Matt Dillahunty vs KabaneTheChristian on The Atheist Experience... NO CONTEST!!!

I'm surprised at the level of pretentious douchebaggery Matt calmly dealt with here.

All videos mirrored/courtesy of FFreeThinker

Category:

Education

Tags:

• The
• Atheist
• Experience
• Matt
• Dillahunty
• Don
• Baker
• atheist
• community
• austin

[KeithThompson2009]

Why do atheists start shouting when they lose debates? Do they think if they yell louder they will win?

[ShwaNerd]

When a theist is incapable of understanding a simple response, they have to raise their voice to keep the theist from rambling down a train of thought that gets nowhere, since its based on a wrong assumption in the first place. If they just let him talk, he'd be going for hours, and they would still be getting nowhere with him.

[Krensharpaw]

O brother, your group contiues to get pwned without knowing it's getting pwned.

[deepelmdesciple]

Matt got pwned?? Haha. No. Kabane got up the nerve to take on someone serious, and he got shit on. He can focus on who wrote what and all the bullshit details all he wants, it doesnt change anything.

[MrBiblecontradiction]

I think what the host of this program is trying to say is that they don't have any rational evidence to support most of the claims made about the authors Bible. You can still ask people today who wrote the book of Genesis and they will provide you with the name of Moses, even though we don't know for sure, 100% without a doubt, that he was the author.

[SketchBass]

@ShwaNerd

2 years late into the arguement, but oh well.

Kent Hovind.

need I say more?

[POC777]

Matthew was written by a Jewish man to a Jew audience. Matthew was Jewish, therefore, it was written by Matthew.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@tml4873 And actually, the caller does not establish the authorship of Matthew. His response is that Papias speaks of Matthew fifty years (or so) after the events it describes. This is patently false. What we have is the Church's master forger, Eusebius, claiming that Papias said that. None of Papias's works have survived. What we do know for a fact is that there is no record of anyone making specific reference to the written gospels until Ireneus does so around the year 180 CE.

[4IDHero]

@tml4873 Cont., then if an ancient piece of literature is established as authentic, genuine, historical, and as well as authorship, it's the content of what the author is saying to his audience, which there are a multitude of evidence supporting the Gospels as eye-witnessed accounts of this man in 1st Century Palestine named Jesus, who was crucified, who was buried and rose back from the dead. You don't back up your claims with an asserting that it is "absurd" in the first place.

[4IDHero]

@tml4873 "His only "point" was that the authorship of Matthew is known. So fucking what? I know who wrote Lord of the Rings. Now refute my claim that dragons exist."

So if historians agree that Matthian authorship best establishes Matthew as the sole author of the Gospel of Matthew, then we can establish as a historical reliable biographical piece of ancient literature, same goes for any piece of ancient writing, you're merely special pleading here, again. Dragons? lol, pulled out of ur ass?

[4IDHero]

@tml4873 "If you can't recognise how absurd it is in the first place, then you're probably not worth talking to."

Ahw, is someone special pleading here, you don't give any evidence to substantiated "why" the claims are absurd, you just assume it absurd, and then you conclude that it's absurd, then you try to talk some sense to everyone on Youtube by pointing out that it's absurd. You're the absurd one.

[4IDHero]

@tml4873 "It's hard to make a cogent point against a claim that is completely fucking absurd at the outset, without either descending into absurdity yourself, or simply illustrating how it's absurd." This is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, for you presuppose a claim to be false, then conclude that it is "absurd." It's a circular argument on your behalf. For you to claim it "absurd" you'd have to falsify the evidence given for the positive data for said claim. You are a fool.

[tml4873]

@4IDHero It's hard to make a cogent point against a claim that is completely fucking absurd at the outset, without either descending into absurdity yourself, or simply illustrating how it's absurd. If you can't recognise how absurd it is in the first place, then you're probably not worth talking to. His only "point" was that the authorship of Matthew is known. So fucking what? I know who wrote Lord of the Rings. Now refute my claim that dragons exist.

[tml4873]

What the fuck is "special pledding"?