Matt answers the questions succinctly and in plain language easy to understand. The other guy talks and talks and talks and not only doesn't answer the question, but doesn't even say anything at all.
Thumbs up if you think the Priest should shut the fu** up. There is a high and direct correlation between the rate of my dying brain cells and the amount of time he gets to speak.
@GoogleVideoMan Apparently so, just like Atheism holds a monopoly on Totalitarianism. This priest almost brings me to despair, at least it seems he didn't have much of the audience on his side.
This debate was ok. Matt did his usual great job at answering the questions, while the priest just rambled on. I dont think anyone would change there mind with this debate but I must say that I am still not convinced that religion has any justification. Many people say the bible is the truth while clearly it is not. It really is a pick your own adventure book. Assumptions and fallacies fill religion so much so that if there where any real evidence to any of it, it is so muddled i cant tell.
Defining faith took this priest from 0:56 until 3.57, and all he speaks his garbage. It is exactly what Matt said, excuse in absence of evidence. He reminds of Deepak Chopra, all talk and no sense.
why did this preacher get to blab on and on about bullshit??? ONE-SIDED MUCH???? This is Not a debate.. although it did make the preacher look like a superstitious fool, I still think it was entirely one-sided and he had wayy more time to spew his bullshit then Matt had to speak reason and logic... it's not right.. and totally unfair... I say this now ... FUCK YOU to all you fairy tale believing morons who think that God gives you your moral values.. you're dumb and entirely unintellectual. F-U
Fits the saying, "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person". Someone should tell the father that the sheer number of words used in the debate doesn't determine a winner.
I'm surprised by the level of restraint matt had towards the outrageous claims by the preist, he could easily refuted all his claims very easily but let them all go as if to say i don't disagree. once you let someone make an outrageous claim and don't dispute them, your essentially saying there is no arguement for that and from watching his shows tells me that he had very good rebuttals to those claims however choose not to voice them. alot being said but nothing being told in a way
The only people who could fuck up their own strawman arguments are religious folk...and I'm not even going to get into the fact that this guy preaches all the way through this debate using overly picturesque language and always seems to spin in circles around a particular question..Overall, I'm really dissapointed and I wish Matt would have atleast ended the debate by going "NO NO NO YOU'RE DONE!"
I actually thought the preacher made a few thought provoking points. I'm not quite sure how he manages to mould his views into Christianity & he did have to skip around a few questions & repeat the same shit over & over... but I was expecting much less... like debunking evolution, ID, creationism, spouting bible verses & crap like that.
Jacobse's voice is filled with acid whenever he says "atheist", and it is sad that he so misinterprets (or misrepresents) atheism. He also seems to run in circles trying to highlight creativity and the "numinous" as something that cannot ever be explained physically. Dillahunty was right to evoke Harris and a questioner was right to evoke Shermer, and I wish those perspectives could have been brought further to better undermine Jacobse's assertions.
The moral zeitgeist continues on in spite of religion. How will religion be twisted into relevancy if we continue on the evolutionary process and our biological limitations through technology?
The claim that the universe has had a beginning is itself an unproven claim and by making such claims as if they were proven facts, the atheist side show to be no better than the Christian fundamentalist side. Both are dogmatic, ignorant, arrogant and intellectually immature.
I thought, when I saw that Matt was in a debate on here, that it would be more fun. I guess I figured that if they went to the trouble of setting this debate up they would give him an opponent who would get me thinking, even if I disagreed with him. This guy, though, really brought nothing to the table. God makes creativity? Totalitarianism requires atheism? Religion is self-correcting and atheism isn't? It was very disappointing.
- "This guy [father Jacobse], though, really brought nothing to the table. (...) It was very disappointing."
Isn't that the only possible conclusion that one can reach after watching any debate about religion? Once you have seen one or two of such debates, you have seen them all, because the religious side always loses. How many new arguments can people still make up for the existence of a god from more than 2000 years ago? If there were any good arguments, we would know them by now.
@TheAtheist The goal of Hinduism is ultimately an insight. It's an experience, in which they call samadhi or what buddhists call nirvana or what Zen monks refer to as samadhi. It is a direct experience with the eternal source, call it God, but a Hindu would prefer it to be nameless.However, for purposes of dialogue, they refer to as brahman. Frankly, most atheists don't practice ancient meditative techniques, so they're perpetually circumambulating the proof. It's regarded by them as hokum.
@TheAtheistExperience I"ve seen debates where if we picked a winner it would have been the religious side just because the atheistic side was pretty uneducated. If we're talking about educated atheists debating... Then no I've never seen them lose :D
Holy fucking shit the father's definition of FAITH was bulllllllshiiiiit... He basically describes multiple characteristics that cannot be linked to the work faith in the slightest. WOW. Just, wow...
@TheAtheistExperience I suspect there may be good arguments. There are lots of good arguments for crappy things. By good, of course, I mean entertaining, not true. I was into father Jacobse idea around the narrative. We do explain everything in little stories, but he never really brought his thoughts together. He seemed really stoned, he should have come sober. I think he could have done better.
This priest seems to be like a new age hippy ..... Im sure by sub-conscience admission of Internet porn addiction, hes just skipping over those "non-trippy vibes in the bible dude!"
the way these "debates" are structured is always a joke
it allows people like this priest to ramble on and make stupid pointless points that are easily refuted or have already been refuted just a minute ago, they get to go in circles and avoid answering or justifying anything substantial
man it is so clear that this priest does not actually believe anything he's saying, rather he is forced to lie about it because he is absolutely petrified of the notion that atheism allows nihilism and he thinks theism is the only way to prevent that .. i think this was in fact true in all of human history until the information age i.e now we can raise awareness of the rational nature of morality much easier than ever before and now we can realize the importance of doing so
my opinion is that we are fucked as a species if our morality comes from a desperate hope that our morals come from a god as motivation to do good in the first place... as if it takes that much to do good! do it from tha heart. not for a reward.
He's stating that faith didn't exist before Jesus????
The Bible claims God saw that all mankind was corrupt, yet Noah was the only "just man & walked with God"... but Noah couldn't have had 'faith' in god because faith didn't exist yet? That makes alotta sense.
I have little respect for Father Hans. His history only seems to go back to 1900. He harps on Hitler (a Christian) and Stalin and the failed atheist agenda but forgets about the crusades and the inquisition, which were motivated by Christian religion. Stalin may have had atheism in his belief system, but his ultimate motivation was acquiring power. He is no different than medieval kings who proclaimed the divinity of their rule yet were motivated by power. This makes me proud to be an atheist.
00:51 "I define faith, since it came into existence 2000 years ago..." So before that time... there was no such thing as faith? Won't the Jewish be surprised to hear that!
Hans ends this on yet another fallacy (surprise, surprise): he went from "truth can be found in stories that aren't real" to "so truth can be of things that aren't material" to "so there are things that are not material that exist" to "souls are things that aren't material, so they exist"... total non sequitur gibberish =/
Every one of the pedopriests ridiculous (deserving of ridicule) pseudo-argument stories has been roundly and soundly dealt with and debunked for years now. Is there no new material?
Holy crap it sounds like a Tuberculosis ward in there.
The theist guy babbles on like a crazyman, making giant leaps of illogic in a desperate attempt to make faith sound like a reasonable proposition. Faith is utterly meaningless when it comes to proving any god as it would be useless for proving that invisible green fairies live inside our brains.
AMG, stop rambling about nothing! Matt, you owned him. Too bad the theist wasted so much time.
a bit of history:man in power in those day was religion man(politic and religion was one all together) relgious was politician and politicien was religious man and they use their own religion as a vshicule to promulgate their morals value
Seems to me that the father/priest was thinking: " Holy shit, there is a huge crowd looking at me! It must be that time of the week! ITS SERMON TIME!!!"
The pedophile basically says that he believes in things that seem nice and rest well with him emotionally... He doesnt really seem to care if they are actually true..... Its interesting.... I think that deep down he is afraid of the consequences of not believing in Jesus (like hell and worthlessness) and he has to perform some serious mental gymnastics to keep this idea in the face of rational debate.
I feel so bad for Matt. He's such an incredible speaker and great debater, and he deserves to share the stage with someone way more intelligent and intellectually honest than this fool. It's like a college professor arguing with a three year old about the existence of a monster in the closet.
Did I hear that right? Fr. Jacobse said faith came into existence 2000 years ago? Presumably with his Jesus? I guess Fr. J completely ignores and discounts the "faith" held by early Hebrews (forerunners to Ch'tianity) and the millions of pre-christian peoples who worshiped countless gods? They didn't have faith? Faith only belongs to the followers of a dead Jewish carpenter?
@Turandot29 The guy is clearly ignorant of the history and beliefs of other religions, past and present, or is so blinkered that he believes in the exceptionalism of Christianity, despite such knowledge.
thank science for the fast forward slider on the video. the priest causes brain cell loss. irrationals are so painful to understand. major fail priest. excellent job Matt as usual.
I think it would be interesting to have had this debate in Twitter format: 140 characters per response. And all the questions had to be submitted ahead of time/moderated.
Yeesh, so much talk from the Jacobse, but so little meaningful content. I respect the guy's approach in that he seems very friendly and often very non-judgemental (often, but not always), but his arguments are the same tired, unprovable blather that theists have always been spouting in these kind of debates.
I was struck while watching this debate how the preist continually referred to 'narrative'.
This to me illustrates the fundamental difference between the debaters. Matt talks of facts and a reality that we can share; the universe will exist without us.
The preist talks of the power of 'narrative'; the very human wish to see a story and be a part of something.
I see Glenn Beck style polemics as narrative, divorced from empirical truth. Powerful in an emotional world, but essentially false
That's it! That's it! I'm renouncing my atheism and I am now going to become a Catholic. I'm convinced now and I will follow the priest into eternity. I'll be sure to bring my little boy with me.
Why? So you can become a comparable bull-shit artist? Sorry, this guy isn't even an artist. I don't see how he gets ANY recognition at all. His arguments were FAILS from the word go. Matt didn't even have to respond. He could have just sat down and let the priest talk himself into a loss.
@magreggins Just because we couldn't see them for all these years doesn't mean that they don't exist. =P
Though, granted, I assumed he had legs; were there talk of some magic being that controls life after death below his waste, I'd have been a bit more skeptical...
The concept of faith came into existence 2000 years ago with christianity? More accurately, from what i could find in 5 minutes research, is that this is definitely not true eg faith is a key tenament in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism all originating texts at about 500 bce that came from earlier oral traditions the age of which are unknown. I love how christians and the christian leaders are just constantly ignorant of everything. They shouldn't even be able to vote.
I was hoping someone would ask the priest about his meeting with Jesus - How and where did they meet? Did they have a pint together at his local? Did he ask Jesus about the despicable Hell doctrine? Are theoretical physicists on the right track with String Theory? ... so many questions, surely the good father didn't pass up on the opportunity.
Matt gave the priest a spanking he hasn't had since catholic school. Matt should really do more debates. I think he's every bit as good as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.
@HimmuraTube I personally think he's better than ALL of them - he understands the dynamics of debate better than they do, plus he can bring to bear the tools of logic - exposing the logical fallacies in their arguments.
I think teaming him with AronRa (in that Aron can handle evolutionary issues better tham Matt, while still being fluent in theology) would be almost the perfect combination against ANY apologists - except that, as a duo, their dynamic is a bit off (I've watched them together).
"Faith gets redefined in the present age because we no longer face cosmic despair and we no longer face fate. Even the atheists don't (this is a debt that they owe to Christianity), so faith is what? Faith is recognizing that life indeed does have a spiritual dimension..."
It's so unfortunate that the Father went to the mass murder argument, it leaves a bitter taste, I'm glad that Matt did not enter the "pointing fingers"- match.
The Father left a very unfortunate picture, he appeared to be lecturing with a certain arrogance and pride and seemed to try to instill fear and guilt.
He could have gone another way and mention examples where people of faith made sacrifices and good deeds, but well...
@DeletedDelusion Exactly, Matt was good enough and smart enough not to get into a whole body-count debate, which he could have done. He didn't. I respect him a great deal for that. Someone who is good at debate, asks good questions and just watches the opponent fail.
Matt was mostly silent. This allowed the good father to use most of the time to show everyone how deluded he is. However he was also not called out on much of his bullshit. In particular he claimed several times that modern science, reason and all good human accomplishments are the blessed child of a Christian mother culture. This is nothing less than a bald faced lie and Matt let him get away with it every time. An Atheist win, yes but only just.
It's pointless in argumentation to go after particulars like that, especially if you want to stay proffesionally on the subject (which was morality).
Treating it like a 'He said, she said' type of argumentation doesn't make you win a debate any more than the priests constantly going over historical contextual suppositions like genocides or Nazism etc...
I congratulate Matt heavilly on staying straight and true to the subject when the other speaker was driving wildly.
If there are time limits then Matt needs to learn to use his to it's fullest. That preacher sure knew how to bullshit, and at the least, Matt's long answer wouldn't be bullshit.
Ok, I thought I had some respect for this Christian through the debate, but his answers to the questions are an absolute pile of messy philosophical nonsense. He's practically preaching through an absurd argumentative standpoint that EVERYTHING comes under Christianity. What a dud.
Well, Matt answered all the questions he got, while Hans rambled on about closely related stuff. I hate that the people asking questions dosent just stop Hans and say "Wait a minute, you arent answering my question!". Why do they just accept his ramble?
I don't see how Father Hans is backing his side. He keeps stepping on his shit and talking fancy. The only thing he doesn't do is provide reasons for us to believe whatever he believes.
Is Hans stoned? He says long meaningless sentences, changes the subject and then makes assertions without any backup. My 12 year old nephew is an Atheist and he could beat him at a debate. That is not taking away Matt's performance because he made some very good points and went right to the point without going on and on about something not related like Hans did on the World War 1 subject.
@8eist totally, i started to listen to his answers but he rambles in circles about nothing. I skip ahead and he's still talking , i go back a little to make sure i havent skipped to far but no.
The Father keeps saying that truth comes from narrative. Lies are pure narrative. How does one determine true narrative from false narraive? You have to look at what is not narrative to distinguish between the two.
Wish Matt would have called him on his BS more but I see the value of his "let him hang himself" strategy. I don't think that Hans guy knew what he actually believes.
Matt, you did awesome. However, watching this whole thing through gave me a headache. Trying to decipher what the Father Jacobs was saying, in search for an actual answer, was fruitless. Matt, it was really good to see you in a debate like this. It's the first I've seen, and I hope to see many more. However, I think you need to be a little harder on the guys that jump around so much. That's my only issue. You should have pwned this guy, unmerciful.
I totally agree! He HAS to press harder. But remain calm and well mannered. Hitchens is master in debates. Matt D should watch many, if not all of Hitchens debates. He did well, but delivered very little, and this priest character wasnt all too bright either. Matt should have pulverized him, but he didnt.
But yes, Im looking forward to more of these debates, if there will be more debates in the future.
@extion I agree with extion's statement. I can only assume that Matt knew that the debate would eventually end with the preacher preaching, and also either dodging the question or phrasing the responses in a way that were muddled. I think Matt did a very good job at holding his stature during the debate, and rather ingeniously let Father Hans Jacobse mentally paint himself into a corner. After that happened, Hans had no other choice but to resort to practically every logical fallacy imaginable.
@extion i think the father was jumping around at first to try to bait matt into a trap. he made so many small mistakes an jabs at atheism early on matt would have had to use all his time just to point out the fathers flaws. matt did a great job of staying on topic, forcing jacobs to get more and more desperate as things went on. by the time the hitler card came out the crowd had had enough. "your lying"=unmercifully powned
He needs to make his points in long winded speeches because if he tried to reduce them to their simplest it would reveal how bankrupt they are. Matt on the other hand shows the complete opposite.
Matt's "Quest for Truth" is necessary because his brain was rotted out by (perhaps well-meaning, but woefully ignorant) Christians filling his head with lies at an impressionable age. I relate to Matt's story, as I'm sure many here do. My children will never set foot in a church unless by their own volition... and if they do... I'll force them to read the bible... that ought to cure it. How's everyone dealing with X-mas, though? FSM decorated trees? Happy Gift Day? Fuuuuck.
I originally watched this on the umbcofc channel and was already bothered by their censoring of comments however i managed to watch this "debate" all the way through.
What a mockery of such a refined art of debating.
The moderator had apparently forgotten the rules he set forth and let the preacher blather on to no end doing nothing but preforming clumsy linguistic acrobatics and parrot like speeches while fellatio-ing the crowd with soft words to gain a positive facet.
MRAAAAAAAHHHH the priests' rambling are melting my brain! only people with limited intelligence could listen to this guy and sit there and think "hmm, yeah, he knows what he's talking about."
quest for truth is human nature, and theres absolutely evidence for that whereas it coming from god has none. knowing stuff helps people survive. done. knowing stuff does not help people get saved however. remember when the snake told adam n eve the truth?? god got pissed n banned em.
Oh my, what gilded turds came out of Father Han's mouth. So many ways to pretty up the simple and frankly bullshit statement that the fact we can't completely explain art/music/literature must mean we were created by a magic man in the sky.
I was hopeful that he'd be one of the relatively nice members of the clergy and avoid slandering atheists but, really, what else does a guy like this have debate-wise given the frailty of his "argument"?
@bowlsallbroken I have no idea how art/music has to do with morality in this debate. But its funny because art and music does have reason behind it. The fact that art is more appreciable by studying its origin, cause, and reason alone destroys the notion that art is not explainable. The father is arguing from ignorance - I don't know any reason behind art, therefore it is unexplainable. I think this debate would have been much more entertaining if Matt was talking to a brick wall.
@J3yblivion yea, apparently atheists get potty mouths when blamed for hitler then lectured on the immorality of jacking off. perhaps if the next debate doesnt feature a complete asshat trying to sell his religion the whole time, the comments might be a bit more intellectual.
I think Matt did pretty well in general on this one. He definitely went easy on Nameless Preacher-guy, but the formal timed debate format pretty much necessitates choosing your battles. He had to let most of the little BS claims slide in order to stay on topic and within the time limits. Also, it's hard to bring people around to your way of thinking if you act like a penis. Still, it would have been entertaining to see an AE-style spanking.
matt pwned, and was the most civilized...as expected.
the christian guy, as expected also "i believe this, and this, and this, and this and..." he's got a whole bunch of beliefs so that you can't possibly debunk them all.
the meta belief of christianity however as I see it, is not the belief in god. It's the belief that without that particular religion, you are in a nihilistic despair (which is obviously not true, since a lot of people aren't christians, and are doing quite fine)
I listened to this debate whilst working. The handful of statements which drew me back into the debate were Matt Dilahunty's, the rest was nothing more than white-noise.
Why does it make me queasy whenever that preacher talks about 'the atheist'? It's almost like hearing a Nazi talk about 'the Jew' or a racist about 'the negro'.
Jacobse beliefs about atheist are bigoted and he is a vile liar. This debate was agonizing.
esplin227 1 month ago
Matt answers the questions succinctly and in plain language easy to understand. The other guy talks and talks and talks and not only doesn't answer the question, but doesn't even say anything at all.
xipheonj 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience 2
Matt was too polite. I would like to see father Jacobse call the show and assert all those things he did here and see what would Matt do to him.
ljubboyt 3 months ago 2
Thumbs up if you think the Priest should shut the fu** up. There is a high and direct correlation between the rate of my dying brain cells and the amount of time he gets to speak.
TheMadJammer 3 months ago
poor man
naughteedesign 5 months ago
Two minutes to answer a question. Come on priest
kloveless82 6 months ago
i have faith i can beat mike tyson in a boxing match lol
FIGHTFANNERD3 7 months ago
ill say it agian humans dont have free will
FIGHTFANNERD3 7 months ago
Art, culture, creativity, does religion really hold a monopoly on this?
GoogleVideoMan 7 months ago
@GoogleVideoMan Apparently so, just like Atheism holds a monopoly on Totalitarianism. This priest almost brings me to despair, at least it seems he didn't have much of the audience on his side.
styot 4 months ago in playlist The Source of Human Morality
This debate was ok. Matt did his usual great job at answering the questions, while the priest just rambled on. I dont think anyone would change there mind with this debate but I must say that I am still not convinced that religion has any justification. Many people say the bible is the truth while clearly it is not. It really is a pick your own adventure book. Assumptions and fallacies fill religion so much so that if there where any real evidence to any of it, it is so muddled i cant tell.
ourworld287 10 months ago
I just read the comments whenever the Preist finished his first sentence.
When will religious people learn to think for themselves? Maybe, then, they'll start to actually make sense.
Vessoland 10 months ago
Defining faith took this priest from 0:56 until 3.57, and all he speaks his garbage. It is exactly what Matt said, excuse in absence of evidence. He reminds of Deepak Chopra, all talk and no sense.
statickk14 10 months ago 3
why did this preacher get to blab on and on about bullshit??? ONE-SIDED MUCH???? This is Not a debate.. although it did make the preacher look like a superstitious fool, I still think it was entirely one-sided and he had wayy more time to spew his bullshit then Matt had to speak reason and logic... it's not right.. and totally unfair... I say this now ... FUCK YOU to all you fairy tale believing morons who think that God gives you your moral values.. you're dumb and entirely unintellectual. F-U
legacy917 10 months ago
Man, this priest is babbling on and on and on... GET TO THE FUCKING POINT ALREADY, god!!!!
dadiddlydooda 10 months ago
Fits the saying, "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person". Someone should tell the father that the sheer number of words used in the debate doesn't determine a winner.
mgp13 11 months ago
I'm surprised by the level of restraint matt had towards the outrageous claims by the preist, he could easily refuted all his claims very easily but let them all go as if to say i don't disagree. once you let someone make an outrageous claim and don't dispute them, your essentially saying there is no arguement for that and from watching his shows tells me that he had very good rebuttals to those claims however choose not to voice them. alot being said but nothing being told in a way
rustedromeo 11 months ago
The only people who could fuck up their own strawman arguments are religious folk...and I'm not even going to get into the fact that this guy preaches all the way through this debate using overly picturesque language and always seems to spin in circles around a particular question..Overall, I'm really dissapointed and I wish Matt would have atleast ended the debate by going "NO NO NO YOU'RE DONE!"
stranger201 11 months ago
I actually thought the preacher made a few thought provoking points. I'm not quite sure how he manages to mould his views into Christianity & he did have to skip around a few questions & repeat the same shit over & over... but I was expecting much less... like debunking evolution, ID, creationism, spouting bible verses & crap like that.
MrLittletomdj 11 months ago
Nice editing :-
Falloutglitch 1 year ago
How did this guy get on the same stage with Matt. All he did is bash Atheists. How moral is that?
shaneisawesome11 1 year ago 3
this was incredibly trying . . . does the preacher ever shut up and stop preaching?
Matt actually answered his questions. The preacher never answered anything, he just kept on preaching . . .
yukiyamashinobisha 1 year ago 3
Jacobse's voice is filled with acid whenever he says "atheist", and it is sad that he so misinterprets (or misrepresents) atheism. He also seems to run in circles trying to highlight creativity and the "numinous" as something that cannot ever be explained physically. Dillahunty was right to evoke Harris and a questioner was right to evoke Shermer, and I wish those perspectives could have been brought further to better undermine Jacobse's assertions.
Tierdaen 1 year ago 2
I say Score 1 for Atheist.
Xather15 1 year ago 3
The moral zeitgeist continues on in spite of religion. How will religion be twisted into relevancy if we continue on the evolutionary process and our biological limitations through technology?
viperx77 1 year ago
Wait, did he say Faith came into existence 2000 years ago....??? (0.50)
ulodetero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not." - Epicurus
Cosmic despair indeed.
Thatonedude917 1 year ago
i wanna meet matt someday
pantera880 1 year ago 2
The claim that the universe has had a beginning is itself an unproven claim and by making such claims as if they were proven facts, the atheist side show to be no better than the Christian fundamentalist side. Both are dogmatic, ignorant, arrogant and intellectually immature.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
I thought, when I saw that Matt was in a debate on here, that it would be more fun. I guess I figured that if they went to the trouble of setting this debate up they would give him an opponent who would get me thinking, even if I disagreed with him. This guy, though, really brought nothing to the table. God makes creativity? Totalitarianism requires atheism? Religion is self-correcting and atheism isn't? It was very disappointing.
OgreVI 1 year ago 29
@OgreVI
- "This guy [father Jacobse], though, really brought nothing to the table. (...) It was very disappointing."
Isn't that the only possible conclusion that one can reach after watching any debate about religion? Once you have seen one or two of such debates, you have seen them all, because the religious side always loses. How many new arguments can people still make up for the existence of a god from more than 2000 years ago? If there were any good arguments, we would know them by now.
TheAtheistExperience 1 year ago 41
@TheAtheistExperience very true
valsotto27 1 year ago
@TheAtheist The goal of Hinduism is ultimately an insight. It's an experience, in which they call samadhi or what buddhists call nirvana or what Zen monks refer to as samadhi. It is a direct experience with the eternal source, call it God, but a Hindu would prefer it to be nameless.However, for purposes of dialogue, they refer to as brahman. Frankly, most atheists don't practice ancient meditative techniques, so they're perpetually circumambulating the proof. It's regarded by them as hokum.
Hanahleia 1 year ago
@TheAtheistExperience I"ve seen debates where if we picked a winner it would have been the religious side just because the atheistic side was pretty uneducated. If we're talking about educated atheists debating... Then no I've never seen them lose :D
evergreen9375 7 months ago
Holy fucking shit the father's definition of FAITH was bulllllllshiiiiit... He basically describes multiple characteristics that cannot be linked to the work faith in the slightest. WOW. Just, wow...
evergreen9375 7 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience I suspect there may be good arguments. There are lots of good arguments for crappy things. By good, of course, I mean entertaining, not true. I was into father Jacobse idea around the narrative. We do explain everything in little stories, but he never really brought his thoughts together. He seemed really stoned, he should have come sober. I think he could have done better.
ariuszarim 7 months ago
This priest seems to be like a new age hippy ..... Im sure by sub-conscience admission of Internet porn addiction, hes just skipping over those "non-trippy vibes in the bible dude!"
noahalmighty77 1 year ago
this priest is clueless
the way these "debates" are structured is always a joke
it allows people like this priest to ramble on and make stupid pointless points that are easily refuted or have already been refuted just a minute ago, they get to go in circles and avoid answering or justifying anything substantial
what a joke
SkepticalMuffin 1 year ago 2
man it is so clear that this priest does not actually believe anything he's saying, rather he is forced to lie about it because he is absolutely petrified of the notion that atheism allows nihilism and he thinks theism is the only way to prevent that .. i think this was in fact true in all of human history until the information age i.e now we can raise awareness of the rational nature of morality much easier than ever before and now we can realize the importance of doing so
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago 2
@LaserBlowFish Belief in belief. (Phil. D.C. Dennett)
FortisConscius 1 year ago
my opinion is that we are fucked as a species if our morality comes from a desperate hope that our morals come from a god as motivation to do good in the first place... as if it takes that much to do good! do it from tha heart. not for a reward.
xBLOODBAFx 1 year ago 2
He's stating that faith didn't exist before Jesus????
The Bible claims God saw that all mankind was corrupt, yet Noah was the only "just man & walked with God"... but Noah couldn't have had 'faith' in god because faith didn't exist yet? That makes alotta sense.
DTiberius 1 year ago 3
"Faith" didn't come into existence 2,000 years ago......only your religion did.
pickles4all 1 year ago 2
finally someone turns it around, and rapes this priest in the ass!
matt smashed him...
buktomsin 1 year ago 2
@buktomsin the priest got Mattslapped
CIarKent 1 year ago
@CIarKent lol
buktomsin 1 year ago
This preacher just made things up as he went along with no justification for *anything* he said. Matt won, hands down.
Iverath 1 year ago 2
I have little respect for Father Hans. His history only seems to go back to 1900. He harps on Hitler (a Christian) and Stalin and the failed atheist agenda but forgets about the crusades and the inquisition, which were motivated by Christian religion. Stalin may have had atheism in his belief system, but his ultimate motivation was acquiring power. He is no different than medieval kings who proclaimed the divinity of their rule yet were motivated by power. This makes me proud to be an atheist.
PantomimeHorseMusic 1 year ago 3
00:51 "I define faith, since it came into existence 2000 years ago..." So before that time... there was no such thing as faith? Won't the Jewish be surprised to hear that!
MultiSteveB 1 year ago 4
Hans ends this on yet another fallacy (surprise, surprise): he went from "truth can be found in stories that aren't real" to "so truth can be of things that aren't material" to "so there are things that are not material that exist" to "souls are things that aren't material, so they exist"... total non sequitur gibberish =/
Truthiness231 1 year ago 2
Every one of the pedopriests ridiculous (deserving of ridicule) pseudo-argument stories has been roundly and soundly dealt with and debunked for years now. Is there no new material?
Split539 1 year ago
Holy crap it sounds like a Tuberculosis ward in there.
The theist guy babbles on like a crazyman, making giant leaps of illogic in a desperate attempt to make faith sound like a reasonable proposition. Faith is utterly meaningless when it comes to proving any god as it would be useless for proving that invisible green fairies live inside our brains.
AMG, stop rambling about nothing! Matt, you owned him. Too bad the theist wasted so much time.
Take some god-damned cough drops, people!
spacep0d 1 year ago
WHAT THE FUCK????
Faith came into existence 2000 years ago?
What the hell is this pries smoking?
ArcyTheFurryArcanine 1 year ago 4
a bit of history:man in power in those day was religion man(politic and religion was one all together) relgious was politician and politicien was religious man and they use their own religion as a vshicule to promulgate their morals value
mystisme 1 year ago
The father just talks so much and yet says little. And he did it through all the vids, not just this one. It made watching the 9 vids quite trying.
FreeThoughtSolution 1 year ago 51
The good father failed miserably. Unless of course it was his intention to show that christianity is just bastardised judaism and paganism.
Here4Years 1 year ago 3
Seems to me that the father/priest was thinking: " Holy shit, there is a huge crowd looking at me! It must be that time of the week! ITS SERMON TIME!!!"
And proceeds to preach about faith.... wow
zh1412 1 year ago 2
I feel dumber for having watched this debate, luckily Matt was there to keep me from melting into a blathering blob
technosasquatch 1 year ago
The pedophile basically says that he believes in things that seem nice and rest well with him emotionally... He doesnt really seem to care if they are actually true..... Its interesting.... I think that deep down he is afraid of the consequences of not believing in Jesus (like hell and worthlessness) and he has to perform some serious mental gymnastics to keep this idea in the face of rational debate.
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
@tempemonkey2323 I like how you used pedophile as a synonym for priest. They have well earned it
technosasquatch 1 year ago
@technosasquatch Just doing my job to bring the catholic church down...
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
The answer the Priest gives for Faith is HILARIOUS! He never answers any of the questions.
Jahkillian 1 year ago 2
I feel so bad for Matt. He's such an incredible speaker and great debater, and he deserves to share the stage with someone way more intelligent and intellectually honest than this fool. It's like a college professor arguing with a three year old about the existence of a monster in the closet.
proudhug 1 year ago 6
It will be a good day when humans can put these myths on the junk pile.
a300pilotster 1 year ago 5
Did I hear that right? Fr. Jacobse said faith came into existence 2000 years ago? Presumably with his Jesus? I guess Fr. J completely ignores and discounts the "faith" held by early Hebrews (forerunners to Ch'tianity) and the millions of pre-christian peoples who worshiped countless gods? They didn't have faith? Faith only belongs to the followers of a dead Jewish carpenter?
Turandot29 1 year ago 2
@Turandot29 The guy is clearly ignorant of the history and beliefs of other religions, past and present, or is so blinkered that he believes in the exceptionalism of Christianity, despite such knowledge.
aido92 1 year ago 2
This guy didn't do anything but repeat the same old canards Matt Dillahunty debunked repeatedly and then preach.
jbourget32 1 year ago 3
..."evidence for things not seen"... holy sh*t...an appeal to superstition just would not be complete without this kind of stupidity, would it?
Does being religious make one ignorant or does one have to be ignorant to be religious?
faithisfiction 1 year ago 2
@faithisfiction Both.
TianSan 1 year ago
@faithisfiction
It's a turn-about on Euthyfro's Dilemma...it continues to have more and more applications.
FrizzKid05 1 year ago
thank science for the fast forward slider on the video. the priest causes brain cell loss. irrationals are so painful to understand. major fail priest. excellent job Matt as usual.
hmala 1 year ago
thank science for the fast forward slider on the video. the priest causes brain cell loss. irrationals are so painful to understand.
hmala 1 year ago 2
DO OVER! This time stay on topic!
Existentialisht 1 year ago
I think it would be interesting to have had this debate in Twitter format: 140 characters per response. And all the questions had to be submitted ahead of time/moderated.
jkzl1008 1 year ago
Priest - God exists!
Matt - Prove It
Priest - L:KJSDL:GKJSLDKJFGK:SDJFLK:SJDF
MassacreBlast 1 year ago 3
why why WHY!!!!! must he ramble on!!!! >:o
janjust 1 year ago 3
the pastor didn't actually say anything - at tleast anything useful or meaningful.
sparrow111260 1 year ago 6
Yeesh, so much talk from the Jacobse, but so little meaningful content. I respect the guy's approach in that he seems very friendly and often very non-judgemental (often, but not always), but his arguments are the same tired, unprovable blather that theists have always been spouting in these kind of debates.
kgh001 1 year ago 3
I was struck while watching this debate how the preist continually referred to 'narrative'.
This to me illustrates the fundamental difference between the debaters. Matt talks of facts and a reality that we can share; the universe will exist without us.
The preist talks of the power of 'narrative'; the very human wish to see a story and be a part of something.
I see Glenn Beck style polemics as narrative, divorced from empirical truth. Powerful in an emotional world, but essentially false
dalinean 1 year ago 2
How can atheists 'owe a debt' to christianity when there were atheists long before anyone even thought of inventing christianity?
This priest has no sense of right and wrong when he just makes stuff up as he goes. Doesn't he know that lying is wrong?
proudfootz 1 year ago 6
People 5000 years didn't know better, but now. Come on theists, just think about it.
RedOrangeSystem 1 year ago 4
Of course we have free will. We've got no choice.
Provoker7 1 year ago
That's it! That's it! I'm renouncing my atheism and I am now going to become a Catholic. I'm convinced now and I will follow the priest into eternity. I'll be sure to bring my little boy with me.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago 3
@FaganRoberts
Why? So you can become a comparable bull-shit artist? Sorry, this guy isn't even an artist. I don't see how he gets ANY recognition at all. His arguments were FAILS from the word go. Matt didn't even have to respond. He could have just sat down and let the priest talk himself into a loss.
FrizzKid05 1 year ago
@FrizzKid05 It was sarcasm, Frizz. But I agree with your counterpoints.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts
I was wondering about that. Maybe I should have asked first, eh? haha
FrizzKid05 1 year ago
@FrizzKid05 No problem. Carry on, me friend.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
Holy CRAP!
MATT HAS LEGS!!!
magreggins 1 year ago 76
@magreggins That is toooo funny
emeralds222 1 year ago
@magreggins
Proof that god heals amputees!
CSRevenant 1 year ago
Comment removed
CSRevenant 1 year ago
@magreggins Just because we couldn't see them for all these years doesn't mean that they don't exist. =P
Though, granted, I assumed he had legs; were there talk of some magic being that controls life after death below his waste, I'd have been a bit more skeptical...
Truthiness231 1 year ago
wow, what a pain to sit trough that preists babble "omg"
joke intended -.-
painterQjensen 1 year ago
Did Jacobse make any sense to anyone else? If he did, I must've missed it.
Peace.
klhcc 1 year ago 4
The concept of faith came into existence 2000 years ago with christianity? More accurately, from what i could find in 5 minutes research, is that this is definitely not true eg faith is a key tenament in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism all originating texts at about 500 bce that came from earlier oral traditions the age of which are unknown. I love how christians and the christian leaders are just constantly ignorant of everything. They shouldn't even be able to vote.
1010011010is29a 1 year ago 4
@1010011010is29a Agreed.
lm1289 1 year ago
I was hoping someone would ask the priest about his meeting with Jesus - How and where did they meet? Did they have a pint together at his local? Did he ask Jesus about the despicable Hell doctrine? Are theoretical physicists on the right track with String Theory? ... so many questions, surely the good father didn't pass up on the opportunity.
Boepyne 1 year ago 2
Matt gave the priest a spanking he hasn't had since catholic school. Matt should really do more debates. I think he's every bit as good as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.
HimmuraTube 1 year ago 3
@HimmuraTube That guy is not catholic :)
DreamMarko 1 year ago
@DreamMarko hrmm...didn't they refer to him as a priest? priest=catholic? otherwise he's a minister?
HimmuraTube 1 year ago
@HimmuraTube I always thought that was the same, but they did say, during debate, that he is an orthodox priest.
DreamMarko 1 year ago
@HimmuraTube I personally think he's better than ALL of them - he understands the dynamics of debate better than they do, plus he can bring to bear the tools of logic - exposing the logical fallacies in their arguments.
I think teaming him with AronRa (in that Aron can handle evolutionary issues better tham Matt, while still being fluent in theology) would be almost the perfect combination against ANY apologists - except that, as a duo, their dynamic is a bit off (I've watched them together).
steveb0503 1 year ago
"Faith gets redefined in the present age because we no longer face cosmic despair and we no longer face fate. Even the atheists don't (this is a debt that they owe to Christianity), so faith is what? Faith is recognizing that life indeed does have a spiritual dimension..."
Wow. Face/palm!
Smudge4C 1 year ago
It's so unfortunate that the Father went to the mass murder argument, it leaves a bitter taste, I'm glad that Matt did not enter the "pointing fingers"- match.
The Father left a very unfortunate picture, he appeared to be lecturing with a certain arrogance and pride and seemed to try to instill fear and guilt.
He could have gone another way and mention examples where people of faith made sacrifices and good deeds, but well...
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
@DeletedDelusion Exactly, Matt was good enough and smart enough not to get into a whole body-count debate, which he could have done. He didn't. I respect him a great deal for that. Someone who is good at debate, asks good questions and just watches the opponent fail.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
Matt was mostly silent. This allowed the good father to use most of the time to show everyone how deluded he is. However he was also not called out on much of his bullshit. In particular he claimed several times that modern science, reason and all good human accomplishments are the blessed child of a Christian mother culture. This is nothing less than a bald faced lie and Matt let him get away with it every time. An Atheist win, yes but only just.
bhoustonfx 1 year ago
@bhoustonfx
It's pointless in argumentation to go after particulars like that, especially if you want to stay proffesionally on the subject (which was morality).
Treating it like a 'He said, she said' type of argumentation doesn't make you win a debate any more than the priests constantly going over historical contextual suppositions like genocides or Nazism etc...
I congratulate Matt heavilly on staying straight and true to the subject when the other speaker was driving wildly.
IMO Epic win
FoxBatinaHat 1 year ago
If there are time limits then Matt needs to learn to use his to it's fullest. That preacher sure knew how to bullshit, and at the least, Matt's long answer wouldn't be bullshit.
1010011010is29a 1 year ago
@shiveryshiva he should learn from you in getting right to the point, but then it would be easy for people to tell he was admitting it's not true. =)
CutieBabe25 1 year ago
@shiveryshiva Yep. I wish he could explain himself as concisely as you just did.
sinmantyx 1 year ago
Ok, I thought I had some respect for this Christian through the debate, but his answers to the questions are an absolute pile of messy philosophical nonsense. He's practically preaching through an absurd argumentative standpoint that EVERYTHING comes under Christianity. What a dud.
AnAtheisticAbomb 1 year ago 2
I'm sorry for watching porn and destroying our culture everyone. 9_9
52questionmarks 1 year ago 2
Yes! I managed to watch the whole debate!
Like the gentleman in the audience, it would have been difficult for me to not call Hans out on is farces and inflations.
Matt, you were wonderfully witty without demonstrating dogmatism, bravo sir.
CyberDraco 1 year ago
Hans is a fool
zofoblues 1 year ago
Well, Matt answered all the questions he got, while Hans rambled on about closely related stuff. I hate that the people asking questions dosent just stop Hans and say "Wait a minute, you arent answering my question!". Why do they just accept his ramble?
Arcrer 1 year ago
Go MATT Go!
UsernameClayton 1 year ago
On the atheistexperience blogspot you can watch the follow-up panel.
MrFacet 1 year ago 2
I don't see how Father Hans is backing his side. He keeps stepping on his shit and talking fancy. The only thing he doesn't do is provide reasons for us to believe whatever he believes.
HonestGamer1 1 year ago
Well done, Matt.
MindAndMarzipan 1 year ago
Is Hans stoned? He says long meaningless sentences, changes the subject and then makes assertions without any backup. My 12 year old nephew is an Atheist and he could beat him at a debate. That is not taking away Matt's performance because he made some very good points and went right to the point without going on and on about something not related like Hans did on the World War 1 subject.
CutieBabe25 1 year ago
@CutieBabe25 You should keep your 12 year old away from the father :)
MauricXe 1 year ago
I can't understand that preecher at all. The whole time he talks about poetry and sites that as evidence. Poetry isn't evidence.
GKCanman 1 year ago
I think someone put peyote is Hans' soup.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
I feel like Father Jackovski's entire side of this debate was one huge appeal to authority and ignorance.
thismindofmine 1 year ago
Matt: "...belief in something without a good reason."
Father Jackovski: "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..."
8eist 1 year ago 23
@8eist totally, i started to listen to his answers but he rambles in circles about nothing. I skip ahead and he's still talking , i go back a little to make sure i havent skipped to far but no.
KongKit 1 year ago
is the priest high or sumthing
KongKit 1 year ago
The Father keeps saying that truth comes from narrative. Lies are pure narrative. How does one determine true narrative from false narraive? You have to look at what is not narrative to distinguish between the two.
8WholeThing 1 year ago 2
Wish Matt would have called him on his BS more but I see the value of his "let him hang himself" strategy. I don't think that Hans guy knew what he actually believes.
Hopeful71 1 year ago 3
did he just say that faith came into existence about 2000 years ago?
inuhgungju 1 year ago
@inuhgungju yeah i know right, as to say that Jewish faith has no faith, kind of painted himself into a corner if anyone were to ask him about that
wayneqjr 1 year ago
Textbook filibustering from Hans.
FuckYouYouFuck 1 year ago
Slaughter.
exmerion 1 year ago
Matt did a fantastic job I thought. The Father started out likable but as the debate went on I just lost all respect for him.
vicious3579 1 year ago 2
Father Hans wasn't debating, he was preaching...
PDzero 1 year ago 4
Matt, you did awesome. However, watching this whole thing through gave me a headache. Trying to decipher what the Father Jacobs was saying, in search for an actual answer, was fruitless. Matt, it was really good to see you in a debate like this. It's the first I've seen, and I hope to see many more. However, I think you need to be a little harder on the guys that jump around so much. That's my only issue. You should have pwned this guy, unmerciful.
extion 1 year ago
@extion
I totally agree! He HAS to press harder. But remain calm and well mannered. Hitchens is master in debates. Matt D should watch many, if not all of Hitchens debates. He did well, but delivered very little, and this priest character wasnt all too bright either. Matt should have pulverized him, but he didnt.
But yes, Im looking forward to more of these debates, if there will be more debates in the future.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@extion I agree with extion's statement. I can only assume that Matt knew that the debate would eventually end with the preacher preaching, and also either dodging the question or phrasing the responses in a way that were muddled. I think Matt did a very good job at holding his stature during the debate, and rather ingeniously let Father Hans Jacobse mentally paint himself into a corner. After that happened, Hans had no other choice but to resort to practically every logical fallacy imaginable.
figmentofyourmind 1 year ago 3
@extion i think the father was jumping around at first to try to bait matt into a trap. he made so many small mistakes an jabs at atheism early on matt would have had to use all his time just to point out the fathers flaws. matt did a great job of staying on topic, forcing jacobs to get more and more desperate as things went on. by the time the hitler card came out the crowd had had enough. "your lying"=unmercifully powned
largegrainsofsalt 1 year ago
He needs to make his points in long winded speeches because if he tried to reduce them to their simplest it would reveal how bankrupt they are. Matt on the other hand shows the complete opposite.
Shalek 1 year ago 3
Father Hans Jacobse NEEDS faith because that's all he's got when it comes to an honest debate on the source of morality.
AKICKTOTHEEYE 1 year ago
Father Jacobse's argument distilled:
Morality comes from God because that alternative leads to scary shit presumably.
Vinifera7 1 year ago
Matt's "Quest for Truth" is necessary because his brain was rotted out by (perhaps well-meaning, but woefully ignorant) Christians filling his head with lies at an impressionable age. I relate to Matt's story, as I'm sure many here do. My children will never set foot in a church unless by their own volition... and if they do... I'll force them to read the bible... that ought to cure it. How's everyone dealing with X-mas, though? FSM decorated trees? Happy Gift Day? Fuuuuck.
dannybambino 1 year ago
LOOOL, no such thing as faith before christianity existed. Christianity IS porn to this guy
IMelkor42 1 year ago 6
so wtf does the preist think faith is? He talked a lot but I don't think he actually said anything.
zodiakranch 1 year ago
Would have loved to see Hitchens tear this guy up although Mat did a respectable job
velendzas 1 year ago
Everything this guy says is idiotic. I have a headache.
Also, that's another thing myself and Matt have in common, we both enjoy alliteration.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
I'm appalled.
I originally watched this on the umbcofc channel and was already bothered by their censoring of comments however i managed to watch this "debate" all the way through.
What a mockery of such a refined art of debating.
The moderator had apparently forgotten the rules he set forth and let the preacher blather on to no end doing nothing but preforming clumsy linguistic acrobatics and parrot like speeches while fellatio-ing the crowd with soft words to gain a positive facet.
this1blackguy 1 year ago 32
So many lies and distortions from that priest....my head exploded! =D
lipoicacid 1 year ago 2
MRAAAAAAAHHHH the priests' rambling are melting my brain! only people with limited intelligence could listen to this guy and sit there and think "hmm, yeah, he knows what he's talking about."
It's ALL DRIVEL. POINTLESS DRIVEL.
ThePassiveFist 1 year ago 2
quest for truth is human nature, and theres absolutely evidence for that whereas it coming from god has none. knowing stuff helps people survive. done. knowing stuff does not help people get saved however. remember when the snake told adam n eve the truth?? god got pissed n banned em.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
Oh my, what gilded turds came out of Father Han's mouth. So many ways to pretty up the simple and frankly bullshit statement that the fact we can't completely explain art/music/literature must mean we were created by a magic man in the sky.
I was hopeful that he'd be one of the relatively nice members of the clergy and avoid slandering atheists but, really, what else does a guy like this have debate-wise given the frailty of his "argument"?
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago 11
@bowlsallbroken I have no idea how art/music has to do with morality in this debate. But its funny because art and music does have reason behind it. The fact that art is more appreciable by studying its origin, cause, and reason alone destroys the notion that art is not explainable. The father is arguing from ignorance - I don't know any reason behind art, therefore it is unexplainable. I think this debate would have been much more entertaining if Matt was talking to a brick wall.
etatauri 1 year ago
@etatauri
Word.
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
did anyone else notice how each one of the UMBCOCF videos are comment blocked and rating blocked? nonsense
J3yblivion 1 year ago
@J3yblivion yea, apparently atheists get potty mouths when blamed for hitler then lectured on the immorality of jacking off. perhaps if the next debate doesnt feature a complete asshat trying to sell his religion the whole time, the comments might be a bit more intellectual.
largegrainsofsalt 1 year ago
i wonder how many of us groaned when hans tried the old atheist nazi attack! yawn
aikidunk 1 year ago
Could anyone make sense of that bearded twat's poorly cherry-picked bit starting around the 50 second mark?
shaunmalley 1 year ago
Great to see matt stepping up his quest for rationality in this world. I hope he keeps going, he is pretty good at it.
luker4459 1 year ago
I think Matt did pretty well in general on this one. He definitely went easy on Nameless Preacher-guy, but the formal timed debate format pretty much necessitates choosing your battles. He had to let most of the little BS claims slide in order to stay on topic and within the time limits. Also, it's hard to bring people around to your way of thinking if you act like a penis. Still, it would have been entertaining to see an AE-style spanking.
danzarth1 1 year ago 15
matt pwned, and was the most civilized...as expected.
the christian guy, as expected also "i believe this, and this, and this, and this and..." he's got a whole bunch of beliefs so that you can't possibly debunk them all.
the meta belief of christianity however as I see it, is not the belief in god. It's the belief that without that particular religion, you are in a nihilistic despair (which is obviously not true, since a lot of people aren't christians, and are doing quite fine)
De4sher 1 year ago
4:16 ZOMG a thinking female... STONE HER! STONE HERRRR!!!
Brascofarian 1 year ago 2
I listened to this debate whilst working. The handful of statements which drew me back into the debate were Matt Dilahunty's, the rest was nothing more than white-noise.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago 3
Obviously humans which seek truth would have an evolutionary advantage over others who didn't, how retarded can you be?
moyga 1 year ago
Why does it make me queasy whenever that preacher talks about 'the atheist'? It's almost like hearing a Nazi talk about 'the Jew' or a racist about 'the negro'.
Vidar33 1 year ago 26