there one creator or multiple creators? There’s just not enough evidence to convince me of it.
Same. I always tell people I’m a much better person now that I’m not a Christian.
@@danielsmithiv1279
Yep. Agnosticism is the position that one doesn't know whether or not a god exists. We don't know whether or not OP believes one exists, but I'm guessing they don't, so they'd be an agnostic atheist.
Im much happier as Christian and kinder as Christian
Every time they cut to Matt I expect him to be rolling his eyes.... and he isn't. The man has self control I don't
I swear, this man has been dealing with these people f twenty years. If Nirvana were to actually exist he would probably be closer to it than the Dalai Lama.
I think he brings the fire and brimstone kinda talk with the no no no cutting off during discussions only on the A.E show because that's like what people expect when watching it for better or worse. He still has those traits during debates and similar discussions but their far more reigned in and he becomes pretty chill for the most part.
Eric Goodman true lol
Or maybe when you know your stuff you don't need to resort to disrespect.
He’s pretty obnoxious on his show
Why is it that these guys always seem to be implying that pre christianity there were no persons who cared about their fellow human beings.
Time stamp?
Such as? Most just cared only about their community/culture and no one beyond that.
@ This small community also lead to the West.....it's not so much the numbers, as it's about the road.
Christopher Hitchens had a great response to people who say “there was no good before Christ” when Jesus talks about the Good Samaritan he tells the story of a man who did good to a fellow human being but the Samaritan man can’t be a Christian because Jesus is telling a story of him and it predates Christianity. Glen’s argument is so fallacious because he starts with a conclusion and tries to work it backwards.
@@psychicandice what conclusion did he start with?
The conversational format is so much more effective than the traditional formal debate. There’s no talking past one another, there aren’t as many unanswered questions or missing rebuttals. The participants can actually drive the focus of the subject matter and force their opponent to answer. Wish some of classic popular debates had utilized this format. Thankfully we are seeing more and more of these. Outstanding!
I agree with you about the format as long as each participant cannot talk longer than some time T, perhaps two minutes, at a time and interruptions are prohibited. In the discussion of Matt and Glen there were a few interruptions, but not many.
Well, apologist James Tour just crashed the entire bus of apologists with his recent insane “debate” with Prof. Dave of TH-cam - he literally screamed at Dave while acting like an unhinged maniac - he also misled his own students regarding the chemistry that they were supposed to be discussing.
You might like Alex Malpass. He had a funny discussion with a jerk, John Lee. JL was rude and Alex was patient and lead him towards finally seeing his faulty logic.
Love Glen's totally unjustified and cringe smugness and his complete reliance on overconfident assertion.
Can you encourage Glen to post his "countless scientific studies" he mentioned? I'd very much like to read them. Thanks.
I was thinking that exact thing!!!
I'm guessing they came from good church abiding researchers, anything that could be replicated by peers would be an interesting idea and would likely be used to push religion.
Glen kept mentioning these studies as "univariate" as if that's a commendable quality in the studies. It actually means that religiousity (however defined) is correlated with x in one study and y in another and z in yet another. As we should all know by now, correlation is not causation and, equally important, a "univariate" study fails to control for other possible explanations of the relationship. That the consumption of ice cream is correlated with crime doesn't mean that eating ice cream causes people to commit crime. Instead, ice cream consumption and crime tend to vary with how hot it is outside, but a "univariate" study of ice cream and crime would discover a spurious or false correlation. On another level, the Quran champions the weak, the poor, the orphaned just as much as Christianity if not more so. Why privilege Christianity as the source for caring for the downtrodden. And oh yeh, there was that guy Gandhi. I don't believe he was a Christian.
"Literally thousands of studies!" Which I can't find.
Aswell as Dillahunty's scientific studies
"It's there in Judaism but it's a uniquely Christian idea".
You fail to see that Judaism is fOreShadOwiNg for Christianity!
@@johanneskramer9490 Unless you're Jewish...
It is an even more appalling statement when you consider the fact that Zoroastrianism did come up with those ideas even before Judaisme
Contradictions and double standards are the cornerstones upon which every insecure foundation rests.
@@johanneskramer9490 Cant a muslim say that the bible is the foreshadowing of the Quran ?
Loved this debate!... Great points by Matt
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-Marcus Aurelius
Excellent quote.
@@danielsmithiv1279 Thank you, Daniel.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is."
-Albert Camus
All the best!✨
Glen Scrivener stated (his problem) at the beginning: 8:56 "...I discovered I could do this thing for a living...."
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
BINGO!!!!!!
@Melinda D What about all of the atheists that were once well payed preachers? What about Antony Flew? What about Matt himself? Matt was going to be a preacher. He had a lot of support behind him. He very well could have made money being such. You know quotes aren't full-proof right?
Also, he was a well-payed writer for newspapers and author. He became wealthy from his views on socialism. He wrote many books about his views and all sold well. He could very well be an example of his own quote according to himself.
You don't think Matt is getting paid for proselytizing atheism?
Wow...
Likewise, anyone who can say that he respects Jordan Peterson is barking up the wrong tree.
I agree with you completely about Scrivener realizing he could make a living by being deceptive or dishonest.....
That's why I was so annoyed with his opening talking points also including Peterson, a man I regard as a con-artist in love with crafting verbal roller coasters.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway He's not "PROSELYTIZING" anything.
He's an intelligent debater and he got famous on youtube..... *FOR BEING ANGRY AND HONEST* like many other atheists are!!!
Certainly, he's annoyed with the cynical dishonesty of the religious, and that's plain to see....
But he doesn't really do the "Beg For Money to Replace the Church Organ" schtick.
He doesn't say, "Send me money and the Flying Spaghetti Monster" will cure your cancer.
He never says "Atheism is the cure for all your problems."
He's not demanding money for atheist missionary work to Africa to convert the heathens...
Using a term like "PROSELYTIZING" carries connotations that Matt Dillahunty doesn't use.
Figure out a better word.
That was good of Matt to turn it around on Glenn.
“Ok, let’s assume I don’t value human life and now YOU try to convince me why I should.”
“Well, ummmmm...”
At that point You don't need refutation, You need help lol
@@joanissac9966 That was the point, though. Glen was playing the tired "objective morality" card, claiming that the only grounding for morality is the Christian god and that somehow this is the default position -- that Matt must prove it is *not* the case. Matt was demonstrating that the fundamental grounding for morality is something that we choose for ourselves, and we typically choose human well-being as our grounding because we are primates who evolved to value human well-being. "No God required," as @BionicDance would say.
@@davidstorrs
1) He must be arguing for God's existence because of the existence of objective moral duties as we observe, not the Christian God per se
2)When take this view to its logical conclusion, doesn't that make morality subjective and arbitrary? But We do see that morality is objective and not subjective 🧐
Also, this view doesn't explain why should we be obliged to follow them?
These are the ramifications of a non teleological perspective on this subject
@@joanissac9966 What evidence has convinced you that morality is objective? I have seen none and I'd be interested to hear yours.
David K. Storrs Matt has talked about objective morality many times on Axp. He also has video about it on his channel
I'm impressed that both of these men are able to engage in civil discussion while so strongly disagreeing with each other.
The thing Glen needs to share is how in the world he knows there is an objective morality and what it is. How the hell are we letting him just assert that without explaining?
Ever heard of the 10 commandments
@@petepayette6690 You mean the one Arthur not cooking a baby goat in its mother's milk, or the past where the Christian God went into great detail on how to buy and sell people, including how to extort a Jewish temporary slave into becoming a shave for life by holding their slave wife and children hostage? What period do you have that this story is even true, much less moral, and even more much less objective?
God drown the entire Egyptian army in the red sea.
Moral of these accounts:
God will destroy his enemies...
Suppose a god exists and presents a moral code. Also, suppose a panel of nine human moral experts presents a moral code. The codes are in writing and they are identical. Which code is objective? And why do you think so?
@@whittfamily1 can you please reiterate this reply? I don't really understand it.
*"Can atheism deliver a better world?"* Without having listened, I trust that someone brought up the point that this is not even a proper question.
Ya Matt caught that one
Well why shouldn't it be?
@@davidnoel8458 yes, obviously, but there's still a different world which results from it. Don't act like it's "just a belief" with no implications.
@@davidnoel8458 Being Atheist is not a simple concept, if it is impossible to define what you reject. You can indeed reject a conscious being, a creator. etc, but you can't also say that human life has intrinsic value and morality has value because it feels good.
Not even an evolutionary argument is sufficient to validate such claim. It is like claiming that breathing is the right thing to do, because it increases your survival chances and I can share that opinion with all of mankind. However intellectually, you cannot claim that being alive is better than being dead, so the argument falls. Being Atheist is cherry picking meaning, just like religion is. There is only Nihilism, but being alive is a contradiction even in that case.
@@ocrancienthistory3326 It's not even a belief, and most importantly, it is not a worldview, why do theists have such a hard time understanding this. Atheism is the lack of a belief. You can get atheists who believe in helping others (altruism) as well as atheists who believe in helping themselves (egoism). Atheism is just a position about a single topic, the rejection of the claim that there is a god. It's as silly of a question as "Will having a mustache make men better people?", and then pointing out all the people who have mustaches who did good or bad things and linking their actions to having a mustache. It is not atheism in itself that will make a better or worse community, just as it is not the mustache, it is the beliefs that extend beyond these things.
"I don't need god to save me, I need a god to demonstrate that he exists" 🔥 burn....
"Burn? Such a limited imagination." - Pinhead
@Truth Matters What's around us is a natural universe and we're a natural result of it, shown by the fact that we're made of exactly the same stuff. It is not evidence of a creator.
Did you parents create you? Or were you born, naturally, after growing in your mom's belly, naturally, after she was impregnated, by your brother most likely.
If truth really matters to you, at least learn to think critically and study up on logical fallacies and syllogism.
@@stylis666 I keep things simple.
@Truth Matters Atheist propaganda? That's rich.
@Truth Matters HAHAHAH atheist propaganda? that's the most irony shit I've ever heard coming from a christian
thank you so much for this great conversation :)
Thanks for being kickarse, MD.
I wish I had this content when I was a teen. It would have spared a decade+ of breaking away from dogma and uber-religious rhetoric.
you know as a studier of history i found it that it was always the people called crazy who always ended up being the right ones.
@@fcchannel6162Of course. You will always have a convenient scapegoat from someone who's no longer useful to your cult so might as well take advantage of it. Fake Christians, anti-christ all sorts of labels
Honestly at the beginning this seemed like a nice, level-headed debate about morality... but as soon as Glen lost his footing with deeper argumentation and problems he just started preaching, asserting the bible's truth based on faith.
Par for the course I'd say. It seems all these apologists hitch there belief on god being their moral absolute and whem theu can't even show it exists it falls aparts
Most people that Matt has had debates are dishonestly not debating about the reasons why we believe a god. The majority of them will end up proselytizing than discussing the logic and rationality of god’s existence. The man knows the right intentions when asking precise questions.
@@asian432:
I've now seen 4 debates where Dillahunty has had his ass handed to him on a plate.
Michael Jones (twice), Dr Braxton Hunter & Glen Scrivener.
Interestly, these guys are a lot younger than MD, so if Dillahunty is the cream of the atheist debaters, it's little wonder atheism is shrinking.
Pew Research Centre data.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 if you're a Christian, of course you will lean in to your org. If Matt lost his debates, He would have been back as a Christian by now. Most of his debates against apologists, they never give good answers. They haven't convinced the man. Either his opponents are bad debaters or good liars.
BTW - what's the purpose of inserting pew research center data? Does it mean something?
@@asian432:
MD has lost 4 of his last debates, Michael Jones (twice), Dr Braxton Hunter & now Glen Scrivener.
Interestly, these guys are a lot younger than Dillahunty.
The reference to the Pew Research Centre data shows atheism decreasing to 13% of the global population over the coming decades.
When discussing how the bible endorsed slavery Glen shook it off as Old Covenant but slavery never was corrected in the New Testament.
1 Peter 2:18 tells slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones.
Exactly ;O)
To give a very brief rebuttal - stealing another person (or knowingly buying that stolen person) is grounds for the death penalty in the Bible. Slavery in the Bible was reserved for prisoner's of war (sure beats being put to death) or as a form of endentured servitude for being in debt. If you beat your slave they are released for chipping a tooth or loosing an eye. And they are automatically released after every seven years. Biblical slavery had ZERO to do with race. That's a fact.
But again, if you are an atheist then you have no ground to ever say something is truly morally right or wrong. That is simply your opinion. You can disagree with Hitler (as I'm sure you do), but he was just bucking the herd mentality. If all we are is the evolution of single celled organisms then what a person chooses to do is no more "immoral" than when a lion kills a zebra.
@@OkieAllDay
Levitical Law only applied to fellow Hebrews. That's why Leviticus25:44-46 stated to buy your slaves from the nations around you,
you can own them as property for life and bequeath them to your children as inheritance.
The foreigners were bought and sold as slaves. I doubt God would have inspired the author of Leviticus to write this if he didn't want Hebrews to have foreign bought slaves.
Leviticus 25:39 states Hebrew servants were not to be treated as slaves but as hired workers.
They were released after 6 years.
Big difference in the way foreign bought slaves and Hebrew servants were treated.
Apologists BS and insinuate all biblical slavery consists of the treatment that only applied to Hebrew servants whenever tap dancing about biblical slavery.
@@OkieAllDay
I can say something is right or wrong just as well as you can.
Its humorous when Christians spout morality especially when their foundation is their ultimate book of morality that endorses slavery and where their God commanded a number of atrocities such as the slaughter of the Midianite women and children as well as the Amalekite infants.
@@OkieAllDay
By the way, guess what God's kill count by his command was in the bible?
Over 2,017,000 not including 65 cities where the total slain wasn't given.
Guess what Satan's kill count was?
10 of Job's children which were killed only after Gods permission so I guess you'd add that to God's total.
Really enjoyed this discussion. This was an excellent example of how to have a respectful conversation with those you disagree.
Glen: So when I tell my kids the story of Hansel and Gretel, I tell them that Hansel and Gretel went on a lovely walk in the forest with their loving parents where they happened to meet a nice old lady whom they share their cookies with before they went home and pet their dog. I tell them that because that's what I think the Brothers Grimm meant to write, because it's what I wish they wrote. Therefore, the Brothers Grimm are the ultimate standard for human morality on how we should treat old people and we should base the structure of our society on their teachings. (But without the child neglect, cannibalism, and murder.)
Matt: I tell my kids they should be nice to old people because they're human, and my kids are human, and someday they too will be old, and they would want kids to be nice to them when they're old, so they should help create the society they want to live in by acting accordingly.
Glen: What a terrible way to teach children! You don't have a philosophical underpinning to your assumption that human beings have value! That could lead to cannibalism, child neglect, or murder!
Matt: Isn't that in the book your quoting? Isn't that exactly where the entire story you told started and isn't that they way it's been told for thousands of years right up til the point where you changed it to suit the human morality you learned from a non-Christian pluralistic secular society? It was nowhere in my version of the golden rule. Aren't you just warning me that if my philosophy goes all wrong (somehow but you didn't say how) that the worst possible outcome is that it will just end up being your philosophy? (Well, that's what I'd have liked to hear Matt say, but he didn't.)
We may value other persons because they can and often do help us satisfy our biological goals -- pursuing survival, reproduction, well being, and advancement. But other persons have no intrinsic value. We may attribute value to them. Broadly speaking, our society has decided to attribute a minimum value to all human persons. (Human embryos are not persons.)
I don’t know but what I do know is that I don’t know and you don’t know but I also don’t know what you don’t know the famous Matt “i don’t know” dillahunty
@@YeshuaIsLord135 There's a difference between pretending to know things and just not knowing. At least he's honest about not knowing something instead of smuggling in justifications to believing things without evidence. So maybe it's you that doesn't actually know?
@@YeshuaIsLord135 “All I know I is that I know nothing.” - Socrates
It's amazing how Matt can explain his position in such a clear and concise manner and yet people will still build a straw man. These comments are pathetic.
People would rather go into delusions than admit there is a possibility that they are wrong.
David H as atheists do when they watch a guy like WLC dismantle a well known argument that atheists view as being a knock down. Theists and atheists are by and large cut from the same cloth with the main difference being that atheists will show far less self awareness through criticising theists for that which they are blatantly guilty of themselves
@@patrickmcardle952 I have yet to see WLC dismantle anything, so I don't know what you are talking about. I also have seen a huge lack of self awareness in the Theist community.
@@davidh5020 Clearly you haven't seen much of his content where he dismantles popular slogans and atheistic lingo which make for good soundbites but which fall apart when subjected to scrutiny. Either that or you're the kind of person that would rather delude yourself than admit you're wrong or that WLC has ever produced a logically sound argument. This is exactly what I was talking about when I touched on atheists lack of self awareness
@@davidh5020 As I said earlier and repeat again, atheists and theists online in forums like this when engaging those they disagree with are cut from the same cloth
Someone, needs to teach Glen Scrivener the definition of the word: "Unique". He many, MANY, *MANY* times claims "Christianity has this unique quality"______" "....... when in fact such aspects, qualities, concepts are found *ALL* over the world, throughout history, and even in the animal kingdom.
Especially given that Chrisitanity incorporated so many pagan elements into itself...
There book is based on what they knew at that time, some 2000 years ago. But than again they knew less than 5% off the world and its population.
like what?
Go listen to Tom Holland.
@@MrSiloterio 41:12 has a good example, where "its found in judaism but its a uniquely Christian idea."
Glen says "literally there are thousands of studies that show the benifits...." Please list some of them I would like to see some of them.
They’re eye witness testimonies 😢
Like he said, Google is a great tool to start.
This is an amazing, deep conversation with both sides listening and speaking genuinely to each other.
One side was having a conversation and listening, the other was dodging and making assertions left and right.
@@strataverse you're not denying he was listening I noticed, which is the civil part of any conversation
17:00 I always find it odd when religious apologists criticize something secular by accusing it of being like religion.
It's not a criticism of the thing, but rather of the idea that it's free of religiosity because it's secular. The secular argument has long been "less religion is better than more, therefore let's make things secular". The criticism that the religious apologists are making is that an increase in secularism does not equate to a decrease in religiosity. In fact, what it tends to do is create spontaneous, spurious, ill-thought out religions, such as intersectional feminism, veganism, environmentalism, and cyclists. If you instead advocate for a traditional religion in your society then you'll at least have a rational lasso to throw on the human instinct towards religiosity as well as a foundation for morality and a way of giving people meaning and purpose in life.
@@nono7105 yes yes, I get that point as well -- whether or not it's what is intended by individual apologists for religion.
And I'm not one to assume Every thing associated with a religion must be bad for members or outsiders. There can be many benign or healthy rituals and bonding traditions, and some more than others get to enjoy a supportive community, all organized around their temple or faith, or funded by it.
I just can't think of any beneficial element for structuring community or enriching one's human "spirit" which couldn't be achieved at Least as well without the other aspects of religion.
i.e. Superstitious beliefs, and dogma.
Pointing a finger at secular things, like a government or social justice movement, or people for the ethical treatment of animals... or cyclists, and exposing ways they are different and similar to religiosity can be productive.
Whether those similarities are beneficial or toxic is just the next step in a diagnoses.
I haven't heard much about dogmatic evangelical cyclists wielding their influence in government to restrict the rights of others much at all, though I may be out of the loop on that religious sport. (or is it a lifestyle)
@@anthonypc1 It's a virus.
@@nono7105 in the way that all commutable ideas are.
the balance of harmful risks vs benefits of any viral ideas (or belief systems like faith-based dogma or scientific skepticism) is for us to judge.
@@anthonypc1 I found your response balance and truthful.
The condescension in Glen's voice from talking through unfalsifiable notions...
But, but, 1000s of studies!!
@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd He's Australian, not English. And I've encountered that tone of voice from Australians who almost always think too highly of themselves. I lived in Australia 30 years and visit the UK often. I don't hear this time of voice from anyone but snobs.
@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd All g brah
@@ManuelCastro-ns5sd they are all anglos.
the anglos of canada, usa and australia are anglos at the end of the day.
The arrogance of ignorance. Faith pretending to know what is unknowable ad being smug about it.
Absolutely brilliant and enlightening!
Great stuff as usual.
Great many thanks
I appreciate Matt more and more. Watching 3 years now.
I dont thnk I could like matt less
@@ceceroxy2227 matt is the saviour of religious ppl .he is guiding them out of religion saving them actually .
Sad for you. Listen to his talks on abortion and how he discounts the developing life as being worthless, and acts like the "poor woman" who got pregnant did so through no fault of her own. He thinks pregnancy is a disease and I guess that you do, too. THAT kind of thinking is what coarsens the culture and makes this world a more dangerous place.
@@jsmilers you think women shouldn't be allowed abortion? Based on what, if there is no law prohibiting abortion then nothing happens to you, if your wife doesn't want abortion she isn't forced to do one, if abortion is prohibited then the women wanting to get it are not allowed to, im pretty sure the fetus doesn't feel any pain until very late through pregnancy, what surprises me is that religious people tend to be pro life yet their dogma suggests people get stoned for working on sabbath or being gay or apostasy, why does a life of a fetus which isn't able to feel pain most of the time more valuable to them than a life of another fully developed human being
@@jsmilers Having a position on one thing is separate from a position on another thing. I like Matt for his stance, debates, and discussions refuting religion. I'm an atheist, and I would say for the most part I entirely agree with his positions outside of politics. When it comes to politics, though, I tend to disagree on key issues such as abortion. Were I hold the same view as political commentators such as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, I generally like most of their political positions, however, their religious stances are extraordinarily flawed, and lack merit as they've lost almost every discussion they've had on those subjects. The reality is we can appreciate people for certain positions they hold, however, as humans we hold varying positions on everything. Atheism isn't a worldview, and therefore, atheists will hold a wide array of beliefs about differing issues that differ from other atheists. I dislike Matt's stance on abortion, however, I appreciate him in these types of discussions.
Loved watching Glen’s eyes cross trying to skip around the absurdity of the trinity 50:00
Though the same, always cracks me up 😂
Time stamp?
Tyr Of The Great Old Ones 50:00
I think Matt should've torture him a bit with that!
It was around this time when i lost hope in Glenn being an honest debate opponent. The first 30ish minutes he was ok but when he really wasn't able to defend himself he let his true character show.
Matt is the only one being truly honest here
Nonsense. No basis of morality in his worldview, we are molecules in motion making it up as we go along. If a government passes a law, using logic and reason to state paedophilic behaviour is now legal, on what basis could you reasonably object??
As I heard Glen explain blood magic is not blood magic, I had the same thought. This guy knows what he believes is a lode of crap. Look at him squirm trying to explain BS.
@@pabrinyThey couldn't reconcile the sunk cost that they feel digging themselves in so they couldn't bring themselves to being sincere and truthful
Great exchange. Thank you
Well done Matt! You represented atheism honestly. I would love if your counterpart could provide links to the studies he was talking about because I can't find them
He doesn’t represent atheism, he represents fundamentalist anti-theism.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 lol that... Would be a form of atheism... You aren't the strongest thinker are ya 🤣
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Someone wasn't being an impartial observer whilst watching this, were they? 🤦
What part of "I'm not saying I believe that god doesn't exist, I'm saying I reject the theist claim that God does exist, because there isn't enough evidence to back up that claim" would be fundamentalist anti-theism in your view?
@@craighambling OK I was mostly being snarky and that was a typo” it was supposed to say I’m not saying I believe that God exists, i’m just saying I reject the atheists claim that God does not exist” it was a response to how do atheists define atheism as merely the lack of belief in a god or gods rather than the rejection. No I’m not talking about all atheists.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Thank you for your clarifying reply!
However, you weren't actually addressing atheists, you were specifically addressing someone else's assessment of Matt's position. You were addressing Matt's position *specifically,* not the various atheist nuances. That's disingenuous, my friend. You said that Matt doesn't represent Atheism, he represents fundamentalist anti-theism.
That's not your position on atheists. That's your (incorrect) position on Matt's position.
Which is why I said you weren't watching this as an unbiased observer.
Great job, Matt, as always. Considering what you're up against, you always provide excellent rebuttal.
@Paul Morgan it was very obvious in the way he kept phrasing his questions, rewording Matt to straw-man his position.
@Paul Morgan Well Matt's show is usually 2 people against 1 caller so I don't think he can complain.
@Paul Morgan : So god selfdefeated himself in ww2, because most of the germans and italians were christians and also those on the allied side, or am i misunderstanding the religiosity in ww2?
@@flipgsp AXP is not a formal structured debate like this supposedly was. But that's alright, Matt is also an expert at handling stacked decks.
@@Sydney_With_A_Why "Matt is also an expert at handling stacked decks."
He IS an amateur stage magician...
Great job Matt
I am not a Buddhist, but just by looking at The Noble Eightfold Path and the Mahayana text they seems to have been able to come up with a moral system without Christianity and perhaps an even higher moral standard then Christianity. You see atheist is from all over the world and some have different religious backgrounds. So we don’t have to lean on the christian moral at all, we can use Buddhist moral.. or we can just think logical, what it all comes down to.
Glen seems like a nice guy.
A nice guy who has never honestly questioned his beliefs.
@Gabe Norman Because literally ever single "point" he makes is like "Baby's First Theology."
Every point he makes could be debunked with even 30 seconds of honest investigation.
He, just like all theist like to refer to a script. They may even say atheist use a script,but the difference is theist script is about 2500 years expired.
I agree, Glen seems like a wonderful human. I am suspicious he uses flawless logic, except with his faith.
J w I don’t think you even believe the nonsense you espouse. You seem like a Sunday school ditto head. Many atheists align with Matt because he uses logic, Occam’s razor, skepticism, and rational thoughts to express his refutation of theist claims which many atheists have also considered.
@J w People follow whomever they choose, and Matt put it pretty clearly when he said there are some jerk atheists out there and some atheists who have not used the best reasoning. You can't avoid that.
Glen was pretty irrational in his explanations. Matt was not. I think Matt was far too kind in this debate. When Glen brought up the trinity (God is the son. The Son is God. One is inside the other), he should have pounced on the illogical way that was presented, as well as the fact that the trinity is not in the bible. It was added scores of years later. Also, Glen went off on his "moral explanation" of God by saying "God is love". No, sorry. That's not how it works. You have a publication called the bible, and in it we don't read that LOVE created a universe or talked to people or wrestled with them. It wasn't LOVE that formed the basis for the Inquisition, Crusades, and witch burning. I was astounded that none of that came up. I was NOT surprised at how often Glen avoided answering direct questions.
The WWII argument is asinine. The British may had been fighting Hitler but the US famously DID NOT GET INVOLVED until 1941 when - not because of Hitler - but because of PEARL HARBOR. Bad argument and I'm surprised Matt didn't slam this guy for being so ignorant of history.
Also the fact that the Nazi party was allied with Christianity, required Christianity in order to be a member and to hold any office, and sent atheists and non-Christians to the concentration camps as "asocial."
The motto of the Nazi party was "Gott Mit Uns," "God is With Us."
There's a number of times I was surprised to see Glen say crap
that Matt just let him get away with, w/out really addressing.
Stuff Glen says,
that I know Matt is aware of
& knows how to effectively deal with!
I don't know if Matt was just trying to be
extra gentle,
& extra polite
...because he's a guest in a foreign country or something like that
But it is frustrating to see Matt let such foolish preaching,
slide into what is supposed to be
a good conversation
Eric Boczar I thought the same the first time I listened ed to this debate. Then I went and listened to what Matt’s responses where and it seemed that he was trying to not go down those rabbit holes and steer the conversation back towards the greater topic of secular morality.
@@puggydad it would point that way.
The USA became involved with the war against Nazi Germany 4 days after Pearl Harbour when Hitler declared war on the USA .
this is what a civil conversation between opposing belief systems(or lack of) looks like. There needs to be more of this.
This was a good discussion 👌 👏
Glen mistakes that because some Christians have done good things it follows then that Christianity is therefore good and true.
TheBuilder and by that standard so is Buddhism friend. You’re going to have to do better.
@TheBuilder "Isn't"
@J w Except that's not what he said.
No strawman. My assessment is what he argued.
I can’t wait to see Dillahunty go against De’Sousa in March!! It’s gonna be on Pangburn Philosophy so you all should check it out too!
dSouza is a criminal and an asshat. Matt will destroy him, because Matt is honest and happens to be scientifically correct.
You mean, Convicted Criminal DeSousa?
@@ronaldmendonca6636 hey are you calling criminals as bad guys? We respect criminals in america, at least the religious people do, otherwise why would we elect as president a con artist who has used charities as his own personal slush fund, cheated on his wife, refused to pay people for their work, was recorded confessing to sexually assaulted women, and those are just the things we knew for certain before he was elected.
demigodzilla I think it’s still around. I seen it in you yt feed
on Pangburn Philosophy? I think I'll pass
Are you guys ever going to have Matt back on? This was an awesome, cool, and calm conversation. We need more of these!
It's been well over 2 years by now. Looks like they learned from their mistake of having his sharp mind that close to their narrative...
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 🤣👍
Nice ad hominem fallacy. Goes well with the false equivalence fallacy. The tu quoque fallacy on top of that seems a bit much though, any kind of point that's not invalid crying about social norms might've been nice...
Magic, like a god speaking things into being? Magic, like a talking snake? Magic, like magically enchanted fruit granting knowledge of good & evil? Magic, like cursing all snakes and humans forever? And that's just chapter *1* of the dogma you believe, before the magic of miraculous healing, food multiplication, water walking, combustion and resurrection spells, and much more. A mind projection fallacy, then.
I feel like every time I watch an Unbelievable video to learn about something I enjoy, the two guest go down a rabbit hole of debate that I now want to learn even more about. Which was precisely what happened when Matt and Glen began speaking about the reasoning/rationale behind sacrifice in the Old Testament and the necessity for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
The crucifixion of Jesus is actually another piece of evidence pointing to the fact that God does not exist!
@@whittfamily1 Explain
@@charliebravonova5075 Yes, I will try to explain. If you don't understand or don't agree, please let me know.
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present but usually invisible, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
2. If God did exist, he would not have arranged the crucifixion of Jesus, but would have prevented it, and it would have never occurred.
3. But the crucifixion of Jesus did occur.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
@@whittfamily1 So God does not exist because of Jesus Christ? Is that your evidence?
@@danielsmithiv1279 No, of course not! I believe that Jesus was a real man -- a traveling minister of the first century who probably was crucified. There are many correct arguments that God does not exist which have nothing to do with Jesus.
Great job Matt,you're approach is too honest !!! Concise arguments
Matt clearly was stronger in the discussion. I felt like he was a school teacher with a student.
It is easier to appear stronger when you are defending nothing. I think Glen won this one. Although I also think that this may have been Matt's first defeat (with the exception being his conversation with Jordan Peterson which was a draw.)
@@orthodox9191 in what respect do you think Matt lost??
@@gabrielmartinez717 Glen provided evidence that religion has a net benefit to society while Matt admitted that we must wait and see what secularism will produce. Also, every time Glen tried to show that secularism has failed in the past, Matt's response was to say that that was just religion masking as secularism. I think Matt's problem is that he cannot accept that any attempt at secularism will always morph into some kind of a religion. Atheism is just a flawed way of thinking. Quite frankly, I would call atheism a mental disorder.
@@orthodox9191 Jesus lol what an "un-christian" way to end that. Hope everything is okay.
Like Matt had pointed out, Atheism is just the state of not being convinced a God exists. Similar to Santa, there is no evidence. So to continue to believe would be, by definition, delusional. Also there's never been a secular humanist society so there's nothing to compare.
Well what if everyone believed in Santa and that made the world a better place? It honestly might lol but that wouldn't make it true.
@@orthodox9191
Won??
Arguing that "atheism will bring down the Down population" when the deselection is happening in a world where most people claim to believe is ... unqualified.
Trouble with religious types is that they define anyone on their side stepping out of line as a consequence of non-religious types doing stuff.
It is a genius con:
"Humans are frail so we can't allow dissent. You all have to behave as we would like you to for the greater good.
The reward will be HUGE - and no one have ever complained.
Questioning this is dissent and therefore harmful."
Did anyone else notice that when Matt challenged Glen to change his mind about not valuing human life, Glen went to secular reasoning instead of mentioning god?
great conversation.
Glen - “your statistics are wrong, mine are correct”
That resumes religion beliefs and his character in one sentence.
Good Job Matt👌
The Juliet and Shakespeare analogy backfired! Great reply!
Good discussion!Matt sure knows his stuff!
Glen showed he knew every single point far better than Matt did. Why not give Glen credit instead?
@@whaddoyoumeme Because it's the same old arguments nothing new. Depending on what you believe Is who you think to best
@@sickboy666fu whose arguments were the same? There weren't any particular old arguments given by either person in the debate. Regardless, I don't' get what that has to do with my point?
@@whaddoyoumeme Thank you for pointing that out.
@@whaddoyoumeme I don't know how many debates you watch But it's always the same old argument from both sides And pending on who one believes one will think they won
Great discussion. Dillahunty knows his stuff.
Yep!🤘
He was gonna become a pastor and read multiple versions of the bible multiple times and knows it better than approximately 100% of the people that he debates with (atleast 100% of the debates i heard).
@Jarvis Gandy
In English alone, dozens of different versions.
And yes, I would consider different translations to be different versions. Because they generally are quite different overall.
@Jarvis Gandy He doesn't know & he wasn't suggesting that;-)
@Brother Sanguinary Matt definitely does not understand the Bible at all. I'm not sure who told you that, but if you did read it and try to understand it, you would catch MANY mistakes and misinterpretations Matt presents.
Your looking much healthier Matt!
It's great to see you looking so much happier!
Keep up the good works!
something i don't get is atheist say morality is subjective and wrong and right is just a matter of opinion so isn't belief in god a matter of opinion if that's true then atheism is just a matter of opinion?
Despite hints of his own bias emerging from time to time, I think Justin Brierley is an outstanding moderator.
I know atheists do hate the (1:19:38 why Nazis are wrong) point which shows his bias but that's exactly why he's a great moderator and example of how we should administer dialogues in the fields and points of view we diametrically oppose. He's not the idc type of guy who identifies as a Christian and takes the conversation wherever it leads, but you can see him clearly (obviously because he's Christian) siding with Glen. He's verbally on the side of the theist, emotionally invested in the conversation, yet he can at the same time take himself from the situation, dissociate from the conversation, battle his temptations (sounds Christian ik) not to give one side more weight, at least as a moderator, than the other. Truly as lesson for all of us
@@reda29100 Yeah, the Nazi discussion really went off the rails though. The apologist does not seem to know much about that historical period either. The "Judeop-Christian" moral sensibility of the "west" had nothing to do with WW2.
He's generally very good and professional. I'm not aware of any equivalent Christian presenters here in the USA. I wish there were more Christian shows like this.
He genuinely seems to enjoy the conversations too which helps a lot because he doesn't come off closed minded.
Glen keeps say there are "literally thousands of studies" yet never mentions one by title, author or year, and the only actual study that is ever brought up is the one that disagrees with him, the one matt brought up, yet he keeps pulling the "literally thousands of studies"
Déjà Siku no, like citing sources: a title, a year of publishing, and an author, for instance, are important pieces of information to share if you want to allow others to double check the data.
Its rare for an area of research to have that many accredited studies too.
@Déjà Siku Matt literally cites the date (roughly) and the author lmao
@Déjà Siku 1. Matt did not make the point, thus he may have not been prepared with sources.
But he does point you to a specific study. You really did not hear that?
You might have a thick bias if you missed that, don't you think?
Also, the "scientific value or validity of religion" is not a topic that most scientists would consider a sensical topic, let alone a worthwhile area of study. After 100,000+ years of humanity, no one has managed to demonstrate any evidence for the existence of a god... let alone a particular god or religious philosophy... as everyone knows, otherwise there would be no atheists and only one religion. So if I'm a scientist, why would I spend my research grant money, my time, and my energy on this subject unless I have a pre-determined agenda from the source of the grant money or my own preconceptions? What good would come from it? Even if I was able to conclusively demonstrate that religion is toxic to society or that religion is beneficial to society, what have I accomplished beyond a talking point for people to argue about? That's not why people join religions and it's not why they leave. So, even though he provided no evidence for his "thousands of studies", it would be nonsensical for there to be that many studies by that many actual scientists on a topic that does nothing, solves no problems, creates no value for a company, informs no new areas of research... just nothing. UNLESS... there just happened to be TONS of money laying around in the pockets of organizations with no need for any ACTUAL scientific research that might yield useful results... and a vested interest in seeing an otherwise useless set of data. Can anyone think of any institutions that might describe?
So first of all, no there are NOT thousands of actual scientific studies on the benefits or otherwise of religion on societies, which is why he couldn't name any. There are less than a handful. The only such peer-reviewed published studies that were not directly sponsored by a religious organization with a vested interest in the outcome have all concluded that in MANY ways, but not all ways, that secular societies have a generally higher standard of living.
Second of all, even that doesn't actually matter, because the entire concept of these studies is very unscientific. Large human societies are way too complex to boil down to one sociological aspect, so all such studies must, by their nature, choose what aspects of societal data they will include, and choose whether to eliminate or include subjective self-reported opinions as part of that data, and they must choose a definition of human and societal well-being from their subjective perspective. And the people doing those studies must make those choices. And those people are capable of being biased, either intentionally or unconsciously. And thus, anybody who doesn't like their conclusions could immediately dismiss the study, and will, as you witnessed from both sides.
So for a supposedly logical person to stand on that as evidence of Christianity supplying a superior moral construct for society whilst ignoring what all of the Christian texts literally say is absurd. Christianity (historically, literally, and currently around the globe) condones genocide, torture, rape, homicide, slavery, abuse, misogyny, genital mutilation, racism, and human sacrifice, among others. None of these things were problems in the Christian mindset until a secular renaissance fueled by the likes of Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, and many more led to the establishment of western NON-CHRISTIAN governments, like the United States.
What Scrivener has done is tell the story of Hansel and Gretel without the child neglect, cannibalism, and murder where the kids go for a walk with their loving parents and meet a nice old lady and have a nice afternoon tea with her before going home to pet their dog... and claim that is what the Grimm Brothers meant to write, because he wishes that's what they wrote... and therefore it is a superior source of morality than Matt who just inherently told his kids to be nice to people, including the old ones, for no other reason than that the person is human, and the kids are human, and someday the kids will be old, and they'll want kids to be nice to them when they're old... whilst sneering at that line of reasoning saying it could lead to cannibalism or child neglect or murder... all of which was the ACTUAL starting point of his conversation that he just tried to excuse and ignore... and unfortunately Matt let him get away with it.
The discussion starting at about 50 minutes is painfully embarrassing for glen. Matt versus magic, glen has done a good job at creating more atheists.
Two things I'm really glad MD picked up on here - Glen talking about evolution as the 'survival of the fittest' and MD pointing out that his use of the phrase in the context of morality to suggest that a belief in evolution and secular humanism leads to a moral system where the strong (i.e. physically or politically powerful) obliterate the weak is just a misunderstanding of the word 'fittest' in an evolutionary sense; secondly, the point about divorce - relationships breaking up can be damaging, of course, but isn't always worst than staying in an unhappy, self-destructive situation.
Ok so your two points I agree with. The guy was bullshitting about evolution, what evolution says is that there's traits that are desirable that are passed down and nature selects naturally what traits are advantageous. And there's actually studies that say that traits like being caring and helpfulness actually lead to better outcomes and evolution favors these traits over others. The point that all these religious people bring up is divorce, and how evil it is. And my question is always the same what's wrong with divorce. Seriously, what is wrong with it.
@@neilsworldwide Well, if you're in an abusive, unhappy relationship, probably not a lot.
that was really good
I didn’t notice any difference between glen and the average christian caller on AXP.
same
He seems to be smart but I think he gave up his intelligence for a believe system. We do not know why, but I think he´s very delusional about Christianity.
theres never a difference. the smartest, most well versed professor of theology will use the same arguments that a regular joe theist uses...
@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl You can really see it when Matt starts to ask the hard questions, and Glen tries to answer with pretty, but meaningless platitudes.
Regardless of your degree or title, bad arguments are still, at the end of the day, bad arguments. That’s not to say the argument for a God isn’t out there somewhere but when William Lane Craig is the epitome of Christian apologists and one people like to cite as the absolute authority on everything then it’s just bad arguments from these well known apologists.
shows how arrogant and closed-minded Glen is by the fact that at the end of the show despite Matt giving accurate representation of Atheism, Glen completely describes it wrong like it just went in one ear and out the other. Every time i hear "MHM" I think he wasnt actually listening and just was waiting for his chance to talk.....Such a tool.
Meson atheism is just lack of belief in a god. Whether or not someone is positive is up to them. There is no agenda or worldview attached. There are positive and negative atheists, as there are are in religion also.
Meson scientific method is not a worldview...it’s a method...literally in the name. And idc about atheists that make those claims, cause they are wrong. Just cause I’m an atheist doesn’t mean I agree with what all atheists say. I only hold the scientific method in such high regards, because it has provided the most advancement in understanding our universe and providing aspects to further improve on our existence. Without the scientific method, the human lifespan would be a lot shorter.
@@Meson10 science doesnt dismiss anecdotal evidence, it just doesnt hold it to a very high regard. If we relied so highly on eyewitness testimony then many innocent people would be convicted of crimes they havent actually commited.
Science enhances our senses beyond those that we have by way of microscopes, telescopes, energy wave receptors, etc. Only relying on our human senses can only get us so far.
I dont trust alot of things most people say, particularly my own government, because i am extremely skeptical all around and only come to my conclusions after extensive research. I would hope you apply the same amount of skepticism as most should.
@@Meson10 that is not being skeptical. You should not believe anything until evidence proves it. Seeing a supposed "possessed" person, your baseline should not be to believe it, but rather not believe it until proven. I'm deeply appalled by this example.
Are you not aware cases like supposed "possession" has happened to people before that have had mental illnesses and their family refused medical treatment because of the belief they were possessed and that person ended up DYING for not getting proper medical care. This is simply a gross mindset you have and I deeply hope you do not look after any mentally ill people.
@@Meson10 you have to prove the supernatural exists to use it as evidence.
I dont only use the scientific method. I use anecdotal too, just not to a high standard as i already stated.
If a detective convicts without sufficient evidence, then sounds like ur detective in this scenario is sht and needs to be fired.
In what way is the scientific method flawed? You do know the scientific method does not claim absolutes, only the best possible explanation and if there is a better one, the theory can be shot down or improved on.
We dont only have 5 senses btw, we have more subtle ones like the sense of space and balance. I've already told you science helps to enhance our senses, so we dont only rely on those senses. There is a difference between someone witnessing something through their eyes and someone witnessing something through a video camera. A video camera can record and keep log of data for everyone to see, you eyes record and keep data for only you to see.
Matt is a BEAST!!!
Justin Brierly, an intelligent, impartial moderator of the highest level. Fantastic. I'm an atheist and he is a Christian but I recognize a smart dude and a decent human being when I see one. More theists like him please.
I agree, though he does tend to take up the apologist perspective and pursue it more often and with considerably more vigor than he does the opposition. He is a Christian so I understand this tendency to do so but, the result is the non-apologist ends up facing two opponents rather than one…
@@rowdy3837 Weakly I think, it's as neutral as you can as an apologist and a moderator.
He is a Christian but he sure likes Bart Ehrman, if he is not careful he could move over to the dark side!
No, less theists please.
@@joerdim They are not all bad.
@@pinball1970 I mean that theism needs to be abolished which would result in lesser (or no) theists in the world. The less people who believe in nonsense the better.
So less theists please.
Matt, you did it again 👍 Love you Matt!!!
He actually admitted that he probably would have been a nazi? And atheism is essentially relativistic morality at the whims of the PEOPLE in control Or am I misinterpreting this comment
@@jojohnviz12 misinterpreting
jojohnviz12 Well, according to the census directly before the war about 95% of the people in Nazi Germany were Christians. Of course pretty much everyone who grew up in that environment was a Nazi, there’s no mystery to solve here.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Christians by name only but obviously not believing it because the ethos it's exactly opposite to what they did , it's like Jordan Peterson says you act what you believe
jojohnviz12 Pretty much every Christian who lived more than hundred years ago would say the same about all Christians who live today. They would most likely call you a heretic.
Glen is painful to listen to and comes off as arrogantly not really interested in understanding what Matt is saying
setboy1 this is so true and sadly most often the case in these kinds of debates
Interesting that you would use an unsubstantiated character attack instead of a real comment
JxJxJxJx define real comment?
@@MrTHEtesters Not containing fallacious ad hominems
JxJxJxJx what makes it unsubstantiated, did you not watch the debate😂
Sacrifice of the Strong VS Survival of the Fittest is the best comparative snapshot for analysis and the best angle of the conversation that delineates the foundation of both position.
No, not even close. The best angle is "Where does morality come from?"
I don’t think this oversimplification offers any value. It certainly had nothing to do with this conversation. To sum up the Christian message and the Bible as sacrificing the strong would be revisionist.
To suggest Matt advocated anything resembling survival of the fittest to completely ignore everything Matt said. He argued for humanism, the exact opposite.
The audio in this discussion needed a HPF. Every time either one of them taps the table with emphasis, my subwoofer shakes the room.
Just noticed this on my headphones and kept taking them off thinking someone was shifting heavy furniture
41:00 is where he lost the last bit of his credibility. "the idea of including everyone is a uniquely Christian idea. It is on the first page of the Bible. So Judaism."
He is literally debunking himself as he speaks.
Um, no, he isn't. Christianity includes Judaism. They are not entirely separate religions. They have the exact same God, who is the source of all morality.
@@nono7105 So does Islam. Dou you believe that Mohammed flew around on the back of a winged horse with the head of a woman too? If not why not? Jews do not agree that your Christ is their Messiah.
@@corydorastube Obviously I do not. I do not believe that the God of Islam is the same as the God of the Christians and the Jews.
That is not the point though. If a Muslim were to believe it so and he made a claim about some aspect of Islam that could actually be traced back to Christianity it's not some "gotcha" moment. Because he believes that Islam is the inheritor of Christianity. You or I or any others might disagree with him on that point, but it is irrelevant to his position. He is being internally consistent.
So in this case Glen is _not_ debunking himself. The Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. The first five books of the Christian Bible are the Torah. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that the Christians believe the prophecy of the promised Messiah has been fulfilled, Jews do not.
If you wish to critique Glen for failing to say "Judeo-Christian" instead of just Christian, then fine, you can say he wasn't precise in his terminology. But he didn't debunk himself.
@@nono7105 Then you are uneducated. Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Judaism, Islam and Christianity share the same God. So do the Druze, the Bahá'í and the Rastafari. Why are you lot always so ignorant on the theology of the religion you profess to follow?
@@corydorastube
The theology is not the same. For example, Muslims believe Jesus is the messiah, but do not think he was crucified, or that he is the Son of God, which is central to Christian theology. Judaism and Christianity have more in common with their theologies than that of Islam in that Christians can take insight from the old testament. Islam does not and in fact deviates from it; Ishmael is considered the chosen one rather than Isaac. Jesus at the end of the day believed he was fulfilling the Jewish religion, he was actually a practicing Jew. So, no, you are factually mistaken on several points.
Glen: mhmm, mhmm, mhmm...mhmm (not actually listening or caring) mhmm...
@Déjà Siku Apples and oranges. Matt's call in show is HIS show, and he does listen. However, he will cut people off when it is clear that they lie or make disingenuous arguments, when they refuse to progress in the conversation and repeat the same canned argument after it's been defeated, and when they refuse to answer Matt's questions because the caller knows the answer is detrimental to their stance.
This is not Matt's show. This is a face to face debate. And Matt does listen to his callers up to the point where it's clear the conversation isn't progressing. Your making a false comparison.
@@KL-lt8rc yep
A lot of Glen's arguments seem to revolve around how "stunning" and "powerful" events in the Bible are. By that logic we should worship Harry Potter because he sacrificed himself in the last book to protect his friends. Just because you are emotionally moved doesn't make it factual.
It's amazing that this is still a subject for debate...
its amazing that people think atheism should be taken seriously...
Oh, it might be the most important subject for debate.
I'm liking this a lot!
Yay, Matt!!
Lol! This guy was trying SOOOO hard to turn this into an abortion debate and Matt wouldn't let him.😂
Yeah Matt dodged alot.
Matt knows his knowledge on abortion is really bad, but he felt the need to support it anyway because Christians are against it
@@therambler3713 Yeah...that's not how he works. He bases his opinions on facts whereas christians base theirs on bronze age fairy tales and emotions.
@@dunkyvslife7447 lol, ok buddy
He was trying to push a "gotcha".
However, if glen had actually watched Matt's show, he'd know that he's handled those discussions quite easily.
"We're united at a table, but we're not 'one'." LOLZ!!!!
What irritated me was scrawny dude 'corrected' Dillahunty about god coming to earth as a sacrifice. SD (Scrawny Dude) stated it was Jesus, not god. Dillahunty asked "Aren't they the same? Do you believe in the trinity?" Then SD goes on to non-explain how the trinity works, claiming they are one but not.
Why the Hades did SD interrupt when he can't explain how the trinity works? He doesn't understand it himself, obviously.
#1 person I think he does. He just doesn’t want to acknowledge Matt on that because he knows how it looks. He doesn’t want to admit basically. That’s how it seemed because I was pretty shocked hearing that from a supposed Christian.
The historic definition of the Trinity is "One in being, three in persons". Being insinuates the quality of 'what' and Person insinuates the quality of 'who'. I am Justin Grace. I am 1 in Being and 1 in Person. God, who is infinitely higher than me, can exist as 1 in Being and 3 in Persons. Is it a contradiction? NO. Contradictions would be 1 in Being, 3 in Being OR 1 in Person, 3 in Person.
[This is a very brief summary from Lewis' discourse on the Trinity]
If you imagine a cube (with sides of different colours) seen in a 2D world, all the inhabitants of the 2D world would see first say, a blue square in 2D, then a yellow square in 2D, etc.. When there is this immense reduction in dimensionality, there is a reduction in understanding which could lead to confusions. Does this not then make sense that when the infinite God of the Universe reveals himself to us finite creatures there seems to some sort of reduction where we falsely assume he is 3 beings or just 3 masks of the same person but rather that the Trinitarian God reveals himself as 1 in Being and 3 in Persons and we live in the knowledge of it not being a contradiction and revel in the mystery that surrounds it which doesn't obscure life but rather illuminate our yearning as human beings for relationships/otherness since we were made in the image of the Triune God who is relational.
@@justingrace9043 So God has multiple personality disorder now?!
@@infernalsymphonytv2928 In dissociative identity disorder (personality disorder), the single individual in coping with extreme distress seems to split experiences into identities which are not synchronous or at-the-same-time. Would you define it as such?
If that's how it's understood then, No. The Trinity is NOT multiple personality disorder. As I explained above: 1 being, 3 persons at the same time, not separate experiences being categorized as different identities.
There not single debate that I watched without the religious debater not harping on the objective morals!!
You are a great moderator and I enjoy your videos, I’m an atheist too
Too bad that Matt let him get away with the bogus (and untrue) "science and statistics prove religions make you more happy" claim.
Otherwise, nice talk.
zorglub667 it’s a hard thing to fight when you both haven’t read the same papers so you can argue specifics
completelly true and matt already got wrecked on that very subject by Michael Jones. Try harder next time.
Being a born again Christian brings you peace and joy.
@@jesusislord9758 And being a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddist can also bring you peace and joy! You have to understand, to an outsider they all look the same. Also, large portions of Christians telling each other that they are not "REAL" Christians.
moody rick how so?
I'm an atheist. I dont believe in marriage. For my girlfriend to stay with me she wanted to be married. So I got married and gave her my word. For 20 years. My cousin is a preacher. He's getting divorced after 12 years. He cheated on his wife with another girl the entire marriage. So much for morals.
Your cousin had a choice. He could of been religious but not have a moral compass or a relationship with God. Just because one is religious, doesn’t mean they’ll live by moral standards
Was the girl hot.i mean she has to be worth it or else its for nth mate 🤣😂
My standard rule is to immediately distrust anyone who says that they know what God wants, especially if they want to get paid for doing so.
I'm so glad I found a new video to watch Matt destroy
Great moderator. Not to active, good questions and kept it on track for the most part. And for me a clear winner came out in the end. Nice one.
Pardon the pun Matt, but you have the patience of a saint. I think this guy would have been hung up on pretty quickly on the Athiest Experience!
J w are u crying?
@J w cannot think for themselves??
As opposed to Zombie Carpenter worshipping?
@J w well someone Obviously got hung up on 🤣
J w
Own a lot of mirrors do you?
@J w present your argument
It's like Glen doesn't know anything about Christianity
Glen: the west was opposed to Nazism due to Christianity
Also Glen: *ignores Jim Crow*
@Kookman Jim Crow is not just segregation. It's lynching. It's dehumanization. It's destroying of communities. It's the same as Nazism essentially.
Germany was still 90%+ Christian when the Nazis took over. People saying secularism led it are beyond ignorant.
@@DZ-yk2ew IIRC it was also a mission of the Nazi's to "purify" Christianity. There were some occultists and paganists as well as atheists Nazi's but by and large as you have stated they were Christians. The felt equally compelled to do the things they did believing it was gods will as those Glen claimed were compelled by god to stop it. Composed mostly of Protestants and Catholics.
The "Christians" didn't show up with a big S on their chest with capes on their backs like some superhero out for justice. The Nazi's literally attacked the neighboring countries in order to capture territory and expand the glory of their empire. France and Britain declared war only after they invaded Poland and refused to leave. Glen pretends like it was "strong" Christians fueled by their superior morals coming to the rescue of the persecuted "weak" Jews. And this simplistic view that Jewish persecution was somehow at the center of WW2 is just wrong. The war was way more complicated than that. Glen is being very dishonest with his depiction of this in the conversation in order to support his argument.
Hitler was also a Catholic according to his own writing. The Nazi movement was predominantly Christian. Also a large number of Christians in America were fine with what the Nazis are doing.
You can't have Nazism because of Christianity and also have the West oppose or because of Christianity without some extremely different views of what Christianity is. But since the stats demonstrate that the more religious a country or community is the more likely they are to try and oppress others it's safe to say religion is no antidote to bigotry. If anything the belief that one is on the side of a perfect god means religion easily fuels hate and bigotry.
@@MrGeemonty Indeed, like WW1 it was mostly young Christian soldiers on both sides being slaughtered by the million. In Germany, the conservative party (all Christians) were in a coalition with the Nazis without which they could have never hoped to gain power over the Parliament. Glen's reading of history is so self-serving. This kind of nonsense helped me leave the faith once I really started to actually learn about history and how Christianity has not been some beacon of progress and civilization.
As a former heroin addict I second that notion that doing dope does not equate to happiness 🤘
Through his years disposing of morons over at the Atheist Experience, Matt really has developed the patience of a saint. It's the only thing that can have gotten him through this conversation.
Case in point.
'the single cell in the virgin marys womb' yeah,loads of evidence for that.
@DC CXI It's amazing what can be done if kids are indoctrinated to believe ridiculous things.
The Holy Load
@DC CXI So are many Christians
That guy has no idea how genetics work.
@DC CXI
"absolutely! Atheists actually believe a rabbit could possibly pull itself from an empty hat. Yet they ironically accuse Christians of believing in a magical fairytale."
Ironically christian call evolution a "fairytale" but follow blindly a book which states :
- PI = 3
- whales are fish
- bats are birds
- shower of bird's blood cures leprosy
- animals mating in front of stripped foliage get stripped offsprings
...
BTW Christians beLIEve man came from dust... therefore rocks in tiny pieces !
It says a lot about their credulity !
Once the conversation got to sacrifice, Mr. Christian arguer showed his true self.
In which way and at what point on the video I want to check it out? Thanks
@@deangailwahl8270 Me too.
bonnie43uk when he responded to Matt’s blood magic comment. He struggles to appropriately respond , there was no real substance to what he was saying to describe the sacrifice . Curious since it’s the single most important event in human history and he wasn’t able to distill a clear answer down that made any sense - I agree this is exactly when he was exposed . As it should be because it simply isn’t true and is sort of like blood magic - Matt was right.
Yip he got a bit stuck there but after the Downs Syndrome point was raised I have to be honest Matt was all over the place. He descended into utilitarianism which is never a good place to find yourself when talking about human beings - he was under pressure so perhaps he didn't have time to think it through properly and in the end he got very defensive. But again he made the point that if someone doesn't believe in your suppositions then its not a persuasive argument (which is true). But then that sot of makes Glen's point: in a society governed by a Christian view of the world you won't arrive to the conclusion that human beings have no innate value. In the absence of that - and what Sam calls well being - you could.
So I think this was two way traffic. A very good conversation.
@@charlesd4572 "in a society governed by a Christian view of the world you won't arrive to the conclusion that human beings have no innate value"
This is true, humans even have a shekel-value according to the bible (where girls are worth less than boys).
I don't know if that value is "innate" though. Because that's just a claim. You can attach *anything* to what it means to be made in the image of god, and the bible does not make that clear at all.
As a Christian of 48 years I have to say that Glen did not really convince here. Matt has a much sharper mind and made him struggle. Surprisingly he seemed to have an unsure grasp of his theology, or maybe he was just unsettled by his opponent.The issue of conscience was not really addressed here and I think may be the clue to how people perceive right from wrong whether they believe in God or not.
Glenn going up against Matt in religious debate is like a 5 year old going up against Michael Jordan in basketball, respectively.
When you consider the fact that Matt accepted the invitation to debate this topic and argue on behalf of secular humanism, with the understanding of the undeserved advantage Glen is being afforded by being allowed to begin this discussion presupposing the existence of god without having demonstrated the truth of such a ridiculous claim . And still Matt prevailed, all without asserting , presuming, claiming or misrepresenting the ideas and intended meaning of others e.g. "survival of the fittest" , the very kind of dishonest tactics unsuccessfully attempted against him. The beauty of Matt's approach is quite simple and thus overlooked by most, and that is, to operate in the realm of Facts, Knowledge, Evidence and Reason... Remember, the "Truth doesn't care what you believe." Thank you Matt, and keep fighting the good fight!
Awww, butt hurt, so cute. Keep dreaming though.
@@tonybanks1035 Obviously you're the one who is butthurt coming into the comments to project. You're posting the same damn comment all over the place even when it makes no sense lol
I don't know if you're familiar with this type of discussions, but it has nothing to do with whether Christianity or atheism is true (and by extension, if god exists or not). Take purely philosophical debates, as in if truth is intrinsically or instrumentally valuable, and the applicability of either positions. One could skip whether what accounts as the truth that which is ontologically true (i.e., state of a description matching reality as in [material's essence is static and can't be changed, like copper can't be turned into gold] at the times of the Greeks. Is that statement 'true' at the times of the Greeks (i.e., instrumentally that wouldn't have made a difference bto them at the time)? Or is the truth ontological, as in [naturalism is true, not because there is no way a metaphysical beings can exist, but because it serves us more than leaving the door open to the possibility that there could be things outside this universe that could affect our reality]?
Philosophically, and by extension, in debates, one can bypass the entire question of whether truth is instrumentally or ontologically valuable (dismiss it for now and forget which stance is true), and go right to which side is better, what side contributed more, let's say, to theoretical math and shaped civilizations, and which one should we define as a consensus on daily conversations.
I mean, you see this thing in some discussions about AI and aliens. Even though we're not sure if AI is gonna for sure develop consciousness, or if aliens exist and we're gonna face them at some points, you still see *scientists, and not just some random videos,* where they seriously discuss AI rights, what we should do to avoid annihilation, and how we should damage control ot at that point, and precautiously handle it beforehand. Similarly with AI invasion, and what we eould expect aliens to behave and how, and where on earth would we set up bases, to anticipate that possibility. This part might not be familiar to you, but I'm pretty sure you heard of Fermi's paradox. Why would scientists entertain, as you state it as unprovable stance, that suggests the great filter (where species before us on another place in the universe have gone extinct)? If aliens haven't been proven to exist until this point, why are they debating why they have gone extinct, when their very existence is debatable?
Same with AI, why would they debate AI rights and how to turn off super AI systems if they haven't been proven (and I don't mean they are expected to happen, because that might not ever occur), if that event may never happen at all? Why bypass the question of (would AI surpass our control and think for themselves?), and even (would AI develop life and emotions?), and go to the next question of (how would we tackle that issue?)
My point in the end, it's a valid discussion even if the argument for god doesn't hold
The person who can cite one study always has the edge over those who assert vague “countless studies.”
If you look at the pinned comment at the top, there are a link to several different studies that Glen indirectly referred to.
Glen you are a brilliant interviewer! / moderator!! You deserve a. Show on main stream media! You really are perfection at your art!👌👍
Justin, not Glen, was the moderator.
I personality am not a devout atheist or a religious believer. I’m impartial fundamentally, but I still value morals of peace and harmony and respecting both opinions without any belief in a higher being and I still place *intrinsic* value on everyone equally.
"...literally, there are thousands of studies that show the benefits of religion.. ". Citation needed.
He kept stating without citation that thousands of studies show that Christians who were the happiest with their church were so much better people than non-believers. Well sure, if you pick a complete bullshit criteria and disqualify all the frustrated unhappy people who want to kill somebody from a group that contains them, you can show that the happiest people in a group behave better.
In our current reality, and throughout our history, one can show all the the horrible atrocities that people have, and are still doing, because of their religious convictions.
@@DavidJones-zg4od I despise religion as much as you, but you're making the exact same mistake. It's not true that all atrocities are done because of religion.
As my father used to say: ''I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!''
@@douglaspearce9129 Hyperbole will destroy the world!
I like how when Matt and Glenn discuss how thier beliefs benefit people, Glenn brings up solely things that can be lied about or misunderstood in ones own life and Matt used things that are verifiable
Glenn was simply speaking of the thousands upon thousands of unbiased studies performed by psychologists all over the world. Matt's one example is the one study among all that got completely opposite results and Matt has been quoting that study for 15 years.
Not sure how you feel about that but when I see results like that the one that got opposite results would appear flawed.
But yeah I'm sure thousands of studies could have been lied about or misunderstood except Matt's one example which is obviously verifiable.
@@chupie3085and I would love to see the body of data which Glen is basing that assertion on, because everything about his claim screams exaggeration and misrepresentation. It's not very often that scientists are interested in dedicating their time to reexamine a question that's already been answered 500 times, let alone 2000 times (the bare minimum amount that would be required for Glen's claim to be true).
@@TheGreatNincompoop To sum up the majority of the articles found happiness is increased more than 60%(numbers vary between studies) where a person holds religion as highly important in ones life.
While there are many speculations on why this is (community, psychological effect of believing one had purpose and meaning, churches demand Church goers to proclaim they are happy 🙄, promise of a better afterlife if one plays well with others in this life) the majority of them come out with similar results. Children, teens, and adults are happier, decreased likelihood of drug addiction or other criminal behaviors, decreased divorce rates, higher levels of donating money and or time to help less fortunate, more successful careers. You get the point.
@@chupie3085 that's not what I asked. I asked to see the body of data. If I can't examine the evidence, then I have no good reason to think that you or Glen aren't just making bald assertions or misrepresentations.
@@TheGreatNincompoop I just linked a google search in google scholar to thousands of pdfs regarding that subject. If you want to continue to be ignorant to the data then don't speak of a subject you know nothing about. If you want to know the data go read like the rest of us
Since having an encounter through prayer, with the spiritual presence that fills the heart, mind & soul with deep and profound love, peace, and joy, you realize that trying to prove it scientifically to skeptics, is absurd. I would only encourage others to keep seeking, because it's totally worth it ;)
You do realise this feeling isn’t exclusive to just your religion right?
@Mike Seork None of my experiences with drugs came close to the peaceful, joyous, and purely loving presence of God. No need for drugs at all, and it is a more real and rooted feeling than any drug could ever give you. Only Jesus gives you eternal life, drugs do nothing to help you in life or in the next one..
Psalm 16:11 "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."
John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Watched all minutes of it