Except that Mack clearly stated he is not an apologist. Which is the problem. A good Christian Apologist would have engaged with the points Dan raised.
@@michaelsenior9477 there are no good chrishchun apologists,the whole apology business is just a mental masturbation or if you will beating a dead horse story.
Andy (Christian host) tries to be neutral and asks a question regarding the apparent disconnect between 'justice' and 'eternal punishment' at the 1:06:27 mark, and the Christian guest goes into full preaching-mode (as he did with Dan) and completely avoids the question that was actually raised. He's simply incapable of addressing matters that many Christians themselves genuinely struggle with. I think this is one of the main reasons why so many Christians in the West don't attend churches anymore and rely on online apologetics instead.
Talk about kindness, Dan Barker is showing what it is like to care about other people. Where Mack is more concerned about the Bible and how he will go to Heaven. This was more of a individual response compared to one of mass appeal.
“Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.” Roman historian, Polybius.
Mr. Stiles didn't seem very curious or interested in responding to Mr. Barker's points. Rather, Mr. Stiles was defensive & his reactions didn't serve his side well.
“Jesus is truth”? What does that mean? If someone tells me the sun is 20 million miles from Earth, how do I apply Jesus to tell whether or not that is true? Wouldn’t I go out into the real world and check that claim against reality, exactly like Dan said we determine truth? He was right that Mack’s definition is incoherent.
In the Bible, Jesus is identified as the eternal Word “the principle of divine reason and creative order, and that by Him and through Him we’re all things made. Jesus says He is truth. This may not correspond to how we usually think of truth, but it isn’t unrelated nor incoherent. To say that Jesus is truth is to recognize that He is both true and the source of all that is true.
is it just me, or is Mack Stiles a dead ringer for the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz? 🙂 no offence Mack. Dan Barker is winning this debate hands down IMHO
I used to be like this christian fellow. Its sad to see how brainwashed he is to this mythology. And worship a tyrant like yahweh. People cant see this is man made writings, no god involved
@@nisarfazil6104 how so? Also (and absolutely no judgement here because I had to look it up to make sure I was correct) it's one word. Bullshit. Not bull shit. Again not trying to say you are being nonintellectual. Just want to make sure in the future you don't run afoul of someone who is snarky with this spelling.
Do you believe that a God of love can burn people in a fire forever? Hell that's immoral. What the hell could anybody do to deserve that?we don't live long enough to do that much wrong.
After watching Mack here today with his glazed eyed expression and his robotic chanting of bible quotes, I can think of few others that better fuel the argument that a religious belief is akin to a mental illness such as schizophrenia ! Both being equally corrosive to the mind and both having an equally powerful internal mechanism for self-preservation and perpetuation of the particular delusion at it's heart. Dan was far too charitable towards this nauseatingly passive aggressive, "Holier than thou" individual, in my opinion. It reminds me of the joke about the parents deeply concerned about their teenage son's strange behaviour: Mother to husband: I'm so worried about Jimmy, he's nearly eighteen and he still believes the invisible dragon that has slept at the foot of his bed since he was a baby, is real !! "I think we should pray for him"............
Really sounds like God is a a very horrific dictator... I don't know what he has planed/designed for the different type of tortures and sufferings in his so called 'hell'... lots of sufferings and pain I am sure... it will be bloody and wouldn't be pretty and could be worse than watching the 'Saw' movie.
As always, Dan makes perfect sense to me. I could tell from watching Mack that he wasn't interested in what Dan had to say and did not address anything that Dan said. He just quoted words allegedly spoken by his invisible friend Jesus that gave him comfort. Very disappointing. Thanks to Andy for hosting these two.
@ploughboy988 Your worldview is so weak that you aren't even allowed to accept that people can sincerely disagree with you. This is called a thought-stopping technique. It is used by cults, MLMs, religions, etc, to keep followers from considering opposing ideas or thinking outside of the imposed limits. By insisting that everyone secretly agrees with you, you let their points, arguments, and evidence just slide around your brain without consideration or engagement, whenever they speak to you. If your beliefs were actually true, you wouldn't need to protect them from deeper scrutiny so much, would you? Only the preservation of false ideas requires this sort of gaslighting and mental tactics. Look up Hassan's BITE Model of authoritarian control.
Any body can prove that "GOD" does not exist, as long as the definition of that "GOD" will not change seconds later. By the way what kind of gospel is that of John 3:16 that ONLY those who believe in Jesus gets saved ? That is not true or "unconditional love" that is a selfish love. Read carefully !
Romans 5:13- “Where there is no (Old Covenant) law, sin is not taken into account.” This of course means that salvation was only needed by those who had sin taken into account, which was only ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant law of sin and death, which is no one alive today.
Deuteronomy 32:4 says God is a God of truth, just and right.. If we accept what Moses said, then anything which is unjust or not right is an error of some kind. We of course make judgements about right and wrong. - Jesus said we should judge righteous judgment. We don't want errors. And , if we are like God then truth and righteousness must be part of our makeup. the Bible is all about learning how to manifest these in our life. Truth is proclaimed in the Bible by Jesus as -"thy word" (John 17:17). He was not talking about himself. He was talking about something said. John (1:18) makes it plain that God is spoken ( not seen). Jesus spoke God (he spoke truth). God is as close as the word we speak. Does that sound strange? Truth is generic and specific.. Truth is a divine statement about the human situation we face. One of the things we need is the "spirit" with the truth. Truth without the spirit often falls short of justice and righteousness.. Paul says it this way - "be renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Ephesians 4:23). We apply truth to be renewed in the spirit of our mind. then we can do things like Jesus did and proclaim it truth by demonstration. It was right for people to be healthy. Jesus healed them by knowing the truth (John 8:32,40) that God was the health of their countenance (Psalms 42:11; 43:5). So, lets look at two statements which different viewpoints might proclaim as truth. 1. God has nothing to do with your health. ( is this truth?) 2. God is the health of your countenance. (did Jesus think this way to heal?). Was it truth? can we prove it for ourself? Will that answer the question about truth and health? If we are sick we need to be saved from sickness. according to Jesus knowing the truth will save us from disease. Truth is valuable!
Interesting discussion about morals. Dan is right that out of the 10 commandments 3/4 of them are no longer thought of as sins & I stopped coverting my neighbours slaves years ago ! But Mack must be aware that there are 613 commandments in the Old Testament all together such as to men not to use a razor to cut their beards & no. 60 which I do like , Not to be superstitious-Leviticus 19:26 ! Now the Jews only observe 270 of the commandments & for sure they no longer stone people to death for disobeying any. So it is obvious that mans own sense of morals & common sense overides what ' God' originally instructed. Interestingly I note that the main 10 commandments doesn't mention lying or being dishonest or not keeping slaves. Perhaps they need to be updated !
Funny enough, the thing is that perhaps a large part of the so called brokenness of today is more likely to be related to onset of extreme capitalism of which Christian alongside of colonization served to help deliver. Along with squabbles that are bound to arise due to differences related to religion and the way how these squabble are often the basis for shunning, ostracization and then associated C-PTSD , which may lead to drug and alcohol abuse, and then in the larger scope of the whole picture onward to homelessness and widespread feeling of despair. As well as more crime. Plus being behind the basis for wars If Jesus would need to be the only basis there'd be to avoid "brokenness", i would dearly like to see Mack Stiles explain why Daniel Everett didn't discover a bunch of terribly broken Pirahã people when he'd originally gone to live among them with intention to attempt to convert them to Christianity. Why not, Mack Stiles? Even in Gaza and Israel today, if only the young children there in those places would be delivered "true" liberty of faith and religion, so as to have true freedom to choose for themselves. While being protected from the nastiness of "liberty of faith" alongside of "liberty of faith abuse" which sadly today is still being accepted as being about absolutely nothing more than liberty of faith alone. Similar situation applies also in the USA. Even there, liberty of faith alone is interpreted as being liberty of faith + liberty of abuse. As if "faith and abuse" should be acceptable as being like one and the same thing Perhaps Jesus would even be utterly disgusted, today, would he be able to still be around. But not because people didn't follow him. But because the situation as it stands is obviously so utterly foolish. And is absolutely disgraceful Believers allow religion to deliver brokenness. Then they try to blame this brokenness back on the non believers
Dan did an amazing job pointing out the immorality in the bible. There was not really any good push back from Mack. The painfully obvious bias from the moderator was not appreciated but I appreciated having Dan on so you break even lol
EVEN IF EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE is true, NONE OF IT pertains to anyone alive today. The Bible is the story of Yahweh’s fulfilled plan of redemption given exclusively to the ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant law of sin and death and pertains to no one alive today, soteriologically nor eschatologically speaking. Here’s more… If you believe the Bible, then you’d have to agree with Jesus in Matthew 15:24, that he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. You’d have to agree with Jesus in Matthew 5:18, that no jot nor tittle of the Old Covenant law would pass away until the Old Covenant system, temple and people associated with it (what Jews referred to as “heaven and earth “) passed away. You’d have to agree with history that the Old Covenant system, temple and people associated with it passed away in AD70. You’d have to agree with Paul, who said in Romans 5:13, “Where there is no (Old Covenant) law, sin is not taken into account.” This of course means that salvation was only needed by those who had sin taken into account, which was only ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant law of sin and death, which is not us today. You’d also have to agree with Hebrews 9:15, that redemption was only for those who sinned under the first covenant, which again…is not us today. The bitter pill of truth is that no one has been saved nor redeemed for nearly two thousand years. The “church today” has been in a massive error; a complete hijacking’s of ancient Israel’s exclusive and fulfilled redemptive narrative, the Bible. “But…but…I’m a gentile!” Are you? The gentiles Paul and the disciples were preaching to were either Greek converts to Judaism or the elect diaspora, grafted-in descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations. Through the ministry of the disciple’s great commission, they were called out from the nations to again be a holy nation of kings and priests sealed for the day of redemption, which only they lived to see. Nobody today is a gentile of that sort. Today’s so-called Christians have been hoodwinked into believing they’re sinners under a law that passed away and need a savior who said he came for someone else, who will save them from a sin that’s already been removed and a judgement that already happened and allow them into a covenant that was made with someone else. The fact is we today were never and will never be part of ancient Israel’s exclusive redemptive narrative, the Bible. ~ Michael Bradley
Mack in 21st century wouldn’t feel sad for the innocent people who lost there life in the name of cult for centuries force me think how these zealots would have behaved back then.
Absolutely fascinating, the religious guy convinced me that he is in fact a crack baby, he was high af on his religious bs and there were no two brain cells connecting. He made me re-evaluate professional christian apologist, they at least have a vague understanding of the atheist position, this guy lives in un alternative universe.
Yikes, I never thought I’d feel more sympathetic to Dan Barker in a debate/discussion, yet here we are. Dan makes typical atheistic arguments, and then Mack ignores the question and preaches the gospel. Mack seems incapable of considering opposite beliefs and rebutting them. The whole “we live in a post truth world” makes absolutely zero sense. Dan’s arguments weren’t that great, but he received no competent responses. Mack did not represent Christianity well in this discussion.
It's hard to decide what represents Christianity because there is huge diversity among Christians. We can put it around - it's hard to find something coherent among believers. But based on my experience even if Mack don't represent the strongest version then he represents majority of Christians that I had contact with. Also after tens or hundreds hours of watched debates I didn't hear good answers to issues pointed by Dan. Besides there is no end to sophistry on religious side. True or not - religion don't provide coherent and accurate worldview for modern age that can help in any way with sense-making. All philosophical (and religious) systems have some degree of internal coherency but that really means nothing. Narration of the sin doesn't make sense for me and just on that without being bought by it then rest of construction crumble like a house of cards. How I know that doesn't make sense? Because there is no free will (for arguments go to Sapolsky). We are creatures of this world and our healthy functioning depend on "revelance realization" - entropy minimalization - prediction error minimalization. Before religion participate in it but lead to creation of beliefs with high precision (dogmas) that aren't necessarily useful but are necessary for higher order of organisations - ideologies. Dan talked with reason but Mack is clearly agent of ideology.
Wrong channel. This is more about discussion most people can track. I suggest something like intelligence squared as they have those kinds of debates often.
37:44 is really rather embarrassing. I knew Mack for years. He is simply not used to being around people who are smarter than he is - or disagree with him. If you watch other videos, you'll notice that Mack is usually deep in his comfort zone, delivering a sermon or talk at a conference, to willing audiences. That's not the case here. This failing - of iron sharpening cardboard - is probably par for the course when it comes to para-church ministries like Mack is used to leading. In these circles - especially in far-off lands and subject to less scrutiny - personality and enthusiasm, which are Mack's strengths, tend to trump deep thought, or theological training. Thus, you end up with this bizarre scenario: where the atheist has a better grasp of theology than the advocate of faith. This situation is not purely Mack's fault. We are all products of our environment, to some extent. And Mack's is the Christian Industrial Complex - that network of having to please mission donors, endorsing other people's Christian books, in the hope they endorse yours, and being taken seriously in churches because of supposed missionary credentials - credentials that aren't subject to much scrutiny. Actual scrutiny would reveal a different story.
I also knew Mack; we attended the same church in Dubai. We were friends back then, but no longer are, for reasons too lengthy to go into here. I will say that your analysis of Mack is spot on.
Dan failed to mention the torture and cannibalism that were common practices amongst many of the northeastern tribes such as the Iroquois. In the south the Aztecs routinely ripped out the hearts of their victims as a part of their glorious indigenous religion. The Incas sacrificed their infants. Yes there were some peaceable Native peoples and yes some of the Europeans did commit terrible acts of violence. By and large the history of humanity is a blood bath punctuated by some brief glimmers of light. The net impact of Christianity on the world is overwhelmingly positive.
You know nothing about history and it is hilariously racist. Christianity is one of the leading causes of stagnation in our morality, society, and laws today.
Dan never claimed that every tribe across both American continents were morally perfect, only that they were on balance morally superior to Christians, which seems very likely. It’s Christians who claim to have access to moral perfection when it is painfully obvious they do not. Have you read the part of the Bible where god says he’ll force people to eat their own children if they disobey him? Just one of many fun perfect moral acts of Yahweh.
Mack, you keep talking about salvation, and how broken this world is, and how bad things are, but Jesus or God doesn't show up to help or fix this world. You have to wait til you die and only if you believe Jesus is messiah, then you'll get salvation after death. So dumb!!
You nominally ask "What is Truth?" Truth is a correlation between an assertoric sentence in a language and a state of affairs in reality. For example, "The cat is black" is true (in English) if and only if the cat actually is black. What you guys are talking about not an answer to the question in your title. You're dealing with a very different question: "What is true?" in relation to set of theological assertions often made by Christians.
Right. Correspondence theory right? Have you engaged with that Cartesian metaphysical question? Or cognitive science, Ian Mcghilcrest's work about the left and right brain and how the conscious mind compiles truth from a reality that even space time are not fundamental to.
@@LordBlk Hi. I think both parties in this discussion implicitly endorse a correspondence theory of truth, which is why I address the nominal question in such a manner. "The" Cartesian metaphysical question could refer to any number of things. Brains don't "compile truth" - they may instantiate beliefs, if that is what you mean, which may or may not be true. And "reference to reality that even space and time are not fundamental to" sounds like reheated Kantianism to me,
@AmorLucisPhotography no, I was referring to quantum mechanical theories from observation made in those sciences. It is considered that space-time emerges from a more fundamental structure. Coupled with the hard problem of consciousness, would infer consciousness(if it truly does effect quantum states) is most fundamental.
@@LordBlk Oh. I see. Those matters are interesting, but not directly related to anything I was saying about truth. The correspondence theory of truth (or any other theory of truth, for that matter) is not affected by the claim that space and time are not "fundamental" or by the hard problem, if that is what you meant by "the Cartesian metaphysical question". Since you seem interested, I'll say this - I see no reason to believe that QM offers us any distinctive insight into the hard problem. QM may be helpful with the easy problem, and Roger Penrose has done much to try to connect QM with consciousness. I believe that any attempt to subsume the hard problem under a scientific explanation of any kind is a misbegotten endeavour. The reason for this is - roughly - that explanation is epistemic in nature, and all scientific explanation is ultimately grounded in observation statements which are themselves constructed from the very stuff of the hard problem.
I’m not sure why Unbelievable chose to match a strident atheist who aggressively attacks Christianity with a pastor who admits he isn’t keen on apologetics and debate, and who even states that his book and the focus of his discussion are not for people like Dan. It was very frustrating to see Dan so grossly misrepresent Christ, the Bible and history in such a manipulative way and go essentially unchallenged. It is laughable that Dan would actually accuse Jesus of saying immoral things or lying because he talked about “chopping off body parts”‘ and because he told people if they prayed in name if the name of the Father they would receive “all things” Clearly Dan doesn’t understand hyperbole, context, or any working understanding of hermeneutics. It’s scary that he was actually a pastor at one time.
Oh ok. When the Bible says Jesus resurrected, that must have been hyperbole, like the stories that say Julius Caesar, at the end of his life, floated up into the sky and received a new immoral body and went to live with the gods. If you just say the things that are obviously false or distasteful in the Bible are metaphors, then you’re not using the Bible as your actual standard, are you? You’re using observable reality and your human moral intuitions, which is exactly what Dan described. Also, you’d think a pastor could fulfill Peter 3:15, but Mack apparently couldn’t. He can recite his beliefs, but apparently he is unable to explain or justify his beliefs. That’s a problem if he is claiming those beliefs are actually true…which was the stated debate topic.
@@weirdwilliam8500 No the resurrection was not hyperbole. It actually happened; but if you come from the presupposition of naturalism and deny the possibility of the supernatural then of course no amount of evidence will convince you. If you are open minded enough to consider that the supernatural is even remotely possible then I suggest you google Gary Habermas or NT Wright and their scholarly books about the resurrection. Jesus used hyperbole and parables to make a point. It is pretty clear actually when he is doing so if you actually take the time to read the gospels without an axe to grind. You are right about that Mack seemed unprepared to answer Dans points and give a solid defense of his faith. However that doesn’t invalidate the faith itself.
No, no, no no! No one goes to Hell for not believing, they go to Hell because they have rebelled against their Creator, because they hate their Creator.
That's not what the bible says. The bible says we are born sinful; cursed from birth to be separated from God with no ability to remedy this except belief in Jesus' atoning resurrection
@w8m4n words have meaning and that meaning is defined by the intent of the author not the reader so interpretation is just how we understand anything correctly.
aw hell, the same ol trite "relationship, not religion" crap...if you adhere to a supernatural deity, then you are religious...well, you ain't sciencious...I don't know if anyone else caught it, but about 17 mins. when it was stated that you can't earn your way into "heaven", which is his definition of "religious", that's when I knew he's already fallaciously begging the question, i.e., he's already assuming Christianity is about getting your way into heaven, which he assumes is a given and that really exist and that we all know this...first prove there's an afterlife, let alone a heaven, then we can discuss how to get there...no one has done this to date...the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse: Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett; Dan Barker is as formidable as any of these guys...he's the 5th...he's like the 5th Beatle of Atheist.
WRONG! You have no idea dudes. Christ is clear. Only those who DO THE WILL OF MY HEAVENLY FATHER WILL BE SAVED. So He asks you to EXECUTE GODS WILL and not to preach, to believe (and the devil believes, and more strongly) in Christ. Faith in Christ will not save you. Christ points to the Father and not to himself, while you Christians put Christ in the center and not God as Christ did and GOD resurrected Christ because Christ cannot do it by himself. Yahweh will resurrect you on the last day, not Christ. So says the theory. YOUR work of doing the Father's will saves you, not Christ. But who is to blame when you have twisted Christ's teachings with Satanism.
By the way the Bible never forbade “interracial marriage.”’ That is a blatant lie. Moses’ wife was African and some of the most honored people in the Bible are Ruth (from Moab) and Rahab (a God fearing woman from Jericho) who married Israelite men and became ancestors of both David and Christ. God didn’t want the Israelites to marry outside of the FAITH so their FAITH would not be defiled. Part of the wonderful indigenous culture of the Canaanites for example was sacrificing their children to Molech, and when the Israelites intermarried with them they started doing the same. It was the false Gods of the other religions that were demanded unfairness and cruelty. That is why the God of Israel lovingly forbade idolatry!! Also the 10 commandments were indeed revolutionary and the laws given by God to the people of Israel elevated women tremendously above the status quo if that time.
Dan didn't say that the Bible forbade interracial marriage. He said it was heavily associated with the word 'evil'. Sure, you can find some characters in the Bible that are exceptions (such as Solomon having multiple wives), but you're missing the point entirely. More importantly, the God of the Bible mandated the killing of not just the people who practiced child sacrifice, but Canaanite children as well. EVEN IF the stories were completely hyperbolic or completely made up as a nationalistic folktale, this God figure depicted in these stories is full of jealousy and concerned about people worshiping another gods, not the well-being and safety of children.
Perhaps the worst episode by this channel. Name one take-away from this sorry discussion. Mack just preaches Ray Comfort style and the host just let's Dan's arguments go unaddressed. Painful and boring. It is so obvious that Jesus' claim to be the truth requires elaboration and specification (the bible quote claims he is the Way to salvation, his message is True, following him leads to Life, ) yet Mack seems satisfied to simply quote the bible rather than have a discussion with someone who disagrees with these claims. Disgusting waste of time.
Well that's disappointing. The Christian is getting more and more dishonest and frankly childish as this goes on and he realizes how poorly his arguments are holding up. Predictable but still disappointing.
What specifically are you referring to in saying Stiles became dishonest or childish? Particularly in light of Barker’s frequent hyperbole and caricature of God and of Scripture?
The whining and preaching increases in both frequency and urgency as Dan talked. He failed to address any objections Dan Brought up and at one point literally complained about how he finds Dan's view of god offensive rather than address the reasons Dan gave for the view. It was childish starting about twenty minutes in and only got worse from there. Read the rest of the comments. The guy dodged addressing almost anything Dan asked or pointed out.@@matthewcurtis-gw2ep
Well je was write about denominational schism and division. But I would agree that his framing is lacking. Like when he suggested that a scientist would have gotten a nobel prize for it by now. That made me laugh. Very mechanistic.
@@49perfectss that's easy. Science can only make claims about observable things. Through quantum mechanics, we know that space and time are not fundamental aspects to reality. We would need a new field of science/technology that could analyze immaterial reality. Quantum mechanics at least proves there is an unseenness to reality, and that causality is not nessecarily linear. So I suppose, if proof of God was found in a sciencetific way, yes nobel prize. However, it is not currently possible, and we do not have the tools (even conceptually) to analyze that. I mean Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting ideas, and there is quantum mind theory to consider. Ian Mcghilcrest's work is also fascinating about how the hemispheres work in building our perceptions of reality from a mechanical veiw and a living relational veiw coming together to produce what is "real/true." It's really valuable to dive into the philosophy of science and epistemology. Simply put, God is not a "thing" in the universe.
@@49perfectss man my posting seems to be screwed up. Dan says that truth isn't a thing in the world. Mack's answer is Jesus says he is the Truth. So unless you have a science that cam weigh truth in a materialist fashion, we need new technology/sciences to tackle this question. Dan also says morality is not a thing. It leans heavily on the materialist views and frankly, even current science understands that there is an immaterial nature to reality, an unseeable quality/quantity, which is more fundamental than space-time. I would say a really good scientist to look at how the brain functions and derives reality is Ian Mcghilcrest. His work on the way the 2 hemispheres produce reality for us is amazing stuff. Worth checking out
I have studied it. Both by myself and in college taught by professional historians and theological scholars. That's why I'm not a Christian. A deep understanding of the bible leads you out of the religion.
Oh ok. Which of the thousands of mutually exclusive denominations (all with scripture to back up their interpretations) understand the Bible properly, and how can we tell which one?
Dan is a master straw man builder. I liked this episode ( kinda, in a strange way) even tho the two guests were mismatched. One more thing I wanted to mention, and it's only my personal observation, Dan seems to be one of those bitter, angry with God ex-Christian atheists.
There was a lot of talking past each other due to fundamental disagreements between the two guests, but neither of the speakers were straw manning each other's arguments and statements. You seem to be one of those judgemental Karen-type Christians that are bitter and angry with atheists in general.
The reason u think Dan is going overboard with this resentment to God is because you have not read the bible because if you did read it you'd understand
I came here from Spotify. Contrary to most Atheists on this video, Barker sounds like he's got a massive chip on the shoulder for not doing due diligence before he start speaking against science when he started out as a Christian preacher. Barker's explanation of scripture sounds like he has far removed the history and culture from it. And I see what he's trying to do by divorcing religious beliefs and moral standards. As a former Atheist, I would say Barker's POV seems so narrow evolution couldn't occur from it if his POV was organic. And Barker is far from pleasant and nice: He's quite rude and adversarial in his speech. He claims science is not always true but he asserts his stance as an absolute, without any allowance, as stalwart as Dawkins. While he says he's thinking nothing bad about Stiles, his tone suggests he's contemptuous. And unfortunately, he hasn't considered in depth how every religion has good and bad stuff, just as philosophy. The problem is that Barker has thrown out entirely wherever he's come from and take a superior stance against religion. All Stiles seems to be sharing with him about is what he doesn't understand about Scripture because he's got a closed mind.
And the other guy was absolutely right.Bringing up the doctrine of discovery and the genocide of the indigenous peoples of these lands that his people stole
No. You seem trapped without knowing you are. Like we were. At least... that's how you look 2-3 years after we leave. Till then it's full on angry atheist phase in which it can be difficult to be more reasonable lol
Lol yes. I actually would like the Gods to be real, at least the one(s) who claim mercy and companionship. Life sucks balls mostly as an atheist. Little comfort offered. @@49perfectss
@@zachg8822 Make your life better then. No point in waiting on a sky wizard when that isn't going to happen. As an atheist my life is incomparably better than it was as a christian because I put the work in. You have one life man. One. Stop wasting it on an obvious myth. It isn't about comfort. It's about dealing with reality on its terms... because anything else is just giving up and wasting your life. There is more comfort living that way that you may think.
Still a much better God than the God of the Bible. At least Dan doesn't mandate infanticide or torture people because people didn't glorify and love him enough. Talk about "ego".
How are we supposed to take you people seriously if you don't listen with an open adult mind? Responses like this only make sure that reasonable thinkers leave your religion even faster than they already are.
39:00 brings up "the most evil thing" in the bible. Idolatry, not keeping the sabbath, and inter-racial marriage. He incorrectly defines idolatry as beleiving other religions, but it is more accurately defiend as putting a thing in the highest value. Then old-testament and old testament....ohhh But Mack's answer is a bit weak. He could have defined the Good that is God and how Dan sees God as a modified Zues. When, theologically, the God of the Bible is far more than that
@@LordBlk literally yes it was. It was from the Canaanite religion which the Jews originally were according to the consensus of early Middle Eastern cultures. You.... Do not know much about your own religion. I suggest learning a lot more before criticizing Dan's (very thoroughly researched) positions. Now you just look like you're here to clap for the Christian rather than engage with intellectual honesty. I know that is not true of you to be clear! I have seen your other posts. Just letting you know how this would come off if I hadn't.
@@49perfectss fair enough. I had forgotten to consider that. Ancient near eastern milleu of idol creation is reflected in Aaron claiming the calf came our of the fire. But then you would have to address the emergence of the Hebrew monotheism. In that sense, the God of Abraham is argued as a revolution of thought. It's fun to have the back and forth. But again, I didn't find Mack to be terrible convincing either. They spoke past each other.
@@LordBlk Look into Jewish origins. The Canaanite gods were a pantheon the Jews took a god from. Yours was originally the god of (if I remember right) storms and war. Or love and war? Can't remember. That's why he has a wife (Asherah) in the bible. Same one he was married to back when he was just one of many Canaanite gods. The Jews were not monotheistic until WAAAAAAAY later in fact. The "before me" part of that commandment as well as the fact god talks to other gods several times in the bible support this as well. The massive difference is that the Jews decided Jehovah was not a TOTEM god. That was really uncommon at that time. A god that traveled with you I mean. Look into the history here because it is absolutely fascinating! It isn't even about a challenge to your faith it is just that cool to read about lol. Honestly worth many reads. The part of it gaining popularity had a lot to do with political convenience in Rome... but that's another story for another time because I am not going to keep typing haha.
As much as I respect Dan and his life journey, he is the type of atheist one cannot take seriously. In fact, he represents the type of atheism that is stuck in the things it doesn't believe and has nothing to say about how to move society further. He is incapable of answering any questions without attacking Christianity. Emotional atheism all the way through. Mack interrupted the conversation a few times though, it wasn't a conversation to remember unfortunately.
Not to mention that atheism is by definition the lack of belief in the existence of deities, Dan does in fact talk about how to move society further in his debates whenever secular humanism is brought up (please note that atheism and humanism are not the same). However, the topic of this discussion was about truth, and discussions regarding epistemic justification and truth become extremely difficult when your opponent simply defines truth as "Jesus" (equally frustrating when Muslims define truth as "Allah"). I would argue that Mack is stuck in the things that he believes in and is literally incapable of answering any questions that may challenge his beliefs. All he did was preach and deflect. If Dan came across as being "emotional", that's because he's responding to Mack's emotional sermons in a straightforward manner.
Dan Barker is such a respectful, well spoken person
Thank you Dan ,mankind will finally move on once people like Mack are gone
Nice discussion. Good to see you here dan barker
Hey Dan ,keep spreading the light in the night of superstition,more power to you!
Good lord, Mack is lost in his own world like most Christian Apologists.
Except that Mack clearly stated he is not an apologist. Which is the problem. A good Christian Apologist would have engaged with the points Dan raised.
@@michaelsenior9477 there are no good chrishchun apologists,the whole apology business is just a mental masturbation or if you will beating a dead horse story.
Mack has to be the most shallow, bumper-sticker apologist I've heard on this channel.
How is it that EVERY time the atheist is more informed in Christianity than the christian!!?
Andy (Christian host) tries to be neutral and asks a question regarding the apparent disconnect between 'justice' and 'eternal punishment' at the 1:06:27 mark, and the Christian guest goes into full preaching-mode (as he did with Dan) and completely avoids the question that was actually raised. He's simply incapable of addressing matters that many Christians themselves genuinely struggle with. I think this is one of the main reasons why so many Christians in the West don't attend churches anymore and rely on online apologetics instead.
Dan was so obviously right about the fact Jesus told a lie. The push back from that made zero sense!
You can't use one scripture to prove another scrioture
Talk about kindness, Dan Barker is showing what it is like to care about other people. Where Mack is more concerned about the Bible and how he will go to Heaven. This was more of a individual response compared to one of mass appeal.
“Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.” Roman historian, Polybius.
Mack said that God love justice. Is hell justice?
Salvation is an appeal to barbarism.
Exchanging ones culpability to gain a benefit is absolutely barbaric
Nice job by Mack in pushing his latest book. I would expect nothing less from someone deeply enmeshed in the Christian industrial complex.
Mr. Stiles didn't seem very curious or interested in responding to Mr. Barker's points. Rather, Mr. Stiles was defensive & his reactions didn't serve his side well.
“Jesus is truth”? What does that mean? If someone tells me the sun is 20 million miles from Earth, how do I apply Jesus to tell whether or not that is true?
Wouldn’t I go out into the real world and check that claim against reality, exactly like Dan said we determine truth? He was right that Mack’s definition is incoherent.
In the Bible, Jesus is identified as the eternal Word “the principle of divine reason and creative order, and that by Him and through Him we’re all things made. Jesus says He is truth. This may not correspond to how we usually think of truth, but it isn’t unrelated nor incoherent. To say that Jesus is truth is to recognize that He is both true and the source of all that is true.
is it just me, or is Mack Stiles a dead ringer for the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz? 🙂 no offence Mack. Dan Barker is winning this debate hands down IMHO
Lol oh man I can't unsee that now 😂. It's got nothing to do with his character I agree he is just a dead ringer! Also... Yeah Dan crushed this.
Yeah the lion: Pud ‘em up! Pud ‘em up!”
I used to be like this christian fellow. Its sad to see how brainwashed he is to this mythology. And worship a tyrant like yahweh. People cant see this is man made writings, no god involved
If i was a Christian after listening to this i would run a mile from it
Bull shit
@@nisarfazil6104 how so? Also (and absolutely no judgement here because I had to look it up to make sure I was correct) it's one word. Bullshit. Not bull shit. Again not trying to say you are being nonintellectual. Just want to make sure in the future you don't run afoul of someone who is snarky with this spelling.
@@49perfectss there are far too many galaxies and the distance outside of creation and earths is colosol.
God is bullshit.
@@nisarfazil6104 Ah i misunderstood your post then. Thanks for the clarification!
Do you believe that a God of love can burn people in a fire forever? Hell that's immoral. What the hell could anybody do to deserve that?we don't live long enough to do that much wrong.
17:53 - 19:28
In order to take anything that you said seriously, you first have to prove heaven exists
Soooooo many of his arguments are like that!
After watching Mack here today with his glazed eyed expression and his robotic chanting of bible quotes, I can think of few others that better fuel the argument that a religious belief is akin to a mental illness such as schizophrenia ! Both being equally corrosive to the mind and both having an equally powerful internal mechanism for self-preservation and perpetuation of the particular delusion at it's heart.
Dan was far too charitable towards this nauseatingly passive aggressive, "Holier than thou" individual, in my opinion.
It reminds me of the joke about the parents deeply concerned about their teenage son's strange behaviour:
Mother to husband:
I'm so worried about Jimmy, he's nearly eighteen and he still believes the invisible dragon that has slept at the foot of his bed since he was a baby, is real !!
"I think we should pray for him"............
Really sounds like God is a a very horrific dictator... I don't know what he has planed/designed for the different type of tortures and sufferings in his so called 'hell'... lots of sufferings and pain I am sure... it will be bloody and wouldn't be pretty and could be worse than watching the 'Saw' movie.
Why don't God care for all babies?
As always, Dan makes perfect sense to me.
I could tell from watching Mack that he wasn't interested in what Dan had to say and did not address anything that Dan said. He just quoted words allegedly spoken by his invisible friend Jesus that gave him comfort. Very disappointing.
Thanks to Andy for hosting these two.
Yeah, Mack recited his beliefs and Dan explained his beliefs.
Dan Barker had no arguments, he just repeated his straw man attacks on Christianity & told us how much he hates God.
@@martinploughboy988 Really? Didn’t he specifically explain how he doesn’t hate god? Since you can’t hate something that you don’t believe is real.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Except that we all know God exists & quite plainly he does hate God whatever he might claim.
@ploughboy988 Your worldview is so weak that you aren't even allowed to accept that people can sincerely disagree with you. This is called a thought-stopping technique. It is used by cults, MLMs, religions, etc, to keep followers from considering opposing ideas or thinking outside of the imposed limits.
By insisting that everyone secretly agrees with you, you let their points, arguments, and evidence just slide around your brain without consideration or engagement, whenever they speak to you. If your beliefs were actually true, you wouldn't need to protect them from deeper scrutiny so much, would you? Only the preservation of false ideas requires this sort of gaslighting and mental tactics.
Look up Hassan's BITE Model of authoritarian control.
I wish Mack could understand how grotesque and miserable he sounds to anyone outside his dogma, but I don’t think he can.
I don't think he is willing to. I think he CAN. I don't think he WILL.
Any body can prove that "GOD" does not exist, as long as the definition of that "GOD" will not change seconds later. By the way what kind of gospel is that of John 3:16 that ONLY those who believe in Jesus gets saved ? That is not true or "unconditional love" that is a selfish love. Read carefully !
Romans 5:13- “Where there is no (Old Covenant) law, sin is not taken into account.”
This of course means that salvation was only needed by those who had sin taken into account, which was only ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant law of sin and death, which is no one alive today.
Deuteronomy 32:4 says God is a God of truth, just and right..
If we accept what Moses said, then anything which is unjust or not right is an error of some kind.
We of course make judgements about right and wrong. - Jesus said we should judge righteous judgment.
We don't want errors. And , if we are like God then truth and righteousness must be part of our makeup.
the Bible is all about learning how to manifest these in our life.
Truth is proclaimed in the Bible by Jesus as -"thy word" (John 17:17).
He was not talking about himself. He was talking about something said.
John (1:18) makes it plain that God is spoken ( not seen). Jesus spoke God (he spoke truth).
God is as close as the word we speak. Does that sound strange?
Truth is generic and specific..
Truth is a divine statement about the human situation we face.
One of the things we need is the "spirit" with the truth.
Truth without the spirit often falls short of justice and righteousness..
Paul says it this way - "be renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Ephesians 4:23).
We apply truth to be renewed in the spirit of our mind. then we can do things like Jesus did and proclaim it truth
by demonstration.
It was right for people to be healthy. Jesus healed them by knowing the truth (John 8:32,40) that God was the health of their countenance (Psalms 42:11; 43:5).
So, lets look at two statements which different viewpoints might proclaim as truth.
1. God has nothing to do with your health. ( is this truth?)
2. God is the health of your countenance. (did Jesus think this way to heal?). Was it truth?
can we prove it for ourself? Will that answer the question about truth and health?
If we are sick we need to be saved from sickness. according to Jesus knowing the truth will save us from disease.
Truth is valuable!
Interesting discussion about morals. Dan is right that out of the 10 commandments 3/4 of them are no longer thought of as sins & I stopped coverting my neighbours slaves years ago ! But Mack must be aware that there are 613 commandments in the Old Testament all together such as to men not to use a razor to cut their beards & no. 60 which I do like , Not to be superstitious-Leviticus 19:26 ! Now the Jews only observe 270 of the commandments & for sure they no longer stone people to death for disobeying any. So it is obvious that mans own sense of morals & common sense overides what ' God' originally instructed.
Interestingly I note that the main 10 commandments doesn't mention lying or being dishonest or not keeping slaves. Perhaps they need to be updated !
If millions of people believe X, then X is true. Sounds reasonable! Not!
Funny enough, the thing is that perhaps a large part of the so called brokenness of today is more likely to be related to onset of extreme capitalism of which Christian alongside of colonization served to help deliver. Along with squabbles that are bound to arise due to differences related to religion and the way how these squabble are often the basis for shunning, ostracization and then associated C-PTSD , which may lead to drug and alcohol abuse, and then in the larger scope of the whole picture onward to homelessness and widespread feeling of despair. As well as more crime. Plus being behind the basis for wars
If Jesus would need to be the only basis there'd be to avoid "brokenness", i would dearly like to see Mack Stiles explain why Daniel Everett didn't discover a bunch of terribly broken Pirahã people when he'd originally gone to live among them with intention to attempt to convert them to Christianity.
Why not, Mack Stiles?
Even in Gaza and Israel today, if only the young children there in those places would be delivered "true" liberty of faith and religion, so as to have true freedom to choose for themselves. While being protected from the nastiness of "liberty of faith" alongside of "liberty of faith abuse" which sadly today is still being accepted as being about absolutely nothing more than liberty of faith alone.
Similar situation applies also in the USA. Even there, liberty of faith alone is interpreted as being liberty of faith + liberty of abuse. As if "faith and abuse" should be acceptable as being like one and the same thing
Perhaps Jesus would even be utterly disgusted, today, would he be able to still be around. But not because people didn't follow him. But because the situation as it stands is obviously so utterly foolish. And is absolutely disgraceful
Believers allow religion to deliver brokenness. Then they try to blame this brokenness back on the non believers
Dan did an amazing job pointing out the immorality in the bible. There was not really any good push back from Mack. The painfully obvious bias from the moderator was not appreciated but I appreciated having Dan on so you break even lol
Mack destroy Dan here
..
@@mategradac199 you're adorable
EVEN IF EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE is true, NONE OF IT pertains to anyone alive today.
The Bible is the story of Yahweh’s fulfilled plan of redemption given exclusively to the ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant law of sin and death and pertains to no one alive today, soteriologically nor eschatologically speaking. Here’s more…
If you believe the Bible, then you’d have to agree with Jesus in Matthew 15:24, that he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
You’d have to agree with Jesus in Matthew 5:18, that no jot nor tittle of the Old Covenant law would pass away until the Old Covenant system, temple and people associated with it (what Jews referred to as “heaven and earth “) passed away.
You’d have to agree with history that the Old Covenant system, temple and people associated with it passed away in AD70.
You’d have to agree with Paul, who said in Romans 5:13, “Where there is no (Old Covenant) law, sin is not taken into account.” This of course means that salvation was only needed by those who had sin taken into account, which was only ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant law of sin and death, which is not us today.
You’d also have to agree with Hebrews 9:15, that redemption was only for those who sinned under the first covenant, which again…is not us today.
The bitter pill of truth is that no one has been saved nor redeemed for nearly two thousand years. The “church today” has been in a massive error; a complete hijacking’s of ancient Israel’s exclusive and fulfilled redemptive narrative, the Bible.
“But…but…I’m a gentile!” Are you? The gentiles Paul and the disciples were preaching to were either Greek converts to Judaism or the elect diaspora, grafted-in descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations. Through the ministry of the disciple’s great commission, they were called out from the nations to again be a holy nation of kings and priests sealed for the day of redemption, which only they lived to see. Nobody today is a gentile of that sort.
Today’s so-called Christians have been hoodwinked into believing they’re sinners under a law that passed away and need a savior who said he came for someone else, who will save them from a sin that’s already been removed and a judgement that already happened and allow them into a covenant that was made with someone else. The fact is we today were never and will never be part of ancient Israel’s exclusive redemptive narrative, the Bible. ~ Michael Bradley
Mack in 21st century wouldn’t feel sad for the innocent people who lost there life in the name of cult for centuries force me think how these zealots would have behaved back then.
If you perish, how can you burn in hell forever?
Absolutely fascinating, the religious guy convinced me that he is in fact a crack baby, he was high af on his religious bs and there were no two brain cells connecting. He made me re-evaluate professional christian apologist, they at least have a vague understanding of the atheist position, this guy lives in un alternative universe.
Yikes, I never thought I’d feel more sympathetic to Dan Barker in a debate/discussion, yet here we are. Dan makes typical atheistic arguments, and then Mack ignores the question and preaches the gospel. Mack seems incapable of considering opposite beliefs and rebutting them. The whole “we live in a post truth world” makes absolutely zero sense. Dan’s arguments weren’t that great, but he received no competent responses. Mack did not represent Christianity well in this discussion.
It's hard to decide what represents Christianity because there is huge diversity among Christians. We can put it around - it's hard to find something coherent among believers. But based on my experience even if Mack don't represent the strongest version then he represents majority of Christians that I had contact with.
Also after tens or hundreds hours of watched debates I didn't hear good answers to issues pointed by Dan. Besides there is no end to sophistry on religious side. True or not - religion don't provide coherent and accurate worldview for modern age that can help in any way with sense-making. All philosophical (and religious) systems have some degree of internal coherency but that really means nothing. Narration of the sin doesn't make sense for me and just on that without being bought by it then rest of construction crumble like a house of cards. How I know that doesn't make sense? Because there is no free will (for arguments go to Sapolsky). We are creatures of this world and our healthy functioning depend on "revelance realization" - entropy minimalization - prediction error minimalization. Before religion participate in it but lead to creation of beliefs with high precision (dogmas) that aren't necessarily useful but are necessary for higher order of organisations - ideologies. Dan talked with reason but Mack is clearly agent of ideology.
Why is Mack so restless and uneasy when Dan speaks?
All Biblical promises were given only to ancient Israelites. See Romans 9:4.
Even Revelation is only for the twelve tribes of Judah! No Christian reads their Bible 🙄
34:48
Why would your opinion matter to people if you don’t meet them where they are?
I was hoping for a more purposeful discussion on the metaphysics kf truth and epistemology.
Wrong channel. This is more about discussion most people can track. I suggest something like intelligence squared as they have those kinds of debates often.
37:44 is really rather embarrassing. I knew Mack for years. He is simply not used to being around people who are smarter than he is - or disagree with him.
If you watch other videos, you'll notice that Mack is usually deep in his comfort zone, delivering a sermon or talk at a conference, to willing audiences. That's not the case here.
This failing - of iron sharpening cardboard - is probably par for the course when it comes to para-church ministries like Mack is used to leading. In these circles - especially in far-off lands and subject to less scrutiny - personality and enthusiasm, which are Mack's strengths, tend to trump deep thought, or theological training.
Thus, you end up with this bizarre scenario: where the atheist has a better grasp of theology than the advocate of faith.
This situation is not purely Mack's fault. We are all products of our environment, to some extent.
And Mack's is the Christian Industrial Complex - that network of having to please mission donors, endorsing other people's Christian books, in the hope they endorse yours, and being taken seriously in churches because of supposed missionary credentials - credentials that aren't subject to much scrutiny. Actual scrutiny would reveal a different story.
I also knew Mack; we attended the same church in Dubai. We were friends back then, but no longer are, for reasons too lengthy to go into here. I will say that your analysis of Mack is spot on.
Can you stand the Truth ?
Dan failed to mention the torture and cannibalism that were common practices amongst many of the northeastern tribes such as the Iroquois. In the south the Aztecs routinely ripped out the hearts of their victims as a part of their glorious indigenous religion. The Incas sacrificed their infants. Yes there were some peaceable Native peoples and yes some of the Europeans did commit terrible acts of violence. By and large the history of humanity is a blood bath punctuated by some brief glimmers of light. The net impact of Christianity on the world is overwhelmingly positive.
You know nothing about history and it is hilariously racist. Christianity is one of the leading causes of stagnation in our morality, society, and laws today.
Dan never claimed that every tribe across both American continents were morally perfect, only that they were on balance morally superior to Christians, which seems very likely.
It’s Christians who claim to have access to moral perfection when it is painfully obvious they do not. Have you read the part of the Bible where god says he’ll force people to eat their own children if they disobey him? Just one of many fun perfect moral acts of Yahweh.
Mack, you keep talking about salvation, and how broken this world is, and how bad things are, but Jesus or God doesn't show up to help or fix this world. You have to wait til you die and only if you believe Jesus is messiah, then you'll get salvation after death. So dumb!!
And so much of the damage is done.... By Mack's religion! It's such a terrible argument from him. SMH apologists man. The absolute worst thinkers.
@@49perfectss I agree!
33:57 - 34:09
How is this not your opinion ?
46:54 - 47:07
Your God, does it matter to me you need to explain why it should
You nominally ask "What is Truth?" Truth is a correlation between an assertoric sentence in a language and a state of affairs in reality. For example, "The cat is black" is true (in English) if and only if the cat actually is black. What you guys are talking about not an answer to the question in your title. You're dealing with a very different question: "What is true?" in relation to set of theological assertions often made by Christians.
Right.
Correspondence theory right?
Have you engaged with that Cartesian metaphysical question?
Or cognitive science, Ian Mcghilcrest's work about the left and right brain and how the conscious mind compiles truth from a reality that even space time are not fundamental to.
@@LordBlk Hi. I think both parties in this discussion implicitly endorse a correspondence theory of truth, which is why I address the nominal question in such a manner.
"The" Cartesian metaphysical question could refer to any number of things.
Brains don't "compile truth" - they may instantiate beliefs, if that is what you mean, which may or may not be true.
And "reference to reality that even space and time are not fundamental to" sounds like reheated Kantianism to me,
@AmorLucisPhotography no, I was referring to quantum mechanical theories from observation made in those sciences. It is considered that space-time emerges from a more fundamental structure.
Coupled with the hard problem of consciousness, would infer consciousness(if it truly does effect quantum states) is most fundamental.
@@LordBlk Oh. I see. Those matters are interesting, but not directly related to anything I was saying about truth. The correspondence theory of truth (or any other theory of truth, for that matter) is not affected by the claim that space and time are not "fundamental" or by the hard problem, if that is what you meant by "the Cartesian metaphysical question".
Since you seem interested, I'll say this - I see no reason to believe that QM offers us any distinctive insight into the hard problem. QM may be helpful with the easy problem, and Roger Penrose has done much to try to connect QM with consciousness. I believe that any attempt to subsume the hard problem under a scientific explanation of any kind is a misbegotten endeavour. The reason for this is - roughly - that explanation is epistemic in nature, and all scientific explanation is ultimately grounded in observation statements which are themselves constructed from the very stuff of the hard problem.
@AmorLucisPhotography right, but people still posit theories reliant on the unseeness of qm.
I think the concept of emergent space-time and the inquiry into consciousness gives good inference that something like a God exists.
What? How? Especially as consciousness is emergent. Your argument needs so much more context!
Dan Barker get destroyed here -he showed that good exist...
Dan Barker is such a respectful, well spoken person
What about the other 16 jesus befor jesus.
Truth is Jesus...what?
That's what happens when you get your arguments from God's Not Dead 😂
I’m not sure why Unbelievable chose to match a strident atheist who aggressively attacks Christianity with a pastor who admits he isn’t keen on apologetics and debate, and who even states that his book and the focus of his discussion are not for people like Dan. It was very frustrating to see Dan so grossly misrepresent Christ, the Bible and history in such a manipulative way and go essentially unchallenged. It is laughable that Dan would actually accuse Jesus of saying immoral things or lying because he talked about “chopping off body parts”‘ and because he told people if they prayed in name if the name of the Father they would receive “all things” Clearly Dan doesn’t understand hyperbole, context, or any working understanding of hermeneutics. It’s scary that he was actually a pastor at one time.
Oh ok. When the Bible says Jesus resurrected, that must have been hyperbole, like the stories that say Julius Caesar, at the end of his life, floated up into the sky and received a new immoral body and went to live with the gods.
If you just say the things that are obviously false or distasteful in the Bible are metaphors, then you’re not using the Bible as your actual standard, are you? You’re using observable reality and your human moral intuitions, which is exactly what Dan described.
Also, you’d think a pastor could fulfill Peter 3:15, but Mack apparently couldn’t. He can recite his beliefs, but apparently he is unable to explain or justify his beliefs. That’s a problem if he is claiming those beliefs are actually true…which was the stated debate topic.
You're 100% right. I didn't understand the point of this episode either. The guests were terribly mismatched.
@@weirdwilliam8500
No the resurrection was not hyperbole. It actually happened; but if you come from the presupposition of naturalism and deny the possibility of the supernatural then of course no amount of evidence will convince you. If you are open minded enough to consider that the supernatural is even remotely possible then I suggest you google Gary Habermas or NT Wright and their scholarly books about the resurrection. Jesus used hyperbole and parables to make a point. It is pretty clear actually when he is doing so if you actually take the time to read the gospels without an axe to grind.
You are right about that Mack seemed unprepared to answer Dans points and give a solid defense of his faith. However that doesn’t invalidate the faith itself.
No, no, no no! No one goes to Hell for not believing, they go to Hell because they have rebelled against their Creator, because they hate their Creator.
That's not what the bible says. The bible says we are born sinful; cursed from birth to be separated from God with no ability to remedy this except belief in Jesus' atoning resurrection
@@masonhoughton7885 So, as you say, the reason we go to Hell is because we are sinful, we rebel against our Creator.
@@martinploughboy988 Read this over and over again until the brainwashing starts to fall away my friend: no child is evil. No child is evil.
@@martinploughboy988 I'm glad we could come to some agreement on how disgusting the condemnations of God are
@@masonhoughton7885 The condemnations aren't disgusting, what they condemn is.
Dan Barker has no idea how to interpret Scripture. He had no buisness being a preacher in the first place.
What sort of all-knowing god would make it so strict as to how scripture is interpreted?
@w8m4n words have meaning and that meaning is defined by the intent of the author not the reader so interpretation is just how we understand anything correctly.
@@joelbutterfield2071 What?
@@joelbutterfield2071didn't god know that people interpret his words wrong ?
24:00 studies have shown the opposite of that.
I have only seen studies that agree with what he said. What studies can you provide as a counter? Valid scientific sources please.
aw hell, the same ol trite "relationship, not religion" crap...if you adhere to a supernatural deity, then you are religious...well, you ain't sciencious...I don't know if anyone else caught it, but about 17 mins. when it was stated that you can't earn your way into "heaven", which is his definition of "religious", that's when I knew he's already fallaciously begging the question, i.e., he's already assuming Christianity is about getting your way into heaven, which he assumes is a given and that really exist and that we all know this...first prove there's an afterlife, let alone a heaven, then we can discuss how to get there...no one has done this to date...the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse: Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett; Dan Barker is as formidable as any of these guys...he's the 5th...he's like the 5th Beatle of Atheist.
WRONG! You have no idea dudes. Christ is clear. Only those who DO THE WILL OF MY HEAVENLY FATHER WILL BE SAVED. So He asks you to EXECUTE GODS WILL and not to preach, to believe (and the devil believes, and more strongly) in Christ. Faith in Christ will not save you. Christ points to the Father and not to himself, while you Christians put Christ in the center and not God as Christ did and GOD resurrected Christ because Christ cannot do it by himself. Yahweh will resurrect you on the last day, not Christ. So says the theory. YOUR work of doing the Father's will saves you, not Christ. But who is to blame when you have twisted Christ's teachings with Satanism.
By the way the Bible never forbade “interracial marriage.”’ That is a blatant lie. Moses’ wife was African and some of the most honored people in the Bible are Ruth (from Moab) and Rahab (a God fearing woman from Jericho) who married Israelite men and became ancestors of both David and Christ. God didn’t want the Israelites to marry outside of the FAITH so their FAITH would not be defiled. Part of the wonderful indigenous culture of the Canaanites for example was sacrificing their children to Molech, and when the Israelites intermarried with them they started doing the same. It was the false Gods of the other religions that were demanded unfairness and cruelty. That is why the God of Israel lovingly forbade idolatry!! Also the 10 commandments were indeed revolutionary and the laws given by God to the people of Israel elevated women tremendously above the status quo if that time.
Dan didn't say that the Bible forbade interracial marriage. He said it was heavily associated with the word 'evil'. Sure, you can find some characters in the Bible that are exceptions (such as Solomon having multiple wives), but you're missing the point entirely. More importantly, the God of the Bible mandated the killing of not just the people who practiced child sacrifice, but Canaanite children as well. EVEN IF the stories were completely hyperbolic or completely made up as a nationalistic folktale, this God figure depicted in these stories is full of jealousy and concerned about people worshiping another gods, not the well-being and safety of children.
Dan aLways lie in debate( and always get destroyed
Perhaps the worst episode by this channel. Name one take-away from this sorry discussion. Mack just preaches Ray Comfort style and the host just let's Dan's arguments go unaddressed. Painful and boring. It is so obvious that Jesus' claim to be the truth requires elaboration and specification (the bible quote claims he is the Way to salvation, his message is True, following him leads to Life, ) yet Mack seems satisfied to simply quote the bible rather than have a discussion with someone who disagrees with these claims. Disgusting waste of time.
Well that's disappointing. The Christian is getting more and more dishonest and frankly childish as this goes on and he realizes how poorly his arguments are holding up. Predictable but still disappointing.
What specifically are you referring to in saying Stiles became dishonest or childish? Particularly in light of Barker’s frequent hyperbole and caricature of God and of Scripture?
The whining and preaching increases in both frequency and urgency as Dan talked. He failed to address any objections Dan Brought up and at one point literally complained about how he finds Dan's view of god offensive rather than address the reasons Dan gave for the view. It was childish starting about twenty minutes in and only got worse from there. Read the rest of the comments. The guy dodged addressing almost anything Dan asked or pointed out.@@matthewcurtis-gw2ep
22:00 bringing up colonialism, strong point, but likely romanticized.
How so?
Every single point put forward by Dan Barker is a blatant lie
Well je was write about denominational schism and division.
But I would agree that his framing is lacking. Like when he suggested that a scientist would have gotten a nobel prize for it by now.
That made me laugh. Very mechanistic.
Name one
@@LordBlkhow is it irrational to think that if a scientist proved a god they would get a Nobel? Or am I misunderstanding your post?
@@49perfectss that's easy.
Science can only make claims about observable things.
Through quantum mechanics, we know that space and time are not fundamental aspects to reality.
We would need a new field of science/technology that could analyze immaterial reality. Quantum mechanics at least proves there is an unseenness to reality, and that causality is not nessecarily linear.
So I suppose, if proof of God was found in a sciencetific way, yes nobel prize.
However, it is not currently possible, and we do not have the tools (even conceptually) to analyze that.
I mean Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting ideas, and there is quantum mind theory to consider. Ian Mcghilcrest's work is also fascinating about how the hemispheres work in building our perceptions of reality from a mechanical veiw and a living relational veiw coming together to produce what is "real/true."
It's really valuable to dive into the philosophy of science and epistemology.
Simply put, God is not a "thing" in the universe.
@@49perfectss man my posting seems to be screwed up.
Dan says that truth isn't a thing in the world.
Mack's answer is Jesus says he is the Truth.
So unless you have a science that cam weigh truth in a materialist fashion, we need new technology/sciences to tackle this question.
Dan also says morality is not a thing.
It leans heavily on the materialist views and frankly, even current science understands that there is an immaterial nature to reality, an unseeable quality/quantity, which is more fundamental than space-time.
I would say a really good scientist to look at how the brain functions and derives reality is Ian Mcghilcrest. His work on the way the 2 hemispheres produce reality for us is amazing stuff. Worth checking out
The Bible is deep and wide.
If you don't understand it, make the effort.
I have studied it. Both by myself and in college taught by professional historians and theological scholars. That's why I'm not a Christian. A deep understanding of the bible leads you out of the religion.
Oh ok. Which of the thousands of mutually exclusive denominations (all with scripture to back up their interpretations) understand the Bible properly, and how can we tell which one?
Dan is a master straw man builder.
I liked this episode ( kinda, in a strange way) even tho the two guests were mismatched.
One more thing I wanted to mention, and it's only my personal observation, Dan seems to be one of those bitter, angry with God ex-Christian atheists.
cope
There was a lot of talking past each other due to fundamental disagreements between the two guests, but neither of the speakers were straw manning each other's arguments and statements. You seem to be one of those judgemental Karen-type Christians that are bitter and angry with atheists in general.
The reason u think Dan is going overboard with this resentment to God is because you have not read the bible because if you did read it you'd understand
I came here from Spotify. Contrary to most Atheists on this video, Barker sounds like he's got a massive chip on the shoulder for not doing due diligence before he start speaking against science when he started out as a Christian preacher.
Barker's explanation of scripture sounds like he has far removed the history and culture from it. And I see what he's trying to do by divorcing religious beliefs and moral standards.
As a former Atheist, I would say Barker's POV seems so narrow evolution couldn't occur from it if his POV was organic.
And Barker is far from pleasant and nice: He's quite rude and adversarial in his speech.
He claims science is not always true but he asserts his stance as an absolute, without any allowance, as stalwart as Dawkins.
While he says he's thinking nothing bad about Stiles, his tone suggests he's contemptuous. And unfortunately, he hasn't considered in depth how every religion has good and bad stuff, just as philosophy. The problem is that Barker has thrown out entirely wherever he's come from and take a superior stance against religion.
All Stiles seems to be sharing with him about is what he doesn't understand about Scripture because he's got a closed mind.
And the other guy was absolutely right.Bringing up the doctrine of discovery and the genocide of the indigenous peoples of these lands that his people stole
Once one leaves the faith i suspect theists seem like children to the nones.
No. You seem trapped without knowing you are. Like we were. At least... that's how you look 2-3 years after we leave. Till then it's full on angry atheist phase in which it can be difficult to be more reasonable lol
They seem like victims to me. They’re in an abusive relationship with their own imaginary friend.
Lol yes. I actually would like the Gods to be real, at least the one(s) who claim mercy and companionship. Life sucks balls mostly as an atheist. Little comfort offered. @@49perfectss
@@zachg8822 Make your life better then. No point in waiting on a sky wizard when that isn't going to happen. As an atheist my life is incomparably better than it was as a christian because I put the work in. You have one life man. One. Stop wasting it on an obvious myth. It isn't about comfort. It's about dealing with reality on its terms... because anything else is just giving up and wasting your life. There is more comfort living that way that you may think.
Dan is not an atheist. Rather he has converted to the God that is his ego.
Still a much better God than the God of the Bible. At least Dan doesn't mandate infanticide or torture people because people didn't glorify and love him enough. Talk about "ego".
Lol what a silly comment that only shows you can't deal with reality
If anyone had any ego it would've of been mac
If that’s what you need to tell yourself, to help dismiss his ideas from your consideration, then we can’t stop you. You sound pretty cringe, though.
No Dan, morality is not boiled down to "harm".
That you would utter such blatant nonsense is further evidence no one should take you seriously.
How are we supposed to take you people seriously if you don't listen with an open adult mind? Responses like this only make sure that reasonable thinkers leave your religion even faster than they already are.
39:00 brings up "the most evil thing" in the bible.
Idolatry, not keeping the sabbath, and inter-racial marriage.
He incorrectly defines idolatry as beleiving other religions, but it is more accurately defiend as putting a thing in the highest value.
Then old-testament and old testament....ohhh
But Mack's answer is a bit weak. He could have defined the Good that is God and how Dan sees God as a modified Zues. When, theologically, the God of the Bible is far more than that
The bible is very clear it's talking about other religions. So... No. I agree the response was very weak though not for the same reasons.
@@49perfectss eh...sure.
I mean, was the golden calf a "different religion."
@@LordBlk literally yes it was. It was from the Canaanite religion which the Jews originally were according to the consensus of early Middle Eastern cultures. You.... Do not know much about your own religion. I suggest learning a lot more before criticizing Dan's (very thoroughly researched) positions. Now you just look like you're here to clap for the Christian rather than engage with intellectual honesty. I know that is not true of you to be clear! I have seen your other posts. Just letting you know how this would come off if I hadn't.
@@49perfectss fair enough. I had forgotten to consider that.
Ancient near eastern milleu of idol creation is reflected in Aaron claiming the calf came our of the fire.
But then you would have to address the emergence of the Hebrew monotheism. In that sense, the God of Abraham is argued as a revolution of thought.
It's fun to have the back and forth.
But again, I didn't find Mack to be terrible convincing either. They spoke past each other.
@@LordBlk Look into Jewish origins. The Canaanite gods were a pantheon the Jews took a god from. Yours was originally the god of (if I remember right) storms and war. Or love and war? Can't remember. That's why he has a wife (Asherah) in the bible. Same one he was married to back when he was just one of many Canaanite gods. The Jews were not monotheistic until WAAAAAAAY later in fact. The "before me" part of that commandment as well as the fact god talks to other gods several times in the bible support this as well. The massive difference is that the Jews decided Jehovah was not a TOTEM god. That was really uncommon at that time. A god that traveled with you I mean. Look into the history here because it is absolutely fascinating! It isn't even about a challenge to your faith it is just that cool to read about lol. Honestly worth many reads. The part of it gaining popularity had a lot to do with political convenience in Rome... but that's another story for another time because I am not going to keep typing haha.
As much as I respect Dan and his life journey, he is the type of atheist one cannot take seriously. In fact, he represents the type of atheism that is stuck in the things it doesn't believe and has nothing to say about how to move society further. He is incapable of answering any questions without attacking Christianity. Emotional atheism all the way through. Mack interrupted the conversation a few times though, it wasn't a conversation to remember unfortunately.
Not to mention that atheism is by definition the lack of belief in the existence of deities, Dan does in fact talk about how to move society further in his debates whenever secular humanism is brought up (please note that atheism and humanism are not the same). However, the topic of this discussion was about truth, and discussions regarding epistemic justification and truth become extremely difficult when your opponent simply defines truth as "Jesus" (equally frustrating when Muslims define truth as "Allah"). I would argue that Mack is stuck in the things that he believes in and is literally incapable of answering any questions that may challenge his beliefs. All he did was preach and deflect. If Dan came across as being "emotional", that's because he's responding to Mack's emotional sermons in a straightforward manner.
Lots of words but nothing specific. Shocking 🙄
In my opinion, about religion is as fictional. Jesus is a fictional character so is there god
So much credulity in ancient texts. People are so stupid!
Dan was so obviously right about the fact Jesus told a lie. The push back from that made zero sense!