Reasoning Errors: Examples from the Matt Dillahunty v Glen Scrivener Debate

In Glen Scrivener's debate with Matt Dillahunty on the #Christian channel Unbelievable, Matt Dillahunty made four reasoning errors, which many people who don't believe in God make. In this video, these errors are exposed - and sound reasoning for intrinsic religiosity and Christianity is presented.

Thank you for visiting this channel! Please like, subscribe, and share these links with your friends.

Other great YouTube channels:

Debates:

Friendly Christian/non-Christian conversations:
Educational Christian:

[_a.z]

You keep insisting that secular morality is flawed by circular reasoning.
So is it not self evident for anyone of sound mind, that human flourishing is of value?
Do you think your own survival is worthwhile?
Isn't it evident from your own experience that wellbeing is preferable to struggle and suffering?
Your answers to these specific questions would be appreciated.

[rogerhelou]

Good video, was expecting Dillahunty fanboys to kill the dislike button, I'm guessing most of them didn't even watch the thing!

[WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

He doesn’t want to say objective because it’s confusing. He adheres to a different definition of objective. 9:09

[klarag]

“Why does God sacrifice God? Couldn’t He pay for our sins in another way?”
SJ, you answered emphatically, “Yes!”
Then how would you explain Matthew 26:39?
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
If there was another way, would it not have been taken? From the very beginning of Genesis, the entire Old Testament is witness to the promise of the only way to the Father, to be restored in His presence. All the sacrifices were but a lesson to trust the sacrifice of the Suffering Servant who was to come. Those sacrifices were nothing in and of themselves. They only symbolically connected the one sacrificing to Jesus who could die once for all and conquer death. What other option is there?

[frankwhelan]

Well you may not divorce or commit suicide because of fear of hell/ reward
of heaven, or the belief someone is watching you, but that isn't evidence of the truth of the belief,
or that religious people are 'better' (inherently)
if they behave a certain way because they believe something, and they wouldn't behave that way anyway if they weren't believers,
without an expectation of reward or punishment .

[tomtomb]

Quick question: If a moral lawgiver, that transcends generations, exists, why is the law given by that transcending lawgiver about certain topics not transcend generations as well? For example about slavery.

[JeramyRG]

7:04
"A source must transcend generations" then you went to "a moral law giver must exist"

I am lost on why you made such a leap?
Why *must* ? Why does such a source need to be a sole definer?

What do you know that I don't?

[jeffwilliams]

SJ, you commit two fallacies in your rebuttal: bifurcation and unwarranted assumptions. Our last debate seems to have been well received and I believe that the question of existence of objective morality could be even better. I propose that we do another video on this topic with me, you and whoever else you want to join your side. I know you're busy, but if you have others on your side the burden of preparation lessens. I'm ready to go any time.

[WhatsTheTakeaway]

That was a good debate. Glen did a good job picking at the weaknesses in Dillahuntys assertions.

[comeasyouare]

I've heard the objective morality argument from theist, not just Christians. what are objective morals? Well supposedly they are grounded by god. And that god is infinitely, and eternally just. In other words morals are stagnant and unchanging. Except when it comes to things like slavery, and then their argument changes to well some are subjective. Now there's and good example of reasoning error. And as to this video pointing out Matts errors. I think that if you watch the debate you''ll see errors in reasoning, but they're not from Matt. Theist are still telling us what to believe.

[AneurysmXX]

There is nothing circular from Matt's part. I am not sure you know what circular arguments are. Secular humanistic morality will always be superior than the religious. To base your morality on something imaginary is just sad.