Atheist Attempts to DEBUNK Christianity (Epic Ending)

In this video, Trent Horn & Matt Dillahunty debate the question of whether or not the Resurrection is reasonable to believe, and a number of other interesting topics that undergird this distinction are addressed in the process.

[robbinsnest]

"I'm not a historian" is equivalent to that woman being asked to define what a woman is, and her response was "I'm not a biologist" 😂

[leonidesrivera]

The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. — Albert Einstein

[cliffordsmith]

“Professing themselves to be wise; they became fools”. — Romans 1:22 (KJV)

[gatolf]

Matt literally said “I’m not a historian and I don’t care how they do things.” What??? 😂

[TrevorAndersen]

Matt Dillahunty always says: I’m not convinced. Like that’s an argument for truth. 😂

[astin]

It is moving past skepticism to willful ignorance.

[ProveAllThingsForYourself]

Every single debate with Dillahunty:
Matt: Im not convinced.

Atheists in comment section: hahahah Matt destrrrroyed him

[AJ-vmft]

12:42 why did you cut off the rebuttle?

[thesweuteen]

I think when Matt admitted he doesn’t care about how historians find evidence and conduct investigations and instead relies on what he is convinced on (or isn’t convinced on) is basically when he lost the debate for me. If someone is arguing for or against a historical events’s historicity, how could you ignore how historians conduct investigations? How could you ignore the methods historians use to discover and document history?

[MrDigitalmack]

Interesting. It’s reasonable to say pride comes before the fall😁

[jrcus]

This is infamously known as The Dillahunty Dodge. When Matt Dillahunty will notoriously dodge answering direct question because HE KNOWS his position/worldview is dependent on deliberately ignoring the evidence.

[mosheyriver]

There is no amount of evidence to convince Matt, he does not want to be convinced.

[joshua]

I suppose it depends on how you define “evidence”. The basic dictionary definition includes: empirical, testimonial, documentary, anecdotal, digital and statistical. *Whether or not you accept this evidence as convincing is another matter entirely, * but as under fields such as law, science and academia, these are “evidence”.

[memyselfeyetallent]

I respectfully say, Matt is purposely obtuse.

[Jim-Mc]

We need to just accept that a lot of people, by their own admission, have contempt for history as a discipline.

[mphDrBrown]

You are staggeringly dishonest. Turning "science doesn't make proclamations about truth" into "science is the only way to get to truth, the only way, and science is the only way to knowledge" is comically dishonest.

[ChannelStarface]

He lost me at, "puppies aren't extraordinary."

[jamesabar]

Matt really used to trip me up and for awhile and I become a parrot of his and was an adamant atheist. Then, one day I asked God to help me and he did in the most revealing way of his love that there is no going back ever as words cannot express his presence.

[alexanderlyon]

He has his own personal standards for evidence. He's not willing to accept historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or anything else that points to the past. I suspect even 100 videos that covered the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus wouldn't be enough. He'd find a way to personally reject that as evidence. It's also really noticeable how he doesn't seem as clever when he has to explain himself (and can't) compared to when he's the only one talking.

[Henry._Jones]

The hygrometer thing went entirely over Dillahunty's head. He said "If I don't know what a hygrometer looks like, I would never say I know that I haven't seen one. I could not say that I haven't seen something that I don't know." Exactly. That's precisely what Trent's assuming - that Matt would never do that with a Hygrometer. And yet here he is doing it with the category of evidence for God - saying he doesn't know what it would look like, *and* that he hasn't seen it.