When I found out that Matt had started dating a transwoman, it made so much sense why he gets so triggered whenever the topic of transgenderism comes up.
He couldn't show some class and just deal with it? Ive seen Christian debaters get insulted in the most vile ways possible yet they keep on going. Guess he cant take it like he dishes it out.
Matt demonstrated class when he left a debate being used to trash a portion of society. This was in no way a debate. The AH wasn't discussing the topic, didn't know how to conduct himself in a debate and the moderator was useless and didn't have the balls to redirect the AH to the topic.
@@kjwhitty8820 gotta love rage quitting in the guise of virtue signaling at its finest… that’s not class, Matt just sucks at social issues. Look up his wiki he’s even admitted to not like debating social issues and is why on old shows on TAE he had other co-hosts talk about those issues. It was more of protecting his pride but just in case “oh the poor 🏳️⚧️ people” just no.. Matt most people except your die hard fans see right thru the 💩
@@kjwhitty8820 Matt is not someone I would describe as having class. He continuously talks smack to Christians, and calls them names. he also didn’t cover the topic and his opening statement. He talked a lot about Mike Johnson. He also talked about gays and trans himself. So by getting up and walking out, he is being a huge hypocrite.
@@DoctorTaco20 Well, I have to agree that Matt doesn't exude class in many cases. However, in this case I believe he did the classy thing. Matt signed up for a debate. This guy wasn't discussing the topic but instead decided to use the time to trash talk LGBTQ. Consider if the guy was trash talking women. Would you walk out?
Andrew granted Matt's worldview. I thought his opening statement was brilliant. And good point Trent, LGBTQ was open for discussion the moment Matt mentioned it.
@@anthonyzav3769 I can see you think this is some sick burn.... I'm just not sure what witty retort is actually present. He granted it to allow that position. And then exampled the SAME ethical issue that Matt had offered, but in reverse. Any failing on his part is equally shared by Matt, thus making it the perfect mirror-image to Dillahunty that makes his behavior seem semi-appropriate. The left can't meme. And I suppose atheists can't meme either. When you assume your opponent is dumb, and without reason, I guess you under-estimate your own need to keep your brain turned on and thinking.
Also, most atheists ethics seem to be rooted in some form of utilitarianism (I won’t say hedonism in the primal sense, but something more in the Millian sense). That is, that pleasure both mental and physical in general constitute the good to be maximized and suffering the bad to be reduced. But if that’s your ethical position, well friends, the stats are in! Theists are reportedly happier across the board. Lower rates of depression, happier sex lives, more committed marriages, less fear of death, etc. etc. So, under your morality as an atheist, you should at least be axiologically pro-theist. That is, you ought to think it at the very least *better* that people believe than not.
Good thing most people aren't concerned with only pleasure then. Also, most research is hard to understand about this topic, and it's not as clear as you make it seem. Considering you still can't seriously get elected to a higher political office if you're an atheist and that atheists appear to be one of the most hated groups in America, there's still a lot of work to be done to ensure a favorable playing field. This is the same argument people like to use against sexual minorities, say their lives suck, but in reality they are only suffering because of a culture that derides and marginalizes them.
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question." - J.S. Mill's response to that type of argument.
@@WaterCat5 This just assumes that the reasons for the lower rates of happiness across the board in atheists have nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with “the system.” That might or might not be true to a degree, but to blindly assert that that is “the system” and not “atheism itself” seems to be at least as unsubstantiated. I think the data speaks for itself, personally. Yes, most people aren’t only concerned with pleasure. But “concern” wasn’t the thrust of my argument. What do atheists typically root their morality in if not for pleasure/pain?
I think it depends, most of them are utilitarian, but often they can arrive in egalitarian or libertarian frameworks too. Marxists are usually atheist, and libertarianism has a rationalistic defense on private property.
I don’t know why any Christian apologist would let themselves be conned into debating Matt Dilahunty. His track record for bullying, rage quitting, imputing evil motives to his opponents, feigning outrage when he is met with the same treatment he gives to others, refusing to interact with his opponents arguments, etc. makes it hard to believe that he is interested in any kind of a productive dialogue. There are plenty of other atheists who may not be persuaded by Christian positions but will at least refrain from arguing in bad faith.
Andrew talked about that on his show after he got back home from the trip. He agreed to help the moderater fill the position because he had a professional relationship with the MDD channel. Their staff spent all night having a "laugh at Andrew" rant. I'm confident in saying that Andrew will never appear on MDD again. 😂
I'm not sure "Big Papa Fascist" counts as a Christian apologist. LGBTQ doesn't have anything to do with Christian apologism anyway, unless you want to talk about stoning people to death like the Bible says to do. And if you don't believe in killing gays and trans people in cold blood on the spot, that makes you a modern secular humanist more than you realized.
He implied that Matt was against penalizing parents for neglect in that case. That was clearly wrong in the context of the debate that Andrew claimed to have watched; Andrew deliberately mischaracterized Matt's position as an attack. That's slander.
@@curateipsum8311Slander is still slander if it can't be proven in a court of law. It's just weasel slander, which characterizes Andrew Wilson to a tee.
"Nutcase" didn't know you used that phrase on your side of the pond 🇺🇲🇬🇧🏴 Love you, Trent! *EDIT* Just watched an episode of The Big Bang Theory and Penny used the word nutcase aired 3rd March 2009.
I kind of love how all you theists focus on the trans part and say thats why Matt quit, and just completely gloss over the whole poont about Andrew misrepresenting Matts quote on the 9yo whicvbasically has matt sounding like a pedo. People literally were calling him Pedohunty.
Yes mocking suicide is so bad... wait where did Matt mock child suicide like this guy did? Are you defending the mocking of child suicide. Saying you wouldn't walk out on a debate if someone did that.
Andrew Wilson is abrasive, but his actual argument was fair, effective, and struck at the core of the topic. The other people in that room who were unhappy with him, including James, were captured by the emotion of the moment. Also, worth noting that Andrew did not actually exchange personal insults until he was insulted first. Embarrassing showing for Matt Dillahunty.
Gender issues weren't the topic of the debate and saying that secular humanism leads to that ideology is both ridiculous and a strawman. Andrew Wilson had no arguments, so he purposefully changed the topic to one that's an obvious trigger for Matt.
@@michaw7408 the topic of the debate was the viability of secular humanism, and Andrew’s argument attacked secular humanism’s vulnerability to subjective valuations. Transgenderism was just the catalyst for that. You are not showing a comprehension of the argument.
@@nighthowell Watch again what Andrew actually said in his opening. His argument wasn't "secular humanism is vulnerable to subjective valuations". He never actually said anything like that or anything even remotely similar to that. Rather than explaining how or why humanism is flawed in that way, he spend all his time saying that humanists, and I quote, "lie to people", that from Matt's perspective enabling gay people makes humanity flourish (which is obviously false since they're "reproductive dead ends"). He didn't make an argument of "why is secular humanism vulnerable", but "why do we need to lie about a person's sex in order to advance Humanity". His whole argument was that humanists are just delusional lunatics, who don't know what's true any more. Look, I get, you either really dislike Matt or really like Andrew (nothing wrong with you being gay for him) so you want to defend him. But being a filthy liar and pretending that Andrew said something much more clever than what he ACTUALLY said isn't the way to do it. Rewatch his argument again because your opinion is either colored by your emotions or by you not paying enough attention to hear what he is actually saying.
Honestly I am pleased with this response, I was worried this was going to be a fingerpointing contest. But there are people like Andrew, and I am very much of the same character, who are made to fight and dispute boldly and lead the charge by dominating and humiliating opponents. Too often, normies point fingers at bold people and call them bad for being that way, but my priest has recognized that there are people like me who love to get into debates, tough debates, and there is a place for that in the Church. Many normie christians are so pathetic, they would kick Jesus out of their Church if he held a speech like he did to the Pharisees sometimes.
@@jackolyte never been on 4chan in my life, I fetched this peepo from an emoji site. Are you traumatized by some 4chan trolls or whats wrong with you lol
Yea I'm a Reformed Protestant so I have my qualms with Rome but overall I like Trent and I'll join sides with him regarding being pro life and pushing back on LGBTQ etc.
@firingallcylinders2949 I agree, but as a Follower of Christ, the Word of God is my beacon. If your view, regardless of religion or race, is in line with the Bible, we can be on the same side; if not, be prepared to do battle (-:
I don't recall if the format was supposed to be another speech by each of them (without interruptions) or not. But either way, when asked to continue the debate, Matt did say "I don't think so", which would technically mean all the rules were irrelevant.
@@Eliza-rg4vw Just saying that 100's of people in the chat during the debate felt the need to say jackass to Andrew...also the audience were staring quite angrily at him=o
Trent, you literally know Matt had expressed concerns about Modern Day Debates not vetting opponents and them not addressing the topic. Even after he left it’s absolutely clear Andrew’s a charlatan. I’m surprised you would defend him.
I appreciate this. I went through my edgy atheist phase in my twenties, but when it seemed Christianity was (at least to my satisfaction) destroyed, the atheist movement changed into a monster. Standing on the back of great thinkers, Matt and people like him took over the movement and started pushing these absolutely insane ideas that we see rampant today. I'm still not religious, but these people are about to make me deus vult. Anyway, this video speaks to me because I'm stuck in the middle of two sides, and the last thing i want is for Christians to become what I can't stand about modern atheists. Come back better than you were, raise great thinkers to the top, not charlatans and trolls. Be reasonable, and be smart rather than falling into the mud with these pigs.
@@attiasprouse682 1) You take me too literally I think. I mean that the influence of Christianity in government and media was significantly diminished when compared to the early 00's and before. 2) The arguments back then were to reduce the above mentioned insertions of Christianity. I think a lot of people can agree that there should be level of respect for other religions and atheists in public spaces, and the only way to accommodate everyone is to keep it to a minimum. By public spaces I'm referring more to the role of the state, not private entities. I don't want Christianity taught in school, just the same as I don't want secular dogma taught in school as you see today. To simplify, I don't want anyone's opinions taught as fact in school, but if I have to side with one it's not the people telling children to chop off their giblets because they feel pretty today.
I was super into the political sphere before coming back to Catholicism. I was trying to get away from the talking head, hot take, internet blood sports nonsense. But there are certain forms of Christianity online that seem to promote this kind of behavior. Rad trad sedevacantist and ortho bros are often the worse offenders. When I listen to them (and I have not heard of Andrew Wilson before but he immediately seems to fit the mold) they don't come off as authentic in their faith. They feel way more like the political grifters that I was trying to escape. For atheism, I don't think there's much of a line to draw between politics and religious discussion. Without religion, what is left but politics? But for people professing a belief in an infinite, all powerful, all loving God, I think more should be expected of them than this rude, self-centered, and worldly political shitfest
@@SF-my2ym Apparently you don't. This guy meant that we have been too soft and tolerant. The meekness Christ talks about is different, there it's about softheartedness and gentleness. But Christ does not expect us to be gentle when we are confronted by evil.
@@SF-my2ym was Jesus being meek when he flipped tables in the temple and started swinging a bullwhip around? No? Weird. Almost like atheists don't know what they're talking about
Dillahunty is a coward. And uses a form of blackmail by publicly stating that he'll never go on the Modern Day Debate channel, sending a message that Andrew is somehow toxic and if you invite him you'll never get the stardom of Matt.
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! I never thought a real person could both act and sound like Vizzini, but Dillahunty is it man. A caricature of a genius.
Andrew is one of the best Christian political debaters I have ever seen. He has embarrassed destiny like no one has ever done. Also Matt has never rage quit this fast. Andrew is an asset. I disagree with you that Andrew shouldn’t have interrupted. Matt made it clear he was leaving and quitting . It’s then Andrew interrupted because Matt wanted to have last words which shouldn’t be allowed.
Andrew and his conversational style/debate style are incredibly unloving, ungracious, and on Christlike. And I fear he does far more harm to the cause of Christ than he does good.
@@S1leNtRIP *^ THIS ^* As a former Christian, he gives good Christians I know a bad name by behaving like this. Personally I don't think he's a sincere Christian (although I'll acknowledge he is a Christian) & I get the impression he's a Christian simply to express his supremacy over others. I don't remember trolling being a fruit of the spirit.
Matthe 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" - this is Jesus speaking. Of course, Andrew isn't always perfect, nobody is but to condemn being combative is wrong
lol. that's why even i as an atheist, allows all religion to exists and i won't force anyone to follow what i believed in, because i have no right as a human. it's called equality.
@@cheeseburgersuperior1874but you can't prove that God doesn't existe while i can easily prove that Matt's wife is a man which makes his believe obviously irrational.
I remember a debate with Jeff durbin and sye ten brugencate debating atheists and sye brought up a good point. Sye said he would go to college campuses and debate younger kids and on most occasions they would engage and have a discussion. Then he said he would go the reason rally with the older atheists and they would give him the finger. I’ve encountered this as well. I’ve tried to debate a ton of older atheists and all I got was insults towards me and screaming
Andrew Wilson's statement proved matt's point ultimately. "Leads to immoral conclusions on LGBT issues", well I would say what Andrew said about trans people is an example of just that, especially with the added context of Matt's relationship.
I once debated Dillahunty on abortion on a friend's podcast, and after that debate he swore off debating abortion anymore. That even merited a mention in his Wikipedia article. haha
Honestly, I think it behoves Andrew (and other Christians) to act with greater decorum than he did. I do not believe he acted in a Christlike way toward Matt or toward people struggling with transgender issues. With that said, I fully agree with your criticisms about Matt, he has a track record of this kind of thing.
If Matt's debate opponents weren't such deliberate douchbags to begin with, I might agree with things been said here. But the way things are I can not agree at all. Matt quitting that debate was not even about him quitting a debate. There was no debate. Andrew had his agenda to spill all his hate about gender nonsense I wouldn't like either. But thart was not even the topic. Secular humanism wasn't even cut fairly by Andrew. Matt was brought into a debate that was not about the topic he agreed to debate on. And btw it is no secret that MDD has turned into raw dumpster fire.
We should all pray that we, when having dialogue with our agnostic and atheist mutuals, find that middle ground between being reserved and going on the offensive. For the glory of God 🙏
Matt's favorite movie is Broke Back Mountain ...... fitting for how he dresses. Matt, you can live in Texas and dress up like a mini-cowboy, yet you will always be the tinkerbell that your "wife" adores.
So what does it say? What is the most important part? The reason I'm asking: I think I can show why the bill is wrong, but I don't want to address something you think is only an inconsequential part of the bill.
@@korbendallas5318 The bill is not long, I've read it. Yes parents should have a right to know about updates on the health and well-being of their children. And yes, teachers should not be "encouraging discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity". Also, my point was that calling it the "Don't Say Gay Bill" minimizes real parental concerns that children are being purposefully indoctrinated at a young age by teacher's with an LGBT agenda. You're talking to a 25 year old who was taught this in middle school, so I know the problem first hand and can only imagine how much worse it has become.
@@nicklowe_ Ok then. 1) It's overly broad. What does "encouraging" mean. 2) LGBT persons are part of humanity. The idea to not talk about them is just silly. 3) Real kids have real problems with their own sexuality, and not being able to discuss that might easily cause irreperable harm. 4) In general, preventing teachers to teach facts can have horrible consequences. What's next?
Trent brings up some good points and criticizing Matt’s behavior in the debate- but Matt wasn’t reacting to Andrew‘s points when he left the debate I watched this debate and during Andrew‘s opening statement- I got a very bad feeling that this was not going to be a debate This was going to be something quite different I feel this was what Matt reacted to when he left and why he decided he was not going to tolerate it Nothing about LGBTQ issues or anything else Matt just felt this was going to be a terrible debate no matter how it went Matt showed up for a debate- Andrew showed up for a mud fight Matt will not dignify that kind of behavior That’s my opinion
Gay guy here, we are NOT attracted to trans women. Guys who are attracted to trans women are usually (formerly)straight men. Whether you want to call them pan or bi or whatever they aren’t homo.
this is embarrassing trent, imagine missing the point this much. as much as i really don't like matt, andrew's conduct during this, particularly bringing up and insulting trans people put of nowhere in the beginning, was WILDLY unprofessional and to think he acted in good faith is beyond idiotic. matt "rage quit" because he didn't want to put up with the BS being spewed out of andrew's sorry mouth. there was never a chance for a proper, constructive conversation, only because andrew came out swinging personal attacks literally within the first 10 minutes of the debate. which you know ... breaks the most fundemental rules of a conducted debate.
Please tell us what personal attacks Andrew made against Matt. All I heard was Andrew challenging Matt's world view ideology that Matt himself willingly brought up as part of his debate presentation. The only one I heard swinging personal attacks was Matt when he called Andrew a 'Jackass'
@@bills1669 andrew had absolutely zero reason to make that "deranged lunatic" transgenders offing themselves comment within the first few minutes of what's supposed to be a civil debate about RELIGION. again i don't like matt basically at all, but i would say that matt's judgement there is right, andrew is a jackass.
I would say that another good situation for "rage quitting" (or, really just quitting) a debate is if it's a less structured, more open debate and you really have just reached a total impasse and there's nothing else to talk about.
1. I didn't watch the entire debate but the in the segment of it shown here, I thought that Andrew Wilson was abrasive and perhaps deliberately trying to get Matt Dillahunty irate enough to leave the debate early. If that was his intention, Andrew succeeded but was it charitable? 2. It seems to me the purpose of any debate is to offer space for both sides of an argument so that it concludes where both sides agree to disagree, but the listeners have grasped the arguments each side has presented and decided for themselves. If a Christian debater has thwarted the debate process to the point that any sense of mutual amity is demolished, I would say they have failed in their purpose. Why? Because the Christian, by example, must give witness to the communion of Three Divine Persons that extends to a common humanity created in God's image.
In the segment shown the debate breaks down because Matt would rather wax lyrical about tr4nnies being called what they are rather than argue why it's wrong to call them mentally ill with a predilection for self-termination. This is the fruit of secular humanism and he needs to defend why it's a good thing, instead her forfeited and ran away. This has nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with Matt being upset about perverts being called what they are
You are correct. Matt opened with a broad range of topics, including about 10-20 seconds of trans issues. Andrew responded with 3 minutes on trans issues and called them and their supporters stupid, and deranged lunatics, among other insults. Andrew was not there to debate rationally.
@@jsmall10671 Don't equate your idea's about reality with reality itself. Remember, they are idea's that exist in your imagination and nowhere else. Name the things Andrew stated that consisted of irrationality. I will wait.
As an agnostic and pretty liberal guy (not to make it about myself) love the way you articulate yourself and offer a good faith religious point of view on things that I can listen too, definitely disagree on a lot but you’re a great dude Trent keep it up 👍
As an atheist I approve of this message. However, stopping to making content out of glorifying "gotchas" seems like something that should be bellow every decent human being, Christian or otherwise.
@@subcitizen2012try engaging with trents arguments. Poisoning the well, the way you characterized Andrews arguments, is fallacious. It would be more honest to say that you can't rebut Andrews argument or that you don't want to.
@@aquavitae3824 Andrew wasn't even on topic. He derailed it in his opening already. Because secular humanism is not about gender issues. And Andrewhates "gender anything" so much that he went there whilst ignoring anything else. Also while not adressing the topic at hand he decided to whack Matt with all his stereotypical Gish Gallops as much as was possible in 13 minutes. That was outright BS.
@@niemand7811 Matt brought up gender stuff in his opener. Why can't you guys retain information across 15 minute intervals? Andrew granted Matt's secular humanist world-view, and then illustrated the internal flaws of the system, an internal critique.
@@skagenpige88 you would have to demonstrate a worldview in which LGBTQ had objective value first before you can determine harming them would be immoral
@@hurrikanehavok7313 no i dont. I dont want them to be harmed, neither do they. If you want to harm them you have to fight me to harm them. Your the one forcing the issue so you have to prove your right.
@@skagenpige88 I’m sorry it’s actually an issue of Amorality. I am not saying it is moral to harm them. I said you need a worldview where morality isn’t a category error and applies to LGBTQ. You are the one who posited a position. I recommend you read the comment a few times before making a error like that.
@@hurrikanehavok7313 My position is do no harm to other people that you dont want done to you. LGBTQ is just included in that.....And if I try to harm other people the way you do I want to be harmed as well. There is simple cause and effect....society decide what moral is and we decided its not moral to harm people just becouse of a storybook...dont matter to me one bit if its not objective on a godlevel, its objective on a society level.
Matt usually quits a debate if his opponent refuses to address his argument and instead begins preaching scripture. Another trigger is the straw man argument when his opponent continues to misrepresent Matt's position no matter how many times he repeats it.
"I find several moments where Andrew wasn't being a provocative asshole, therefore Andrew won the debate." That's your argument? I would have walked out of that debate myself. MDD should be embarrassed that they platformed this guy.
It was too close to home for Matt. He didn't have the intellectual ability to have his golden calf manhandled. Andrew flipping Matt's "I'm not convinced" was gold. Andrew's take-no-prisoners approach was something that Matt wasn't used to. Matt loves disrespecting what's sacred to the religious he deals with, but he cannot handle it when it's done to him. Andrew's views were masterfully put and were quite refreshing. I continued to enjoy his explanations after Matt ran away crying and Andrew continued to swat hostile audience members. Andrew has a cool and logical head on him.
I think Matt just saw Andrew's argument and realized he's screwed and has no chance against it. Its pretty simple, then decided to virtue signal to save himself some points and getting his butt handed to him. It was obvious the audience afterwards were soo triggered they couldnt even process the argument, which is genius.
Andrew had no argument. In fact it was the other way around. Matt read the secular humanism manifesto and Andrew had nothing except personal attacks. Or he came to the debate with that as his objective. Either way Andrew looked like a fool.
@@Ledav22 no one but Matt fanboys thinks he looked like a fool when Matt left the debate lol like a triggered feminist. The argument was so basic that it went over Matt's head (like most of his debates) and apparently your head too. He said he'll give Matt a bone and fully grant him secular humanism is true, except his ethics happened to look just like Christian ethics, and since they don't involve lying like Matt's does (with Boys pretending to be girls), it's more virtuous. Matt realized he was effed since his system was just proved completely arbitrary/incoherent and realized he might as well virtue signal and cut his losses. It was so basic how did you not get that? Rewatch it
@@TommyGunzzz with the right coloured lens you can see what you want to see. You think Matt hasn’t heard what Andrew said about trans people? The bigotted “men pretending to be women” thing? Listen to the way he phrased that question. He went straight for trans people because they’re an easy target and because Matt has a trans girlfriend (I think they’re still together. Next, you think Christianity is more virtuous? Yeah the countless holy wars, witch trials, crusades, inquisitions child molestation by priests, anti birth control by the pope in Africa, all professed to be part of god’s command. Sounds like Christianity can only dream of being what secular humanism is. Nobody has ever started a war as part of an atheist attempt to cleanse the world of religion. Matt laid out the secular humanist manifesto as part of the debate strategy and Andrew comes back and says “yeah but trans people are live immorally”. Cool story. Needs more dragons. I’m glad you have an opinion rooted in bigotry. The problem is Andrew wasn’t there to debate the idea, he was there to attack Matt. In what way did Matt lie? Andrew didn’t prove anything. He used a strawman and ad-homonym attacks in order to be antagonist. It’s so obvious! How could you not see that?
@@TommyGunzzz absolutely, Andrew's argument was brilliant in how simplistic it was. I grant you your secular humanism. What is your foundation for making a claim on what ought to be? Personal preference ultimately. Okay, my personal preference is the opposite of yours. Ughhhhhhhhhhhh, ughhhhh, you're just making this debate about my specific claims and positions (how dare you not straw man me) you bigot, * rage quit*. lol. I don't know why I wasn't able to see it before, but Andrew exposed that Matt and I think I can throw Sam Harris in here too now, are actually not impressive people. I say this as someone who is not religious.
Let's get the story straight he was there to debate the topic and his debate opponent wasn't there to do that. He was their to attack matts personnel life.
I regularly criticize Matt. I deconstructed Secular Humanism on my channel. In this case, Matt was right. At no point was Andrew Wilson ever actually on topic. Neither Matt nor his person views the topic of the debate, but that's all that Andrew discussed. And, no, "turnabout is fair play" isn't good enough. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and bring our interlocutors to to meet us, not sink to tactics that others will find off-putting. It's wrong when Dillahunty does it; and it was no less wrong when Wilson did it.
MD has always been a smug disingenuous debater who opens doors, walks through them and then slams them shut on his opponents. This has been one of his most gainful tactics and it’s nice to see his reaction when someone flips the tables on him. A bit harsh? Maybe, but even Jesus flipped some tables in righteous indignation. Much as Sméagols transformation into Gollum by the darkness of the ring, MD’s continuing spiral of debase morality since his acceptance of and conversion to atheism has sadly made him evermore unrecognizable. My prayers go out for him, his family and followers, but it’s about time someone stood up to this demonically possessed vessel and struck it down with some cords of Truth! Jesus didn’t always stand idly by, he called out evil for what it was and he dealt with the Sadducees and Pharisees with firm and harsh words. People of faith better start taking notice and action in handling themselves in the face of evil by the power and strength of Scripture. This is far past discussion, it is a war against evil itself and thoes who have chosen to host the father of lies.
Both had problems but the big one i had was in Matt's side. He basically said that my moral system is best because the other doesn't agree with my morals. That argument can go both ways. Both aides did this but matt didn't go beyond this.
That was his opening statement. He has been debating these topics for decades and can go much more in depth when someone is there to actually discuss issues.
@@jsmall10671 I would agree but when the topic is to justify your moral system that's a terrible place to start. even his opponent touched on it. It would have been nice if Matt was willing to discuss it. He stormed out after his opponent game a similar argument to his.
I think it is appalling that what's-his-face on the left side of the table is laughing at his opponent. Even if that is how you feel, it's incredibly disrespectful to both laugh and interrupt the other. Horrible.
If you are Christian. Then you are the reason people are leaving the church. Attack the topic not the person, but you know that and have nothing to offer.
So Matt can point to potential consequences of Christian ethics he considers immoral but no one can dare question the morality of his own beliefs. What a clown.
His moral beliefs are Christian in origin whether he admits it or not Everybody has innate human dignity. This idea comes from Christianity The poor, the oppressed and the marginalized deserve special consideration. This idea comes from Christianity Every human being has certain rights everyone must respect. This idea comes from Christianity Any moral idea Dillahunty might advocate comes from Christianity. If I was in this debate, that is how I would respond to everything “yes indeed Christianity is the correct moral framework thank you for acknowledging this”
@@utubepunkstupid comment. There have been three major ideologies in the last 150 years. Judeo-Christianity, Marxists atheism and Islam. The only one worth living under is Judeo-Christianity.
@@Michael-bk5nz Lol. Christians trying to claim morality is like Columbus claiming he "discovered" a land with people already living there. The sheer arrogance & denial of Christians still amazes me.
@@Michael-bk5nzabsolutely. Those in the West ( especially atheists) live in a goldfish bowl. They believe the life they have is the same worldwide,it isn't.Judeo Christianity is in the very fabric of Western society.
The existence of God is pretty inconvenient for us. On the other hand, I can't imagine how much more miserable and depressing my life would be without Him.@@roddycavin4600
Im not sure if you watched it...but did you see the lies he said about matt and personal attacks? If thats what you talk about...what is the need to defend against it, the christian there is a joke at that point, hes acting like a child for views...But I guess you like misrepresenting people just like Andrew did.
I see Dilahunty's defenders are offended because they can't handle someone actually putting their so-called "ethical" stance in the spotlight for everyone to see. 😅
Atheists in the comments of that video tried to defend Matt's behavior, saying that Andrew was not addressing the topic, on the ground that trans affirmation is not relevant *because* it is not intrinsic to humanism. It's purely incidental. But this, in my opinion, is no different from someone like Hitchens constantly bringing up crusades and witch trials. These things are not intrinsic to Christian virtue ethics, they're merely societal excess; yet, if they're fair game for the atheist side, why is trans identity not fair game?
Matt did the same thing by bringing up Mike Johnson as if his brand of Evangelicalism is the steel man of Christian ethics. Though I question whether Matt could actually explain the difference between Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox.
@Forester- Issue is that many Christians agree with Mike on lgbt stuff. This is not a fringe view in the US. Some are publicly not willing to pass literal laws, but this is still a problem because they are less likely to prevent laws from being passed.
Because Anglican priests affirm trans identity while Richard Dawkins laughs at it for the nonsense on stilts that it is. It has nothing to do with religion, meanwhile the Crusades were carried out in the name of as well as justified by religion.
@@tomasrocha6139 - The crusades were motivated by a number of factors, including religion. Besides, scripture is used to inspire both the crusader knight and the trans affirming bishop. The issue is ideological excess, which, both crusades and trans affirmation are products of, in their respective fashions.
Even when I was big on atheist TH-cam I never thought Dilahunty was worth listening too. I never understood why he was considered a thought leader. He's kind of a reddit mod
It’s true, Dilahunty is just an arm chair skeptic, offers literally nothing to almost every debate just “I’m not convinced” and “you still haven’t proven God exists imo”, then talks about why we’re good without needing God begging the question entirely. Jay Dyer destroyed him because he exposed that he assumes his Naturalistic worldview has explanatory power for rationality and is coherent to begin with, which it isn’t foundationally.
I feel like it shows atheists lack of respect to Christians that they consider hacks like him as being intelligiable (basically, even dumb people like him are smarter than Christianz in their eyes)
You ever listen to Dillahuntys radio show? The one where Christians call in all the time? Smug is the least way to describe it. Dude is straight up vile towards ppl
Yeah Dillahunty, like the majority of atheists, behave as if all their "subjective" morals are universal. "How dare you call me a liar!" is a funny sentiment coming from "the truth is relative" crowd.
Oh I know. It’s one of the reasons why I stopped watching or following him altogether. He’s also that way towards atheists who may be more conservative leaning like Dusty from CultofDusty and Thunderf00t. The latter pissed Matt and AronRa off so much that instead of attacking his argument they attacked him as a person after booting him off (talk about cowardly). He isn’t consistent with his own views either. There’s another guy he debated that found flaws in Matt’s Logic that Matt played the whole “the Matt in that debate isn’t the same Matt in this debate” and ended the call when he refused to say that he switched positions and was proven wrong in that position. His followers also peaked and consist mainly of very left leaning individuals who’s views are just way out there: otherkin- people who identify as being animals, identify as another age, etc and if you ask him to defend his followers he freaks out at you with a bunch of phobia and -ist accusations before banning you. The guys is a 🤡 He’s not worth following, since his worldview is responsible for those fragile lefties you see on college campuses, and he’s full woke unable to defend those issues. You’ll be a poor woe is me individual with gambling problems, STDs and various drug addictions if you follow him. BTW he’s on his 2nd or 3rd marriage as well.
My friend Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith called into Matt's radio show to discuss the transgender issue and Matt acted like a absolute tool. His response was full of insults with no arguments.
We dont venerate leaders the same way you do, and we don't usually refer to adults as children. And to be fair, his debate opponent is an open fascist, a "big papa fascist." So that tells you everything you need to know about where the childishness is coming from. It wasn't an honest debate in good faith. People aren't required to participate in those. I'm not sure why Dillahunty would even party audience to someone like this. And the fact that you're siding against him for even trying says a lot a out you.
@@subcitizen2012 His argument was fair game as soon as he Dillahunty introduced LGBT issues. Dillahunty was always disrespectful to his debaters except for Trent. Just saying that the chickens came home to roost for Dillahunty.
Matt: I don't care about religious experiences or feelings show me physical evidence. Also Matt: An internal experience or feeling of being a woman trumps physical reality.
I think that there’s a distinction here, and it’s this - I’m 99% sure that Matt would say that gender is a social construct distinct from sex as a concept, and therefore legitimately doesn’t necessarily correspond to physical reality. So like, for instance, take marriage. What is the physical evidence for someone being married? Is it having a ring? Well, no, some married people don’t wear rings and some unmarried people do wear rings. Is it living with the person you’re married to? Well, also no, some unmarried couples live together and some married couples don’t, so that’s not evidence either. Being in love? Again, no. Same reason. Is it having the ceremony? Yet again no. Some people get married without ever having a ceremony at all. The only possibly decisive “physical evidence” of being married to someone else that you could find would be official documentation by a government, church, or other institution with authority over that kind of thing that the pair is, in fact, married. And well, if we count that as physical evidence that the people are married, then we could equally count government documentation of someone being a woman as physical evidence of them being a woman. Now, seeing as you’re watching this channel you’re probably a Catholic or at the very least of some abrahamic faith, in which case you may believe that the ideal of marriage as an institution was created by God and therefore isn’t exactly a social construct. You might not even believe in social constructs in the form I described at all. But Matt almost certainly does, and you were trying to make an internal critique of his worldview by trying to say it was inconsistent. I really don’t think that it is, though. In fact, there’s an even more direct example of this. What’s the physical evidence that someone is Jewish? What’s the physical evidence that they’re Christian? What’s the physical evidence that someone is Hindu? There is none. You have to base it on what they say and how they act. Again, maybe in some cases you might get documentation from some religious institution, but even that’s not perfect and it again would imply that official documentation of somebody being a woman would make it so. Matt would almost certainly say that being a woman is exactly the same way.
@@yourewrong9028 That's like saying that doglike cats are actually dogs. Gender has always either meant grammatical gender or sex and the former has no bearing on whether someone is a woman seeing as tornadoes, ships and countries may be grammatically feminine but they are most certainly not women, as they are not female humans.
@@tomasrocha6139 perhaps historically gender and sex were used interchangeably, but the fact is that actual medical professionals have been officially making a distinction in the terms since at least 2001. A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (which is now part of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine) issued the following recommendation in, again, 2001, over 22 years ago: “RECOMMENDATION 7: Clarify use of the terms sex and gender. Researchers should specify in publications their use of the terms sex and gender. To clarify usage and bring some consistency to the literature, the committee recommends the following: In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement. In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation. In most studies of nonhuman animals the term sex should be used.” Edit: I’d also like to point out that even if the terms have always been used interchangeably and you think they should continue to be, Matt does not view them as interchangeable and this addressing his argument as if he does is a strawman.
@@TransparentOperatingMode First of all, your question is inherently a ridiculous and circular one. You ask “if I have government papers saying I’m x despite in fact being not x, does that make me x?” You’ve literally stated in the hypothetical question that you are not x, making the entire thing moot. Let me ask the same question about my example: “if I have government papers that say I am married despite being in fact not married, does that make me married?” If you are not, in fact, married, then government papers cannot make you married, and if they can then it is not actually true that you are not married. It seems like a small nitpick, but it means that the entire way your question was structured is nonsense. However, ignoring that, the thing about what you’ve said here is that the answer changes based on what context you’re talking about and the definition of the words you’re using. What does male and female mean? What does African American and Caucasian mean? Are we asking in the legal sense, the scientific sense, or the everyday sense? And yes, don’t be reductionist - this ABSOLUTELY matters, just like how the word “theory” means something different in academic parlance than the everyday usage, so do many of the the words you just used. The legal answer is by far the simplest one - if you have legal documents that assign you a certain legal status, then you have that legal status. If all of your legal papers say you’re a caucasian man, you’re legally a caucasian man, period, dot com, end of story. I don’t see how anybody can argue against that. If we look at this from a purely hard scientific lens, then I’ve already expressed, male and female are sex classifications which are a lot more based in biology than the psychosocial phenomenon of gender. (And before you call that woke, again, this was literally decided on in the scientific community 20+ years ago. Facts don’t care about your feelings, bozo.) When scientists talk about female vs male, they’re talking about a bimodal (NOT binary) distribution of characteristics like gametes, chromosomes, genitals, and hormones. So you would have to actually change most if not all of those things to scientifically change from female to male, which is a lot more difficult than just getting some papers (and in some cases like chromosomes completely unfeasible with modern tech.) Gendered terms like “Man” and “Woman” are not scientifically used in the same way as “Male” and “Female,” and they haven’t been for decades. In a scientific sense, race doesn’t exist, only genotypes (genetic code) and phenotypes (how that code presents) do. That’s a really complex discussion that I won’t get into unless you really want to, but no, you can’t change your phenotype or genotype with government papers, obviously. In a sociological sense, it only really matters how people treat you. If you look, sound, and and act like a Caucasian male, then society will treat you like one. If you look, sound, and act like an African-American female, then society will treat you like one. In that sense it’s entirely about self identity and outward presentation. If you look like Taylor Swift and have a high voice despite having been born with a dick and balls, people and society at large are gonna treat you like a woman despite you not having been born with female genetics. This is how biology and sociology differ, and it’s where the real difference between sex and gender lies.
how anyone can think secularism is a good foundation for ethics after the past hundred years of history is beyond me. Edit: for all the atheists coping in the comments, you need to demonstrate how a non-arbitrary ethical/moral system is possible in a secular/atheistic worldview. Your deflection and whataboutism isn't an argument.
You think they think we know about history? Like when they say stuff like religion is the cause of all wars or whatever it is they say? Despite ya know... Atheist communism. Stalin and so on.
Huh? I assume you refer to atrocities by various countries and such? Maybe a handful of psychopaths as well? Do they somehow cancel out work in literature, art and philosophy in that time frame? Also, let's not forget that those large scale atrocities were possible due to technological advances, which, if were available in prior centuries, would have been used in all likelihood.
@@wet-readOr the fact that it can't account for ethics in any non-atbitrary way. Or meaning. Or logic. Or anything nonmaterial. That's what I point to. It's the same failures, just repackaged in newer, postmodernist language.
I'm not religious but really do think Dillahunty is more worried lately about pushing the woke argument than the religion argument.......He loses immediately.... 🤔
Because when it comes down to morality, atheist utilitarianism inevitably devolves into woke ideology. What is woke standpoint theory if not an attempt to define an objective moral system out of a purely materialist, contingent worldview that rejects the concept of metaphysical, absolute Truth?
The New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Smith helped inadvertently usher in this lunacy. First these ideologues took over the science departments with Atheist+. Then they dismantled the universities and now this nonsense has been flushed into the mainstream lexicon like a mind virus. When you dismantle the religious order of a society the void his filled with another religion. Now we have a clash with this post modern subjectivity and dialectic and radical Islamics that will most likely win in the end, and destroy Western Civilization that gave them their concepts of reason and logic.
Well this was funny 🤣. Andrew didn't have to go low with his comments but Matt Dillahunty insulted him first calling him a jackass. Matt Dillahunty's dishonesty dodging tactics got himself OWNED by Andrew as he got a taste of his own medicine. IDK what Matt Dillahunty was talking about in the first 10 minutes about Christian nationalism and potential house speaker Johnson not agreeing with homosexuals but whatever. Evolutionary biology from common ancestry has nothing to do with believing in a Creator we call God but it's a tool used by Atheists, agnostics and secular people to promote their own godless community and agenda against Christianity. Atheists and secular humanists are guilty of promoting a nihilistic reality where everyone and everything is objectively meaningless because of and in spite of religion and Atheism. This has nothing and everything to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't. I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict. Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers. Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of macro Evolutionary biology whereas I accept micro Evolution like speciation and adaptation but not macro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word. Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.
I thought it was a brilliant performance by Andrew even if there wasn't much of a debate. For too long atheists like dillahunty have built their careers around being aggressive and smug towards Christians. Dillahunty just couldn't handle when he got the same treatment, and he rage quit when he realized that Andrew wasnt going to let him have his way in the debate. Good job Andrew.
Lol. Calling atheists smug & aggressive when your church history has clergy people who imprisoned & tortured atheists along with anyone who didn't believe what the church believed.
@@utubepunk I didn't say atheists are smug and aggressive, I said atheists LIKE dillahunty are smug and aggressive. Of course you found a way to misrepresent what I said just so you can pretend to get mad. Clergy that have done bad things don't represent everyone in that religion. Some Atheists have also tortured Christians, but I don't use this to justify me being aggressive towards atheists in general. Do you see how dumb your point is? I hope so
whats funny is when wants to be smug and aggressive towards Christians but gets triggered when Christians do it. lol cant even apply the same standard for his own debate
Couldn’t agree more. Andrew did great, and then dillahuntys followers tried for a week to get Andrew’s channel and discord shut down. So much for inclusion and tolerance lol.
My favorite part about this- Matt: "I'm not going to dignify this since I prepared so much." Also Matt: "Never met the guy didn't even look him up." th-cam.com/video/S8U34ezKvrU/w-d-xo.html
Me to my professor at office hours after I fail my Psych 101 midterm: "I'm not going to sit here and dignify the preparation that I went through, and what people were here for...." Professor: "uh did you even study" Me: "keep interrupting me"
Some atheists, like Christopher Hitchens, prefer the term "antitheist" to "atheist", meaning that it's not enough they don't believe in god(s) but are actively opposed to religion and its role in society.
@@thomaskeane6076If you demand “empirical evidence” for Christianity you don’t understand it, and you’re proving that you can’t think very deeply. I guess philosophy is not your thing.
Dillahunty, albeit having gotten a little better about this over recent years, has always had a reputation of being a straight up d-bag. I remember when I was an atheist and listening to his podcast. He has this warm invitation for theists to come on and present their case, saying he’d even bump them up to the front of the que. But then once a caller gets on, 9/10’s of the time Matt pretty quickly pulls the mask off and goes on full Matt-the-D-Dillahunty mode. It’s so insincere and bad faith. He’s one of the worst. Alex, RealAtheology, Joe Schmid-all significantly better than the previous atheist generation.
@@kevinjensen2071 I'm not emotional so there's no need to worry about that. Also he mentioned d-bags first so I feel that It's appropriate to bring it up. There's a lot of science around gender and sexual identity. You should actually look it up 👍
The first thing that came to my mind when he said simulated sex acts was that he was referring to pride parades where they are dressed in bondage gear whipping each other.
@@jhenz1926 Yeah, and Christianity is not the same as being opposed to homosexuality. Maybe you and I should do a debate given that Matt and Andrew are both such big dummyheads compared to us. It could go like this: Your opening: "Christianity bad, secular humanism good." My opening: "Secular humanism bad, Christianity good." Your rebuttal: "Christianity bad because Christianity is Christianity. No one disputes that Christianity is Christian, and therefore based on Christianity, so I support secular humanism. My rebuttal: That's ridiculous. While Christianity is Christianity, he's also saying it's Christian, which is also true. But the real problem is that secular humanism is secular, and encourages secularism. That would be a riveting conversation.
@@jhenz1926 Yes, I can understand how more than 100 words would be much effort for you. None the less, I'm always happy to amuse imbeciles who can't help but to concoct ironic statements so transparent and thick you could make windows out of them.
I agree with Trent about not being too aggressive but most Christian debaters need to turn the knob up several degrees. It might just mean that we have to do better research and know what the other side is going to say and have a counter ready and waiting.
@@jackeagleeye3453 Designed to fail? There have been hundreds of atheism-Christianity debates over the years, and the results aren't one sided. Atheists win some debates, but Christians have won many themselves, far more than to be insignificant.
Nah you're flat wrong. Plenty of Christian debaters are full of hot wind. I've seen plenty get heated up. Recent Cliff Knechtle vs Matt Dillahunty on MDD is one that comes to mind. Hot headedness looks foolish. Trent has got the levels perfect in most debates, I would hate to see him dial up. I think his stunt with the book in the Destiny debate was a little cheap though. I would've instantly asked the moderator to dismiss it as Destiny could bring in a book of photos to appeal to emotion also.
Matt’s biggest “arguments” are: “I’m not convinced” and “There is no evidence”. With positions like these he has no business participating in any debate.
That wasn't a rage quit. Matt resigned because his current life destroyed his position. Relationships are my favorite argument for truth and against relativism. You're in a relationship or you're not. Someone breaks up with you or divorces you, there's nothing relative about that.
Christians' personal lives have been fair game for the past few decades. How many times has a prominent Christian been found doing something morally objectionable, which atheists will pounce on, mock, laugh about, and use to denounce Christianity? When the tables turn, all of a sudden, they become puritans. It's so, so funny.
This is a woman's way of looking at men. It discounts the great men of history who were single, and the men who got cheated by no-fault divorce. Matt's relationship just indicates why he got so angry at the trans remarks. Now, being involved in... that kind of relationship... says something about him, because most people don't do that. (Actually, the problem isn't related to "most people;" it's just an immoral partnership)
@@skitsschist11 This has nothing to do with gender ( why do men like you always feel the need to put down womens opinions constantly? ) But is more of a Christian perspective
I will never debate. That is an area I know I cannot succeed in because I am not interiorly disposed to being able to calmly take behavior like that. I would be a poor representative of Catholicism in that respect, so I choose to stay where my strengths lie.
@@Eph2.8-9 Cool, I see you know your scriptures, that's a good start. I'll yield the floor to you to begin by explaining what Mary being the mother of Jesus has to do with Him being the Alpha and Omega, and I'll take it from there (on his behalf😁).
Trent, that’s how Dillihunty acted towards you on Pints when he was a complete jack off screaming at you to answer his ? about whether you thought eye witness testimony was “proof”…he acts like a complete jerk, doesn’t act charitable and got put in a box and didn’t like it.
an atheist who brings science up on mostly every topic but believes in transgenderism...go figure
Sounds perfectly logical to me.
When I found out that Matt had started dating a transwoman, it made so much sense why he gets so triggered whenever the topic of transgenderism comes up.
Eww lol
💯
THE AI VOICE GUY. WAZZUUUP.
@@JaySeamus Yo!
dating a Man**
The only person that should go too far is Laura Horn
You know the thing is, I didn't like her at first. But, man, that Rocky parody get me addicted.
Lol
😂
He couldn't show some class and just deal with it? Ive seen Christian debaters get insulted in the most vile ways possible yet they keep on going.
Guess he cant take it like he dishes it out.
Matt demonstrated class when he left a debate being used to trash a portion of society. This was in no way a debate. The AH wasn't discussing the topic, didn't know how to conduct himself in a debate and the moderator was useless and didn't have the balls to redirect the AH to the topic.
@@kjwhitty8820 Are you part of the delusional alphabet squad? Its not trashing a portion of society to represent it with accurate verbiage.
@@kjwhitty8820 gotta love rage quitting in the guise of virtue signaling at its finest… that’s not class, Matt just sucks at social issues. Look up his wiki he’s even admitted to not like debating social issues and is why on old shows on TAE he had other co-hosts talk about those issues.
It was more of protecting his pride but just in case “oh the poor 🏳️⚧️ people” just no.. Matt most people except your die hard fans see right thru the 💩
@@kjwhitty8820 Matt is not someone I would describe as having class. He continuously talks smack to Christians, and calls them names. he also didn’t cover the topic and his opening statement. He talked a lot about Mike Johnson. He also talked about gays and trans himself. So by getting up and walking out, he is being a huge hypocrite.
@@DoctorTaco20 Well, I have to agree that Matt doesn't exude class in many cases. However, in this case I believe he did the classy thing. Matt signed up for a debate. This guy wasn't discussing the topic but instead decided to use the time to trash talk LGBTQ. Consider if the guy was trash talking women. Would you walk out?
Andrew granted Matt's worldview. I thought his opening statement was brilliant. And good point Trent, LGBTQ was open for discussion the moment Matt mentioned it.
it was Matt's main point - making LGBTQ a near requirement to address. Matt is shameful and hypocritical
Andrew didn't concede, he granted it for the sake of the debate.
@@-Skratch- good point, thank you
Hilarious. He granted it then offered nothing. His sophisticated theory of truth was ‘when I see a tree I know it’s a tree.’ Deep.
@@anthonyzav3769 I can see you think this is some sick burn.... I'm just not sure what witty retort is actually present.
He granted it to allow that position. And then exampled the SAME ethical issue that Matt had offered, but in reverse. Any failing on his part is equally shared by Matt, thus making it the perfect mirror-image to Dillahunty that makes his behavior seem semi-appropriate.
The left can't meme.
And I suppose atheists can't meme either.
When you assume your opponent is dumb, and without reason, I guess you under-estimate your own need to keep your brain turned on and thinking.
Also, most atheists ethics seem to be rooted in some form of utilitarianism (I won’t say hedonism in the primal sense, but something more in the Millian sense). That is, that pleasure both mental and physical in general constitute the good to be maximized and suffering the bad to be reduced. But if that’s your ethical position, well friends, the stats are in! Theists are reportedly happier across the board. Lower rates of depression, happier sex lives, more committed marriages, less fear of death, etc. etc. So, under your morality as an atheist, you should at least be axiologically pro-theist. That is, you ought to think it at the very least *better* that people believe than not.
Good thing most people aren't concerned with only pleasure then.
Also, most research is hard to understand about this topic, and it's not as clear as you make it seem. Considering you still can't seriously get elected to a higher political office if you're an atheist and that atheists appear to be one of the most hated groups in America, there's still a lot of work to be done to ensure a favorable playing field.
This is the same argument people like to use against sexual minorities, say their lives suck, but in reality they are only suffering because of a culture that derides and marginalizes them.
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question." - J.S. Mill's response to that type of argument.
@@tomasrocha6139 imo, Mill’s argument just begs the question.
@@WaterCat5 This just assumes that the reasons for the lower rates of happiness across the board in atheists have nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with “the system.” That might or might not be true to a degree, but to blindly assert that that is “the system” and not “atheism itself” seems to be at least as unsubstantiated. I think the data speaks for itself, personally.
Yes, most people aren’t only concerned with pleasure. But “concern” wasn’t the thrust of my argument. What do atheists typically root their morality in if not for pleasure/pain?
I think it depends, most of them are utilitarian, but often they can arrive in egalitarian or libertarian frameworks too. Marxists are usually atheist, and libertarianism has a rationalistic defense on private property.
I don’t know why any Christian apologist would let themselves be conned into debating Matt Dilahunty. His track record for bullying, rage quitting, imputing evil motives to his opponents, feigning outrage when he is met with the same treatment he gives to others, refusing to interact with his opponents arguments, etc. makes it hard to believe that he is interested in any kind of a productive dialogue. There are plenty of other atheists who may not be persuaded by Christian positions but will at least refrain from arguing in bad faith.
Andrew Wilson had an aggressive and unique debate vector and it was necessary that someone thoroughly expose Matt. Mission accomplished.
Trent did really well.
Andrew talked about that on his show after he got back home from the trip. He agreed to help the moderater fill the position because he had a professional relationship with the MDD channel. Their staff spent all night having a "laugh at Andrew" rant. I'm confident in saying that Andrew will never appear on MDD again. 😂
Debating Matt Dillahunty is east clout.
I'm not sure "Big Papa Fascist" counts as a Christian apologist. LGBTQ doesn't have anything to do with Christian apologism anyway, unless you want to talk about stoning people to death like the Bible says to do. And if you don't believe in killing gays and trans people in cold blood on the spot, that makes you a modern secular humanist more than you realized.
Andrew didn't say Matt supported the 9 year old thing, Andrew said Matt was not in favour of making a law against it. Big difference there..
He implied that Matt was against penalizing parents for neglect in that case. That was clearly wrong in the context of the debate that Andrew claimed to have watched; Andrew deliberately mischaracterized Matt's position as an attack. That's slander.
Exactly. Matt strawmanned Andrew by claiming he strawmanned him LOL just like his accusation of Andrew being "smug ", massively hypocritical 😂
@@ronhoward121 Stating a provable fact is never slander. Educate yourself.
@@curateipsum8311Slander is still slander if it can't be proven in a court of law. It's just weasel slander, which characterizes Andrew Wilson to a tee.
Muhammad
"Nutcase" didn't know you used that phrase on your side of the pond 🇺🇲🇬🇧🏴
Love you, Trent!
*EDIT* Just watched an episode of The Big Bang Theory and Penny used the word nutcase aired 3rd March 2009.
Thats a popular slang term for a crazy person in the US.
@@sole__doubt same over here, friend.
Love that Americans have started saying "gobsmacked" too 🤣
I kind of love how all you theists focus on the trans part and say thats why Matt quit, and just completely gloss over the whole poont about Andrew misrepresenting Matts quote on the 9yo whicvbasically has matt sounding like a pedo.
People literally were calling him Pedohunty.
They also gloss over Andrew mocking child suicide. I mean that alone should result in everyone supporting Matt stepping out.
@@M4ttNet exactly, the delusion is actually sad
guess atheist don't like it when they get a taste of their own medicine
double standart same behavior as muslim apologetic
Yes mocking suicide is so bad... wait where did Matt mock child suicide like this guy did? Are you defending the mocking of child suicide. Saying you wouldn't walk out on a debate if someone did that.
Andrew Wilson is abrasive, but his actual argument was fair, effective, and struck at the core of the topic. The other people in that room who were unhappy with him, including James, were captured by the emotion of the moment. Also, worth noting that Andrew did not actually exchange personal insults until he was insulted first. Embarrassing showing for Matt Dillahunty.
Gender issues weren't the topic of the debate and saying that secular humanism leads to that ideology is both ridiculous and a strawman. Andrew Wilson had no arguments, so he purposefully changed the topic to one that's an obvious trigger for Matt.
@@michaw7408 the topic of the debate was the viability of secular humanism, and Andrew’s argument attacked secular humanism’s vulnerability to subjective valuations. Transgenderism was just the catalyst for that. You are not showing a comprehension of the argument.
I didn't find him abrasive, he just seems to assert himself well.
@@nighthowell Watch again what Andrew actually said in his opening. His argument wasn't "secular humanism is vulnerable to subjective valuations". He never actually said anything like that or anything even remotely similar to that. Rather than explaining how or why humanism is flawed in that way, he spend all his time saying that humanists, and I quote, "lie to people", that from Matt's perspective enabling gay people makes humanity flourish (which is obviously false since they're "reproductive dead ends"). He didn't make an argument of "why is secular humanism vulnerable", but "why do we need to lie about a person's sex in order to advance Humanity". His whole argument was that humanists are just delusional lunatics, who don't know what's true any more.
Look, I get, you either really dislike Matt or really like Andrew (nothing wrong with you being gay for him) so you want to defend him. But being a filthy liar and pretending that Andrew said something much more clever than what he ACTUALLY said isn't the way to do it. Rewatch his argument again because your opinion is either colored by your emotions or by you not paying enough attention to hear what he is actually saying.
Also worth noting that Andrew called humanists (which includes Matt) liars several times.
Honestly I am pleased with this response, I was worried this was going to be a fingerpointing contest. But there are people like Andrew, and I am very much of the same character, who are made to fight and dispute boldly and lead the charge by dominating and humiliating opponents.
Too often, normies point fingers at bold people and call them bad for being that way, but my priest has recognized that there are people like me who love to get into debates, tough debates, and there is a place for that in the Church. Many normie christians are so pathetic, they would kick Jesus out of their Church if he held a speech like he did to the Pharisees sometimes.
Lol. Do you think Trump is a Christian too?
Its true, whatever ethical tools that are necessary we should use
Drop the 4chan lingo and pfp please dude, it's cringe
@@jackolyte never been on 4chan in my life, I fetched this peepo from an emoji site. Are you traumatized by some 4chan trolls or whats wrong with you lol
Courage is not dominating over someone. It is facing someone who dominates over you.
It’s rare that Trent and I agree when it comes to videos on his channel, but he is 100% correct in this. Nice job and well reasoned. 😊
Yea I'm a Reformed Protestant so I have my qualms with Rome but overall I like Trent and I'll join sides with him regarding being pro life and pushing back on LGBTQ etc.
I was about to post the same comment! I am used to challenging him on his videos!
@firingallcylinders2949 I agree, but as a Follower of Christ, the Word of God is my beacon. If your view, regardless of religion or race, is in line with the Bible, we can be on the same side; if not, be prepared to do battle (-:
I don't recall if the format was supposed to be another speech by each of them (without interruptions) or not. But either way, when asked to continue the debate, Matt did say "I don't think so", which would technically mean all the rules were irrelevant.
People who don't think Wilson won don't understand what Wilson did and why he perfectly took the Humanist secularist ideas apart.
Matt calling Andrew a jack*** is the pot calling the kettle black. 😂
Yea it was 100% uncalled for. Makes sense for him to say, but didn't need to be said.
@@Eliza-rg4vw heh...it may not need to be said but 100's in chat said the same thing.
@@skagenpige88 ??
@@Eliza-rg4vw Just saying that 100's of people in the chat during the debate felt the need to say jackass to Andrew...also the audience were staring quite angrily at him=o
@@skagenpige88 yea not gonna let audience decide whats fine
Trent, you literally know Matt had expressed concerns about Modern Day Debates not vetting opponents and them not addressing the topic. Even after he left it’s absolutely clear Andrew’s a charlatan. I’m surprised you would defend him.
Andrew won the debate. He told the Truth.
I appreciate this. I went through my edgy atheist phase in my twenties, but when it seemed Christianity was (at least to my satisfaction) destroyed, the atheist movement changed into a monster. Standing on the back of great thinkers, Matt and people like him took over the movement and started pushing these absolutely insane ideas that we see rampant today. I'm still not religious, but these people are about to make me deus vult.
Anyway, this video speaks to me because I'm stuck in the middle of two sides, and the last thing i want is for Christians to become what I can't stand about modern atheists. Come back better than you were, raise great thinkers to the top, not charlatans and trolls. Be reasonable, and be smart rather than falling into the mud with these pigs.
1. How did you think Christianity was destroyed?
2. How were the atheist arguments different then than they are now?
@@attiasprouse682 1) You take me too literally I think. I mean that the influence of Christianity in government and media was significantly diminished when compared to the early 00's and before.
2) The arguments back then were to reduce the above mentioned insertions of Christianity. I think a lot of people can agree that there should be level of respect for other religions and atheists in public spaces, and the only way to accommodate everyone is to keep it to a minimum. By public spaces I'm referring more to the role of the state, not private entities. I don't want Christianity taught in school, just the same as I don't want secular dogma taught in school as you see today. To simplify, I don't want anyone's opinions taught as fact in school, but if I have to side with one it's not the people telling children to chop off their giblets because they feel pretty today.
I was super into the political sphere before coming back to Catholicism. I was trying to get away from the talking head, hot take, internet blood sports nonsense. But there are certain forms of Christianity online that seem to promote this kind of behavior. Rad trad sedevacantist and ortho bros are often the worse offenders. When I listen to them (and I have not heard of Andrew Wilson before but he immediately seems to fit the mold) they don't come off as authentic in their faith. They feel way more like the political grifters that I was trying to escape.
For atheism, I don't think there's much of a line to draw between politics and religious discussion. Without religion, what is left but politics? But for people professing a belief in an infinite, all powerful, all loving God, I think more should be expected of them than this rude, self-centered, and worldly political shitfest
I'm sorry this is a great speech, but "these people are about to make me go deus vult" is such a great line
my reco: start following Trent, he's a very charitable (IMO) Christian thinker
Im a Christian and I TOTALLY agree we have been waay too meek. It's why the world is the way it is right now.
“The Meek will inherit the Earth”
@SF-my2ym Different context, mate.
@@wulfheort8021Nope, I know exactly the context Jesus meant.
@@SF-my2ym Apparently you don't. This guy meant that we have been too soft and tolerant. The meekness Christ talks about is different, there it's about softheartedness and gentleness. But Christ does not expect us to be gentle when we are confronted by evil.
@@SF-my2ym was Jesus being meek when he flipped tables in the temple and started swinging a bullwhip around? No?
Weird. Almost like atheists don't know what they're talking about
That guy is always angry lol 😂
Dillahunty is a coward. And uses a form of blackmail by publicly stating that he'll never go on the Modern Day Debate channel, sending a message that Andrew is somehow toxic and if you invite him you'll never get the stardom of Matt.
Trent as an atheist would be terrifying. May God forbid!!!
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!
I never thought a real person could both act and sound like Vizzini, but Dillahunty is it man. A caricature of a genius.
Andrew is one of the best Christian political debaters I have ever seen. He has embarrassed destiny like no one has ever done. Also Matt has never rage quit this fast. Andrew is an asset. I disagree with you that Andrew shouldn’t have interrupted. Matt made it clear he was leaving and quitting . It’s then Andrew interrupted because Matt wanted to have last words which shouldn’t be allowed.
Lemme guess. You probably think Trump is a Christian too.
Andrew and his conversational style/debate style are incredibly unloving, ungracious, and on Christlike. And I fear he does far more harm to the cause of Christ than he does good.
@@S1leNtRIP *^ THIS ^* As a former Christian, he gives good Christians I know a bad name by behaving like this. Personally I don't think he's a sincere Christian (although I'll acknowledge he is a Christian) & I get the impression he's a Christian simply to express his supremacy over others. I don't remember trolling being a fruit of the spirit.
Matthe 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" - this is Jesus speaking.
Of course, Andrew isn't always perfect, nobody is but to condemn being combative is wrong
@@Giorginho He wasn't being combative. He was being a trolling bigot. Like why would you want someone repulsive like that representing your faith.
Dillahunty had a “Will Smith” reaction…
So Matt doesn't believe in God but believes the man he married is a woman?!!!
lol. that's why even i as an atheist, allows all religion to exists and i won't force anyone to follow what i believed in, because i have no right as a human. it's called equality.
@@cheeseburgersuperior1874but you can't prove that God doesn't existe while i can easily prove that Matt's wife is a man which makes his believe obviously irrational.
I'm not an atheist but Matt's right here. He is distracting.
I remember a debate with Jeff durbin and sye ten brugencate debating atheists and sye brought up a good point. Sye said he would go to college campuses and debate younger kids and on most occasions they would engage and have a discussion. Then he said he would go the reason rally with the older atheists and they would give him the finger. I’ve encountered this as well. I’ve tried to debate a ton of older atheists and all I got was insults towards me and screaming
Andrew Wilson's statement proved matt's point ultimately.
"Leads to immoral conclusions on LGBT issues", well I would say what Andrew said about trans people is an example of just that, especially with the added context of Matt's relationship.
I once debated Dillahunty on abortion on a friend's podcast, and after that debate he swore off debating abortion anymore. That even merited a mention in his Wikipedia article. haha
Good stuff dude
@@Psa22-6 Thanks.
Where can I find this? I'd like to listen.
Was that the one 6 years ago? He has debate it dozens of times afterwards.
Matt still debates abortion.
Honestly, I think it behoves Andrew (and other Christians) to act with greater decorum than he did. I do not believe he acted in a Christlike way toward Matt or toward people struggling with transgender issues. With that said, I fully agree with your criticisms about Matt, he has a track record of this kind of thing.
If Matt's debate opponents weren't such deliberate douchbags to begin with, I might agree with things been said here. But the way things are I can not agree at all. Matt quitting that debate was not even about him quitting a debate. There was no debate. Andrew had his agenda to spill all his hate about gender nonsense I wouldn't like either. But thart was not even the topic. Secular humanism wasn't even cut fairly by Andrew. Matt was brought into a debate that was not about the topic he agreed to debate on. And btw it is no secret that MDD has turned into raw dumpster fire.
All world views aside, logical fallacies should always be called out in real time.
3 points for Andrew
We should all pray that we, when having dialogue with our agnostic and atheist mutuals, find that middle ground between being reserved and going on the offensive. For the glory of God 🙏
Right, public debates are usually for the edification of the attendance, rather than the persuasion of the participants' minds.
so funny matt can call people whatever he wants and then when someone responds he gets so upset.
That's what delusional people do.
He just showed him a mirror and didn’t like it
I think it’s cute how Matt dresses up like a Roy rogers now with his little cowboy outfits
Matt's favorite movie is Broke Back Mountain ...... fitting for how he dresses. Matt, you can live in Texas and dress up like a mini-cowboy, yet you will always be the tinkerbell that your "wife" adores.
Mocking Dillahunty and reducing him to butt-hurt rage quits *is* doing God's work.
Glad to finally see a real debate instead of the snippets on tictok
Anyone who calls the FLA bill the "Don't Say Gay Bill" should just be laughed out of the room. He should have to show where the bill is wrong.
So what does it say? What is the most important part?
The reason I'm asking: I think I can show why the bill is wrong, but I don't want to address something you think is only an inconsequential part of the bill.
@@korbendallas5318 The bill is not long, I've read it. Yes parents should have a right to know about updates on the health and well-being of their children. And yes, teachers should not be "encouraging discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity". Also, my point was that calling it the "Don't Say Gay Bill" minimizes real parental concerns that children are being purposefully indoctrinated at a young age by teacher's with an LGBT agenda. You're talking to a 25 year old who was taught this in middle school, so I know the problem first hand and can only imagine how much worse it has become.
@@nicklowe_ So, which part?
@@korbendallas5318 i just said it, those two parts?
@@nicklowe_ Ok then. 1) It's overly broad. What does "encouraging" mean. 2) LGBT persons are part of humanity. The idea to not talk about them is just silly. 3) Real kids have real problems with their own sexuality, and not being able to discuss that might easily cause irreperable harm. 4) In general, preventing teachers to teach facts can have horrible consequences. What's next?
Trent brings up some good points and criticizing Matt’s behavior in the debate- but Matt wasn’t reacting to Andrew‘s points when he left the debate
I watched this debate and during Andrew‘s opening statement- I got a very bad feeling that this was not going to be a debate
This was going to be something quite different
I feel this was what Matt reacted to when he left and why he decided he was not going to tolerate it
Nothing about LGBTQ issues or anything else
Matt just felt this was going to be a terrible debate no matter how it went
Matt showed up for a debate- Andrew showed up for a mud fight
Matt will not dignify that kind of behavior
That’s my opinion
You're correct
We are getting smarter as humans. What comes along with getting more intelligent is abandoning silly religious dogma.
I can't believe Matt is gay now , 2023 has truly been "nuts"
Gay guy here, we are NOT attracted to trans women.
Guys who are attracted to trans women are usually (formerly)straight men. Whether you want to call them pan or bi or whatever they aren’t homo.
this is embarrassing trent, imagine missing the point this much. as much as i really don't like matt, andrew's conduct during this, particularly bringing up and insulting trans people put of nowhere in the beginning, was WILDLY unprofessional and to think he acted in good faith is beyond idiotic. matt "rage quit" because he didn't want to put up with the BS being spewed out of andrew's sorry mouth. there was never a chance for a proper, constructive conversation, only because andrew came out swinging personal attacks literally within the first 10 minutes of the debate. which you know ... breaks the most fundemental rules of a conducted debate.
Please tell us what personal attacks Andrew made against Matt. All I heard was Andrew challenging Matt's world view ideology that Matt himself willingly brought up as part of his debate presentation. The only one I heard swinging personal attacks was Matt when he called Andrew a 'Jackass'
@@bills1669 andrew had absolutely zero reason to make that "deranged lunatic" transgenders offing themselves comment within the first few minutes of what's supposed to be a civil debate about RELIGION. again i don't like matt basically at all, but i would say that matt's judgement there is right, andrew is a jackass.
I would say that another good situation for "rage quitting" (or, really just quitting) a debate is if it's a less structured, more open debate and you really have just reached a total impasse and there's nothing else to talk about.
The problem here with Matt is not his atheism/agnosticism, it is his wokism. Not all atheists are woke.
Great work trent
after Dillahunty rage quit, its pretty much Andrew vs the room lol
1. I didn't watch the entire debate but the in the segment of it shown here, I thought that Andrew Wilson was abrasive and perhaps deliberately trying to get Matt Dillahunty irate enough to leave the debate early. If that was his intention, Andrew succeeded but was it charitable?
2. It seems to me the purpose of any debate is to offer space for both sides of an argument so that it concludes where both sides agree to disagree, but the listeners have grasped the arguments each side has presented and decided for themselves. If a Christian debater has thwarted the debate process to the point that any sense of mutual amity is demolished, I would say they have failed in their purpose. Why? Because the Christian, by example, must give witness to the communion of Three Divine Persons that extends to a common humanity created in God's image.
In the segment shown the debate breaks down because Matt would rather wax lyrical about tr4nnies being called what they are rather than argue why it's wrong to call them mentally ill with a predilection for self-termination. This is the fruit of secular humanism and he needs to defend why it's a good thing, instead her forfeited and ran away. This has nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with Matt being upset about perverts being called what they are
You are correct. Matt opened with a broad range of topics, including about 10-20 seconds of trans issues. Andrew responded with 3 minutes on trans issues and called them and their supporters stupid, and deranged lunatics, among other insults. Andrew was not there to debate rationally.
@@jsmall10671 Andrew wasn't wrong tho
@@jsmall10671 Don't equate your idea's about reality with reality itself. Remember, they are idea's that exist in your imagination and nowhere else.
Name the things Andrew stated that consisted of irrationality. I will wait.
The idea of Debate should be to arrive at what is true. Not whatever this nonsense about hearing both sides and agreeing to disagree is.
As an agnostic and pretty liberal guy (not to make it about myself) love the way you articulate yourself and offer a good faith religious point of view on things that I can listen too, definitely disagree on a lot but you’re a great dude Trent keep it up 👍
As an atheist I approve of this message. However, stopping to making content out of glorifying "gotchas" seems like something that should be bellow every decent human being, Christian or otherwise.
@@subcitizen2012try engaging with trents arguments. Poisoning the well, the way you characterized Andrews arguments, is fallacious. It would be more honest to say that you can't rebut Andrews argument or that you don't want to.
How do you feel about Trent blatantly and repeatedly misgendering Arden in this video?
@@aquavitae3824 Andrew wasn't even on topic. He derailed it in his opening already. Because secular humanism is not about gender issues. And Andrewhates "gender anything" so much that he went there whilst ignoring anything else. Also while not adressing the topic at hand he decided to whack Matt with all his stereotypical Gish Gallops as much as was possible in 13 minutes. That was outright BS.
@@niemand7811 Matt brought up gender stuff in his opener. Why can't you guys retain information across 15 minute intervals?
Andrew granted Matt's secular humanist world-view, and then illustrated the internal flaws of the system, an internal critique.
andrew wilson is not an apologist, remember.
you should debate the diamond brothers, if truth is on your side you should have nothing to fear
The era of Dillahunty has come to an end. Only a few extremist atheists are loyal to him after this shellacking
No matter what you think the truth still matters....and making laws to harm lgbtq people is a terrible thing.
@@skagenpige88 you would have to demonstrate a worldview in which LGBTQ had objective value first before you can determine harming them would be immoral
@@hurrikanehavok7313 no i dont. I dont want them to be harmed, neither do they. If you want to harm them you have to fight me to harm them. Your the one forcing the issue so you have to prove your right.
@@skagenpige88 I’m sorry it’s actually an issue of Amorality. I am not saying it is moral to harm them. I said you need a worldview where morality isn’t a category error and applies to LGBTQ. You are the one who posited a position. I recommend you read the comment a few times before making a error like that.
@@hurrikanehavok7313 My position is do no harm to other people that you dont want done to you. LGBTQ is just included in that.....And if I try to harm other people the way you do I want to be harmed as well. There is simple cause and effect....society decide what moral is and we decided its not moral to harm people just becouse of a storybook...dont matter to me one bit if its not objective on a godlevel, its objective on a society level.
I am convinced Matt thought he was going to debate a different Andrew Wilson, as a simple TH-cam search would have shown the guys style of debate.
We are not angry. We are just tired of the bullshit. Free yourself from the chains of religion. You don't need it.
Matt usually quits a debate if his opponent refuses to address his argument and instead begins preaching scripture.
Another trigger is the straw man argument when his opponent continues to misrepresent Matt's position no matter how many times he repeats it.
"I find several moments where Andrew wasn't being a provocative asshole, therefore Andrew won the debate."
That's your argument? I would have walked out of that debate myself. MDD should be embarrassed that they platformed this guy.
As an atheist, I like this guy's approach.
Matt: "Religious ethics bad, they think LGBT bad."
Andrew: "Human secularism bad, they think LGBT good."
"TrANs HAs NoThiNG TO dOoOO WiTH DebATE!"
It was too close to home for Matt.
He didn't have the intellectual ability to have his golden calf manhandled.
Andrew flipping Matt's "I'm not convinced" was gold. Andrew's take-no-prisoners approach was something that Matt wasn't used to.
Matt loves disrespecting what's sacred to the religious he deals with, but he cannot handle it when it's done to him.
Andrew's views were masterfully put and were quite refreshing.
I continued to enjoy his explanations after Matt ran away crying and Andrew continued to swat hostile audience members.
Andrew has a cool and logical head on him.
I think Matt just saw Andrew's argument and realized he's screwed and has no chance against it. Its pretty simple, then decided to virtue signal to save himself some points and getting his butt handed to him. It was obvious the audience afterwards were soo triggered they couldnt even process the argument, which is genius.
Andrew had no argument. In fact it was the other way around. Matt read the secular humanism manifesto and Andrew had nothing except personal attacks. Or he came to the debate with that as his objective. Either way Andrew looked like a fool.
@@Ledav22 no one but Matt fanboys thinks he looked like a fool when Matt left the debate lol like a triggered feminist. The argument was so basic that it went over Matt's head (like most of his debates) and apparently your head too. He said he'll give Matt a bone and fully grant him secular humanism is true, except his ethics happened to look just like Christian ethics, and since they don't involve lying like Matt's does (with Boys pretending to be girls), it's more virtuous. Matt realized he was effed since his system was just proved completely arbitrary/incoherent and realized he might as well virtue signal and cut his losses. It was so basic how did you not get that? Rewatch it
@@TommyGunzzz with the right coloured lens you can see what you want to see. You think Matt hasn’t heard what Andrew said about trans people? The bigotted “men pretending to be women” thing? Listen to the way he phrased that question. He went straight for trans people because they’re an easy target and because Matt has a trans girlfriend (I think they’re still together. Next, you think Christianity is more virtuous? Yeah the countless holy wars, witch trials, crusades, inquisitions child molestation by priests, anti birth control by the pope in Africa, all professed to be part of god’s command. Sounds like Christianity can only dream of being what secular humanism is. Nobody has ever started a war as part of an atheist attempt to cleanse the world of religion. Matt laid out the secular humanist manifesto as part of the debate strategy and Andrew comes back and says “yeah but trans people are live immorally”. Cool story. Needs more dragons. I’m glad you have an opinion rooted in bigotry. The problem is Andrew wasn’t there to debate the idea, he was there to attack Matt. In what way did Matt lie? Andrew didn’t prove anything. He used a strawman and ad-homonym attacks in order to be antagonist. It’s so obvious! How could you not see that?
@@TommyGunzzz absolutely, Andrew's argument was brilliant in how simplistic it was. I grant you your secular humanism. What is your foundation for making a claim on what ought to be? Personal preference ultimately. Okay, my personal preference is the opposite of yours. Ughhhhhhhhhhhh, ughhhhh, you're just making this debate about my specific claims and positions (how dare you not straw man me) you bigot, * rage quit*. lol. I don't know why I wasn't able to see it before, but Andrew exposed that Matt and I think I can throw Sam Harris in here too now, are actually not impressive people. I say this as someone who is not religious.
Let's get the story straight he was there to debate the topic and his debate opponent wasn't there to do that. He was their to attack matts personnel life.
You can only come to that conclusion if you totally ignored everything Andrew said.
4:46 Lool. Man, I love Andrew. His speech was amazing. He wasn't afraid of telling the truth. He didn't care about Matt's feelings. He has a new fan.
Your videos are cool
I regularly criticize Matt. I deconstructed Secular Humanism on my channel. In this case, Matt was right.
At no point was Andrew Wilson ever actually on topic. Neither Matt nor his person views the topic of the debate, but that's all that Andrew discussed. And, no, "turnabout is fair play" isn't good enough. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and bring our interlocutors to to meet us, not sink to tactics that others will find off-putting. It's wrong when Dillahunty does it; and it was no less wrong when Wilson did it.
MD has always been a smug disingenuous debater who opens doors, walks through them and then slams them shut on his opponents. This has been one of his most gainful tactics and it’s nice to see his reaction when someone flips the tables on him. A bit harsh? Maybe, but even Jesus flipped some tables in righteous indignation. Much as Sméagols transformation into Gollum by the darkness of the ring, MD’s continuing spiral of debase morality since his acceptance of and conversion to atheism has sadly made him evermore unrecognizable. My prayers go out for him, his family and followers, but it’s about time someone stood up to this demonically possessed vessel and struck it down with some cords of Truth! Jesus didn’t always stand idly by, he called out evil for what it was and he dealt with the Sadducees and Pharisees with firm and harsh words. People of faith better start taking notice and action in handling themselves in the face of evil by the power and strength of Scripture. This is far past discussion, it is a war against evil itself and thoes who have chosen to host the father of lies.
Both had problems but the big one i had was in Matt's side. He basically said that my moral system is best because the other doesn't agree with my morals. That argument can go both ways. Both aides did this but matt didn't go beyond this.
That was his opening statement. He has been debating these topics for decades and can go much more in depth when someone is there to actually discuss issues.
@@jsmall10671 I would agree but when the topic is to justify your moral system that's a terrible place to start. even his opponent touched on it. It would have been nice if Matt was willing to discuss it. He stormed out after his opponent game a similar argument to his.
I think it is appalling that what's-his-face on the left side of the table is laughing at his opponent.
Even if that is how you feel, it's incredibly disrespectful to both laugh and interrupt the other. Horrible.
Yes, then the moderator said that it was Matt's job to explain why his opponent shouldn't be personally insulting him?? that's the mod's job lol
God forbid one has a sense of humor and calls out someone for being disingenuous before he finishes ranting. That's unbelievably evil.
Trent appearing in the top right of the video :)
I laughed out loud that Dillahunty had the audacity to whine about someone being smug.
Dillahunty's picture should be placed right next to the word "smug" in the dictionary.
Same. 😂
Dillahunty mad someone is bullying him back.
@damienr3086 Yup. I don't like how the opponent behaved, but Dillahunty has no right to complain about it.
Yes that was hilarious. He expects Christians to always be on the defensive but can’t handle it when he’s placed on the defensive
He doesn’t believe in God but he believes his boyfriend is his girlfriend
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
If you are Christian. Then you are the reason people are leaving the church. Attack the topic not the person, but you know that and have nothing to offer.
He believes that weenies and vaginas manifested themselves randomly with no objective meaning, of course he believes a weenie can be a veevee
and he believes he is not gay as well 😂
@@living_the_mac_and_cheese_life how funny is that. He wouldn’t admit to being gay, but I bet he’d say he’s not straight
Basically the debater went into the debate using Matt's own tactics against him and Matt didn't like that so he left.
Pretty much. The philosophical zombie
Matt admitted that he hadn't done any research on his opponent. And then got caught with his pants down.
Andrew Wilson also did this to Skylar Fiction who is basically a Matt Dillahunty clone.
@alisterrebelo9013
If he knew nothing about his opponent, it was probably his plan to make a scene and leave the second something happened.
@@stalinjosefstalin480 I think he just lost his mind when the guy said that his boyfriend was a looney tunes.
So Matt can point to potential consequences of Christian ethics he considers immoral but no one can dare question the morality of his own beliefs. What a clown.
Christian ethics? Lol
His moral beliefs are Christian in origin whether he admits it or not
Everybody has innate human dignity. This idea comes from Christianity
The poor, the oppressed and the marginalized deserve special consideration. This idea comes from Christianity
Every human being has certain rights everyone must respect. This idea comes from Christianity
Any moral idea Dillahunty might advocate comes from Christianity. If I was in this debate, that is how I would respond to everything “yes indeed Christianity is the correct moral framework thank you for acknowledging this”
@@utubepunkstupid comment. There have been three major ideologies in the last 150 years. Judeo-Christianity, Marxists atheism and Islam. The only one worth living under is Judeo-Christianity.
@@Michael-bk5nz Lol. Christians trying to claim morality is like Columbus claiming he "discovered" a land with people already living there. The sheer arrogance & denial of Christians still amazes me.
@@Michael-bk5nzabsolutely. Those in the West ( especially atheists) live in a goldfish bowl. They believe the life they have is the same worldwide,it isn't.Judeo Christianity is in the very fabric of Western society.
I used to watch Matt back in the day but stopped when I saw him acting childish a few times. I moved on to other atheist TH-cam. Now I'm in RCIA.
Blessed be His name! Welcome to your journey home!
I was an atheist a long long time ago. My atheism was like most atheists I know. I didn't want there to be a God.
@@roddycavin4600What are you now?
The existence of God is pretty inconvenient for us. On the other hand, I can't imagine how much more miserable and depressing my life would be without Him.@@roddycavin4600
@@thegreypilgrim2849 Christian.
Matt D is unable to defend the indefencible so he throws a temper tantrum.
Im not sure if you watched it...but did you see the lies he said about matt and personal attacks? If thats what you talk about...what is the need to defend against it, the christian there is a joke at that point, hes acting like a child for views...But I guess you like misrepresenting people just like Andrew did.
Nope he didn't want to debate trans issues because it's irrelevant to the topic.
@@dannielz6good luck trying to point out nuance in a place like this
When you have a topic and prepare.. topic is change,why stay.. who's being deshonest? Nonsence... Say all you want, my votes for Matt.
I see Dilahunty's defenders are offended because they can't handle someone actually putting their so-called "ethical" stance in the spotlight for everyone to see. 😅
Atheists in the comments of that video tried to defend Matt's behavior, saying that Andrew was not addressing the topic, on the ground that trans affirmation is not relevant *because* it is not intrinsic to humanism. It's purely incidental.
But this, in my opinion, is no different from someone like Hitchens constantly bringing up crusades and witch trials. These things are not intrinsic to Christian virtue ethics, they're merely societal excess; yet, if they're fair game for the atheist side, why is trans identity not fair game?
Matt did the same thing by bringing up Mike Johnson as if his brand of Evangelicalism is the steel man of Christian ethics. Though I question whether Matt could actually explain the difference between Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox.
@Forester- Issue is that many Christians agree with Mike on lgbt stuff. This is not a fringe view in the US. Some are publicly not willing to pass literal laws, but this is still a problem because they are less likely to prevent laws from being passed.
The problem is that “trans” issues are very much part of secular humanism. In fact it is a sacred cow and hence why Dillahunty rage quit.
Because Anglican priests affirm trans identity while Richard Dawkins laughs at it for the nonsense on stilts that it is. It has nothing to do with religion, meanwhile the Crusades were carried out in the name of as well as justified by religion.
@@tomasrocha6139 - The crusades were motivated by a number of factors, including religion. Besides, scripture is used to inspire both the crusader knight and the trans affirming bishop.
The issue is ideological excess, which, both crusades and trans affirmation are products of, in their respective fashions.
Even when I was big on atheist TH-cam I never thought Dilahunty was worth listening too. I never understood why he was considered a thought leader. He's kind of a reddit mod
You're spitting facts
It’s true, Dilahunty is just an arm chair skeptic, offers literally nothing to almost every debate just “I’m not convinced” and “you still haven’t proven God exists imo”, then talks about why we’re good without needing God begging the question entirely. Jay Dyer destroyed him because he exposed that he assumes his Naturalistic worldview has explanatory power for rationality and is coherent to begin with, which it isn’t foundationally.
You answered it. He's angry and ridiculous, that gets clicks.
I feel like it shows atheists lack of respect to Christians that they consider hacks like him as being intelligiable (basically, even dumb people like him are smarter than Christianz in their eyes)
Even before dillahunty became woke, he was always a dumb ass. All he ever does is repeat "I'm not convinced," for two hours. 😂
You ever listen to Dillahuntys radio show? The one where Christians call in all the time?
Smug is the least way to describe it. Dude is straight up vile towards ppl
Yeah Dillahunty, like the majority of atheists, behave as if all their "subjective" morals are universal. "How dare you call me a liar!" is a funny sentiment coming from "the truth is relative" crowd.
Oh I know. It’s one of the reasons why I stopped watching or following him altogether. He’s also that way towards atheists who may be more conservative leaning like Dusty from CultofDusty and Thunderf00t. The latter pissed Matt and AronRa off so much that instead of attacking his argument they attacked him as a person after booting him off (talk about cowardly). He isn’t consistent with his own views either. There’s another guy he debated that found flaws in Matt’s Logic that Matt played the whole “the Matt in that debate isn’t the same Matt in this debate” and ended the call when he refused to say that he switched positions and was proven wrong in that position.
His followers also peaked and consist mainly of very left leaning individuals who’s views are just way out there: otherkin- people who identify as being animals, identify as another age, etc and if you ask him to defend his followers he freaks out at you with a bunch of phobia and -ist accusations before banning you. The guys is a 🤡
He’s not worth following, since his worldview is responsible for those fragile lefties you see on college campuses, and he’s full woke unable to defend those issues. You’ll be a poor woe is me individual with gambling problems, STDs and various drug addictions if you follow him. BTW he’s on his 2nd or 3rd marriage as well.
100% I laughed so hard when I seen this😂
Gay dude is smug yet offended when another person is also smug.
@@poloshirtsamuraiyet he has said he isn't gay lol.. but yet makes sense in today's secular mind 🤔...
"The wicked flee when no one pursues" 💀
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
Amen
Hi Father, in your charity may I plead for some assistance? Have a good day.
@@Lerian_V how can I help?
My friend Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith called into Matt's radio show to discuss the transgender issue and Matt acted like a absolute tool. His response was full of insults with no arguments.
I don't tend to psychoanalyze people but it seems like he doesn't want to admit that he has same-sex attraction
But trans women are women?!
@@DaneilT based response
@@DaneilTCorrect. Those folks are delusional.
always
very immature, the older these leaders get the more childish they become
Hey heb, a bro could use your help. God bless
We dont venerate leaders the same way you do, and we don't usually refer to adults as children. And to be fair, his debate opponent is an open fascist, a "big papa fascist." So that tells you everything you need to know about where the childishness is coming from. It wasn't an honest debate in good faith. People aren't required to participate in those. I'm not sure why Dillahunty would even party audience to someone like this. And the fact that you're siding against him for even trying says a lot a out you.
@@subcitizen2012 His argument was fair game as soon as he Dillahunty introduced LGBT issues. Dillahunty was always disrespectful to his debaters except for Trent. Just saying that the chickens came home to roost for Dillahunty.
Because they're more insecure than ever, i.e., they're losing.
Matt: I don't care about religious experiences or feelings show me physical evidence.
Also Matt: An internal experience or feeling of being a woman trumps physical reality.
😂this is so true and hilarious.
I think that there’s a distinction here, and it’s this - I’m 99% sure that Matt would say that gender is a social construct distinct from sex as a concept, and therefore legitimately doesn’t necessarily correspond to physical reality.
So like, for instance, take marriage. What is the physical evidence for someone being married? Is it having a ring? Well, no, some married people don’t wear rings and some unmarried people do wear rings. Is it living with the person you’re married to? Well, also no, some unmarried couples live together and some married couples don’t, so that’s not evidence either. Being in love? Again, no. Same reason. Is it having the ceremony? Yet again no. Some people get married without ever having a ceremony at all.
The only possibly decisive “physical evidence” of being married to someone else that you could find would be official documentation by a government, church, or other institution with authority over that kind of thing that the pair is, in fact, married. And well, if we count that as physical evidence that the people are married, then we could equally count government documentation of someone being a woman as physical evidence of them being a woman.
Now, seeing as you’re watching this channel you’re probably a Catholic or at the very least of some abrahamic faith, in which case you may believe that the ideal of marriage as an institution was created by God and therefore isn’t exactly a social construct. You might not even believe in social constructs in the form I described at all. But Matt almost certainly does, and you were trying to make an internal critique of his worldview by trying to say it was inconsistent. I really don’t think that it is, though.
In fact, there’s an even more direct example of this. What’s the physical evidence that someone is Jewish? What’s the physical evidence that they’re Christian? What’s the physical evidence that someone is Hindu? There is none. You have to base it on what they say and how they act. Again, maybe in some cases you might get documentation from some religious institution, but even that’s not perfect and it again would imply that official documentation of somebody being a woman would make it so. Matt would almost certainly say that being a woman is exactly the same way.
@@yourewrong9028 That's like saying that doglike cats are actually dogs. Gender has always either meant grammatical gender or sex and the former has no bearing on whether someone is a woman seeing as tornadoes, ships and countries may be grammatically feminine but they are most certainly not women, as they are not female humans.
@@tomasrocha6139 perhaps historically gender and sex were used interchangeably, but the fact is that actual medical professionals have been officially making a distinction in the terms since at least 2001.
A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (which is now part of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine) issued the following recommendation in, again, 2001, over 22 years ago:
“RECOMMENDATION 7: Clarify use of the terms sex and gender.
Researchers should specify in publications their use of the terms sex and gender. To clarify usage and bring some consistency to the literature, the committee recommends the following:
In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement.
In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.
In most studies of nonhuman animals the term sex should be used.”
Edit: I’d also like to point out that even if the terms have always been used interchangeably and you think they should continue to be, Matt does not view them as interchangeable and this addressing his argument as if he does is a strawman.
@@TransparentOperatingMode
First of all, your question is inherently a ridiculous and circular one. You ask “if I have government papers saying I’m x despite in fact being not x, does that make me x?” You’ve literally stated in the hypothetical question that you are not x, making the entire thing moot. Let me ask the same question about my example: “if I have government papers that say I am married despite being in fact not married, does that make me married?” If you are not, in fact, married, then government papers cannot make you married, and if they can then it is not actually true that you are not married. It seems like a small nitpick, but it means that the entire way your question was structured is nonsense.
However, ignoring that, the thing about what you’ve said here is that the answer changes based on what context you’re talking about and the definition of the words you’re using. What does male and female mean? What does African American and Caucasian mean? Are we asking in the legal sense, the scientific sense, or the everyday sense? And yes, don’t be reductionist - this ABSOLUTELY matters, just like how the word “theory” means something different in academic parlance than the everyday usage, so do many of the the words you just used.
The legal answer is by far the simplest one - if you have legal documents that assign you a certain legal status, then you have that legal status. If all of your legal papers say you’re a caucasian man, you’re legally a caucasian man, period, dot com, end of story. I don’t see how anybody can argue against that.
If we look at this from a purely hard scientific lens, then I’ve already expressed, male and female are sex classifications which are a lot more based in biology than the psychosocial phenomenon of gender. (And before you call that woke, again, this was literally decided on in the scientific community 20+ years ago. Facts don’t care about your feelings, bozo.) When scientists talk about female vs male, they’re talking about a bimodal (NOT binary) distribution of characteristics like gametes, chromosomes, genitals, and hormones. So you would have to actually change most if not all of those things to scientifically change from female to male, which is a lot more difficult than just getting some papers (and in some cases like chromosomes completely unfeasible with modern tech.) Gendered terms like “Man” and “Woman” are not scientifically used in the same way as “Male” and “Female,” and they haven’t been for decades.
In a scientific sense, race doesn’t exist, only genotypes (genetic code) and phenotypes (how that code presents) do. That’s a really complex discussion that I won’t get into unless you really want to, but no, you can’t change your phenotype or genotype with government papers, obviously.
In a sociological sense, it only really matters how people treat you. If you look, sound, and and act like a Caucasian male, then society will treat you like one. If you look, sound, and act like an African-American female, then society will treat you like one. In that sense it’s entirely about self identity and outward presentation. If you look like Taylor Swift and have a high voice despite having been born with a dick and balls, people and society at large are gonna treat you like a woman despite you not having been born with female genetics. This is how biology and sociology differ, and it’s where the real difference between sex and gender lies.
Dillahunty is a bitter man that has dedicated his life to making everyone else bitter too
I saw that as an atheist with his spat with thunder foot. I've found him a one trick pony for years.
Misery loves company
yes but he is very very very good at it
That's just atheism in a nutshell.
You would be too if your wife was a man!
how anyone can think secularism is a good foundation for ethics after the past hundred years of history is beyond me.
Edit: for all the atheists coping in the comments, you need to demonstrate how a non-arbitrary ethical/moral system is possible in a secular/atheistic worldview. Your deflection and whataboutism isn't an argument.
A lot of secularists did recognize that. That’s why we have post modernism.
Which, if anything, has done a worse job of it.
You think they think we know about history? Like when they say stuff like religion is the cause of all wars or whatever it is they say? Despite ya know... Atheist communism. Stalin and so on.
Huh? I assume you refer to atrocities by various countries and such? Maybe a handful of psychopaths as well? Do they somehow cancel out work in literature, art and philosophy in that time frame? Also, let's not forget that those large scale atrocities were possible due to technological advances, which, if were available in prior centuries, would have been used in all likelihood.
@@wet-readOr the fact that it can't account for ethics in any non-atbitrary way. Or meaning. Or logic. Or anything nonmaterial. That's what I point to. It's the same failures, just repackaged in newer, postmodernist language.
I'm not religious but really do think Dillahunty is more worried lately about pushing the woke argument than the religion argument.......He loses immediately.... 🤔
Because when it comes down to morality, atheist utilitarianism inevitably devolves into woke ideology. What is woke standpoint theory if not an attempt to define an objective moral system out of a purely materialist, contingent worldview that rejects the concept of metaphysical, absolute Truth?
The New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Smith helped inadvertently usher in this lunacy. First these ideologues took over the science departments with Atheist+. Then they dismantled the universities and now this nonsense has been flushed into the mainstream lexicon like a mind virus. When you dismantle the religious order of a society the void his filled with another religion. Now we have a clash with this post modern subjectivity and dialectic and radical Islamics that will most likely win in the end, and destroy Western Civilization that gave them their concepts of reason and logic.
16:55 I laughed a lot seeing Trent's face slowly appear in the corner 😂, good job.
👀 doing the eyes emoji 😂
I saw your comment when I was 5 min in, and had to keep checking the time to see, “what’s this dude talking about?”
Worth it.
Well this was funny 🤣. Andrew didn't have to go low with his comments but Matt Dillahunty insulted him first calling him a jackass. Matt Dillahunty's dishonesty dodging tactics got himself OWNED by Andrew as he got a taste of his own medicine. IDK what Matt Dillahunty was talking about in the first 10 minutes about Christian nationalism and potential house speaker Johnson not agreeing with homosexuals but whatever. Evolutionary biology from common ancestry has nothing to do with believing in a Creator we call God but it's a tool used by Atheists, agnostics and secular people to promote their own godless community and agenda against Christianity. Atheists and secular humanists are guilty of promoting a nihilistic reality where everyone and everything is objectively meaningless because of and in spite of religion and Atheism. This has nothing and everything to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't.
I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict.
Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers.
Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years
ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of macro Evolutionary biology whereas I accept micro Evolution like speciation and adaptation but not macro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word.
Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.
I thought it was a brilliant performance by Andrew even if there wasn't much of a debate. For too long atheists like dillahunty have built their careers around being aggressive and smug towards Christians.
Dillahunty just couldn't handle when he got the same treatment, and he rage quit when he realized that Andrew wasnt going to let him have his way in the debate.
Good job Andrew.
Way to support a fascist bigot.
Lol. Calling atheists smug & aggressive when your church history has clergy people who imprisoned & tortured atheists along with anyone who didn't believe what the church believed.
@@utubepunk I didn't say atheists are smug and aggressive, I said atheists LIKE dillahunty are smug and aggressive. Of course you found a way to misrepresent what I said just so you can pretend to get mad.
Clergy that have done bad things don't represent everyone in that religion. Some Atheists have also tortured Christians, but I don't use this to justify me being aggressive towards atheists in general. Do you see how dumb your point is? I hope so
whats funny is when wants to be smug and aggressive towards Christians but gets triggered when Christians do it. lol cant even apply the same standard for his own debate
Couldn’t agree more. Andrew did great, and then dillahuntys followers tried for a week to get Andrew’s channel and discord shut down. So much for inclusion and tolerance lol.
My favorite part about this- Matt: "I'm not going to dignify this since I prepared so much."
Also Matt: "Never met the guy didn't even look him up." th-cam.com/video/S8U34ezKvrU/w-d-xo.html
Me to my professor at office hours after I fail my Psych 101 midterm: "I'm not going to sit here and dignify the preparation that I went through, and what people were here for...."
Professor: "uh did you even study"
Me: "keep interrupting me"
“Moderator, my opponent is trash talking and even worse, being smug”
Yeah it's almost like Matt specifically prepared for the argument and not the person. Weird huh
Hey Laura, have you get anything new coming? I'm one of the men that doesn't usually find women funny, but, still find you funny.
Dumb. He prepares for the topic.
Honestly orthodox guy is being very unprofessional and immature
Irony level 💯
Rember kids, as long as you belive in God, you can be an ahole and this youtubers will say you are right lol
Matt doesn't believe in God and is an ahole all the time. And I bet you think he's right 🙃
I began listening to Matts videos years ago, and I get the impression that he is not pro atheist but anti Christian.
Some atheists, like Christopher Hitchens, prefer the term "antitheist" to "atheist", meaning that it's not enough they don't believe in god(s) but are actively opposed to religion and its role in society.
No offense, most people should be anti-Christian. Not being able to substantiate a single one of your beliefs with empirical evidence is wild
@@thomaskeane6076 how idiotic
@@thomaskeane6076Wait until you find out about Eucharistic miracles
@@thomaskeane6076If you demand “empirical evidence” for Christianity you don’t understand it, and you’re proving that you can’t think very deeply. I guess philosophy is not your thing.
Dillahunty, albeit having gotten a little better about this over recent years, has always had a reputation of being a straight up d-bag. I remember when I was an atheist and listening to his podcast. He has this warm invitation for theists to come on and present their case, saying he’d even bump them up to the front of the que. But then once a caller gets on, 9/10’s of the time Matt pretty quickly pulls the mask off and goes on full Matt-the-D-Dillahunty mode. It’s so insincere and bad faith. He’s one of the worst. Alex, RealAtheology, Joe Schmid-all significantly better than the previous atheist generation.
Many such cases. The mask comes off as soon as you show you aren't willing to capitulate.
@@kevinjensen2071there are always theists calling the show.
Can I pl ask what made you a theist? Thank u 😊
Have you watched any of Andrew Wilson's content? I implore you to watch him if you want to know what a D-bag is.
@@kevinjensen2071 I'm not emotional so there's no need to worry about that. Also he mentioned d-bags first so I feel that It's appropriate to bring it up.
There's a lot of science around gender and sexual identity. You should actually look it up 👍
The first thing that came to my mind when he said simulated sex acts was that he was referring to pride parades where they are dressed in bondage gear whipping each other.
100%. I was surprised Trent missed that.
Which what does that have to do with secular humanism vs Christianity?
Secular humanism is not the same thing as gender idiology.
@@jhenz1926 Yeah, and Christianity is not the same as being opposed to homosexuality. Maybe you and I should do a debate given that Matt and Andrew are both such big dummyheads compared to us.
It could go like this:
Your opening: "Christianity bad, secular humanism good."
My opening: "Secular humanism bad, Christianity good."
Your rebuttal: "Christianity bad because Christianity is Christianity. No one disputes that Christianity is Christian, and therefore based on Christianity, so I support secular humanism.
My rebuttal: That's ridiculous. While Christianity is Christianity, he's also saying it's Christian, which is also true. But the real problem is that secular humanism is secular, and encourages secularism.
That would be a riveting conversation.
@@mybrainhurts3727 LMFAO. You wasted a lot of typing time just to show you don’t understand the difference between a debate and a conversation.
@@jhenz1926 Yes, I can understand how more than 100 words would be much effort for you.
None the less, I'm always happy to amuse imbeciles who can't help but to concoct ironic statements so transparent and thick you could make windows out of them.
I agree with Trent about not being too aggressive but most Christian debaters need to turn the knob up several degrees.
It might just mean that we have to do better research and know what the other side is going to say and have a counter ready and waiting.
To be fair, the Christian debaters are designed to fail up against decent debaters
@@jackeagleeye3453How so?
@@jackeagleeye3453 Designed to fail? There have been hundreds of atheism-Christianity debates over the years, and the results aren't one sided. Atheists win some debates, but Christians have won many themselves, far more than to be insignificant.
@@brittoncain5090 He's just coping.
Nah you're flat wrong. Plenty of Christian debaters are full of hot wind. I've seen plenty get heated up. Recent Cliff Knechtle vs Matt Dillahunty on MDD is one that comes to mind. Hot headedness looks foolish. Trent has got the levels perfect in most debates, I would hate to see him dial up. I think his stunt with the book in the Destiny debate was a little cheap though. I would've instantly asked the moderator to dismiss it as Destiny could bring in a book of photos to appeal to emotion also.
Matt’s biggest “arguments” are: “I’m not convinced” and “There is no evidence”.
With positions like these he has no business participating in any debate.
Right. Who gives a damn if it convinces Matt lol.
it was funny how Andrew used that in the debate against Matt.
he is right. There is no evidence for Christianity
@@CMVMicSo why even go debate? 😂
@@wingamwila4113 To prove that there is no evidence for Christianity. Duh
That wasn't a rage quit. Matt resigned because his current life destroyed his position. Relationships are my favorite argument for truth and against relativism. You're in a relationship or you're not. Someone breaks up with you or divorces you, there's nothing relative about that.
True
Christians' personal lives have been fair game for the past few decades. How many times has a prominent Christian been found doing something morally objectionable, which atheists will pounce on, mock, laugh about, and use to denounce Christianity?
When the tables turn, all of a sudden, they become puritans. It's so, so funny.
This is a woman's way of looking at men. It discounts the great men of history who were single, and the men who got cheated by no-fault divorce.
Matt's relationship just indicates why he got so angry at the trans remarks. Now, being involved in... that kind of relationship... says something about him, because most people don't do that. (Actually, the problem isn't related to "most people;" it's just an immoral partnership)
@@skitsschist11
This has nothing to do with gender ( why do men like you always feel the need to put down womens opinions constantly? ) But is more of a Christian perspective
@@skitsschist11most people don’t date trans people because trans people are a minority. So no shit a minority of people date trans people
I will never debate. That is an area I know I cannot succeed in because I am not interiorly disposed to being able to calmly take behavior like that. I would be a poor representative of Catholicism in that respect, so I choose to stay where my strengths lie.
@@Eph2.8-9Jesus started Catholic church. The church at Antioch was the Catholic church.
@@Eph2.8-9The Early Church Was Catholic by Heschmeyer is a book you might try.
As someone who has debated, good call. Having said that, I still defend the faith in other ways.
@@Eph2.8-9Probably best in a potential debate not to base your premise on blatant non sequiturs. It's simply a non-starter😢
@@Eph2.8-9 Cool, I see you know your scriptures, that's a good start. I'll yield the floor to you to begin by explaining what Mary being the mother of Jesus has to do with Him being the Alpha and Omega, and I'll take it from there (on his behalf😁).
“Keep my husband’s name out your mouth!”
Trent, that’s how Dillihunty acted towards you on Pints when he was a complete jack off screaming at you to answer his ? about whether you thought eye witness testimony was “proof”…he acts like a complete jerk, doesn’t act charitable and got put in a box and didn’t like it.