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

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.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂

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

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?

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.

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.

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 🤔...

Eww lol

💯

THE AI VOICE GUY. WAZZUUUP.

@@JaySeamus Yo!

dating a Man**

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.

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.

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

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 know the thing is, I didn't like her at first. But, man, that Rocky parody get me addicted.

Lol

😂

He disagreed with the LACK of principles of secular humanism which lead to such atrocious beliefs as wokeism.

Matt's entire opening statement is a tu quoque fallacy. He makes up a bunch of absurd nonsense about what "christianity" leads to by pretending that not supporting gay sex is somehow oppressive (which is just a WALL of strawmans). He hyper fixates on one dude and then lies about what he believes and concludes that therefore Christianity is bad. But what someone who believes X does, does not prove that X is a bad belief. Adolf Hitler also believed in mathematics. Is mathematics wrong? I can have a coherent system of beliefs that necessitates the best possible outcome for everybody when acted out. And yet you could still find a guy on earth who claims to believe in it to strawman and lie about--or even to critique appropriately. Mike did the exact same thing to Matt. Matt's argument: "christian morals are bad because [dogmatic strawman about what some guy believes]" Mike's argument: "secular humanism is bad because [dogmatic strawman about what some guy believes]" I've listened to hours of this Matt's content and called into his show many times. He's enormously bad at taking what he dishes out lol

Cope and seethe. Secular humanism is trash.

He failed in that respect as well though. I don't know what the point of this comment is.

Yeah I read the rest of these points and they're completely irrelevant....

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

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.

You haven’t thought very much if you think this is a sound argument. Yeah, BPF is a regular guy

I felt Wilson was Strawmaning and engaging in ad hominem attacks. No one is suggesting that affirming transgender identities means we are stating that transgender individuals have changed at the level of biology and genetics. That's what Wilson claimed. It is a deliberate mischaracterization. Calling transgender individuals "deranged lunatics" was hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric. So, you think the strawman fallacy with a side of hate speech is good debate? I guess we know what is in your heart, and it ain't the love of Jesus.

@@silverwolfmonastery So you haven't noticed any absurd outcomes in the past few years that could be legitimately called "lunacy" regarding rainbow culture and woke language ? Try some Southpark for starters.

​@@silverwolfmonasterypeople who force others to lie, even tacitly, are deranged or worse. He never called then nonhuman; criticizing is not dehunanization.

@@templarroystonofvasey Every ideology has crazy people. I am sure you do not want to be judged by the words and behavior of the most crazy and most extreme people in whatever group you most strongly identify with.

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. 😅

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!

The Nazca Lines are no mystery. Dillahunty ate you folks.

​@@rahmspinatI'm not convinced.

@@WhatsTheTakeaway😂 did you see that Christian Mario video aswell?

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.

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.

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.

My favorite part is his “WELL, Good day Sir.” It was so dramatically sarcastic that I couldn’t help but sub to his channel (I hope all of his stuff is like this). Don’t get me wrong, I love the standard passive Christian approach, but every once in awhile it’s good to see a Christian verbally backhand someone.

​@@moosechuckleI do hate conflicts, and I try very hard to follow God's word. But we are sinners, and even I get tired of the passiveness sometimes.

@@albertbecerra absolutely. We should always be mindful of that in our responses and our responses should never be vengeful, hateful, or in spite. But, I think there’s a balance. Christians get picked on, we get made fun of, and we are constantly turning the other cheek. I think that’s a good practice; however, with the state of the church today, I think we’ve lost our backbone and our ability to stand for what is right and how Christ would have us live. The church allows and supports(in some places) homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, celebrating trans, and church representatives are downright becoming heretics speaking directly against what Christ taught (ie. Richard Rohr.) It’s like the church is completely scared to upset anyone and forgot how to say, “no, we don’t do that.” At the same time you don’t want to be like those Baptist a few years back protesting and telling everyone “God hates f*gs” (I don’t think that’s appropriate at all) I regularly think of Paul’s journey in the Bible, how every time he turned around he was like, “you’re doing this wrong, you’re doing that wrong, you sometimes get that right but it’s still wrong, and now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to jail for the glory of God.” There are very few, in leadership today, that would take the stances Paul did. Weird story, but I was actually having a convo about apologetics the other day, with a women who basically disregarded everything Paul stood for. It was bizarre and I was at a complete loss of what to say back to her. Yet still, it solidified what I’ve been feeling. Churches are terrified to teach Christian lifestyles, and how we are to conduct ourselves.

@@moosechuckle Laughable. So much wrong packed into one comment.

@@utubepunk due to your good point, you’ve completely changed my mind… based on absolutely no examples or evidence.

He realized he had no debate and decided to not argue anymore. That giy was just insulting him. Do you know what a debate is?

@@ton1 Yup. It's when one two people critique each other's argument. That's what the other guy did. Dillahunty presented his argument, the other guy presented a counter-argument, and then Dillahunty proceeded to attack the other guys character, ostensibly because he couldn't attack the argument the guy made, though quite possibly also because Dillahunty himself is not interested in a fair debate but rather just wanted to descend into demagoguery, which is what he did. This is nothing new. This is how cancel culture works. When these individuals present an argument and the other person responds with an equally intelligent refutation, they rage quit or otherwise try to cancel the other individual because they know they have already lost and have no alternative other than to admit such, which they will never do. So in the end, it was Dillahunty who departed from the debate by not countering the argument, and while legions of morons will not realize this, those of us who understand how debates actually work recognize that Dillahunty was the one who departed from the protocols of the debate first, and while I found the interruptions irritating as well, they didn't happen until Dillahunty had already basically ended the debate by not refuting the counter-argument, and even atheists are calling him out on it. God bless!

The husband line was an unnecessary dunk, but a heavy, heavy dunk nonetheless.

⁠​⁠​⁠The point Matt closes his little notebook and he made the decision to end the debate is when Andrew makes some comment about same sex couples being a reproductive dead end, so much so that certain countries who have embraced secular humanism have to truck in theist-believing migrants to replace the stagnant population growth. Up until that point, Dillahunty was taking notes on Wilson’s opening statement. Then the “reproductive dead end” comment came, and Dillahunty refused to entertain him any longer. Why? Because what Andrew said is true, and Dillahunty has no argument against it, as it’s unfolding before our eyes in Europe. That’s where secular humanism ultimately leads. Matt didn’t care that the dude was being an asshole, he just suddenly realized that as abrasive as Andrew is, Andrew knew what he was talking about.

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

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 👍

You're correct

Yeah I'm also a Christian and I think the christian guy was a jerk

👀 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.

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

I'm an atheist from Europe and Dillahunty is an ignorant clown who adopts magical thinking all the time

it must be maddening to have ignorant people tell you what you "really believe" lol

@@trocarcat So does Dillahunty not believe that transwomen are women, despite all the observable evidence?

Matt didn't because he doesn't listen in a debate. He has one note to play (God doesn't exist and you can't convince me otherwise) and will not listen to anything else. I can grant that this debate was not the best one on this subject, but clearly Matt contributed to that: he was not prepared (he admitted that), he read from the Humanist Manifesto (he appeals to this almost every time as if that's the only authority on humanism. He doesn't like, for example, to hear that the Soviet Union was humanistic, that it followed humanism, even though it said it did and called itself that. Who's right?) instead of thinking about it himself, and distracted his argument with a disjointed attack on Christian ethics even though it's repeatedly been brought to his attention that he himself lives by them. He denies everything that confutes his arguments without disproving them. He doesn't walk out more often because he never really walks in.

@@craigsmith1443 There are no agreed upon Christian ethics. They change constantly with the times and by who is in power. The Bible is just a horrible book to base ethics. This is not a hard thing. A humanist list of ethics is going to always be better. A 4 year olds list of right and wrong will almost always be better than basing ethics on the Bible.

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 🤣

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.

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.

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.

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.

😂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.

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.

The problem is, I think that Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillomonkey and other militant atheists are so entitled and smug they think they should be allowed to insult their opponents but their opponents are not allowed to insult them. They actually believe they are held to a different standard than everyone else.

Matt has been debated by nice guy christians forever. This is fine if the situation is right but you'd better be wise in it

The problem becomes that there was no debate, so no one hearing it had a change of position. Assuming that was even the purpose of having the debate in the first place. People leaning in one direction or another will find ways to say their guy was right, or they will say there was no debate so they haven't moved from their original position.

@@stephenwright133 - “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” The reason mockery is a favored tactic by atheists is that it can be used to give the impression the atheist is the “strong horse”. I’m not sure this debate is as fruitless as you speculate - I’ve seen atheist commenters disappointed by Matt because storming away made him look weak. It’s very possible people who are less than rigorous intellectually (which, frankly - is the vast majority) are just looking to follow the strong horse. If they have leaned atheist because the mocking tactic of New Atheists gave the impression that is the strong horse - I could see this mockery and Matt storming off like an angry toddler rattling the confidence of those types of atheists. The downside is mockery also potentially makes you look like a jerk. But as it’s a favored tactic by atheists for two decades now, the downside is apparently massively outweighed by the benefits of it as a tactic for atheists. I don’t know that it will be as beneficial to Christians - but as I noted, that Christians would begin to use it was inevitable.

Dawkins was right.

He blocked me on twitter just for correcting him on the Library of Alexandria myth

@@paradisecityX0 How'd ya correct him?

Most of those callers are repeating things atheists as a whole have heard many times. A lot of those callers also have smoked a lot of copium and have opinions about things eveb some Christians would disagree with (looking at you, creationists). His short fuse definitely did not assist, but let's not forget that short or long, a fuse still has to be set off. Andrew lit the fuse, and did not try to put it out.

@Eliza-rg4vw I pointed out the fact that the myth itself is a cariacature of what really happened and gave sources thoroughly debunking it. I also pointed out he doesn't even fact check any bad history whatsoever. He had no response

@@Eliza-rg4vw Dilladodge is like the kid in school who picks on retards but gets his ass kicked outside that demographic

The only time I'd root for James White lmao

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.

How come you converted to Hinduism of all religions? It is blatantly untrue. But what confusese me the most is how you accept that Christianity "is a path to God for those it appeals to." That doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the framework of either Christianity or Hinduism. In Christianity, Our Good Lord clearly states that nobody comes to the Father except through Him (the Son). In Hinduism you have a myriad of "gods", yet you speak of God in the singular sense. Is it deliberate or what am I missing? Kindly, in Christ

@@csongorarpad4670 I gave my two cents comment in addressing the video. I don't carry on KZfaq comment section debates, so I'll say my piece and you go ahead have the last word. "It is blatantly untrue": That would be your opinion. Just asserting a claim doesn't make it as such. "That doesn't make any sense...in the framework...": By this you show you don't understand much about Hinduism, and more than likely anything outside of a Christian worldview. Your further remarks about Hindusim here and how I "speak of God in the singular" again reveals you don't know anything about Hindusim. I cannot guarantee, but I would put money on you believing anyone who disagrees with your specific view and brand of Christianity is bound for hell. Virtually every Christian commentator on Hinduism usually asserts a false view of Hinduism, knocks it down (or at least they think they do), and declares victory. As for Christianity, when I say a path to God for those it appeals to, God condescends to meet every devotee to their needs. This is His mercy. I don't mean out of some sense of fashion or trend or what's in these days. The more and more one learns about Christianity the more it becomes harder to abide by, or adhere to. The Abrahamic traditions hold to exclusivism (My way is the only way). Such a standard leads to the view that anyone who is not you is less than you, and this becomes the justification we have seen with the endless bloodshed and death that the world has seen in the wake of all three versions of Abrahamic views. The next is the fact that what we know in scholarship starts to drastically contrast with what's preached from the pulpit. This at some point leads to having to decide and chose, 'Do we go with evidence or go with what one feels to be true?' The ancient Isrealites were polytheists, evolved into monolotrists, and finally into monotheists. Nonetheless, the OT is pushed as if it had been monotheism all along. We know that's not true. Abraham and others never existed. Many of the prophecies are written after the fact. Doesn't matter; if one feels it to be true, it must be. Next we have the NT (based no less than on the veracity of the OT, so we crap the bed at the start). We have the teachings possibly maybe taught by a man that may or may not have existed, and all before Easter. That 'before' runs contrary to the teachings of the later views (kerygma vs kerygmata). Paul's view is not Christ's teachings. Thus we have present day Christianity which are really modern day Paul worshippers. Then we have the various views of Christianity which were never reconciled, yet kept (bits and pieces) in the NT. This has been what has led to all the differing views on Christ himself. Next we have the parousia in the text placed in Jesus's mouth - never happened. Why? Was he wrong? Doesn't matter. Later apologists just revamped the story yet again (e.g. When Jesus says 'a' he really means 'b'). Why were the Gospels not mentioned in Paul's writings? Why were they written after Paul's writings? All these issues are just the beginnings of Christianity. How can one claim exclusivity of a kinda-maybe-sorta-but-not-really, but definitely yes. And a 'yes' that leads to, Disagree with me and you'll burn in hell...and I will be the one to send you there! as is so often the day-to-day Christian refrain. This doesn't even touch on theological issues. Christians center around a view of God entrenched egoism. A God obsessed with real-estate he already lays claim to; the bloodshed and genocide that leads to obtaining said real-estate; a God swayed by emotions and passions. A God that says, Love him or suffer torture for all eternity, and all the rest that follows in Christian teachings. This leads such devotees to only love God out of fear of their suffering hell. This is not true (ultimate) Love. In fact, it is indistinguishable from an abusive husband, and a battered wife who says, Yes, but he really only does it because he loves me. My suggestion to you is whatever judgment you make of Hinduism (and this is something all three Abrahamic traditions find very hard to do) make sure you know what you're actually talking about. It is possible to actually state another's view correctly AND still disagree with it. Steer clear of christianityisandalwayswillberight.com, and actually study a view you think is incorrect. Take what you want and leave the rest - I can't think for you or make you do anything. In Hinduism there is Brahman. All things manifest from Brahman. Brahman is what is known, the knower, and the knowing. Brahman is all that is known and yet is also beyond knowing. God is with and without form. What is out there (beyond this self) is God. What is here (this self) is God. Who here has the authority to say God is thus and nothing more? Jai Sri Mā!

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 (-:

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.

You spelled it wrong theres a j somewhere in there

@@Greyz174 that sounds like a difficult surname to spell, good grief!

Yeah it was about the insanity of atheists saying gross, disastrous, perverse things should be “legal”. Cuz justice is mean or something.

Haqiqatjou; Kickajew; Pikachu... all equally valid.

To be fair, there's still something like a dozen US states that allow for parental consent underage marriages, usually around age 13. Going into premodern society and earlier, morality around this was pretty commonly "grass on the field play ball." Being 18 years of age as a consenting adult is a purely modern and sexual legal development. I can't condone it either, but it's pretty clear certain cultural and religious contexts apparently have rights in this area, and mostly conservative and Christian legislatures around the country have upheld that legally.

Andrew is a Catechumen and has stated in other podcasts talking about this debate that he doesn't go into debates to do apologetics. That's why this debate was over ethical systems. Andrew's approach was to take Dillahunty's ethics, grant it, and show how even when granted that a Christian ethical system is still better for society so why shouldn't it be chosen over secular humanism. Dillahunty just got upset that Andrew used troons in his opening (even though Dillahunty brought it up first), and decided to not even try to defend his positions.

​@gravios24 "Andrew is a catucumen" is just a claim. Prove it. "He said so himself before!" Oh okay, got ya.. .

Stop being a liberal Orthodox You're probably greek

Amen

Hi Father, in your charity may I plead for some assistance? Have a good day.

@@Lerian_V how can I help?

People are too soft now a days. Take the personal attack like a man and dish it back if that's the nature of the convo. It wasn't even bad, very tame but clever dig by Andrew. Friggin soft effeminate pansies everywhere. Can't stand when Christians act like that trying to show fake piety....where my St Jerome's and St Nicholas people at to power slap these heretics??

The debate aside...with all due respect arden is wayyy out of his league..he (arden) is just using him (matt). the dude looks like her geandfather

The audience was willing to dignify the debate but Matt is just too good for that isn't he. And I thought secular humanism was about how no one should be given special privileges and we should all be treated the same. That was the reason why he's so passionate about the gay stuff. Cause he thinks Christians treat gay people differently because they're gay... Sorry for that tangent.

​@@cfG21do you have an argument for that claim?

@@aquavitae3824 Of course there looks for one. He's fat and bald.Plus she looks like a young girl and he looks like a grandfather. Come on put two and two together.

Try "Andrew Wilson Matt dillahunty" in the search.

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.

Yeah here you go

Thank you. It really sucks how most atheist (while not an atheist myself I'm also not a Christian) who make content and atleast in some way represent atheism in the public space through these debates and the like tend to be so far to the left it's untenable. It's hard to find a space you feel like you belong in when the people you agree more with spiritually call you a fascist and people you agree more with politically say you deserve hellfire for eternity for your sins

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

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.

Thats because the debate wasn't about trans issues.

@@dannielz6 trans issues are moral issues though, and the debate was about the moral superiority of Christianity vs Humanism….

Denying the legal rights of non Christians gives you orgasms? Her Aphrodite's exist. You're going to have to figure out how to fit that in your moral framework or else people are going to keep calling you out.

​@@CRobinsonpkI didn't hear a moral case made regarding trans. What I heard was a jest regarding trans id, which isn't a moral issue, but a social one.

​@@dannielz6I'd love to hear you steelman Andrew's argument. I'm not sure you know what it even was.

I'm still in atheist phase, for the last 50+ years. However I agree, dillahunty got a good taste of his own medicine.

"Comes around " to what in particular? Which Branch of Christianity should Matt be a part of ? He was on his way to becoming a minister, but like many who delve into the origins of this faith, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to believe any of it if you are honest. I am an ordained Minister, have studied Theology and world religion for over 35 years and the answer is obvious.

@@Valkonnen honest good one 😆

@@Valkonnen no answer regarding things that are above human comprehension are obvious. By definition, really.

I love hearing about "former" atheists. Guessing you didn't really lack belief in god/s, you were just mad at Jesus or something silly like that.

What did Matt do to insult Trent's wife? Or make laws to treat christians through non praying their religion away?

@@skagenpige88 Well the guy he was debating isn't making any laws I can tell you that.

@@HeHasRisen. Well he does probably vote for the person wanting to ruin lgbtq peoples basic rights....

@@HeHasRisen. When your part of a community that hype up on a religious version of reality...that want x things to be law. How would you describe the lawmaking?

Human flourishing.

What does that have to do witn anything?

Based.

​@@wet-readits his "ethical position"

And by sex positive I assume you mean for many venereal diseases

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.

More like actively trying to be deceitful than ignorance. He was deliberately not calling it by the proper name because he is was trying to psychologically prime the people he was trying to deceive AGAINST the Christian he was arguing with if they had come back with the fact that the bill says that about all sexual orientations. That is why he addressed the bill as the don’t say gay bill instead of what it actually is.

You understand bills can be labeled by their intended outcome, right? Like just because the bill doesn't say that exact phrase, it can be labeled that because it penalizes teachers for acknowledging the fact that 1. Gay people exist and 2. They are people. Modern day Christians supporting fashy laws meant to target a minority & further ostracize them from public life? Really making Hitler proud by continuing his tradition.

He's just a virtue signaler

@@Forester- Oh you mean like Christians who wear crosses to advertise their religion or start singing cringe Jesus songs while on an airplane? Christianity is *peak* virtue signaling.

Yeah I think that's right, it's all about morality. Even in his opening statement, it amounted to "Christianity causes moral evil", that's why he opposes it. He sees it as an oppressive institution that limits freedom.

​@@DaneilTsomething something golden calf

@@DaneilT That was great

"but also it would have faired very poorly for him against a less prominent but more sophisticated atheist opponent." - the TAG is immune from David Hume's criticism, which is devastating for failed Greek projects such as natural theology (of Aristotle and Aquinas). Philosophically inept Christians tend to meekly grant atheists rationality, logic, the existence of universals, mathematics, and ethics - something that can only make sense in a Christian non-ADS system. The TAG shows that an atheist has to steal from a Christian worldview even to make a sentence.

Matt's entire career is based on him attacking believers

@@user-ws8lf6it1y found the Dyerite. (nobody uses the term "ADS" besides Dyer and his ilk) Not only is natural theology Biblical, it also has a prominent place within Eastern Orthodoxy's history (with theologians such as Staniloae and Swinburne). Presuppositionalism/TAG is really not that sophisticated or hard to grasp, (hence why it's so popular) though makes particular assumptions about one's theological system which is actually opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy. TAG/presuppositionalism specifically took off in the Reformed tradition (with guys like Van Til, Bahnsen and Clark) largely because it is contingent on the Calvinist doctrine of "total depravity" - namely that we, as Man, are so fallen and so depraved that even reliance on our natural faculties (such as our senses and our logic) can not be trusted without revelation from God. If you're going to use presuppositionalism/TAG as an apologetic, you're effectively admitting to the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is apart of your theology. Since total depravity is not part of Orthodox theology (yet you use the TAG), you're admitting that your theology departs from Orthodoxy since you evidently hold to total depravity as part of Man's natural state. Furthermore, Dyerites love to harp on epistemology as "coherentist" vs "foundationalist", while never really addressing whether or not their epistemology can be both coherent and wrong. We Catholics, who can rely on both natural and revealed theology, and can critique atheist epistemology and metaphysics without retreating to "you can't use the laws of logic" or anything. It's more rigorous and more powerful anyway to show them how they're misusing logic as is than to "forbid" them from using it/telling them they're incoherent for using it since they aren't Christian. Furthermore, ideologies don't have worldviews, people do. "The Christian worldview" which one? "The secular worldview" which one? A person's beliefs affect the way they can see the world, certainly, but in order to judge one's own worldview, one necessarily must place oneself outside of their worldview in order to appropriately judge it. With that said, we can't place ourselves outside of our worldview (since we would use our worldview when judging our own worldview, leading to recursion). Look up David Haines short essay "Presuppositionalism and Natural Theology" for more detail on this. I know I'm going to get accused of "not understanding the TAG" due to this, as all TAG-critics do. My response is: neither do you, you just accept it.

3 points for Andrew

Exactly. "Logic just is" (c) - Matt Dillamonkey

​@truetranny Debate includes pointing out the faults of the opposition. To claim Christians "don't debate" is a childish simplistic pov which relates to a mental bias against those who dare question or critique the faults within your world view.

Incorrect

Andrew won the debate. He told the Truth.

@@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😁).

Yeah, Matt is okay with people being insulted. He just doesn’t like people insulting him, I think he is so smug and entitled that he holds himself to a higher standard than everyone else.

Matt has never insulted anyone in an in person debate like this. When did he insult Jordan Peterson’s family in their debate?

@@goblin6587 Andrew didn't insult Matt's Family, Andrew was Mocking the absurdity of LGBT Idea in secular humanism, which hit too close to home for Matt Dillahunty, Andrew Was Doing EXACTLY what Matt Dillahunty does and used to do with Christianity. It was only AFTER Matt rage quit, Matt decided to get personal by calling Andrew a jackass, and Andrew clapped back, but Andrew never insulted Matt's family during the debate, the Topic just hit too close to home for Matt and he couldn't stand someone mock it, when That's what he does to Christians all the time, stop making excuses for this narcissist

@@pJ005-k9i”how is it you’re not just having sex with a dude” - Andrew in his opener, directed at Matt This was transparently a personal attack aimed at Matt knowing he had a trans partner. Frankly I think you and Andrew are just gaslighting by pretending that wasn’t fully intended as a personal attack. Keep lying tho fake Christian hatemonger

@@pJ005-k9iagain when in Matt’s conversation with Jordan Peterson did he say anything insulting to him? He was respectful for the entire discussion

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.

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.

The worst kind of ignorance is the willful kind. What are you, in third grade?

​@@davidblackburn3396what are you talking about?

That line was so savage and he got triggered big time. Matt's still in denial that he's not a straight man. I'm all for being nice to trans people, and using he or she pronouns depending on what they want (they or them is total bullshit tho), but the fact is any man that sleeps with them isn't straight anymore. They're bisexual by definition

@@HugoStiglitz88 You're both ignorant and arrogant. That's a charming combination. As the old saying goes, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on. He was "triggered big time?" You're seeing what you want to see. This is typical. He walked out because that creep Andrew refused to address the question they originally agreed to debate. What resulted wasn't a debate at all.

@SarahD-uy5pf No. It's just that these birdbrains resent his intellect and in their childishness "fag" is still the worst thing they can think of to call someone. It says a lot more about them than him. This video is Trent Horn's self-serving version of why Matt walked out, it's not the truth, so it's worth less than nothing.

Let’s pretend that none of Matt’s old debates exist so we can say this

Matt left, therefore Matt lost.

​@@DougWarner25Right. Pretty much all of Matt's debates are him acting this way.

If it's a debate yes.

He knew he was toast

@@soun6589I don’t think he knew he was toast he was just so overly-emotionally distraught from the opponents anti lgbt views that he needed to escape that frustration

He did :O

Destiny is a human embarrassment lol

You do believe in karma. You just call it God.

@@TryingtoTellYouJust call it a WomanWithAPenis.

As a protestant I'll call it for you... KARMA

A man reaps what he sows, remember?

Karma translates into English as "What you sew you will reap". Apropos, no?