Interesting and respectful debate between Professor Dr. Gordon Menzies and Destiny on religion, God and more... A nice change of pace, enjoy! Check out the book ►www.amazon.com/dp/B0817QK9KR?tag=destinygg-20 Review of the book ►au.thegospelcoalition.org/book-review/review-western-fundamentalism-by-gordon-menzies/

Religion and economics. This guy is a saint because very few people can keep calm when talking about either.

I honestly believe these kind of conversations are the ones Steven shines most. When his conversation partner is thoughtfull, willing to engage in hypotheticals, and has the capacity to keep up with Steven. Not trying to win easy rhetoric points, just engaging in interesting and intelligent conversation.

It's so weird seeing a discussion with a well spoken, calm and educated man that's good faith. Especially after the Corn guy debate.

As a Catholic myself, I really liked watching this debate from the perspective of an atheist, especially since he was raised a Catholic. Very interesting stuff

What a great conversation. I enjoyed every moment. Please have this guy back ASAP.

This kind of conversation is so much more useful and interesting to watch than 99% of Twitch Debates where people are just yelling at each other

So happy to see this man back. Always great conversations.

This is soo good. Just two people having an intelligent conversation. My spirit feels fed.

This is an example of an apologist Christian who you can 100% disagree with, but still enjoy talking to.

Philosophy debates have always been my favorite form of content that you put out Destiny.

I'm so mad at the IDW "skeptics" for transforming being agnostic into being an edgy fedora tipping teen

Menzies is always a great guest to have, great conversation

This was cool. Not a heated debate. Just a discussion between two thoughtful people that disagree on stuff.

Great conversation. Wish Destiny would spend more of his time talking to people like Menzies and less time talking to idiots.

This was a really cool conversation. Do more of this type of stuff, please!

PLEASE have more conversations like this, it seemed hugely productive for both sides in terms of exchanging ideas/perspectives, and was incredibly enjoyable to watch (seems like debates from the 80's, where people are respectful of each other and are capable of vehemently disagreeing...agreeably).

A very enjoyable discussion, glad I got this in my feed!

That last question on music resonated with me so much. Art is never finished, only abandoned and given away.

Great Conversation Steven! Was a pleasure to listen to! Love when you have educated folks on!

I saw this happen during the stream and it was probably one of the best talks you’ve ever had.

As someone who's agnostic I respect this guy and wish most people could be this respectful when it's comes to religious conversations

It's so refreshing watching a conversation where there is actually good engagement on the subject matters.

I love your conversation with this guy. I wish you were able to have more interactions like this with others

he has the cool pen the one with 4 colors I wanted in middle school, I like him

This was unexpectedly very calm lol

Love listening to these discussions with Menzies, hope he continues to do so!

Man, say what you want about this guy, but I've missed atheist debates. Good to be back.

Enjoyed this conversation. It's great to see discussion where both parties ask interesting questions and engage with the topic, rather than talking past each other trying to score semantics points.

His hesitance with what he's calling "Hume's Law" is just the opposite of his own bias to believe that miracles occur. He's claiming that "Hume's Law" suggests that a miracle is so improbable that it is probably false. Where his belief system requires that the claim of a miracle be believed until proven false. he's literally critiquing his own bias and doesn't even realize it.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable conversation to listen to. It can be difficult to find opposing views that can sit down and discuss their views and why in such depth.

Thank you for this conversation. It was amazing

This was very enjoyable! Thanks for having this discussion 👍

An hour plus in and this ultra charitable Destiny is killing me.

Such a good talk. Wish you had more like this

This is one of the best religious conversations I've watched on KZfaq. There are a lot of points to chew on & it's great to get more insight into thought processes without constant critiques or rehashing of minutiae.

Man this is some really great content. Definitely need more of this!!

One of the best conversations on the ENTIRE internet. Does this even exist anymore? Uniquely respectable of each other, and what they are each saying.

I like watching destiny because he sits back and genuinely thinks about the arguments he is going to present. Whether I agree with him or not, he is genuine about his thoughts and opinions and it makes these debates or discussions VERY interesting compared to people who are only bandwaggoning.

Love conversations like these!

This was an awesome conversation

Never heard a religious convo this chill, good job you twom

Wow, how refreshing to see a discussion where people with different beliefs both have a civil and productive conversation. Almost forgot what it's like to see adults behaving like adults online.

amazing.... great conversation, BIG LOVE

Great conversation, nice to listen to two people just calmly chatting.

What a fascinating conversation. I can't say I'll come out of this debate believing in God, but both sides had some very interesting things to say that made me truly think.

27:00 His version of being unscientific is weird. It's like "if we add 2 plus 2 together we get 4" and he responds with you are not being scientific because you have no evidence that 2+2 exists. He might be technically correct depending on what you call science. Is logic science? Is math science? When a mathematician/teacher explains calculations in higher dimension spaces, do they need to prove that higher dimensions exist IRL? Do you demand evidence? Science to me is coming up with a hypothesis, making a prediction based on that, and testing the validity of said prediction. They don't claim that multiverse exists, they claim it would look exactly like our universe from our viewpoint. You are the one that claiming that there are a lot of possible universes and someone "tuned" it, selected the parameters from possible values. You are the one using this to claim existence of God. They are just showing that this is not a logically defensible claim, because there are multiple explanations - that does not require God. Which one is true is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, because there is no way to test which is it. That's why most people are agnostic and no atheist. Because claiming that there is no God is not scientific (not possible to test, prove). Even if God tuned this universe, then what? It does not prove God cares. Do you care what goes inside of your clock? Do you talk to the cogwheels/electrons? The Multiverse might exist , but maybe God created it. The existence of a multiverse also does not disproves God. Maybe this universe is just someone's science experiment in god school... Obviously these are not scientific claims, these are just logical statements to show how your claim is not better than any of them, so there is little reason to believe in that one specific, because they are no more valid than any of the others. The problem is with his "reasoning" that a watchmaker must exist for the universe, is a logical fallacy. He says that there must be one, because what are the chances that those parameters would be what they are just by chance. But he fails to understand conditional probability. Because the answer to his implicit question is 1. The chance that we observe those parameters as they are is exactly 100%, because the condition for us to observe them is for them to be what they are. What are the chances that someone would randomly end up with the exact same DNA that you have? Pretty low. What are the chances that YOU would end up with the DNA that you have? Not low at all. :)

Look forward to every post, thanks for being the most authentic political streamer out there.

Great conversation 🙏

Awesome conversation, really missed healthy debates that are actually productive.

What a great conversation! Finally, an honest theist worthy of having a discussion with… 🤷🏼‍♂️

Wow, I did not expect for it to be three hours later but that was a very interesting and enjoyable conversation.

Wow. What a great debate/conversation.

Destiny has really turned a 180 on my view of him, one of the few honest people to admit to be wrong/stumped. And to not pivot to another point to prove there’s some things he can’t defend, as the man he’s debating. Wonderful to see.

Wow, great convo. Super impressed by him, although i disagree on almost everything,he comes off as very intelligent and open minded, especially for a religious person

Coming back to this convo and watching again a year and a half later. This was one of the more satisfying convos. I dont care about the topic at all, but I enjoyed the “way” they conversated. The dude seems genuinely interested and actually talking with each other instead of talking at each other.

Amazing conversation!

ohhhh, this is quality conversation; past year been reading about the Church Fathers

The description's date says 28 Nov, 2021 but it feels like 28 Nov, 2010

Favorite conversation you've had that I've listened to so far.

Best discussion that's been had in a while, great segment.

I know what he's talking about w that "pain" to get stuff out. Whenever I'm deep into thoughts and trying to compose both music and art, trying to visualize the structure and effects of components involved, any kind of distraction that pulls me from that mental space physically hurts me in a very weird way and I've had fights w previous roommates over it. Anyone else ever experienced this and/or have any idea how and why it happens like that?

Lets gooo gotta love Dr menzies

Wholesome and thought-provoking discussion

what an incredible conversation

he says atheist reject the evidence like he's got a mountain of evidence or as if to say we don't believe evidence on the whole. I would say you have little to no evidence and what they claim as evidence is nothing more then hearsay. So no you don't have evidence? you have faith.

What a great talk. I think you were a little too gentle on him around the topic of evidence and the existence of a god, but the discussion on the sexual revolution what awesome.

Don't agree with you on a lot of things but it's good to get different perspectives on topics and issues, not getting totally heat, and just have a civil discussion. Subbed because this is the way debates and discussions need to be again

God this convo was so fucking good

35:00 Wait, his chart shows 5795 copies that are within a 40 year time gap? This isn't true, the majority of copies were written hundreds of years later.

Do more like these! So interesting

such a wonderful conversation. huge props to menzies

The “multiverse” is a perfectly good response to the assertion that god is the *_only_* possible explanation for the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe because the multiverse is another possible explanation.

The anthropic principle was never meant to be asserted as scientific, it is literally a placeholder of the unknown or unknowable as a response to a religious claim to truth that is also unknown or unknowable...thats all. I wish Destiny caught that, but you cant catch everything.

Great convo

Very interesting conversation

This isn’t an easy subject to have a discussion on let alone a debate but Destiny actually made some of his strongest points I’ve ever personally heard in the very beginning of this discussion. Destiny mentioning the ability to communicate (or rather lack thereof) of a human being a bit of an impasse as we may lack the proper sensory capabilities to experience such a thing seems incredibly accurate to me. I’d add that to verifiably know with utmost certainty that an individual was communicating with God they’d not only have to have the proper mental & physical sensory organs/capacity/capability to simply just experience such an event but they’d likely have to be something akin to God to know for certain they were in fact engaging with it. In the same way all lesser creatures on Earth are limited by their cognitive abilities to communicate and convey their feelings, motives, thoughts etc with a more developed animal like a human. Whereas one human to another can both relatively be at a common understanding of both of us verifiably being human and being able to communicate relatively successfully any message we deem fit given the proper conditions (same language and culture) and even in that example there can be issues as Destiny mentioned as any explanation of something as ethereal as an experience will only be understood by another given my ability to relay the message and their capability of understanding it.

It's been a long time since I've listened to a religion debate, I disagree with this dude on a lot but he's a damn breath of fresh air with how calm and civil he keeps with destiny. (Assuming that doesn't change at any point)

Now we talking. This was very interesting! This wasn't a debate, but rather a conversation. about the deeper things in life, and religion is s topic that really interests me. I can't remember Destiny has shown this kind of debt before, in all his conversations./debates about religion and faith. Thank you

Keep on truckin, Deatiny, great job.

I wanted to comment on how much of a shift it was listening to a polite religious debate compared to my edgier time spent on youtube during the atheist era bloodspots, but then I was left stunlocked by that sudden incel debate lmao. What a conversation.

I've been viewing these conversations for about two decades now. Since the Hitchens stuff somewhat actively. There are several religious people/apologists whom I like as they seem like smart and ethical people. I also have some appreciation or even reverence for religious concepts in similar ways to people like Zizek or Jordan Peterson. I have heard hundreds of hours of talks and lectures and read some books and other writings where these matters are attempted to be settled one way or another, but to me it still just sounds like tooth fairy stuff or something similar. I cannot comprehend how people have serious conversations about these things. I don't mind it and indeed I'm interested in it, but somehow it's very hard to believe, ironically, that some people are religious. It is the most peculiar human behavior I know. I also dislike religion deeply since in my experience it causes horrific damage to familial and other relationships when people feel the need to decide between Jesus and their gay son for example. As life is hard enough to begin with such primitive, superficial and twisted forms of thinking disgust me. Adding to someone's struggles for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

‘…even sexual activity I think is wrong morally...’ Revealing the harms of religion.

The problem with having this argument is it is essentially a challenge of beliefs. Their belief in something extra-dimensional, and your belief in facts/science. It's a conversation that definitely needs to be had. However, I'd only recommend it in specific circumstances where both parties are able to maintain suspensions of disbelief and become more open to the other's argument, which I feel was decently represented here. It's an insane internal juggling act, but it's the only way conversations like this can be a net positive. I could go over how each religion has a meta-narrative lesson regarding human existence, or how each religion has an over-arching narrative describing similar phenomena under different descriptions. I could also go over the philosophical conundrum that is the supposed omnipotent existence, and creation itself. However, those arguments would fall on deaf ears if the opposition doesn't believe in science, and adamantly believes that all other religions are works of an evil force. The same has to be said with my stance, as there are a lot of answers that science will likely not be able to explain. An example being quantum fluctuations and the Big Bang, and how this ended-up occurring in the first place. Unless I want to think there has only been the universe, only will be the universe, and everything can be understood in the universe through science -- completely disregarding the fact that there was a "before" or "nothing" BEFORE the Big Bang. Which wouldn't be scientific, and actually a reflection of religious dogmatism. I have my own philosophical reconciliation with what we understand in science with the unknowns of the universe, which I might eventually make youtube videos on (or if Destiny ever decides he wants to have this discussion with me which I would be overjoyed). However, that's not the point. Point is these conversations need to happen, conversations in general needs to happen. However, I feel it is necessary for both parties to be openly receptive to the opposition. Otherwise, it's merely a self-expository rant about how the other is wrong. This is something I feel has been lost overall when it comes to confrontational conversations/discussions/debates. Now, you can't be perfectly open. That's impossible when existence itself down to the quantum level is considered to be an imbalanced system (only way it can exist actually). However, progressing towards that means is something I think should be pursued. Engaging in ideological belief systems, ESPECIALLY in opposing ones, is the only way progression can occur. This is represented in history rather well. Whether it's societal progression (ex. MTK Jr. and oppression) or scientific (ex. Medicine and understanding of the body), physical (ex. you have to confront the gravitational pull of the earth to gain muscle) or mental (ex. progress in your understanding of socio-political sciences), there is some form of progression and in order for that to occur there has to be somekind of "conflict". The "good" or "bad" of that progression is definitely up for *ahem* debate. In short, thank you for having this discussion -- both Destiny and Dr. Menzies. Especially in such an engaging manner. Discussions like these definitely need to happen more often, especially under the pretenses of engagement.

1:53:25 You almost broke him with the "Sex is almost purely a recreational activity"

Easily one of my favorite conversations to listen to.

this is SUCH A GOOD CONVERSATION

I have been involuntarily agnostic for 15 years extremely jeolus of believers. I think this Australian made me 1 step closer to faith. I listened to the whole stream and I am going to listen to it again. You guys are both extremely brilliant.

I feel like Christianity could thrive and actually be a use to people if it took a mythological approach to the stories in the bible instead of the literal. The whole idea of an eternal after life decided based of a short finite life is just absurd.

such a great debate, both talked respectfully, i love that

I think I‘ve never seen such a nice debate… like ever. Finally two people from different sites, which actually let the other one explain their opinions. I have my own opinions on those topics and non the less I feel for both of you, because I‘m allowed to see where both of you come from. Chapeaux 🎩

The amount of r/athiest type comments in Destiny's chat is quite cringe

Most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists, not Gnostic Atheists. People who only say "I'm Agnostic" don't really know what that means, usually what they really mean is Agnostic Atheist, but it's entirely possible for a Theist to say "I'm Agnostic".

That was an awesome discussion. It’s sad when most content now seems one is talking over the other.

What a debate. No yelling at any time. It was a nice surprise. Wish more of them were like this.

About the bayesian rule analogy, Destiny probably started with a pretty high initial estimate due to his christian upbringing. More and more evidence came on the contrary and so he changed the probability to a much lower value.

"Im an atheist. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in god" ~Fuddruckers Podcast

Love listening to a good long conversation between good-faith and intelligent parties. I feel cutting it off at an hour or an hour and a half means you miss a lot of the depth and detail.

It's nice how the line of the blur of the chat can intersect with the line of the roof of the professor.

OBAMNA