Kabane The Christian vs Matt Dillahunty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnGeEjuEAPY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqH_QU0aQVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIKjPqj_3p4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO2l_1pd_sQ

I'll see if someone posts the actual debate from TV, so you can actually watch.

Here's the TV debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXCARLJ7qMU&feature=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyyeCoAi10&feature=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOTvbBydyy4&feature=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SksyxK-e6w4&feature=channel_page

Id say not following Christianity is the most reasonable because, as Matt said, Christianity involves Zombies.

Also I like that song that plays.

Thanks Tyrong, I'm gonna watch and surely enjoy this one.

Just a random note, but at religious class at our school*(not biased, just teaching about dumb shit like holidays and teachings blurgh). And we watch a movie called JESUS(how original, amirite) and its so dumb and retarted. One thing is everybody looking like hobo's but two when JEsus is all like "I am the prophet and the messiah etc.", in the middle of the Synagoge, how dis respectful.
But the movie is just filled with shots of Jesus being so awesome.

*Some public schools here are from orgin just Catholic or Protestant, not private, well some, but that are the hard ones, my school is just, like, really not a catholic school tho we are, but we dont do shit about it. Besides religion class, you wont even know. And religious class isnt even biased.

I'd say Matt could have exploited the definition of "extraordinary" to demonstrate that the extraordinarity of events or phenomena, while relative may not necesarily be subjective. This with the objective to demonstrate that there are phenomena objectively assessable as extraordinary, disproving thus Kabane's point that extraordinarity is subjective.

Once achieving a consensus on extraordinarity's objective assessability, they could have developed on the evidential standards required to accept a certain extraordinary phenomenon to be true or false. I really wonder what Kabane would have had to say in regards to that - whether he would have disagreed that extraordinary phenomena require special or at least higher evidential standards than common happenings or not. Then I would pretty much have wanted to hear a reason for that.

You can call into the showyou know, Zeal. And you can also challenge Kabane if you want. All info's in the discription in the second set.

I just watched part 1 and I can already see... MAtt fucking pwned that modafacka. Damn man, that Kabine or somethign is bad.. just really bad... like... omfg..

CoolKidX wrote:

I just watched part 1 and I can already see... MAtt fucking pwned that modafacka. Damn man, that Kabine or somethign is bad.. just really bad... like... omfg..

But Matt could have done more and actually get this guy deeper in shit.

And yeah Tyrong I know, but Long Distance calls are somewhat expensive and discussion or comment purposed-discussions ought to be not precisely short.

And I may challenge Kabane... although he's an interesting specimen - while accepting miracles, he acknowledges evolution... The discussion with this guy should mostly be in regards to his evidential standards.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

But Matt could have done more and actually get this guy deeper in shit.

His powers are limited cause he is on TV.

But yea my internet motherfucking broke when I was at the 3rd part : (.
But Matt is a genius!

CoolKidX wrote:

His powers are limited cause he is on TV.

But Matt is a genius!

Yea I like him and his style of debating.