A popular atheist theory of morality claims that morality consists of the rules and strategies for reaching certain goals, such as human well-being or flourishing. Versions of this position are defended by Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty (“The Atheist Experience”), and the Apostate Prophet, and it may be used to prop up secular humanism. But can this moral theory stand up to a little skepticism? Can it account for moral obligation and objective moral value? What happens if someone doesn’t share the relevant goals? David Wood (Acts 17 Apologetics) discusses the issue.
Watch “Dillahunty Vs Wood (Acts17Apologetics): What Best Explains Ethics, God or Secular Humanism?” on the Modern-Day Debate YouTube channel: Matt Dillahunty Vs David Wood (Acts17Apologetics) | God or Secular Humanism? | DEBATE - YouTube
PATREON: David Wood is creating EPIC videos | Patreon
SUBSCRIBESTAR: David Wood on SubscribeStar
STORE: https://teespring.com/stores/acts-17-merch
PAYPAL: PayPal.Me
BITCHUTE: DavidWoodVideos
#MattDillahunty #ApostateProphet #DavidWood
Everyone check out Whaddo You Meme’s video on “The Dillahunty Dodge”: How to do The Dillahunty Dodge! (Step by Step VIDEO Guide!) - YouTube
This is funny, if you go to the full feed of the debate the comment section is FILLED with people talking about how Dillahunty wrecked DW. I still think DW won the argument (Dillahunty says he won’t debate with someone who thinks the prevention of human suffering is not a moral obligation, that seems a lot too much like he considers this an objective goal/obligation). The whole debate I got the feeling that Dillahunty follows an objective moral imperative but is too stubborn to admit it. Watch it to the end it’s obvious Dillahunty does little but shoot his own argument in the foot.
This is what happens when the Axe bites back and you FAIL to “chop wood”
A few years ago I heard someone on a podcast interview Dillahanty. They asked him what the strongest argument for theism is, and he said the moral argument.
The thing is that most people equate good public speaking with seemingly few misdirection of argument (sophistries) with winning debates. Both christians and atheists alike.
You could put up politician who knows little about economy debating economist and still majority will think politician is the clear winner eventho the economist trumps the politicians argument.
This is very apparent with philosophical debate regarding the existence of God. Speaker like Dawkins and Sam Harris seemingly dwarfs their opponents until you spend 4 hours taking notes of each speaker comparing arguments, did the speaker address his opponent argument or did he create straw man argument of which his opponent didn’t made and beat the ever living hell out of the straw man.
Heck, during my younger days, i thought alot of christians were winning debate take Kent hovind for example, outstanding presentation, put few jokes here and there, belittle your opponent, dont address your opponent argument and create a straw man argument. I have nothing against hovind but i didnt think he won alot of debates as i think he did in the past.
As for now, i see a quite a movement from the atheist side of people converting to atheism with lackluster argument. At least philosophically. It seems just that people are rebelling but calling it being “woke”.
tl:dr “Matt Dilahunty: There is no objective moral obligation in the Theistic sense”
Acts17Apologetics: “Matt’s view is inconsistent because he doesn’t offer moral obligation in accordance with a Theistic sense”
26:09 "Might makes right:
A little ironic for a Christian to object to this sentiment.
26:50 “I’m trying really hard to understand his position”
It doesn’t seem like you do.
Whatever your foundation for morality may be, it is always better when you do not include the genocidal skydaddy.
Do good for goodness sake.
Do good for yourself.
It doesn’t matter even a purely selfish foundation still works to some extent.
If you truly believe in god with predestination you know there is no free will just like atheist. Exept we do not beleive the future is yet written.
We do wanna live old and well so by extention we want everybody around us to do so. You wouldn’t do worst to accomplish this if you realised we only have one life and god and jesus is the same lie as mohammad and allah.
Matt is the saddest, sourest egomaniac in the Atheists’ camp right now. He gets demolished in every ‘‘morality debate’’, but still, goes on to act as if he won with his superior ultra higher logic.
Wtf do you know you have no morals
MD’s position is still, “There is no objective morality.” It’s just nicer if we’re nice to each other. Why wouldn’t we want things to be nicer? Understood. The problem is that his philosophy hits the real world. And crashes and burns. Hitler is still the reality MD has no answer to. We can’t agree on what human flourishing looks like, and we can’t agree how best to get there. Hitler thought he WAS working toward human flourishing. He thought that flourishing looked like the ubermensch. And he thought the means to reaching that goal was the extermination of all who stood in the way of that flourishing. Pretty sure MD would disagree. But without an objective morality, there’s no real basis for MD’s disagreement. Just personal preference. And without an omniscient, infallible, righteous God, there’s no basis for an objective morality. Sorry, MD. We’re not all playing chess, and we really all have different rules. And yet, you know MD doesn’t actually believe Hitler’s way was equal to his. The problem with the, “No objective morality,” philosophy is not that it’s logically inconsistent. It can be perfectly logically consistent. It’s that it’s practically inconsistent. None of us can actually make ourselves believe it or live it. He’s still falling into the ol “Humanity is basically good” nonsense that a two-second look at history (or the nightly news) will debunk.
Now Acts17Apologetics has158+ million views and Apostate Prophet has 307!thousands subscribers! Big progress!
So what if in the 20th century people did abhorrent things, but that’s nothing new. If anything things were much worse in the past before the 20th century, public gruesome executions, torture dungeons, wars, pain and suffering being spread for one’s own satisfaction and gain. Have you never heard of the medieval times? And yeah we are just a spec of dust in relation to the universe, so what? It’s all about perspective and how you look at things. Plus so what if you had similar views and that lead you to bludgeon your father with a hammer? You were going through a psychotic episode at the time and you’re a diagnosed psychopath so your views were twisted and irrational. No rational reasonable healthy minded person would ever allow their views and opinions drive them to do something like that.
Oh and it’s funny how you pointed out that he said its not an categorical imperative but you completely glossed over what he said after, that’s it’s “conditional” and yes there is a difference.
Dr. Wood litraly demolished Matt dilhaunty😃
Why atheism makes people stupid. Atheist automatically become stupid as soon as they try to irrationally try to deny god. They deny god while still living as if god exist which brings up more contradiction. Romans 1.22 professing themselves wise, they became fools.
Psalms 14.1 the fool says innhis heart there is no god… i enjoy not debating, because its no.debate, but instead exposing atheist stupidity, hypocrisy and indoctrination. Atheist are funny as heck.
Stalin conducted his life by killing and murdering millions of people…in return he gained power, prestige, fame and fortune…exactly what he wanted to better his life. dillahunty is an idiot.
Good bless you if u changed your ways from jail, but if u just another con, well only God will be the to determine that through his son our lord jesus christ,
I just want to point out that Dillahunty’s fans were kind of scared of you in the comment section
Not all atheists believe there is an obligation to be moral. Im atheist, and I don’t like Matt Dillahunty. He is pretentious, just traded one soapbox for another.