Bob Dutko: Why He Fails

2013, Religion  -   113 Comments
20
5.93
12345678910
Ratings: 5.93/10from 60 users.
Storyline

Christian radio talk-show host and apologist Bob Dutko took the time to reply to the first video of the 10-part series, Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's Existence.

This first episode of that series dealt with the claim that the 1st law of thermodynamics and the creation of the universe combine to provide proof (not merely a suggestion) that God exists.

In Dutko's response, which is addressed in this current video, he accused the author of all sorts of "debate tricks and tactics."

However, it was he who failed to understand the reference to the physics behind the big bang and continued to merely assert that "Goddidit" is a sufficient answer for how this supernatural force created a material universe.

More great documentaries

113 Comments / User Reviews

  1. How does one know for sure, anything to do with much of anything regarding "the beginning"? They just claim it. Which means what? Zip. All those who have faith in Science, most of which is theory, while those theories drop like flies, while you don't want to know, too busy arguing concepts you fancy yourself understanding, that you really have no idea about, you just read and/or watched some stuff and up and have faith that it is true while those theories fall short and by the wayside. Nice ego trip.

    All those who have blind faith in God, why? Do you even know? Because someone suggested it? Could it be, because you know there is a spiritual realm beyond the matter and energy that make up the physical world?

    Sad to say that it is wise not to judge Christ by christians. A few too many use the Bible to puff their egos much the same as others use science to puff their egos.

    When man and womankind tire of puffing their egos, the world will become a dandy fine place. I won't be holding my breath.

  2. Wow a lot of smart people on here, but not a lot of wisdom. He who has ears to hear let him hear. The Way, the Truth, and the Life

  3. Hey folks! Lol...wanted to ad a different perspective here! I am a christian in the fact that I believe Jesus is the savior humanity & that God created the universe. However I also think Bob Dutko is one of the worst people on the planet! He spreads hate & bigotry everyday and is in no way a reflection of the love and mercy of Christ! I listen to his show regularly! First off he claims his show is a "Christian" show on a "Christian" station which doesnt make sense- you cannot baptize either of those things! Also he claims hes defending God- how arrogant must one be to believe God needs you to defend him!? If God was worried about that im pretty sure he could take care of that problem!
    After all the hundreds of shows iv listened to I still dont understand his motivation??? I truly believe this is a man who is filled with so much hate for people of any other race, religion, sexual orientation, or political belief than his that he cannot control himself! I wish there was a way to stop him from contributing to the hate of this world!

  4. I just found a great show on Hulu that took 6 episodes before introducing a fantastic loving homosexual couple and then introduced Christians as hateful. With Hollywood setting the modern compass of societies, it is amazing that anyone is still a Christian because Hollywood hates them - not to mention colleges filled with anti-God rhetoric. It turns out that God has never proven himself to someone without faith.....instead, He rewards faithfulness with supernatural events. So while the world confuses the media with science, several of us are seeing supernatural intervention that our pragmatism cannot write-off as coincidence.

  5. Bob's top 10 proofs are great and lead to clear, I said clear evidence that Jesus is real and living today. I feel sorry for those that fail to open up there mind to the very clear and existing knowledge of the Truth of Jesus Christ. Only fools (like Hawking himself and others) turn a blind eye to the Truth, but only for a while, only for a while...

  6. Bob's Top Ten Proofs don't fail. God does exist. Just because you cannot see something DOES NOT mean that it don't exist. For example, the wind. You cannot see wind but wind does exist. Therefore, you cannot see God but he does exist. God created everything. Plain and simple.

  7. Almost 8 minutes In before he gets to the first point. Get on with it!

  8. It's HE and I. Not him and I. You'd think someone who makes a living talking would know that.

  9. Interesting however that Hawking himself stated that the probability of evrything occurring seems to point towards a creative hand working.

  10. I live in the area that Bob Dutko has his radio show. I have called the show several times and debated him, he is VERY dangerous. He has absolutely NO qualifications, no education to back his claims and yet he speaks in absolutes about science that he is not qualified to speak on. And the people who listen to him think that because Bob uses big words that he must be right and they believe him and then they tell their kids this nonsense and then it continues. It is dangerous and needs to be corrected! I think this guy is great, and I wish he could have a radio show here in Michigan just to inform people of the truth, so that at least some people could make informed decisions of if they want to believe the nonsense that Dutko spreads, or the truth.

    1. It funny you didn't mention once whe

  11. My Good God , Bob Dutko is a dangerous, uneducated turd. The terribly misfortunate part of any of this are the feeble dupes who follow his oblivious rants. They would rather have Bob tell them how to live and think and he's riding high on that. $$$

    I love this documentary though. The Narrator is relentless but he's articulate and well spoken.

    Being a Nurse I see many beautiful and miraculous things that have me wondering if maybe there is something greater that we can't always explain.

  12. Wondering why anyone would expend so much energy, time, and video storage to beat a dead horse. Christians, I understand, are motivated to save souls and give a reason for their faith (apologetics), but why anti-Christians are motivated escapes me. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, PhD, offers perfectly scientific, logical, and intellectual arguments for the Big Bang (something out of nothing--ex nihilo) as described in Genesis 1:1. Please see ReasonsToBelieve.org.

    1. You don't understand why anti-Christians are motivated? A few days ago you claimed to know all about what atheists think. Many atheists are also anti-Christian. You claimed you "reject religion", and "Religion is an attempt by Man to figure out how he can please or get to God by what Man does.", but also claim to be Christian. It's a strange contradiction that you're now saying you don't understand anti-Christians, and whats more you point towards religious texts being accurate. So which is it Terry, do you reject religion and Man's attempt to please 'God', or do you suggest the Bible is the word of 'God' and are defending the Christian religion, as you did the Church leaders in the current child abuse cases?

    2. Again, you are saying that I did something that simply isn't true, docman. I told you that what you're doing is just a Scientology ploy to irritate people for your own trollish amusement. I'm not talking or reading YOU any longer because you are dishonest.

    3. Maaaate,

      Could you show me where in Docomans post he has dishonest?
      You were on another thread say that you know what atheist think then you come on here and state " why anti-Christians are motivated escapes me", so it appears you're the one that's being dishonest.
      To add to your dishonesty you have stated that you were an atheist until the age of 35. So it seems to me that you have had a period in your own life that you were anti christian. What motivation did you have prior to being "born again".

    4. I forgot Terry said that about himself being an atheist. Apparently, he's anti-religious, but yet Christian. Religion is Man made, yet the Bible is accurate. He knows everything about a particular position because he was one, but then doesn't know someones motivation for a similar position.
      I'm a liar and use apparent Scientology tactics because I question his lack of condemning Church leaders for their illegal and immoral actions with the Child Abuse in their ranks, and dare to question his statements.
      Hmm, maybe he's one of those Therian weirdo's, hence the 'oldfox' reference? It wouldn't surprise me. :)
      Then again, he may not be lying this time. He said 'it escapes him'... it's obvious there's lots of other things that do too.

    5. The truth seems to escape him on a regular basis from what I've read of his. May be if he pulled he head out of his a$$, he may just stop talking sh1t.
      But then anyone how claims to been everything from an arms merchant to crime commission volunteer and everything in between including a masters degree (I'm guessing it was a masters in bullsh1tology) would be able to spin a yarn as no doubt he'd think he had a silver tongue.

      It amazes me that so many people still today believe in such nonsense like religion considering how advance we have become with all other aspects our lives.

    6. Lol, nice try again at ducking any questions.
      How exactly have I been dishonest Terry? Care to prove your accusation? Your Bible also mentions bearing false witness Terry. Naughty boy.

      I don't care if you read my posts, you haven't bothered to answer most questions anyway, exactly as you just did again. It's not all only about you Terry. I also answered your absurd Scientology remarks already. Try a new lie Terry, that's already been shot down.

      That's the best non-answer you've got? You have the usual religee tactic of not actually answering any direct questions down pat. You contradict yourself, claim knowledge you can't have, and when questioned you get all defensive and then try a mixture of victim and ad hominem. You poor old thing, don't like being questioned. Well, too bad.

      Your BS won't wash Terry. I'll point out your BS if I like, just as you can try to prove I'm dishonest. Good luck with that, you're either completely deluded, or you know you're the one that's being dishonest, as with your first post on here coupled with your posts on the other religious thread, so I'm betting you won't even attempt your twisted logic. It's already a 'fact' in your head anyway, isn't it? You were the one saying facts were what YOU believed to be true were you not? Why try to show any evidence, you haven't for anything else you've claimed and been asked to provide evidence for. lol if you have anything more then BS and hot air, it'd be a change to hear it. Go hard old fella, if you can...

    7. Let's look at the attrocities of atheists ie Mao and Stalin let's look at what non religion has brought us. You are seriously being honest when you can say religious people commit unspeakable acts but than not hold the same standard to atheists and let's be frank you cannot try to live morally within a faith system that rejects morality or states that morality is all realitive.

  13. I believe in "Lord of The Rings", it makes me feel good.

  14. the big bang theory is flawed, red shifts in quasars,hello? the universe aint expanding.

    1. And where did you get you PhD in Astro physics. Oh that's right, opinions are meaningless in science.

  15. What is GOD? No one knows. We humans simply don't have the brain to comprehend the answer to this question. That would be like expecting bacteria to comprehend what we are and understand our values. human progress in science is still in it's infancy and can't be used to prove or disprove god's existence, whatever god may be. Science only debunks the Bible and nothing more. Religion should never be used to explain the natural world, only careful observation, the collection of data and interpretation of that data (which is the definition of science).

    1. Now here is the freshest truth on this board..meet source...humans. You've been schooled

  16. Over_the_Edge
    Just a suggestion, but it might be a good idea if you would invite Bobby Allison "The Preaching Atheist." to join TDF. As you know, I have already done so and Jackmax promises to follow in my footsteps. We can certainly use a poster of his caliber and personal experience. Ditto for "Coffee with Claire." Please feel free to use my name in this regard. Your thoughts.

  17. Over the Edge:
    Are you familiar with "The Preaching Atheist." If not, I suggest that you watch one of his videos entitled "God Struck Down DOMA--The Bible Says So." Perhaps a link is in order. I have invited Mr. Allison to join TDF for reasons best explained in his video, "Brief History of the Preaching Atheist." Your thoughts would be appreciated.

  18. Are there things out there that we as a society can't explain? Sure all around us, everyday. But to just dismiss them and say, some spirit somewhere did it. That's the easy way out, the cowards way out, creationism is a joke, I could say aliens from a different dimension kick started the Big Bang when they were trying to time travel. There s no proof for or against so it must be true. Thank you aliens for inadvertently creating our universe.

  19. "no, my mama dont wear no combat boots, but yours sure do!" ad nauseum

  20. I love how atheists always talk in this slow, monotone, logical voice. Always very specific, very unemotional.

    Not saying he's wrong.

    Just saying he has a very good marketing strategy, by pitching himself as a very cold, thoughtful logical person. So yes, he is also using debate tactics.

    I guess, what's more human? Over the top, frantic, aggressive and emotional responses? Or scripted, computerized, logical and cold, focused responses? Neither of them have the answer; both are good salesmen.

    1. But you forget, Bob Dutko is the charlatan.
      P.S. It's neither of them HAS the answer.

    2. "I love how atheists always talk in this slow, monotone, logical voice. Always very specific, very unemotional." Nothing like extrapolating from a single sample to an entire broad spectrum of individuals, lol.

      I for one appreciate a clear, methodical delivery when trying to actually follow a speaker's logic when following a debate point.

      If someone is handing you a "patter" it means they're hoping you can't follow their dance-steps and won't call them out on inconsistencies, because they don't lead to a logical conclusion!

      Most talk-show hosts--of any persuasion, and including Dutko--are overweening blowhards who think if they talk fast enough and loud enough, they'll be perceived as right, even when they're wrong. (I can't stand most talk shows, as you can imagine!)

    3. And what's especially disgusting is the amount of money these phonies make?

    4. I don't know. I find it amusing. It isn't the huckster who is being stupid. The mark is the one throwing his money into a black hole. That's what I find amusing.

    5. Do we not all listen to a "patter" which agrees with our internal "patter"? It's called vanity which we all are guilty.

    6. Maybe youre missing the point. Anyway, fwiw and imho Dutko lost the "debate".

    7. Speaking of debate, what do you think of the reasons given for not engaging Dutko directly on his show?

    8. Hi Robert. Do you mean Dutko not wanting to engage Brett Palmer on his show or the other way around? I ask cuz I'm not aware of the Brett Palmer show, only his video presentations. Have I missed something?

      BTW, I should have said Dutko is loosing the debate, hopefully there will be more, I'm looking forward to Dutko's reply.

    9. The other way around. Mr. Palmer gave a few reasons why he would not take up Dutko's challenge to appear on his [Dutko's] show. I was seeking your opinion as to the validity of Mr. Palmer's reasons. Laurence Krauss appeared via telephone on a creationist's talk show and basically ripped the creationist a new one. The audio is on You Tube.
      P.S. I have five shekels which says that Dutko will not be replying.

    10. I reckon you are right, that's probably the last we'll hear from Dutko on this matter, but sadly not THE last.

      TBH I wasn’t aware Palmer had declined Dutko's challenge. I must have missed that. I think his video reply here deals Dutko quite a blow but a live debate would been fun. Who knows, watch this space I guess - fingers crossed.

      It's always hard to be sure if one is being objective but I’ve yet to see "our side" lose a debate to these "religulous" cranks. I've watched Dawkins, Hitchens and all the rest debate some pretty serious, heavy weight, intellectual theologians (not just the soft targets like fundamentalist literalist jokers) and they often come away quite defeated IMHO. Even the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams (who seems like a nice, reasonable bloke) had very little meaningful to say in defense of his faith when up against Dawkins.

      I find fundamentalism offensive and the Church of England, as reasonable and as nice as they seem, increasingly irrelevant*.

      *Religiously but not politically irrelevant: they often come out to criticise economic inequality which I welcome because the establishment still respects the CofE to some degree even though the general public is quite indifferent towards it.

    11. Ah yeh, I've seen Dawkins and Krauss chat...very good and Krauss is quite funny.