In this video, @SansDeity (Matt Dillahunty) and Andrew Wilson debate the topic: Christianity Vs Secular Humanism | Which Has The Best Ethical Foundation?
Warning: the conversation gets very unhinged.
The original video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8U34ezKvrU
MY DOCUMENTARY FILM: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/the_daily_dose_of_wisdom/
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/dailydoseofwisdomofficial/
TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
source
I have commented to his blindness in many occasions. I never quote the scriptures, but even I was able to best him in debate using humanistic power and how I wouldn’t trust humanistic ideologies when there is plenty of “ proof” that that trust doesn’t exist. So I stated how believing in something other than human trust is good enough for me. Humans attempt to trust in science based proof, I wouldn’t trust, and I wouldn’t create a religion around it for my own well being. Then the insults and mockery comes when he doesn’t have an answer. He’s irrelevant. May he accept the love and mercy through Gods grace.
If the atheist only knew. One day they will get exactly what they desire. They will get a chance to exist without God or his protection. An existence without his spirit or peace. When they receive this existence it will be too late for hope. I feel for them.
It was an epic take down of Matt dillahunty. His career just might be over
My goodness, I've never seen such a thorough can of whooping since the start of a debate! Hahaha, you can clearly see in this guy's face how his worldview is being shattered into pieces.
I used to be a fan of Matts when I was an atheist. Peterson brought me to the Bible. Hard times and a desperate prayer brought me to Jesus. I stopped being a fan of Matts before I heard Peterson Biblical lectures, however… Because he was a part of the "Atheist+ movement" in Austin, Texas. I got banned from their FB page for questioning the control freak moderators' rules (I was polite and still got banned for daring to question and challenge the ideas of these so-called free thinkers). Matt and his clan are neo-marxist postmodernist commies. They can't define what a woman is. They proclaim the all-powerful discerning capacity of the scientific method, yet reject basic biology to hypothetically protect the feelings of the most delusional amongst us. They defend Gender Theory sophistry and Critical Race Theory sophistry, while clearly never having read the source material… Peterson did a good job blowing Matt out of the water, but this guy just absolutely decimated him. Don't be afraid to offend him or yell at him, since his whole public broadcast show was built around him feigning offence and yelling ad nauseum at the offending caller… He stopped believing when he started his lessons to become a pastor. My guess is he went to a commie captured college and got pulled into their cult…
What preparation? He didnt have any prep.
Matt shouldn’t have quit. Andrew shouldn’t have made his points about Matt. Both failed to achieve their goals
wilson conceded the debate right at the start for those that missed it. then he insulted matt's partner, so its a really big win for christianity isn't it.
you may ask yourself "why is no one signing up to christianity any more" (pew polls and gallup) and people like wilson, and the commenters on this page are the reason, no one wants to be part of the bigots and abusers club anymore, if this is typical of christianity, then you can wave your silly little talking snake cult bye bye. the "nones" are outnumbering you already.
and i don't even like dillahunty, he can't control himself.
nice editing by the way. i do like nice editing.
Andrew had more than enough ammunition to destroy Matt's case, and he did so. But he also made himself the problem by being immature; mouthy; unloving. Matt was then able to take offense at Andrew instead of taking offense at his own offensive position, as it had been revealed.
Never become the problem. Be on your opponent's side. Helpfully reveal their misguided position and help them deal with reality instead of opening yourself for attack by being unloving.
Mann Matt…he shattered you . I really enjoyed this Christian's offense.
Lol, you all believe in make believe, and y’all think this is the only time in human history that these made up beliefs have been presented or believed in
Wow. Imagine getting so whooped you tap out before you throw a punch.
😂 Matt is such a hypocrite. This is how Matt talks on a daily basis. Now he’s all of a sudden above it ?
Atheist always act this way but never can stop what is going on out their words they speak out their mouth. Atheist have been doing this for 1000s of years and still have not stopped anything they whine about.
a couple of my videos used to get attacked by atheists. they are all very childish, calling names, repeating the mantras all the time. they all think they are scientists too. I asked multi-hundreds of them all to do an recorded interview over skype or some other way to defend their views and zero of them took the offer. they would spend hours leaving comments but never had a few minutes to chat. after more than a year of this going on I finally called the 'the atheist experience' show and it was hysterical. some funny questions to always ask them are:
1 what kind of person would ask for physical evidence of a non-physical being? what kind of evidence would satisfy you? fossils? video recording?
2 do you think it's funny that the word 'god' is in the definition of 'atheist'?
3 if you don't believe in a 'god' then why do you obsess over 'god' and religion?
4 when the big bang happened what exactly blew up? what caused the explosion?
5 does nature/evolution hate gay people since it won't let them reproduce?
6 what came first the proteins that build/reproduce dna or the dna that controls the proteins?
Christ is King
Dillahunty just gave up without a fight. I needed to see this a decade ago.
The theist was a bigoted A hole
This is a classic example of a right thing done in a wrong way. I’m sure it felt good for Mr. Wilson to unleash on the historically smug and arrogant Mr. Dillahunty at the time, but I fear Wilson lost far more in this exchange than Dillahunty.
What an absolute coward Dillahunty is. He spends decades in rebellious self professes atheism, mocking Christianity with no worldview to justify everything he assumes. Only to convert to the rainbow cult ( in an attempt to virtue signal) , abandoning whatever shred of rational he had left, leaving himself completely defeated and defenseless, even more than before. The TRUTH literally sends him packing.
You'd think that people would begin to figure out that societies that try to exist without God have only man to be their god, and he will make a very bad god. Check out the French Revolution, check out any Communist government from Russia to Pol Pot, check out any society that has no moral standard outside itself. Christianity has brought the west the best things it has, atheism has done its best to undermine and destroy it.
Matt Dillahunty has made great strides in the “Is God real argument” but has diluted himself by incorporating left politics into his arguments. Why he would even accept an opportunity to debate this subject makes no sense. When talking about subjects to debate between Christianly and Atheism, the topic of "Christianity vs Secular Humanism: Which has the best ethical foundation" is about as stupid as you can get. When you ask someone what the best (fill in the blank) is you will get a subjective answer. Ethics are subjective as are morals and most all the other things we argue philosophically. So, these are always a waste of time.
If Christians want to claim that they have the best ethical foundation. They are arguing that their ethical foundation is best because it most closely matches the way they live and are most comfortable with it, so it is subjective.
let’s go down the rabbit hole. Let's say Andrew obliterates Matt in the debate and it is decided that Christianity has the best ethical foundation. Ok great we have decided that Christianity has the best ethical foundation, but we have not proven that Christianity is true so now we have a debate "Christianity vs Islam: Which has the best ethical foundation" and let’s say that Islam is more convincing then for the same reason we followed Christian ethics after the first debate now we are now obligated to follow the Islamic ethics after that debate. Great job you have accomplished nothing. You need to prove God is real before it matters whose ethical foundation is better.
I have never met a Christian who can articulate what God’s moral code is. Maybe Matthew 22:37-39 clears it all up? Just do these two things and we are good. Unfortunately, “love your neighbor as yourself” is very subjective.
Name the Moral laws? Are they absolute or subjective?
Lol how rich… he couldn’t debate truth.
Jesus died for us all! Have a wonderful day!
Jesus is God!
(The Holy Trinity is true, no modalism or oneness)
Disappointing… I really wanted to see Matts Responses to all that.
I would find Matts offence taking at the lack of respect shown for his worldview less nauseating if he hadn’t built his career on being as offensive and disrespectful towards Christianity as possible
I came across this video at 3am and have watched it several times..in disbelief! To Matt D …chickens come home to roost!!! Can't wait to share this with my husband!! Thanks Brandon, i'm thoroughly enjoying your content brother!!
I am a believer of the most high, and what I saw makes me side with the Atheist on the grounds of failure of common decency in a debate. Debates are about explaining your position with FACTS, not using emotional dribble of "oh how bad their beliefs are" commentary as the "Christian" did.
I hang my head in shame that the "Christian" acknowledged and agreed with the Atheist there is no God in his long intro that did nothing but nit-pick the other side without explaining anything about his "Christian" world view. The Atheist was far more civil in the debate by saying things like "I hope his Christian version is better than the ones I head before".
The Christian on the debate floor sounded like he had a grudge against his fellow human. Christians are supposed to NEVER hold a grudge against anyone no matter what they do or how many times they do it.
I apologize to the Atheist for that Christian making the Atheist dislike God more because his representative acts like the Anti-Christ by coming in looking like a lamb but breathing fire.
this man is horrid
Matt Dillahunty goes out of his way to find uninformed people to "debate". I am actually kind of surprised he showed up if he hadn't already determined he was on safe ground.
MD will not dignified a debate where I have spend time preparing but knew nothing about the one he debated.
Matt is obviously a tool for the devil
Every time I tried to talk to my family with love and logic, they would literally physically attack me. That's what they did to Jesus. That is what happens. When people, who have rejected God, are confronted with truth, they go for the kill, or if they don't want to kill, they run.
Andrew won debate brilliantly
Irony 1. Is wrong – Matt said he prepared on the topic, not background research into the person he was debating. I think that’s correct. Matt discusses his views on the topic from his preparation, and then responds to the argument presented. Why should he need to do research on the views of the person presenting the argument?
Matt just realized his idealism make him look as a douchebag, couldn't take it.
I wonder how many of these Atheists would change there mind if they lived in a time where law and order completely broke down and there was no law . In war when law as we know it is absent this is where you see that the none believer is more likely to commit atricities or if an immoral government took office and brought in laws to allow one set of people take the property of another set, for example the Nazis,then a none believer would probably participate in good conscience as they are reacting under the protection of the law even if it is an immoral law because they have no reference to the perfect law of God which applies to all mankind regardless of persons. God respects no persons jew or gentile. In ww2 good people went along with the worst atrocity in human history and they mostly did it in good conscience because it was with in the law.but not God's perfect universal law.
The moderator should have stopped Wilson's constant interruptions. He had stronger points, but acted inappropriately.
Irony 2 is wrong – Matt talks broadly about Christian ideas on sexually mortality, using one person’s views as an example. He even says that the person doesn’t speak for every Christian, and every Christian might have different views. He openly says he doesn’t know his opponent’s views as all Christian’s have different views (even though their views on mortality are supposed to be objective – now THAT’s irony!) whereas his opponent miss represents Matt’s views based on strawmanning and quote mining from previous debates that Matt has done. A very devious, dishonest and underhanded way of debating.
Oh I love that “men without chest” quote. 15:35
Love how they call Christianity Stone Age myths when it was established during the Roman Empire.
So "virtues run amok" are virtues which are not anchored to God. They are virtues which are anchored to 7.8 billion gods, so to speak. Would that be correct?
Andrew is an example of a Christian who speaks the truth without reservation.
Christians, stop being cowards, engage these idiots.
Did he storm out because he was presented with BS evidence? You just have to look at a septillion of stars some of which our own sone could fit millions of times to release the dwarfishness of the god delusion 🤦🏼
So, after seeing the whole of the video, I am very sad that NOBODY, not Andrew, not Matt not even the audiance brought up science, at all, secular humanism doesn't just make shit up, they base their views on science, vs the bible, no one brought it up at all, WHY?!