DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2023
- Join this channel to get access to EPIC perks, including backstage passes to meet debaters:
/ @moderndaydebate
Or get those same perks at Patreon: / moderndaydebate
_______________________________________________________________________________
LINKS TO GUESTS:
Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity
Cliffe Knechtle: @askcliffe
__________________________________________________________________
Modern Day Debate on Discord:
Craving a challenge for your debating prowess? Fancy a shot at debating on MDD? Look no further than our Official MDD Discord server! Accessible through the Discord App (Android/iOS/PC) or your browser, the choice is yours!
Immerse yourself in non-stop debates, 24/7! Explore a variety of Text and Voice Channels designed for members to delve into discussions. Experience the thrill of live member debates on our Open Debate Stage, orchestrated by our dedicated staff, followed by occasional aftershows after the live stream debates!
Ready to join the intellectual battleground? Simply click the link below on your device of choice and become part of the discourse!
/ discord
__________________________________________________________________
ALL OUR DEBATES ALSO END UP ON OUR PODCAST, USUALLY WITHIN 24-HOURS OF BEING LIVE:
MDD on Apple podcasts: apple.co/2LpVzR2
MDD on Spotify: spoti.fi/3nJwiOA
MDD on Google Podcasts: shorturl.at/chqx4
MDD on Podcast Addict: podcastaddict.com/podcast/302...
_______________________________________________________________________________
WANT TO COME ONTO MDD? CHECK OUT THIS INFO PAGE:
docs.google.com/document/d/1k...
_______________________________________________________________________________
RULES FOR CHAT
-Chats flagrantly disrespectful toward speakers will receive a warning. *Attack the ideas instead of the person.
-Chatters continuing the disrespect after a warning will be banned.
-Chatters violating UA-cam TOS are banned immediately.
______________________________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER The views shared by guests on Modern-Day Debate are not necessarily representative of the views of Modern-Day Debate, James, or any university he has or has had any affiliation with. This includes our debate podcast.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I'm a Christian. If you ever want prayer or just someone to talk to after a horrible day, please reach out and let me know. I'm not a counselor and thus can't counsel anyone, but as mentioned, I'm happy to listen if you had a bad day. moderndaydebate@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________________
#Debate #Podcast - Розваги
This debate is already on our podcast & 100% ad-free! Find Modern-Day Debate on your favorite podcast app right now to listen to debates on-the-go!
Can I debate Matt?
@@Khonflict34 no. No you can’t. Why? Because you can’t.❤
I'd like to debate over the same topic. I'd like a month to prepare due to my schedule.
@@Timkast Any specific reason you chimed in?
@@Khonflict34 what golden nugget of evidence are you going to concoct inside of a month that all of the preacher’pologists before couldn’t? Too big of a secret? Just say it here….
I love that the "moderator" guy basically knits a scarf, completes a crossword and writes a letter to his mom while these two go at it. He's great.
😂😂😂
Yeah, what is the point of his remaining visible? He not only doesn't add anything, he takes away from it by distracting us with how little he cares about the debate.
Is that real lmao 😂
Good job making no sense
He’s checking the live comments
Moderator casually not moderating
Lol hard not to notice it.
He's Laissez-faire to put it nicely. I dig it tho cause I love the channel Still a great guy and has one of the best channels on UA-cam. I do agree tho that he needs to hold ppl to a higher more productive standard including himself. But I would say that about a lot of people
@@zachmorgan6982For sure, I love James but he really needs to work out some problems with mdd. Especially incredibly problematic platforming
Oh now he's not moderating unless a Muslim is there. Bigoted behavior I see.
@@Sg190th the fuck are you talking about?
The Moderator is the real villain for pitting these two against each other and then just kicking back to watch the bloodbath.
I love Matt dillahunty he really knows how to play devil's advocate when it comes to the Bible
Is the existence of new York corroborating the existence of Spiderman is genuinely one of the best counter questions I've heard in years.
I enjoy watching it lol
💯 incorrect !
Or a real genius... lmao
Legend has it when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object, this guy is there to moderate
I like how everyone in the comment section can agree the moderator was useless
Lol I would love them to say illegal things and for the moderator to ignore all of it while playing dota 2 or something
I'm not a fan of the moderator if I'm to be honest here. Putting his face on every video just in some desperate bid to seek attention wherever he can possibly get it is pretty disgraceful behavior. There's no reason for him to put his face in every single video every single debate when he has no relevance in any of it, but he's got to get his face out there for that big fame he's desperately seeking. He's way too old to behave this way, but if I try to be the most charitable possible I could say maybe he just thinks it'll get his channel more views somehow? There aren't any great answers for it, but that's my best attempt.
Sometimes, I think he smokes a whole bowl before hand. Lol he never puts his foot down.
@@finchvalor well, if there is a time where the moderator is obliged to intervene then their face (or some kind of a symbol) should be there so that the viewers do not get confused in the event that an intervention actually happens. also, if the debate happened in real life then his face and self would be there too. i think its fine. he just seems more laidback than anything, and he forwards questions when need be. also he did some very minor intervention throughout this debate.
people will always complain no mater what, if he keeps interrupting y'all will complain, but for a discussion like this, he decided to let both of them go at it with very limited interruption and y'all still complaining...smh
Everyone is commenting on how cliffe is getting upset but why is no one mentioning how many times Matt cursed at him and how many times Matt would get upset for Cliffe cutting him off when he would interrupt cliffe every single time he started talking? The hypocrisy is REAL in this comment section 😂😂😂
Matt interupts when being strawmaned and personally attacked. Try again
Rewatch it. He spends the entire beginning making his point uninterrupted, like your straw man argument. Cliff does the same and gets called out like you. 😂
Atheists typically repeat what all the other atheists are saying. They have to confirm each other’s biases, its doctrine of their religion. They’ll claim it’s not a religion, all while religiously affirming each other. Matt is one of their prophet-preachers, so they have to affirm his religious views. That’s how they worship in atheism. It’s apostasy to have diversity of thought in atheism.
Cliffe got mad at literally any disagreement, Matt only got mad because of how Cliffe was acting. You seriously need to be biased to think Cliffe wasn't the bitter one here.
That because the guy is all of a sudden doing personal attacks when explaining, and Matt cant let that slip away. Simple as that. Not only does Cliffe interupts, but he always sort of get offended like this is a debate about him not the christianity itself.
It’s funny how Matt complains that Cliff was cutting him off when 90% of the times it’s Matt cutting him off. Just write down your questions till after they’re done saying their point.
Matt only cut them off when he's being dishonest. The fact that the other guy is dishonest every time he opens his mouth isn't Matt's fault and Matt shouldn't let it fly
Cope
Cliffe has zero arguments 😂
When every “point” Cliffe makes is a dishonest presentation or a straight up lie, it’s hard not to cut him off from spewing his drivel
@@f.r.etling62264 pieces of evidence did u not watch the video
This didn't have to take that long.
Cliffe: I believe in Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, taught honorable things and ways to live and who He serves and who we should serve, was crucified for my sins, dies on the cross forgiving His killers and rose and 3.
Matt: Prove it.
Cliffe: I can't physically prove it.
Matt: Well then, I can't believe it's true.
Cliffe: Fair enough
Host: Ok thats a wrap, thanks for watching.
The truth is hidden to those who don't believe. And if you don't believe in the trinity, hidden it remains.
You can’t convince someone of something that they don’t want to be convinced of.
yeah you can
@@zacharymcleod460 and how would you do that?
@@facelessshadow92 Just don't give up on someone because they don't want to hear it. I've been convinced of plenty of things that I didn't want to be true. Haven't you?
@@zacharymcleod460 I see your point, I agree 🤝
@@facelessshadow92 🤝
Debates in this format almost always lead to cliffe’s side losing. Matt has the easy argument and cliffe has to convince unfaithful person to believe in things that require faith.
Add the fact that his 4 segements of critically analising a written work is deeply flawed, he states he writes off anything stylistcaly resembling fairy tails as as not reliable bu then is more than happy to accept exraordinary claims ( kinda a key element of a fairy tale) as facts. Im one of hose few atheists that will agree that following the teachings of Jesus Christ might of a benefit to people, but at this point trying to convince grown ups that the moon is made of cheese is just rude. Let the dude die for our sins in peace without turning it into a sideshow freakshow.
So what’s the virtue of faith? Why is having faith in things that cannot be proven a good thing?
because if you are a christian then you are blessed for believing in the unseen God and following your heart@@13cozzmo
@@collin501But the scientist will know the answer at the end of their experiment, while religious people don't conduct experiments and just believe. It's not the same thing.
@@collin501You are conflating faith with trust. The faith of a faithful Muslim is a different word than the faith of a faithful husband. A different word with a different definition. Nobody refers to scientists as faithful. They also don’t operate on trust. They conduct studies and experiments to test ideas. Neither faith nor trust are warranted or beneficial in science.
Moderator was prolly listening to his favorite music and when the arguing started burning up, and his music started to become unclear, he thought it was connection problems.
There's a reason this Cliffe guy usually sticks to debating unprepared kids on campuses.
Three minutes in and already it's clear that this is just going to be Matt Dillahunty explaining to a true believer how to exercise reason and critical thought for two hours.
Followed by the believer discarding reason and critical thinking in favor of his predrawn conclusion.
you are delusional
@@codyhelms2556 that literally didnt happen...
@@KolyaUrtzf course it did. Matt showed that cliffs standard works for spiderman and that its 1 thing to claim jesus existed but another to claim the ressurection.
@@KolyaUrtzThat literally happened if you watched this debate.
"The Koran is historically reliable" 30 secs later "the Koran is inconsistent and unreliable" the man is a turnip.
Hey, leave the humble turnip out of this
@@johannOplease my apologies. The turnip is far more honest
@@fezparker2401I thought he looked more like a carrot.
Ha ha ha the Koran is not even in chronological order the loving bible god yahweh/ jehovah ? Don't these people read the bible ?
@@ashwayndoes something need to be in chronological order to be true now?
Don’t the gospels go through all of Christ’s mostly later life followed by the next that starts again from a previous point in time?
Paul wrote before the gospels but does the NT put his letters first?
34:33 when Cliff said “what” I died 😂😂
WHAT??
Watching Cliffe get personally offended that anyone or any statement would dare challenge his "Jesusism" is amusing.
@@Sheisterrificpretty stupid claim because Cliffes job is literally to go to college campuses where crowds ask him questions, his job being to answer them.
@@avryeditzCliffe embarrasses and fails to convince, particularly in his "street performances." Wrong defense for a conceptual discussion. He blew it believing before proving.
@@Sheisterrific Unless you can prove me love is real, I shouldn't believe it is? You failed to convince me with that argument. It is totally acceptable to believe without being able to prove. Here's the truth: if you truly look for God, He will let Himself be found. Some people found Him even though they thought God didn't exist, but they were curious and needed to know. God bless you!
It's like Cliffe isn't even debating Matt. He's debating a pretend atheist in his head and trying to ascribe the beliefs of this theoretical atheist to Matt and respond to those.
Why would he debate someone who yells shutup diring a debate smh
@@sincitytitan7118why would Matt debate someone who says the proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead was that “he died” 😂
@@keys5595idk you ask him lmao he does it everyday💀💀 what an awful response . You’re generalizing. I can generalize matt too. But I’m not gonna cuz it’s wrong.
The host just said “the connection is why y’all are over talking over eachother” and continues to get mad. Cmon man.
lol this debate is awesome
Cliffe says Matt can't prove he loves his wife, so how am I expected to believe some dead guy from 2000 years ago loves me even more than my wife?
Do you believe Matt loves his wife?
@@Dj84JA2 Matt isn't married.
@@Dj84JA2 We can test if Matt exists, we can check if Matt is married to someone who exists, we can discern to a decent degree of certainty if they have a good, caring relationship. We can check dor birth certificate, living direct eye-witnesses, videography or photography - we have no good reasons to doubt an claim plausible as such, and many, many ways to attempt falsification.
If we could do the same for any aspects of god claims, there would be less agnostics.
@@tempestive1 I didn't ask if Matt existed. I asked someone else if they believed Matt loved his wife.
@@Dj84JA2 Sorry if it wasn't clear(?), it felt necessary to establish a baseline of plausible claims.
Wow, what kind of moderator allows someone to shout “SHUT UP!!!!” . Allowing this man to be abusive is disingenuous .
Typical on every mdd I've seen unf
You're just upset because Matt steam rolled this slippery snake, he's bring dishonest and deserved to be told to shut up because he personally attacked matt instead of the argument.
@@guycd1 not so, and just like your. Boy notice what you did, you attacked me, and my motives, and a speaker not the idea put forth. How sad for you.
With regards to my motive not so at all. I was looking forward to a civil discourse of ideas, not people shouting each other, or attacking each other. Regardless of who the aggressor was.
I was brought up to consider telling someone to shut up akin to swearing at them, it’s demeaning … I don’t like what you have to say and so like a true brown shirt nazi socialist thug I will speak over you to deny you the ability to say it if I can. Just because I don’t like what somebody says doesn’t mean i have the right to tell them not to speak, especially in a debate. If you’re going to enter into the realm of academic ideas as a debater, you have to have a little bit thicker of a skin, but someone’s feewings were hewt and he lashed out, he’s that insecure.
My premise is If either side is out of line, it’s up to the moderator to correct it, not to leave it for the two of them to go at each other.
My advice for the future , play nice. You have no idea which side of the fence I’m on or if I’m on the fence, making your statement an attack. while I might like to say to you “shut up you have no idea what you’re talking about you blathering pile of foamy feculence “ I won’t do that as you have every right to say or write what you want , regardless of how moronic it is.
Actually, even the phrase shut up was delivered with more civility and controlled modulation than nearly every psychotic, ranting, dishonest, ignorant tirade by Knechtle.
@@highroller-jq3ix I disagree. I think it was nasty and angry. I have no problem with people debating vigorously, saying what they want, and filled with zeal and spirited, my opinion matt lacked grace and decency. If you ever want a lesson in class under attack in a. Debate , take a look at how Jordan Peterson has responded to personal attacks…. Being called a mean white man by a bigot. Not that I think that this rose nearly to that level, but let’s just say it did…. There was nothing winsome Or wanting with this bastion of humanistic wisdom and his nasty response. Like many liberals of the day when they don’t like what you say they try and shut you up.,., not attack ideas and statements, they attack people.
It’s been said that if somebody can make you mad just by their comments, they are your masters because you cannot master yourself. Sad, bcuz he’s a smart guy … what a turn off.
The reason this is such a difficult debate is because it is much easier to believe there is not a god than to believe there is one. It is easier to find evidence there is not a god than it is to find evidence in a 1500 page book written thousands of years ago
It is very easy to believe in a god I sis it half my life. I still would say god is a good take on what happens after life but just not a true one so I think at least. A lot od people are theist and they never have read the scriptures.
@@zero3370yeah this is just a dumb comment for multiple reasons. Wether or not it’s difficult is irrelevant. And believing in Jesus Christ was the easiest thing of my life lol.
This is patently untrue. Every culture on the planet has believed in some type of God or Gods. Strict materialism is a fad historically speaking.
I think its very difficult to find evidence that supports believing in three being no God.
Why would god make it so difficult to prove it's existence. Matt just needs proof.
I wish this debate channel would stick to a traditional debate format so that the interactions don’t devolve into just straight bickering.
.... But that's their bread and butter.
James searches these dumpster fires out. He's a modern day barnum
it a bc dillahunty is a manchild.
Or how wrong one is. So pesky. Lol
Traditional debate formats are horrible. Free conversation is better in every way
Bickering and shit talking is the only entertaining part of modern day debate. If you want a formal debate, there's many channels for that. This is not one of them.
I like how the host interjects the debate with a call to action and does not moderate the conversation. So professional.
I am glad you put their stances in brackets next to their names because i wasnt sure who was arguing which side
I can’t help but love James’ diplomacy skills with the stock injection during heated fights of “I think we have a delay issue here….” 🤣
You stole my thoughts to the letter! Smooth James, smooth.
It's good for diplomacy but... I feel that in this instance it is blatantly dishonest. Mr. Knechtle clearly was trying very hard to pin a fabrication. I don't know what the right thing to do is in this instance, but it seems overtly charitable... But perhaps that is the job of a decent moderator?
@@unfairlive2pretty much yeah... but more generally to make sure everyone feels equitably heard
@@shroom2001 haha you typed heard but i read hurt.
More true i think.
@@aidanya1336 loool
bro this is hilarious 😂the way moderator kept making the excuse of it being the connection that caused a delay making them talk over each other.
He is a theist so of course he wants to give some weird benefit of the doubt to Cliffe to make him not look like a crazy person.
@@Ulsafweird how we watched the same video but you missed Matt talked over cliff more
@@SesrzHe told hi to shut up 4 times 😂
😄
Matt has no argument as he says it. He just proves his own thinking flawed and avoids questions
There is a reason Cliffe doesn't post any vids of him arguing against adults. He'll post videos of himself going against know nothing college kids. But when he has to go against someone his own size and wealth of knowledge he looks foolish
Christians always have to indoctrinate kids
College men and women cause there grown obviously!! Are well sophisticated enough to argue back and forth Matt has a easier debate than cliffe rather cliffe has to make people see his point of views by faith!!! Matt is using scientific knowledge which is more common in the 21st century which doesn't mean it's true they can't imporaly prove that the big bang happened they go mostly by faith... What happened before the big bang? Then before that something has to have a beginning something can't come from nothing? Unless it has no beginning but obviously if it has no beginning then it has no end? Which that can't be true cause because that would mean there would be no time!!! Space is not out of time but anyways you can be more convincible when you have scientific so called proof than no proof but the reality of scientific evidence and historical evidence you need to go by sheer faith!
@@flickshotz6751 I got lost in your bad grammar and sentence structure. Summarize, revise, and revisit
He’s speaking the truth though
The truth is, Matt Dillahunty was irrational. When someone's mind is set in stone, debates devolve into arguments over trivialities like semantics. Matt Dillahunty yelling "shut up" during the debate showed that he had already lost. Cliff didn’t interrupt him once, yet Matt continuously interrupted Cliff. The entire debate was pointless because Matt wasn't going to change his mind, even if God himself appeared in his room. People like this aren't worth listening to. Despite this, you sit here pretending to sound educated, spouting nonsense like "He'll post videos of himself debating know-nothing college kids," when most of the people in his videos are over 25 and among the most educated of the population.
Matt: Why do you believe the Bible and the Koran are true?
Cliffie: Bc they’re both historically accurate
Matt: Then why do you believe Christ resurrected but not Muhammad
Cliffie: Bc the Bible is historically accurate and the Koran is not
Oh. Gotcha. Clown.
Cliffie is not a good debater :) but everything he said about the resurrection of Jesus is truth.
How could he accept that he preached a fairytale for people and wasted his life on it? dont think it would happen xd
He’s such a degenerate with his lies coming from a Muslim lol tired of seeing his retard questions trend
@@BIG_r.how did you detrmine that?
Haha
00:53:00 The debate was over there. The fact that Cliffe continued is a testament to his arrogance.
EXCELLENT debate, loved it. Great job everyone!
Moderator casually playing hearthstone in the background
Cliff's strategy revolves around identifying opposing arguments that he can craft a grievance arround. He then highlights this grievance as a way of accusing his opponent of bad faith. It's a strong strategy if you have no arguments and need to burn time.
Identifying opposing arguments? Does that include arguments that his interlocutor holds or just any old opposing argument? I’m only half an hour in and so far he seems to have straw manned Matt several times.
Forget all of that stuff. Matt's a sinner just like everyone else but he is denying Christ Jesus willfully. Matt is blinded by Satan and willful ignorance.
@@curtbressler3127 Yup. Ad the in-you-face-approach ck attempts when almost blowing the cam and anyone equipped with lesser wit or none will yield due to the sycophant slave mentality Abrahamic religions impose.
@@connorgrynol9021 Basically any argument in which the user of said tactic has no retort to.
@@curtbressler3127 it's the old "anyone who disagrees with me is a pedophile" strategy.
Clffe's emotional reaction is a great example of why it is better to have beliefs as opposed to identifying with beliefs. Once we identify with our beliefs, if those beliefs are challenged our very lives feel threatened.
Beliefs are simply tools to construct a model of reality to help us navigate through life. Nothing more nothing less. If somebody gives us a better tool, we should use it.
It makes me so happy to see cliff speak to someone who isn’t 18 and timid. The amount of logical fallacies he’s made in this should be studied
Name one
@@elcompamoi1832
Me: 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust
You: name one
Just because YOU don't hold the information another person does, doesn't make you right if you ask for it, it just means you are stupid. Watch the video for your answer.
define logic
"Genesis doesn't contain any scientific knowledge!"
Oh my God! Ironically, Cliffe actually made his only honest statement of the debate!
The first line of genesis is wrong. “In the beginning god made the heven and the earth” that basically says that the earth is older than every star on existence. Which we know is false.
@@emiliouchilado you really think that's a charitable reading of what is known to be quasi-mythology? Where are the real truth seekers at?
@@emiliouchilano that means he made heavens first … lol
@@jeffreyjdesir how can you tell which parts of the bible are factual historical evidence and which parts are mythology or poetry, it seems open to interpretation and always interpreted to exactly coincide with whatever real science discovers, the account in genesis was certainly read as factual until we proved otherwise
@@jeffreyjdesir to time there is no difference between the Bible Qran and the warhammer 40K lore. Is all wacky shit
Cliff comes from a generation where it was more important to sound confident than to have substantial arguments
Trump has used that tactic for decades
As an old man I resent that premise. The religious and Trump lie to people and have always lied. People despite their age believe these lies. You sir, are ageist. It’s critical thinking skills that are important, I rejected any notion of an actual god from the moment I first heard of such a fantasy.
What, the present?
@@mobrocketImagine being such a moron that you think Trump has been a politician for decades.
Toooo lazy to research their birthdays..but aren't both speakers from the same generation?
Moderator isn't being a moderator
Why is Cliffe so angry? Matt is calm until Cliff goes off. Just debate your irrational points calmly Cliffe
I have to agree I have never seen him act like this like I know Matt has asked some questionable things but it's not that deep
You’d be upset too if every time you tried to make a point you were cut off and the person that was constantly cutting you off claimed you were cutting them off…
U r crszy matt was super angry and nasty throughout the debate
@@elibonham4388 Did you even watch it?
The way a debate should be done, is where one person speaks as the other is muted, and vice versus. Then you don't have one guy speaking over everyone else complaining about not being able to speak.
It takes a bit more than that imo. There are ways to masterdebating, for sure, and some involve hard muting, but i think it’s better to let interlocutors F themselves by interrupting, like each interruption gives 15 of the interrupters seconds to the interruptee, although in that case they could just trade and break even.
Thinking [without wanting to give away my actual methodology, which I’m saving for my own story]
Maybe You could just lose 15 seconds or a minute of your time for any interruption?
At least in that case two douches could have their debate shortened 90% in minutes.
Also, every branch of the abrahamic trilogy is wildly ridiculous fantasy dogma,
But behind my atheism vis a vis the abrahamics,
Ima die agnostic.
Final thought: there is almost NOTHING left that’s new to say in these debates.
NONE on the abrahamic believers side.
UFF
It's done this way on purpose for entertainment
Matt is massively disingenuous. He's making claims like "scholars agree and it's not controversial" when the statement he's making is debated among scholars. He only sides with secular scholars and disregards the army of christian giants and scholars that have existed for thousands of years both in church and academia.
I lose all faith in anyone who tells someone to shut up, this is total disrespect and shouldn’t be tolerated by the moderator.
When Cliffe claimed to be a skeptic. Wow. I don't even know how to absorb that statement.
Just remember the #1 rule for religious apologists: Religious apologists lie.
@@FourDeuce01can you name a single type of person ever in history that does not lie??
Other than Jesus Christ of course
@@FourDeuce01 ridiculous statement.
Cliff usually gets away with rapid-fire gish gallops, bullying, and stating dumb things confidently. Fun to see him get ragdolled by a pro like Matt.
Matt is a big joke :)
@@BIG_r., so you say, but he easily won the debate.
@@cjgt77 you got a joke :)
@@BIG_r. do I got one? What? Cliffe wasn't funny enough?
@@cjgt77 yes, your a joke 😇
How many people have been crucified? Why does one of them get to claim it pays for everyone's sins? It's like walking into a bar and buying the whole world a drink, forever. Hubris? Delusion? Insanity?
From the very first words that came from Matt came out a distaste for Cliffe and the fact that Cliffe even thought of praying for his family. Athiests time and time again have proven to me that their lack of belief in God and Christ are just miserable. Shooting down anything that they don't agree with even when the evidence points towards their opposite direction.
Totally agree I think Matt came out of the gates very condescending . Something about the discussion always seems to trigger atheist .
What evidence? I’ll wait.
@@WeesloYT
Beyond this debate: I would encourage you to check out volumes, one and two of
Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell.. That’s just for starters.
@@squid6108 atheists can’t comprehend transcended thinking that aren’t achieved through
“Hierarchically obtainable iQ”,
it’s almost a personal attack to them as they hold great value in intelligence.
@@WeesloYT you will wait for Jesus to resurrect or something.
Cliff Has Always Said That He Does Not Base His Debate Off 100% Proof. He Always has said that but what I cannot respect is the open DISRESPECT that Matt is giving to Cliffe. He shouldn’t allowed to be able to Curse if it’s a “respectful” debate.
He literally made sure if it was ok with the channel rules and they said its fine. He can if he wants to lol, especially when cliffe was being so irrational and purposely misrepresenting his points lol
He made sure after the fact, it was a bit unfair to make a decision not knowing if it was okay and then asking afterwords wether or not it was permitted. He took advantage of Cliffes religious persona knowing that he could bully/curse at him and then use any frustrated reaction against him. Such as people in this comment section is doing.
Even funnier seeing this now after watching his debate with Andrew. Matt the coward stormed off after getting emotional 😭
Cliffe is pretty.good, but doesn't get that even if Matthew isn't the author, SOMEONE was. He's good on consistency.
Expanding his resources around supernatural phenomena would be good. Medically attested, medically impossible helaings with spiritual religious restimony. Dillahunty is an ideological thug. Knowing that helps stay on track.
@@peterpumpkineater6976how do you ascribe intentions to misunderstanding? Isn't that projecting?
I'd be curious to meet the kind of Christian that's impressed by Cliffe's conduct.
Check the reply to the comments
I personally love Stuart. I think you are just in a very niche internet atheist sect of the world.
Not everyone feels the need to duke it out with randos on the internet about things they believe are just common sense.
I find gender ideology to be literally the same as belief in God in terms of All the talking points and applying them to both sides.
It’s a religion and so is secular humanism and so is any “ought-to”style of group-think
Although he’s not much of a debater
@ChristianaMaru3 Except we actually can demonstrate gender is a real concept that maps to features of human appearance and behavior, which are both also demonstrably real. God beliefs don't map to anything demonstrably real. Go find a better reason to be transphobic.
Then u def never knew about Kent Hovind nor d Banana Man.
@@ananthuashokan8219 Yeah but youtube comments kinda suck. It's very hard to get people to reply.
Another apologist keeps listing things that don't disprove the Bible, hoping that if he lists enough of them, it will somehow prove the Bible's truthfulness.
I think this whole thing is annoying Paul's letters for example referencing the Bible would prove it was written in those lifetimes and reliable...
These rebuttals have answers hell he really should of focused on not giving Matt a leg to stand on rather than arguing with someone who isn't gonna believe regardless
Would have done a news reporter example of talking to a witness and then writing their statement on paper ... The paper isn't less true
If they stated they saw someone healing a blind man with mud and spit then we would disregard that too. Because eye witness testimony is not conclusive at all. Especially when there are magical elements in the testimony we can disregard it as false at face value because miracles=magic it cannot be reproduced ever. So it is false and the bible is full of these stories
Love watching cliff debate someone that can actually debate rather than taking advantage of children' growing minds on a campus somewhere
100% man 👍
Man cliffe destroyed Matt, he totally proved that Christianity isn't true.
What? That wasn't his position....oh..
Lol 😂
😂😂😂
You don’t get it God isn’t provably just like the theory of relativity isn’t provable it’s the equivalent of stating that the speed of light is a myth because it cannot be observed or measured. “But light is visible!” And so is Gods work and creation, yet you dump on thousands of years of pondering of the nature of this question and dismiss it as if the newest 70 year old philosophical belief BASED ON A CARNIVAL MONKEY WHO WORE A SUIT IN ENGLAND is so obvious true and that the artistic rendition of evolution is more proof than historically proven accurate letters😂
lol
matt took it easy on him by not contesting the definition of christianity. With thousands of different sects, it's an impossible position to defend.
Cliff: we have overwhelming evidence
Matt: could i see an example of that evidence
Cliff: no but like we have it tho
Is that really what you think was said? Really? Honestly?
@@supernintendochalmers8475 tell me a lie he made.
@velociraptorplanet Wants people to explain every text book ever written to them after they sat through school rubbing their crucifix instead of paying attention to the teacher.
@@waakow 1.) Christ gave us a way to verify him. 2.)There is evidence pointing toward the existence of a diety.
@@cicerojones9248 you don't think he believes those points he made? I can understand you saying he is wrong but you think he's intentionally lying about that?
He didn’t debunk his methodology for a book to be true because all 4 points have to be true at the same time. Yes, one individually being true doesn’t make the book true but if all 4 are true then it is. I wish Cliff would’ve pointed out this flaw in the argument but I understand it is hard to do so when you are on the spot
He admitted all four parts of his method didn’t prove anything about the supernatural claims. Even if they was true. He was then proved wrong about the style with genesis for example
"the only way for good and evil to be real is if there was some type of mind prior to the human mind that defines"
such a statement is subject for a debate in of itself
Well the thinking behind that statement is this- if there is no God, if there are only cells and scientific explanation behind everything, what's the difference between hurting someone and protecting someone? Where does morality come from if not God? If there are no moral truths, then hurting someone is always good. But that's NOT true. One tribe of cavemen decide 'its bad to hurt people we live with'- okay but if morality doesn't come from God, then the other tribe of cavemen say 'its good to hurt the people we live with'- both of those decisions are equally valid. - nonsense. It's obviously wrong to hurt people.
Morality is a piece of the puzzle, a piece of evidence that proves there is more to existence than what we can explain.
Thank you Cliff, I've always thought Spiderman was real, I mean it's pretty obvious when you consider the amount of corroborating books written about him, and guess what, you can even visit New York! Crazy how far people like Matt have fallen to reject such obvious evidence
thanks for showing us another time that neo vulgar atheists are not capable of intellectual debate
Did any of those claim him to be real?
@@freedom5941 Lol, do you really think that if the author of the next edition wrote "These stories are 100% non fictional, true" on the cover, suddenly the Superman Comic books would be evidence that Superman actually exists? After all, we'd have many corroborating books, that mention real people and places AND THE AUTHOR CLAIMS IT TO BE TRUE.
Do you see now how utterly ridiculous your question is?
@@freedom5941 What do you mean? Obviously he wouldn’t be able to save anybody unless he was real so I don’t get your point. And why would so many disconnected authors create spiderman media unless they were basing it on the real thing? Unless you are saying there might be a higher standard of evidence required for a claim like this, which seems pretty ridiculous to me.
@@rodrigoma1350 neo vulgar atheists are so childish, always want to talk about superheros pixies bigfoot and so forth, on top of that being cringe to the max not even understanding what basic logic is, but since even a liottle child grasps more than you guys i guess you must be below childish
This is wonderful. It is like Matt being on a bad call for two hours.
Hi, this Knechtle guy is rather frightening; a nut; rather violent in his anger and frustration...that he is an idiot!
I love those calls much the best!
And I don’t know why Matt believes his magic brain chemicals are superior to anyone else’s magic brain chemicals? It’s a open question with no answer forthcoming!
@@XYisnotXX que?
Hang up Matt 😂
1:23:15 i mean, the Iliad and the Odyssey, written 800 years before that, have entered the chat
Great debating
Matt breaking down Cliff's 4 methodology tests was the KO in this debate.
Yeeeah dude, im curious what methodology Matt has... Because he has some... right? ... :(
So gotta go with Cliff's then
@@wojtex2011Cliffe made a claim and presented a methodology which Matt debunked and destroyed. It is not Matt's burden to present another method because Cliffe's is rubbish.
A defence attorney does not have to prove the innocence of their client, only to show the flaws in the prosecution's methodology (case).
@@burntgod7165 yeeah... these methods are rubbish, we should dump them, i think, into trash where they belong!
then we wouldnt have any way of knowing history but screw that man... Cliffe's method is rubbish and surely no other historian uses these methods, right?
@@jaimefernandez2624 No, Matt does not have to prove anything, as I said. It is not his burden. He is the equivalent of the defence lawyer in this scenario.
@@burntgod7165he needs to give his criteria for determining a historical document if he wants to have a civil discussion and be respectable. The debate topic is "Is Christianity True?" Matt's stance is "No" not "I don't know."
Cliff appears to be angry and frustrated because he doesn't understand what is being asked of him. He makes claims and cannot distinguish them from evidence and gets angry when someone wants facts instead of claims. This is ridiculous and telling that Cliff cannot argue honestly on our shared reality. Pathetic.
there is absolutely nothing factual about the resurrection of jesus, so of course this is going to be a shitshow, lol
Cliffe's information is above your head. Shut-up moron.
its not that he cant distinguish or doesnt understand its the fact the atheist is asking dumb questions and obviously everbody doesnt know everything about jesus cause nobody does 100% of it and cant provide physical evidence cause its spiritual so
If its spiritual and doesn't affect the physical world, then how do you even know it exists at all? If it does affect the physical world, then it should have evidence.@@itreallybelikethatdoe829
@@drrydogevidence proving it wrong? Because all of the evidence, every single shred of it, points to it being the truth. So share what you have discovered that so definitely disproves the resurrection?
Thank you Cliff, your 4 historical criteria proved that "Gone With The Wind" is non-fiction!
Why is the audio on the podcast version of this so sped up??? Killing my phone's battery forcing me to listen to the UA-cam video.
I watched this live and it was rough. They both got inexcusably heated in my opinion, but Cliffe's rejection of NT scholarship sealed the deal for me. The majority of even the most evangelical scholars agree that Matthew was almost definitely not written by the apostle Matthew.
Since the earth is flat, that means Christianity is true enough
That is just not true!
@@mikeslemonadestupid comment
@@mikeslemonade You know what, I'll give you that. The claims of Christianity are about as true as the flat earth model.
@@saycheese6773HE DID NOT WRITE IT.
This debate is overwhelming evidence that Matt loves playing chess with pigeons. Debating someone like Cliffe is like arguing with a toddler about how long Santa’s beard is.
He needs to deal with people like Michael Jones.
@@wet-read...doesn't matter, the result is still the same. Matt always owns illogical fools.
@@wet-read He has hasn't he? That's inspiringphilosophy right?
@@botarakutabi1199
Yeah, that's him. Perhaps they have tangled before. If so, I'm terribly sorry.
It's pointless to argue with deeply indoctrinated magic cult members.
I'm agnostic, which I think makes me in the middle, in between religion and atheism. Despite being in that middle, I always found (maybe because of the source I had access to) that christianity was able to encompass atheism while atheism was not able to encompass christianity. I'm not sure what to make out of it, or only very esoteric thoughts and conclusions.
If you have an open mind and heart, you have a chance today to call out for answers.
Jesus is the name to call.
♥️
@@Jenabelovedofjesus either that, or Ghostbusters. Might get an answer from the latter.
@@hail_satan If you don't believe in God, then why are you so focused on mocking him?
@@centuzezaim7471 lol I'm mocking you and the weird things you claim to believe. Are you trolling, or do you really not understand this?😘
@@hail_satan I'm not a Christian, I am an atheist who believes your behavior is embarrassing.
There are so many videos of Cliffe where he talks about Atheism as if it's some kind of religion, where you have to do this and be that to be an Atheist.
His arguments, the way he interrupts people, the emotional music in the videos of him talking about God and the world are all nonsensical and manipulative.
I wish Matt could actually debate someone who would be honest.
hw cant, hinest Christians are athiests
There wouldn’t be a debate. They just sit and ask how each other are doing.
Matt needs to be honest first
Every debate I’ve seen with Matt he will answer every question anyone asks of him to the best of his knowledge. Christians and alike cannot answer his questions because it would ruin their narrative. We all know why they won’t answer.
@@kingreichenberger659 What is he dishonest about?
It's crucial to remember that, as Christians, we might not always come out on top in arguments of this kind, partly because we lack convincing physical proof of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus. Our involvement in these discussions, however, has a greater goal: to share the gospel with our opponents' followers. Since it is through this obedience that we are able to sow the seeds of faith and hope in the minds of people who may not yet know His love and grace, our triumph is not measured in debate scores but in our obedience to God's calling.
I've never seen that idea so perfectly articulated, well said and a great reminder that our goal is obedience to God and for the lost to hear the gospel.
Look at this cope 😂😂😂
It's not about debate scores. You put this video on a christian bias channel, cliffe would win the debate hands down with cheers or how cliffe owns matt in the christian opinion. It's about logical thinking and rationality and no religion beliefs system is base on any logic and rationality.
@@Jojo-oi3iz Kindly disagree. Christianity is an evidence based faith, not blind faith. The very universe was created as evidence God exists.
@@mfolson81No rational person would remotely accept this as evidence.
Matt is good
Cliffe flies of the handle, accuses Matt of saying things he did not, and practically spits into the camera for a couple of hours.
Go Matt.
Cliffe is doing everything he can to show that he's not paying attention to Matt. What disgusting behavior on his part.
Hey yall, I found matt’s burner UA-cam account🤣🤣🤣
@@parkplaceproperties4818this was almost funny
@@parkplaceproperties4818 what?
@@parkplaceproperties4818 no. I, am Matt's UA-cam burner account!
@@ElliotWebbSEO no it's me
So, if someone claimed that he was born on Mars, then Cliffe would first ask:
"Is Mars real?"
Then he would ask:
"Is there any evidence that anyone has travelled to Mars and back?"
But then he doesn't see, that the equivalent second question with regards to his story would have to be "is there any evidence that anyone has ever risen from the dead?". The answer to that would obviously be that we have ZERO scientific evidence that such a thing ever happend. Yet, in that case he's willing to be gullible enough to believe a story in a book about how someone ACTUALLY rose from the dead. Wow!
He showed his intellectual dishonesty right there.
Thats why the obvious halt.
we actually have several people that were xonsidered dead and got ressurected, those happen. you need to add the absurd amount of time between the death and ressurection of jesus.
@@iammarauder5418I heard that pause like a bomb. 😂😂
@@alicepbg2042
No, we don't. Stop making stuff up. There's no scientific evidence for such a thing, which is why you didn't name any such incident.
@@stauffap people legally die for a minute or two mate. it's not a new thing. maybe they drown, maybe they overdose...
you can ask people who work in hospitals/ambulances for specific stories. it's not that uncommon.
what do you think cpr is for?
Matt won this one and I’m saying that as a Christian
Matt asks a yes or no question, and cliff seems to have a mental breakdown
It’s because he knows he can’t gish gallop a direct yes/no question.
Whats amazing is the love even when the debate gets heated ❤ amazing how we need to be able to talk with one another even when we dont agree
For Matt, it all comes down to this one question: Is faith a reliable pathway to truth?
The anger and condescension between these two was so entertaining 😂
35:20 😂
This isn't the first time Cliff has debated Matt and it always ends up the same. Matt is way out of Cliff's league, and it gets more obvious every time they meet.
I don't think it's possible to out-debate a smart atheist (like Matt) because they have both the facts on their side plus the brains to argue intelligently. Matt has never even come closer to losing a debate, I'm not sure I've ever seen him "lose" a single issue or point. Same with Hitchens or others.
@@thenerktwins It's more that you can't out-debate a skilled and good-faith critical reasoner. At _best_ you present them with an excellent argument and they'll accept it and change their minds on the spot. If you are able to prove them wrong, they'll only be wrong for the duration it takes them to evaluate and accept that argument.
@@thenerktwins It's easy to 'win' when you refuse to hold a position.
Dillahunty plays a suckers game where he defends nothing, lies about definitions, and refuses all burden to prove his claims.
what are you talking about?
@thenerktwins
I haven’t watched this one yet, definitely looking forward to watching it… however, when he went up against Braxton Hunter, seems like he lost pretty badly to me, however, saying someone won or lost a debate is subjective, all you can truly say is, you were convinced more by one debater than the other. What matters is the facts, and the facts show that Jesus really lived, died, and rose again; therefore, Christianity is true, and Jesus Christ is the only way. Since the facts are on Cliffe side, I trust that he “won”. What fax do you believe is on Matt’s side?
Is Christianity true? "Is it provable? No..." -Cliffy Boy Thanks for your opening argument. Honestly.
Bruh. I facepalmed when he said that.
what was the timestamp for that
It's not scientifically relevant is what he's saying, in other words, Christianity is irrelevant based on knowledge.
@@bradchervel5202 it's the very end of his opening statement
Cliffe is very inconsistent. He says the bible is internally consistent to an unbelievable extent yet he says that the apostles dispersed when Christ was executed and were lost as they didn’t expect him to die or come back but that’s exactly what he said would happen e.g. Mark 8 31 …must be killed and after 3 days rise again.
Matthew 17 22 and 23
Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.” And they were exceedingly sorrowful.
I can’t believe cliffe won’t accept that the majority opinion of people in the field for the last hundreds of years have found that the gospels weren’t written by the people they were named after by the early church leaders.
That cliff calls upon a professor of mathematics and a woman who was head of MIT as experts in the historicity and text of the gospels beggars belief.
How can he say that Matt holds a controversial and unsupported view when Matt literally read the cover page that’s present on many versions of the bible stating the gospels were anonymous and weren’t written by the people they are named after?
31:25 best debate language I've ever heard
1:32:42 So it has to be self-claimed in order for it to matter? The eye witnesses who were there at the time to meet him in person is irrelevant?
FAITH !!! AS LONG AS YOU DON'T BELIEVE, IT WILL REMAIN HIDDEN!!!
Faith is just a fancy word for delusion. Yes, when you are deluded facts and reality don't matter.
Cliff claiming that New York is corroborating evidence that he was born there if he claims to have been born there is hillarious! So if I lie about being born in Paris, is Paris then evidence that I was born in Paris, or is Paris merely fabricated evidence I use to support my lie? According to Cliff it's corroberative evidence 🤣
It’s worse than that, someone writing in 200 years time that you lived in Paris is not proof that you OR Paris existed.
Harry Potter doesn’t exist, nor does Diagon Alley, NOR is the HP books proof of London existing. It is evidence of all three, but not proof.
Theists fail to understand that a fact being consistent with their belief is in no way evidence that their belief is true. That is why they can construct a god from nothing, make it consistent with reality(to a degree), and proclaim that as it is consistent with reality, it exists.
Lots of people were born in Paris!
So how do you know you're not one of them?
@fukpoeslaw3613 did you fail connect the dots when you were little? 😆
It’s not “a book”, it’s 66 books, which make up the Bible. That being said, it can be self confirming, because it was written by an estimated 40 authors, across 3 different continents, over 1600 years.
66 or 73 or 81? Tell us you're a Protestant without telling us...
@@thelonebanana6025And your point is what exactly?
so? the authors had access to the older writings too. it's like writing a book sequel, you can make all the prophecies come true that you want, you have access to what the old ones said so you could write whatever in your new book as long as it aligned with that. it's just a bunch of unverifiable stories with no evidence other than itself.
@@_RedLotus_a vast majority of the authors never met eachother so the filling in the answers argument doesn’t really make sense
@@personallynah they wouldn’t have had access to the old writings? If I recall the Jews were quite scholarly for their time. Source?
Both opening statements were decent. The problem started where there was no clear segment for cross examination for each opponents claims.
Cliffe gave his opening statement first, so, taking turns, he should be the first person to ask Matt questions to poke holes in his argument. If Matt answers well, he is successful. If he fails to answer the questions provided, he is unsuccessful. Then it would be Matt’s turn to ask Cliffe (no pun intended) questions to poke holes in his argument, and test the integrity it as well. Otherwise, they are just making statements back and forth that don’t get to clash.
There were also a lot of terms thrown around that needed to be verified also. Like the phrase “internally consistent” or on the other hand “sufficient evidence”. Like what qualifies as internally consistent in the scriptures? And what is the criteria for sufficient evidence?
Poor preacher got his ass kicked
"The evidence for the resurrection is he died and resurrected"
- Cliff
He brought his A Game 🤣that's literally the best he's got
I believe in x and my evidence is x
This is brilliant xd
Cliff almost never directly addresses the criticisms of his flawed positions
The q and a section is better 👌 only sometimes
I almost don’t understand where the argument is .. on almost everything discussed it’s a matter of not being able to prove no disprove one’s claim , mainly referring to the claim Christ has risen . So if it can’t be proven or disproven then what’s wrong with peoples belief in it ?
Cliff is terrifying. He’s like an angry father that’s about to beat you.
You just described Cliff’s God
As of right now he is his own god.
Perfect description.
Just for the record, I didn't mean as a compliment
Why are you guys so toxic? Is this just the fruit of being cynical full-time?
This debate is horrible. To be fair, Cliff asked in the beginning, "How are we going to do this?" Matt said to do it however you would like, so there was no structure for the debate to operate smoothly. That's why they're screaming at each other and cutting one another off.
to be fair, that shows some true colors. that’s not to say you can’t get frustrated if someone is talking over you, but neither of them are ACTUALLY communicating, they’re just giving their point, then there’s a counterpoint, and so on
@@floristfindspeace Its impossible to convince a person of Faith that Jesus is a lie. I cant expect you to understand, because those that believe, we realized the truth and darkness cant overtake us again. But at the same time its impossible to convince a natural man of the things of God, if the natural man does not have faith or want to believe. These kind of debates dont do anything for the debaters, its more for the people who listen. Those who are being saved will hear, and those who are perishing will be like matt. Matt won the debate because i dont think something like this is winnable. Its spiritual and bigger then this life, its not something easily explained. You need to read the Gospels for yourself and either turn away or hear the voice. Thats it.
It comes down to that. Two groups. Sheep and Goats. Wheat, and tares. When the word is being preached or read, the sheep hear the words of Jesus and they follow him, and he will by no means cast them out. But the goats hear or read and then go back to the life of darkness and reject the truth.
@@vladgor4099 so you’re aware that the christian god likes the smell of burning flesh? and that it’s okay to throw babies against rocks? you’re aware that in the bible, it gives clear instructions on how to abort a child you’re not sure is yours if you even THINK your wife cheated? the story of jesus has been told since before the bible, and the flood is also not an original story. it’s very well known that christianity ripped off many pagan beliefs. nothing about that belief makes any sense morally, not even just logically. i don’t believe in the bible not because i want to purposely deny god. the idea of an all loving, all knowing, all powerful and forgiving god that created me with a purpose is so beautiful. beautiful thing to think about. how honoring. but no, i don’t believe in the bible because in my opinion, it’s a joke. and if it’s not, it should be treated as such. if the christian god is who you’ve devoted yourself to, that’s your choice, but don’t try your fear mongering over here. you shouldn’t need an outdated book to tell you how to behave morally. you also shouldn’t use an outdated book to help form your opinion on literal human beings, and their nature. very true that everything comes out in the wash in the end, and that there are definitive things that make us who we are, and definitive/objective truths in life, but only very few. religion prohibits man from evolving because it doesn’t allow for integration and healing of all parts of yourself. it’s the belief that only your god can do that. i do not agree with you. also if i’ve learned anything in life so far, it’s that we are more complicated than we could ever fathom. good people do bad, bad people do good, good people do a little good, bad people to a lot of bad, and so on. we cannot use an outdated book to measure to value in a literal human being. the idea of original sin or being born inherently corrupt is horrendous, and i reject it entirely. i have a suspicion that it’s actually just a metaphor for generational trauma. there is no hell because you’d need a physical body and a brain to experience the torture and hellfire there, same with the concept of heaven and what it offers. if there was a hell, how is it fair that someone who’s went on a killing spree and denied god gets the same punishment as a good and fair person that’s done good in life, but didn’t believe in the bible? or someone that hadn’t even HEARD of christianity, but they get permitted to go, but the person over here has dedicated their entire life to their faith. you don’t see how that would be genuinely unfair? you can’t tell me anything about that is just, it’s the exact opposite. you’re pulled over in a car with your friend going 30 over the speed limit, you’re not handed the ticket. we’re responsible for ourselves, and how we wish to perceive the world, interact with it, and contribute to it. we’re responsible for caring for our neighbor, and our planet.
@@floristfindspeace i will pray for you to be taken out of the deception and darkness you’re living in
@@vladgor4099 Well articulated, my brother. I love Cliffe and there's nothing wrong in agreeing that he lost. Christians are told to study so that we're not embarrassed in defending our faith but ultimately don't walk purely by science or logic (sight). We have our experiences and faith to walk by. We aren't even told to convince everyone without a doubt. We're told to leave alone those that won't listen. It's not our job to convince them. You can't convince someone who's built faith AGAINST God. They're different from people who don't have a faith in God. It's God that knocks on the door of their hearts, but when someone's dedicated their life to helping others reject God, I doubt they're gonna open up to him.
I came here to say what everyone already thinks: Cliffe is essentially shoving his fingers in his ears and screaming... What a bad example for Christians everywhere.
I like what matt said about It doesn't matter how many copies of the Bible there are it still doesn't prove it's true. Harry potter sold millions but it's a fictional book we have no problem distinguishing that. But the Bible is supposed to be true because if there is a god he couldn't demonstrate his existence in any other way but tell people to write a book when he easily could've shown up right now and prove he's real. But he won't do it even though we have modern technology and cell phones and cameras all over. Pretty messed up don't you think?
39:30 the level of dishonesty is astounding in this point, regardless of Matt’s frustration, asserting something like this is very sad
01:01:55 "I don't need to clean up my language at all, sir, you need to clean up your thinking"
Mic Drop Matt Moment
dammnn that was badass
I don't see how that is a good moment for the guy with the headphones. It seems very clear, the guy with the headphones said what is considered as an inappropriate word, the other guy commented that he should clean up his language. The guy with the headphones then responded with what you have quoted. So, is the headphone guy implying that the idea of bad language being not used in a debate is a non-proper way of thinking?
It's really funny sometimes how people try to dwell in fool's intellectualism. Have you really looked at this comment section?
@@thechoosentwice1312why is it an inapropiate word to say in a debate? According to who?
@@thechoosentwice1312and if u dont think that Cliffs thinking on the subject is ”messy” or ”sloppy” and needs cleaning up, then i dont know what to tell ya.
@@Criticalthinking_t is an inappropriate word in general human social interactions. According to the individual named, Cliffe, it was an inappropriate word to use in the debate that is why he stated that the individual should clean uo his language. Let me give you a taste of your own medicine. Why is Cliffe's thinking improper and needs cleaning up? According to who? You didn't seem to understand the point of my comment, if you ask I'd tell you.
The dumbest are always the loudest debaters. RIP Cliffe
Cliff was awesome man
He was in touch with reality
@@mikemarkgunners4439Your mom was awesome man. She was in touch with my junk.
It bothers me when a person dodges a question by asking another question.
1:32:42 So it has to be self-claimed in order for it to matter? The eye witnesses who were there at the time to meet him in person is irrelevant?
The perfume "Chanel" that the person was talking about was the "perfume" used on Jesus body.😃
Lost count how many times Matt's statements were completely ignored and followed up with something completely irrelevant.
That's the patented Knechtle family way!
Is there a debate channel where they treat the discussion like a court proceeding? Like prosecution-direct/cross/rebuttal, defense-direct/cross/rebuttal, where the moderator actually does their job as a "judge" it would be a lot more watchable and might actually help people see where they are being illogical.
Yep, all debates with philosophers more or less.
Right, like a theist judge would go with Matt...come on now.
@@blahtime99 Honesty matters? A real judge did this in Dover v. Miller (2006) -- but you won't go near that because your brainwashing tells you to stay away from uncomfortable truth.
Not the moderator being the judge as we are not after winners but lit up curiosity and see what we as humans can discover and explore all together as the family we are (civilization),
But maybe moderator to ensure that the procedures are not being skipped so then everyone is following court procedures
Jesus is the judge, no human is 🗿
It was so disrespectful they didnt listen to Matt while he was talking.