Atheist LOSES IT Against Muslim - Dillahunty vs. Haqiqatjou DEBATE
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 07. 2024
- #haqiqatjou #muslimskeptic #debate
Daniel Haqiqatjou (Muslim) debates Matt Dillahunty (Atheist) on - Is Islam True? The debate gets heated as Dillahunty struggles to respond to Haqiqatjou's arguments. In pure frustration, Dillahunty hurls profanities and personal attacks at Haqiqatjou in an unhinged and embarrassing display.
0:00 - Part 1: Good Evidence for God?
11:24 - Daniel Opening
21:52 - Open dialogue
1:01:20 - Part 2: Any Religion More Compelling than Islam?
1:11:35 - Daniel Opening
1:21:57 - Dialogue
1:56:47 - Part 3: Better for Humanity: Secular Humanism or Islam?
2:08:45 - Daniel Opening
2:19:19 - Dialogue
2:23:58 - Heated moment
2:28:07 - More cussing from Matt
2:30:50 - Change of topic
2:42:34 - Another heated moment
2:42:55 - Matt wants to fight Daniel?
2:44:04 - Dialogue
2:47:15 - Q&A
Original livestream: czcams.com/users/liverpZBlm8zELA
DH Uncensored: t.me/haqiqatjou
Twitter: twitter.com/Haqiqatjou
Support our work: muslimskeptic.com/contribute/
Dilahunty got bodied by Abdullah Andalusi in a debate defore, you're beating a dead horse.
*The religion of Islam is based on one core belief, that there is One God. He alone is the Sustainer and Creator of the Universe. He is without partners, children, or associates. He is the Most Merciful, the Most Wise, and the Most Just. He is the all Hearer, all Seer, and the All Knowing. He is the First, He is the Last.*
*Islam was revealed for all people, in all places and at all times. It was not revealed for men or for a particular race or ethnicity. It is a complete way of life based on the teachings found in the Quran and the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad. Once again, sounds simple doesn’t it? Guidance revealed by the Creator to His creation. It is a foolproof plan to achieve everlasting happiness in both this life and the next.*
*Accepting Islam as the one true religion should be simple. There is no god but God. What could be clearer than that statement? Nothing is less complicated, but sometimes considering the prospect of redefining out belief system can be scary and fraught with obstacles. When a person is considering Islam as their religion of choice they are often overcome by reasons for not accepting what their hearts are telling them is the truth.*
*If a person truly believes that there is no god but God, he or she should accept Islam without delay. Even if they believe they will continue to sin, or if there are some aspects of Islam they do not fully understand. Belief in one God is the most fundamental belief in Islam and once a person establishes a connection with God changes will occur in their lives; changes they would not have believed possible.* Salam!
If a Muslim acted in this wild, unhinged manner, imagine the reaction.
don't need to imagine we just saw the reaction of your unhinged schizo rambling
Edit: Also pls I need that pleasure pod if you can hook me up that would be great! 🙃
please make the thought experiment an episode of the genius of Islam .
I watched it twice. Jazak Allah khair.
They would take a photo and use it as a thumbnail for those anti-islam vids talking about terrorism and angry Muslims doing jihad
Mohammed Hijab always acts like this. *Lip pointing to the top left of his mouth*: "FUFUFUFUFUF pusillanimous FUFUFUFUFUF show me objective morality FUFUFUFUF *spits on David Wood* FUFUFUFUFUF You're finished".
Don't debate atheists brother, they don't have nothing to offer.
As someone who used to be a nihilist for years, I can confirm. As the saying goes, Arguing with atheists is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to just knock over the pieces, poop all over the board and strut around like it won anyway.
except the saying is about theists, not atheists...
@@matswessling6600coo coo
@@matswessling6600 Are you a master chef by any chance? Because you’re really cooking up some coping stew in there!
@@matswessling6600 Unless the one who sounds like the real pigeon and actually all over the place is the one who defies rules of logic by his beliefs, skeptical about his very existence, skeptical about how his brain works, skeptical about morality's objectivity , and even reality itself's objectivity, all to deny God's existence, and finally comes up with an extremely stupid conclusion about his existence and all over that being the most arrogant and annoying creature ever in the others' comment section , thinking he is something when he is not. That doesn't sound like the theist does it?
@@Saif_VAGABOND_Talpur? "copying stew"? Do you have anything intelligent to post?
Matt: "My wife was allowed to sleep with whoever she wanted when we were married"
Daniel: "Is that a good thing? "Did that help preserve your marriage?
Matt: "Yeah"
Also Matt: "I was divorced"
BRUHHHH. I can't understand the logic of these atheists.😂😂😂
Well, it helped their marriage. Otherwise they would have been divorced even earlier. Don't tell me you don't get this. Lol.
@@joerdim I think that's probably what Matt meant when he said "yeah". But the way I was thinking of it was that if something helps preserve your marriage, then that means the chance you getting divorced gets lower. The fact that Matt still got divorced either way, shows that "sleeping around with other people" has probably not been that effective. Psychology tells us that men and woman will inevitably loss attraction in one another if they choose to sleep around with other people outside of their marriage. The average man will not look at his wife the same way, if she's going around and sleeping with other men while still being married. That marriage bond is being violated. So Matt already proved Daniel's point, that there is a positive correlation between infidelity and divorce.
@@MahiRahman-yn9cd What did I just say? They would have gotten divorced earlier. So it necessarily helped their marriage. This is where you are already done.
Complete nonsense. Psychology doesn't tell us that. You even contradict yourself. First you say "inevitably", then you say the "average man".
Some marriages are even build on such a structure in the first place. I know some couples personally. They wouldn't be a couple or married otherwise. You don't know what you are talking about.
@@joerdimthat’s like using a tea cup to scoop water out of a sinking ship to help it from sinking.
@@acogjefe4769 No, that's finding ways to continue a relashionship or even starting one.
I’m from Uruguay, grew up in a household that was mixed Catholic and atheist, and grew up myself ignorant of Islam. I’m now seriously considering Islam thanks to your arguments. Thank you, Daniel.
Which arguments are those, please share.
Do you think Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his rib? They then repopulated the earth. Isn't that magic? Did Adam have sex with his daughters? Is that what the bible is referencing? Do you believe earth is only 6000 years old? Do you believe it is flat as well? Do snakes talk?
Read chapter 19 of the quran. My colombian friend really enjoyed it. Enjoy!
@@ak4aca why do we need to read any poorly written fictional holy books?
Which of Daniel's poor arguments was the most convincing to you?
Both Dillahunty and Haqiqatjou have 1 thing in common, they both made me question my Atheism.
What made you question your atheism??
Daniel did not come with compelling reason to believe in God. People's feelings does not prove God existence
Atheists when you question religion: 😁😀
Atheists when you question atheism: 😡🤬😤
@@idkbro4932when the debater presented just about the weakest argument you can for the existence of a God, it makes perfect sense for the atheist to find it upsetting that someone questioned their atheism because of that debater
So, two men getting heated in a debate is what makes you reconsider the ontological argument for God?
Sure, atheism is becoming dogmatic nowadays
0:00 - Part 1: Introduction - Is Islam true?
0:46 - Matt Dillahunty's introduction
11:24 - Daniel Haqiqatjou's introduction
21:52 - Open dialogue
1:01:20 - Part 2: Matt's turn - Any religion more compelling than Islam?
1:11:35 - Daniel's turn
1:21:57 - Open dialogue
1:56:47 - Part 3: Matt's turn - Better for humanity: secular humanism or Islam?
2:08:45 - Daniel's turn
2:19:19 - Open dialogue
2:23:58 - Heated moment
2:28:07 - More cussing from Matt
2:30:50 - Change of topic
2:42:34 - Another heated moment
2:42:55 - Matt wants to fight Daniel?
2:44:04 - The dialogue continues
2:47:15 - Q&A
This will insha Allah help someone navigate the video more easily.
Like and pin this please
Thank you very much brother, it might means just words to you but I truly appreciate what you did, please don't stop doing such acts. We truly benefit without your knowledge
@@moayad80true
جزاك الله خير
Ayy
The atheist is shaytan in human form.
The best part was when Matt called himself a millennial. How old does he think he is?
Calm down, it was a joke
No it wasn't. He later corrected himself when he realised he was Gen X
@tonykennedy8592 He was joking that he was a millennial because he doesn't want to feel old. He is just keeping a straight face
Atheists are free to insult our prophet (SAW) whom we love more than ourselves, but when we "insult" someone close to their lives (who they don't love more than themselves) they lose it and accuse us of being inflammatory. Insane!
You love a guy who you have never met more than your own children, you value faith (which is not inherent truth) over human life, this is the poison you have been brainwashed with.
You believe in Islam, because you struggle to handle the harsh realities of life.
@@YamnayaSintash The harsh reality of life? Like what? Like we are just atoms moving through a space-time? Wow. So harsh.
Here's a harsh reality for you. Those who reject Islam and pass away doing so have an eternal fire waiting for them.
Didn't Daniel act like a crybaby when javad showed a public picture of Daniel's wife without a hijab.
@@YamnayaSintash HAHA, struck a nerve did we?
Calling out your hypocrisies is beautiful
"he's speaking too many facts, guess I gotta question why he decides to respect Good People, hurr durr"
no, insult anyone you want i assure you we won't freak out and say you must be killed, atheists would just insult back.
Every time I see Matt in a debate with someone who can actually debate he's always boiling mad and decides never to debate that person again. As a debater you shouldn't be showing emotion it's unprofessional but Matt uses this anger as a tool of trade to sway people. This is a clear indicator as to how he's wrong and decides to use his anger as a tool to sound like he's right. It's actually disturbing watching him act and yell the way he does.
My thoughts exactly!
Or maybe he has an issue with child sex abuse & insults directed at his partner.
@tombash4329 Given your wording, it would, in fact, establish that profanity doesn't bother all young minds.
I don't think you want to be arguing logic while being so sloppy.
@@tombash4329 You really don't see your mistake? That's hilarious!
@tombash4329 I'll clarify it for you...
You should have said "any young minds"
By saying "all young minds," it only takes one to be unbothered to break your premise.
You can edit your comment now 😂😂😂
I’ve never heard someone drop the F 💣 so many times in a debate. Low class
as muslims we just convey the message, others can do what they want with it. Let him act as he wants
don't kill people who don't accept it and force it on people and everything would be fine
@@MaroSurf03 dont colonizing and kill and attack ppl who dont believe in your monkey non subjective morals atheist religion
Western countries killed millions of muslims at this point.@@MaroSurf03
Well said bro
@@MaroSurf03
Your mother does that
2:39:00
Matt: my wife could sleep with whomever she wanted.
Daniel: and did that help preserve your marriage?
Matt: Yes!
**A few seconds earlier**
Matt: I'm divorced🤡
this killed me hahahaha to funny, also kinda feel sorry for him though
😂
Seriously 😮
I gotta watch this
@@cystish What is really the difference between islame and atheist religion? For example, pdfilia and incest is allowed in both religions.. can you give me any differences?
@@AtheistReligionIsCancerThe direct children of Adam and Eve were the ones that I know allowed to have incest to continue our race and that's it.
For pedophilia, Islam says if the person is mature mentally and physically, they can decide to get married on mutual agreement without compulsion.
It does not conform with the current society expectation of a marriageable age, but instead depends on our body and mind.
We try to follow the standards given by our Creator. Allah knows best. May we be guided.
What a shame to be an atheist after this debate. A lot of contradictions and not a single valuable point.
Sounds like you didn't even listen to the debate. Daniels best argument for God was that many people 'feel' God exists therefore I should theists should believe too. This was literally his entire sticking point. As an atheist, this debate pretty much reaffirmed me that my belief is the most rational
@@lemonnade5974 In addition, daniel was just blabbering shit off topic and I dont thibk he has even a basic idea of secular humanism
@@lemonnade5974OK, let's assume you are a rational person who agrees on deduction, the process in which Mathematics is derived from.
Clause 1: Anything that begins to exist in the universe needs a cause to do so
Clause 2: The universe began to exist
Clause 3. It has a cause. If that cause has a cause, then that is the cause.
This cause should be uncaused, because if not, then there is an infinite regression. This doesn't work. How does anything exist in the first place if infinite regression was a thing? Imagine a lake with an infinite depth but filled with finite water, and the water level is constant, that's the universe you're referring to if you say that infinite regress exists.
This cause should be:
1. Eternal (because it doesn't have a cause)
2. Self sufficient (because it doesn't have a cause)
3. Should have a will (because the universe could not have existed if this uncaused cause didn't cause it.
4. Should have intelligence (Fine tuning and the laws of physics)
And that's, God in most religions.
Honestly there is a better argument for god called the argument from contingency. It was formulated by Ibn Sina, just look into it if you don't agree with the clauses in this Kalam argument.
So if an athiest deny a marriage and its value its not a problam and its liberty but if someone deny education and its instution then its a problem for athiests. that is so dumb
Lol near the end Matt was hung up on the “F- word”, and even stated he has a a problem cursing due to his ALLEGED military past. However, he never cursed in the beginning of the debate and only did so way later when Daniel H. obliterated him. He wasn’t cussing out of habit, rather it was out of frustration and it was obvious.😂
Lol @@MaroSurf03
Great eye. 👍 You are right. not a lot of people notice that.
he has serious insulin resistance prediabetic issues that also causes him to behave in such manner
he lost his cool when his hypocrisy was exposed...he needs to bring along b1 vitamins to calm down😂😂
Daniel was too smart for this Matt fool.
A 15 year doesnt have the mental capacity to consent but a dog can🤦🏽
@@arandomguy83yearsago46wait, is he like part of your athiest religion or something?
Makes too much sense. Take this down.
@hiooxkrmagkis9323 wild
Brown and Red dogs are good but black dogs are devils - Prophet Mo.
atheism certainly does not condemn it lol@@arandomguy83yearsago46
I revert to islam, and now I am the happyest man in the world. I have big love in my hart. I LOVE ALLAH AND ALL HIS PROPHETS, ANGELS, BOOKS, AFTHERLIFE. ITS THE BEST WAT I EVER DID IN MY LIFE. MAY ALLAH GUIDE THOSE WHO SURCH THE TREUT.
Lies. I am the happiest man in the world and I don't believe in Allah.
No, pregnant camel urine is not a source or ingredient for modern drugs. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare practitioners adhere to rigorous standards in drug development, utilizing thoroughly researched and tested compounds. Always trust information from reputable medical sources when it comes to healthcare decisions.
No, pregnant camel urine is not a source or ingredient for modern drugs. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare practitioners adhere to rigorous standards in drug development, utilizing thoroughly researched and tested compounds. Always trust information from reputable medical sources when it comes to healthcare decisions.
@@joerdim Cocaine is a hell of a drug, you know.
@@fallasleep9472 True. Just like religion.
The fact that the atheist is dropping F-bombs and cannot even refrain from vulgarity in a professional setting proves he lost.
Great work BR DH
ALLAH REWARD YOU IMMENSELY.
You annihilated the guy
Daniel Boyfriend approves
The atheist got absolutely intellectually humiliated 😂
personally ive never had an intuition of a creator god. but i have of a higher power
@@mikelisteral7863
There's a similarity, God is a higher power.
you Muslims just be saying shit, did we even watch the same debate? Daniel was 100% trolling and just trying to make Matt angry to create a viral clip he wasn't interested in honestly intellectually debating. Bro was strawmanning every single view of Matt's.
DH never presented any evidence for god.
I missed that part. Where?
I'm not a Muslim nor a religious person but so many people who debate Daniel just seem like a deer caught in headlights when they debate. It seems as if they haven't even fully thought through their arguments
Empircism as God is made Matt dilahunty behave like that even tho there is no empircal proof for the law of non contracdiction nor there is empircal proof that he had a great great grandfather but still he will believe in these things while simultaneously demanding empircal proof for God which is similar to the things he didn't require empircal proof for
You’re not a Muslim?
Bro stop lying about not being muslim. 😂 daniel is a good debater though.
Taquiyah?
I might know the reason. its because to show someone the truth firstly it comes from Allah. secondly visualizing ithink daniele should incoperate more visual deductive logic using paper and pen so that other party can view
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on engaging with atheists in discussions about religion. Your approach of using layers and providing a step-by-step proof (a, b, c, etc.) is indeed a structured and logical way to present your arguments. Using paper or visual aids can be a helpful way to illustrate complex concepts and keep the discussion clear.
It's also great that you emphasize building bridges and showing empathy towards the opposing viewpoint. Building understanding and rapport with others, regardless of their beliefs, can lead to more constructive conversations and potentially a greater exchange of ideas.
In future debates, consider incorporating deductive proof techniques, as you mentioned, to enhance the effectiveness of your arguments. Logical reasoning and well-structured proofs can be powerful tools in conveying your perspective.
Keep up the thoughtful approach to these discussions, and may your efforts be successful in promoting understanding and meaningful dialogue. Inshallah.
Best regards
What's the odds that we'll hear about this atheist either being caught with child pornography or actually is found to be visiting a brothel or visiting Thailand for suspicious purposes?
Daniel was literally defending adults having sex with kids. What is wrong with you??????
@@redflag4781 you mean what happens day and night in the west
@@farooqahmed-md8fgHate to break it to you, it happens everywhere. Humans are humans are humans.
@redflag4781 Your definition of "child" is 18 or less. Our definition of child is pre-menstruation. The difference is, ours makes logically more sense compared to yours, because puberty is the actual determiner for being fit in marriage even in the animal kingdom, it is how god made us.
@@redflag4781 it happen more in the west
أحبك في الله وأعجبت بطرحك مع أنني لا أفهم الإنجليزية تحياتي لك وقد تمتعت بمقاطعك المترجمة
When Matt implied theres no such thing as atheist terrorists or violence in the name of atheism I wish you had mentioned the Columbine shooting, where the killers were known for being staunch atheists and were big on natural selection, writing extensively about it and and connecting these beliefs they held to their own violent actions.
They don’t kill in the name of atheism.
They just happened to be atheists.
There is a huge difference.
I could be wrong though.
One of them may have shouted out in the name of Charles Darwin (pbuh), I will slaughter all you believers in God.
Praise be to natural selection.
Even if atheism became a cult, and fanatics came about.
You’d need at least 10-20 million atheists to go rogue and kill anyone they can.
Only then can you say, well atheists killed almost 0.001% of all the deaths caused by cults and religion combined
Or Stalin and the Soviet Union, the ultimate Athiest State
Along with this, we can clearly see terrorism by the Atheistic Chinese government towards the Tibetans historically and the Uyghurs.
thats a lie. Neither Eric nor Dylan where atheists.
Eric Harris was an atheist not Dylan.
It’s funny how when Daniel flipped the table and started interrogating him on the child marriage thing, He got angry and said “this has nothing to do with the debate”. He couldn’t answer Daniels questions and started insulting Daniel. Pure hypocrite
Adults shouldn't marry children...it's just human intuition... I think we can all agree
@@brianschnebeck7990wait a minute , I thought it was all about empirical proofs
@@brianschnebeck7990 why you assume everyone will agree whatever you people say , i might dis agree and if you think we are wrong then you should provide a argument not attacking and that what matt did there , he might provide argument to daniel but instead he started shouting which was very rediculous to watch
Yeah lets just ignore 99% of human history. I bet you might like matt's BOYfriend the trans dude.@@brianschnebeck7990
@@brianschnebeck7990 You're confusing Islam with America.
Congrats on reaching 300k 👏
Matt - you were depending kids marriages
Daniel- so should society ban 9 years old kids dating each other yes or no?
Matt- let me think...ahmmm no.
Daniel- * laughs
Matt- starts cussing🤣🤣
You and your ilk, "I can't allow 9 year olds to date each other!!!!!11! I gotta date them myself!"
Do you guys even listen to yourselves? lmfao
@@SilverNitrate- Listen to yourself. You're fine with minors having sex with each other but not marrying each other.
@@SilverNitrate-your system grooms and sows the seeds of promiscuity from the time a child enters the school system to ensure by the time they graduate they will know the depths of depravity inside and out .. that's about the only real learning taking place in these mandatory institutions
@@a-pb1ekit’s less worse than a 9 year old marrying a 50 year old
@@Alieth How? Both parties hit puberty, and the woman’s parents vetted the man for marriage.
As a professor of mathematics for 35 years, I say that trying to understand atheists is a waste of time, because their world view is PSYCHOLOGICAL.
(Jhon Lennos)
alot of people just use science and atheism to backup their simple mindedness
As a professor myself, I feel bad for your students
Then maybe you should pay more attention. He was quoting someone. So there are no "your students". @@brownkorean
As a student of mathematics, I thank you for not being my professor.
@@brownkoreanif you're a professor then monkeys are pilots
Matt Dillahunty:
Parents don't own their children, they are free! (the state owns them 😂)
Sounds like north korea the peak secularism
So you don't know how the legal system works when it comes to kids... And that's Matt's fault? Lol ok kid
@@49perfectssState is sovereign, which literally means state owns everything, including adult and childre. Dillahunty us doing Atheistic Taqiyyah.
@@theintuitivetruth no the state is a ward. Not an owner. Again you're uneducated and think that's some kind of win lol. It's hilarious but pathetic 🤷♂️
@@theintuitivetruth"Atheistic Taqiyyah" I'll remember this for a while 😂 thanks!
Big Duas with Brother Daniel for his upcoming debate in Florida - inshallah you will smash
Dillahunty, has displayed poor behaviour throughout this whole discussion. A true reflection of what he is and what he stands for.
@@jonatand2045 just cause u say its an error doesn't make it so
Dillahunty always behaves like that. He's lowkey a bully but Daniel humbled him.
@wrestlingjudoms1302 That would have required Daniel to actually prove his position. He didn't. He couldn't stay on topic. Also had to resort to ad hominid attacks.
Any religion that advocates the murder of any person that leaves the religion. Cannot allow anyone to question it. It's a really weak religion.
@@jonatand2045since when does evolution explain how a living being managed to exist
@@jonatand2045might!!!!!! 😂😂😂😂
The moment Matt started cursing, game over.
And the statement that parents don't own their children, the government does 🤯
*The moment Matt started cursing, game over.*
- Try to think before typing next time. Actually no need, it probably won't help anyway.
*And the statement that parents don't own their children, the government does*
- Nope. That's 2/2 wrong. The government does not "own" anyone including children. Once again just taking care of the child if the parent gives up their right to taking care of the child.
@@brucewayne7875 so the government does not own their soldiers?
@@zaczeen1121 correct. It does not. People are never owned by the government. That would be called slavery and slavery is not allowed at least in the U.S
@@brucewayne7875 are obligatory national service a form of slavery then?
@@brucewayne7875 You're too arrogant for your own good, and get triggered by the simplest statements.
Matt said and I quote "Parents do not own their children..." 2:44:05. Now, you chose to interpret that statement differently, but it doesn't negate the fact that he said that. Matt did not talk about parents that give up their right to taking care of their child(ren).
In another comment you state that the government doesn't own anybody, and implied that everyone in the US at least is free. Can any citizen who is not receiving or benefiting from any government service choose to not pay taxes? No, he/she would end up in jail for a very long time and put to hard labor. Sounds like slave ownership, dressed as something else.
Get out of here with your nonsense.
Daniel won this Masha Allah. Matt = 🤡
How in your mind did that happen?
@@brucewayne7875 how do you derive an OUGHT from an IS?
Why do you feel that I should answer that? @@jostnamane3951
@brucewayne7875 I'll point out the obvious to you because it's something not even a a little child can deny.
Simply because he lashed out and he took things too personally. Which is an obvious indication for losing in a DEBATE intellectually. That's just one little tiny factor way to put it regardless of everything daniel presented.
If you think Matt being a buffoon equals winning, that one’s on you.
And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!
The pleasure machine analogy is an absolute masterstroke. The controlled opposition point was telling.
Dude started cussing the moment DH flipped the 9-year old accusation on him lmao
Dillahunty kept asking for evidence for god but daniel was 100% correct to question his criteria of evidence. Logically correct to do this…
it was not.
Evidence is easily verified because it is consistent with reality.
Still waiting for the evidence
@@keef5 First define your criteria for evidence. Then justify that criteria. Once you do that, then we can discuss the evidence
how to prove that you don't know what logic is or how to make use of it:
When someone has to include manners of the other side as an argument in a debate, they've already known they don't have a good argument.
"I thought we were done interrupting...?" 😂
Dismantling Matt's arguments/positions for section 1:
24:27 - Matt basically wants empirical evidence for God which is a problem as you can not empirically prove or disprove God or something that is metaphysical, so naturally Daniel targeted his epistemology. Matt did not want to explore the topic as he was resting his case, lazy. Matt even admits later on that scientific evidence is the only evidence he will accept, why? Why should that be the criteria, and that is exactly what Daniel was targeting so no, Daniel was not going off-topic, Matt just didn't want to venture into other forms of evidences for God.
35:43 - This contradicts with what Matt said, that he would only accept scientific evidence.
39:45 - Caught red-handed by Daniel.
44:56 - Caught red-handed by Daniel again. Matt says that truths like the law of non-contradiction or the "harming others for no reason is wrong" principle, are non-empirical and are truths that he will continue to accept until it can be "demonstrated" to be false. How can you "demonstrate" something that is non-empirical to be false? He gives an example of a Venn diagram but that is abstract, you're not "demonstrating" anything.
48:21 - Caught red-handed by Daniel yet again.
53:46 - Perfectly explained by Daniel on why intuition is evidence for God.
54:21 - Matt denies the fact that all or most religions have come to common beliefs independently of each other.
56:56 - Not only do we have intuition, we also have the Quran and the Prophets, so I don't know what Matt is talking about.
57:37 - Quick rebut by Daniel exposing Matt's inconsistency yet again.
This is it for section 1, overall Matt "demonstrated" (lol) that he was underprepared for the first section. I will do the same for the other sections when I get to watching them.
Are you willing to do the rest of the sections?
@@elbashar7589I will, but I will do them tomorrow as it’s late here. I only got time to do the first section. I will reply to this comment for the other sections.
@@massup24thank you very much for the summary
Amazing how wrong and twisted people’s viewpoints can be. Everything you said here is in fact wrong.
@@massup24 : Excellent summary, thank you for posting it!
Daniel whooped this guy at this point I feel sorry for the athiests if this is all they have to offer
I checked the modern day debates channel comment section, it’s all just ad hominem attacks at Daniel. Daniel just owns the atheist community
@@libanali8562Islam haters and Athiests there for sure
@@libanali8562 whahahahahaha what a nonsense
@@libanali8562 not only that, he owns the Christians too! Even Christians were supporting the atheist under the MDD comments LOL. Imagine supporting an atheist as a Christian, oh wait, that's what their countries have turned into.
@@libanali8562It’s all these atheist clowns resort to. Even the clown atheist in the debate resorted to playground insults when he couldn’t hold an argument. What a joke.
نريد ترجمة لهذه المناظرات رجاءا
Around 37:20 Dillahunty argues that identity non-contradiction excluded middle (INEM) is a practical/necessary/reasonable intuition/presupposition and that we should continue to use it because it continually demonstrates to be true and reliable and has never been shown to not be, until somebody contradicts it.
How is it different if that intuition is God? Is that intuition not also consistent with the universe, and necessary to explain it?
By his logic for INEM, I get to believe in God until someone contradicts the presupposition...
God as not been used in any papers
or theories so the burden of proof is on you
The comments on the MDD channel show that many of the points went over their heads
Matt failed to refute the point about intuition. Ironically he says intuition when it comes to god is not right but when it comes to morality or other things it’s fine because “it’s worked before”, he lost the point about child marriage when he said he was fine with 9 year olds having sex but not being married
Danny should have led with a different argument than the intuition one.
He never said nor implied that he was fine with 9 year olds having sex. Are you really this dumb?
Oh look someone as dishonest as Daniel
@@MaroSurf03Comparing flat earth to God is nonsense. This comparison will only make sense after you'll be able to disprove God's existence.
please provide a timestamp of your claim that matt ever said the following: "when he said he was fine with 9 year olds having sex but not being married," without it requiring heavy, dishonest interpretation on your part.
thank you. (spoiler: you won't be able to do it, you pathetic, dishonest scumbag.)
Daniel is a Master mind.
1st Round: He sowed how Selective the atheists are and their flawed criteria. Matt was a Lower IQ loser who did not get the arguments.
2nd Round: Daniel established the plot of Most compelling religion.
3rd Round: Daniel completely shaved the head of the Baled man. Matt could not do anything but shout like a woman and a bunch of F words 😅😅
Daniel is a joke
@@Stansbrokenhandlehe is a Joke maker.he make Joke out of this atheist people.😂
Exactly. Amazing mashaAllah
Rightly so, matt’s girlfriend is really the man of the house😂
Daniel Haqiqatjou is the king of making false equivalences "You support forcing children to go to school therefore forcing them to marry is fine" apparently giving the child an education is the same as forcing to marry a 60 year old 😂
Daniel was playing 4D chess here
I have never seen Matt losing his cool to that extant. Daniel completely brought him out of concept in the first hour and made him say a bunch of stuff that he surely regrets afterwards.
I am still waiting for Daniel's evidence for a god. This pathetic excuse of a human being even changed the first debate topic from "is there good evidence for a god" to "is there evidence for a god" in advance. He himself doesn't even think he has good evidence.
@@joerdim "Is there good evidence“ 🤣
What a stupid topic to begin with that’s just a way of bashing any form of evidence without having to debunk them
Common atheist ignorance
@@acecream1411 Daniel also chose the first version by himself dude. This is what makes it even more embarrassing.
he said there is a biological root in believing in God, all independent societies believe in God, children believe in God without being told about God. Why would all these societies around the world believe in spiritual beings/God?@@joerdim
@@prizma45 Which he hasn't demonstrated. But even worse, even if we would be able to show that such an intuition exists, this wouldn't tell us anything about if there is a god, just how human brains work.
I don't have such an intuition and I don't know anybody who has. So that's that. If anything there would be an intuition for polytheism dude. But it's just an ad populum fallacy anyways.
What was the reason for calling him over to speak closer to you? Could you truly not hear him? You didn't seem to display that difficulty in the rest of the video. Or was it to imply violence if he came closer to you?
It's funny that a moral warrior Matt ended up dropping f bombs falsely accusing someone of having sex with 9 year olds,and most importantly,being cuckolded by his own wife😂
😂people just can't cope when Daniel fights against odds.
@@Sg190th Daniel always makes them either laugh it off and play with the audience,like it's a stupid stand-up show,or just run away and avoid the question,like matty did with the explanation of why he believes hurting others is morally bad
You don't know that they wrote hundreds of fabricated hadiths during the time of the Prophet. 🤣🤣 Additionally, fabricated hadiths were written to harm Islam.
Make it clear first of all to everybody that average age in the 6th century not the same as today in the 21st century ,. In the 6th century averGe is 35 years old while today it is 65-70 years old so 9 in 6th century is not at all like 9 in 21st century ,. Lets be fair and logic...
@@cunctator3401 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Isabella of France ( November 9 , 1389 September 13 , 1409 ) was the Queen of England as the second spouse of Richard II . She married the King at the age of six and was widowed three years later . She later married Charles , Duke of Orléans , dying in childbirth at the age of nineteen .
Dilhunty got bodied by Abdullah Andalusi in a debate, you're beating a dead horse, Daniel.
What does bodied mean?
@@AzizRahman1slammed, ragdolled ...
@@AzizRahman1
Destroyed
@@Black.Seed. Ah. I'll look forward to watching this in full then.
@@Funnyvidsperson buddy I just finished section 1 and let me just say this, your boy was smashed. He demonstrated that he was underprepared and Daniel caught him off-guard. Keep coping though, makes the victory all the more sweet.
The comment section in Modern Day Debate's channel is the exact opposite of this. I wonder why? 🤔
Because atheists are not as smart as they think.
I was wondering the same. 😅 I had to watch both the videos to confirm that they are the same video yet we have diametrically opposite audiences....
Because they are all athiests biased and indoctrinated from birth on secular liberalism
This debate was also posted by modern-day debates and comments there were interesting, check them out. Somehow they got completely different conclusions from you guys.
45:40 Mr. Atheist says he doesn't have complete knowledge of the universe yet he's making complete decisions about the existence of the universe 😑
What you said doesn’t make sense. Can you elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
@@brucewayne7875 Scientists know nothing for 100% certain but make objective claims using empiricism
@@brucewayne7875 are you dumb?
@@brucewayne7875you're not very bright if you can't grasp that comment.
"When is it ok to be bigotted?"
when being bigotted is defined by secular humanists.
And they are themselves ashamed of having a boyfriend. Otherwise Daniel didn't throw any insults. They just pretend to have pride in homosexuality, in reality they are ashamed of it.
@@Sultan-gr5tk obviously, fitra shining through!
@@Sultan-gr5tkthe only difference is Muslims kill homosexuals while atheists give them equal rights and treat them with respect,Muslims don’t have respect for anyone or anything that’s non Islamic
@@jonatand2045 people mutilate themself. Is that ok because they "like" it? Your fitra is clouded with vile wickedness and when I mention things like incest, cannibalism or suicide, you disgust and cringe at the thought. Why? Because you werent socialized in thinking these things are "normal" or "good". Pretty sure if you were younger prior to being indoctrinated and socially reformed, you d think things like trans or homosexuality to be disgusting. That d be your natural fitra.
As far as gay people go, if God said it would be ok, I d be an atheist. Sodomy and spreading of stds and sexual perversion cant be good or normal. Putting an extreme stress on the health care system so you can go out for a month and perform disgusting sexually perverted acts unlimited and then filling the hospital with all kinds of disturbing diseases making it so actually unintentionally sick people get inhibited treatment? Entertaining the idea and motion of not being able to have children so that when you grow old other people who invested 20y of their life in the proper education of their children now have to share their children to take care of your disease infested behind? Why should my child have to work more and longer in order to take care of the elderly because my gay neighbour refused to invest in the future? Why should he take care of me and the backhumper?? Ever thought further than your nose is long kid?
A god that approves of that is not a god at all. God wants good for us. Those things are not good for anyone. Not the people doing it nor the society they do it in.
You re assuming determinism. I reject the idea. Easy enough. Now you re stuck making choices like an adult and getting rewarded or punished for the choices YOU made yourself. You cant blame others when you want to put your p in someones a and die from aids which is a realistic conclusion and then get burned for eternity, or worse burden the normal, yes I said NORMAL, people who decided to live a healthy life and invest in marriage and children before you end up rotting in hell for eternity as a justice measure for the evil you did. You can thank yourself for being so stubbornly stupid and following your social indoctrination as opposed to your own fitra which tells you keys fit in locks.
To be honest, I think Daniel should've chose 'is Islam true' as the 2nd topic.
Tbh, Daniel should have retired after this debate.
@@joerdim rather Matt should have
@@NaseerZaid-ou2ou Why?
Huge respect to you Daniel, Assalyamu aleykum from Kazakhstan
For believing that his intuitions are evidence that his god fantasy is actually real?
So you think that the universe and everything inside it came from nothing?@@joerdim
@@erden613 Instantly ignoring my question. Lol. No, where did I say such a thing or even suggested this?
I respect him for his huge work to spread the truth, sorry forgot to reply to your question@@joerdim
but at the same time I am wondering why don't you agree with him, what are your arguments on that?@@joerdim
A man of his age acting like an angry child... Honestly he could'nt control himself...
Excellent job Daniel ❤
matt is used to people backing out.
Id be angry too if we agree on a topic and the opponent come and discuss something completely diffrent.....facepalm angry...not angry angry.....and then Matt have to try and save the debate itself for the people wanting to listen to a debate. Becouse there was nothing to argue against.
@@skagenpige88
Were you listening? The evidence presented was intuition. What followed was a discussion on whether or not a belief in God is actually intuitive, and whether or not intuition is reliable evidence for God. That is the topic.
@@meshari-yy9gp if god is intuitive, why do you need a debate.
Because people like Matt exist
Battle of the minds. You made him come out of his comfort zone. He can't debate out of his zone.
Matt thought displaying arrogance would mean he is confidence about his position.
while it only showed his insecurity.
Matt kept asking to stick to topic and bring evidence
Clearly daniel tried to set the standard or valid reasoning to accept an evidence, by mentioning the atheistic extreme analytical approach to find evidence to god is not objectively correct. but matt only trying to dodge daniel from getting into the topic by saying thats not topic, so matt refused to answer to that, becuase he is aware to build argument on intuitive or analytical approach will lead to acknowledging idea of god, which would be evidence and the topic which matt didnt want people to see.
There was a point where he finally was starting to make reasoning on intuition with you. The part where he started talking about intuitions on religion and God being contradicting thus unreliable in entirety. Though it may not be very sensible since at least all of them unite over the assumption of a deity and most strongly one God, I really thought this could've initiated the discussion that you wanted, which he couldn't really understand the relevancy of to the discussion.
I don’t follow Islam but Daniel cleaned the floor with Dilahunty when it comes to the issue of God’s existence. Dilahunty is deaf dumb and blind to the inconsistencies in the way he grades evidence. The man is arbitrary. His rage against God has left him delusional. That’s what atheism does to ya.
My friend, are u a christian or just a general theist/deist?
@@ibnmianal-buna3176
Christian
Interesting, "deaf, dumb, and blind" are the exact terms Allah uses to describe these type of people in the Qu'ran. I invite you to read it brother.
@@deistormmodsI thought about that too when reading his comment
They are deaf, dumb, and blind, so they return not (to the Right Path).
Quran , Surah Baqarah , verse 18
Shockingly your words comes aligned with this verse in Quran
I've heard of Ad Hominem attacks. Many examples of it from many directions and perspectives. But once Matt feels the pressure he turns it into a theatrical performance as a disruptive, distraction tactic. And his audience eats it up. And just the tiniest bit of their own medicine and it's like "Hey, it's only acceptable when we do it." 🤦🏻♂️😂 I commend Daniel for going into hostile territory and a one-sided audience to defend his position. That requires a lot of patience and perseverance. Meanwhile Atheists out here playing pigeon chess for their audience. 😂
whar pressure are you talking about? Daniel never pressured Matt. Daniel was obnoxious and ignored Matts answers to his questions. And Daniel didnt even honored the debate topic agreed on... Daniel was the faulting part here.
cope. your boy got smashed.@@matswessling6600
Whats truly disturbing is if you keep following those who deny your creator you'll just follow them to be tormented forever. which is honestly just a shit deal all around and you're all happy about it. defending it even. use your mind please.@@matswessling6600
@@matswessling6600I didn’t watch the whole debate yet but Daniel did adhere to the topic and he asked Matt what is his criteria of evidence and what is acceptable as evidence Matt just kept running away and yes it is related to the topic I mean how can you give evidence when you don’t even what counts as evidence
@@matswessling6600 _Daniel was obnoxious_ I mean the audience and including you are infuriating. Full of bias!
I find it disturbing that anyone could watch Daniel in this and think he won anything. He picked the three debate topics and two out the three (the first and third) he didn’t even address.
My intuition is that Daniel was wrong in his opening statement. Daniel believes that our intuition is key to figuring out what is true. Therefore I must be right, right?
Problem with Daniel is that sometimes his arguments are to complicated for peasants like yourself. Like his whole multilayered argument about intuition which you didn't understand. So I totally agree with you, Daniel needs to keep it simple for guys like you 👍
@@MCXM111 I agree. It is a problem in a formal debate if a debater cannot get his point across to simple minded individuals like myself. If you read through the comments on this same video that the modern day debate channel posted, you’ll see that the majority of those commenting are of the same opinion as me, so clearly Daniel’s communication skills need some work.
@@MCXM111 also it’s a concern that God’s existence requires such a complex explanation that people cant understand it. Does God condemn me to hell because he’s too complicated for me to believe in him?
@@Glasstable2011cry more
@@tiandi5359 it’s strange that both of the responses I’ve had from people who disagree with me on this thread haven’t been an explanation of where I’ve gone wrong in my thinking, they’ve just been insults.
Guys, relax. If God exists and He wants me to be tormented for eternity in an afterlife let him get on with it. I’m sure appreciates your help but he doesn’t need you to fight his battles for him.
Top comment on modern day debate says "I’ve never seen someone so confidently and aggressively come to a debate to say “my feelings are why my position is correct”" and it's hilarious how true it is. I would say this was a poor showing even for Daniel
Dude says he isn't gay and swears at Daniel, and wikipedia says he is in a relationship with a TRANS-WOMAN 😂!!
😂😂😂 that's what secular humanism gets you!
😂😂😂😂
At least she's over nine years old. 🤣
@@jimiellis6060 by what morals is marrying a 9 year old is not ok with you animals mate young I'm certainly sure evolution doesn't give a fuck
@@jimiellis6060 OMG
This over used argument again :/
Summary of Dillahunty's debate strategy: 1. Speaking as fast as you can so nobody will actually listen
2. Sounding as confident as you can
3. just pretend to make the best arguments in the world, fake it until you make it
4. Acting like everyother person who does not agree with my line of thinking is just stupid and just annoying.. stupid atheists will then just believe that I actually said something of value.
what arguments do you disagree with / think weren't good?
MashaAllah noch ein deutscher Zuschauer hier? :D
@@pranshu17538 it is the shallowness of his whole argumentation. He assumes that there is only one kind of evidence: show me reproducible proof under the microscope. That is not how you deal with reality. In the real world we accept a probalistic framework. In court, in everyday life we judge by probabilities. You haven't tested who ur mother is but u r beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that it is the woman who pretends to be it, don't u? Even though u don't have proof, u don't feel the need to proof, do u? I am sure there are good reasons why u don't feel the need for scientific laboratory proof, there might be good evidence beyond science based testing. What if now an parents-atheist claims u just have blind faith equivalent to someone who believes ur mother is actually Britney spears. Both of u have absolutely no evidence. That is the level of argument of these stupid atheists. In the real world we judge based on evidence and probabilities. Actually even science can not proof anything, rather it only can disprove things.
You're talking about Daniel.....
@@katryntjiexxcope harder
Assalamu aleikom, may Allah reward you all good جزاك الله خيرا
Ive never heard of Dillahunty, but it was one of the worst performances i have ever seen.
God is supreme and above any government, and I would much prefer to be the Almighty's property than that of any human government any day.
human government and human religion both killed 100 million in history, each
almighty's property is actually humans' property, since humans created the concept of god and religions. It's all fictional.
But the problem is Almighty choose humans to communicate and humans came up with thousands of different interpretations all of them claiming to be from Almighty.
@MaroSurf03 you are using circular reasoning to refute the argument
@@zeek8189
1. It's a powerful tool to cope with injustice and death
2. It provides very easy answers that doesn't require much thought to big ontological questions and unexplained phenomenas, the brain likes easy answers
3. It's a very effective tool used by leaders to control populations and exploit them
4. It provided moral laws that were necessary for people at their time but are outdated to us now.
there you go, 4 reasons why religions and god is so popular, for more reasons just research online, popularity doesn't mean it's true.
"im trying not to be rude", proceeds to yell, interrupt, swear, and defame.
matt was also first one to interrupt
I would like to extend my apologies if I have contributed an excessive number of comments, some of which may have been rather lengthy. The recent debate lasted for over three and a half hours, and I have taken the time to review it in multiple segments. I firmly believe that addressing various aspects of the discussion is essential in order to derive a constructive outcome from the diligent efforts of both gentlemen who prepared for this debate.
My personal objective here is to expand my knowledge and refine my perspectives. Therefore, I would be immensely appreciative of anyone willing to point out my errors and help me refine my worldview.
Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to engaging in meaningful discussions with fellow members of this community.
The only thing that matters to me is that Daniel's intuitions argument is a joke. Even if someone would be able to show that such an innate intuition actually exists (I don't have it and I don't know anyone who says he has it) then we would only have a better understanding about how human brains work, not why they work that way and certainly not if gods exist.
Gods cannot be a candidate explanation since gods don't have evidence for their existence.
But it's even worse because, if anything, this intuition would point to polytheism being true and my personal intuition says that there is no god.
@@joerdim if to so many people existence of higher power eg. God comes naturally to conclude due to the rather obvious fine tuning of the world and us inherently having this ingrained need to care for something above our own subjectivity then theres no wonder if so many people are intuitively or naturally inclined to point to God/higher power as the primary cause/necessary existence.
@@LARESCIV Could you write this again in english please?
@@joerdim I didnt actually finish my thought, thanks for pointing it out, now I did via edit.
@@LARESCIV I have still no idea what you are even talking about. Looks almost the same.
Something about fine tuning and stuff above subjectivity. And people concluding stuff from their intuitions which is a nonsensical thing to do. I explained this already.
It is good to have discussions with people from other faiths or those with no faith about the evidence of God and the truth of Islam. Yet we have to acknowledge that a significant aspect of our faith is built on "faith" and not material evidence. Quran teaches us not to follow the ones before us who asked their prophets to see God by naked eye.
Surah albaqara : Those who believe in the unseen.
Wow
Hatoona I get the point you’re trying to make but you went off track with it. There are some things in Islam that requires faith to believe in and many that reason supports. Example The faith parts like belief in heaven or hell that we cannot objectively see or prove requires faith. When you use reason and see a book (Quran) that mentioned the Big Bang, mountains being pegs that stabilise the earth, the separation of the two seas, where iron comes from, the stages of the fetus in the womb, and many more things which science later did prove then it’s perfect logic to say belief in Islam is based more on reason, if all the things you can verify is true it’s not illogical to believe the things you can’t prove like existence of a hell or heaven you cannot see in this world to be true based on faith. When the phenomena of the latter occurs it doesn’t mean our religion relies on faith more.
I am a Muslim based on reason. I would never be a follower of a religion merely based on faith more, so please be careful how you make your points.
There is a reason the Quran constantly challenges one to think and reason and even calls ppl out for lack there of. How many verses do we have that says things akin to “have you no sense?” “For those who reason” paraphrased.
Islam isn’t like Christianity that science wiped the floor with.
@@emerald7857 thank you for your reply but I think you are the one who has it wrong. Of course our religion is based on faith. Faith that goes hand-in-hand and is not conflicting with reasoning. Do not be ashamed to say that or perhaps you did not know. If Islam was only based on reasoning then why do you think the Quran and tradition keep on mentioning the importance of believing in the unseen??!!
@@emerald7857 Wow! What an idiotic comment 🤣
We do have concrete evidence you just dont know. Quran is material evidence, prophecies are concrete evidence. Those who believe in the unseen could mean those who believe in God despite not seeing him with their own eyes. Does not mean they do not have other concrete evidence
"The theist is always at a disadvantage if he has to mold his arguments to satisfy a mind that is primed to reject anything non-empirical."
How to uncover scientism 101, great work br. D
@redfordkobayashi6936if science cant tell you the truth of this reality then it inherintly has flaws. Religion is for that. Science for the worldly aspext of life.
@redfordkobayashi6936 cuz most religions are man made or haven been corrupted from the true message. Only islam has bee preserved. There is but one true religion.
@redfordkobayashi6936 well if we assume there is one true religion one can be born in it no? What will you say to those who convert to islam.
Scientologists don't get converts they get members of their org. it's Dishonest to call it a religion, even Countries like France and Germany designate Church of Scientology as Cult rather than organised Religion
Also Islam hands down has most converts out of any other Religion right now, especially in the western world.
What are you waiting for yourself, not care about your soul?@redfordkobayashi6936
@redfordkobayashi6936 Science changes everyday. That's the epitome of fickle-minded people.
Daniel mocking hecklers is probably the funniest thing I've ever seen
He asked why people laughed at him and truth be told I never seen him that upset and insecure about laughter in any debate he had since. I legit took a screenshot of his face because it was so funny.
Daniel Haqiqatjou is the king of making false equivalences "You support forcing children to go to school therefore forcing them to marry is fine" apparently giving the child an education is the same as forcing to marry a 60 year old 😂
@@alexanderoneill6160 exactly.
Forcing someone to Marty someone is not required in islam ...mariage in islam is about accepting
@@alexanderoneill6160there is no forcing in Islamic9 yr old marriage..it is mostly happening in liberal 13 yrs live in and 16 yrs single mother system...
People often get aggressive when they realise they are being beaten. Your debating skills just get better brother Daniel masha Allah. Maybe that's because they're based on truth.
Except he wasn't. "Come say it to my face" is what Daniel said. Matt did what Daniel asked and Daniel sat there and did nothing after. That isn't a skilled debater, that's called being a pussy after you flaunt around your empty bravado.
'Better', as in, knows how to be an arrogant piece of shit who only knows how to make the opponent's blood boil through being disingenuous and straight up LIE? Then, yes, he's getting 'better'.
no...daniel proves that he is a pedo , not that god exists...
"say it to my face"
"im super relaxed bro"
"come say it to my face bro"
If I have done wrong to another person, the correct course of action is to apologize and make amends to that person and not blow it all off and hope that some God is going to forgive me and make it all go away. That sort of mentality is what allows people to not treat others in a way that is good.
Matt Dillahunty 🤔🤔🤔
Here is your ignorance on islam. Sins against other people should be forgiven by those people. But sins towards allah are forgiven by Allah
This atheist was grandstanding to the audience the entire debate and was more focused on trying to look like he was making an argument then actually making one.
There was no evidence presented for Allah.
The atheist was grandstanding? It doesn’t seem like you watched the same debate i did
@@brucewayne7875 It doesn’t seem like you watched the video. Go look up the definition of grandstanding and rewatch.
Actually i know exactly what grandstanding is and Matt didn't do any of that.@@binmanbinman
@@brucewayne7875You know what grandstanding is and don’t see how he grandstanded in the debate? Did you even watch the video?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 🧐 Cognitive Science and Modes of Thinking
12:25 🌍 Cognitive Colonialism and Epistemic Standards
21:13 🤔 Lack of Evidence for God
22:34 🤔 Matt Dillahunty and Daniel Haqiqatjou discuss standards of evidence.
24:29 🤷 Matt and Daniel debate the chosen debate topics.
26:32 😕 The debate shifts to the principle of non-contradiction.
29:16 😅 The debate delves into the nature of unfalsifiable principles.
34:35 🧐 Matt and Daniel debate the nature of evidence and objectivity.
36:58 😡 The debate becomes confrontational over the principles of logic.
43:53 🤯 The debate reaches an impasse on unfalsifiable principles.
44:08 📜 Introduction and debate context,
50:04 🤯 Debate focus shift,
01:05:54 📊 Comparing religions by adherents,
01:06:09 🌍 Factors Making Islam Compelling:
01:12:01 🔍 Criteria for Compelling Religion:
01:22:01 💡 Assessing Religious Compellingness:
01:28:01 🤔 Discussion on monotheism and its appeal:
01:32:01 🛤️ Comparing the compellingness of different religions:
01:36:09 🔄 Evaluating religions based on their beliefs:
01:40:16 🌟 Factors contributing to a religion's compellingness:
01:50:08 🧠 The universality of human psychology and shared mental frameworks.
01:51:30 🌍 The importance of appealing to what is shared and universal in debates.
01:53:06 🧮 Differing perspectives on math and intuition.
01:54:53 🗽 Secular humanism vs. Islam in the context of societal betterment.
02:00:39 🚫 Secular humanism's lack of association with extremist actions.
02:08:57 🪔 The thought experiment on pleasure machines and societal implications.
02:12:45 🌐 Introduction to "Pleasure Inc" Metaphor
02:13:14 📚 Pleasure Inc's Target Audience and Strategies
02:13:55 🌍 International Expansion and Opposition
02:14:37 ⚖️ Enforcing Compliance and Suppressing Dissent
02:16:02 🤖 Transition to Transhumanism
02:18:24 🕊️ Secular Humanism vs. Islam
02:19:22 🗣️ Open Dialogue and Personal Attacks
02:29:11 🔥 Heated Exchange and Disagreements
02:33:58 🔍 Discussion on secular humanism
02:41:46 🕊️ Discussion on the imposition of secular education
02:52:33 🚀 Discussion on belief systems and freedom of expression
02:56:24 🔍 Debate on secularism and colonial policy
02:58:26 🎙️ Debate on individual consent and responsibility
03:00:14 🏛️ Question about individual consent and state responsibility
03:01:25 🧠 Discussion on secular humanism and secular values
03:04:13 🐒 Debate on animal consent
03:09:37 🧩 Debate on George W. Bush's religious beliefs
03:12:13 🏫 Debate on religious practices in public schools
Made with HARPA AI
Really?? An AI can do that?? Thats impressive
@@amben6619 it already did ;)
@@IsmailSarkaya-ll4tsfree AI?
yes@@jasonvoorhees8899
Matt really destroyed Daniel, especially in Parts 1 and 2 where Daniel's case for God and Islam was literally: it's my inherent intuition. That wasn't evidence.
Modern day debates keep innovating here. Daniel ma shaa allah tabark allah did an amazing job.
Why can't those atheists be kind enough and watch their tongue? Why do they have to use filthy words?
Matt thinking he’s a millennial is HILARIOUS lol
I am not a Muslim, but I agree that was pitiful. Matt is 54, which is 14 years away from being a millennial.
It was a joke
@@Dattebayo04 I think you are correct, it just wasn't a very well-executed joke.
hes either having a midlife crisis or identifies as a 20 year old
@@shawnkay5462 20 is Gen Z now
Assalamu Alaikum Daniel, hope you're doing good, I don't usually comment on youtube, this time however I have to as this 3 hour debate is just wonderful the way you handled arguments is incredible, you emphasized on Tawheed the most and kept it as the top most priority, this is how debates should be held, no use talking to atheists or anyone over secondary issues like marriage with Ayesha(R.A) or moral laws etc if they don't even accept the idea of pure monotheism, the manner in which you explained to everyone how pure monotheism is innate was marvelous. I hope Allah guides all and opens everyone's heart towards His message.
Ameeen, jazak Allah khayran katiiran
Your analysis is great, May Allah bless you brother, ameen.
🤡
The appeal to "intuition" is nothing else than the concept of fitrah in islamic theology. This term was not understood in the first place by the arabs and nowadays it is still used with the meaning stemming from ethiopian language. The term was probably brought back by muslims returning from the first hijra but is nowadays believed to be "revelation".
Nice job Matt. ❤
Why he so angry…. People like Hitler Stalin killed hundreds of millions and they are atheist….and he can’t debate with words but wanna fight he a worm
@@farehhossain1989 Hitler was a Roman Catholic who thought his god was on his side. Try harder.
@@farehhossain1989 Hitler said that he wished that the Germans were muslims because that would have made it easier for him to reach his terrible goals.
Atheism is a position on a single question, it has nothing to do with morals or whatever.
Secular humanism is what can be compared to Islam, not atheism. And it's faaar superior. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were secular humanists. They tried to implement a state religion and a personality cult.
Masha’Allah, champ as always Daniel ❤
The paradigm and fundamentals are concise and clear. Peace upon the one who follows the guidance
Daniel embarrassed himself here, as he always does. I've never seen someone suggest a debate topic, then just completely bail out of it like a wet fart, and just throw a bunch of nonsense strawmen at Matt for 3 hours. That was magical. Oh also Muhammad the prophet of Islam, the role model for Muslims is a child rapist who married a 6 year old then had sex with her when she was 9. Have a good day.
🤡
Every word Matt says presupposes that his logic is reliable, there is an external reality to him, there are other minds other than him to hear what he has to say. Yet he believes in these things without evidence only relying upon his intuition. Yet rejects another universal intuition that god exists and does not apply the same amount of scrutiny to this intuition that god exists to his other intuitions he believes in with no evidence. Secondly how can he prove his logic being reliable ever. No matter how many times you use logic, you can never prove it wrong because in order to prove something wrong you need to use logic in the first place. Daniel did the right decision and proved to every sane person that Matt doesn't even have a consistent epistomology to discuss what is true and what isn't in the first place. Because this entire debate though its about islam, any debate presupposes that you two have the same standards of evidence in order to accept evidence at all in the first place.
Good summary. Thank you!
You would love Sye Ten Bruggencate, lol...
If the axioms of logic fail then we can't know anything. If A is not A and " A is true" may imply that "A is false" then we can not claim the truth of any proposition at all. Plus, axioms are never said to create universes. If something is capable of acting upon the physical then there should be evidence, if God is just an abstraction then there is no debate to be had. None of the philosophical issues you raised are solved by God or spirits or religion.
And you pressuppose your God. ... atleast logic demonstrates itself to be realiable over and over again , unlike God.
@@JAG7532exactly if axioms fail you can’t know anything, yet you assume these axioms are true without having evidence. Especially believing in evolution where it is not necessarily the goal of natural selection to result in flawless brains with perfect knowledge. If you believe that logic is true then the only proper explanation is an all knowing god who could not have made a mistake with your mind and everyone else’s mind, in order to substantiate that this logic is totally reliable.
Was there a moderator for this debate? Was he / she asleep?
Habibity , you almost got your ass kicked by a Navy seal and you still posted the debate, kudos to that
Not almost.
@@joerdim he was one punch away , which was enough to knock the femininity outta him .
@@mashashua I am not talking about physical violence.
Amazing content you have put forward in your presentation daniel.👍 Love the interrogation part of finding matts criteria of evidence and not deviating from the argument.
Also very much like the interrogation and the word "why" used in the debate to question his position . It exposed matts inconsistent in him and his position.
Matt wasnt ready for that surprise you put forward.
Same happened to arons in debate with jake.
Good God, Matt is the expert on saying a whole lot of nothing, as he gaslights his opponent.
Again not one verifiable proof was given for Allah or even a lodgical argument. logical syllogism must be unknown for Muslims.
In that case you should probably try putting your listening ears on and replaying the debate. You might learn a thing or two if you can tone down the bias as well.
@@brucewayne7875 Sorry sugar. I may have a bias. But he is truly hallow. I've heard the same talking point. Unconvincing as usual. Typical hypocrite. God, why would I subject myself to 3 more hours of Mr. Cop out?
@@brucewayne7875the problem is that it’s you people who are deaf and refuse to question your atheistic worldview and have some sort of arrogance complex and immediately like to think of everyone as inferior which is clearly shown in the way you right your comments when in fact it’s people like you who ignorant and cannot fathom that what you are saying and thinking is completely stupid and non-sensical
Ok you’ve made this claim, now give me a quote from the video + timestamp to support it.
I swear this matt guy and his supporters over the comments at the modern day debate comments are giving me a headache
You have to decide if truth matters to you. If it does, your beliefs must rest on the foundation of _reality itself._ (Because that's what truth is: the set of facts about reality.) Humanity hasn't detected any gods sharing reality with us. That's why Haqiqatjou's opening argument in the "evidence of god" section _didn't provide evidence._ So he doesn't know gods exist. So he shouldn't believe (if truth was his goal, he _wouldn't_ believe).
@@majmage omg you’re one of them, your comment is exactly why Danial’s opening was the way it was, cuz evidence for u is limited and you have to prove your way of assessing thing the other only objective way for the conversation to continue, Danial hasn’t even scratched the surface of try to present evidence, you say Humanity hasn’t detected any god when we literally claim that a prophet was sent by god + the existence of the universe in it self is evidence of god, like danial said he could’ve went to the contingency argument or started the conversation about the claim of the prophet isn’t lying or the miracles of the Quran ect. , but your close limited contradicting minds won’t even entertain the conversation when ur standards are defected and we need to address them first to show ur point inconsistency for the conversation to go further, that’s what looking for the truth is not just picking up rocks and hoping to find god under it or else you won’t accept it, I really hope u do more research on it maybe this debate didn’t do it for but matt was literally an embarrassment
@@abdalsamiahsaed7303 1. Daniel's opening was that way _because he doesn't have evidence of a god._ The only limit to evidence is it must actually evidence of the desired conclusion. For example theists don't have evidence a god caused the universe (or more broadly: caused everything). Yet they often cite it as "evidence of god", and that's illogical because it can only be evidence if they have evidence of the cause (A) existing and (B) being a god.
2. Look around. _Everything_ created that you see is proof of the reliability of an evidence-based approach to knowing reality. The screen you're reading this on, the electricity powering it, the drywall/brick/etc of your home, _all_ of those things are functional examples of humans learning how reality works (if we didn't know how electricity worked, we couldn't make devices to reliably use electricity).
By contrast, _nothing_ you see is the result of believers' strategies for knowing truth (like faith or presupposition). Nothing.
3. Imagine Gary claims to be a god. _Is that evidence Gary is a god?_ Because you're acting like _claims of a prophet_ are evidence of a god, but all you have is a horrible argument like Gary's. Why is it that _every_ theist struggles with basic concepts of logic? _You know_ Gary's claim isn't evidence, but weirdly you think claims of a prophet are. That's what we call "cognitive dissonance". It's where your beliefs are contradictory: the same logic does prove Idea A, but doesn't prove Idea B. Cognitive dissonance.
4. The only possibilities are (A) everything or (B) not everything has a cause
* if A, then an uncaused god is impossible
* if B, then Contingency arguments have no reason for saying a god is _necessary._ (Because any given thing might not be caused. And that uncaused thing isn't necessarily a god.)
Well that's one of several reasons why Contingency arguments aren't logical. (You can look up others, if you're actually interested in truth and you don't want to be misled by falsehoods.)
5. What "miracles of the Quran"? It's a book that thinks sperm comes from between the backbone and the ribs. So it's _exactly_ as wrong as we'd expect a book written in that period to be.
6. Why are you lying? I'm the one aggressively asking you for evidence. I'm _deeply engaged in the conversation._ By contrast, you're checked out. You'll ignore the problems I've described, because that's what Muslims do. You can't address my points, and you don't have evidence of a god that actually passes _basic logical scrutiny._
وفقك الله أخي دانيال
They want us to follow their world view. In this debate Matt said " my wife can and have a night out with anyone she wants". He said this like its a praiseworthy thing. Strange times we live in.
It's none of your concern. He talked many times that he had an open marriage with his wife. That's between them. I don't think he ever claimed it praiseworthy. He was just making a point.
You're right. I would never take anything from a cuck. It's disgusting.
@Poggy matt is a cuck. And our religion has hadiths that warn us against cucks (dayooth) if anything, his open marriage makes my faith stronger. Such an evil and despicable marriage
It's disgusting and makes marriage pointless.
@@Poggy The point is we won't take morality from people like Matt. Disgusting individual.
I'm embarrassed by Matt...and almost embarrassed to be Atheist while watching.
Don’t worry, in order to feel happy just let your wife sleep around like Matt does.
Why? Daniel didn't once address why he thinks Islam is true. I'm gonna say you're a liar and not an Atheist, that or you're an idiot.
@@mohammadmursalin6817💀💀🤣🤣🤣
Matt is always crying and getting angry like a woman nothing new not surprised it happened again
come say that to my face
I have watched countless debates on religionin the past two decades. Sadly, I have yet to find one debater on the side of religion that is debating on an honest bases. They all sooner or later fall back into dishonest tactics or even blatant lying. This is no exception, and it is one of tose debates where it happens right from the beginning.
average rick and morty gay lover
Just like discovering the recipe for a Burger doesn't disprove the existence of a chef.
Similarly, discovering HOW humans were created doesn't disprove the existence of a creator.
Just like It is ridiculous to think that the recipe of the burger was randomly executed without any direction & coordination from a Chef.
Similarly, It is also ridiculous to think that this sophisticated design (Human) came into existence just by random interactions of dust particles without any direction and coordination from an intelligent source.
@@tombash4329 That's exactly what i am saying it was not a random process my argument is that it was a systematic process that was carried by the direction and coordination of an intelligent being
But my main argument is that just by discovering the HOW something was made doesn't prove that nobody made it, Because atheists always say there is no creator because we have discovered HOW humans were made. it is a logical fallacy how can you say that there is no CHEF because i have discovered the recipe of the Burger?
He is applying what Richard Dawkins is desperately shouting for years. The desperate god of the gap argument which is based on a straw man. Because we now know what DNA is and how it works, there is no more room for God anymore..🤦♂️🤦♂️😄
@@samkb6374 //we now know what DNA is and how it works, there is no more room for God anymore// Imagine someone saying "We now know what a computer is and how it works, hence proved nobody made it."
May Allah preserve you brother 🙏
ameen🐱👍🏿
It’s crazy how he kept crying initially because he was flabbergasted by Daniel’s opening. He couldn’t fathom the fact that he didn’t have control over the framework in which this debate was allowed to take place. He kept insisting only his criteria for evidence was allowed but couldn’t substantiate why.
He ultimately did end up engaging with your opening which just shows that it WAS relevant but he just didn’t know how to respond initially.
Matt got washed.
That's was very wise Daniel intentionally mentioned 'Boy Friend'. If you say nothing wrong with a gay relationship, then it's not offensive to tell you have a boyfriend. You just need to correct, if it was wrong. It would be offensive only you think that the gay relationship is wrong or sin. But It was very obvious Matt was very uncomfortable and offended when Daniel said 'Boy Friend'. This shows the natural intuitions we have about gay relationship.
Tactical trolling
His "girlfriend" is a bloke so Daniel wasn't wrong.
People dont understand how good Daniel's first opening was. Even Dillahunty uses intuitive thinking, but he is not honest enough to admit it.
Personally, I would have added some rational arguments and focused less on the colonialist argument.
"People dont understand how good Daniel's first opening was" Is this satire?
no it is a fact@@LGpi314
@@LGpi314 It has to be satire. What Daniel came up with was one of the most embarrassing performances of a theist apologist I have ever seen.
@@joerdim my guy get a job or something. Why you replying to everyone lmao. Get a life