Agnostics are Believers

[tosca1]

Matt Dillahunty used to be a firm believer. Baptist I think. He has his own YouTube channel and debates Christians and has debated theologians many times. He calls himself an agnostic atheist.

So what!

Hahaha - he must be unsure!

For all his posturing as an atheist, he's an agnostic at heart!

 

[tosca1]

I heard that story. Matt isn’t your white glove debater and he doesn’t tolerate ignorance and that’s why he cut it short. Had nothing to do with his saying he is an agnostic atheist though.

Hahahaha



When atheist apologist Matt Dillahunty engaged in his latest debate against theist Andrew Wilson about whether belief or disbelief in God was better for societal flourishing, he probably thought he would be the aggressor —
tearing apart happy-clappy attitudes Christian apologists tend to use.


No such luck. In fact, Wilson’s opening remarks were so scathing that Dillahunty walked out after them.

Famous Atheist Matt Dillahunty Quits Debate in Anger When Christian Hits a Little Too Close to Home

“Even if God isn’t real at all, people acting as though he is is still superior to whatever nonsensical egalitarian worldview” atheism offers.

www.westernjournal.com

Whom are you kidding? He ran away!

Pulling a Dawkins! Remember Richard Dawkins running away from William Lane Craig?

Dawkins gave the most laughable excuse to refusing to debate with WLC - '"doing so is bad for his curricullum vitae!"
He became a laughing stock!
His book, The GOD Delusion, was shredded by WLC - page by page.
Critics slammed Dawkins!









Dawkins never truly recovered from that, credibility-wise.
I'd say that's the reason we see New Atheism went downhill after that.

 

[tosca1]

I heard that story. Matt isn’t your white glove debater and he doesn’t tolerate ignorance and that’s why he cut it short. Had nothing to do with his saying he is an agnostic atheist though.

@Revelation



This is the whole coverage.
It didn't last long. Starts at timer - 4:25.

 

[Paradoxical]

i may take a look at the video to see what is going on. never heard of the guy but looked him up and this is what the search engine spit out tonight.

complements to you all, the forum is getting a bit more interesting lately with new blood. you all are talking above my head at times, but good to see some competition here.

blessings.

I am up early here and pulled up the response from Matt Dillahuinty about the debate he walked out of. He says it was because the debate turned into personal attacks from what he later learned was a militant shock jock who defends white supremacy and is a conspiracy nut flat earther. He had an opening in his schedule and went there not knowing who this guy was, and says he rarely checks out who his debate opponent is. He says it was supposed to be about secular humanism vs. Christianity and what is best for humanity, but the debater (Andrew) wanted to be antagonistic and combative and implied that Matt would not be able to say sex by nine-year-olds was OK and that transgenders would be OK having simulated sex in public. I'll include a link but it is too long to post all of what Matt said as to the reason(s) he walked out.

My hobby is listening to debates and podcasts and Matt has a call-in show where he allows all comers and some of them are devout Christians. On more than one occasion, a priest has called in. This is what Matt does for a living....debate. He is usually respectful but takes no guff and personal attacks and sometimes hangs up on people who keep repeating themselves and do not respond to logic and reason.

I have various conservative sites I frequent and one of those is Western Journal and I am amused that they say "Matt was destroyed in a debate and stormed off because he couldn't defend his positions." However, the debate was not supposed to be about Matt. It was supposed to be about secular humanism vs. Christianity and the proponents of Christianity rarely will defend all of the New Testament but will cherry-pick the verses that are just common sense and have zero to do with proving the central thesis of the bible that Jesus rose from the dead and there is a real heaven and hell and that women are to be subservient to me and not work and have lots of babies.

 

[Paradoxical]

So what!

Hahaha - he must be unsure!

For all his posturing as an atheist, he's an agnostic at heart!

Agnostic just means that there is no way to prove one way or the other. His saying he is an agnostic atheist means he leans toward there not being ANY kind of "God".

There was an atheist whose name escapes me right now debating a theologian who continually would use the tired old line about how and why the universe came into being and that it is just too complex and unfathomable to NOT believe there was a creator behind it. Of course, being that this is what Christians do all the time, he said something like this:

"OK, let's suppose for just a minute that I grant your premise that perhaps there is or was some unimaginable intelligence behind the creation. You then have your entire life ahead of you in proving that your Christian God concept is true. Granting that premise does in no way shape or form "prove" Christianity. ANY believer of any religion can assert that their God concept is therefore true."

 

[Paradoxical]

Hahahaha



When atheist apologist Matt Dillahunty engaged in his latest debate against theist Andrew Wilson about whether belief or disbelief in God was better for societal flourishing, he probably thought he would be the aggressor —
tearing apart happy-clappy attitudes Christian apologists tend to use.


No such luck. In fact, Wilson’s opening remarks were so scathing that Dillahunty walked out after them.

Famous Atheist Matt Dillahunty Quits Debate in Anger When Christian Hits a Little Too Close to Home

“Even if God isn’t real at all, people acting as though he is is still superior to whatever nonsensical egalitarian worldview” atheism offers.

www.westernjournal.com

Whom are you kidding? He ran away!

Pulling a Dawkins! Remember Richard Dawkins running away from William Lane Craig?

Dawkins gave the most laughable excuse to refusing to debate with WLC - '"doing so is bad for his curricullum vitae!"
He became a laughing stock!
His book, The GOD Delusion, was shredded by WLC - page by page.
Critics slammed Dawkins!









Dawkins never truly recovered from that, credibility-wise.
I'd say that's the reason we see New Atheism went downhill after that.

Having heard probably every one of his debates, I am very familiar with WLC. His debate tactic amounts to what I described above and he calls visions and claims "evidence"

 

[Overitall]

I am up early here and pulled up the response from Matt Dillahuinty about the debate he walked out of. He says it was because the debate turned into personal attacks from what he later learned was a militant shock jock who defends white supremacy and is a conspiracy nut flat earther. He had an opening in his schedule and went there not knowing who this guy was, and says he rarely checks out who his debate opponent is. He says it was supposed to be about secular humanism vs. Christianity and what is best for humanity, but the debater (Andrew) wanted to be antagonistic and combative and implied that Matt would not be able to say sex by nine-year-olds was OK and that transgenders would be OK having simulated sex in public. I'll include a link but it is too long to post all of what Matt said as to the reason(s) he walked out.

My hobby is listening to debates and podcasts and Matt has a call-in show where he allows all comers and some of them are devout Christians. On more than one occasion, a priest has called in. This is what Matt does for a living....debate. He is usually respectful but takes no guff and personal attacks and sometimes hangs up on people who keep repeating themselves and do not respond to logic and reason.

I have various conservative sites I frequent and one of those is Western Journal and I am amused that they say "Matt was destroyed in a debate and stormed off because he couldn't defend his positions." However, the debate was not supposed to be about Matt. It was supposed to be about secular humanism vs. Christianity and the proponents of Christianity rarely will defend all of the New Testament but will cherry-pick the verses that are just common sense and have zero to do with proving the central thesis of the bible that Jesus rose from the dead and there is a real heaven and hell and that women are to be subservient to me and not work and have lots of babies.

Anyone that believes raising children is easy and doesn't involve work is an idiot. Many men will make excuses to work more just to avoid helping their mate with child rearing and house work. Unlike a man, a woman doesn't get to stop working at a preset time schedule. They don't get to take a break at preset times during the day.

 

[Neomalthusian]

hmmm....

Famous Atheist Quits Debate in Fit of Rage When Christian Apologist Hits a Little Too Close to Home​

When atheist apologist Matt Dillahunty engaged in his latest debate against theist Andrew Wilson about whether belief or disbelief in God was better for societal flourishing, he probably thought he would be the aggressor — tearing apart happy-clappy attitudes Christian apologists tend to use.
No such luck. In fact, Wilson’s opening remarks were so scathing that Dillahunty walked out after them.

Famous Atheist Matt Dillahunty Quits Debate in Anger When Christian Hits a Little Too Close to Home

“Even if God isn’t real at all, people acting as though he is is still superior to whatever nonsensical egalitarian worldview” atheism offers.

www.westernjournal.com

This article meanders through a disorganized play-by-play of the debate. So, TL;DR. What was the thing that was said that appeared to result in a participant quitting? Was it really a "fit of rage?"

 

[jpevans]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

Agnostic is often the halfway house to atheism. Just in caseism, it's like laying chips on the red & the black.

 

[jpevans]

I don't think it's an appropriate comparison between pregnancy and belief.

A man can say he's agnostic about GOD, but that he leans more (or less) to the possibility.
Maybe, in time and with more contemplation - he'll end up making the choice.

Whereas, a pregnant woman is a pregnant woman! There is no question of possibility (if it's been medically deemed that she is pregnant).
And, she can't even say time is on her side!

Agnosticism is like a "Just in case" clause.

 

[Paradoxical]

This article meanders through a disorganized play-by-play of the debate. So, TL;DR. What was the thing that was said that appeared to result in a participant quitting? Was it really a "fit of rage?"

This is the age-old story of picking sides that has been going on now since the dawn of mankind. The believers want to think and portray it as Matt Dillahunty being stumped by a garden-variety Christian. Matt has done hundreds of debates. He takes on all-comers and does not vett his opponents. He did not know who this guy was and took the debate as a last-minute thing. While he has a call-in show where he accepts calls from anyone and some of the callers are real loons, when he debates, he expects opponents that are of stature such as William Lane Craig to have theology degrees or are priests or apologists.

This guy was an internet shock jock conspiracy theorist who just wanted to engage in personal attacks and make it all about Matt instead of a cerebral discussion of whether or not Christianity or secular humanism is better for society. But that wasn't what the shock jock wanted to do. He wanted to talk about sex by 9-year-olds and transgenders.

Personally, I think that secular humanism has its drawbacks as it does not include morality as a virtue and a better way of life. But to have a premise that Christianity is "true" because it teaches moral values that are good for society is using sleight of hand. When you take the bible in full, it simply cannot be justified., Yes, helping those in need is good. Yes, forgiving others is good, etc. etc. but those things are just copies of what was and is taught by nonbelievers in rising humans, talking snakes, heaven and hell, rising humans, blood sacrifices.

 

[Overitall]

Agnosticism is like a "Just in case" clause.

I consider agnostics to be more intellectually honest regarding the existence of God. There's no shame in saying you just don't know for certain. Atheists make the claim that they don't have a belief relative to the question, but spend a great deal of their time defending non belief. You don't defend a non belief; you only defend it when it's actually your belief.

 

[Paradoxical]

Agnostic is often the halfway house to atheism. Just in caseism, it's like laying chips on the red & the black.

Unless someone can say with surety that they know how something can from nothing they cannot say for certain that there was some intelligence behind it. The question is would that something be "God"? I think it's safe to say that even if there was some intelligence behind the initial creation to assert that it is the Bible God is beyond pre4posterous.

 

[Overitall]

This is the age-old story of picking sides that has been going on now since the dawn of mankind. The believers want to think and portray it as Matt Dillahunty being stumped by a garden-variety Christian. Matt has done hundreds of debates. He takes on all-comers and does not vett his opponents. He did not know who this guy was and took the debate as a last-minute thing. While he has a call-in show where he accepts calls from anyone and some of the callers are real loons, when he debates, he expects opponents that are of stature such as William Lane Craig to have theology degrees or are priests or apologists.

This guy was an internet shock jock conspiracy theorist who just wanted to engage in personal attacks and make it all about Matt instead of a cerebral discussion of whether or not Christianity or secular humanism is better for society. But that wasn't what the shock jock wanted to do. He wanted to talk about sex by 9-year-olds and transgenders.

Personally, I think that secular humanism has its drawbacks as it does not include morality as a virtue and a better way of life. But to have a premise that Christianity is "true" because it teaches moral values that are good for society is using sleight of hand. When you take the bible in full, it simply cannot be justified.,

Nor is it justified to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Taken as a whole the Bible is all about the redemption of mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is the "red thread" of the Bible.

Jesus Christ the red thread from Genesis 3:15 to Revelations 22:21 - Grace Love and Truth

Jesus Christ the red thread from Genesis 3:15 to Revelations 22:21 (From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible has at least some type of reference to Jesus Christ — either directly or indirectly — through every single book in the Bible. Sometimes referred to as, “The Red Thread”, please feel free to...

graceloveandtruth.com

Jesus Christ the red thread from Genesis 3:15 to Revelations 22:21 (From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible has at least some type of reference to Jesus Christ — either directly or indirectly — through every single book in the Bible

Yes, helping those in need is good. Yes, forgiving others is good, etc. etc. but those things are just copies of what was and is taught by nonbelievers in rising humans, talking snakes, heaven and hell, rising humans, blood sacrifices.

 

[jpevans]

I consider agnostics to be more intellectually honest regarding the existence of God. There's no shame in saying you just don't know for certain. Atheists make the claim that they don't have a belief relative to the question, but spend a great deal of their time defending non belief. You don't defend a non belief; you only defend it when it's actually your belief.

Defending atheism is basically mocking religion, though. As you say, defending nonbelief is impossible, but contrasting the fairy tales that form the basis of God belief, to not believing works pretty well, although drawing hate from the god corp.

 

[Revelation]

Agnostic is often the halfway house to atheism. Just in caseism, it's like laying chips on the red & the black.

you 'know' there is no God because why?

generally what i get from atheists is that God is a bit too inconvenient for them, so just deny him and walk away.

other than that they have no real reasons that make me wanna think they have a point.

I consider agnostics to be more intellectually honest regarding the existence of God. There's no shame in saying you just don't know for certain. Atheists make the claim that they don't have a belief relative to the question, but spend a great deal of their time defending non belief. You don't defend a non belief; you only defend it when it's actually your belief.

i have an agnostic friend, he may have become that way after we discussed the fabulous evidence of God's existence every where. at one time he was an atheist as he really wanted to run the world and his life his own way. he feels God is incompetent and needed some help.

most of us are limited, very limited in what we know...........if we are honest with our selves.

blessings people. get honest and open the bible or find a church some place. time is not on our side.

 

[Overitall]

Defending atheism is basically mocking religion, though. As you say, defending nonbelief is impossible, but contrasting the fairy tales that form the basis of God belief, to not believing works pretty well, although drawing hate from the god corp.

Elaborate on the bolded statement, please. I'm not sure what you meant by it and whether you're using a broad brush in saying it.

 

[Paradoxical]

you 'know' there is no God because why?

generally what i get from atheists is that God is a bit too inconvenient for them, so just deny him and walk away.

other than that they have no real reasons that make me wanna think they have a point.



i have an agnostic friend, he may have become that way after we discussed the fabulous evidence of God's existence every where. at one time he was an atheist as he really wanted to run the world and his life his own way. he feels God is incompetent and needed some help.

most of us are limited, very limited in what we know...........if we are honest with our selves.

blessings people. get honest and open the bible or find a church some place. time is not on our side.

You are equating this vague God which is the trees, the flowers, and the water with a God that violates every known law of nature and sends down a blood sacrifice to convince people they should be moral.

 

[Overitall]

you 'know' there is no God because why?

generally what i get from atheists is that God is a bit too inconvenient for them, so just deny him and walk away.

other than that they have no real reasons that make me wanna think they have a point.



i have an agnostic friend, he may have become that way after we discussed the fabulous evidence of God's existence every where. at one time he was an atheist as he really wanted to run the world and his life his own way. he feels God is incompetent and needed some help.

most of us are limited, very limited in what we know...........if we are honest with our selves.

I once heard it's what you learn after you undoubtedly think you know something that really matters. Over the many years of my study I sometimes came away with the wisdom of the Preacher.

Ecclesiastes 1:14 - 17
14I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. 15That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. 16I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. 17And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit."

With knowledge comes great responsibility. It also can come with (false) pride. If pride overshadows responsibility your spirit will be vexed.

blessings people. get honest and open the bible or find a church some place. time is not on our side.

 

[Revelation]

You are equating this vague God which is the trees, the flowers, and the water with a God that violates every known law of nature and sends down a blood sacrifice to convince people they should be moral.

correct. this creation is God's general knowledge offered to ALL people. if you are sensitive to God, you know that the complexity there is in Every tree screams 'Creator God'.

if i were an atheist i wouldn't stop with an awakening that God is talking to me through his magnificent universe; step it up a bit and find out why he bothers with us and what the point of all of this might be.

the knowledge of God is often associated with having a personal relationship with Him. in John 17:3, Jesus says, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" .

knowing God is not just about acquiring information, but about having a deep and intimate understanding of who He is.

be blessed people, let's move beyond Ignorance to real personal knowledge of God. what is your purpose here, might wanna know that.

 

[jpevans]

Elaborate on the bolded statement, please. I'm not sure what you meant by it and whether you're using a broad brush in saying it.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Paradoxical]

@Revelation



This is the whole coverage.
It didn't last long. Starts at timer - 4:25.

The reason Matt left starts much later at about the 22 minute mark and I have excerpted it:

.......... sent you a message got we are GNA Ki it into an open discussion so uh 50 minutes and uh let's kick us no I don't think so I'm not going to sit here and dignify the preparation that I went through and what people were here for you're so indignant man keep interrupting me I I am you're so indignant would the moderator like to step in so that I can finish please mad hold on how dare someone have an opposing world I'm not going to sit here and dignify what was supposed to be a debate about

22:16


Christianity versus secular humanism which one's better for the world yes with someone who clearly showed up with an agenda that has nothing to do with that I just someone who refers to trans people as deranged lunatics who will self-terminate if you dare to question them how am I wrong Matt someone you got to give him a chance someone who misrepresents a quote from a debate where I said I wouldn't make a law about nine-year-olds having sex being legal with respect to the nine-year-olds not that I was in any way in favor of it and

22:49


that I was actually opposed to it which I addressed during that debate but moreover this is not remotely an honest interaction on the front of whether or not secular humanism is valuable because this when he presented his position here has nothing to do with secular humanism from the get-go it's all about me Matt thinks Matt thinks Matt thinks I'm giv what Matt thinks what Matt thinks what position Matt position came in with the secular humanist manifestos I came in with positions that aren't my that

23:23


aren't merely my positions oh well as long as multiple people hold the position this not serious and I'm leaving James if you want to refund you well good day sir and I'll cover your refund Mr Matt he just said he'd cover my I would cover his refund Andrew shut up for a second Matt is if this is a good opportunity I think because it's fair to say that Andrew when he calls someone a lunatic is Bully this is a great chance to refute them no I'm not going to dignify a debate with someone

23:51


who walked in to trash talk people and be smug and all of the things that he's being right now he's already said he will cover my expenses you don't have anything to worry about this debate is over goodbye goodbye Jack this is a great opportunity expose did you call did you did you call me a jackass Matt well you and your husband have a good day Matt have a wonderful day mat thanks me and me and my husband yeah okay cool yeah anything else you want to throw out real no that was fine I mean if you're

 

[Paradoxical]

correct. this creation is God's general knowledge offered to ALL people. if you are sensitive to God, you know that the complexity there is in Every tree screams 'Creator God'.

if i were an atheist i wouldn't stop with an awakening that God is talking to me through his magnificent universe; step it up a bit and find out why he bothers with us and what the point of all of this might be.

the knowledge of God is often associated with having a personal relationship with Him. in John 17:3, Jesus says, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" .

knowing God is not just about acquiring information, but about having a deep and intimate understanding of who He is.

be blessed people, let's move beyond Ignorance to real personal knowledge of God. what is your purpose here, might wanna know that.

You are conflating this complexity and having no answer as to how it came to be by assuming that your belief system as given to you by others is true. As I said, ANY belief system that revolves around thinking there must be a creator would be unchallengable, wouldn't it?

I could create all manner of stories based around there being an initial creator. Never mind me. There have been literally thousands of creator stories that have been invented by man over the eons. The only reason Christianity stuck is through fear and ruthless promotion and that humans like the premise that they will live forever.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is semantics.

Even Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion claims that the probability of their being any sort of god is "extremely small". The same position the OP is claiming is flawed even though Dawkins is renowned for his atheism. For all intents and purposes, every agnostic is an atheist.

 

[devildavid]

All I’m admitting is the pedantic technicality that I couldn’t scientifically prove beyond all doubt that any imagined thing beyond our comprehension is impossible. Incomprehensibility precludes proof one way or another.

I don’t actively think that anything and everything is possible, because I agree, there’s no real reason to do so. Pretty pointless.

A lot of theists seem to think this technicality gives them something to work with and that maybe just maybe I’ll come around to embracing their narrow 1,500-3,000 year old sacred text as incontrovertible truth.

All my version of agnosticism says to theists is that their notion of God is on equal footing with infinite other theoretical possibilities in which their conception of God is extremely far off/false, including infinite possibilities in which no god exists, and possibilities in which whatever god may exist has absolutely zero concern for or awareness of us and our issues. My agnosticism trivializes theists’ Bronze-Age-inspired human-centric notions of God.

Science doesn’t claim to prove anything beyond all doubt. That doesn’t mean science has never demonstrated that certain things are possible and certain things are not. I refuse to lower myself to the weak arguments of believers based on the anything is possible nonsense claim that science has in fact demonstrated is not true.