[["atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point."]]

To me it's kind of a minor point but for this it comes down to the burden of proof, which is something atheists are trying to avoid at all costs.

[["And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?"]]

How about Ravi Zacharias? John Lennox? Matt Dillahunty has actually formally debated a few Christians and he didn't do very well.

[["More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:"]]

What the scripture says is that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Further, it says that the wages of our sin is death. Therefore, it is saying that we all have a sin problem, and that God doesn't show any partiality between sinners. The murderer and the liar are both headed for hell, although there is an indication in the scripture that there are degrees of punishment in hell. I also believe in the age of accountability.

Is it possible that the murderer may go to heaven while the murder victim goes to hell? It certainly is. What you're not realizing is, God loved both equally, and had His hand out to both equally. He doesn't show partiality in punishment, and He doesn't show partiality in salvation. He did everything possible to save the one that perished without violating His free will, and the man turned him down. That isn't because God is wicked, or unjust, but because the one that perished refused to stop doing evil and accept Gods pardon. Would you release a murderer out of death row who refused to stop murdering? Why should God forgo justice with unrepentant sinners?

What you're saying is, the murderer deserved to go to hell and the victim didn't. Yet, what the scripture says is that both equally deserved to go to hell, since they are both sinners. Every single person alive on the planet right now is not receiving the punishment they deserve; every day they are receiving what they don't deserve, which is breath, and life, and a chance to begin forgiven. No one has to go hell; people get there by pushing past the love, grace and mercy of their Creator.

Actually, there have been at least a few converts, and they do call in from time to time to the show. Matt Dillahunty actually married a previously christian caller.

Conversion isn't really what the show is about though. I believe it's primary effect is to illustrate that there are atheists in Texas, and that they aren't inherently evil. Most importantly it is to counter the BS spewed from the pulpit with regards to atheism.

Shinyblurry said this to me a while back in another thread:

"As far as being a Christian goes, you never knew Jesus Christ. That's what makes you a Christian. You had a head knowledge, but you weren't born again. " - shinyblurry

If he'll claim that about my personal spiritual journey to me in writing, then you can bet your last dollar that he'll claim that about Matt Dillahunty. Bullshit hasn't deterred him in the past.

Let's cut to the chase here Shinyblurry:

You say that there's a John Smith (let's use that as a synonym for your god) , who lives close by, and he has absolute knowledge of the universe, and nothing can be known with certainty without his direct contact with me.

Let's for argument's sake say that, through whatever means, I become convinced by you that there is indeed this guy John Smith who does indeed have all this knowledge...

So how can I get to meet this wonderful John Smith gent? Does he actually even exist? Is he entirely made up? Is his existence some form of delusion, like a folk legend about fairies at the end of the garden? Have you dreamed of him while high on drugs? How can I work this out?

You say proof has to come through personal revelation by sincerely inviting him into your life, but this is *entirely* false. I was brought up a catholic, went to religious schooling, was baptised, made my communion, and confirmed, I preyed to him regularly. I did more than just invite him into my life, I spoke to him, and sometimes even pleaded with him, but I have never, ever, received any indication of any kind, no matter how minuscule, that he actually existed.

Even Matt Dillahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) was raised a Baptist, and sought to become a minister, but now he is one of the world's most highly regarded proponents of secularism and atheism.

And what about all the existing ministers that leave religious orders and become atheists? There are currently organisations set up in the USA (such as The Clergy Project - http://clergyproject.org/) to help these people integrate back into society. I also personally know an ordained priest who left the priesthood on becoming an atheist.

Without you first proving that your god exists I can't entertain any notions that he may have any knowledge about anything. You've told me that this can be done by inviting him into your life, but this is entirely and demonstrably false.

In the absence of any proof / revelation that this omnipotent all knowing god of which you speak even exists, I'm afraid the knowledge you claim that he has must remain unproven too.

Jump the first hurdle of a god's existence, until then we're wasting our time debating what you claim he knows.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matt dillahunty, atheism, atheist experience, interview' to 'matt dillahunty, atheism, atheist experience, interview, the minister' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matt Dillahunty, atheism, atheist experiance, interview' to 'matt dillahunty, atheism, atheist experience, interview' - edited by shuac

>> ^hpqp:

apart from overdoing the blush I think it's pretty good.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
He needs to work on his make-up-manship.



I'd say he should get a better foundation. Or his dress's colour washes out his face too much.



"What, hunny?.. What I'm doing?.. Erm, looking at sports-shows and young sexy cheerleaders!"

"What, hunny?.. What I'm doing?.. Erm, discussing atheism and philosophy, but definitely not make up or clothes!"

apart from overdoing the blush I think it's pretty good.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

He needs to work on his make-up-manship.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, Ray Comfort, Bananaman, nightmare, Crockoduck' to 'Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, Ray Comfort, Bananaman, nightmare, Crocoduck' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt, Dillahunty, Russell, Glasser, Bananaman, nightmare, Crockoduck' to 'Matt Dillahunty, Russell Glasser, Ray Comfort, Bananaman, nightmare, Crockoduck' - edited by xxovercastxx

Matt Dillahunty doin his thang! Go! Go! Go!

What the hell is that on Matt Dillahunty's head?

>> ^Crosswords:

As Matt Dillahunty said in the video, any possible argument for a god as creator can be applied to the universe itself, which is one of the reasons Einstein said if he ever believed in a "god" in a religious sense, this "god" would be the universe itself. The problem here is that there's a lot of morons who keep on calling the universe "God" and then instead of sticking to known characteristics of the universe, start going on tangents about this "God" being a "Who" (i.e. an individual, with a human-like will and personality) or having powers he can "use" when he feels like it, or ascribing to it every concept they don't understand like infinity, absoluteness, transcendency, perfection, circularity and what have you.
In this case, God as a perfect circle dates back to the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, and I doubt very much the caller knew anything about ancient Greeks. Aristotle said it could as likely that a God exists or not, but that he himself thinks there is one and so he postulated one. He also said that since we can't imagine that there is not a first cause, then there must be one, even though time is infinite in both directions. Not much of an explanation you'll agree. Some backward churches, especially in America since they cut themselves from the Vatican a long time ago, still believe in the Aristotelian world-view even though the Vatican has long embraced modern science, although reluctantly (and as long as it doesn't contradict their miracles!).

@Kraz it's absolute *certainty* that he doesn't like - he says nothing about absolute *truths*.

He says, that while he cannot be 100% sure that god does not exist, he can deduce that there is about a 99% chance that god does not exist and that that is a good enough reason to sleep in on Sunday morning instead of going to Church.

This Matt Dillahunty guy is very sharp (and the caller very stupid). It's almost pointless to watch such a poor match up.