I've struggled hard with christianity since I basically lost my family over the last 3 years. First spouse, then 3 dogs of old age, then my mother, then a miscarriage. I'm looking for answers and investigating.
Mate I wouldnt advertise or brag about this one bud. You came armed to a debate with "My Freind Saw a Spirit Attack a Trashcan" vs a guy who brought facts and rational arguments
@YexaC Logic is nothing but mind games, which is all Atheists have. Science requires something real and physical to observe, test and measure. And the fact is there is incontrovertible scientific evidence for the existence of God.
My dad went to preaching/bible school and then preached and did missionary work for years. He said so himself that the key to a sermon isn’t what is said, but how well you can invoke the audience’s emotions. The substance of it doesn’t really matter as long as it sounds scary or uplifting or any other emotion that can easily blind people to what’s being said.
@@CheaterzEye Excellent point, humans for the most part are emotional, irrational creatures... and preachers, so well aware of that condition, exploit it, giving them the easiest job in the world -- just telling people what they want to hear.
Lol but why won’t he change his position if the evidence is so strong? Money coming in too strong ? I tried to google him because I never heard of him. And it brought up all this stuff on how he’s a celebrity and worth several millions of dollars 🤷🏼♂️😬
@@Wretched2JZ the historical data is well beyond enough for one to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but to a point, it’s a choice one has to make in their own heart. There’s believing that the chair is there, and then believing that the chair will hold you up when you sit in it.
@@harrycooper5231 Might be a terrible example but I don't think that's what he meant. To him, you showing him a chair would be the same as him being shown the historical data. It is good enough of a reason for him and not that God can be shown just like how a chair could be shown. What we cannot do for him, is to sit on the chair for him or to believe for him that it'll hold. Only he can do those for himself.
Mike made no sense in his opening, but his 'rebuttal' was embarrassing. But Mike has my respect for not being like so many others and locking down the comments.
his rebuttal had problems the moment he started talking with his opening statement "the natural world strongly suggests that the supernatural exists." Even if that is true it doesn't mean the supernatural actually exists
1:24:00 Everything Licona said following up to that time was....wow. Everything, absolutely everything, Matt said went right...over...his...head. Or so it seems to me. I could be wrong. But it sure came across that way. Then again, Matt was _so_ good in this I sometimes felt oddly sorry for Licona. I did. BUT.....I honestly appreciate that Mike posted this video _and_ enabled voting and comments. That is very very rare in the Christian world. Most of them want desperately for the overwhelming majority of people to be silenced from contributing. So I applaud Licona for doing this. Sincerely.
When the guy says he wouldn't believe in alien abductions because there is no evidence and then says it was supernatural...mind blown. Matt is a saint.
I've a feeling Matt was leading up to " how can you believe in one and not the other when the standard of evidence for both is the same " but Mike threw a spanner into that by suggesting that aliens were also supernatural which I think was unexpected by Matt and threw him off for a moment..... If he had have been a little more on the ball in the moment I think Matt's response should have been " well if both are supernatural and the evidence for both is the same how do you justify concluding ( or coming to a belief ) that one is real and one isn't
As a Christian it’s all about spreading the gospel, even if it’s just to make people curious enough to actually read the Bible. Jesus wants everyone to have a great eternal life after death.
@@Dustandfuzz And do you have any evidence that eternal life actually exists? Oh, a man(not jesus) wrote in a book that there is, so it must be true. Get real!
@@shaqyardie8105You already know the answer to that haha! There’s no proof whatsoever, and there never will be aside from a book that is somehow more right than thousands of other books that rehash the same stories.
@@dabssauce1198Which one? The Goblet Of Fire? Or Anne Of Green Gables? The Wishing Chair?!? Ohhhhhh, you mean the bible! Well, yeah, that one is obviously true, I mean, it’s not like there’s any possible way it could be manmade is there? No, absolutely not, it’s just, you know, so very different from all the other books written throughout history, with its, you know, unique features, those being paper and ink. Oh and how can I forget, perhaps the most unique features of all, the instructions to commit mass genocide, kidnappings, forced marriages, paedophilia, and rape, with some stoning people to death and murdering our son to prove our love for our celestial dictator mixed in there. It’s truly something special isn’t it?
Noice !! You are free now . Just be self responsible and accountable for your words and actions 👍🏻 you yourself create your own “heaven or hell “ moment by moment by your choices and actions . It’s all cause and effect . You can’t get around it . Choose wisely 😉 welcome
Good for you keep up the good work Purge your mind of all religious indoctrination and falsifications We don’t know where we come from we don’t know why we’re here We don’t know where we are going Rejoice in the unknown and unknowable and and refuse to become a junkie on the narcotic of religion
Setting the debate aside, I'm giving this video a thumbs up because it's earnestly refreshing to see a video of a debate or highly argued/controversial topic, posted here on UA-cam without comment restriction or Likes/Dislikes disabled. Thank you for your openness in letting people in the community share their thoughts and opinions, regardless of what side of an issue they fall on.
You should give a thumbs up to any video you actually like, that is what is was put there for. Well, that and the UA-cam search algorithm. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I did too.
It was rather surprising, usually videos by religious groups have comments off. Doesn't make it seem like they have much confidence in their arguments/followers
Honestly the best comment I have seen. I very strongly believe one side, but you are so very spot on. Allowing debate is the most important thing. Anyone who thumbs down you should be beaten and flogged :)
Shin: Explain how "the expanse" may have originated. Not asking for any evidence, just an explanation of how -- in theory. Are you positing something came from nothing, or some self-existent original thing?
Sanji Kun I’ve always found the word games that believers play with a bit silly, but they can be wonderfully entertaining, nonetheless. It’s like arguing with someone over the specs of a character that was created in some table-top role-playing game. Bro..you’re god is too OP. Nobody is going to play with you if you’re character starts off in God Mode. He’s gotta do a little work first. Complete the dungeon with your whole clan still intact and then we can talk about upgrades, cheats, and achievements lol. But seriously, if your god (emphasis on “your” god, because he shares that title with a variegated flock of cooky monsters, pun intended. It must be pretty cramped up there in that timeless, spaceless, immaterial attic you’ve been describing) exists, why does he have to put in so much effort to get us to believe in him? Maybe your god is just a concept, a belief, an intentional object that has no basis in reality and appears to be “practically” nonexistent. What would happen if you and everyone like you stopped “spreading the word” or “defending the faith”? Do you think god would step in and remind us himself? Yah know, just to take that heavy burden off our shoulders’? My bet is that he’d disappear. My belief is that he wouldn’t step down from that lovely, timeless, spaceless, immaterial perch you’ve squeezed him into and come knockin’ like some apoplectic mafioso slime wondering where the first of the month is at. Try imagining a universe where your god doesn’t exist and never has. And then try imagining the universe you’re living in right now could be such a universe. Then realize that you don’t need to imagine it. 🤗
Sanji Kun I cant see your comment? I just saw the first half of it when it popped up in my notifications, but it looked like a fun read. Can you post it again?
Sanji Kun 😂😂😂 you can’t just declare victory like that. What would stop me from doing the same and being equally justified? I kind of want to know how you have two different definitions for the word “exist” and are able to use these two definitions as interchangeably and whimsically as you have. How can your mind and body operate within the constraints of time and space (I’m sure we can agree on that) and be accepted as an existing entity, and yet a “being” that is timeless and spaceless can also “exist”. How can those two seemingly separate things occupy the same logical and ontological space? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction in terms? Unless we’re redefining “exist” to mean something much grander or more inclusive-if that’s even possible to do without collapsing into madness? I just don’t see why anybody should have to accept your god as “existing” or “real” in the same way I accept you as existing and real just because you’ve defined him or it as such. Is there some as of yet unknown but revealing branch of epistemology that you’ve used to adduce the existence of your god?
For his go-to line to be so proudly, "what if some crazy thing that's never happened... happened! Then wouldn't you assume something even MORE unlikely?!" it's very unsurprising. Apologists are all pride, no shame.
I 100% disagree with his arguments and think they're silly, but don't you think y'all are being a bit too harsh? Posting a debate in its entirety and letting people make up their minds is something I've seen apologists consciously avoid. Infinitely better than disingenuously editing it down.
@@HillBelichickdefinitely agree with you, however the harshness on the content of his arguments isn't necessarily unwarranted. Someone objectively looking at his claims would see how silly they are. Completely allegorical or straight out of the Bible. Circular reasoning. Excluding those looking for surface answers, all they do is confirm those who already believe and does nothing to those who don't.
@@operationlegend9746 sure I just think there's a very clear line between constructive and personal criticism and it sucks to see it crossed by so many people who are nominally on my side :/
Not hilarious, just intellectually honest to post the video and let people decide for themselves. I think, in so far as a winner can be determined, Matt clearly won.
I expected much more from Mike, but he ultimately summed up religious faith - it's just "what if" statements, silly tricks, and 'I know a guy' stories.
The worst is the ridiculous "what if" about the beheaded man. How about avoiding, as a talking point, any eventuality that we know is so highly improbable as to be meaningless.
We can only know God if he reveals himself to us. If you want a real debate, then find someone who has had that experience. In the end you will say that he is crazy or lying, and go on your merry way thinking you have won the debate.
@@robertrosskopf4641 once he reveals himself to me, I'll believe. Pretty simple prospect. Until that day, I literally am not able to believe in a god. I couldn't even do it as a child
Turk Willingston Well, it's better evidence than what you have for any other alternative. You guys are basically on the level of the "flat earthers" 1) Natural processes without any guidance from any intelligence, somehow comes to the initial understanding of the physics of "powered" flight for birds and bats. Now, that is a true supernatural miracle. 2) How about another one? creating all life over 4.5 billion years and never once having DNA get corrupted. As you are aware DNA can get randomly mutated and that will cause cancer in cells. Yet, this is a supernatural miracle! 3) How about a third? DNA mutation + Natural selection + 4.5 billion years cannot create new information. Mutation just changes, it doesn't add anything new, therefore Darwin was wrong about all of it. Then you add in epigenetic information which can't get mutated which is needed for the body structure itself. It's pretty much game over. Again, how incredibly supernatural! Are we tired of playing games yet? Live your life to the fullest of course, but be intelligent about it.
@Meka Leka Himekahineyho Well, people don't become atheists because it's the best choice, they become an atheist to escape judgement on things like self indulgence and all kinds of other things.
@@Docwiz2 _...it's better evidence than what you have for any other alternative._ PFWHAHAHAHAHAH It always amazes me how many people think that dumb ass assumptions, arguments from ignorance and wishful thinking are better evidence than (f)actual evidence, but you're definitely taking the cake by literally stating your denial. But let's see how much more stupid you can get. _"1) Natural processes without any guidance from any intelligence, somehow comes to the initial understanding of the physics of "powered" flight for birds and bats."_ _"Now, that is a true supernatural miracle."_ No, that's how nature works. It's like how the particles of water aren't wet and combined in specific ratios, dictated by natural laws, they are. No magic required. _"2) How about another one? creating all life over 4.5 billion years and never once having DNA get corrupted. As you are aware DNA can get randomly mutated and that will cause cancer in cells."_ As you are aware, most people don't get cancer until they have had years to decades of fertility. Cancer doesn't stop evolution. It only shows that all of life is nothing but natural processes. No magic required. It's not a coincidence that we see way less deadly diseases in children of the age of 10. DNA does get corrupted and people who do develop a deadly hereditary disease that would kill you before fertility would simply have a vastly reduced chance of procreating, so that mutation will not be passed on to the next generation. Being prone to get cancer AFTER you have had decades of fertility doesn't stop you from having children, so we should expect cancer and many other age related disease to occur and the longer we live the more of those diseases we'll see. That's evidence of evolution. It's exactly how natural selection works, not how magic works. _"3) How about a third? DNA mutation + Natural selection + 4.5 billion years cannot create new information. Mutation just changes, it doesn't add anything new, therefore Darwin was wrong about all of it. Then you add in epigenetic information which can't get mutated which is needed for the body structure itself. It's pretty much game over."_ You're a fucking idiot. If a gene that makes your eyes brown is mutated when you accidentally impregnate your sister and you probably will, judging by your intelligence, that is new information. You don't have information in your genes to make eyes brown. If a gene mutates from being sensitive to touch or to nothing at all to being sensitive to light, you will get your first proto-eye and it will give you an advantage over your blind predecessors and it added new information, so you will have a greater chance of procreating and every other member of your species that has this advantage will have this increased chance as well, resulting in more offspring with the new information than without, effectively creating a new species that can see, that evolved from a species that can't. If the environment changes so that the blind members of your species can't procreate at all, they will go extinct and the seeing members won't. The seeing members can also spread more easily to other environments where the blind ones could not, etc., etc. No magic required. _"Well, people don't become atheists because it's the best choice, they become an atheist to escape judgement on things like self indulgence and all kinds of other things."_ And you're a mind reader! How amazing, but you're wrong. People are born atheist until they're lied to. People also don't become atheist by choice at all. You can't choose to believe or not believe something, so your 'judgement' is punishing people for the lack of evidence that a god exists and that it is possible to know what it wants, which you seem to think you do and you can't. That's intellectual dishonesty from your part. How do you know a god exists and what it wants? And atheists can't be atheists to avoid 'judgement'(which effectively is petty vengeance for not being gullible enough to believe things without sufficient evidence), because they don't believe that that 'judgement' exists without the god they don't believe exists. Atheists are atheists simply because there is no reason to believe there is a god and thus there is no reason to live as if there is one and to pretend to know what it wants like you do. Atheists are what you would be if you were intellectually honest.
How did you get from my comment that only physicians are "doctors"? You can be a doctor in physics, biology, literature, etc... But, you can also be a "doctor" of homeopathy, so what? And like homeopathy, "doctors" of theology are not real "doctors"......
Are you serious , John ? Our Universities are based on the ROMAN trivium and quadrivium NOT Christianity. Note the contribution of Jews to Science and Technology, Does that make Judaism the cause ? Give it a rest. A PhD in Bible Studies is like getting a PhD in Comic books.
This is like a child telling his parent there's a monster under his bed and the dad telling him monster don't exist, pulling off the mattress to show him and the kid still says he sees it.
+ tpu55 Hahaha nice. So you are saying that so we atheists do not feel belittled by the powerful intellects and arguments that theists would assert on us, God deliberately weakened their logic and reasoning so we can save face. Unusual but interesting angle on the religious debate.
J w: atheist argument would be based on verifiable evidence, which there is NONE for a risen Jesus .. only claims of such from non-eye witness anonymous Christian sources (i.e. conical gospels), for which the original texts don't exist, only copies of copies. More damning is there are NO contemporary non-christian documents referring to Jesus rising from the dead. So, why should anyone believe these written claims from Christians that constitute their Bible?? It's all even more absurd when considering people just believe crap because they want to, for instance we have 16 million Mormons who believe Joseph Smith dug up ancient Egyptian gold tablets in his backyard in upstate NY, translated them into the book of Mormon, then those tablets were taken away by an angel ... a perfect example of how people will first believe stuff without evidence, then write about that belief.. that itself is NOT evidence for its truth ... yet Christians do the very same with their Jesus resurrection story, claiming it is true because they wrote about believing it.
If Mike got Scooby-Doo on the case; chances are most of his apparitions and spirits would end up being Old Man Jenkins!. He would have gotten away from it if it wasn't for those meddling kids!
LOL I think Mike sounds slightly like Scooby Doo every few seconds. Maybe like Scooby's cousin or something. Like the way his voice is. Does anyone else hear it?
"Anyone have a clicker? A wireless clicker? No? Okay thanks. Well Kim played with a ouija board once and talked to a ghost. So... cased closed. Checkmate, Matt."
Here is the Original Semitic Text. Guys, HERE is The Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
I see he mentioned near death experience. I feel pretty qualified to weigh in here. I've died on 2 separate occasions, as in clinically dead. The longest was for about 2 and a half minutes, any longer than this and my brain being starved of oxygen would have received damage. Just to be clear I had no heart beat and if it wasn't for the paramedics I wouldn't be here today. Would you like to know what I saw or what happens after you die? Well I can tell you from personal experience that NOTHING happens after you die, you're dead.
Andrew Edis scripture says it is appointed once for a man to die and then the judgement and just because your heart stops does not mean your dead. your heart is an organ and is physical life is entirely different life is the person inside your body the one that reasons thinks makes choices the person you cannot see like the words that come out of your mouth you cannot see them you can only hear them and everyone is accountable to God for every word thought and action done in the body your body will go in the ground and decay or be cremated but your soul will go to either heaven or hell that's up to you if you believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ then heaven if you reject the Lord and what he has done for you then hell. the choice is yours God will not force you to believe him. the life of Jesus Christ is all the evidence needed now whether you believe it or not this truth will never change the devil is the deceiver deceiving people right into hell yet God sent his only begotten son Jesus who lived a perfect sinless life and laid down his life for us because God Loves us don't reject his Love for you and your family
Kevin Love So all those words you typed and all the words you could've possibly typed you choose to go with what basically is a threat. (Believe this or burn in hell) What kind of person does that make you?
I am afraid that he most likely thinks he won the debate which is why he posted. Matt in his presentation more or less pre-dismissed everything that Mike said by laying down his principles of sound justification for belief based on examination of the facts. Licona talks about facts but what they boil down to is unhistorical accounts in the bible and anecdotal evidence - results of prayer etc - something Matt debunks week in week out on his AE channel.
@bmk777k I think the widely accepted meaning of supernatural is that which is beyond or outside of the natural world. I believe in the natural world that I live in and experience - but I don't believe in that which is purported to exist beyond the natural world. Neither do I deny it.
@bmk777k supernatural doesn't mean enhanced natural, it's not like superman. super natural is something defying the laws of natural, something that cannot be explained by the natural laws. As some say it means outside of the natural.
I don't like Mike, he too readily concludes super natural, he wants to believe but after hearing the debate i cannot say he was ridiculed or that he lost. For any believer, Mike's position stayed unscathed. Matt is not Hitchens, Matt exposed his case and explained his position he didn't destroy Mike, there was no KO here or any incredible outcome where people would go suddenly saying i don't believe anymore.
As an atheist and after watching this debate, I am more open to the possibility that Jesus indeed rose from the dead, given that I have seen Dr. Licona in other places after Matt murdered him here.
Thank you so much!!! as a fellow Atheist with daddy issues, I never listen to any conflicting arguments to my world view. I already know everything!! I only want to hear things that I agree with. We are so smart as atheists hehehe.
Just thought of a question for these guys: _"How would you describe the supernatural to me, if I was an alien, visiting earth from another galaxy (who happens to understand English)"_ ?
No no! Remember the Ouija boards, that proves the supernatural... right? Difficult to credit the level of self deception and confirmation bias in these self serving attempts at arguments for miracles. You might think that someone like Licona with his doctorate in something (theology presumably) would do a bit better, but this floundering is no better.
@@dougr8646 could be, but I doubt it. It’s probably that they’ve never learned how to think critically and logically. More than anything I think they’re probably lying to themselves, that’s what I used to do
I think it is a language level barrier.... people are more easily convinced by what they can understand and more easily manipulated by what they cannot
You cant critically and logically explain something like that...im telling you. Yall just use the "smartest sounding" words and then put together a sentence.
Don’t give Mike too much credit, he, or whoever controls his channel does delete posts he doesn’t like even if it follows UA-cam policy. Mike prefers not to address certain arguments. But that’s ok, Matt humiliated him enough.
It's a toy-doctorate, he's happy to call himself a doctor, fanatics are happy to listen to an "educated reliable source in PHD", and Sane people understand its bullshit. It works for everyone
well, the dice are a bit loaded, i mean, no god for a start. but atheists have to ask questions all the time, scientists have to spend their entire career defending their discoveries, but god, well he thinks he can just point and command.
Religion can never win because religion puts itself at a disadvantage. It is obviously man-made but claims it is from things or beings beyond human undestanding. Religion fails at any basic level of human understanding; Historically? F. Biologically? F. Archeologically? F. Physically? F. Morally? F. Creativity? F. Lawfully? F. Mathematically? F. Linguistically? F. I mean, think of anyway to justify it and apply it to religion and it just falls flat. It is why religion is only successful where there is illiteracy or lack of understanding. Get them when their still discovering the world 🌎 (mostly kids or people who have not been exposed)
He really is not good at all. He's like a politician. He replies to a question or point...but doesnt answer it. He thinks giving a weak ass reply is just as good/effective as giving an actual solid rebuttal. And based on some comments from believers, he's right. Why waste time with sound replies when weak ass ones will suffice.
So this part was really upsetting to me. At about 2:19:40. Matt had just finished answering a question by a former church member he knew from his past about what changed him. Matt gave a really well thought out and eloquent, heartfelt, personal explanation that was as good as I've ever heard. Truly great. The instant he finished, Mike just dismissed the whole thing with some rambling nonsense, ignoring the emotional story that was just told. What a tool.
You are so right about Saint Matt of Dillahunty. I felt pangs of pain watching that because I was as gullible as M Dilly in the olden days. I also empathised with that dude from Saint M Dilly's old church. M.Lic can't afford to acknowledge that people come to their senses and leave the superstitious worldview. Let your mind ponder the number of victims in that church who will quit in the next few years. According to Pew Research, churches are closing at a 20% rate. That means 100 have gone, notwithstanding the fence sitters and the domino effect of the leavers also taking others. Recognise that M.Lic is only a *tool* of the system. He takes money from the gullible; earned would be too charitable. Famous actors, musicians, and sports heroes wear fancy-dress and perform to entertain and sell customers good feelings in exchange for money. The significant difference between the entertainment styles is that apologists prey on gullible customers, and their effort is focussed on conflation sensible and decent living with the brand of superstition that generates income. It is worth contemplating the Holy cow, the cash cow of the cabal of thirteen (ish) charlatans who endorse each other's books and video channels. A few mega-churches are raking in big time, and the little clique are clawing back the leftovers. Desperate victims; congregations will never comprehend WLC word salads or master Greek and Hebrew texts, so they resort to conveniently packages of drivel to bolter their diminishing faith. Weapon, weapon of mass delusion, would be a better description than tool.
@@ray_x6959 Thanks for your kind words. It is more about growing up 1Cor 13. When I discovered my faulty epistemology and quit the superstitious life, I felt sorry for myself for a long time, but others suffered far worse. St-Doug-of-Pine Doug had a recent clip where the honest Sean McDowell explained his situation of having to keep believing (IMO, the unbelievable) because his whole life's infrastructure requires him to maintain a superstitious outlook. The implications of him or any pastor leaving are as frightening and cruel as JW shunning torture. Thank a god for The Clergy Project, as it helps pastors transition to reality when they recognise the folly and deceptive practices of the god industry. Many have good hearts and excellent training to assist everyday people in navigating society's challenging pitfalls. The project helps those victims to use their skills in honest endeavours. BTW, at my departure, I had never heard of the trinity of saints: Dawkins, Dennett, or Dillahunty, and I squirmed through life thinking it was only me who got a glimpse of reality. The truth will set you free, but a judge might decide otherwise. Jn 8;31 Thanks for your interest and contribution. aunt
It's also sad. It shows how little attention he has paid and how full he is of himself. The delusion he is caught in and the inability to recognize his ignorance.
This debate in a nutshell: Mike: Miracles exist Matt: Show me one Mike: If xyz happened, would you call that a miracle Matt: I don't know, probably not, but let's find out. Show me Mike: No I can't. I already proved that xyz happened and was a miracle and showed it to you in a thought experiment. You just have to have imagination. What about abc event Matt: I don't know, probably not, but let's find out. Show me Mike: No I can't. I already proved that xyz and abc happened and was a miracle and showed it to you in a thought experiment. You just have to have imagination. What about def event Matt: You keep giving examples of things that you cannot provide. Do you have anything you can actually provide Mike: No. But miracles exist Matt: Show me one Mike: If def happened, would you call that a miracle Matt: I don't know, probably not, but let's find out. Show me Mike: No I can't. I already proved that xyz,abc & def happened and was a miracle and showed it to you in a thought experiment. You just have to have imagination. What about ghi event Matt: You keep giving examples of things that you cannot provide. Do you have anything you can actually provide Mike: No. But miracles exist Matt: What rational justification do you have to believe that they exist Mike: Because I believe that they exist Matt: So you believe they exist BECAUSE you believe they exist and that CONVINCES you that you're right? Mike: Yes. And that proves that I'm right. Miracles exist. Matt: Show me one Mike: No I can't. What about jkl event Matt: -.- I'm done with this clown. See ya guys later. ^^^^ Every single religious debate in history. Exchange the word "miracle" for whatever the debate topic is, and you have ALL religious debates. A clown making a claim, refusing to back it up, a nonbeliever asking questions, getting the runaround, and then the clown making more vacuous claims devoid of substance or example. The religious clown will then complain about their feelings rather than the subject matter when the nonbeliever simply asks for proof of the claim. The holy book is the claim, not the proof nor the evidence. The book cannot prove itself and you cannot start any rational thought with the conclusion as one of the foundational assumptions leading to the conclusion. I have watched hundreds of these professional debates held with professional debaters, moderators, formats and timers. It was these debates themselves that convinced me that there were no miracles, or gods. The fact that a believer became a nonbeliever because the professional believer did such a poor job, is very telling. EVERY truth anxiously waits to be discovered. NO lies will want to be discovered. Want to know who is lying to you? Look to the one who enjoys secrecy. Who legislates lack of inquiry or faith into rule.
Dude! I laughed my butt out on this. That was funny, but its really ironic and it was a lost battle for Mike because he provided non evidence at all. He was trying so hard to demonstrate his evidence by a very lousy and stupid hypothesis which cannot even be categorized as qualitative.
@@truestartv9591 not really. There's been many claims of spirits amongst many religions. Even if the supernatural (ghosts, witches, djin, leprechauns) is proven to be true it proves nothing but the claim that's true isn't proof of anything but the claim that's proven true. While I'll admit personally for anything magical to be true would be a huge step, and may convince me. I'm not sure as I haven't seen anything that convinced me of anything supernatural
@@zer-op2gq When I was doing my paper round as a kid I had a bizarre experience which to this day I'm now 53 I can't and will never know the answer to, I was delivering a newspaper I was in a tower block, top floor I was around 13/14 years old, my normal paper round I'd done for probably around 8 months and I remember it was around 6 am and winter I was just putting the paper through the letterbox and I suddenly heard this rapid knocking, I swung around and was frozen in fear what what seemed like 30 secs but in reality was probably 3-5 secs the opposite doors letterbox was clacking at such a rate it was incredible I ran through the door to the stairs and jumped every flight of stairs in a single bound all the way down, went to the shop said sorry I won't be back and left lol, had another unusual experience when I was around 8 or 9 also at school, I don't have any clue what it was, i just know what I saw and for years I've gone through all types of things but can't explain it, to return these heavy letterboxes so rapid to be able to knock again someone would have needed to weld an iron rod to be able from the inside to knock the letterbox, when I say rapid I mean seriously fast. Weird shit happens, and I'm a regular guy
@@garyskinner2422 I really don't doubt something extraordinary happened. Some may scoff at a mail slot making a ruckus, but to have remembered it for 40 years I'll agree it probably wasn't just the wind or you'd have forgotten it. If we don't know what caused it, and you say yourself you can't explain. I wasn't there so I certainly can't explain it either, but adding an explanation is the same line of thinking of "of course Zeus is real; what else could explain lightning? ". I don't doubt it was something, but that isn't evidence that the answer is supernatural
@@mikerodgers7620 it will ALWAYS win against magical, fairy tale folklore. The device you’re using to come online and spout nonsense? A product of logic.
@David Stanton *Is that how you convinced yourself a 'god' or 'devil' exists? Just kept your eyes closed tight and kept saying over & aver again that there is such a thing as 'gods' or a 'devil'?*
@@princesswarriorjp175 If what you said is true, why did it take millennia for these scientific discoveries to be made? The bible is not a science book. It implies a flat earth and explicitly shows geocentric cosmology.
apologist’s opening statement: -some people think they see ghosts -the bible is a historical document and the people in the bible said the bible is pretty legit
@ada2step how come it wasn't world news then? proof of the Devil? maybe milk prices had gone up a cent and that was deemed more news worthy? LOL you are soooooooo gullible. OK I watched this. www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-previews/possession-ghost-demon-house-hell-13465790 Its all hearsay, no actual evidence whatsoever , just some actors and some special effects, with people who seemingly want their 20 minutes of fame and everyone in the deep south( what another shock) are spookily enough ALL believers - see what I did there? grow up - its 2020 .
I used to believe in religion because of intimidation of hell and fear of it... Then I listened to George Carlin..... and began to question my beliefs..... then I opened my mind and questioned the bible.... fast foward later on... I am religion free and a atheist.
@John TheAgnostic I understand what you are saying but in the Bible God is described in that way many times. Jacob wrestled God in Genesis, therefore God is a man. Most Christians think that Jesus is God (even though he never claimed to be God). If Jesus is God and his BODY ascended to heaven, then God is literally a man in the sky. God has always been thought of as a man, and heaven has always been thought of as a place in the sky. I do agree that "man in the sky" is an oversimplification of theist beliefs that is used to ridicule and poke fun, but it can be useful in shedding light on silly beliefs. If a Christian says "I don't believe in something as ridiculous as an invisible man sitting in the clouds, I believe...", then they may try and compare their own beliefs in an attempt to show how their beliefs are more rational than that, and in doing so, might realize that their beliefs about God are no more rational than believing in the "invisible man in the sky."
mechaart - well done, you started to use your brain properly - wish there were more like George Carlin , Chris Hitchens , Matt Dillahunty etc - all those atheists which have (or had) a very high I.Q. have got the pathway to truth , unlike theists with their "faith" that has no substance. Religion is pure slavery.
The guy is delusional for sure! Ghost stories about trash can lids moving.... delusional wishful thinking of a dumbass.....and the only reason I call him a dumbass is because he's trying to pass his delusion on to other people, instead of keeping his crazy bullshit to himself...dumbassery loves company I guess
@@susanthroop7041 His whole argument was the god of the gaps, saying that something is supernatural because it cannot be proven by our current understanding. Saying that some callers from AE have better arguments is not just a justified assertion, it is an understatement.
Paraphrasing Mike: "People saying they were abducted by aliens are likely confused because it couldn't possibly be an alien abduction because that is massively improbable given what we know about reality. No, it's way more likely that they experienced a spiritual disturbance from the supernatural realm!" *facepalm* The dude is just too far gone into his religion. All of his thoughts are tainted by irrational theistic nonsense.
@@ceceroxy2227 There are certainly some clever magicians and charlatans that can fool many of us. Look at how much money the god industry provides unimaginable lifestyles to the chosen few.
This fight should have been stopped after the first round. If not by Mike's corner then by the referee. Rarely have I seen such a mismatch between opponents and genuinely feared for Mike's mental health. He was brutally murdered here.
@mikerodgers7620 As an atheist, I fear no God, much less a minion of theirs. What kind of crappy Good who calls themselves loving, would sentence anyone to an eternity of pain simply because they failed to convince them of their existence? That's on the God, not me. If anything, I think that an entity would reward me for not falling for whatever flavor of religion is popular where I was born.
@@bindjacrowetoge2975 Even? Licona was talking about resurrection (fantasy) the and Matt was talking about rational thinking (reality). Once *anyone* can prove a god is even possible and that it can circumvent natural laws (for which there is zero evidence) that apply to everyone except it, and that these things are even possible ... yeah, won't be holding my breath for anything like that nonsense
@ada2step YOU KEEP ON POSTING THE SAME COMMENT ??????? Look a claim without any evidence but believed by fellow believers in the deep south , is not evidence . And if Satan is the one person who knows gods ultimate maximal power why does he tweak gods nose every nanosecond of the day across the world simultaneously ? .....worse still when a child is being raped god knows in ADVANCE that it will happen as he is omniscient remember , but chooses to do nothing about it. He just closes the door and tells the guy , hey, help yourself to another 7 year old, but boy, when you eventually die it will be bad for you............................unless...............before the lethal injection in jail and after a meal of fried chicken you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, and then you can join us in heaven. You people are deranged.
Bob Usualis not necessary. Separate evidence needs to have reliably connected records which all need to have strong evidence. Just because many people have weak evidence for aliens, their stories do not “combine” to make aliens a more reliable theory.
“Dr” Licona’s friend Kim ‘s trash can lid levitated across the kitchen during a Ouija Board session 23 years ago. Therefore we have proven without a doubt that Jesus was resurrected. Brilliant !
thats the point where i saw the light and converted ! from sitting to falling to the floor ! yeah that was as low as ive ever heard for evidence of god.
Brian Pottie Yeah, he demonstrated that his standard for evidence of the supernatural and for the stories of the Bible is so ridiculously low that he wouldn’t be able to function in society if he accepted the same standard in every other situation.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 ayep. same ol story. every time. created every thing but needs people that can only know as much as me or you. that's my ending point . any way.
"In all of human history, the supernatural has never turned out to be the right answer to anything: Natural explanations of phenomena have replaced supernatural ones thousands upon thousands of times, while supernatural explanations have replaced natural ones exactly never." -- Greta Christina
MGTOW Rubicon How do you explain the fact that One Poor Jewish man, from 2000+ years ago, changed the world (unprecedentedly) for the better at least two times? And continues to affect every day life in the whole world?
Christians must try their best to reach Jesus ideal, we may not be able to but in trying the world becomes a better world, and in failing (as we have miserably) we learn.
Mere claims in a book for the veracity of the claims contained in the book. That anyone continues not to understand how inane this proposition to be is a kind of testimony in itself for how underdeveloped we are as a species at this point in our history -- in how ill-prepared we are for the existential implications of our age, and how likely we are to survive this big test that lies at the heart of fermi's postulate. I really would've thought we'd prove ourself worthy of at least level 3, but the dark ages seem to have got us good, pa, and we're not going to shake that hell hound that drags us still to our knees, soon to the very ground where he'll tear out our entrails and prevent us from that cosmic field trip. I expect this isn't an uncommon fate for worlds whose most sentient and self-aware creatures contend inevitably with the remnants of their primal, collective pathologies that without exception would folllow the species' reaching of the ends of their respective earth's and precede that 2nd conundrum of awakening beyond which so much potential for transcendence might shimmer only inches from their reach, but without their knowing of it will present nothing less than doom and horror, a bloody and gore-spitting apocalypse of self-cannibalizing that -- in the absence of their gods, poorly retired -- will prove the promised annihilation properly fulfilled by those gods' faithful subjects and zealous acolytes -- their imminent liberation quietly twisted like fragrant buds from spring branch by pollen-stained fingers and crushed into vanishing meaninglessness beside the tombs of their greatest works, never any further interest to pique before the dust of dust to eternity becomes, hardly an Olmec sentinel in the wilderness to witness when breaches of the Gulf by simulacra of third age do traverse, finding only dung beetles skittering somewhere between stone and iron, or bronze at best, memories of the Old Ones hardly scenting the archetypes that connect the beetles to a lineage that clicked underfoot of those same Ones who might've made sense of these hulking, damp and aromatic tourists that step so carelessly among these most advanced of sentient dwellers of earthly substrate -- not knowing, of course, of those descendants of the atlantic porpoise who eschew such calls to attention and thereby escaped the trials of the 2nd by sheer accident of the briny iodine-shot confluence where heavy amazon unfolds into crashing atlantic, salt crystalline barriers to half-life their unremembered bulwark yet standing. But everybody knows this.
Bob Joe oh, I didn’t realize. This is quite convincing. Ok, I’m sold. Guess I’m a Christian now. How do I start this thing? I have a lot of personal stuff I need to get rid of first, I guess. And does my involuntary baptism from my christening still hold? Or do I need to renew that shit?
@@Fendelfull You can start by acting like you read the Bible, but in reality you only read the good parts about it. Then, you need to base your morals loosely around what the Bible says. Remember, not entirely though, because the Bible says slavery is good but we don't do that now, so that's a part you can ignore.
@@bobjoe3492 Darn, but thanks for letting me know, because I'd already had my eye on one dude that owes me a little cheddar and whom I could justify counting as a slave. But if that's a faux pas among acceptable modern day practice and if you're sure they wouldn't approve, I'll cancel my order for duct tape and zip-ties and schnapps until I come up with some other justification.
Yeah bro I was actually surprised at how stupid his opening statement was. Literally playground-tier storytelling. The ouija board story is literally the most basic Hollywood trope. Some kid repeating some random ghost story and claiming it happened for real is not evidence lmao
I see a lot of trash talking about Mike down in the comments. I would like to appreciate him for being honest and presenting the debate in its full form without any significant editing. Not convinced that Jesus rose from the dead or is god, but I did enjoy the debate. Mike, thank you for agreeing to debate Matt.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Unfortunately, There are going to be a bunch of people out there who haven't spent any time thinking about logical fallacies. These people probably coulcn't follow what Matt was saying, and already have a foundation of belief in supernatural. so They'll be inclined to understand Mike's logic. This makes me sad
Except he is not employing logic. He makes appeals to authority which a sixth grader can recognise. It's not an argument. It's the furthest thing from it. As a reference point there are incidents recounted in the bible which are simply factually not true.
Well, yeah, he was arguing for resurrection, the existence of god, etc. There really are no other arguments for that. I mean, there are no argument for that as these aren't actual arguments.
4 роки тому+10
@ada2step what prophecies? Wars, plagues, diseases, earthquakes? Things that have happened and are happening every single day since these" prophecies " were written?..3rd time you've mentioned that bullshit story about kids walking up walls, let it go. It never happened, because it can't happen..Tell you what, I will look it up right now, I'm gonna type in Google " police/welfare officers witness kids walking up walls ". If it happened or was reported in some tin pot, 3rd word religious country, credibility will drop accordingly, like stories of stigmata and bleeding statues only happens in Catholic countries.. but just this once, I'll put my skepticism aside and look up these child wall walkers
@ada2step you wrote " the people that wrote the Bible actually spent time with Jesus walked with Jesus ate with Jesus." No, that is false. None of the books of the bible were written by eyewitnesses. At least, there's no proof that it was, and the proof we do have seems to confirm the new testament books were largely written at least a hundred years after his death.
@Mike fu That doesn't explain who conducted space, time, and matter. Who created the DNA? This is so evident of a Creator it astounds me how you guys put your faith into idols popular opinion and let modern "science" dictate and indoctrinate your common sense. If nothing created nothing and nothing is absolute how do you even trust your own senses? Or anybody elses for that matter? Think about this, everything is relative and there would be no truth, and what is truth in a universe out of chaos? It can't exist. There is none, only opinion. What fixed reference do you have to compare too? This is a battle of the heart and spirit and not the mind so much. It is black and white evident of the intelligent design we see around us, it is staggering as a matter of fact.
What amazes me is the level of dishonesty required for mike's bs arguments. One person is being truthful and one person is talking about stuff he doesn't understand therefore god.
I love how Mike Licona keeps going back to that moronic example of “if I were beheaded in front of you and then came back with my head back on my body...” - Then in the end he brings it up for the umpteenth time, Matt just says, “when that happens, get back to me and I’ll investigate it.”
@@BScott7220 not really. Matt was basically just taking a position of not accepting the supernatural claim as it has insufficient evidence. Whereas Sye actively asserts that the supernatural exists and that we all already believe in it.
@@lexcent6271 hard for them to bring anything new when all they really have is a nearly 2k year old book, in which pretty much everything we can actually investigate has turned out to be false...
Loved the look on Mike's face after he said nothing would convince Matt in regards to his "head chopped off" scenario to which Matt said would never happen and has never happened. He really thought he got him somehow but the only thing he got was less followers and subscribers. Matt has clearly won this debate.
Mike's example, as presented, actually invited natural explanations. He basically described various components of the skillset of James Randi. His argument, shorn of irrelevant details, is 'something happened and I do not know how it happened, therefore supernatural'. This should sound very familiar as it is widely recognized as a logical fallacy when the word 'God' is used at the end.
@@huh7056there was no gotcha to be had. He wanted him to say that an event could be/would be supernatural and Matt didn’t. I don’t think it would have accomplished what he expected even if Matt was willing to say yes.
@@rey5597 if my head gets chopped off so im dead now and then it gets reattached and im alive again, you won't call that supernatural? Or when a trash can throws itself up to the wall you won't call that supernatural? Then what is supernatural? And how would you describe these two events? Negative natural? If you can't be convinced these obvious scenarios are supernatural, nothing can and that's a you problem not a real one.
@PrometheanRising he also added that there would be scars, which implies scar tissue, meaning natural cellular regeneration as opposed to magic bullshit
Well what else could he even bring to the table? Just imaginary bullshit that proves he's a dumbass and believes in things that are made up....my goodness it would suck to be a slave to stupidity
@@davidbermudez7704 Notice that it's you who "magically believes the universe popped into existence from...GOD." And do you think something as supremely intricate and powerful as GOD is excluded from your implicit suggestion that things can't come into existence without a designer?
Yes, the minds of these people are now closed. They have ears, but they don’t listen. They have eyes, but they refuse to see. If their minds were not closed, they might see with their eyes; they might hear with their ears; they might understand with their minds. Then they might turn back to me and be healed.’
Perhaps that's due to the character being catholic and what that character believes. Yet not once has any claim of a possession or haunting ever been proven as true.
@ "Who sings best?" (1)Christ followers: Shot to the LORD, all the earth 🌎. Let us sing. Power & majesty, praise to the KING 👑... (2) Atheist Church: Shot to the VOID, all the earth 🌎. Let us sing. Power & majesty, Praise to NOTHING! Christian Conclusion: Philipians 1:21 To live is CHRIST, & to DIE is GAIN. ___ Athiest:To DIE is NOTHING
Amelia Lin this is the problem: how do you KNOW 1) that there is an afterlife 2) that Jesus is in the afterlife. Even if you could demonstrate that supernatural occurrences exist, it still wouldn’t tell us anything about any one particular religion, be it Christianity Hinduism or Islam.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 He "conceded" in exactly the same sense that he didn't concede anything at all, but even so, if you were capable of critical thought, you would realize what a non sequitur, emoji-ridden and infantile shriek you posted. What about the farcical resurrection fantasy did he dodge again?
@@highroller-jq3ix 32:46 he literally conceded because he said he didn’t come to debate the topic of freaking debate! I mean I don’t know what definition of “ concede” you’re using but I would call saying in the first 30 seconds of your opening statement that you didn’t come to debate the topic, is conceding the debate. Imagine if Licona said that he didn’t come to debate the topic and instead spent his time in his opening statement talking about why he’s convinced of Christianity, and how he became a Christian. I can guarantee that you and the other Dillahunty pathetic sock puppets would be really frustrated, and would be calling him dishonest, but it’s perfectly acceptable and it’s perfectly honest when your daddy Dillahunty Dodge does it. 🤣🤣🤣 oh and don’t lecture me on “critical thought” when you’re the one who isn’t capable of grasping or even having a productive or reasonable conversation about anything related to this topic. Dude you like to just throw out claims without justification, and then you get mad at people for asking you to provide evidence for your claims. Yes he did and I provided the timestamp. Buddy if you had any critical thought whatsoever or you were capable of any critical thought, you would admit Matt is being dishonest and he’s not interested in having an actual debate, or productive discussion. He literally said in the beginning of his opening statement he didn’t come to debate the topic and if that’s what you came for you came to the wrong debate. He literally said he’s not a Resurrection investigator, and he hasn’t studied this topic that much so he can’t really say if there is evidence or there isn’t. Yet he’s going to scrutinize absolutely every single point that Licona’s makes for his case, and say it isn’t sufficient evidence, despite the fact he literally admits he doesn’t even know what would constitute a sufficient evidence to begin with! 🤣🤣🤣 I mean just wow. So do you have anything substantive to bring to the table? Or are you just going to continue to pedal your arrogant nonsense, and troll for fun?
Firstly, good on Dr. Licona to allow the free exchange of comments and opinions on the debate. But, I have a serious problem with him misrepresenting science. At 58:57, Mike said that the scientific disciplines have different methods, and that there is no single scientific method. That is Mike demonstrating how little attention he paid in science class, if at all, and that he knows nothing about the scientific method. The scientific method can be and is applied to all major scientific disciplines, including the ones he mentioned: geology and chemistry. It's quite simple, really: 1) Make observations. 2) Ask questions about what you observed. 3) Propose a hypothesis. 4) Make predictions about what you would observe if the hypothesis was correct. 5) Devise and perform experiments and tests to verify said predictions, and perform iterations and repetitions of these tests and have other individuals test those predictions as well to determine real consistency. *All* sciences follow those steps. He goes on to say that you can't test geology, archeology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. What?! It's only through the experiments performed by geologists to understand the composition, history, and the mechanisms of the different processes that have shaped the Earth as it is now, that things like seafloor oil exploration are even possible. And, oh the irony, the only reason we know where to look better now than we used to is because we've supplemented our knowledge of the geological mechanisms of oil and gas formation, with our understanding of the evolutionary biological process behind it: how multiple core samples of Formaniniferas and plankton microfossils from the water and seafloor give abundant clues as to the locations of oil and gas reserves. People like Mike should be fact-checked when they spout ill-advised and uninformed garbage like this.
Evolutionary biology doesn't follow those steps. Might want to check out David Berlinski. Mikes point is that each of the different disciplines have different versions of tests. Psychologists dont use radiometric dating. Archeologists don't use distant starlight and parallax. Biologists don't use the geometric column. Etc, etc. And historians use a different set of tools to search for truth. Those tools are not to be found in a laboratory. They are not empirical, repeatable, etc. That's the point he as making.
@igor caique my question was for foster to support his inaccurate claim that biologists did not make predictions. On the other hand, you seem to believe that Evolution States a fish would transform into a fish with amphibian characteristics rather than a species of fish gradually developing arms over many zillions of generations. These are very different claims
A Christian who loves watching debates, 23 minutes in and am terrified at how Matt will totally and rightfully wreck this half hazard anecdotal intro. There were already so many ways to have done this better. Mats gonna talk like a professional that’s prepared, while the other guy is seems like a deacon winging a Sunday school class.
@@drew2fast489 I think one can be christian and aetheist at the same time, the same way one can be in a Harry Potter fan club and not believe it's a true story.
@@drew2fast489 No dude, for real. For example, I'm an aetheist hindu. I love the Mahabharata story, and I'm a fan of the charecter Krishna, but I don't believe that that guy lifted a mountain on his pinky finger. It functionally doesn't matter to me wether the mythological stories are true, or how much is fiction and how much is actually historical fact, I treat them as simply as stories. I would hold religeous stories in the same light as game of thrones, the only difference is that there are bunch of people around me who believe it's a fact, and I can have a conversation about the stories and the philosophy (as well as random weird and funny shit in the mythos. I like blasphe-memes). Does that make sense?
For someone who referenced modern psychology I find it funny that he then went on to claim human memory is reliable when psychologists make their careers proving it isn’t.
I am only going to point out that there must be some level of reliability, however difficult to define, else you wouldn't have remembered the bit you said regarding psychologists above. Having said that, fie on you for making me look like I might agree with Mike.
One of the weirder arguments I’ve seen. It sounded to me like “if things we can’t yet explain happen, then it’s reasonable to assume that completely different things that we can’t explain also happened and god is behind them”
Juan Venter back to what Matt said, every time humans have proposed a supernatural cause for anything and we then discover the cause, that cause has never been supernatural. That doesn’t disprove the supernatural but it certainly doesn’t help.
Not quite the argument, but it was leading to that. What was very telling was Mike Licona's claim that anything that cannot be explained 'by what we understand of nature now' must therefor be explained only by supernatural causes. And even when Matt Dillahunty rightfully claims that his argument is equivalent to an all-encompassing 'I don't have an explanation so it must be supernatural' bucket that explains nothing, Mike Licona simply and unreasonably denies it. 200 years ago, there were no computers or flying air or space crafts. Did that make them supernatural then? Of course not. The discovery of radioactive atoms happened in 1896. There were many scientists still adhering to the idea that atoms were immutable. Does that make radioactivity proof of supernatural causes? To claim so is simply and utterly nonsense. Scientists disagree because that's the way science works. Scientists can never "prove"; they can only disprove an idea, a theory, a concept. People claim that their theistic religion is immutable. And that's why it can be so dangerous, because people have always disagreed over what version is the "correct" one. No war was ever fought nor justified over a disagreement arising from science.
@@juanventer5145 What you just said (i.e. when we have "good reason to suggest that those things can not be explained by naturalism we are going to go to the supernatural for now") is a HUGE fallacy. If something happens that is deemed impossible by our current models of nature, that DOES NOT give us good reason to believe naturalism fails to explain it. The only thing that we can conclude is that our current model is incorrect. Whether it is incorrect because we have the wrong naturalistic model or it is incorrect because a supernatural exists --- we have no idea. You cannot claim that the supernatural is more likely than some alternative natural solution that we do not know... neither of those two options have any evidence so scientists will simply say "i don't know yet" while Mike was suggesting that we default with supernatural until proven otherwise (and there's no justification for doing that in the slightest). If anything, if one is forced to take a position beyond "I don't know"(which is a reasonable position!), the default should be based in skepticism... we know that a lot of previous events thought to be impossible, and therefore were justified by god, have since been proven to be rooted in nature. Given that, if forced to take an extreme position, we should absolutely default to assuming that future unknowns can be rooted in nature as opposed to defaulting that they cannot be.
Back in the late 90's when I was a teen, a well-renown prophetic speaker came to speak at our church. Toward the end of the service, he prophesied over some of the people in the church including the pastor and his wife - who happened to be the parents of my best friend at the time. I remember clearly what he said that day, he prophesied that the pastor and wife would sometime in the near future build and open a massive sports facility in our town and it would attract many people and bring them to God. Roughly ten years later, both the pastor and his wife (with much respect as they were wonderful people) were diagnosed with cancer and not long after that, passed away. How do you go from being two kind and generous people who loved God with all their hearts and served him loyally, being prophesied great things in the future, and then dying in one of the worst possible ways that exist on this earth? How can such an esteemed prophet supposedly in touch with God, stand there and with such confidence prophecy these things of grandeur all to find out years later, not only was it a load of bs, but something completely opposite happened? This is exactly one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity anymore, it is one big charade, steered by people who make wild claims about the supernatural, ultimately preying on peoples naivety and imagination. Sickening
God warns about false prophets, also remember God's word in Hosea: my people are dying because of ignorance. If you keep looking for the truth without the influence of your emotions into the question you'll find it. But most people like you who get emotionally affected and then don't believe in Christianity anymore didn't actually understand Christianity in the first place.
It’s quite evident that that “prophet” was indeed a false prophet, according to Deut 18:22. And, those people that were faithful servants of God here, this earth is the closest to hell that they ever got. The fact that they got cancer and died is a shame on earth, yes, but they are now experiencing a joy like no other. Remember, the Christian walk is not merely about what happens here on this earth. Jesus even warns against storing up treasures for ourselves here. Our true home, as Christians, is in Heaven. The day that I die is the day the sorrows stop, the day that the tears will be wiped from my eyes, the day that I will finally see the Lord that loved me enough to die for me. In this life, we are promised to have trouble, but we are of good cheer, because He has overcome the world. I wonder why the good die young as well. Nabeel Qureshi, a great man and apologist, passed from stomach cancer. He went on from this world to the next, where he is no longer in pain, and he is with the Lord. I wondered often about this, why God would take someone so good, so soon. But I know for certain that I wouldn’t do him the disservice of bringing him back, out of the paradise that is God’s presence. I get your troubles, believe me, but remember, their goal as servants of the Lord was not to be well off here, but to live in His presence.
You are right. The religious leaders in many cases are delusional or in others openly deceptive. They traffic in the lucrative market of hope and when everything goes bad, is your fault because you didn’t have “enough faith”. All is pure BS.
Bullshit...i asked god yesterday bout you and he said he doesn't like you and never did...its the sins ya see, spilling of the seed to be precise...😜🤪😜
@@ThirdSonSethNo pagan Jewish imaginary been Jesus a fictional characters never existed. Warned peoples beware of false prophets Matthew 7-15 yet falsely prophesied his return second coming of Judgement day 2000 years ago CE never happened Matthew 16-27 28 it's evil zionist lies in the pagan zionist bible.
Not only that, he dares bring up "Nature of the gaps" - as if his infantile belief in a super space wizard could be compared to the explanatory power of natural processes. Utterly absurd that we even have to deal with such people in the 21st century.
Plz dont allow a bad debater sway your mind. This Mike guy isnt a good example of debating Gods existence. Hes actually the worst I've seen. Plz go and do a deep dive on many other debates over God.
The U.S. National Academy of the Sciences a few years ago put out a Framework for K-12 Science Education, that explained the role of the “Scientific Method” from the point of view of the nation’s top scientists. Here’s what they said: “The notion that there is a single scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion-a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks-is fundamentally wrong. Scientists do use deductive reasoning, but they also search for patterns, classify different objects, make generalizations from repeated observations, and engage in a process of making inferences as to what might be the best explanation. Thus the picture of scientific reasoning is richer, more complex, and more diverse than the image of a linear and unitary scientific method would suggest.” There are different scientific methods. Or rather, the "scientific method" is fluid and comprises more than a single method depending on the field.
The US National Academy of the Sciences appears to have left out the testing/analysis part of the process by your citation, which would cover the actions described in the rest of the statement. Are there any scientific theories that go from deductive reasoning straight to a conclusion? While different fields require different methodologies to test/analyze, the results still need to support the hypothesis, or else it is concluded to be false. Many textbooks have provided incorrect or misleading info that required revision over time, and future generations of scientists could benefit from approaching new problems with a non-linear methodology. However, a hypothesis does not become a theory unless it has passed fundamental step of testing/analysis, and needs to be repeatable through independent confirmation. It appears that Scientific Method is being conflated with Methodology in this context.
@Hoichi The Earless > The US National Academy of the Sciences appears to have left out the testing/analysis part of the process by your citation, which would cover the actions described in the rest of the statement. You are right in that the branching out from a strict path of getting to knowledge comes in the actual analysis/testing out part. That's why I actually think it's not a "method" but rather a model, because a method is a particular way of doing things, and if depending on the evidence and fields you both get the data and analyze the data in different ways then it's no longer a method, which is what the whole discussion is about. It is NOT a single method. > However, a hypothesis does not become a theory unless it has passed fundamental step of testing/analysis, and needs to be repeatable through independent confirmation. I agree, but a small part where maybe I would differ is that from the point of view of the scientist many corners are cut in order to reach a valid conclusion and many times inference is done(and I would wonder how inferences are actually repeatable rather than accepted), even when sharing information amongst collegues that show a grander picture that's not easily methodized, because you methodize the smaller parts, but you infer a larger picture by piecing together different data. Many scientists agree that this is also how they arrive to conclusions and advance knowledge.
Im still trying to get through Mikes opening statement as i write this. I cant believe how many christians in the comments think Mike somehow made an argument. His whole argument is, "my friend said she saw a ghost 23 years ago, therefore paranormal experiences are true" Like wtf dude? Thats literally nonsense.
@@MetalWolfzThe word says He doesnt listen to the prayers of the wic ked. Also Hes not obligated to. Also also you dint see the bigger picture while He foes.
I once saw a cat glow in the dark. I looked away, looked back, and it was gone! That was the best marijuana I’ve ever had. So far. edit-Licona seems like a nice enough guy, but it makes me sad to realize that he thinks anything he’s saying makes sense.
Not true!! I've tested it like 7 times. It hasn't worked at all for me.... But there was this one guy who told me his friend's ouija board was able to predict on coming cars all night!! proof! Therefore god is real.
I tried once with several people with candles in a park at midnight in a rural location, infront of lot number 666 near the park. We had said all sorts of incantations and protection prayers. The result? Absolutely nothing. Anecdotes are not data. When will Licona figure this out?
@@zoofoo12 Yes. Not what you are thinking though, they don't do magical stuff. But sit a group of people around it and they can move the stone, with every one of them convinced they did not move it. It is a subconscious effect, not supernatural. Blindfold them and the messages are nonsense, suggesting that it is the people making it move.
IDK I just got distracted because I thought I was listening to Mr. Mackey calling other people Mr. hahaha I suspected him to say 'drugs are bad mkay' at any time lol
Mmmgghhhahahahahahaha Aaaaaahahahahahahahaha Aaaaah That was a good one. Kind of on the same line of stupid would be those who over pronounce words that everyone has an understanding of like ken ham. "E-vo-lu-tion" Yes evolution we all know how it's pronounced.
1) anecdote of ouija board 2) people whoose brain is ceasing to function have weird experiences 3) anecdote of astral projection 4) anecdote of satan Therefore magic is real That's not going to do it.
Was that the points put forward as to why Jesus was raised from the dead?? What a joke. We know the spirit exist and that lost souls can be summoned and demons released. God made all these things and told us not to delve into the evil side because it's dangerous for your soul. The bible reveals God and how he revealed himself to us. Jesus is the exception because his fully man and fully God and as it's stated in the Bible that's his mission for our salvation. What are we actually debating?? We all know it's true because history shows proof of it. The holy spirit could only come to help begin the Chucrh once Christ assumed into heaven. Many saints have experieneced divine help and voices and messages from Jesus and the stigmata. The mother of Jesus also known as our Lady has appeared through out history so Many times in an attempt to lead us back to her son.
@Joe Blow I also love the fact that the Ouija board is *literally* a children's game invented by Hasbro, the toy manufacturer. It's as occult as the Avengers.
@@tinakathleen8571 Tina, that's the dumbest crap I've ever fully read. You believe in a god that is his father and his son at the same time. God damn girl, that's stupid.
Jesus isn't a zombie, he's a lich. Remember, zombies have no cognitive abilities and seek to eat people. But a lich can even bring back the dead. Jesus was a cosmic lich.
I feel the same way. it blows my mind that people don't wake up and realize what they're believing in is total horseshit. I love the way you put it because it's exactly like dealing with four-year-old children.
I love Greek mythology only because I find it cool.... If we had to be stuck to a religion ancient Greek religion is the one I'd bring back for sure ahhahah but yeah I find it silly we refer to it as Greek mythology are we allowed to do the same for current practised religions or just ancient ones that were around before the time of Jesus and god described in the old testament
@@vincentjones1014 Good idea! I'm going to refer to those religions as "Abrahamic mythology" from now on! (I too love the shared history, humanity and narrative that can be found in the various mythos. I would love to embrace the stories in the various bibles, if only people didn't actually _believe_ them.)
People like Licona just cannot say "I don't know". My pastor brother is the same way. They think saying I don't know is sitting on the fence. They just don't get that "I don't know" is correct sometimes and more correct than sticking a supernatural element into it.
Mike, If someone from one of those anecdotes you shared in your introduction approached you and admitted they made up the story and that it didn't happen the way they said it did, would you be ready to admit there's no supernatural? Likely your answer is no. That would just be one anomoly and you'd continue believing the rest of the anecdotes. You would need to be shown that all of those anecdotes are false, otherwise you couldn't make a determination. Now think about your question to Matt. If you were beheaded and then showed up outside a few minutes later, why would Matt be required to suddenly believe in the supernatural? The very question is malformed. "if something is impossible by naturalistic standards, and it happens, is it supernatural?" this presupposes that we know everything about the natural world. If we don't currently know everything about the natural world, then we cannot claim anything is impossible. (you mentioned faster than light travel being impossible, which is theoretically true, but wormholes are also theoretically possible and mathematically verified. So if some alien race traveled 15 billion light years to come pluck jimbob off his porch, we can't say that must be supernatural because its impossible to travel faster than light speed.) Everytime in the history of the human race that somebody has seen or done something that was considered supernatural a scientific naturalism based explanation has come along. The technology that we have in our pockets today would have been considered impossible 100 years ago. If you got into a time machine and brought your smartphone back to any point in history more than 50 years ago, you'd probably be burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft. Because they wouldn't understand it, and thus to them it would be supernatural. Finally, I think Matt touched on this, but the James Randi foundation has had a million dollar prize sitting on the table just waiting for anyone to come by and demonstrate any supernatural abilities or happenings. But for some reason, every single time someone tries.. They fail. And often times their methods of trickery are exposed.. But mostly... People who claim to have supernatural abilities, don't even try because they know it won't stand up to scrutiny. That's pretty telling.
A smartphone analogy..."... Because they wouldn't understand it, and thus to them, it would be supernatural."...prove it " James Randi foundation has had a million dollar prize sitting on the table just waiting for anyone to come by and demonstrate any supernatural abilities or happenings. But for some reason, every single time someone tries.. They fail." It has not been proven true therefore it's false? That's the fallacy of negative proof and when has James Randi ever proven he's an authority on the supernatural? Oh, btw, Randi's challenge to "talk to the dead" mediums is impossible to beat. Randi gives the mediums ten names from FBI's missing persons list. The challenge is for them to say who is dead and who is alive. When all ten cases are solved by FBI they'll check to see if the medium gets all ten correct. Here's the problem 1. Numerous people have the same name 2. FBI stats say only 75% or so of missing person cases are solved Randi sets up the challenge to be impossible to be beat and completed.
I’ve had my own experiences that I cannot explain, I’ve also had a near death clinical event that also cannot be explained, not one of these events gave me any belief that there is a supernatural power at work, not one. I’m alive today because of humans nature to save life, and I’m so grateful for those individuals intervention. In my opinion, no god was intervening, I experienced nothing, was not aware I was becoming deceased. No amount of claiming or reciting from a book, written by humans will change my stance on faith, unless proof can be provided and that proof has to be confirmable by facts.
I get annoyed by unscientific Theists like Licona who constantly second guess Nature to conclude Naturalism is limited but we have seen in String Theory and Complexity Science as well as Relativity and QM..that Nature is far cleverer,richer and more multi dimensional than Theists assume!
John TheAgnostic because there are no incredibly well written accounts saying they knew Santa or spoke to people that knew Santa and saw his reindeer fly. It doesn't prove that Jesus existed or performed miracles, but if you understand Greek and the level of Greek presented in the gospels you'd know that it's worth more than an intended children's story about Santa.
Well written accounts? All we know about Jesus is from the schizophrenic Paul who only saw him in visions, as well as the liars who forged 6 of his letters. And four anonymous authors and the people who forged parts of their letters. These anonymous authors were later called Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, That is it. No one else spoke of him in the first century except Josephus whose references were also forged by later Christians. The whole thing is a load of Cod's wallop.
movieklump are you well versed in hellenistic era Greek? That's a rhetorical question. You can't read Greek and you can't grasp what I'm saying. The Gospel of Luke as an account is as strong a document of evidence that Jesup existed as any document for any figure of that era. Learn Greek. Read about about Greek historical accounts. Then cross reference it with Luke and you'll see. If you only read the English you have no business debating me on this.
John TheAgnostic it's even stupider when they talk about the flying spaghetti monster. Modern western atheists are generally miseducated quacks. I have no issues with Hitchens or Harris who figured out a way to drain money from these quacks. I personally don't quite get the point of these back and forth stage debates. From the theist side of God exists it all depends on faith because if God wanted the people to know he existed he'd make it obvious. And from the atheist perspective, if they think there is no God and no afterlife, and furthermore of they accept the science that humans are nothing more an a slightly evolved primate with a finite life span as a species, on a floating planet in the middle of random nowhere that will one day fall victim to an exploding sun, and any remnants of human life or any life on one of the several rocks floating around this soon to explode sun will cease to exist, then who cares if one of its thousand species for a small fraction if life on the planet thought there was a spirit in the sky, and what's the point of ending that belief. Ultimately what's the point of morality to begin with?
Check out this video of an atheist who became a Christian after watching this debate! ua-cam.com/video/I7Pg7nTKMUA/v-deo.html
@@dinglerange oh my gosh he did lol
I've struggled hard with christianity since I basically lost my family over the last 3 years. First spouse, then 3 dogs of old age, then my mother, then a miscarriage. I'm looking for answers and investigating.
Poor one, he should have a better standard of evidence than that.
I have come to the conclusion you are an intentionally dishonest person based on this debate.
Mate I wouldnt advertise or brag about this one bud. You came armed to a debate with "My Freind Saw a Spirit Attack a Trashcan" vs a guy who brought facts and rational arguments
Mike "I gave you evidence"
Matt "No you told stories"
This sums it all up
Not Really, Matt didnt go through the arguments that Mike gave. He went completely on a different argument.
@@reydebad2643 what? Which argument did he ignore?
@@reydebad2643 bullshit.
@YexaC Logic is nothing but mind games, which is all Atheists have. Science requires something real and physical to observe, test and measure. And the fact is there is incontrovertible scientific evidence for the existence of God.
@@carolmosher7745 can you show me a non biased site where that's true?
It’s ironic how he tried to prove the supernatural, then claimed that he didn’t believe in aliens because they defy the laws of nature.
That's the problem when you start your entire argumention with an assumption, which in this case is "god exists"
The funniest part is that in doing so, he somehow managed to be wrong on both points.
that's your con exposed
My dad went to preaching/bible school and then preached and did missionary work for years. He said so himself that the key to a sermon isn’t what is said, but how well you can invoke the audience’s emotions. The substance of it doesn’t really matter as long as it sounds scary or uplifting or any other emotion that can easily blind people to what’s being said.
@@CheaterzEye Excellent point, humans for the most part are emotional, irrational creatures... and preachers, so well aware of that condition, exploit it, giving them the easiest job in the world -- just telling people what they want to hear.
I'll give Mike credit. Lots of respect for posting this video and leaving the comment section open, considering how badly his arguments were exposed
Lol but why won’t he change his position if the evidence is so strong?
Money coming in too strong ?
I tried to google him because I never heard of him. And it brought up all this stuff on how he’s a celebrity and worth several millions of dollars 🤷🏼♂️😬
@@Wretched2JZ I think that's why lots of them do that. Jordan Peterson is the same way and doesn't wanna lose that money 💰
@@Wretched2JZ the historical data is well beyond enough for one to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but to a point, it’s a choice one has to make in their own heart. There’s believing that the chair is there, and then believing that the chair will hold you up when you sit in it.
@@ThirdSonSeth That's a terrible example. I can show you chairs. I can show you chairs that can hold you up. You can't show me a god. Not one.
@@harrycooper5231 Might be a terrible example but I don't think that's what he meant. To him, you showing him a chair would be the same as him being shown the historical data. It is good enough of a reason for him and not that God can be shown just like how a chair could be shown. What we cannot do for him, is to sit on the chair for him or to believe for him that it'll hold. Only he can do those for himself.
Mike made no sense in his opening, but his 'rebuttal' was embarrassing.
But Mike has my respect for not being like so many others and locking down the comments.
Hahaha you said butt
@@zapkvr I like fellatious reasoning. Hehe.
@@dronexfun8469 fellatio reasoning?
Doesn't that infuriated you?
When these jesus-humpers block comments!!
Anything to keep the ignorance flowing.....
his rebuttal had problems the moment he started talking with his opening statement "the natural world strongly suggests that the supernatural exists." Even if that is true it doesn't mean the supernatural actually exists
Kudos to Mike for posting this video and keeping comments enabled. Btw Everything he said in the video was laughably weak
He posted he knowing that Matt being on it will generate views therefore make money for him. Who watches this to hear this Mike Whoeverheis?
Flying Dog, good point
1:24:00 Everything Licona said following up to that time was....wow. Everything, absolutely everything, Matt said went right...over...his...head.
Or so it seems to me. I could be wrong. But it sure came across that way. Then again, Matt was _so_ good in this I sometimes felt oddly sorry for Licona. I did.
BUT.....I honestly appreciate that Mike posted this video _and_ enabled voting and comments. That is very very rare in the Christian world. Most of them want desperately for the overwhelming majority of people to be silenced from contributing. So I applaud Licona for doing this. Sincerely.
That scumbag Ravi Zakatias and Frank Turek often disable comments. It's so weak
When the guy says he wouldn't
believe in alien abductions because there is no evidence and then says it was supernatural...mind blown. Matt is a saint.
I've a feeling Matt was leading up to " how can you believe in one and not the other when the standard of evidence for both is the same " but Mike threw a spanner into that by suggesting that aliens were also supernatural which I think was unexpected by Matt and threw him off for a moment..... If he had have been a little more on the ball in the moment I think Matt's response should have been " well if both are supernatural and the evidence for both is the same how do you justify concluding ( or coming to a belief ) that one is real and one isn't
Kudos to this church for inviting Matt Dillahunty to speak. 🏅
As a Christian it’s all about spreading the gospel, even if it’s just to make people curious enough to actually read the Bible. Jesus wants everyone to have a great eternal life after death.
@@Dustandfuzz And do you have any evidence that eternal life actually exists? Oh, a man(not jesus) wrote in a book that there is, so it must be true. Get real!
@@shaqyardie8105You already know the answer to that haha! There’s no proof whatsoever, and there never will be aside from a book that is somehow more right than thousands of other books that rehash the same stories.
@@dabssauce1198Lol gotta make them see how ridiculous their beliefs are somehow.
@@dabssauce1198Which one? The Goblet Of Fire?
Or Anne Of Green Gables?
The Wishing Chair?!?
Ohhhhhh, you mean the bible! Well, yeah, that one is obviously true, I mean, it’s not like there’s any possible way it could be manmade is there? No, absolutely not, it’s just, you know, so very different from all the other books written throughout history, with its, you know, unique features, those being paper and ink.
Oh and how can I forget, perhaps the most unique features of all, the instructions to commit mass genocide, kidnappings, forced marriages, paedophilia, and rape, with some stoning people to death and murdering our son to prove our love for our celestial dictator mixed in there.
It’s truly something special isn’t it?
This year is the best year of my life,it's the year I broke away from all forms of religious indoctrination.
I'm so happy for myself ❤❤❤
Noice !! You are free now . Just be self responsible and accountable for your words and actions 👍🏻 you yourself create your own “heaven or hell “ moment by moment by your choices and actions . It’s all cause and effect . You can’t get around it . Choose wisely 😉 welcome
@@bitofwizdomb7266 thanks..god less
@@wabbitramos2922 congrats! I left in 2021. 🎉
@@Melody.Joy.23 wow.. congratulations to us ..im so happy for you
Good for you keep up the good work
Purge your mind of all religious indoctrination and falsifications
We don’t know where we come from we don’t know why we’re here
We don’t know where we are going
Rejoice in the unknown and unknowable and and refuse to become a junkie on the narcotic of religion
Setting the debate aside, I'm giving this video a thumbs up because it's earnestly refreshing to see a video of a debate or highly argued/controversial topic, posted here on UA-cam without comment restriction or Likes/Dislikes disabled. Thank you for your openness in letting people in the community share their thoughts and opinions, regardless of what side of an issue they fall on.
Very true. I applaud Dr. Licona for that reason too.
You should give a thumbs up to any video you actually like, that is what is was put there for.
Well, that and the UA-cam search algorithm.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I did too.
It was rather surprising, usually videos by religious groups have comments off. Doesn't make it seem like they have much confidence in their arguments/followers
Honestly the best comment I have seen. I very strongly believe one side, but you are so very spot on. Allowing debate is the most important thing. Anyone who thumbs down you should be beaten and flogged :)
I wholeheartedly agree
Dude actually led with “because ghosts.”
derkcloud yeah thats some big mental jump from 'there are ghosts' to 'this specific character from this specific religion is real'. Like how???
Wasn't his argument that ghosts are proof that there's a spiritual realm rather than his particular viewpoint of God?
Shin:
Where do you think the universe came from?
Shin:
Explain how exploring past the planck time would help answer it?
Shin:
Explain how "the expanse" may have originated.
Not asking for any evidence, just an explanation of how -- in theory.
Are you positing something came from nothing, or some self-existent original thing?
"Christianity is the most plausible and unified theory of reality."
Yes, he really said that.
I'm sad.
Sanji won. Another empty rhetorician bites the dust.
Sanji Kun have you read or seriously considered the work of anybody that opposes your position?
Sanji Kun I’ve always found the word games that believers play with a bit silly, but they can be wonderfully entertaining, nonetheless. It’s like arguing with someone over the specs of a character that was created in some table-top role-playing game. Bro..you’re god is too OP. Nobody is going to play with you if you’re character starts off in God Mode. He’s gotta do a little work first. Complete the dungeon with your whole clan still intact and then we can talk about upgrades, cheats, and achievements lol.
But seriously, if your god (emphasis on “your” god, because he shares that title with a variegated flock of cooky monsters, pun intended. It must be pretty cramped up there in that timeless, spaceless, immaterial attic you’ve been describing) exists, why does he have to put in so much effort to get us to believe in him? Maybe your god is just a concept, a belief, an intentional object that has no basis in reality and appears to be “practically” nonexistent. What would happen if you and everyone like you stopped “spreading the word” or “defending the faith”? Do you think god would step in and remind us himself? Yah know, just to take that heavy burden off our shoulders’? My bet is that he’d disappear. My belief is that he wouldn’t step down from that lovely, timeless, spaceless, immaterial perch you’ve squeezed him into and come knockin’ like some apoplectic mafioso slime wondering where the first of the month is at. Try imagining a universe where your god doesn’t exist and never has. And then try imagining the universe you’re living in right now could be such a universe. Then realize that you don’t need to imagine it. 🤗
Sanji Kun I cant see your comment? I just saw the first half of it when it popped up in my notifications, but it looked like a fun read. Can you post it again?
Sanji Kun 😂😂😂 you can’t just declare victory like that. What would stop me from doing the same and being equally justified?
I kind of want to know how you have two different definitions for the word “exist” and are able to use these two definitions as interchangeably and whimsically as you have. How can your mind and body operate within the constraints of time and space (I’m sure we can agree on that) and be accepted as an existing entity, and yet a “being” that is timeless and spaceless can also “exist”. How can those two seemingly separate things occupy the same logical and ontological space? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction in terms? Unless we’re redefining “exist” to mean something much grander or more inclusive-if that’s even possible to do without collapsing into madness?
I just don’t see why anybody should have to accept your god as “existing” or “real” in the same way I accept you as existing and real just because you’ve defined him or it as such.
Is there some as of yet unknown but revealing branch of epistemology that you’ve used to adduce the existence of your god?
It’s hilarious that Mike was the one who was actually proud enough of this debate to post it😭
For his go-to line to be so proudly, "what if some crazy thing that's never happened... happened! Then wouldn't you assume something even MORE unlikely?!"
it's very unsurprising. Apologists are all pride, no shame.
I 100% disagree with his arguments and think they're silly, but don't you think y'all are being a bit too harsh? Posting a debate in its entirety and letting people make up their minds is something I've seen apologists consciously avoid. Infinitely better than disingenuously editing it down.
@@HillBelichickdefinitely agree with you, however the harshness on the content of his arguments isn't necessarily unwarranted. Someone objectively looking at his claims would see how silly they are. Completely allegorical or straight out of the Bible. Circular reasoning. Excluding those looking for surface answers, all they do is confirm those who already believe and does nothing to those who don't.
@@operationlegend9746 sure I just think there's a very clear line between constructive and personal criticism and it sucks to see it crossed by so many people who are nominally on my side :/
Not hilarious, just intellectually honest to post the video and let people decide for themselves. I think, in so far as a winner can be determined, Matt clearly won.
I expected much more from Mike, but he ultimately summed up religious faith - it's just "what if" statements, silly tricks, and 'I know a guy' stories.
But he doesn't just know about guys. There are also "i know a young child" and "I know a woman" stories. Over 300!
The worst is the ridiculous "what if" about the beheaded man. How about avoiding, as a talking point, any eventuality that we know is so highly improbable as to be meaningless.
We can only know God if he reveals himself to us. If you want a real debate, then find someone who has had that experience. In the end you will say that he is crazy or lying, and go on your merry way thinking you have won the debate.
@@robertrosskopf4641 once he reveals himself to me, I'll believe. Pretty simple prospect. Until that day, I literally am not able to believe in a god. I couldn't even do it as a child
@@ATSaale I understand. Not everyone cares to know the truth. I felt the same way once upon a time. And then one day I did want to know.
lol a bunch of grade 9 girls playing with a ouija board is considered evidence? i guess if you believe in God, anything can be evidence
Seeing the face of jesus on a waffle is my favorite.
Lucky gals. I tried a ouija board, VooDoo dolls, prayers to Satan . . . and all I got was this cruddy T-shirt to prove it.
Turk Willingston
Well, it's better evidence than what you have for any other alternative. You guys are basically on the level of the "flat earthers"
1) Natural processes without any guidance from any intelligence, somehow comes to the initial understanding of the physics of "powered" flight for birds and bats.
Now, that is a true supernatural miracle.
2) How about another one? creating all life over 4.5 billion years and never once having DNA get corrupted. As you are aware DNA can get randomly mutated and that will cause cancer in cells.
Yet, this is a supernatural miracle!
3) How about a third? DNA mutation + Natural selection + 4.5 billion years cannot create new information. Mutation just changes, it doesn't add anything new, therefore Darwin was wrong about all of it. Then you add in epigenetic information which can't get mutated which is needed for the body structure itself. It's pretty much game over.
Again, how incredibly supernatural!
Are we tired of playing games yet? Live your life to the fullest of course, but be intelligent about it.
@Meka Leka Himekahineyho Well, people don't become atheists because it's the best choice, they become an atheist to escape judgement on things like self indulgence and all kinds of other things.
@@Docwiz2 _...it's better evidence than what you have for any other alternative._
PFWHAHAHAHAHAH It always amazes me how many people think that dumb ass assumptions, arguments from ignorance and wishful thinking are better evidence than (f)actual evidence, but you're definitely taking the cake by literally stating your denial. But let's see how much more stupid you can get.
_"1) Natural processes without any guidance from any intelligence, somehow comes to the initial understanding of the physics of "powered" flight for birds and bats."_
_"Now, that is a true supernatural miracle."_
No, that's how nature works. It's like how the particles of water aren't wet and combined in specific ratios, dictated by natural laws, they are. No magic required.
_"2) How about another one? creating all life over 4.5 billion years and never once having DNA get corrupted. As you are aware DNA can get randomly mutated and that will cause cancer in cells."_
As you are aware, most people don't get cancer until they have had years to decades of fertility. Cancer doesn't stop evolution. It only shows that all of life is nothing but natural processes. No magic required. It's not a coincidence that we see way less deadly diseases in children of the age of 10. DNA does get corrupted and people who do develop a deadly hereditary disease that would kill you before fertility would simply have a vastly reduced chance of procreating, so that mutation will not be passed on to the next generation. Being prone to get cancer AFTER you have had decades of fertility doesn't stop you from having children, so we should expect cancer and many other age related disease to occur and the longer we live the more of those diseases we'll see. That's evidence of evolution. It's exactly how natural selection works, not how magic works.
_"3) How about a third? DNA mutation + Natural selection + 4.5 billion years cannot create new information. Mutation just changes, it doesn't add anything new, therefore Darwin was wrong about all of it. Then you add in epigenetic information which can't get mutated which is needed for the body structure itself. It's pretty much game over."_
You're a fucking idiot. If a gene that makes your eyes brown is mutated when you accidentally impregnate your sister and you probably will, judging by your intelligence, that is new information. You don't have information in your genes to make eyes brown. If a gene mutates from being sensitive to touch or to nothing at all to being sensitive to light, you will get your first proto-eye and it will give you an advantage over your blind predecessors and it added new information, so you will have a greater chance of procreating and every other member of your species that has this advantage will have this increased chance as well, resulting in more offspring with the new information than without, effectively creating a new species that can see, that evolved from a species that can't. If the environment changes so that the blind members of your species can't procreate at all, they will go extinct and the seeing members won't. The seeing members can also spread more easily to other environments where the blind ones could not, etc., etc. No magic required.
_"Well, people don't become atheists because it's the best choice, they become an atheist to escape judgement on things like self indulgence and all kinds of other things."_
And you're a mind reader! How amazing, but you're wrong. People are born atheist until they're lied to. People also don't become atheist by choice at all. You can't choose to believe or not believe something, so your 'judgement' is punishing people for the lack of evidence that a god exists and that it is possible to know what it wants, which you seem to think you do and you can't. That's intellectual dishonesty from your part. How do you know a god exists and what it wants?
And atheists can't be atheists to avoid 'judgement'(which effectively is petty vengeance for not being gullible enough to believe things without sufficient evidence), because they don't believe that that 'judgement' exists without the god they don't believe exists. Atheists are atheists simply because there is no reason to believe there is a god and thus there is no reason to live as if there is one and to pretend to know what it wants like you do. Atheists are what you would be if you were intellectually honest.
This is not a debate. This is an intellectual humiliation for Mike. How can he be a doctor with this level of irrationality in his thinking?
That's because he's not a real doctor. His entire education is in theology.
How did you get from my comment that only physicians are "doctors"?
You can be a doctor in physics, biology, literature, etc...
But, you can also be a "doctor" of homeopathy, so what?
And like homeopathy, "doctors" of theology are not real "doctors"......
He has a BA in Saxophone and MS & PhD in Christianity (AKA Bible College).
In other words an education in music and bullshitting.
Are you serious , John ?
Our Universities are based on the ROMAN trivium and quadrivium NOT Christianity.
Note the contribution of Jews to Science and Technology, Does that make Judaism the cause ?
Give it a rest. A PhD in Bible Studies is like getting a PhD in Comic books.
Yes, John, I am. Although I admit it is unfair to the comic books.
This is like a child telling his parent there's a monster under his bed and the dad telling him monster don't exist, pulling off the mattress to show him and the kid still says he sees it.
Is This Daniel acting stupid or he is juststupid as a chair
In His infinite chivalry, God only equips His defenders with the very weakest arguments
Matt is not being fair. My mother always told me it's not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
@@ebizmaster This is gold. Made me laugh out loud
arguments ? what arguments ?
incoherent blabbing is all i've ever heard of any of them , just no points in reality what so Ever
@@ThermaL-ty7bw did you watch the video or even listened to it? they both made arguments just one of them had better ones then the other
+
tpu55
Hahaha nice. So you are saying that so we atheists do not feel belittled by the powerful intellects and arguments that theists would assert on us, God deliberately weakened their logic and reasoning so we can save face.
Unusual but interesting angle on the religious debate.
Theist argument summary: Someone said they saw a flying trash can lid .... therefore Jesus rose from the dead.
His opening statement was an embarrassment.
The rest of his statements also.
@ConfusionFusion God is the universe hide and go seek champion - 6000 years in a row.
Lmao..
Are there a lot of headless humans walking around?
J w: atheist argument would be based on verifiable evidence, which there is NONE for a risen Jesus .. only claims of such from non-eye witness anonymous Christian sources (i.e. conical gospels), for which the original texts don't exist, only copies of copies. More damning is there are NO contemporary non-christian documents referring to Jesus rising from the dead. So, why should anyone believe these written claims from Christians that constitute their Bible?? It's all even more absurd when considering people just believe crap because they want to, for instance we have 16 million Mormons who believe Joseph Smith dug up ancient Egyptian gold tablets in his backyard in upstate NY, translated them into the book of Mormon, then those tablets were taken away by an angel ... a perfect example of how people will first believe stuff without evidence, then write about that belief.. that itself is NOT evidence for its truth ... yet Christians do the very same with their Jesus resurrection story, claiming it is true because they wrote about believing it.
If Mike got Scooby-Doo on the case; chances are most of his apparitions and spirits would end up being Old Man Jenkins!. He would have gotten away from it if it wasn't for those meddling kids!
And their stupid dog too!
LOL I think Mike sounds slightly like Scooby Doo every few seconds. Maybe like Scooby's cousin or something. Like the way his voice is. Does anyone else hear it?
Meddling scientists, that is.
Licona - "It can't be aliens DUH, it's probably ghost aliens."
Matts hair grew back and fell off again. Holy fuck.
"Anyone have a clicker? A wireless clicker? No? Okay thanks. Well Kim played with a ouija board once and talked to a ghost. So... cased closed. Checkmate, Matt."
I'm surprised that god can't even work a simple power point slide presentation.
@@lucasliew4924 Even worse, he can't even write a book about himself and creation that everyone could read and understand.
He shoulda prayed more tbf. What a bad christian
Why ask another for a clicker when God should have either not only known or damn guys; flew down and handed to him?
Here is the Original Semitic Text. Guys, HERE is The Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
I see he mentioned near death experience. I feel pretty qualified to weigh in here. I've died on 2 separate occasions, as in clinically dead. The longest was for about 2 and a half minutes, any longer than this and my brain being starved of oxygen would have received damage. Just to be clear I had no heart beat and if it wasn't for the paramedics I wouldn't be here today. Would you like to know what I saw or what happens after you die? Well I can tell you from personal experience that NOTHING happens after you die, you're dead.
Andrew Edis scripture says it is appointed once for a man to die and then the judgement and just because your heart stops does not mean your dead. your heart is an organ and is physical life is entirely different life is the person inside your body the one that reasons thinks makes choices the person you cannot see like the words that come out of your mouth you cannot see them you can only hear them and everyone is accountable to God for every word thought and action done in the body your body will go in the ground and decay or be cremated but your soul will go to either heaven or hell that's up to you if you believe the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ then heaven if you reject the Lord and what he has done for you then hell. the choice is yours God will not force you to believe him. the life of Jesus Christ is all the evidence needed now whether you believe it or not this truth will never change the devil is the deceiver deceiving people right into hell yet God sent his only begotten son Jesus who lived a perfect sinless life and laid down his life for us because God Loves us don't reject his Love for you and your family
Kevin Love So all those words you typed and all the words you could've possibly typed you choose to go with what basically is a threat.
(Believe this or burn in hell)
What kind of person does that make you?
Andrew Edis that's what God says he made a way of escape for you when he sent Jesus It's not a threat just truth.
Kevin Love "Truth" according to you
Andrew Edis no truth according to the bible
It is hilarious that Mike is the one that posted this, he should be hiding this video and denying it ever happened. lol
Thanks Matt!!
I am afraid that he most likely thinks he won the debate which is why he posted. Matt in his presentation more or less pre-dismissed everything that Mike said by laying down his principles of sound justification for belief based on examination of the facts. Licona talks about facts but what they boil down to is unhistorical accounts in the bible and anecdotal evidence - results of prayer etc - something Matt debunks week in week out on his AE channel.
@bmk777k I think the widely accepted meaning of supernatural is that which is beyond or outside of the natural world. I believe in the natural world that I live in and experience - but I don't believe in that which is purported to exist beyond the natural world. Neither do I deny it.
@bmk777k supernatural doesn't mean enhanced natural, it's not like superman. super natural is something defying the laws of natural, something that cannot be explained by the natural laws. As some say it means outside of the natural.
I don't like Mike, he too readily concludes super natural, he wants to believe but after hearing the debate i cannot say he was ridiculed or that he lost.
For any believer, Mike's position stayed unscathed. Matt is not Hitchens, Matt exposed his case and explained his position he didn't destroy Mike, there was no KO here or any incredible outcome where people would go suddenly saying i don't believe anymore.
bmk777k Nope. Super means above or on top of or outside of. Super natural means outside of the natural world. Think of superposition, or superficial.
As an atheist and after watching this debate, I am more open to the possibility that Jesus indeed rose from the dead, given that I have seen Dr. Licona in other places after Matt murdered him here.
Matt starts at 31:40
You won’t MISS ANYTHING!
Thx i swear this Mike guy has never won a debate ever. This guy is so bad that he struggles against Muslims.
Thank you so much!!! as a fellow Atheist with daddy issues, I never listen to any conflicting arguments to my world view. I already know everything!! I only want to hear things that I agree with. We are so smart as atheists hehehe.
I was looking for timestamps
@NO NAME 00110001001110010011100000110100 Then why do you follow these things and comment on them. What is the fixation?
@@netcompany3 Well said my fellow atheist brother. And a thumbs up you have definitely earned from me. He-he-he!
a round of applause for Matt because he continues to give his best effort to educate, despite the blatant disregard for the truth from the opposition
what truth are we talking about exactly that he is disregarding?
Chris Kounterstrike I read it wrong like you did, they are saying 'congrats to Matt for being able to withstand stupid'
Matt rocks!
Just thought of a question for these guys: _"How would you describe the supernatural to me, if I was an alien, visiting earth from another galaxy (who happens to understand English)"_ ?
Don't worry Chris, there will be no answer, because most atheists are all rhetoric.
Mike: “The Christian God exists because ghosts and stuff”
🤤
Now I want to listen to deadmau5
No no! Remember the Ouija boards, that proves the supernatural... right? Difficult to credit the level of self deception and confirmation bias in these self serving attempts at arguments for miracles. You might think that someone like Licona with his doctorate in something (theology presumably) would do a bit better, but this floundering is no better.
William Arnold that’s a darn good song. I like Arguru the best. That drop at 1:30 😁
Weird unexplained things happen? Must be a different unexplained thing.
I know, how lame.
Congrats to Mike for posting this. It takes a lot of guts to publicly humiliate yourself. Ouiji boards and flying trash can lids... LOL
You think they're lying?
@@dougr8646 could be, but I doubt it. It’s probably that they’ve never learned how to think critically and logically. More than anything I think they’re probably lying to themselves, that’s what I used to do
I think it is a language level barrier.... people are more easily convinced by what they can understand and more easily manipulated by what they cannot
You cant critically and logically explain something like that...im telling you. Yall just use the "smartest sounding" words and then put together a sentence.
Don’t give Mike too much credit, he, or whoever controls his channel does delete posts he doesn’t like even if it follows UA-cam policy. Mike prefers not to address certain arguments. But that’s ok, Matt humiliated him enough.
Who the hell gave this guy a doctorate? 120% of his evidence are anecdotes.
Davis Huffman but a coincidence happened and he knew a girl with a ouija board, therefor god
A doctor in theology though :D
It's a toy-doctorate, he's happy to call himself a doctor, fanatics are happy to listen to an "educated reliable source in PHD", and Sane people understand its bullshit.
It works for everyone
The plural of anecdote is not data.
It's a legit doctorate, he got it from Trump University
After watching hundreds of hours of ‘religion Vs atheism’, I’ve never seen religion win
well, the dice are a bit loaded, i mean, no god for a start. but atheists have to ask questions all the time, scientists have to spend their entire career defending their discoveries, but god, well he thinks he can just point and command.
Religion can never win because religion puts itself at a disadvantage. It is obviously man-made but claims it is from things or beings beyond human undestanding. Religion fails at any basic level of human understanding; Historically? F. Biologically? F. Archeologically? F. Physically? F. Morally? F. Creativity? F. Lawfully? F. Mathematically? F. Linguistically? F.
I mean, think of anyway to justify it and apply it to religion and it just falls flat. It is why religion is only successful where there is illiteracy or lack of understanding. Get them when their still discovering the world 🌎 (mostly kids or people who have not been exposed)
@Barthelemy Lazerlips hmmm... sounds like you are making stuff up...
Religion would always win in the past by sending whoever disagreed to the dumgeon.
You need to watch William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens then. Craig destroyed Hitchens
With Dr Licona I don't see someone diligently searching for the truth as much as someone desperately scrambling for excuses.
He really is not good at all. He's like a politician. He replies to a question or point...but doesnt answer it.
He thinks giving a weak ass reply is just as good/effective as giving an actual solid rebuttal.
And based on some comments from believers, he's right.
Why waste time with sound replies when weak ass ones will suffice.
Except that’s all Matt did he just filibustered the entire time, he didn’t even attempt to give a justification for his beliefs.
So this part was really upsetting to me. At about 2:19:40. Matt had just finished answering a question by a former church member he knew from his past about what changed him. Matt gave a really well thought out and eloquent, heartfelt, personal explanation that was as good as I've ever heard. Truly great. The instant he finished, Mike just dismissed the whole thing with some rambling nonsense, ignoring the emotional story that was just told. What a tool.
You are so right about Saint Matt of Dillahunty.
I felt pangs of pain watching that because I was as gullible as M Dilly in the olden days. I also empathised with that dude from Saint M Dilly's old church.
M.Lic can't afford to acknowledge that people come to their senses and leave the superstitious worldview.
Let your mind ponder the number of victims in that church who will quit in the next few years. According to Pew Research, churches are closing at a 20% rate. That means 100 have gone, notwithstanding the fence sitters and the domino effect of the leavers also taking others.
Recognise that M.Lic is only a *tool* of the system. He takes money from the gullible; earned would be too charitable.
Famous actors, musicians, and sports heroes wear fancy-dress and perform to entertain and sell customers good feelings in exchange for money.
The significant difference between the entertainment styles is that apologists prey on gullible customers, and their effort is focussed on conflation sensible and decent living with the brand of superstition that generates income.
It is worth contemplating the Holy cow, the cash cow of the cabal of thirteen (ish) charlatans who endorse each other's books and video channels.
A few mega-churches are raking in big time, and the little clique are clawing back the leftovers.
Desperate victims; congregations will never comprehend WLC word salads or master Greek and Hebrew texts, so they resort to conveniently packages of drivel to bolter their diminishing faith.
Weapon, weapon of mass delusion, would be a better description than tool.
@@VaughanMcCue glad you grow in intellectually
@@ray_x6959
Thanks for your kind words. It is more about growing up 1Cor 13. When I discovered my faulty epistemology and quit the superstitious life, I felt sorry for myself for a long time, but others suffered far worse.
St-Doug-of-Pine Doug had a recent clip where the honest Sean McDowell explained his situation of having to keep believing (IMO, the unbelievable) because his whole life's infrastructure requires him to maintain a superstitious outlook. The implications of him or any pastor leaving are as frightening and cruel as JW shunning torture.
Thank a god for The Clergy Project, as it helps pastors transition to reality when they recognise the folly and deceptive practices of the god industry. Many have good hearts and excellent training to assist everyday people in navigating society's challenging pitfalls. The project helps those victims to use their skills in honest endeavours.
BTW, at my departure, I had never heard of the trinity of saints: Dawkins, Dennett, or Dillahunty, and I squirmed through life thinking it was only me who got a glimpse of reality. The truth will set you free, but a judge might decide otherwise. Jn 8;31
Thanks for your interest and contribution. aunt
@@VaughanMcCue sorry, I misread your first few comments
Totally agree
@@mindymild
Thank you for your kind words. It is a sad fact that the apologists are also victims caught up in mythology.
The best part of all this is realizing that this video is on Mike's channel.
I think mike is now an atheist.
It's also sad. It shows how little attention he has paid and how full he is of himself. The delusion he is caught in and the inability to recognize his ignorance.
You can't tell from the comments
that's how I felt when I was on Matt's channel.
@@Keevthe8thLordunderChristJesus Name one thing Matt is delusional about. Go ahead, I'll wait.
This debate in a nutshell:
Mike: Miracles exist
Matt: Show me one
Mike: If xyz happened, would you call that a miracle
Matt: I don't know, probably not, but let's find out. Show me
Mike: No I can't. I already proved that xyz happened and was a miracle and showed it to you in a thought experiment. You just have to have imagination. What about abc event
Matt: I don't know, probably not, but let's find out. Show me
Mike: No I can't. I already proved that xyz and abc happened and was a miracle and showed it to you in a thought experiment. You just have to have imagination. What about def event
Matt: You keep giving examples of things that you cannot provide. Do you have anything you can actually provide
Mike: No. But miracles exist
Matt: Show me one
Mike: If def happened, would you call that a miracle
Matt: I don't know, probably not, but let's find out. Show me
Mike: No I can't. I already proved that xyz,abc & def happened and was a miracle and showed it to you in a thought experiment. You just have to have imagination. What about ghi event
Matt: You keep giving examples of things that you cannot provide. Do you have anything you can actually provide
Mike: No. But miracles exist
Matt: What rational justification do you have to believe that they exist
Mike: Because I believe that they exist
Matt: So you believe they exist BECAUSE you believe they exist and that CONVINCES you that you're right?
Mike: Yes. And that proves that I'm right. Miracles exist.
Matt: Show me one
Mike: No I can't. What about jkl event
Matt: -.- I'm done with this clown. See ya guys later.
^^^^ Every single religious debate in history. Exchange the word "miracle" for whatever the debate topic is, and you have ALL religious debates. A clown making a claim, refusing to back it up, a nonbeliever asking questions, getting the runaround, and then the clown making more vacuous claims devoid of substance or example. The religious clown will then complain about their feelings rather than the subject matter when the nonbeliever simply asks for proof of the claim. The holy book is the claim, not the proof nor the evidence. The book cannot prove itself and you cannot start any rational thought with the conclusion as one of the foundational assumptions leading to the conclusion. I have watched hundreds of these professional debates held with professional debaters, moderators, formats and timers. It was these debates themselves that convinced me that there were no miracles, or gods. The fact that a believer became a nonbeliever because the professional believer did such a poor job, is very telling. EVERY truth anxiously waits to be discovered. NO lies will want to be discovered. Want to know who is lying to you? Look to the one who enjoys secrecy. Who legislates lack of inquiry or faith into rule.
That was funny 😂
Dude! I laughed my butt out on this. That was funny, but its really ironic and it was a lost battle for Mike because he provided non evidence at all. He was trying so hard to demonstrate his evidence by a very lousy and stupid hypothesis which cannot even be categorized as qualitative.
25 lines of text is not "in a nutshell"...
Hi Brandon, check out some of the videos at Speakers Corner, London dealing with Atheists, Muslims, and Christians...
A long coment
Jeeeeeeeez! Ghosts? Really? 10 minutes in, I haven't even heard what Matt says yet, and you've already lost. Epic fail!
"Empirical evidence" lmao
To prove that spirits exist is to prove God exists. Evil and good exist. Satan and God exist
@@truestartv9591 not really. There's been many claims of spirits amongst many religions. Even if the supernatural (ghosts, witches, djin, leprechauns) is proven to be true it proves nothing but the claim that's true isn't proof of anything but the claim that's proven true. While I'll admit personally for anything magical to be true would be a huge step, and may convince me. I'm not sure as I haven't seen anything that convinced me of anything supernatural
@@zer-op2gq When I was doing my paper round as a kid I had a bizarre experience which to this day I'm now 53 I can't and will never know the answer to, I was delivering a newspaper I was in a tower block, top floor I was around 13/14 years old, my normal paper round I'd done for probably around 8 months and I remember it was around 6 am and winter I was just putting the paper through the letterbox and I suddenly heard this rapid knocking, I swung around and was frozen in fear what what seemed like 30 secs but in reality was probably 3-5 secs the opposite doors letterbox was clacking at such a rate it was incredible I ran through the door to the stairs and jumped every flight of stairs in a single bound all the way down, went to the shop said sorry I won't be back and left lol, had another unusual experience when I was around 8 or 9 also at school, I don't have any clue what it was, i just know what I saw and for years I've gone through all types of things but can't explain it, to return these heavy letterboxes so rapid to be able to knock again someone would have needed to weld an iron rod to be able from the inside to knock the letterbox, when I say rapid I mean seriously fast. Weird shit happens, and I'm a regular guy
@@garyskinner2422 I really don't doubt something extraordinary happened. Some may scoff at a mail slot making a ruckus, but to have remembered it for 40 years I'll agree it probably wasn't just the wind or you'd have forgotten it. If we don't know what caused it, and you say yourself you can't explain. I wasn't there so I certainly can't explain it either, but adding an explanation is the same line of thinking of "of course Zeus is real; what else could explain lightning? ". I don't doubt it was something, but that isn't evidence that the answer is supernatural
What I absolutely love about watching Matt debate, is that the simplest logic disassembles every argument
Nope, heathen logic does not.
@@mikerodgers7620 there is no such thing as “heathen” logic, it’s just logic.
@@Rob_Jacobs Your heathen logic won't win.
@@mikerodgers7620 it will ALWAYS win against magical, fairy tale folklore. The device you’re using to come online and spout nonsense? A product of logic.
@@mikerodgers7620 butt hurt?
Ghost stories from a friend are this guy's argument WTF.
Yea these are the same people who think that bible is a scientific fact! LoL
Lol then my dreams can also be evidence.
@David Stanton *Is that how you convinced yourself a 'god' or 'devil' exists? Just kept your eyes closed tight and kept saying over & aver again that there is such a thing as 'gods' or a 'devil'?*
But dude, like, people SAID they experienced ghosts! 🙈🤣
@@princesswarriorjp175 If what you said is true, why did it take millennia for these scientific discoveries to be made? The bible is not a science book. It implies a flat earth and explicitly shows geocentric cosmology.
apologist’s opening statement:
-some people think they see ghosts
-the bible is a historical document and the people in the bible said the bible is pretty legit
art kid the people in the bible said they thought it all up, they didn’t say they were told!
Haha. Sums it up 😆
Yeah watching apologists debate isn't much fun, there's other guys like John Lennox make for pretty good debates
@ada2step how come it wasn't world news then? proof of the Devil? maybe milk prices had gone up a cent and that was deemed more news worthy? LOL you are soooooooo gullible.
OK I watched this. www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-previews/possession-ghost-demon-house-hell-13465790
Its all hearsay, no actual evidence whatsoever , just some actors and some special effects, with people who seemingly want their 20 minutes of fame and everyone in the deep south( what another shock) are spookily enough ALL believers - see what I did there?
grow up - its 2020 .
I used to believe in religion because of intimidation of hell and fear of it...
Then I listened to George Carlin..... and began to question my beliefs..... then I opened my mind and questioned the bible.... fast foward later on... I am religion free and a atheist.
@John TheAgnostic I understand what you are saying but in the Bible God is described in that way many times. Jacob wrestled God in Genesis, therefore God is a man. Most Christians think that Jesus is God (even though he never claimed to be God). If Jesus is God and his BODY ascended to heaven, then God is literally a man in the sky. God has always been thought of as a man, and heaven has always been thought of as a place in the sky.
I do agree that "man in the sky" is an oversimplification of theist beliefs that is used to ridicule and poke fun, but it can be useful in shedding light on silly beliefs. If a Christian says "I don't believe in something as ridiculous as an invisible man sitting in the clouds, I believe...", then they may try and compare their own beliefs in an attempt to show how their beliefs are more rational than that, and in doing so, might realize that their beliefs about God are no more rational than believing in the "invisible man in the sky."
I pray to Joe Pesci also, may he get things done! amen
Same. Used to be legitimately scared of hell. Losing that fear is the best part of transitioning to atheism.
mechaart - well done, you started to use your brain properly - wish there were more like George Carlin , Chris Hitchens , Matt Dillahunty etc - all those atheists which have (or had) a very high I.Q. have got the pathway to truth , unlike theists with their "faith" that has no substance. Religion is pure slavery.
@@eziocucit6276 bull crap
It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.
Old but gold
So absolutely true 🎉
I wonder if he was forced to post this video or if he is delusional enough to think he actually did well here.
The latter, almost guaranteed...
His god told him so. Hahahah
I haven't watched the video yet, but apparently, an atheist converted to Christian after seeing this video. 🤔
The guy is delusional for sure! Ghost stories about trash can lids moving.... delusional wishful thinking of a dumbass.....and the only reason I call him a dumbass is because he's trying to pass his delusion on to other people, instead of keeping his crazy bullshit to himself...dumbassery loves company I guess
@@cycytries plz don't watch the vid! We can't loose you too LMFAO 😂🤣💀
Some atheist experience callers have made better arguments than this guy
Right? This was pathetic. My friend saw a ghost therefore magic is real.
Like what? That's an empty assertion.
@@susanthroop7041 Saying that some people claim to have seen ghosts is not an argument lol
@@susanthroop7041 His whole argument was the god of the gaps, saying that something is supernatural because it cannot be proven by our current understanding. Saying that some callers from AE have better arguments is not just a justified assertion, it is an understatement.
Exactly what I was thinking
Paraphrasing Mike: "People saying they were abducted by aliens are likely confused because it couldn't possibly be an alien abduction because that is massively improbable given what we know about reality. No, it's way more likely that they experienced a spiritual disturbance from the supernatural realm!" *facepalm*
The dude is just too far gone into his religion. All of his thoughts are tainted by irrational theistic nonsense.
He makes money based on these blatant contradictions. Im not sure if im angry or jealous.
@Jubei Yang check out Apex tv.
indeed, the special pleading is so silly and this would b true even if god was real...
This is hilarious! The backflips Mike goes through to justify his claims actually made me laugh out loud a couple of times, lol.
Magic is more plausible than aliens! We have far more "evidence" for aliens than we do the supernatural! Ha ha. This is a really fun debate,
I know that was crazy when he didnt believe people could reattach their heads naturally
@@Pohgrey
I thought the Mexican wall and ICE stopped the aliens.
@@ceceroxy2227
There are certainly some clever magicians and charlatans that can fool many of us.
Look at how much money the god industry provides unimaginable lifestyles to the chosen few.
58:30 it's an absolute bile spewing of anecdotal bs and nonsensical ramblings. 🎤 🤡
This fight should have been stopped after the first round. If not by Mike's corner then by the referee. Rarely have I seen such a mismatch between opponents and genuinely feared for Mike's mental health.
He was brutally murdered here.
😂 I totally agree!
Yet he was seen on the street 3 days later. Therefore the supernatural exists, clearly.
@@SeattleDinghyerha good one 😂
Atheists aren't going to survive punches from Lucifer in Hell.
@mikerodgers7620 As an atheist, I fear no God, much less a minion of theirs.
What kind of crappy Good who calls themselves loving, would sentence anyone to an eternity of pain simply because they failed to convince them of their existence? That's on the God, not me.
If anything, I think that an entity would reward me for not falling for whatever flavor of religion is popular where I was born.
Wow, Matt utterly slaughtered Mike Licona. It was cringey.
Ambrose Bierce really how, it was pretty even
@@bindjacrowetoge2975 yeah those anecdotes were totally convincing....
J PrOvost just y’all opinion
@@bindjacrowetoge2975 Even? Licona was talking about resurrection (fantasy) the and Matt was talking about rational thinking (reality).
Once *anyone* can prove a god is even possible and that it can circumvent natural laws (for which there is zero evidence) that apply to everyone except it, and that these things are even possible ... yeah, won't be holding my breath for anything like that nonsense
@@j.gairns But no one disproved anything, neither matt nor mike so saying that mike was destroyed is absurd
Dude! Adding up all the bad evidence...does not equal "good evidence."
@ada2step YOU KEEP ON POSTING THE SAME COMMENT ???????
Look a claim without any evidence but believed by fellow believers in the deep south , is not evidence .
And if Satan is the one person who knows gods ultimate maximal power why does he tweak gods nose every nanosecond of the day across the world simultaneously ?
.....worse still when a child is being raped god knows in ADVANCE that it will happen as he is omniscient remember , but chooses to do nothing about it. He just closes the door and tells the guy , hey, help yourself to another 7 year old, but boy, when you eventually die it will be bad for you............................unless...............before the lethal injection in jail and after a meal of fried chicken you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, and then you can join us in heaven.
You people are deranged.
THANK YOU
A bunch of pieces of weak evidence do lead to strong evidence
Bob Usualis not necessary. Separate evidence needs to have reliably connected records which all need to have strong evidence.
Just because many people have weak evidence for aliens, their stories do not “combine” to make aliens a more reliable theory.
Yes the "demon" Nurgel has fooled you all! This is his univers!
Some kids playing with a ouija board and near death experiences . Well you've convinced me , praise the Lord
Convicing an atheist of supernatural events? Is like arguing with a table.
@@valentino3228you have no evidence
“Dr” Licona’s friend Kim ‘s trash can lid levitated across the kitchen during a Ouija Board session 23 years ago.
Therefore we have proven without a doubt that Jesus was resurrected.
Brilliant !
It was Schrodinger's cat trying to get out...also Kim was really high on shrooms at the time...
thats the point where i saw the light and converted ! from sitting to falling to the floor ! yeah that was as low as ive ever heard for evidence of god.
Shabnam Hossein Yeah that’s what he said! You nailed it! #sarcasm He used that as one example for a supernatural realm
Brian Pottie
Yeah, he demonstrated that his standard for evidence of the supernatural and for the stories of the Bible is so ridiculously low that he wouldn’t be able to function in society if he accepted the same standard in every other situation.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 ayep. same ol story. every time. created every thing but needs people that can only know as much as me or you. that's my ending point . any way.
"In all of human history, the supernatural has never turned out to be the right answer to anything: Natural explanations of phenomena have replaced supernatural ones thousands upon thousands of times, while supernatural explanations have replaced natural ones exactly never." -- Greta Christina
MGTOW Rubicon How do you explain the fact that One Poor Jewish man, from 2000+ years ago, changed the world (unprecedentedly) for the better at least two times? And continues to affect every day life in the whole world?
Jubei Yang so, the batteries don’t turn on your phones, but the electrones.
Christians must try their best to reach Jesus ideal, we may not be able to but in trying the world becomes a better world, and in failing (as we have miserably) we learn.
@Max Larsen dude, what?
Max Larsen can you show me one example?
i think mike licona is confusing 4 lines of evidence with 4 outlandish claim with no proof whatsoever
Mere claims in a book for the veracity of the claims contained in the book. That anyone continues not to understand how inane this proposition to be is a kind of testimony in itself for how underdeveloped we are as a species at this point in our history -- in how ill-prepared we are for the existential implications of our age, and how likely we are to survive this big test that lies at the heart of fermi's postulate. I really would've thought we'd prove ourself worthy of at least level 3, but the dark ages seem to have got us good, pa, and we're not going to shake that hell hound that drags us still to our knees, soon to the very ground where he'll tear out our entrails and prevent us from that cosmic field trip. I expect this isn't an uncommon fate for worlds whose most sentient and self-aware creatures contend inevitably with the remnants of their primal, collective pathologies that without exception would folllow the species' reaching of the ends of their respective earth's and precede that 2nd conundrum of awakening beyond which so much potential for transcendence might shimmer only inches from their reach, but without their knowing of it will present nothing less than doom and horror, a bloody and gore-spitting apocalypse of self-cannibalizing that -- in the absence of their gods, poorly retired -- will prove the promised annihilation properly fulfilled by those gods' faithful subjects and zealous acolytes -- their imminent liberation quietly twisted like fragrant buds from spring branch by pollen-stained fingers and crushed into vanishing meaninglessness beside the tombs of their greatest works, never any further interest to pique before the dust of dust to eternity becomes, hardly an Olmec sentinel in the wilderness to witness when breaches of the Gulf by simulacra of third age do traverse, finding only dung beetles skittering somewhere between stone and iron, or bronze at best, memories of the Old Ones hardly scenting the archetypes that connect the beetles to a lineage that clicked underfoot of those same Ones who might've made sense of these hulking, damp and aromatic tourists that step so carelessly among these most advanced of sentient dwellers of earthly substrate -- not knowing, of course, of those descendants of the atlantic porpoise who eschew such calls to attention and thereby escaped the trials of the 2nd by sheer accident of the briny iodine-shot confluence where heavy amazon unfolds into crashing atlantic, salt crystalline barriers to half-life their unremembered bulwark yet standing. But everybody knows this.
@@Fendelfull The bible is true because the bible says it is though!!!!!!
Bob Joe oh, I didn’t realize. This is quite convincing. Ok, I’m sold. Guess I’m a Christian now. How do I start this thing? I have a lot of personal stuff I need to get rid of first, I guess. And does my involuntary baptism from my christening still hold? Or do I need to renew that shit?
@@Fendelfull You can start by acting like you read the Bible, but in reality you only read the good parts about it. Then, you need to base your morals loosely around what the Bible says. Remember, not entirely though, because the Bible says slavery is good but we don't do that now, so that's a part you can ignore.
@@bobjoe3492 Darn, but thanks for letting me know, because I'd already had my eye on one dude that owes me a little cheddar and whom I could justify counting as a slave. But if that's a faux pas among acceptable modern day practice and if you're sure they wouldn't approve, I'll cancel my order for duct tape and zip-ties and schnapps until I come up with some other justification.
Bro, I am like 5 minutes in and this dude straight up started talking about Quija boards. 😂
Yeah bro I was actually surprised at how stupid his opening statement was. Literally playground-tier storytelling. The ouija board story is literally the most basic Hollywood trope. Some kid repeating some random ghost story and claiming it happened for real is not evidence lmao
I see a lot of trash talking about Mike down in the comments. I would like to appreciate him for being honest and presenting the debate in its full form without any significant editing. Not convinced that Jesus rose from the dead or is god, but I did enjoy the debate. Mike, thank you for agreeing to debate Matt.
It’s commendable but also a bit naive. These outspoken apologists don’t realize just how much they do for atheism.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Unfortunately, There are going to be a bunch of people out there who haven't spent any time thinking about logical fallacies. These people probably coulcn't follow what Matt was saying, and already have a foundation of belief in supernatural. so They'll be inclined to understand Mike's logic. This makes me sad
Except he is not employing logic. He makes appeals to authority which a sixth grader can recognise. It's not an argument. It's the furthest thing from it. As a reference point there are incidents recounted in the bible which are simply factually not true.
Lol, he would look even more dishonest if he edited the debate as Matt also posted the debate in full
So basically his only arguments are emotional appeals based on anecdotal situations. Lovely.
Well, yeah, he was arguing for resurrection, the existence of god, etc. There really are no other arguments for that. I mean, there are no argument for that as these aren't actual arguments.
@ada2step what prophecies? Wars, plagues, diseases, earthquakes? Things that have happened and are happening every single day since these" prophecies " were written?..3rd time you've mentioned that bullshit story about kids walking up walls, let it go. It never happened, because it can't happen..Tell you what, I will look it up right now, I'm gonna type in Google " police/welfare officers witness kids walking up walls ". If it happened or was reported in some tin pot, 3rd word religious country, credibility will drop accordingly, like stories of stigmata and bleeding statues only happens in Catholic countries.. but just this once, I'll put my skepticism aside and look up these child wall walkers
@ada2step demons are not the only thing that can fool people, the bible has to be right up there as far as fooling people goes..
@ada2step you wrote " the people that wrote the Bible actually spent time with Jesus walked with Jesus ate with Jesus." No, that is false. None of the books of the bible were written by eyewitnesses. At least, there's no proof that it was, and the proof we do have seems to confirm the new testament books were largely written at least a hundred years after his death.
@ada2step What writings outside the bible confirm the existence of a god?
Dillahunty is phenomenal. His personal story hit home. Very similar to my own deconversion. TKO Matt.
Now you believe nothing ultimately matters and nothing made us and nothing is absolute
@@corywiedenbeck1562 Where did Boaty say that?
@Mike fu That doesn't explain who conducted space, time, and matter. Who created the DNA? This is so evident of a Creator it astounds me how you guys put your faith into idols popular opinion and let modern "science" dictate and indoctrinate your common sense. If nothing created nothing and nothing is absolute how do you even trust your own senses? Or anybody elses for that matter? Think about this, everything is relative and there would be no truth, and what is truth in a universe out of chaos? It can't exist. There is none, only opinion. What fixed reference do you have to compare too? This is a battle of the heart and spirit and not the mind so much. It is black and white evident of the intelligent design we see around us, it is staggering as a matter of fact.
@Mike fu " matter of time before we figure it out" this is faith
@Mike fu it doesn't exist so as of right now be genuine and say it
"I have 4 lines of evidence" 1st one... GhOsT sToRiEs... oh boy here we go.
So you didn't understand anything
What amazes me is the level of dishonesty required for mike's bs arguments. One person is being truthful and one person is talking about stuff he doesn't understand therefore god.
I love how Mike Licona keeps going back to that moronic example of “if I were beheaded in front of you and then came back with my head back on my body...” - Then in the end he brings it up for the umpteenth time, Matt just says, “when that happens, get back to me and I’ll investigate it.”
Yeah, I know Matt was just an idiot all the way lmao
Has Mike never been to a magic show? People are sawed in half all the time, and come back all alive. Super Natural!
@@steelcarnivore8390 this logic thing is a pain in the ass, ain't it?
But Matt's response was weak. He basically became Sye Ten Bruggencate, but for atheism.
@@BScott7220 not really. Matt was basically just taking a position of not accepting the supernatural claim as it has insufficient evidence. Whereas Sye actively asserts that the supernatural exists and that we all already believe in it.
I actually made it half-way through before giving up - these debates are purely logic versus emotion every time.
It’s pretty cringe. This guys is a Moron
Same, halfway through I lost Interest. Mike brought nothing new.
Did you not even skip to all the batshittery beating ?
@@lexcent6271 hard for them to bring anything new when all they really have is a nearly 2k year old book, in which pretty much everything we can actually investigate has turned out to be false...
It isn't logical to expect natural science be able to give physical evidence of the unseen. Correction. Proof, not evidence.
Loved the look on Mike's face after he said nothing would convince Matt in regards to his "head chopped off" scenario to which Matt said would never happen and has never happened. He really thought he got him somehow but the only thing he got was less followers and subscribers. Matt has clearly won this debate.
Mike's example, as presented, actually invited natural explanations. He basically described various components of the skillset of James Randi.
His argument, shorn of irrelevant details, is 'something happened and I do not know how it happened, therefore supernatural'. This should sound very familiar as it is widely recognized as a logical fallacy when the word 'God' is used at the end.
Explain how it wasn't a gotcha moment
@@huh7056there was no gotcha to be had. He wanted him to say that an event could be/would be supernatural and Matt didn’t. I don’t think it would have accomplished what he expected even if Matt was willing to say yes.
@@rey5597 if my head gets chopped off so im dead now and then it gets reattached and im alive again, you won't call that supernatural? Or when a trash can throws itself up to the wall you won't call that supernatural? Then what is supernatural? And how would you describe these two events? Negative natural? If you can't be convinced these obvious scenarios are supernatural, nothing can and that's a you problem not a real one.
@PrometheanRising he also added that there would be scars, which implies scar tissue, meaning natural cellular regeneration as opposed to magic bullshit
Seeing Matt debate in a church is awesome
I can't believe he came armed with stories about floating trash can lids and ghosts.
Well what else could he even bring to the table? Just imaginary bullshit that proves he's a dumbass and believes in things that are made up....my goodness it would suck to be a slave to stupidity
If that's the best supernatural "evidence" he has the supernatural is fucking boring lol
Once you open the door to magical thinking then Anything is possible/superstition feeds on itself....
john d. shultz
So you magically believe the Universe pop into existence from nothing, by nothing and for nothing
@@davidbermudez7704 Notice that it's you who "magically believes the universe popped into existence from...GOD."
And do you think something as supremely intricate and powerful as GOD is excluded from your implicit suggestion that things can't come into existence without a designer?
This Mike Licona guy is the best spokesperson for atheism I've ever seen,great work ..well done mate
Yes, the minds of these people are now closed. They have ears, but they don’t listen. They have eyes, but they refuse to see. If their minds were not closed, they might see with their eyes; they might hear with their ears; they might understand with their minds. Then they might turn back to me and be healed.’
Ahem..."Ray Comfort"...you're welcome
@@chewbacca9965 idk, I’d actually say Ken Ham takes the cake, no contest
@@Kehvo_exe did you just claim to be jesus lmao
Lol
Lmao, this dude’s opening argument is literally just “yeah so uh, some guys I know have seen ghosts apparently.”
My dad told me when i was a kid, "I would never be a Catholic! Ever notice in the movies they are the only ones that get possessed or haunted?"
scott reynolds they’re the only ones ever portrayed as the “religious” characters in general
Yeah they’re crazy they are even ok with their children being raped.
The Catholics represent all Christians, as far as Hollywood is concerned. I know from personal experience that it doesn't just happen to Catholics.
Perhaps that's due to the character being catholic and what that character believes. Yet not once has any claim of a possession or haunting ever been proven as true.
At least Mike managed to convince himself.
LMAO!
@ "Who sings best?"
(1)Christ followers:
Shot to the LORD,
all the earth 🌎.
Let us sing.
Power & majesty,
praise to the KING 👑...
(2) Atheist Church:
Shot to the VOID,
all the earth 🌎.
Let us sing.
Power & majesty,
Praise to NOTHING!
Christian Conclusion:
Philipians 1:21
To live is CHRIST,
& to DIE is GAIN. ___ Athiest:To DIE is NOTHING
Amelia Lin this is the problem: how do you KNOW 1) that there is an afterlife 2) that Jesus is in the afterlife. Even if you could demonstrate that supernatural occurrences exist, it still wouldn’t tell us anything about any one particular religion, be it Christianity Hinduism or Islam.
Amelia Lin A little song has you convinced.... really?
Snide comment? Good for you ..
..So if enough people play pretend for long enough it can become history?
Well questioned 😆
History says: "Yes... and then along came Matt." 😆
Yup
Atheism in a nutshell apparently
@ada2step are you claiming atheists don't help poor people?
Matt's opening statement is a fantastic introduction to critical thinking.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I mean if you call conceding the entire debate a fantastic introduction to critical thinking, and constantly dodging then sure.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 He "conceded" in exactly the same sense that he didn't concede anything at all, but even so, if you were capable of critical thought, you would realize what a non sequitur, emoji-ridden and infantile shriek you posted. What about the farcical resurrection fantasy did he dodge again?
@@highroller-jq3ix 32:46 he literally conceded because he said he didn’t come to debate the topic of freaking debate!
I mean I don’t know what definition of “ concede” you’re using but I would call saying in the first 30 seconds of your opening statement that you didn’t come to debate the topic, is conceding the debate. Imagine if Licona said that he didn’t come to debate the topic and instead spent his time in his opening statement talking about why he’s convinced of Christianity, and how he became a Christian. I can guarantee that you and the other Dillahunty pathetic sock puppets would be really frustrated, and would be calling him dishonest, but it’s perfectly acceptable and it’s perfectly honest when your daddy Dillahunty Dodge does it.
🤣🤣🤣 oh and don’t lecture me on “critical thought” when you’re the one who isn’t capable of grasping or even having a productive or reasonable conversation about anything related to this topic. Dude you like to just throw out claims without justification, and then you get mad at people for asking you to provide evidence for your claims. Yes he did and I provided the timestamp. Buddy if you had any critical thought whatsoever or you were capable of any critical thought, you would admit Matt is being dishonest and he’s not interested in having an actual debate, or productive discussion. He literally said in the beginning of his opening statement he didn’t come to debate the topic and if that’s what you came for you came to the wrong debate. He literally said he’s not a Resurrection investigator, and he hasn’t studied this topic that much so he can’t really say if there is evidence or there isn’t. Yet he’s going to scrutinize absolutely every single point that Licona’s makes for his case, and say it isn’t sufficient evidence, despite the fact he literally admits he doesn’t even know what would constitute a sufficient evidence to begin with! 🤣🤣🤣 I mean just wow.
So do you have anything substantive to bring to the table? Or are you just going to continue to pedal your arrogant nonsense, and troll for fun?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 What do you mean?
@@craighambling come again? I’m not sure what you mean I explained in my comment.
NOOOOOBODY prayed for a wireless clicker??
Lol! He shouldn't have needed a microphone either, God should have made his voice carry without it.
😂
@@jrasicmark1 Hahaha exactly!
You'd think this circumstance would be a prime candidate for a miracle!
Well if prayer worked than every schmuck with a wart on his ass could change god's "plan"
imagine being an adult and thinking that ouija boards can contact the paranormal, embarrassing...
Imagine being an adult never having learned about Aristotelian Hylomorphism. Like, dude ur a clown🤡
Can you prove they can’t?
@@ThirdSonSeth that's not how it works buddy... You have to present evidence that it works, not the other way around.
Imagine being a grown man & believing in atheism…
@@macysondheim
You dont even understand what Atheism is 😂
Firstly, good on Dr. Licona to allow the free exchange of comments and opinions on the debate. But, I have a serious problem with him misrepresenting science. At 58:57, Mike said that the scientific disciplines have different methods, and that there is no single scientific method. That is Mike demonstrating how little attention he paid in science class, if at all, and that he knows nothing about the scientific method. The scientific method can be and is applied to all major scientific disciplines, including the ones he mentioned: geology and chemistry.
It's quite simple, really:
1) Make observations.
2) Ask questions about what you observed.
3) Propose a hypothesis.
4) Make predictions about what you would observe if the hypothesis was correct.
5) Devise and perform experiments and tests to verify said predictions, and perform iterations and repetitions of these tests and have other individuals test those predictions as well to determine real consistency.
*All* sciences follow those steps. He goes on to say that you can't test geology, archeology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. What?! It's only through the experiments performed by geologists to understand the composition, history, and the mechanisms of the different processes that have shaped the Earth as it is now, that things like seafloor oil exploration are even possible. And, oh the irony, the only reason we know where to look better now than we used to is because we've supplemented our knowledge of the geological mechanisms of oil and gas formation, with our understanding of the evolutionary biological process behind it: how multiple core samples of Formaniniferas and plankton microfossils from the water and seafloor give abundant clues as to the locations of oil and gas reserves.
People like Mike should be fact-checked when they spout ill-advised and uninformed garbage like this.
Evolutionary biology doesn't follow those steps.
Might want to check out David Berlinski.
Mikes point is that each of the different disciplines have different versions of tests. Psychologists dont use radiometric dating. Archeologists don't use distant starlight and parallax. Biologists don't use the geometric column. Etc, etc.
And historians use a different set of tools to search for truth. Those tools are not to be found in a laboratory. They are not empirical, repeatable, etc.
That's the point he as making.
@@timffoster Please name a listed step that has not been followed in evolutionary biology.
Hrisabsh, well said!
@igor caique so, do we agree that Evolution makes predictions?
@igor caique my question was for foster to support his inaccurate claim that biologists did not make predictions.
On the other hand, you seem to believe that Evolution States a fish would transform into a fish with amphibian characteristics rather than a species of fish gradually developing arms over many zillions of generations.
These are very different claims
It’s hilarious that he thinks eye witness testimony is reliable but then forgets wether or not he had spoken to the guy asking the question…
This is the best coment in here😂👏👏👏
A Christian who loves watching debates, 23 minutes in and am terrified at how Matt will totally and rightfully wreck this half hazard anecdotal intro. There were already so many ways to have done this better. Mats gonna talk like a professional that’s prepared, while the other guy is seems like a deacon winging a Sunday school class.
Yeah. I'm doubting the "Christian" part.
@@drew2fast489 I think one can be christian and aetheist at the same time, the same way one can be in a Harry Potter fan club and not believe it's a true story.
@@metalman4393 Are you joking?
@@drew2fast489 No dude, for real. For example, I'm an aetheist hindu. I love the Mahabharata story, and I'm a fan of the charecter Krishna, but I don't believe that that guy lifted a mountain on his pinky finger. It functionally doesn't matter to me wether the mythological stories are true, or how much is fiction and how much is actually historical fact, I treat them as simply as stories. I would hold religeous stories in the same light as game of thrones, the only difference is that there are bunch of people around me who believe it's a fact, and I can have a conversation about the stories and the philosophy (as well as random weird and funny shit in the mythos. I like blasphe-memes). Does that make sense?
@@metalman4393 Not a drop. You're an atheist.
For someone who referenced modern psychology I find it funny that he then went on to claim human memory is reliable when psychologists make their careers proving it isn’t.
👌🏻
I am only going to point out that there must be some level of reliability, however difficult to define, else you wouldn't have remembered the bit you said regarding psychologists above.
Having said that, fie on you for making me look like I might agree with Mike.
What gets murderers convicted? Where does ancient history come from? And what the heck are you talking about? 😊
@@devonglide1830 you’re not being precise enough for anyone to tell if it’s BS
@@devonglide1830 that doesn’t even relate to the evidence for the Jesus of Ancient History.
One of the weirder arguments I’ve seen. It sounded to me like “if things we can’t yet explain happen, then it’s reasonable to assume that completely different things that we can’t explain also happened and god is behind them”
Juan Venter back to what Matt said, every time humans have proposed a supernatural cause for anything and we then discover the cause, that cause has never been supernatural. That doesn’t disprove the supernatural but it certainly doesn’t help.
Not quite the argument, but it was leading to that. What was very telling was Mike Licona's claim that anything that cannot be explained 'by what we understand of nature now' must therefor be explained only by supernatural causes. And even when Matt Dillahunty rightfully claims that his argument is equivalent to an all-encompassing 'I don't have an explanation so it must be supernatural' bucket that explains nothing, Mike Licona simply and unreasonably denies it. 200 years ago, there were no computers or flying air or space crafts. Did that make them supernatural then? Of course not. The discovery of radioactive atoms happened in 1896. There were many scientists still adhering to the idea that atoms were immutable. Does that make radioactivity proof of supernatural causes? To claim so is simply and utterly nonsense. Scientists disagree because that's the way science works. Scientists can never "prove"; they can only disprove an idea, a theory, a concept. People claim that their theistic religion is immutable. And that's why it can be so dangerous, because people have always disagreed over what version is the "correct" one. No war was ever fought nor justified over a disagreement arising from science.
@@juanventer5145 What you just said (i.e. when we have "good reason to suggest that those things can not be explained by naturalism we are going to go to the supernatural for now") is a HUGE fallacy. If something happens that is deemed impossible by our current models of nature, that DOES NOT give us good reason to believe naturalism fails to explain it. The only thing that we can conclude is that our current model is incorrect. Whether it is incorrect because we have the wrong naturalistic model or it is incorrect because a supernatural exists --- we have no idea. You cannot claim that the supernatural is more likely than some alternative natural solution that we do not know... neither of those two options have any evidence so scientists will simply say "i don't know yet" while Mike was suggesting that we default with supernatural until proven otherwise (and there's no justification for doing that in the slightest). If anything, if one is forced to take a position beyond "I don't know"(which is a reasonable position!), the default should be based in skepticism... we know that a lot of previous events thought to be impossible, and therefore were justified by god, have since been proven to be rooted in nature. Given that, if forced to take an extreme position, we should absolutely default to assuming that future unknowns can be rooted in nature as opposed to defaulting that they cannot be.
Back in the late 90's when I was a teen, a well-renown prophetic speaker came to speak at our church. Toward the end of the service, he prophesied over some of the people in the church including the pastor and his wife - who happened to be the parents of my best friend at the time. I remember clearly what he said that day, he prophesied that the pastor and wife would sometime in the near future build and open a massive sports facility in our town and it would attract many people and bring them to God. Roughly ten years later, both the pastor and his wife (with much respect as they were wonderful people) were diagnosed with cancer and not long after that, passed away. How do you go from being two kind and generous people who loved God with all their hearts and served him loyally, being prophesied great things in the future, and then dying in one of the worst possible ways that exist on this earth? How can such an esteemed prophet supposedly in touch with God, stand there and with such confidence prophecy these things of grandeur all to find out years later, not only was it a load of bs, but something completely opposite happened? This is exactly one of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity anymore, it is one big charade, steered by people who make wild claims about the supernatural, ultimately preying on peoples naivety and imagination. Sickening
God warns about false prophets, also remember God's word in Hosea: my people are dying because of ignorance. If you keep looking for the truth without the influence of your emotions into the question you'll find it. But most people like you who get emotionally affected and then don't believe in Christianity anymore didn't actually understand Christianity in the first place.
It’s quite evident that that “prophet” was indeed a false prophet, according to Deut 18:22. And, those people that were faithful servants of God here, this earth is the closest to hell that they ever got. The fact that they got cancer and died is a shame on earth, yes, but they are now experiencing a joy like no other. Remember, the Christian walk is not merely about what happens here on this earth. Jesus even warns against storing up treasures for ourselves here. Our true home, as Christians, is in Heaven. The day that I die is the day the sorrows stop, the day that the tears will be wiped from my eyes, the day that I will finally see the Lord that loved me enough to die for me. In this life, we are promised to have trouble, but we are of good cheer, because He has overcome the world. I wonder why the good die young as well. Nabeel Qureshi, a great man and apologist, passed from stomach cancer. He went on from this world to the next, where he is no longer in pain, and he is with the Lord. I wondered often about this, why God would take someone so good, so soon. But I know for certain that I wouldn’t do him the disservice of bringing him back, out of the paradise that is God’s presence.
I get your troubles, believe me, but remember, their goal as servants of the Lord was not to be well off here, but to live in His presence.
You are right. The religious leaders in many cases are delusional or in others openly deceptive. They traffic in the lucrative market of hope and when everything goes bad, is your fault because you didn’t have “enough faith”. All is pure BS.
Bullshit...i asked god yesterday bout you and he said he doesn't like you and never did...its the sins ya see, spilling of the seed to be precise...😜🤪😜
@@ThirdSonSethNo pagan Jewish imaginary been Jesus a fictional characters never existed. Warned peoples beware of false prophets Matthew 7-15 yet falsely prophesied his return second coming of Judgement day 2000 years ago CE never happened Matthew 16-27 28 it's evil zionist lies in the pagan zionist bible.
Im now an hour in and its still nothing but anecdotal stories from Licona.
@J w He could pull some slight of hand tricks for you if you ask nicely
@J w I see you didn't watch at all. Go back to licking the bible and when you're grown up enough try the video again.
@J w I have a BAS in psychology. womp womp.
@J w LIke I said, finish junior high and we'll continue this.
Eyewitness testimony is not anecdotal evidence. No historian thinks that Paul lied.
Matt: is it reasonable to conclude the supernatural?
Mike: At that moment.
One big face palm. Mike's response is the foundation for being scammed.
Just giving testimony of church members is not an argument ..
Matt is simply brilliant. Mike is using the "god of the gaps" fallacy and calling it by another name.
Not only that, he dares bring up "Nature of the gaps" - as if his infantile belief in a super space wizard could be compared to the explanatory power of natural processes. Utterly absurd that we even have to deal with such people in the 21st century.
Silly rabbit. With God, there are no gaps. You are listening to a man who says he can't know anything. You will learn nothing from know nothings.
I've lost so many brain cells hearing Mike's opening statement I'm not sure it was worth it
Hahahahaha
I think if I were still a Christian, listening to this debate would've made me an atheist.
It certainly helped me along that path.
Plz dont allow a bad debater sway your mind. This Mike guy isnt a good example of debating Gods existence. Hes actually the worst I've seen. Plz go and do a deep dive on many other debates over God.
@@reneesantiago6496 Like what? I've seen hundreds of debates and have yet to see any theist make a solid argument or provide any proof.
@@god_is_gay_for_satan I would suggest to give a read to Alvin Platinga, Thomas Aquinas and Blaise Pascal.
How??
"There are many different scientific methods..." Oh. My. God.
The U.S. National Academy of the Sciences a few years ago put out a Framework for K-12 Science Education, that explained the role of the “Scientific Method” from the point of view of the nation’s top scientists. Here’s what they said:
“The notion that there is a single scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion-a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks-is fundamentally wrong. Scientists do use deductive reasoning, but they also search for patterns, classify different objects, make generalizations from repeated observations, and engage in a process of making inferences as to what might be the best explanation. Thus the picture of scientific reasoning is richer, more complex, and more diverse than the image of a linear and unitary scientific method would suggest.”
There are different scientific methods. Or rather, the "scientific method" is fluid and comprises more than a single method depending on the field.
Natanael Lizama He has no idea what you are talking about he is a dogmatic religious fanatic of science.
The US National Academy of the Sciences appears to have left out the testing/analysis part of the process by your citation, which would cover the actions described in the rest of the statement. Are there any scientific theories that go from deductive reasoning straight to a conclusion? While different fields require different methodologies to test/analyze, the results still need to support the hypothesis, or else it is concluded to be false.
Many textbooks have provided incorrect or misleading info that required revision over time, and future generations of scientists could benefit from approaching new problems with a non-linear methodology. However, a hypothesis does not become a theory unless it has passed fundamental step of testing/analysis, and needs to be repeatable through independent confirmation.
It appears that Scientific Method is being conflated with Methodology in this context.
@Hoichi The Earless
> The US National Academy of the Sciences appears to have left out the testing/analysis part of the process by your citation, which would cover the actions described in the rest of the statement.
You are right in that the branching out from a strict path of getting to knowledge comes in the actual analysis/testing out part. That's why I actually think it's not a "method" but rather a model, because a method is a particular way of doing things, and if depending on the evidence and fields you both get the data and analyze the data in different ways then it's no longer a method, which is what the whole discussion is about. It is NOT a single method.
> However, a hypothesis does not become a theory unless it has passed fundamental step of testing/analysis, and needs to be repeatable through independent confirmation.
I agree, but a small part where maybe I would differ is that from the point of view of the scientist many corners are cut in order to reach a valid conclusion and many times inference is done(and I would wonder how inferences are actually repeatable rather than accepted), even when sharing information amongst collegues that show a grander picture that's not easily methodized, because you methodize the smaller parts, but you infer a larger picture by piecing together different data. Many scientists agree that this is also how they arrive to conclusions and advance knowledge.
You just said God! Now you see, there is a GOD, because you used HIS this expression, GOD DAMN! Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ, have you seen the light?
Im still trying to get through Mikes opening statement as i write this. I cant believe how many christians in the comments think Mike somehow made an argument. His whole argument is, "my friend said she saw a ghost 23 years ago, therefore paranormal experiences are true"
Like wtf dude? Thats literally nonsense.
Don't forget, my plane didn't crash, therefore god is real
Yeah what about all the unanswered prayers! My father died of cancer at 42 God didn't answer his prayers.
Except that wasnt what it was. Your just being disengenuine like all a theists are
@@MetalWolfzThe word says He doesnt listen to the prayers of the wic ked. Also Hes not obligated to. Also also you dint see the bigger picture while He foes.
@@Replies.Delete.SometimesIDKy shhhhh
I once saw a cat glow in the dark. I looked away, looked back, and it was gone! That was the best marijuana I’ve ever had. So far. edit-Licona seems like a nice enough guy, but it makes me sad to realize that he thinks anything he’s saying makes sense.
Therefore we can now teach people that cats have the ability to vanish into thin air
@@kenbrunet6120 You had your chance to shut up and you miss it.
@@cipndale Mindless hate. good job.
Lol and you just looked at it like, "....huh.... that's weird..." As opposed to, "WTF A GLOWING CAT!!!"
Deja vu says Neo
Playing with a ouiji board can be tested...it doesnt work
Actually no. they work because of scientific reasons that have been tested. They don't work if you are blindfolded. That's the test.
@@dmimcg they work in laboratory settings?
Not true!! I've tested it like 7 times. It hasn't worked at all for me.... But there was this one guy who told me his friend's ouija board was able to predict on coming cars all night!! proof! Therefore god is real.
I tried once with several people with candles in a park at midnight in a rural location, infront of lot number 666 near the park. We had said all sorts of incantations and protection prayers. The result?
Absolutely nothing.
Anecdotes are not data. When will Licona figure this out?
@@zoofoo12
Yes. Not what you are thinking though, they don't do magical stuff. But sit a group of people around it and they can move the stone, with every one of them convinced they did not move it. It is a subconscious effect, not supernatural. Blindfold them and the messages are nonsense, suggesting that it is the people making it move.
you know when someone calls somebody named Matt "Mr. Matt"...they're about to say something incredibly stupid.
IDK I just got distracted because I thought I was listening to Mr. Mackey calling other people Mr. hahaha I suspected him to say 'drugs are bad mkay' at any time lol
@@TheNewPatsyBailey wtf are u even saying
"Please, just Matt; MISTER Matt is my *father's* name!" 😂
Mmmgghhhahahahahahaha
Aaaaaahahahahahahahaha
Aaaaah
That was a good one.
Kind of on the same line of stupid would be those who over pronounce words that everyone has an understanding of like ken ham.
"E-vo-lu-tion"
Yes evolution we all know how it's pronounced.
Barthelemy Lazerlips
Talking donkeys are false
This is the boy who's believed every story he's ever been told.
Only the bullshit stories unfortunately
😭😭😭 this is so funny 😭😭😭
1) anecdote of ouija board
2) people whoose brain is ceasing to function have weird experiences
3) anecdote of astral projection
4) anecdote of satan
Therefore magic is real
That's not going to do it.
Was that the points put forward as to why Jesus was raised from the dead?? What a joke. We know the spirit exist and that lost souls can be summoned and demons released. God made all these things and told us not to delve into the evil side because it's dangerous for your soul. The bible reveals God and how he revealed himself to us. Jesus is the exception because his fully man and fully God and as it's stated in the Bible that's his mission for our salvation. What are we actually debating?? We all know it's true because history shows proof of it. The holy spirit could only come to help begin the Chucrh once Christ assumed into heaven. Many saints have experieneced divine help and voices and messages from Jesus and the stigmata. The mother of Jesus also known as our Lady has appeared through out history so Many times in an attempt to lead us back to her son.
@Joe Blow I also love the fact that the Ouija board is *literally* a children's game invented by Hasbro, the toy manufacturer. It's as occult as the Avengers.
@@tinakathleen8571 Tina, that's the dumbest crap I've ever fully read. You believe in a god that is his father and his son at the same time. God damn girl, that's stupid.
"I believe in a Zombie God but extraterrestrial life is just stupid" - Mike
roflmao
Well, if it’s not what his faith told him he must believe in, then what reason would he have to apologize on its behalf ?
Jesus isn't a zombie, he's a lich. Remember, zombies have no cognitive abilities and seek to eat people. But a lich can even bring back the dead.
Jesus was a cosmic lich.
yeah he's pretty stupid
@@davidcr566 But if Jesus was a lich, then the one who resurrected him, that is god, must had been lvl 100 necromancer.
@@ondrejvolejnik9537 That'd be a zombie. Liches are necromancers that resurrect themselves.
I am floored that anyone would still believe in any mythology, Christian or otherwise. It's like dealing with 4 year old children.
I feel the same way. it blows my mind that people don't wake up and realize what they're believing in is total horseshit. I love the way you put it because it's exactly like dealing with four-year-old children.
I love Greek mythology only because I find it cool.... If we had to be stuck to a religion ancient Greek religion is the one I'd bring back for sure ahhahah but yeah I find it silly we refer to it as Greek mythology are we allowed to do the same for current practised religions or just ancient ones that were around before the time of Jesus and god described in the old testament
@@vincentjones1014 Good idea! I'm going to refer to those religions as "Abrahamic mythology" from now on! (I too love the shared history, humanity and narrative that can be found in the various mythos. I would love to embrace the stories in the various bibles, if only people didn't actually _believe_ them.)
My five-year-old niece, whose father is a devout Christian, told me that God's not real.
If she gets it, why can't anyone else?
People like Licona just cannot say "I don't know". My pastor brother is the same way. They think saying I don't know is sitting on the fence. They just don't get that "I don't know" is correct sometimes and more correct than sticking a supernatural element into it.
I don't know means a question that god alone cannot fix. Makes them think about their beliefs too much I think.
Came for the debate, stayed for the crucifixion
Good one.
Underrated comment 😂
If you look at the World Happiness Report the happiest countries are basically secular.
and how long has it been since they were secular?
The happiest state of the US is … Utah!
netcompany3 They are not totally secular, but a majority of the people are secular.
Robert Rosskopf I haven’t checked but I am much happier in Hawaii.
@@joqiii3 I have been to Hawaii. It is a beautiful place. The prices are sky-high. And they have hurricanes occasionally.
Mike,
If someone from one of those anecdotes you shared in your introduction approached you and admitted they made up the story and that it didn't happen the way they said it did, would you be ready to admit there's no supernatural?
Likely your answer is no. That would just be one anomoly and you'd continue believing the rest of the anecdotes. You would need to be shown that all of those anecdotes are false, otherwise you couldn't make a determination.
Now think about your question to Matt. If you were beheaded and then showed up outside a few minutes later, why would Matt be required to suddenly believe in the supernatural?
The very question is malformed. "if something is impossible by naturalistic standards, and it happens, is it supernatural?" this presupposes that we know everything about the natural world. If we don't currently know everything about the natural world, then we cannot claim anything is impossible. (you mentioned faster than light travel being impossible, which is theoretically true, but wormholes are also theoretically possible and mathematically verified. So if some alien race traveled 15 billion light years to come pluck jimbob off his porch, we can't say that must be supernatural because its impossible to travel faster than light speed.)
Everytime in the history of the human race that somebody has seen or done something that was considered supernatural a scientific naturalism based explanation has come along. The technology that we have in our pockets today would have been considered impossible 100 years ago. If you got into a time machine and brought your smartphone back to any point in history more than 50 years ago, you'd probably be burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft. Because they wouldn't understand it, and thus to them it would be supernatural.
Finally, I think Matt touched on this, but the James Randi foundation has had a million dollar prize sitting on the table just waiting for anyone to come by and demonstrate any supernatural abilities or happenings. But for some reason, every single time someone tries.. They fail. And often times their methods of trickery are exposed.. But mostly... People who claim to have supernatural abilities, don't even try because they know it won't stand up to scrutiny.
That's pretty telling.
Great Comment!
A smartphone analogy..."... Because they wouldn't understand it, and thus to them, it would be supernatural."...prove it
" James Randi foundation has had a million dollar prize sitting on the table just waiting for anyone to come by and demonstrate any supernatural abilities or happenings. But for some reason, every single time someone tries.. They fail." It has not been proven true therefore it's false? That's the fallacy of negative proof and when has James Randi ever proven he's an authority on the supernatural?
Oh, btw, Randi's challenge to "talk to the dead" mediums is impossible to beat. Randi gives the mediums ten names from FBI's missing persons list. The challenge is for them to say who is dead and who is alive. When all ten cases are solved by FBI they'll check to see if the medium gets all ten correct. Here's the problem
1. Numerous people have the same name
2. FBI stats say only 75% or so of missing person cases are solved
Randi sets up the challenge to be impossible to be beat and completed.
I’ve had my own experiences that I cannot explain, I’ve also had a near death clinical event that also cannot be explained, not one of these events gave me any belief that there is a supernatural power at work, not one.
I’m alive today because of humans nature to save life, and I’m so grateful for those individuals intervention.
In my opinion, no god was intervening, I experienced nothing, was not aware I was becoming deceased.
No amount of claiming or reciting from a book, written by humans will change my stance on faith, unless proof can be provided and that proof has to be confirmable by facts.
I get annoyed by unscientific Theists like Licona who constantly second guess Nature to conclude Naturalism is limited but we have seen in String Theory and Complexity Science as well as Relativity and QM..that Nature is far cleverer,richer and more multi dimensional than Theists assume!
this is embarrassing. The poor man is trying to lend credence to his woo with examples even wooier. I like that word wooier.
And for our next heated debate between grown-up men: Did Santa Claus´ reindeer really fly ?
No, but some of them were pedophiles.
John TheAgnostic because there are no incredibly well written accounts saying they knew Santa or spoke to people that knew Santa and saw his reindeer fly.
It doesn't prove that Jesus existed or performed miracles, but if you understand Greek and the level of Greek presented in the gospels you'd know that it's worth more than an intended children's story about Santa.
Well written accounts? All we know about Jesus is from the schizophrenic Paul who only saw him in visions, as well as the liars who forged 6 of his letters. And four anonymous authors and the people who forged parts of their letters. These anonymous authors were later called Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, That is it.
No one else spoke of him in the first century except Josephus whose references were also forged by later Christians.
The whole thing is a load of Cod's wallop.
movieklump are you well versed in hellenistic era Greek?
That's a rhetorical question. You can't read Greek and you can't grasp what I'm saying.
The Gospel of Luke as an account is as strong a document of evidence that Jesup existed as any document for any figure of that era.
Learn Greek. Read about about Greek historical accounts. Then cross reference it with Luke and you'll see.
If you only read the English you have no business debating me on this.
John TheAgnostic it's even stupider when they talk about the flying spaghetti monster.
Modern western atheists are generally miseducated quacks. I have no issues with Hitchens or Harris who figured out a way to drain money from these quacks.
I personally don't quite get the point of these back and forth stage debates. From the theist side of God exists it all depends on faith because if God wanted the people to know he existed he'd make it obvious.
And from the atheist perspective, if they think there is no God and no afterlife, and furthermore of they accept the science that humans are nothing more an a slightly evolved primate with a finite life span as a species, on a floating planet in the middle of random nowhere that will one day fall victim to an exploding sun, and any remnants of human life or any life on one of the several rocks floating around this soon to explode sun will cease to exist, then who cares if one of its thousand species for a small fraction if life on the planet thought there was a spirit in the sky, and what's the point of ending that belief. Ultimately what's the point of morality to begin with?