I am an ex-Muslim. It was very hard to leave Islam. Many years of struggle to leave the faith I was born into. However, now I know it is Jesus the Christ who chose me. I am happy for those days of pain. I like to watch debates on God's existence but never debate with anyone. It is useless according to me. Someone who is looking for God will only find Him. And also, if Jesus does not select someone he can't have faith. Many people who only debate about God's existence are not seeking truth. But I like honesty of some Atheists. Matt is one of them. At least he is far far better than a hypocrite who calls himself Christian for convenience but has not denied himself yet and not carrying his cross and following Christ. Cliffe has patience like a tortoise. I love him. May "Abba" bless him and his family. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Christ and He is the King.
As an ex-atheist, what I did was read the gospels and left out whether it all happened or not, and simply came to the conclusion that if Jesus were real, I would want to know Him. Well that is exactly what God did.
Personal testimonies of having transcendent and personal experiences with god(s) aren't unique to Christianity. If you want to make the case that *_your_* particular experience is true, then you should provide the actual evidence for the existence of your deity. That would then make your comment unique from every other religious convictions, and it'll no longer be based on a non sequitur and actually have some explanatory value.
@@onionbelly_ The problem is, science is limited to material, so what you are asking is not possible at this time anyway. I do remember at age 10 or 11 I considered how one could see and process things material without contact, and wondered what Genius put this all together? There had to be a Creator Genius unexplainable and unseen. However, evolution taught as fact in honors history class took that away from me at age 15. You choose to believe me or anyone else or not, but, I do understand. You have to have your own encounter experience. I'm here to simply say you or anyone else who wanted to can.
@@onionbelly_ there’s evidence of the flood. There’s evidence of the parting of the Red Sea. There’s evidence of the crucifixion. Evidence of Mt Sinai. Evidence of the plagues. Evidence of Babylon. Etc etc
Had the same experience except I wanted to know the historical evidence as well. For me it was reading through Gospels again and asking God for clarity on Jesus. Isn't God great?
I used to be agnostic, until one day I started to think what’s the meaning of it all? Work, make money, having a family, kids, death, for what? A limited time. Then I became so scared of life after death and for the first time ever I prayed to God that if he was real he would send someone to guide me towards him because doing it alone was too hard. Months later, I met someone in college from Chi Alpha, and they introduced me to the Bible. I Did my research, read and investigated the chronological timeline, authors, time, and the word of God. As I read through the book of John, my heart was being transformed in a way that I can’t explain.... I was filled with the Holy Spirit and repented of my sins and even though I don’t understand everything; I accept it because Christ died for me. He set me free of my sins, and transformed my heart. Thank you God for changing my stubborn, and prideful self. I pray for you, that you will seek the truth and find out that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life✨💖 Take your time, God is so patient and loving.
So . . . you became so scared of death, and if there is life after death, that you decided it is better to play it safe and save yourself instead of finding truth itself: wherever, that might lead you.?
My favorite part is when they have the giving standoff. Love that these guys were able to speak freely and have a moment of jest, despite being completely opposed ideologically and spiritually.
@dogelife7901 I really like when debaters who are normally angry at each other start experiencing technical difficulties and complaints about there connection
Very good debate format : Short first statement and then straight to q&a from the public and both answers can be compared right on the spot. All these debates should adopt a similar format.
Children can't understand the concept of a god until they're at least 3 or 4. And yet, they are born with the capacity to love. Animals never know anything about god, and yet they love.
You can brainwash anyone to do anything. A baby born in a loving family will understand love. A child growing up in a violent family will be a violent child. Abuse happens behind closed doors. Same with dogs and cats. Freedom of will makes us do good or evil acts. God is with you. I hope you can pray and find God.
It is not the fact that love proves god. But Love proves that you do have a free will, and since Free Will is something immaterial, it must’ve been created by something immaterial. Hope this helped 😊 (btw we are talking about the Love that Cliffe is talking about not the Bio-Chemical reaction)
it’s theology, there barely any need for evidence. however, cliffe did give evidence, he cited a lot of sources, while Matt did not, infact a lot of his claims were “I don’t know”, so please don’t say “there wasn’t an ounce of evidence” by the way im not implying that Matt needs to cite his evidence or else it’s not a valid argument, I’m just rebuking your statement
all these people critical of Cliff, wouldn't talk like this in public or in any serious forum. typical keyboard warriors that get no respect here or in open, honest discussions.
I would pay money to speak in front of him. What in the world makes you think ANYONE would be afraid to speak in public. He is on the losing side of this argument. Just because your parents brainwashed you into having false heroes and believing in sky daddies doesnt give any of these morons any credibility. Keyboard warriors ? LOL uhh that is a title for people who talk tough. Nobody in here (on the skeptics' side) is talking tough. They are talking from doubt, skepticism, education, research, and the reluctance to not jump to conclusions, and only believe in things with evidence. Try reading some harder books, not just 1 easy one that promises you cake at the end.
@TechSys If your own parents had given you no moral training, would you be looking for someone to love, or would you have fallen into taking advantage of others? I saw an NDE where the man stood before God asking Him questions. He asked about all the people who have never heard of Jesus. He asked about a man in an isolated African village, for instance. God actually said to Him: "He would know not to steal his neighbour's goat, "for instance", meaning that we all have our consciences, right? Many people who meet the Creator come away with the feeling that we give Him a few laughs, as do our own small children, when we actually will speak to Him. Selfish little fallen brats, we usually treat Him like poochie and ignore or make fun of Him! No wonder when we choose Justice over Love, we get sent to outer darkness or are mocked by demons. But the REAL question is, even if what you said is true, why do you care. By caring, you sort of prove yourself incorrect...
@@darkeen42 According to you. Bravo. Now tell me who Jesus was, and where we can learn about the historical Jesus, because I would Love to ascertain your claims about Jesus without manuscripts to back them up. Please, go on and explain who Jesus was, and where we can find this well preserved historical account of the Jesus of Nazareth that you are submitting, without sourcing the Gospel records that you reject. Please enlighten us all with your historical evidence of Jesus; without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD.
@@darkeen42 But the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD is rejected by you as accurate history, so please do not source this manuscript according to your world-view that rejects it as True. Instead I am asking you to provide evidence for your bold submission regarding who Jesus was, and provide your historical evidence of who Jesus was without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands P52. I'm ascertaining your historical claim that you made on Jesus, and I am requesting your historical evidence for Jesus without sourcing the first and second century NT manuscripts.
@@darkeen42 Muhammad was indeed a historical space-time person who really lived and really died and we have historical evidence to verify Muhammad and who Muhammad was. But now we are talking about Jesus and who Jesus was, and I promise I am not throwing you curve-ball here; in that I am merely requesting your historical evidence of the Jesus you have submitted without sourcing any of the NT manuscripts as your historical evidence, like Rylands Library Papyrus P52.
Knechtle is a stereotypical caricature of every apologist out there. His arguments hold not one iota of value in logical reasoning. If I were a theist while still possessing the ability to reason, I would be cringing at every word this guy spewed out in this debate.
@@rrock2025 ironically you used reason to come to that (false) conclusion, and since laws of logic are eternal, abstracted and metaphysical entities, yes they require the mind of God to exist.
I have been a long time subscriber of this channel. The comments are usually quite civil except for when cliffe debates matt, then some of the people who follow matt get very bitter in the comments. I find it strange how some of the atheists in the comments claim to be morally superior, yet mock at the same time.
I found Cliffe to be disingenuous, consistently misrepresenting both the bible and Matt's position. I was hoping for some deep arguments from the Christian perspective, but instead Cliffe flowed anecdotes and built straw men enough to fill all the fields of England.
"deep arguments from the Christian perspective" Those do not exist. Religious people don't have a good proof of their god, that's pricesely why they rely on faith. Those religious public talkers are always dishonest like this one or for the few that are not they have a major flaw in their logic that they can't see because of their indoctrination into religion.
@@joshlete Wow are you really going to keep insulting me like this, it's really not nice and not deserved. What the fuck is wrong with you? Let's start with the first thing that CK said after his introduction with a useless example: "Love shows us that there is more to reality than matter and energy. And the only way there could be more to reality is if there is some kind of god... blablabla" Do you realise the amount of bullshit in this opening he chose? You get two sentences from this apologist, but they are simply two dumb assertions without any proof. As to why he gives us no proof for what he says here? Looks to me like he doesn't have any proof and try to find justifications. If he had a proof of that, he would have given it. He starts from the conclusion and then looks for unrelated things like "love" that could be vaguely interpreted to justify his conclusion. He doesn't build up arguments to reach a conclusion, he already has it. So yes, I do say those words he said here are dumb bullshit, I suppose you won't agree, so please give me your enlightened opinion on how this is a rational way of thinking what he said there. Do I really need to go further in this debate? Also, are you really calling me "stuck in a rut" because I have a higher quality level of requirements than you? I won't accept the existence of any god until there is a rational proof that a god exist. Faith is just wishful thinking, I need some valid evidence before reaching a conclusion and anyone who doesn't follow this method of thinking either doesn't care about the truth of what they believe in, or they are too dumb to understand why they are believing in things that they don't have a good reason to believe in.
@@joshlete Yes I admit that was not a true logical or, so I'll rephrase what I meant to avoid the fallacy. But I disagree on the rest of your paragraph. If you care about the truth of what you believe in, you cannot believe in something without an satisfying evidence. I am calling dumb the people who don't care about the truth of what they believe in. Don't you agree that it is justified? I am also calling out those who have a very low standard of evidence. Because indeed it is true that people have different standards for what a satisfying evidence is. However for something as important as an all powerful invisible magical deity existing, I am convinced that people should require evidence of the highest quality before being convinced. Nothing supernatural has ever been observed. So to make an extraordinary claim like your christian god, I need pretty much extraordinary proof to know. And yet, the proofs we get are barely passable at best. I have heard so many times christians/muslims/jews say that they believe their god is real because it is written in their holy book... Most religious people have a bad understanding of why they believe in god. Don't say that I do not understand them. I simply do not agree at all with their reasoning, or rather sometimes lack of it... What's wrong with calling people dumb because of what they believe in? Beliefs can be dangerous, we should not be scared of challenging people on their beliefs, whether religious or not. If you told me you believe the Earth is flat or that you believe in a young 6000 years old Earth I'd call you stupid.... Wouldn't I be justified? Yes, as much as possible I use evidence to guide myself to truth or to take an action. I'll always look left and right before crossing a road, etc. That's enough evidence to know if it is safe. I'm saying that for a claim as crazy as religion, you need even better evidence that normal. I'm not seing any evidence. And miracles... come on please you should know they are not real. The ones documented are severely lacking in evidence and swimming in a sea of fabricated false miracles. And even if they were real, why would they point to the christian god? Muslims for exemple also believe in miracles... Also... why would your god bother to heal a single person? Was it because he was bored after killing 15 thousands innocent babies that day? If your god is real he'd be the worst mass killer in the world. And maybe even in fiction... pick whatever dark lord from a book you want and I'm pretty sure your god supposedly killed more people than him according to the bible... "do you think they are dumb to assume that there was a God involved? Or perhaps it's much wiser to believe that we all came into existence from... nothing" Facepalm... The classic we come from nothing bullshit. I'll remind you that the bible say even more stupid things about your creation idea: the universe was created in 7 days, and he created plants before creating light ahah Ah also the first man was created from clay... lol By the way here that's the same fallacy you accused me of. A nice false logical dichotomy. There are other possibilities that a god creating the universe or nothing. Adding god to the mystery of the universe would only raise more questions. You don't have any proof that a deity was there to create the universe, adding it just adds a supernatural complexity needlessly. I don't know if there was a god, but what you said is clearly not a good argument for it. "concluding that God doesn't exist sounds far more foolish than the alternative" When did I say that your god doesn't exist? You just proved that you didn't understand my main point. We don't have any satisfying evidence for the christian god, we don't have it either for any other god. That's why I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god. That does not mean I think there is no god. That means I don't know if there is a god, but I do not believe in any god because the evidence I have found is severely lacking so I simply refuse to accept the theistic claim. You can't prove that there is no god at all. Can you prove that ghosts don't exist ? That's the problem with the supernatural, particularly when it's invisible and does not interact with us... You can't disprove those things, and yet we are no closer to being justified in believing they exist. The burden of proof is on theists. That's why I am waiting for evidence, and that's why I am pissed of at apologists who appeal to emotions and only do preaching instead of debating and giving arguments and evidences. Same reason I do not respect much religious people who can't justify why they believe in their god. By the way.... Do you believe that Allah is real and that the Koran was of divine inspiration too? How about Krishna, are The Vedas the word of god too? There has been so many religions, the arguments people make to justify are the same that the arguments people of another religion make to justify their god. Those people generally can point out the flaws in that other person reasoning, but they can't find it on themself even though the arguments are often pretty much the same.
15:20 Is Cliffe not aware that most animals can also love? It is hardly a uniquely human trait. Is he so blinded by his creation myth fantasy reality that he is unaware that HE to is an animal? Religion may not make you stupid but it certainly helps make you clueless, or at least to appear so.
@Phelan If love and all these things are mechanical, then love can mean anything. Not only that, it means things like murder can show to just be a byproduct of our evolution. Love in its totality cannot be described by science, unless you can show me sources.
Matt has so much patients, because everytime Cliffe gives his religious sermons about how god=logic and the ONLY way to have a mind is if there was a God. My whole family is very religious and nearly all of his voice raging rants are very poor examples of logic. Cliffe seems to get more irate with every passing second. It's almost as if he can't stand someone not thinking like him. I wonder why he agreed to this debate? He is way out of his league with Matt, who was always calm and never yelling at the audience. Why do preachers do that?
I find it humorous how so many atheist make the statement that "I'm not saying God doesn't exist" JUST so they can try to avoid any kind of questioning about what they believe. Then spend their time attacking others who make the claim that they believe in God. You might have fun attacking people who believe in God but keep in mind those people have the courage to stand for what they believe in while you hide behind semantics. (Just a heads up don't bother trying to engage me in a debate. I wont reply to any messages)
Wezlb8 Yeah its circular reasoning and also why some theists wont debate this Matt guy. His wordplay is good, but he has a habit of declaring that "people are putting words in his mouth" when they catch him circling around in his arguments. Then he hangs up on them. Sad!
So do you accept everything's existence on someone's word or do you want evidence? Why would I not want evidence? Bigfoot, aliens.....I guess you take those on FAITH.
Are you really so daft that you missed the irony of refusing to stand by your position? I really try not to believe that theists are dumb but boy do they make it hard...
Sorry I'm abit late to the party but I had to comment What's wrong with people? Even being a Christian I can see how illogical cliff is! The strength he has is his orating abilities which deserves an A+ no doubt about it. But it looks like he appeals to peoples emotions whereas Matt seems to make sense with facts I duno rethinking my faith
@@danielkanu8554 And yet, when I say to a former Christian that they were not actually a Christian, I'm trounced upon with claims of bigotry..? Of course, the comment itself is nonsense.
@@playzfahdayz What mygiftmatters wrote is easily interpreted as they hated God while they were an atheist, which I agree with danieldanu8554 seems nonsensical, since one would not hate something if they did not think it existed. Perhaps mygiftmatters meant that they hated God when they were not an atheist, but they did not clearly communicate that.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn If someone said to me that they used to be a Christian, and that their beliefs in that time were that Jesus Christ never existed, I would point out that that belief is counter to any sensible definition of Christian I can imagine. Similarly, if someone says they were an atheist and hated God at the same time, that makes me wonder whether they believed the whole time that God existed, which is counter to any sensible definition of atheist. Further, many Christian apologists claim they used to be atheist, and use that as part of their strategy of trying to convince others to become Christian. Some of them similarly claim to have hated God when they were atheist (which, again, makes no sense). Because of this history, if someone else similarly claims to have been a God-hating atheist, I am wary that they are just claiming to have been an atheist in an effort to make their argument more persuasive.
@@havard94 cliffe is basically going "if god doesnt exist then good and evil is subjective, and we dont want that. If there is no god then life is meaningless and we dont want meaningless lives."
@@carlosbecerril3317 call it God or intelligent design it shows there has to be a superior being than us. Otherwise your the person that defines good and evil, which if you believe that then how can you say who’s right and who’s wrong and yes your life would be meaningless in the big picture if there is no superior being or intelligent design. These are evidence that there has to be some superior being than us. He’s trying to emphasise nobody would can live them out truly!
@@havard94 no, you are literally making a leap in logic. The ONLY way you can say any of this is with an appeal to emotion: "if god foes not exist then life is ultimately meaningless." Is fine, but reason cliffe is giving for why its wrong is because we dont want a meaningless life, that's an appeal to emotion. What we want is irrelevant to whether or not its true.
@@dattebayosigma90744 I agree. I'm an atheist and neither myself nor any atheist I have ever met or corresponded with thinks this. However, many Christians have no problem with the concept, since according to them, God 'spoke everything into existence' from absolutely nothing.
Something that Cliffe said that bothered me very much, something that was highly suspect. He said he grew up in New England (as did I). As a matter of fact, he lives 4 towns over from me. He said that at his school that he and 1 other were the only believers in Christ. Now, I will go out on a limb and say that is a lie because just 4 towns over I experienced the exact opposite.
Exactly, i live in NYC, work in CT, and travel alot in New England, where some of the largest Dioceses exist. Not to mention huge populations of Irish Catholics, Roman Catholics, and other religious denominations. It was a flat out lie!
It fits better with his plot of misunderstood, self-sacrificing and brave christians. It's hard to prove in a society where christianity is the religion of the majority.
As a Christian, I will not throw Matt under the buss like some atheists might do to Cliffe - just to show support for my position. I do think this debate was way long...but I give credit to both sides doing a good job presenting what they believe in.
P Foster I do see what you are saying as Cliffe seemed to give more of a reason(s) why he believes in God, rather than providing any kind of evidence that people can take away and do some research on for themselves. However, in fairness, although he seemed pretty mellow in this debate, Matt can get a little demeaning with people as well. I was impressed with Matt because I have seen some debates where he really didn't do very well. But in this situation, I don't feel like he did well because Cliffe did bad - instead I think he did well on the merits of his own arguments and rebuttals. To me the real test is to see how they answer questions - like if they try to slither out of it or not. I think in this debate, neither attempted to do so, which is why I think they both did a pretty good job.
There must be a god, because when Matt was religious he felt God calling him to do the Good Work. Well, God must exist cause Matt is doing the good work so eloquently
About seventy Matt's fans (who believes that life comes from nonlife) trying to prove by comments, that he won:) The fruits of rejection of Christ's way/commandments: Stalin (and USSR), Chernobyl, Mao, Pol Pot, French revolution, Hitler, North Korea, Islamists and other terrorists etc. Experiments on people. All crimes, AIDS, satanism, racism, all kinds of porn, drugs, GMOs, perverted churches (of the hypocrites, who pretend to be disciples of Christ), the most terrible weapons of mass destruction etc. = destroyed planet! That is why rejection of Christ's way is wrong and foolish. End of the debate! You know what Jesus Christ taught, and you know that this is right, but you're doing the opposite. And all that I have listed - It is the opposite to Christ's teaching.
Why would a Christian like someone who leads people to hell? Are you sure you are a Christian? I wouldn't want my worse enemy spend eternity in hell. For you that is ok?
"Since God is dead all things are permitted" must be an ironic tombstone epitaph for many of the deniers over the past 3000yrs when the Psalmist proclaimed "a fool in his heart says there is no God' Ps 19
Since the Bible is the only scripture that concerns you, allow me assure deniers of one fact. It might shock u but no one goes to hell in a Biblical sense unless they want to. The idea that people are in hell crying to be let out is false. Just read Dante or CS Lewis who put it this way, “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” People will go to hell because they want to avoid an ultimate authority who tells them what they should and shouldn’t do. People in hell are saying it’s miserable, but they wouldn’t want to be in heaven if God is just pushing us around all the time. On the other hand people want to go to heaven and submit to God in a loving relationship, a fact that give their life meaning, hope and destiny. The most fair understanding of the afterlife is the Christian view that God only gives you what you want. If you want to be your own savior and lord, you will get it. Your choice! As atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, “If God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist.” Such perfect circular logic will appeal to many who demand moral autonomy at the price of "unyielding despair." (B. Russell)
A fascinating debate! I think that God is a concept to help us humans live within certain boundaries and avoid becoming monsters. Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Mohammad were all great human beings and wanted to give our lives a certain direction according to their ideas and concepts prevalent in their times. Unfortunately in the name of God humanity has done a lot of wrong things - just to prove my God is better than yours. The situation has become alarming today. Muslims and Christians are out o destroy the world - each religious community assuming that they have been wrongly hurt by the other. Based on just this fact and that science has provided many solutions for the benefit of human-kind, I tend to agree with Matt. Let's keep our God love or Christ love private. Let's be secular. Let our laws be secular. Let's love each other not because we are Muslims or Christians or Hindus but because love makes a lot of sense - economically or otherwise.
***** the only people that believe we came from nothing are people like you. There are not 2500 prophecies that is simply a lie, and it is also a lie that anything like that has come true, a prophecy is something that can be interpreted at the time, not something you need to look back on later to confirm. Furthermore you argument that people were not there to observe something clearly applies to your belief in the bible. Homosexuals were created by your so called god, it is a natural thing, it is evident in animals, if you disagree please let me know the moment you chose to be a heterosexual. Abortion has no relevance to evolution, before I thought you were stupid but that statement proves you are either a troll or under the age of 12. There are many good people in the world that do not need god for anything, your blanket, wild and false assertions are not backed by evidence at all. The bible is easily proven to be false because of the huge falsehoods in it. We know evolution is true so that shows the bible got the origin of man wrong, we know the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old so that shows the timeline is wrong in the bible, we know there has been no global flood for at least 40 000 years which proves the flood story wrong, we know the ark story is ludicrous anyway and we know how the earth was formed. All these things the bible got wrong and quite frankly if it was inspired by god you'd think he would get them right. Educate yourself from unbiased non creationist sources or stay our of adult conversations
My argument against Cliffe Knechtle point at 1:01:45 King James Bible, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."
@@bernierasmusson9257 Alright. Well God does take the life that He gave us. But murder is unjustified killing. You'll have to appeal to a standard higher than God to make that claim. Death is a change in location of the soul. There's nothing wrong with death. God takes everyone's life. The human mortality rate is 100% so I don't know why you call it murder when God floods the earth but you won't call it murder when we die by "natural" causes/old age. You need to be consistent.
Does Cliffe not know the counterarguments? I know that he does because I've seen him in other debates where the flaws in his arguments were pointed out. So, he chooses to ignore those valid counterarguments, which is disingenuous.
@45:52 In trying to refute Cliffe’s point about ultimate meaning and purpose in life, Matt actually inadvertently supported it. Friend, that car that you have, even though one day it will break down and end up in the junkyard, did not come into existence by accident. It was created by an intelligent human being for the purpose of safe expedient transportation. You did not arbitrarily attribute that meaning to the car. Now, you could freely choose to use that car for a different purpose. For example, you could use it as a weapon to run over animals if that’s what you wanted to do, but not only would that be morally wrong, it would be an abominable adulteration of the ultimate purpose of the car.
Matt’s point was simply that you can value what you have and appreciate it while you have it, and it being finite doesn’t mean anything just because it doesn’t matter in a billion years or that we came about by natural processes the result is the same OUR EXISTENCE is the result whether or not we were created by god, furthermore life isn’t an accident life arises due to its thermodynamic nature, life is a dynamic state open thermodynamic system meaning it freely interacts with the matter and energy surrounding it and is subject to change, life can be seen as a manifestation of thermodynamic principles, there are several studies highlighting this
2:06 Yeah, they are "unique perspectives" but the most important event of that religion, the resurrection, is not even remotely consistent across the 4 gospels. The details of who was there, who saw what, how many angels (or if any angels were present), zombie jews or no zombie jews... the BIG news stories aroind this cemtral belief vary widely to the point of absurdity. And NOBODY saw the resurrection event itself! They just discovered an empty tomb. Of course WHO discovered the empty tomb is ALSO not in agreement between the 4 books, and those who "saw" zombie jesus didnt even recognize him. Consistency? Hardly. But of course few Christians have read and compared all four accounts. And it is all beside the point. Written stories (especially ones written decades after the event as in all of the gospels) are not evidence of the true nature of actual events.
I'm with you on the logistics. Who could hear mumbles from a broken battered face hoisted high on a cross?..the garden where jesus prays alone - how is there a transcript? or of his temptation by satan? Thomas is like who are you and the voice, nothing clicks? So this guy has stigmata or something and Thomas is playing about in a man's wounds, yet believers think that makes the crap more credible?
and how superior and blessed a man could have been if he was allowed to see the resurrecting body of Christ! When Jesus himself rose, Peter saw his bare hands with the marks of crucifiction.
All you need to know about Cliffe is that in his opening story he refers to the kid with cerebral palsy as "spastic". Mind that Cliffe is not claiming to be telling events as they happened somewhere, this is just a made up story where he chose the exact wording.
What's your point? I find it interesting that you picked one word in a 2hr video to focus on. I'm guessing you have a personal experience in some manner with CP?
I thought that too, but he said in such a way as to imply that the other kids were calling the kid with CP 'spastic'. There were a lot of other issues with what he said, tho.
@@XiagraBalls sure, that was the implication, but the slur has a lot of history. The "Look how I use this disabled prop in my story!" is vile all on its own. He probably tells the story of the good Samaritan with added slurs too. *If this bad/broken 'person' can do it you upstanding clean folks have no excuse...* 🤮
What really puzzles me is how can Matt say he's a humanist and right after that say he's also a feminist. A humanist is someone already concerned with the rights of ALL human beings, no matter the gender or any other characteristic about them. So, is he saying "i care about all humans, but especially about women"? Because, in case he has been living under a rock, on this present day and age women no longer have to fight for equal rights (at least in the Western world. Perhaps in Arabian countries it still makes sense to be a feminist) so, what happens when someone is fighting for a cause that requires no fight? A lot of crying for no reason and insults to people who have done no wrong! And that's exactly what modern day feminists are doing (besides embarrass themselves). I'm amazed at the fact that Matt is one also. Now, as for mister Cliffe's rant (at 39:35), he managed to put a bullet on his own foot by saying "we were all created in the image of God, and i hate racism because it's wrong". Isn't his mistake here quite obvious? If he belives we humans were ALL created to match God's own features, but he also aknowledges that we are all different looking (hence racism exists)... then WICH RACE better represents God's image??? We have to pick one! Is God white, yellow, black, asian looking, or what? For a long time, white europeans used exactly that idea to practice slavery, based on the "fact" that God had to look like them (since they were their chosen people and the others were inferior). Can't Cliffe realize the problem with that bullshit? That line of reasoning is exactly what further separates human races apart and leads to racism (that he claims to hate), by focusing on "image", on the features of a people who wishes to look like God Himself and uses those very differences to claim superiority over the others that don't look the same. It's not just bullshit, it's DANGEROUS bullshit! Besides, all you have to do to see what mister Cliffe really knows about anything he's talking about, is just to check the video at 1:17:28 and you'll get "Science claims that the best model for the beginning of Universe is Evolution"... Do i even have to comment?
+Jimmy David it is just labels, they may not be defined in the same way for everyone. he may have definitions of feminism and humanism that do not contradict each other. you should focus more on his ideas instead of his labels.
45 minutes in... is Cliffe actually going to make real points... or just preach? EVERYTHING he is saying is just a sermon with fluffy thoughts and wishful thinking. This guy doesn't actually know how to debate.... kind of sad really. At least Matt is addressing the points very clearly and not with tales of yore, and excepts from the bible that are subject to interpretation. Cliffe pretty much proves my point in his response to life after death... wishful thinking. He is clearly being intellectually dishonest. Appeals to claims with no proof and asserting that it is true. Matt already rebutted that with the alien analogy. You have thousands of people alive today that "claim" aliens, why shouldn't I believe them, but believe a 2000 year old account in a book that has been translated and rewritten many times.
Matt, an atheist, kept making appeals to objective morality?!?!! His worldview is not privy to make such appeals....you have none. Cliffe kept emphasizing that the existence of an intricately designed universe and its intelligibility point to an intelligent origin,, as all of humanity has inferred in our history. They used their reason to conclude that...even your great prophet Dawkins said it seems designed, but the lack of reason to see that it logically follows that something that seems designed might have a designer, but nope! The evidence that has sufficed for all other humans, atheists are too dense or disingenuous to admit. Science and reason, ok. Science: never has anyone observed one species turn into another, Evolutionists make that inference(faith by what they consider fossil evidence)...reason: never have we observed something coming from nothing, life from non-life...so the universe is something, it did not come from nothing...life did not come from a rock and primordial soup...that's reason, which the lot of you seem to lack. MORALITY: You have no right if you claim no God. And if you think you do go ahead and try to make the case for it.
@@walterdaems57 you call the dialogues he has with students bullying? Why don't you rebut his points instead of this soft soap you try to comfort yourself with....you like Matt, all you do is refuse all evidence that confront you and when pressed on an issue you fall on that cheap cop out of, like Hitchens said, "our beliefs are not beliefs" type of rationale,, as if you don't have a worldview.....you do, just no good arguments, zero evidence, and insults,, Atheists comments are the most ad hominem in nature. Can't argue reason so you go after the person. Please. Grow some balls and be honest with yourself, you want atheism to be true coz the existence of God and the chance that you'll be morally accountable is highly inconvenient, and you wanna live your life how you want. You wanna be God.
I love how cliffe freaks out after matts first question that he had to address, I love how cliffe can make several assertions and offers no logical proof of why those assertions are true, and I love how cliffe repeats everything he says like talking points of a politician....
@Jacob Watson Though repeating "I love" three times for three different arguments is clearly not as annoying as repeating an entire argument like Cliff did...
Hi Marco, so what are the alternative ,? This guy gives rational explanation for how we experience reality. how do you live your life and what is the evidence that what you believe and stand for is truth?
Cliff uses so many tired old arguments from Christian apologetics that have already been shelved while ignoring everything Matt says... so much #Facepalm
Why do christians always say things like "it is objectively wrong to hurt children for fun" I don't get it. Haven't they read Psalm 137:9? "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Well it says "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" And I interpret that as meaning "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" The implication being that according to the bible, enjoying killing children is at least sometimes right, which means that it can't be objectively wrong.
Jesus said " But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." So fantasizing about sinning is the same as doing it. The "psalmist' as you call it is traditionally thought of as being Jeremiah. The words Jeremiah used were god's own, as said in Jeremiah 1 “The lord… …said to me: I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” So this verse about being happy when killing children is condoned by god. It is not the only place in the bible where god condones the killing of children, often as a part of a genocide he orders. I only chose the verse I did, because it used the word "happy", I could have chosen from many more. You need to read your bible more.
You say that these culture's were vile, were the children vile too? The bible says nothing about sending them to heaven. What about the first born of Egypt, are Egyptians vile too, or was it just the oldest children of that generation that happened to be vile? 2nd Timothy 3 16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." So the verse saying "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" was "inspired by god" and "make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.". I can't remember the verse were it is recanted, nor the verse that explains that god didn't agree with it. In fact, when reading it in context with the rest of the books of the old testament, it doesn't seem out of line with gods personality at all. I'm sure you are a good person, your comments here show that you are more moral than your god. You would be an even better person if you didn't let your morality be corrupted by ancient superstitions. I hope you do read the bible objectively.
You do seem relatively friendly (abuse comes from both sides). I also realize you don't have all the answers (neither do I), and I don't expect to change your mind on an internet forum. I honestly hope you consider the bible objectively. It is a rare christian that does, and they often walk away non believers. I maintain that you would be at least as good, and probably a better person if you didn't believe. There is nothing moral that you couldn't do as a non believer that you do do now. On the other hand, as a non believer you wouldn't feel the need to justify genocide and child killing. Don't be scared to doubt. There is no bogey man on the other side of the door.
***** Surely if god sent these kids to heaven, that would make him worse? Think about it: If god has the ability to make a pre-emptive strike and kill children, therefore ushering them straight into heaven, when they would have otherwise (as you put it) grown up to become heathens and condemned, then why does he only do it for THOSE children? That would mean that billions upon billions of people that are going to go to hell could had been saved by god via this method, but he chose not to.
Cliffe, im not sure if you will ever read this. I want to tell you, you have inspired me so much and i have learned a great deal from watching you speak. God Bless and thank you!
Platitudes and evasiveness is a tool of the Atheist. It's way more difficult to hear an atheist make unsupported moral claims....what's 'good' 'right' 'ought' 'should', atheists have no case for such things.
@@angru_arches Pretty simple. I don't want to be murdered. I wouldn't like it if someone stole from me. I wouldn't want someone to harm my children. I don't want these things for me, so I agree that I won't do them to you if you agree you won't do them to me. Then we're both happy. No god needed.
@@lostfan5054 oh, feelings...right, you wouldn't like for those things to be done to you...but what's the argument that therefore I shouldn't do it to you? What if robbing you makes me richer, happier, and if I'm smart enough to get away with it I do the same till the end of my days? And when I die that's it, everything is over. What damn should I give about another 'accident' we call persons? Can you really tell me I shouldn't steal and kill even if it benefits me? And if you can, with what authority?
1:44:59 Matt did get something correct..the nun Teresa (not my mother) was in love with suffering and raised millions for the Catholic Church and used almost none of it for the suffering people she used to raise the money. I wish people would stop using her as a model of a Christian as she was not.
Matt cannot rationally justify why he values human life. Its that simple. He loses. He believes life is an accident. That makes life ultimately meaningless. Its pure logic. This is what Cliffe appealed to. Logic. That's why Cliffe won.
This is one of the most pathetic brazen lies I've seen in a while. There's literally hours of Matt talking about why and how he values human life. Hours of Matt talking about secular humanism in depth, which is almost exclusively justifying and valuing human life. The truth is that YOU believe "life is ultimately meaningless without God". What really makes your comment pathetic is claiming "Matt believes life is an accident", how many times does he have to say "i don't know" until you'll acknowledge his actual claims? He's probably explicitly said it thousands of times, yet here you are lying through your teeth.
yes he can he is here, job done, simple, he wins, he does not believe life is an accident, ultimate meaning is not needed, it's logic, which cliff failed 2 address, that's why he lost badly...
What’s wrong with life being an accident? What’s wrong with personal meaning? Just value other people as they are in the same boat of this seemingly meaningless existence. I value other people because they, like me, are all looking for the same thing and I can relate to their struggles. I can love people, not because I’m supposed to, but because these people help me grow. Value should not be given, it’s earned and your value comes from how you change other people.
Cliffe, your atheist friends live for money? Really? You sure you're not just making that up? It might be different for other places on earth but I don't know a single atheist, and I know dozens, that would ever say they live for money. Practically all of them say that they live to make the world a better place compared to when they were born and they hope this brings joy and happiness to themselves, their offspring and their fellow human beings. I think you are making this up to make us look bad.
"My atheist friends". Hard to imagine an atheist putting up with Cliff foe more than four minutes. High on my list of men not to be stuck in a lift with.
Lying is a core Christian tenet, Cliffe is in all probability lying when he says he has atheist friends, he may have acquaintances that are atheist , but atheist never, no atheist could befriends with a biased bigot like Knectle that can't stand any one having a different view to his, he demonstrated theirs in another debate with Matt Dillahunty were he lost himself big time and constantly shouted and ranted at Dillahunty to shut up.
12:00 Cliffe's argument is: disabled kid believes in Jesus, therefore god is real. Our brains experience emotions, like love, therefore there must be a big, invisible guy out there. "There's more to reality than matter and energy" because human brains produce emotions? This nonsensical crap is supposed to impress anyone? Sorry, Cliffe. That's not how grown-ups present and support claims. We use *evidence*, *logic* and *reason*. You don't get to jump to conclusions, like there's a big, invisible wizard in the sky from the fact that humans experience emotions. That's a ridiculous an completely unsupported claim and there are *much better* and *much simpler* explanations for emotions. You need to *independently* support your claims about your imaginary sky wizard, with *evidence*.
Actually, I'd argue they don't, and that they should stick with the classics. Though I disagree with his metaphysics, I can at least read Aquinas and say "yeah, I see how a not-crazy person could believe that." But the newer apologetic approaches (evidentialism, and *FSM forbid* presuppositionalism) strike me as basically garbage.
1:20:30 - Cliffe doesn't understand the term he is criticizing. He says "entomological nihilism" .... or just, nihilism... is the view that nothing can be known for absolute certainty. Correction - Nihilism's definition (check it yourself) - "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." What Cliffe was actually referring to was Hard Solipsism - "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist." Cliffe primarily understands that Atheists disagree with him, but he lazily doesn't bother to accurately understand exactly how, which ISN'T THAT HARD TO DO, and then he arrogantly starts asserting they are wrong and something is wrong with them all while not having a reasonable understanding of what he is criticizing. He is a grown up child.
No. Thank you for providing the timestamp to prove that what you yourself said is incorrect. Cliffe describes nihilism correctly and doesn't mention Solipsism at all (though Matt does reference his own scoliosis earlier in the debate).
At 49:00 IF there is a God,and Jesus was who he said he was then,Christianity will correct that those who spend eternity in Hell,would rather be there than Heaven,because they really don't want GOD.
So in Cliffes opening, he said that students have faith they will get a diploma on graduation day because there’s a bunch of evidence that the university will give them a diploma. That’s not faith, that’s an evidence based position.
In Cliffe's discussions with students, he defines faith as trust based on evidence. He rejects the idea that faith must be without evidence. Instead, what most people call faith, he calls gullibility and naivety. I happen to agree with him.
@@ninjason57 Reputable scientific studies would be my preferred evidence. Why, do you have some suggestions of where strong evidence of the supernatural could be found?
I love debates like this because they provide great food for thought and really challenge peoples' beliefs. I do agree with many of the comments that say CK's positions and rebuttals sound much more like sermons based on his faith, than cogent arguments based on sound logic. Of course, considering that he is a minister who's given sermons weekly for years, it makes does sense that he'd do that in this debate. What it doesn't do, however, is make a strong case for the argument ... especially when facing someone like Matt.
Like Matt? He is hardly a threat to the faith. He is considered a bit of a joke. People debate him because in planting seeds you might get a few converts. At the end of the day, I could care less…I’m not going to lose sleep over atheists who believe they have serious evidence for their beliefs. They don’t, that’s why there is a book the Devils Delusion. Look it up.
@@michaelbrickley2443 you realise that just by implying that atheists need to provide evidence for their beliefs, you admit to not even understand what atheism is. Let alone its arguments.
@@catposter2361 I understand that atheism is for people afraid of the light. You think this is some deep philosophical belief system? Explain to me why approx. 50% of scientists are followers of Yeshua and why there are more agnostics than atheists of the remaining. You should do more research into your alleged reasonable arguments. First, Christianity is not a philosophy of religion, it is the belief in an historical incident. Please don’t bring up the claims of dick carrier. No serious ancient historian agrees with him. Oh, maybe one or two. Smh
@@michaelbrickley2443 afraid of light 😂😂😂. If we were afraid we’d be christans. Any god who damns people for eternity based on the location of their birth is not one I want any part of. If you were born in the Middle East you probably wouldn’t be Christian. What makes Christianity right and not all the other story book myths. How did someone rise from the dead? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth if their offspring would have been related, and had retarded babies. How did Noah build an ark, find 2 of every animal on planet earth of opposite sex, and fit them on a boat. Then over 6,000 years all the evolution happened that made ALL our modern animals. How did millions of spices go extinct . There is no evidence of any of these events, except that they’re found in a book
@@michaelbrickley2443 and don’t claim they’re figurative because that’s BS. Anytime they can’t prove their way and get proved wrong they simply get rid of it. They pick and choose what to take literally and what to not based on what we discover. Science doesn’t care about religion
This is hard to listen to, because Cliffe tends to talk too long and switch subjects too often, and the other guy just keeps saying things that are incorrect. Lol
Cliffe Knechtle was adequately prepared for the circumstance, articulating his thoughts with eloquence. I find the likelihood of God's existence to be quite compelling, supported by substantial evidence concerning Jesus.
That was not even close Matt talks about reality and truth and Cliffe makes a lot of claims that are not proven in anyway. Sorry Cliffe but magic has never been shown to be real.
@@svmarshmallow8399 Seriously 🤣 atheists spend all of their time trying to disprove Theism. They Religiously attack it and even though they no-life their studies they still don't even get close to it.
40:05 after cliffe finishes his babbling about morals...look at Matts face! that is the face of a man who knows he has a long day of talking to a brick wall. I feel for Matt here. Cliffe....Matt explained it, we derive our morals through what we believe will BEST allow us to continue AND improve society. Some people will have odd ideas of what that looks like and these people will be the Hitlers of society BUT the majority will base their RIGHT and WRONG on what helps us to best survive and thrive as a species. and you want to base your morals on a book that was written thousands of years ago that says owning slaves, stoning people in the street and selling your daughter to her RAPIST is right!!! who can honestly say they believe in such a hateful,violent book....come on
Matt spoke of being the captain of his own ship (as desirable), but what he doesn't realize is that his ship has no safe harbor, no anchor, no destination. He is adrift in a sea of nothingness with no direction whatsoever. He has charted his course to nowhere. All his cargo that he carries are nothing more than empty boxes.
you're a small minded idiot. lol, atheists have more to live for than believers in fact, we have to make sense of all this without relying on a sky fairy, we do good things for the sake of good, not to get some reward for following orders, god wants you to be good just for the sake of being good, so an atheist is just what god wants, atheists don't exploit god at all, and what we do we do sincerely, anyone with faith or belief is just following orders and avoiding hell. we aren't, we are open and honest, and still good. you're the one with no hope, you have to rely on a fictitious character to "give your life meaning", how sad is that? try to remember this if you think science and reason is cold, the atoms in your body have travelled billions of years and billions of miles and find themselves in you, they existed since the beginning of time and science says they probably went through at least three supernovae to get to fly around the sun and then coalesce into the planet, and then make you. and when you die those atoms merge back into the eco system, float around again for billions of years, pass through more super novae and either they dissipate and then go to make up bits of millions of aliens, or by chance get together (in the infinity of time) and you actually do get born again, and if nothing else they will be flying around the universe until the end of time. who needs god.
Was really embarrassing Matt spouting off "do good" this and that with no argument other than if you don't believe what the definition of my good is then you're wrong.
Fallacy after assumption after assertion after ignorance after wilful ignorance and countless additional fallacies. Matt did not need to respond to Cliffe Knechtle, as Cliffe destroyed his own arguments and exposed what lengths he would go to in order to lie for religion! Matt won by the way :)
I heard Cliffe had refused to debate Matt again and I didn't know why. Now I've realised that Cliffe put this video up and seen the comment section I can see why. Hopefully he's learned that appeals to emotion and assertions backed by nothing substantial won't get you anywhere, but I doubt that.
All of you that just praised Matt have too much blind faith in him lol Cliffe totally killed this debate solely on Matt claiming that there were no evidence coming from Cliffe while he just blabbered on with no evidence either!
I'm glad that Matt doesn't fall into the "win or lose" mindset when it comes to these debates. As he said, it's about both sides making a case for their ideas and beliefs, not who wins or loses. I've seen too many debates where people stoop to using tactics like sarcastic remarks that have no purpose but to ridicule the other, and it solves nothing and does nothing to further the cause of the person doing it.
Well,in all fairness, Matt Dillahunty has been pathologically ranting against something that doesn't exist according to him, for years. 😂Indeed, Matt Dillahunty 's pathological fixation on something that doesn't exist according to him, causes Matt to insult it at times. Matt Dillahunty called something that doesn't exist according to him, he called it a "thug". Matt Dillahunty hosts the " I don't believe that something exists" Experience (' Atheist Experience '), and is a member of the " I don't believe that something exists " community ( atheist community)of Austin,Texas.
@@kubejunkie It does. I won't argue with that. What's so incredibly strange about it, however, is that Matt Dillahunty is on record, repeatedly saying...... that all atheism is is a "lack of belief in God or gods '. Period. Matt Dillahunty goes far far beyond a simple"lack of belief ". He pathologically rants, argues, hosts podcasts, has joined fellow pathological ranters against something that doesn't exist according to them, etc.
@@kubejunkie I agree with you one hundred percent. Matt Dillahunty's moral compass is "make it up as we go along '. It's incredibly amazing that he will categorically judge the actions of something that doesn't exist according to him as" immoral ", and then state that there is no" Objective Morality '.
All of them? I like Cliff but all his arguments end with "god did it". He just uses logical fallacy after logical fallacy to make his points. Now you'll want an example. Ok. The old "watchmaker" argument. We see a watch and we know it didn't come into existence by throwing metal up in the air therefore it must have been designed. That is design by complexity, which is false and an argument from ignorance. We don't evaluate design by complexity we evaluate design by comparison to something else that is designed. Because something is complex does not necessarily mean it was designed. Logical fallacy. We can continue. The assumption that causality applies to the universe may not be true. Causality applies to the known world but we have no evidence to verify that it applies to the universe at large, that is simply an assumption. When we think of the big bang, the rapid expansion of the early universe from the singularity, we think of that as the start of both space and also time. The thought that something causes something else describes a sequence of events one after the other in space-time. If you then ask questions such as what caused the big bang, the start of space-time, you are in fact asking a meaningless question. It is perhaps akin to asking what is south of the south pole. So if everything that had a beginning has a cause, what caused god? Cliff has the answer. God is an uncaused-caused. Special pleading. See how nicely it all fits together? When your argument is based on magic it trumps all. Magic requires no evidence. For example: What caused the universe? God What caused god? He has always existed But the universe is not eternal He existed outside space and time And we get into an infinite loop. Also it's just flat out wrong when Cliff asserts that you can't love without god. There are cultures in this world that have no concept of a superior being and they care for each other, what could be described as love. Matt also made a brilliant point about heaven. His mother is a follower of Jesus, so she will be in heaven. He is not, so he will go to hell. His mother could not experience eternal paradise if she knew her son was suffering in hell. So what is the solution here? Was there a particular point Matt made that you disagree with?
You haven't understood Cliffe's argument if you think that Cliffe was asserting "concepts of God" lead us to care/love other people. What Cliffe was stating is how do you explain love's origins? God has wired each human up with the ability to love or hate regardless of whether they believe in him or not. Watch my homepage video, I explain it a bit better on there in my third point.
I understood them just fine, do not condescend to me, thanks. Maybe you didn't understand that you don't need god to have love. Meaning we don't need to be "wired" or other concepts with no evidence in order to experience love. Yes, I understand Cliff's assertions on love's origins. They are false. Next. No comment on the other points? I'll ask the question again since you dodged it: What particular point of Matt's did you disagree with?
Yeah christians just like to assert things. Like the op who claimed Matt made no solid arguments. I presented evidence that in fact Cliff's arguments were based on fallacies and then offered a couple of Matt's for discussion. I then asked, not once but twice, what arguments Matt made that he found objectionable. The question was dodged both times and the only comment was a lame suggestion that I didn't "understand" Cliff's argument which was complete bullshit. It's very common. Christians will post how in a debate the atheists made no good points, lost the debate, got destroyed etc and when questioned they run away since they really have no points it just makes them feel better to say the atheist lost. But to be honest, these debates, while fun, are pretty pointless. It's science and logic vs magic. So in the eyes of the theist they always win since they have magic on their side. Example: I have a box and you have a box. In your box you claim to have an apple. In my box I claim to have a purple unicorn that sings and dances. I do not believe that you have an apple in your box so you open the box and show me the apple. You do not believe that I have a purple unicorn in my box that sings and dances but I won't open the box. I just assert it is in there. That is what it's like debating a theist.
You state that evolution explains why we love because we would "reproductively successful group" and thus be more likely to survive? But what about the people who for instance dived into a dangerous river to help save another person, these people would be less likely to survive and pass on their genes. So why so we have more selfless people than selfish people?
I would say the bible does make lot's of claims, and evidence for something. I do not believe it is evidence that a god exist, or for the existence for a god. It might be evidence that people wrote stories, or that people did believe a god exist.
Is the eyewitness reliable? Is he alive to say? Is he real? The bible's stories have eyewitnesses, but the problem is the bible says that there are witnesses. See the problem? Now, historians try to crosscheck with other cultures history of that time to see if major events happened. Very often there is no correlation, which leads to several conclusions: 1) The event didn't happen 2) The event happened but completely different then described 3) The event happened , BUT TO SOME OTHER CULTURE (Very common in the bible, half the stories happened to the Babylonians, Canaanintes, Persians, etc) 4) They chose not to commemorate it (Hard to prove this, as its a negative).
Every time Cliffe speaks in this video he spend a ton of time developing a strawman point of view so he can defeat it because he doesn't have any real arguments for what Matt has actually said. Add to that the countless appeals to emotion and you have an exchanges that came nowhere near resembling a real debate.
I usually have a level of empathy for pastors who so passionately defend their faith, even though there's no good ground. But the "personal experience proof" he gives and the antagonistic attitude he has towards science is awful.
Around 56:25, Cliffs says that athiests live for something besides (a god or gods). He says he knows a few that "live for money". Money, an item exchanged for goods in our society. I don't think they "live" for that, but they probably spend a portion of their time, mind AND money to increase how much they have, why, because this allows people to have more in our societies. Does money buy everything, no, but it provides a level of security. If we aren't giving that away, then it must be bought. Many circumstances impact our starting point and we may overcome those in time, but they certainly have an effect on how and when we could get to our intended goal, and we may not have enough time for what we want. We all make compromises, and we do not always go with our own philosophies as they are mindset that are not locked in, even consistency takes practice.
And yet Matt said: “I believe I can have confidence, not faith.” Confidence= con fe de (Latin)= with faith. Matt also said Hitler was a Christian. To say Hitler was a Christian is dishonest or uneducated.
@Joel M - Hitler was not a Christian- he was most likely a Deist or possibly even an Atheist. There are some that claim Hitler was a Christian in a vague attempt to establish a link between God and evil. Here are some direct quotes from Adolf Hitler...
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” April 9th, 1942 (Hitler’s Table Talk p.339) “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.” October 19th, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p.96) “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will be that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar.” February 27th, 1942 (Hitler’s Table Talk p.278) “Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone.” (Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944) “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” July 11-12, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p. 6-7) “But Christianity is the invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless...” December 13, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p. 118-119) “The only way to get rid of Christianity is to let it die...little by little...Christianity is the liar...we’ll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” October 14, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p. 49-52)
This is just a small selection of his quotes against Christianity, so clearly he was not one himself. He thought it as a “disease,” the work from “sick minds,” “lies,” he saw it as “incompatible” with the State, and he hoped for the day that it would one day completely disappear from the earth. In 1930’s Germany- the majority of the people were either Christian or Catholic, and the church was a powerful institution with a significant amount of influence. Hitler feared its influence and realized that it would be foolish to take them on while fighting a world war, and so, “in the pursuit and maintenance of power [he] was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.” In other words, he made a tactical choice not to take on the churches until after the war was over. As Allen Bullock writes: “once the war was over, [Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian churches, but until then he would be circumspect.” Hitler’s strategy was to appear sympathetic to Christianity in public, tailoring his speeches to whatever he thought his audience wanted to hear, and he ordered his staff to play along, too. His propaganda chief and closest confidant Joseph Goebbels wrote: “He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that’s noble in humanity.” And “...though Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons.” On December 29th, 1939 Joseph Goebbels writes: “The Führer is...completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race...in the end they will be destroyed.” And “But although the Fuhrer will “have to get around to a conflict between church and state” in the future, he says in the meantime “The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a positive Christian.” His chief architect Albert Speer quoted Hitler, saying: “Once I have settled my other problem (the war)...I’ll have my reckoning with the church. I’ll have it reeling on the ropes.” Speer says that Hitler would go off on rants of fiery against Christianity which “raised him to a white heat,” but in the meantime- he tried to keep his intentions under wraps.
Matt's in non-rare form, doing what he does well - speaking on common sense and the dangers of distorted sense and logic. It amazes me that Cliffe can stand up there and claim to be one that follows evidence. Hee heeee! It's both funny and sad. It suggests that Cliffe has sentenced himself to a life of deep delusion. Mudder Teresa was a deluded person who thought that one got closer to Jesus through suffering. She made some sick folk die instead of heal as they could have. Agnes was her real first name. She became a shill for the catholic church. She loved having power and attention. She knew, in the end, that she was doing wrong. It's in her writings.
You mean Hitch who go his ass whipped by WLC? that Hitchins? lol Who matt wants to debate but it will be the end of his RUclips fantasy atheist charade--
@@GUYMAN261 41 he got wrong slavery God never condoned it. If he remembers godfried Israel from slavery. It was indentured servitude and back then people worked off their debt. If not cause that slavery then if he works I guess he would be considered a slave. Matt doesn't even know the context of scripture. Matt also doesn't understand that there were examples of people sin in the Bible because God doesn't want us to sin. The Bible shows the repercussions of what sin causes
"What do you live for?" "Money/pleasure." "What's the evidence that what you're living for is TRUE?" What do you mean "true"?! Turth is a property of propositions.
@Jacob Watson Don't understand the question. Because Cliffe lives his life on the basis that some claim - Christianity, in his case - is true, he assumes Matt does the same. He doesn't.
JMUDoc If he doesn’t live based off of what he believes is true, than I would ask, why debate my friend? God bless you and Jesus loves you! John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
yet another creationist that say "i dont understand science, therefor god" and "i'm special therefor god". holy.. every time he speak, all he does is use emotional appeal.. there is no evident, there is no argument...
yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loves us, for i am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord AMEN. I LOVE YOU JESUS
Lol I think you didn’t hear anything your authority (Matt) said. Remember in the beginning of the debate when Matt talked about the Luke kid who wanted to punch an atheist in the face? You probably don’t care do you? Doesn’t seem like you care too much for truth regardless either.
36:42 Knechtle contradicts his own bible when he says "this is not about intimidation..." but his own bible says "the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom." He also contradicts his bible when he says at 36:51 this is about logical thinking. his own bible says trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not to thine own understanding. ... he constantly uses appeals to emotion and when he is put on the spot by dilahunty he contradicts scripture... FAIL
42:57 yet another contradiction. he says jesus christ cherished individualism. but in Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me yet not I but christ... in other words there is no more ME once I accept christ... the bible is against individualism. this dude is a shill
He said jesus cherished individualism.... lets see what jesus actually said regarding individualism.... *I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.* how can matt allow this guy to contradict the scripture over and over.... the bible is clearly against individualism.
45:08 the shill says that jesus taught that you can know god... but the bible says no man can know god... Job 36:26 "*Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.*" also in Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. he contradicted his bible yet again
Carlos Villatoro LOL, is that your attempt to refute any of the arguments presented? Typical religitard posting ad-hominems with no ability to address any of the arguments presented. Don't waste my time, go pay your tithes.
"become fertilizer" I couldn't imagine a more glorious eternity than to die and still help cause everything else that happens... why does Cliffe downplay this and raise up the notion of having no choice but to either burn in Hell or be forced to look at perfection forever, knowing there will never be an end to it? I don't think it's possible to make a person happy given the choice 'do you want to die or live forever' ONCE, and not subsequently. As a human being, we would regret it in some shape or form--and in this heaven scenario, regret it for eternity. Death is the end of regret, and we have an opportunity to be finally satisfied, KNOWING we will die, before 'THE END' is put in big bold letters to our story. Christians somehow want to taint that, with a punchline afterwards and the realization that everything you've done, embarrassing and alone, pathetic and by yourself, is being watched by everybody admirable and saintly, but worst of all by angels and a god who, even as a human, didn't particularly find a need to have sex or be weak to the things you were... just looking down and judging it. It's not noble, it's not a final resolution--it's REAL degradation to human life. Worse than fertilizer. This is what it essentially says: "What you've done for the past 80-90 years, since you were lucky, was just a test that for some is a lot easier to pass than others. I'm sorry it was difficult for you growing up in the bad neighborhood, when it wasn't for suburban Johnny here, but the goal, the purpose, is to get here, given my rules... oh, and you'll both be staring at perfection, infinity, etc. exactly the same because there aren't really 'levels' of that. So your whole life has no more REAL merit than Johnny's did; it's not a story worth telling more for any reason, and the moral here is 'be born and grow up in better circumstances'--does that make sense as a moral? Oh, it doesn't? Too bad. I say it does." If our lives aren't IT, if the journey isn't the final thing, then that is what you have to believe.
I coudlnt agree more! It's beautiful! Send me back to the earth which created me! My death will give life to everything around my rotting corpse! So.... my body is truly immortal within the earth that recycled me.
@1:19:00 Seriously? A grown man, coming to a debate with an athiest like Matt, and you *seriously* want to bring up the watchmaker argument? Personal incredulity? It has been said before in the comments, Cliffe is not debating, he is preaching, he is blindly repeating the arguments that he has heard over the years, and that he has not investigated once he found out that they appear, at first glance anyway, to support his argument. My problem with that is that it is dishonest, because he would demand a doctort keep searching for the real cause of a disease,he would want his mechanic to really fix his car, he would never accept anyone just sitting down and saying "well, that seems to be a possible reason so I'll stop here'. But when it's about god, suddenly he doesn't *WANT* more research, suddenly it's bad to try to find out if his argument is correct. Faith makes people dishonest, it has been shown here once again.
why does a debate like this actually exist?! why is noone debating about the existence of Batman? seriously its a mindnumbing thought that in the 21st century we're having debates about the existence of characters from bronze age fables...
youweechube agreed! and look at the pretty trees! obviously there is no explanation to their existence except batman cast batseeds from his utility belt! :D
Daniel Arnold Thousands of people in Gotham have seen Batman. Commissioner Gordon has seen him. The Penguin, the Joker, the Riddler, and Two-Face won't deny his existences. Thousands of documents have been written about him.
@@localfarmdude7243they want evidence but they don’t even understand where the word “faith” comes from. Faith is not provable and we use faith everyday whether we like it or not
@@localfarmdude7243 "What do you live for?" is an ought question (you ought to live this way). It can not be "true" because factual statements can never lead to ought statements (google "David Hume ought is" problem if you want to know more).
Cliffe once again demonstrates that he has already thought logically ahead of any atheistic interpretation of reality and arrives correctly to the idea of intelligent design. Extrapolating further leads us down the path toward Christ because there simply is nothing better.
@@maccusmc no, you keep telling yourself that Matt is a genius. Secular morality is superior according to Dillpickle. Are you serious? That is a sign of a clueless man. Follow the God/Man, Christ Jesus. Eternity awaits
I may or may not believe in Matt’s claim that he may or may not believe. As usual, Matt’s statements crumbling on its own weight. He says he doesn’t argue there is or isn’t a God. That’s like saying I don’t believe I exist or not exist. That falls under its own weight again because he’s making a claim. He’s a walking contradiction.
OK. So. If my wife dies (loving me) and I remarry and love that person as well...when we both die and all three of us are in heaven. What do we do? Aaaaawkwaaaarrrd!
LOL! Thank goodness! Clears everything up! =] I thought I'd have some awkward conversations waiting for me. Now...what about babies? Do they go to heaven as babies? Cuz that'd be fucking annoying...eternal babies? Shit. Maybe they get aged to their prime...like 25 and sexy or something.
MrOmniblast babies are kept as babies i'm afraid (haven't you seen all those cherub paintings)... however, of course the babies defecate chocolate mousse and vomit vanilla ice cream, yahweh thought of everything 8-)
Lol, it's funny because those Cherubs aren't even cherubs...Cherubs are fucking terrifying. fc04.deviantart.net/fs17/i/2007/133/0/1/One_of_the_Cherubim_by_loucat.jpg
***** thanks chrissy, of course one of my faves would be found in the chronicles of trek... “You’ve never really faced death, have you?” “...No; not like this. I haven’t faced death. I’ve cheated death. I’ve tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity; I know nothing.” and who could forget “Of my friend I can only say this: of all the souls that I met on my travels, his was the most… human.” ;-) nd
Cliffe is a preacher and uses that skill set (acting, theatrics, sounding confident and heartfelt and using repeated buzzwords). He refuses to engage or address the many difficult points that Matt raises. He just ignores them and goes back to the generalised claims that skim the surface. It consequently was not an attempt to get to an objective agreement but instead a sermon.
Oh well, the Word of God does state that the vast majority will remain unconvinced until they breathe their last, at which point they will have a great and terrifying awakening.
Dillahunty lost bec he said faith, without certainty is meaningless! Degrees vs historical eyewitness testimony absurd says Dillahunty,so he doesnt believe in history or the judicial system then!That's absurd! Jesus said Blessed are those who have'nt seen me yet believe John 20:28! He who believes will be saved,those who don't condemned John 3:18-36!
27:00 Well sir, you can subjectively change the meaning of a word according to your needs, but that wont change what it really means. There is no "the way I use it" or "for me faith is this..." No, faith, as a word, has non subjective definition. Thats the whole point of definitions. And thats why words have them, to stop these conflicts. The problem starts when people actually start changing the definition. Faith is clearly not a synonym of no evidence, because as Cliff explained there is a lot of evidence behind the belief, and a lot of logic and reason. He even made a clear difference between closing your eyes and cover your ears just repeating "I believe I believe" than to actually think. The modern definition of faith says "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence". This is a marked change from the 1904 definition; "the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation."
"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation." I guess to an atheist or maybe just someone who isn't convinced that a certain faith is correct that translates as: "a belief that has been reached through an inner monologue according to subjective experiences where the person is convinced they have accessed a divine truth" Definitons of words change, because there can be change in the way they are used by the majority of people. Take for instance the word: gay. It used to mean something like happy. Then it has been adopted to describe homosexuals which led to a derisive usage that culminated in using the word equivalent to stupid. We are at a very peculiar moment in time because we are aware that all these defintions can apply to a certain extent and they basically exist alongside each other. >>I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay - and I pity every girl that isn't me, today.
ZDProletariat Well, in the case of Catholics, there is no belief, there is knowleage. As I said before, faith is no synonym of "no evidence". If you Mr, say that the definition proposing that, is widely accepted, you got yourself a sweet example of a global misconception. Which, as a matter of fact, are quite common these days.
ZDProletariat Why not? Because it does not mean that. "If you want to use the word "faith" to mean what "knowledge" and "confidence" already mean, that's up to you." Its not me, its that way. Actually, Its Matt that wants to use the word "faith" to characterize a belief without proof. Why he mentions his definition of faith debating with a Catholic no idea. Catholicism is not a belief.
ZDProletariat Faith:"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation." Belief: a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true Knowledge: awareness, consciousness, or familiarity gained by experience or learning Confidence: a feeling of trust in a person or thing. (Nothing to do with faith, its not about a feeling, a hunch, its about knowing. What the word faith does is put these together, belief and knowleage and even add something too. That in not way makes it a meaningless word, and its obviously not wrong in semantics. There is a big difference in believing something is true, and knowing something is true. Its not a matter of accepting something as true, because even if you dont, it wont stop it from being true.
ZDProletariat And you just exposed Satans work, congratulations. I ignored the word trust in the definition of confidence? Excuse me sir, but you cant just ignore a full sentence, and leave only the words, I ignored it because the word that anticipated it was "feeling/hunch" For you to know something it must be true. I known how to add, 2+2=4 If you say 2+2=6 then you simple dont know how to add. If you actually choose to change the meaning of a word, when it already has a definition, be my guest. I wont. And no, as I clearly explained, the word "faith" is not simply defined by the definitions of knowleage and belief.
@@nudsh claiming he’s of a higher moral standard. As an atheist he cannot make such assertions because nothing gives him the right to say if somethings right or wrong. If I say the opposite how can he prove who’s right. And he spoke about how it benefits people. Leaning into utilitarianism and the arguments against it such as the sadistic guards beating up a single person. In this scenario let’s say they steal from a widow. They gained benefit. Is that morally right? Whatever you claim you can’t prove
@@jobless5866 you useless moron. Matt CAN say he is of a higher moral standard because he demonstrated WHY. He demonstrated that the god of the bible, by his own measure, is immoral. Cliff's moral standard is ONLY an appeal to blind authority, an authority that is shown to be immoral itself. The god of the bible would send someone to hell for an eternity of pain for simply not believing in an unbelievable god that hides himself from objective view. An atheist would not do this which IS by definition a HIGHER moral position. You have now been educated you idiot. You are also now dismissed.
I am an ex-Muslim. It was very hard to leave Islam. Many years of struggle to leave the faith I was born into. However, now I know it is Jesus the Christ who chose me. I am happy for those days of pain. I like to watch debates on God's existence but never debate with anyone. It is useless according to me. Someone who is looking for God will only find Him. And also, if Jesus does not select someone he can't have faith. Many people who only debate about God's existence are not seeking truth. But I like honesty of some Atheists. Matt is one of them. At least he is far far better than a hypocrite who calls himself Christian for convenience but has not denied himself yet and not carrying his cross and following Christ. Cliffe has patience like a tortoise. I love him. May "Abba" bless him and his family. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Christ and He is the King.
May Jesus Bless you!❤
True Jesus is not God but rather Lord Jesus has a God Who is the only true God and this leads to eternal life
@BreazyAU
One what? Plz respond
@BreazyAU
Ok so not one God right? Ok i thought you meant one God... Definitely not one God cause thats not what the verse says
amen brother, welcome to the truth
As an ex-atheist, what I did was read the gospels and left out whether it all happened or not, and simply came to the conclusion that if Jesus were real, I would want to know Him. Well that is exactly what God did.
Personal testimonies of having transcendent and personal experiences with god(s) aren't unique to Christianity. If you want to make the case that *_your_* particular experience is true, then you should provide the actual evidence for the existence of your deity. That would then make your comment unique from every other religious convictions, and it'll no longer be based on a non sequitur and actually have some explanatory value.
@@onionbelly_ The problem is, science is limited to material, so what you are asking is not possible at this time anyway. I do remember at age 10 or 11 I considered how one could see and process things material without contact, and wondered what Genius put this all together? There had to be a Creator Genius unexplainable and unseen. However, evolution taught as fact in honors history class took that away from me at age 15. You choose to believe me or anyone else or not, but, I do understand. You have to have your own encounter experience. I'm here to simply say you or anyone else who wanted to can.
@@onionbelly_ there’s evidence of the flood. There’s evidence of the parting of the Red Sea. There’s evidence of the crucifixion. Evidence of Mt Sinai. Evidence of the plagues. Evidence of Babylon. Etc etc
Had the same experience except I wanted to know the historical evidence as well. For me it was reading through Gospels again and asking God for clarity on Jesus. Isn't God great?
@@nathang2465 So Great! It may not seem so many times, but He hears every desire of our hearts. Many blessings.
I used to be agnostic, until one day I started to think what’s the meaning of it all? Work, make money, having a family, kids, death, for what? A limited time. Then I became so scared of life after death and for the first time ever I prayed to God that if he was real he would send someone to guide me towards him because doing it alone was too hard. Months later, I met someone in college from Chi Alpha, and they introduced me to the Bible. I Did my research, read and investigated the chronological timeline, authors, time, and the word of God. As I read through the book of John, my heart was being transformed in a way that I can’t explain.... I was filled with the Holy Spirit and repented of my sins and even though I don’t understand everything; I accept it because Christ died for me.
He set me free of my sins, and transformed my heart. Thank you God for changing my stubborn, and prideful self.
I pray for you, that you will seek the truth and find out that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life✨💖
Take your time, God is so patient and loving.
My goodness this is amazing
Praise the Lord, God bless you sister, stay on His path, He's always with you 🙌🏾
What did you discover about the authors of the Gospels?
Keep seeking Him!(:
So . . . you became so scared of death, and if there is life after death, that you decided it is better to play it safe and save yourself instead of finding truth itself: wherever, that might lead you.?
My favorite part is when they have the giving standoff. Love that these guys were able to speak freely and have a moment of jest, despite being completely opposed ideologically and spiritually.
@dogelife7901 I really like when debaters who are normally angry at each other start experiencing technical difficulties and complaints about there connection
Very good debate format : Short first statement and then straight to q&a from the public and both answers can be compared right on the spot.
All these debates should adopt a similar format.
Children can't understand the concept of a god until they're at least 3 or 4. And yet, they are born with the capacity to love. Animals never know anything about god, and yet they love.
I never believed in gods. God's are fictional characters that appear in human literature.
You can brainwash anyone to do anything. A baby born in a loving family will understand love. A child growing up in a violent family will be a violent child. Abuse happens behind closed doors. Same with dogs and cats. Freedom of will makes us do good or evil acts. God is with you. I hope you can pray and find God.
Its cause it takes atleast a few years of brainwashing.
It is not the fact that love proves god. But Love proves that you do have a free will, and since Free Will is something immaterial, it must’ve been created by something immaterial. Hope this helped 😊 (btw we are talking about the Love that Cliffe is talking about not the Bio-Chemical reaction)
@@MaximilianRisteski cliff loves his own voice
The look on Matt's face while Cliffe is talking is priceless!
I know. Matt is like "Why am I even debating this brainwashed numbskull?".
the emotional appeals are strong with this one.....not one ounce of evidence towards his wold view...just faith
You're on a wing and a prayer as an atheist it's a blind cold delusion and it's running out of time
it’s theology, there barely any need for evidence. however, cliffe did give evidence, he cited a lot of sources, while Matt did not, infact a lot of his claims were “I don’t know”, so please don’t say “there wasn’t an ounce of evidence”
by the way im not implying that Matt needs to cite his evidence or else it’s not a valid argument, I’m just rebuking your statement
all these people critical of Cliff, wouldn't talk like this in public or in any serious forum. typical keyboard warriors that get no respect here or in open, honest discussions.
I would pay money to speak in front of him. What in the world makes you think ANYONE would be afraid to speak in public. He is on the losing side of this argument. Just because your parents brainwashed you into having false heroes and believing in sky daddies doesnt give any of these morons any credibility.
Keyboard warriors ? LOL uhh that is a title for people who talk tough. Nobody in here (on the skeptics' side) is talking tough. They are talking from doubt, skepticism, education, research, and the reluctance to not jump to conclusions, and only believe in things with evidence.
Try reading some harder books, not just 1 easy one that promises you cake at the end.
@TechSys If your own parents had given you no moral training, would you be looking for someone to love, or would you have fallen into taking advantage of others? I saw an NDE where the man stood before God asking Him questions. He asked about all the people who have never heard of Jesus. He asked about a man in an isolated African village, for instance. God actually said to Him: "He would know not to steal his neighbour's goat, "for instance", meaning that we all have our consciences, right? Many people who meet the Creator come away with the feeling that we give Him a few laughs, as do our own small children, when we actually will speak to Him. Selfish little fallen brats, we usually treat Him like poochie and ignore or make fun of Him! No wonder when we choose Justice over Love, we get sent to outer darkness or are mocked by demons. But the REAL question is, even if what you said is true, why do you care. By caring, you sort of prove yourself incorrect...
Your response was biased, judgmental, presumptive and condescending. Good argument dude!
Criticism =/= Nastiness. I would be incredibly critical of Cliffe's supernatural nonsense, but I would still be respectful.
An statement, opinion or whatever does not become true or untrue if it can be said to a person's face or in public. It simply is true or not.
Respect to Cliffe for keeping comments open.
Seriously
@@darkeen42 Name one.
@@darkeen42 According to you. Bravo. Now tell me who Jesus was, and where we can learn about the historical Jesus, because I would Love to ascertain your claims about Jesus without manuscripts to back them up. Please, go on and explain who Jesus was, and where we can find this well preserved historical account of the Jesus of Nazareth that you are submitting, without sourcing the Gospel records that you reject. Please enlighten us all with your historical evidence of Jesus; without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD.
@@darkeen42 But the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD is rejected by you as accurate history, so please do not source this manuscript according to your world-view that rejects it as True. Instead I am asking you to provide evidence for your bold submission regarding who Jesus was, and provide your historical evidence of who Jesus was without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands P52. I'm ascertaining your historical claim that you made on Jesus, and I am requesting your historical evidence for Jesus without sourcing the first and second century NT manuscripts.
@@darkeen42 Muhammad was indeed a historical space-time person who really lived and really died and we have historical evidence to verify Muhammad and who Muhammad was. But now we are talking about Jesus and who Jesus was, and I promise I am not throwing you curve-ball here; in that I am merely requesting your historical evidence of the Jesus you have submitted without sourcing any of the NT manuscripts as your historical evidence, like Rylands Library Papyrus P52.
Knechtle is a stereotypical caricature of every apologist out there. His arguments hold not one iota of value in logical reasoning. If I were a theist while still possessing the ability to reason, I would be cringing at every word this guy spewed out in this debate.
Ironically, laws of logic aren't even possible under atheism, so your appeal to a logic and reason couldn't be made if atheism were true.
Logic doesn't need a god.
@@rrock2025 ironically you used reason to come to that (false) conclusion, and since laws of logic are eternal, abstracted and metaphysical entities, yes they require the mind of God to exist.
Nick wow! So many claims yet no evidence, what an arrogant idiot you are
Nick the irony in saying logic isn’t possible if you’re an atheist yet atheist are literally the only ones that use logic.
Cliffe is quite the preacher but not very good at providing evidence for his beliefs other than “I believe it so it must be true”.
I have been a long time subscriber of this channel. The comments are usually quite civil except for when cliffe debates matt, then some of the people who follow matt get very bitter in the comments. I find it strange how some of the atheists in the comments claim to be morally superior, yet mock at the same time.
We’re not morally superior, just intellectually superior.
@@carncats07 your atheistic position makes you look like foolish. As soon as the atheistic position gets pushed it fails.
@@hvrlxm_3348 no, it really doesn't.
@@zacharyberridge7239 - Yes, it does. The moment you get bitter just from arguments, you fail.
@@lifethroughromans8295 who said I'm bitter because of arguments? Way to assume, bud
I found Cliffe to be disingenuous, consistently misrepresenting both the bible and Matt's position. I was hoping for some deep arguments from the Christian perspective, but instead Cliffe flowed anecdotes and built straw men enough to fill all the fields of England.
"deep arguments from the Christian perspective" Those do not exist.
Religious people don't have a good proof of their god, that's pricesely why they rely on faith. Those religious public talkers are always dishonest like this one or for the few that are not they have a major flaw in their logic that they can't see because of their indoctrination into religion.
@@joshlete Wow are you really going to keep insulting me like this, it's really not nice and not deserved. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let's start with the first thing that CK said after his introduction with a useless example: "Love shows us that there is more to reality than matter and energy. And the only way there could be more to reality is if there is some kind of god... blablabla"
Do you realise the amount of bullshit in this opening he chose? You get two sentences from this apologist, but they are simply two dumb assertions without any proof.
As to why he gives us no proof for what he says here? Looks to me like he doesn't have any proof and try to find justifications. If he had a proof of that, he would have given it. He starts from the conclusion and then looks for unrelated things like "love" that could be vaguely interpreted to justify his conclusion. He doesn't build up arguments to reach a conclusion, he already has it.
So yes, I do say those words he said here are dumb bullshit, I suppose you won't agree, so please give me your enlightened opinion on how this is a rational way of thinking what he said there.
Do I really need to go further in this debate?
Also, are you really calling me "stuck in a rut" because I have a higher quality level of requirements than you? I won't accept the existence of any god until there is a rational proof that a god exist. Faith is just wishful thinking, I need some valid evidence before reaching a conclusion and anyone who doesn't follow this method of thinking either doesn't care about the truth of what they believe in, or they are too dumb to understand why they are believing in things that they don't have a good reason to believe in.
@@joshlete Yes I admit that was not a true logical or, so I'll rephrase what I meant to avoid the fallacy. But I disagree on the rest of your paragraph. If you care about the truth of what you believe in, you cannot believe in something without an satisfying evidence.
I am calling dumb the people who don't care about the truth of what they believe in. Don't you agree that it is justified?
I am also calling out those who have a very low standard of evidence. Because indeed it is true that people have different standards for what a satisfying evidence is.
However for something as important as an all powerful invisible magical deity existing, I am convinced that people should require evidence of the highest quality before being convinced. Nothing supernatural has ever been observed. So to make an extraordinary claim like your christian god, I need pretty much extraordinary proof to know.
And yet, the proofs we get are barely passable at best. I have heard so many times christians/muslims/jews say that they believe their god is real because it is written in their holy book... Most religious people have a bad understanding of why they believe in god. Don't say that I do not understand them. I simply do not agree at all with their reasoning, or rather sometimes lack of it...
What's wrong with calling people dumb because of what they believe in? Beliefs can be dangerous, we should not be scared of challenging people on their beliefs, whether religious or not. If you told me you believe the Earth is flat or that you believe in a young 6000 years old Earth I'd call you stupid.... Wouldn't I be justified?
Yes, as much as possible I use evidence to guide myself to truth or to take an action. I'll always look left and right before crossing a road, etc. That's enough evidence to know if it is safe. I'm saying that for a claim as crazy as religion, you need even better evidence that normal. I'm not seing any evidence. And miracles... come on please you should know they are not real. The ones documented are severely lacking in evidence and swimming in a sea of fabricated false miracles. And even if they were real, why would they point to the christian god? Muslims for exemple also believe in miracles...
Also... why would your god bother to heal a single person? Was it because he was bored after killing 15 thousands innocent babies that day? If your god is real he'd be the worst mass killer in the world. And maybe even in fiction... pick whatever dark lord from a book you want and I'm pretty sure your god supposedly killed more people than him according to the bible...
"do you think they are dumb to assume that there was a God involved? Or perhaps it's much wiser to believe that we all came into existence from... nothing"
Facepalm... The classic we come from nothing bullshit. I'll remind you that the bible say even more stupid things about your creation idea: the universe was created in 7 days, and he created plants before creating light ahah Ah also the first man was created from clay... lol
By the way here that's the same fallacy you accused me of. A nice false logical dichotomy. There are other possibilities that a god creating the universe or nothing. Adding god to the mystery of the universe would only raise more questions. You don't have any proof that a deity was there to create the universe, adding it just adds a supernatural complexity needlessly. I don't know if there was a god, but what you said is clearly not a good argument for it.
"concluding that God doesn't exist sounds far more foolish than the alternative"
When did I say that your god doesn't exist? You just proved that you didn't understand my main point. We don't have any satisfying evidence for the christian god, we don't have it either for any other god. That's why I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god. That does not mean I think there is no god. That means I don't know if there is a god, but I do not believe in any god because the evidence I have found is severely lacking so I simply refuse to accept the theistic claim.
You can't prove that there is no god at all. Can you prove that ghosts don't exist ? That's the problem with the supernatural, particularly when it's invisible and does not interact with us... You can't disprove those things, and yet we are no closer to being justified in believing they exist.
The burden of proof is on theists. That's why I am waiting for evidence, and that's why I am pissed of at apologists who appeal to emotions and only do preaching instead of debating and giving arguments and evidences. Same reason I do not respect much religious people who can't justify why they believe in their god.
By the way.... Do you believe that Allah is real and that the Koran was of divine inspiration too? How about Krishna, are The Vedas the word of god too? There has been so many religions, the arguments people make to justify are the same that the arguments people of another religion make to justify their god. Those people generally can point out the flaws in that other person reasoning, but they can't find it on themself even though the arguments are often pretty much the same.
@@phg3646What arguments were strawmen? And why would you think that?
@@PRPWR zero is mentally ill, pay no attention to that
15:20 Is Cliffe not aware that most animals can also love? It is hardly a uniquely human trait. Is he so blinded by his creation myth fantasy reality that he is unaware that HE to is an animal? Religion may not make you stupid but it certainly helps make you clueless, or at least to appear so.
Quote from him is "you are not an animal. You are a human being".
Jos van Weesel I agree with you. When he said that, I facepalmed myself.
@Phelan If love and all these things are mechanical, then love can mean anything. Not only that, it means things like murder can show to just be a byproduct of our evolution. Love in its totality cannot be described by science, unless you can show me sources.
Animals can have love? Biblical love? Source please!
@@noahm44 Biblical love? What the F is that
Matt has so much patients, because everytime Cliffe gives his religious sermons about how god=logic and the ONLY way to have a mind is if there was a God. My whole family is very religious and nearly all of his voice raging rants are very poor examples of logic. Cliffe seems to get more irate with every passing second. It's almost as if he can't stand someone not thinking like him. I wonder why he agreed to this debate? He is way out of his league with Matt, who was always calm and never yelling at the audience. Why do preachers do that?
I find it humorous how so many atheist make the statement that "I'm not saying God doesn't exist" JUST so they can try to avoid any kind of questioning about what they believe. Then spend their time attacking others who make the claim that they believe in God.
You might have fun attacking people who believe in God but keep in mind those people have the courage to stand for what they believe in while you hide behind semantics.
(Just a heads up don't bother trying to engage me in a debate. I wont reply to any messages)
Wezlb8 Yeah its circular reasoning and also why some theists wont debate this Matt guy. His wordplay is good, but he has a habit of declaring that "people are putting words in his mouth" when they catch him circling around in his arguments. Then he hangs up on them. Sad!
So do you accept everything's existence on someone's word or do you want evidence?
Why would I not want evidence?
Bigfoot, aliens.....I guess you take those on FAITH.
Are you really so daft that you missed the irony of refusing to stand by your position?
I really try not to believe that theists are dumb but boy do they make it hard...
Even Matt’s analogies say nothing at all. Why would someone even debate that is like this?
Sorry I'm abit late to the party but I had to comment
What's wrong with people? Even being a Christian I can see how illogical cliff is! The strength he has is his orating abilities which deserves an A+ no doubt about it. But it looks like he appeals to peoples emotions whereas Matt seems to make sense with facts I duno rethinking my faith
Ex-atheist here, hardcore, hated God and Christians and then Jesus found me through His Holy Spirit. Amen
Claiming to have “hated God” is acknowledging and accepting that god exist. By that statement, you were not actually an atheist.
@@danielkanu8554 Wrong. He started out by claiming God _does not_ exist, and then believing he _does exist_ and hating him. *Valid claim.*
@@danielkanu8554 And yet, when I say to a former Christian that they were not actually a Christian, I'm trounced upon with claims of bigotry..?
Of course, the comment itself is nonsense.
@@playzfahdayz
What mygiftmatters wrote is easily interpreted as they hated God while they were an atheist, which I agree with danieldanu8554 seems nonsensical, since one would not hate something if they did not think it existed.
Perhaps mygiftmatters meant that they hated God when they were not an atheist, but they did not clearly communicate that.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn
If someone said to me that they used to be a Christian, and that their beliefs in that time were that Jesus Christ never existed, I would point out that that belief is counter to any sensible definition of Christian I can imagine.
Similarly, if someone says they were an atheist and hated God at the same time, that makes me wonder whether they believed the whole time that God existed, which is counter to any sensible definition of atheist.
Further, many Christian apologists claim they used to be atheist, and use that as part of their strategy of trying to convince others to become Christian. Some of them similarly claim to have hated God when they were atheist (which, again, makes no sense).
Because of this history, if someone else similarly claims to have been a God-hating atheist, I am wary that they are just claiming to have been an atheist in an effort to make their argument more persuasive.
Has this guy got anything else apart from an argument from emotion?
How is he using emotion?
@@havard94 cliffe is basically going "if god doesnt exist then good and evil is subjective, and we dont want that. If there is no god then life is meaningless and we dont want meaningless lives."
@@carlosbecerril3317 call it God or intelligent design it shows there has to be a superior being than us. Otherwise your the person that defines good and evil, which if you believe that then how can you say who’s right and who’s wrong and yes your life would be meaningless in the big picture if there is no superior being or intelligent design. These are evidence that there has to be some superior being than us. He’s trying to emphasise nobody would can live them out truly!
@@carlosbecerril3317 Plus you can say that without being emotional
@@havard94 no, you are literally making a leap in logic. The ONLY way you can say any of this is with an appeal to emotion: "if god foes not exist then life is ultimately meaningless." Is fine, but reason cliffe is giving for why its wrong is because we dont want a meaningless life, that's an appeal to emotion. What we want is irrelevant to whether or not its true.
Just featured Cliffe in my latest video listing my top 7 RUclips street preachers. Thanks for your ministry!
Practical ? Faith are you collecting a group of delusionists cause Cliffe falls into that catagory ,no thinking there
@@bradzimmerman3171you're delusional if you think the universe came from nothing and that life also came from nonlife
@@dattebayosigma90744 I agree. I'm an atheist and neither myself nor any atheist I have ever met or corresponded with thinks this. However, many Christians have no problem with the concept, since according to them, God 'spoke everything into existence' from absolutely nothing.
@@dattebayosigma90744 is your god life, or is alive? If so, based on your delusional argument, where did it came from?
@@Slammerworm1where did everything come from, according to your worldview?
Something that Cliffe said that bothered me very much, something that was highly suspect. He said he grew up in New England (as did I). As a matter of fact, he lives 4 towns over from me. He said that at his school that he and 1 other were the only believers in Christ. Now, I will go out on a limb and say that is a lie because just 4 towns over I experienced the exact opposite.
Exactly, i live in NYC, work in CT, and travel alot in New England, where some of the largest Dioceses exist. Not to mention huge populations of Irish Catholics, Roman Catholics, and other religious denominations. It was a flat out lie!
It fits better with his plot of misunderstood, self-sacrificing and brave christians. It's hard to prove in a society where christianity is the religion of the majority.
As a Christian, I will not throw Matt under the buss like some atheists might do to Cliffe - just to show support for my position. I do think this debate was way long...but I give credit to both sides doing a good job presenting what they believe in.
P Foster I do see what you are saying as Cliffe seemed to give more of a reason(s) why he believes in God, rather than providing any kind of evidence that people can take away and do some research on for themselves. However, in fairness, although he seemed pretty mellow in this debate, Matt can get a little demeaning with people as well. I was impressed with Matt because I have seen some debates where he really didn't do very well. But in this situation, I don't feel like he did well because Cliffe did bad - instead I think he did well on the merits of his own arguments and rebuttals.
To me the real test is to see how they answer questions - like if they try to slither out of it or not. I think in this debate, neither attempted to do so, which is why I think they both did a pretty good job.
There must be a god, because when Matt was religious he felt God calling him to do the Good Work. Well, God must exist cause Matt is doing the good work so eloquently
About seventy Matt's fans (who believes that life comes from nonlife) trying to prove by comments, that he won:)
The fruits of rejection of Christ's way/commandments: Stalin (and USSR), Chernobyl, Mao, Pol Pot, French revolution, Hitler, North Korea, Islamists and other terrorists etc. Experiments on people. All crimes, AIDS, satanism, racism, all kinds of porn, drugs, GMOs, perverted churches (of the hypocrites, who pretend to be disciples of Christ), the most terrible weapons of mass destruction etc. = destroyed planet!
That is why rejection of Christ's way is wrong and foolish. End of the debate!
You know what Jesus Christ taught, and you know that this is right, but you're doing the opposite. And all that I have listed - It is the opposite to Christ's teaching.
Why would a Christian like someone who leads people to hell? Are you sure you are a Christian? I wouldn't want my worse enemy spend eternity in hell. For you that is ok?
"Since God is dead all things are permitted" must be an ironic tombstone epitaph for many of the deniers over the past 3000yrs when the Psalmist proclaimed "a fool in his heart says there is no God' Ps 19
Since the Bible is the only scripture that concerns you, allow me assure deniers of one fact. It might shock u but no one goes to hell in a Biblical sense unless they want to. The idea that people are in hell crying to be let out is false. Just read Dante or CS Lewis who put it this way, “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” People will go to hell because they want to avoid an ultimate authority who tells them what they should and shouldn’t do. People in hell are saying it’s miserable, but they wouldn’t want to be in heaven if God is just pushing us around all the time.
On the other hand people want to go to heaven and submit to God in a loving relationship, a fact that give their life meaning, hope and destiny. The most fair understanding of the afterlife is the Christian view that God only gives you what you want. If you want to be your own savior and lord, you will get it. Your choice! As atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, “If God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist.” Such perfect circular logic will appeal to many who demand moral autonomy at the price of "unyielding despair." (B. Russell)
@@Gericho49 All you have done is make assertions. You have no evidence for any of them.
That was definitely not a debate, that was a Q&A
knechtle is preaching. not debating.
you need to activate multi tasking mode there man. just because he sounds like he is preaching doesn't mean he isn't answering the question.
@@friedit7862 I listened carefully. I don't think he answered any questions adequately. It just assertions all the way down.
Hes preaching truth 👏
Hey Cliffe, if you raise your voice every time you try to assert and assume stuff, it doesn't make it truth.
Matt Dillahunty won by a mile. No chance.
A fascinating debate! I think that God is a concept to help us humans live within certain boundaries and avoid becoming monsters. Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Mohammad were all great human beings and wanted to give our lives a certain direction according to their ideas and concepts prevalent in their times. Unfortunately in the name of God humanity has done a lot of wrong things - just to prove my God is better than yours. The situation has become alarming today. Muslims and Christians are out o destroy the world - each religious community assuming that they have been wrongly hurt by the other. Based on just this fact and that science has provided many solutions for the benefit of human-kind, I tend to agree with Matt. Let's keep our God love or Christ love private. Let's be secular. Let our laws be secular. Let's love each other not because we are Muslims or Christians or Hindus but because love makes a lot of sense - economically or otherwise.
***** the only people that believe we came from nothing are people like you. There are not 2500 prophecies that is simply a lie, and it is also a lie that anything like that has come true, a prophecy is something that can be interpreted at the time, not something you need to look back on later to confirm. Furthermore you argument that people were not there to observe something clearly applies to your belief in the bible.
Homosexuals were created by your so called god, it is a natural thing, it is evident in animals, if you disagree please let me know the moment you chose to be a heterosexual.
Abortion has no relevance to evolution, before I thought you were stupid but that statement proves you are either a troll or under the age of 12.
There are many good people in the world that do not need god for anything, your blanket, wild and false assertions are not backed by evidence at all.
The bible is easily proven to be false because of the huge falsehoods in it.
We know evolution is true so that shows the bible got the origin of man wrong, we know the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old so that shows the timeline is wrong in the bible, we know there has been no global flood for at least 40 000 years which proves the flood story wrong, we know the ark story is ludicrous anyway and we know how the earth was formed.
All these things the bible got wrong and quite frankly if it was inspired by god you'd think he would get them right.
Educate yourself from unbiased non creationist sources or stay our of adult conversations
I think you didn't even read my comment accurately! You sound so frustrated.
Of course, you know what you're talking about!
What do you mean? the worst monsters on the planet, do stuff In the name of their God all the time.
What do you mean the worst monsters on earth do things for no reason at all simply because they want to.
views aside, a debate on religion where people don't talk over each other... respect
My argument against Cliffe Knechtle point at 1:01:45 King James Bible, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."
God is good.
@@noahm44 If you had actually read the bible, you wouldn't think god is good.
@@bernierasmusson9257 Oh yeah? What part is that?
@@noahm44 Well, for starters, the part where he murders everyone on earth but eight people.
@@bernierasmusson9257 Alright. Well God does take the life that He gave us. But murder is unjustified killing. You'll have to appeal to a standard higher than God to make that claim.
Death is a change in location of the soul. There's nothing wrong with death. God takes everyone's life. The human mortality rate is 100% so I don't know why you call it murder when God floods the earth but you won't call it murder when we die by "natural" causes/old age. You need to be consistent.
Does Cliffe not know the counterarguments? I know that he does because I've seen him in other debates where the flaws in his arguments were pointed out. So, he chooses to ignore those valid counterarguments, which is disingenuous.
2:15 Matt Dillahunty knocks a glass jar off of the table at *that* height and it doesn't shatter. Yet he still doesn't believe in God? WTF!?
WTF Layton glass doesn't always break ,but you are always silly
@@bradzimmerman3171 I'm pretty sure Nick is an atheist and he was joking. And even he was a theist they can joke on their god.
@45:52 In trying to refute Cliffe’s point about ultimate meaning and purpose in life, Matt actually inadvertently supported it. Friend, that car that you have, even though one day it will break down and end up in the junkyard, did not come into existence by accident. It was created by an intelligent human being for the purpose of safe expedient transportation. You did not arbitrarily attribute that meaning to the car. Now, you could freely choose to use that car for a different purpose. For example, you could use it as a weapon to run over animals if that’s what you wanted to do, but not only would that be morally wrong, it would be an abominable adulteration of the ultimate purpose of the car.
what? meaning is created by your own mind. Its no something objectively out there...
Matt’s point was simply that you can value what you have and appreciate it while you have it, and it being finite doesn’t mean anything just because it doesn’t matter in a billion years or that we came about by natural processes the result is the same OUR EXISTENCE is the result whether or not we were created by god, furthermore life isn’t an accident life arises due to its thermodynamic nature, life is a dynamic state open thermodynamic system meaning it freely interacts with the matter and energy surrounding it and is subject to change, life can be seen as a manifestation of thermodynamic principles, there are several studies highlighting this
You missed the point entirely.
2:06 Yeah, they are "unique perspectives" but the most important event of that religion, the resurrection, is not even remotely consistent across the 4 gospels. The details of who was there, who saw what, how many angels (or if any angels were present), zombie jews or no zombie jews... the BIG news stories aroind this cemtral belief vary widely to the point of absurdity. And NOBODY saw the resurrection event itself! They just discovered an empty tomb. Of course WHO discovered the empty tomb is ALSO not in agreement between the 4 books, and those who "saw" zombie jesus didnt even recognize him. Consistency? Hardly. But of course few Christians have read and compared all four accounts. And it is all beside the point. Written stories (especially ones written decades after the event as in all of the gospels) are not evidence of the true nature of actual events.
I'm with you on the logistics. Who could hear mumbles from a broken battered face hoisted high on a cross?..the garden where jesus prays alone - how is there a transcript? or of his temptation by satan? Thomas is like who are you and the voice, nothing clicks? So this guy has stigmata or something and Thomas is playing about in a man's wounds, yet believers think that makes the crap more credible?
and how superior and blessed a man could have been if he was allowed to see the resurrecting body of Christ! When Jesus himself rose, Peter saw his bare hands with the marks of crucifiction.
that was just brutal.
just watched it. I think I died little inside.
@@AlfapiomegaLol me too
All you need to know about Cliffe is that in his opening story he refers to the kid with cerebral palsy as "spastic". Mind that Cliffe is not claiming to be telling events as they happened somewhere, this is just a made up story where he chose the exact wording.
What's your point? I find it interesting that you picked one word in a 2hr video to focus on. I'm guessing you have a personal experience in some manner with CP?
DispelTheMyth Empathy is a “fully understood function of the brain”?
spastic is a medical term used to describe cerebral palsy
I thought that too, but he said in such a way as to imply that the other kids were calling the kid with CP 'spastic'. There were a lot of other issues with what he said, tho.
@@XiagraBalls sure, that was the implication, but the slur has a lot of history. The "Look how I use this disabled prop in my story!" is vile all on its own. He probably tells the story of the good Samaritan with added slurs too. *If this bad/broken 'person' can do it you upstanding clean folks have no excuse...* 🤮
What really puzzles me is how can Matt say he's a humanist and right after that say he's also a feminist. A humanist is someone already concerned with the rights of ALL human beings, no matter the gender or any other characteristic about them. So, is he saying "i care about all humans, but especially about women"? Because, in case he has been living under a rock, on this present day and age women no longer have to fight for equal rights (at least in the Western world. Perhaps in Arabian countries it still makes sense to be a feminist) so, what happens when someone is fighting for a cause that requires no fight? A lot of crying for no reason and insults to people who have done no wrong! And that's exactly what modern day feminists are doing (besides embarrass themselves). I'm amazed at the fact that Matt is one also.
Now, as for mister Cliffe's rant (at 39:35), he managed to put a bullet on his own foot by saying "we were all created in the image of God, and i hate racism because it's wrong". Isn't his mistake here quite obvious? If he belives we humans were ALL created to match God's own features, but he also aknowledges that we are all different looking (hence racism exists)... then WICH RACE better represents God's image??? We have to pick one! Is God white, yellow, black, asian looking, or what? For a long time, white europeans used exactly that idea to practice slavery, based on the "fact" that God had to look like them (since they were their chosen people and the others were inferior). Can't Cliffe realize the problem with that bullshit? That line of reasoning is exactly what further separates human races apart and leads to racism (that he claims to hate), by focusing on "image", on the features of a people who wishes to look like God Himself and uses those very differences to claim superiority over the others that don't look the same. It's not just bullshit, it's DANGEROUS bullshit!
Besides, all you have to do to see what mister Cliffe really knows about anything he's talking about, is just to check the video at 1:17:28 and you'll get "Science claims that the best model for the beginning of Universe is Evolution"... Do i even have to comment?
+Jimmy David it is just labels, they may not be defined in the same way for everyone. he may have definitions of feminism and humanism that do not contradict each other. you should focus more on his ideas instead of his labels.
+Jimmy David So gender wage inequality, attacks on women's healthcare, etc. those are all over? :)
Is Cliffe in the same debate? I haven't heard him answer a single question.
45 minutes in... is Cliffe actually going to make real points... or just preach? EVERYTHING he is saying is just a sermon with fluffy thoughts and wishful thinking. This guy doesn't actually know how to debate.... kind of sad really. At least Matt is addressing the points very clearly and not with tales of yore, and excepts from the bible that are subject to interpretation.
Cliffe pretty much proves my point in his response to life after death... wishful thinking. He is clearly being intellectually dishonest. Appeals to claims with no proof and asserting that it is true. Matt already rebutted that with the alien analogy. You have thousands of people alive today that "claim" aliens, why shouldn't I believe them, but believe a 2000 year old account in a book that has been translated and rewritten many times.
everything is based upon Belief
Don’t be so harsh on him, he’s used to bully students on universities and even they give him some hard times
Matt, an atheist, kept making appeals to objective morality?!?!! His worldview is not privy to make such appeals....you have none.
Cliffe kept emphasizing that the existence of an intricately designed universe and its intelligibility point to an intelligent origin,, as all of humanity has inferred in our history. They used their reason to conclude that...even your great prophet Dawkins said it seems designed, but the lack of reason to see that it logically follows that something that seems designed might have a designer, but nope! The evidence that has sufficed for all other humans, atheists are too dense or disingenuous to admit.
Science and reason, ok. Science: never has anyone observed one species turn into another, Evolutionists make that inference(faith by what they consider fossil evidence)...reason: never have we observed something coming from nothing, life from non-life...so the universe is something, it did not come from nothing...life did not come from a rock and primordial soup...that's reason, which the lot of you seem to lack. MORALITY: You have no right if you claim no God. And if you think you do go ahead and try to make the case for it.
@@walterdaems57 you call the dialogues he has with students bullying?
Why don't you rebut his points instead of this soft soap you try to comfort yourself with....you like Matt, all you do is refuse all evidence that confront you and when pressed on an issue you fall on that cheap cop out of, like Hitchens said, "our beliefs are not beliefs" type of rationale,, as if you don't have a worldview.....you do, just no good arguments, zero evidence, and insults,,
Atheists comments are the most ad hominem in nature. Can't argue reason so you go after the person. Please. Grow some balls and be honest with yourself, you want atheism to be true coz the existence of God and the chance that you'll be morally accountable is highly inconvenient, and you wanna live your life how you want. You wanna be God.
I love how cliffe freaks out after matts first question that he had to address, I love how cliffe can make several assertions and offers no logical proof of why those assertions are true, and I love how cliffe repeats everything he says like talking points of a politician....
@Jacob Watson well noticed 👍
@Jacob Watson Though repeating "I love" three times for three different arguments is clearly not as annoying as repeating an entire argument like Cliff did...
God bless you all and I pray that anyone that doesn't believe, finds their way to Jesus!
Odin bless you and I pray you repent to him before it's too late for you.
@@crasssh00
I'll stick with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, parmesan be upon Him 🙏 Ramen 😂
If you pray for me then I will think for you!
Cliffe's entire discourse is drowned in assumptions and false assertions, it's soooooooooo painful to watch.
Hi Marco, so what are the alternative ,? This guy gives rational explanation for how we experience reality. how do you live your life and what is the evidence that what you believe and stand for is truth?
Because you get scared of reality that’s why you feel pain
Cliff uses so many tired old arguments from Christian apologetics that have already been shelved while ignoring everything Matt says... so much #Facepalm
Why do christians always say things like "it is objectively wrong to hurt children for fun"
I don't get it. Haven't they read Psalm 137:9?
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."
Well it says "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"
And I interpret that as meaning "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"
The implication being that according to the bible, enjoying killing children is at least sometimes right, which means that it can't be objectively wrong.
Jesus said " But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
So fantasizing about sinning is the same as doing it.
The "psalmist' as you call it is traditionally thought of as being Jeremiah. The words Jeremiah used were god's own, as said in Jeremiah 1 “The lord… …said to me: I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”
So this verse about being happy when killing children is condoned by god.
It is not the only place in the bible where god condones the killing of children, often as a part of a genocide he orders. I only chose the verse I did, because it used the word "happy", I could have chosen from many more.
You need to read your bible more.
You say that these culture's were vile, were the children vile too? The bible says nothing about sending them to heaven. What about the first born of Egypt, are Egyptians vile too, or was it just the oldest children of that generation that happened to be vile?
2nd Timothy 3 16:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."
So the verse saying "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" was "inspired by god" and "make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.". I can't remember the verse were it is recanted, nor the verse that explains that god didn't agree with it. In fact, when reading it in context with the rest of the books of the old testament, it doesn't seem out of line with gods personality at all.
I'm sure you are a good person, your comments here show that you are more moral than your god. You would be an even better person if you didn't let your morality be corrupted by ancient superstitions. I hope you do read the bible objectively.
You do seem relatively friendly (abuse comes from both sides). I also realize you don't have all the answers (neither do I), and I don't expect to change your mind on an internet forum.
I honestly hope you consider the bible objectively. It is a rare christian that does, and they often walk away non believers.
I maintain that you would be at least as good, and probably a better person if you didn't believe. There is nothing moral that you couldn't do as a non believer that you do do now. On the other hand, as a non believer you wouldn't feel the need to justify genocide and child killing.
Don't be scared to doubt. There is no bogey man on the other side of the door.
***** Surely if god sent these kids to heaven, that would make him worse? Think about it:
If god has the ability to make a pre-emptive strike and kill children, therefore ushering them straight into heaven, when they would have otherwise (as you put it) grown up to become heathens and condemned, then why does he only do it for THOSE children?
That would mean that billions upon billions of people that are going to go to hell could had been saved by god via this method, but he chose not to.
This isn't really a debate. Cliff is just preaching.
Cliffe, im not sure if you will ever read this. I want to tell you, you have inspired me so much and i have learned a great deal from watching you speak. God Bless and thank you!
It's really hard to listen to Cliffe spouting platitudes.
Platitudes and evasiveness is a tool of the Atheist. It's way more difficult to hear an atheist make unsupported moral claims....what's 'good' 'right' 'ought' 'should', atheists have no case for such things.
@@angru_arches How do you figure?
@@lostfan5054 you have no ontic reference to claim anything is good, or anybody ought/should do anything....what informs your sense of morality?
@@angru_arches Pretty simple.
I don't want to be murdered. I wouldn't like it if someone stole from me. I wouldn't want someone to harm my children.
I don't want these things for me, so I agree that I won't do them to you if you agree you won't do them to me. Then we're both happy. No god needed.
@@lostfan5054 oh, feelings...right, you wouldn't like for those things to be done to you...but what's the argument that therefore I shouldn't do it to you? What if robbing you makes me richer, happier, and if I'm smart enough to get away with it I do the same till the end of my days? And when I die that's it, everything is over. What damn should I give about another 'accident' we call persons? Can you really tell me I shouldn't steal and kill even if it benefits me? And if you can, with what authority?
Wow.. Cliffe is special isn't he. His debating "points" are utterly incoherent.
1:44:59 Matt did get something correct..the nun Teresa (not my mother) was in love with suffering and raised millions for the Catholic Church and used almost none of it for the suffering people she used to raise the money. I wish people would stop using her as a model of a Christian as she was not.
Matt cannot rationally justify why he values human life. Its that simple. He loses. He believes life is an accident. That makes life ultimately meaningless. Its pure logic. This is what Cliffe appealed to. Logic. That's why Cliffe won.
Okay, cliffe didn't win any sound reasoning, though.
This is one of the most pathetic brazen lies I've seen in a while. There's literally hours of Matt talking about why and how he values human life. Hours of Matt talking about secular humanism in depth, which is almost exclusively justifying and valuing human life. The truth is that YOU believe "life is ultimately meaningless without God". What really makes your comment pathetic is claiming "Matt believes life is an accident", how many times does he have to say "i don't know" until you'll acknowledge his actual claims? He's probably explicitly said it thousands of times, yet here you are lying through your teeth.
yes he can he is here, job done, simple, he wins, he does not believe life is an accident, ultimate meaning is not needed, it's logic, which cliff failed 2 address, that's why he lost badly...
What’s wrong with life being an accident? What’s wrong with personal meaning? Just value other people as they are in the same boat of this seemingly meaningless existence. I value other people because they, like me, are all looking for the same thing and I can relate to their struggles. I can love people, not because I’m supposed to, but because these people help me grow. Value should not be given, it’s earned and your value comes from how you change other people.
@@BOGOworms4sale What's the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that value comes from how one changes other people?
Cliffe, your atheist friends live for money? Really? You sure you're not just making that up? It might be different for other places on earth but I don't know a single atheist, and I know dozens, that would ever say they live for money. Practically all of them say that they live to make the world a better place compared to when they were born and they hope this brings joy and happiness to themselves, their offspring and their fellow human beings. I think you are making this up to make us look bad.
"My atheist friends". Hard to imagine an atheist putting up with Cliff foe more than four minutes. High on my list of men not to be stuck in a lift with.
Lying is a core Christian tenet, Cliffe is in all probability lying when he says he has atheist friends, he may have acquaintances that are atheist , but atheist never, no atheist could befriends with a biased bigot like Knectle that can't stand any one having a different view to his, he demonstrated theirs in another debate with Matt Dillahunty were he lost himself big time and constantly shouted and ranted at Dillahunty to shut up.
12:00 Cliffe's argument is: disabled kid believes in Jesus, therefore god is real.
Our brains experience emotions, like love, therefore there must be a big, invisible guy out there.
"There's more to reality than matter and energy" because human brains produce emotions?
This nonsensical crap is supposed to impress anyone?
Sorry, Cliffe. That's not how grown-ups present and support claims.
We use *evidence*, *logic* and *reason*.
You don't get to jump to conclusions, like there's a big, invisible wizard in the sky from the fact that humans experience emotions.
That's a ridiculous an completely unsupported claim and there are *much better* and *much simpler* explanations for emotions.
You need to *independently* support your claims about your imaginary sky wizard, with *evidence*.
Theists: you need some new arguments, some new approaches. This is becoming redundant.
Actually, I'd argue they don't, and that they should stick with the classics. Though I disagree with his metaphysics, I can at least read Aquinas and say "yeah, I see how a not-crazy person could believe that." But the newer apologetic approaches (evidentialism, and *FSM forbid* presuppositionalism) strike me as basically garbage.
Soft dinosaur tissue debunks evolution.
ruclips.net/video/We_XIq-k66c/видео.html
@@ada2step997 Whatever debunks a shackle in the chain of evolution doesn’t bunk a celestial wizard who shook the universe out of his sleeve
@@ada2step997 Not in any way.
1:20:30 - Cliffe doesn't understand the term he is criticizing.
He says "entomological nihilism" .... or just, nihilism... is the view that nothing can be known for absolute certainty.
Correction - Nihilism's definition (check it yourself) - "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."
What Cliffe was actually referring to was Hard Solipsism - "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."
Cliffe primarily understands that Atheists disagree with him, but he lazily doesn't bother to accurately understand exactly how, which ISN'T THAT HARD TO DO, and then he arrogantly starts asserting they are wrong and something is wrong with them all while not having a reasonable understanding of what he is criticizing.
He is a grown up child.
No. Thank you for providing the timestamp to prove that what you yourself said is incorrect. Cliffe describes nihilism correctly and doesn't mention Solipsism at all (though Matt does reference his own scoliosis earlier in the debate).
Actual debate content begins at 4:43.
Thank you
thx
At 49:00 IF there is a God,and Jesus was who he said he was then,Christianity will correct that those who spend eternity in Hell,would rather be there than Heaven,because they really don't want GOD.
So in Cliffes opening, he said that students have faith they will get a diploma on graduation day because there’s a bunch of evidence that the university will give them a diploma. That’s not faith, that’s an evidence based position.
In Cliffe's discussions with students, he defines faith as trust based on evidence. He rejects the idea that faith must be without evidence. Instead, what most people call faith, he calls gullibility and naivety. I happen to agree with him.
@@Malhaloc
I agree that faith without evidence is weird.
I have not yet found any good evidence for anything supernatural.
@@JaniceinOR where are you looking?
@@ninjason57 Reputable scientific studies would be my preferred evidence.
Why, do you have some suggestions of where strong evidence of the supernatural could be found?
@@JaniceinOR Janice, everything that is, is evidence for God.
I love debates like this because they provide great food for thought and really challenge peoples' beliefs. I do agree with many of the comments that say CK's positions and rebuttals sound much more like sermons based on his faith, than cogent arguments based on sound logic. Of course, considering that he is a minister who's given sermons weekly for years, it makes does sense that he'd do that in this debate. What it doesn't do, however, is make a strong case for the argument ... especially when facing someone like Matt.
Like Matt? He is hardly a threat to the faith. He is considered a bit of a joke. People debate him because in planting seeds you might get a few converts. At the end of the day, I could care less…I’m not going to lose sleep over atheists who believe they have serious evidence for their beliefs. They don’t, that’s why there is a book the Devils Delusion. Look it up.
@@michaelbrickley2443 you realise that just by implying that atheists need to provide evidence for their beliefs, you admit to not even understand what atheism is. Let alone its arguments.
@@catposter2361 I understand that atheism is for people afraid of the light. You think this is some deep philosophical belief system? Explain to me why approx. 50% of scientists are followers of Yeshua and why there are more agnostics than atheists of the remaining. You should do more research into your alleged reasonable arguments. First, Christianity is not a philosophy of religion, it is the belief in an historical incident. Please don’t bring up the claims of dick carrier. No serious ancient historian agrees with him. Oh, maybe one or two. Smh
@@michaelbrickley2443 afraid of light 😂😂😂. If we were afraid we’d be christans. Any god who damns people for eternity based on the location of their birth is not one I want any part of. If you were born in the Middle East you probably wouldn’t be Christian. What makes Christianity right and not all the other story book myths. How did someone rise from the dead? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth if their offspring would have been related, and had retarded babies. How did Noah build an ark, find 2 of every animal on planet earth of opposite sex, and fit them on a boat. Then over 6,000 years all the evolution happened that made ALL our modern animals. How did millions of spices go extinct . There is no evidence of any of these events, except that they’re found in a book
@@michaelbrickley2443 and don’t claim they’re figurative because that’s BS. Anytime they can’t prove their way and get proved wrong they simply get rid of it. They pick and choose what to take literally and what to not based on what we discover. Science doesn’t care about religion
kudos to cliff for posting this to his own channel.
And why not, he kicked his opponent's ass.
@@PartiallyAgonized or even Cliffe
@@BrokenContracts How the heck did you conclude that? He had nothing.
@@BrianBattles thats because you have a bias, its ok most sheep can't be objective.
@@friedit7862 Which sheep?
This is hard to listen to, because Cliffe tends to talk too long and switch subjects too often, and the other guy just keeps saying things that are incorrect. Lol
Cliffe Knechtle was adequately prepared for the circumstance, articulating his thoughts with eloquence. I find the likelihood of God's existence to be quite compelling, supported by substantial evidence concerning Jesus.
Oops. Not quite.
Bro you made ai write that lmao
@@Angeleyes12956 proof?
@@rampantinertia7950 he looks like a smart fellow but nobody writes like that lol
That was not even close Matt talks about reality and truth and Cliffe makes a lot of claims that are not proven in anyway. Sorry Cliffe but magic has never been shown to be real.
Did you know that Atheist is a religion?
@@svmarshmallow8399 Seriously 🤣
atheists spend all of their time trying to disprove Theism. They Religiously attack it and even though they no-life their studies they still don't even get close to it.
@@svmarshmallow8399 Do you know anything?
@@TheMidnightModder Theism disproves itself.
Okay did anyone for a second believe that those stories Cliffe was telling about the kid with CP, and the French Rioters were in any way true?
No
40:05 after cliffe finishes his babbling about morals...look at Matts face! that is the face of a man who knows he has a long day of talking to a brick wall. I feel for Matt here. Cliffe....Matt explained it, we derive our morals through what we believe will BEST allow us to continue AND improve society. Some people will have odd ideas of what that looks like and these people will be the Hitlers of society BUT the majority will base their RIGHT and WRONG on what helps us to best survive and thrive as a species. and you want to base your morals on a book that was written thousands of years ago that says owning slaves, stoning people in the street and selling your daughter to her RAPIST is right!!! who can honestly say they believe in such a hateful,violent book....come on
cliffe knechile vs Scott Hahn on the topic of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. That's what I want to see!
Matt spoke of being the captain of his own ship (as desirable), but what he doesn't realize is that his ship has no safe harbor, no anchor, no destination.
He is adrift in a sea of nothingness with no direction whatsoever.
He has charted his course to nowhere.
All his cargo that he carries are nothing more than empty boxes.
you're a small minded idiot. lol, atheists have more to live for than believers in fact, we have to make sense of all this without relying on a sky fairy, we do good things for the sake of good, not to get some reward for following orders, god wants you to be good just for the sake of being good, so an atheist is just what god wants, atheists don't exploit god at all, and what we do we do sincerely, anyone with faith or belief is just following orders and avoiding hell. we aren't, we are open and honest, and still good. you're the one with no hope, you have to rely on a fictitious character to "give your life meaning", how sad is that? try to remember this if you think science and reason is cold, the atoms in your body have travelled billions of years and billions of miles and find themselves in you, they existed since the beginning of time and science says they probably went through at least three supernovae to get to fly around the sun and then coalesce into the planet, and then make you. and when you die those atoms merge back into the eco system, float around again for billions of years, pass through more super novae and either they dissipate and then go to make up bits of millions of aliens, or by chance get together (in the infinity of time) and you actually do get born again, and if nothing else they will be flying around the universe until the end of time. who needs god.
What do u mean? He shoukd have a mission to be a spineless sheep, a bdsm servant of some god?
Was really embarrassing Matt spouting off "do good" this and that with no argument other than if you don't believe what the definition of my good is then you're wrong.
Fallacy after assumption after assertion after ignorance after wilful ignorance and countless additional fallacies. Matt did not need to respond to Cliffe Knechtle, as Cliffe destroyed his own arguments and exposed what lengths he would go to in order to lie for religion! Matt won by the way :)
I heard Cliffe had refused to debate Matt again and I didn't know why.
Now I've realised that Cliffe put this video up and seen the comment section I can see why.
Hopefully he's learned that appeals to emotion and assertions backed by nothing substantial won't get you anywhere, but I doubt that.
All of you that just praised Matt have too much blind faith in him lol
Cliffe totally killed this debate solely on Matt claiming that there were no evidence coming from Cliffe while he just blabbered on with no evidence either!
What does he need evidence for? He didn't make a claim!
I'm glad that Matt doesn't fall into the "win or lose" mindset when it comes to these debates. As he said, it's about both sides making a case for their ideas and beliefs, not who wins or loses. I've seen too many debates where people stoop to using tactics like sarcastic remarks that have no purpose but to ridicule the other, and it solves nothing and does nothing to further the cause of the person doing it.
Unlike others *cough* Aaron Ra *cough*
I laughed out loud when Matt was introduced as the PRESIDENT of atheism 😂
Well,in all fairness, Matt Dillahunty has been pathologically ranting against something that doesn't exist according to him, for years. 😂Indeed, Matt Dillahunty 's pathological fixation on something that doesn't exist according to him, causes Matt to insult it at times. Matt Dillahunty called something that doesn't exist according to him, he called it a "thug". Matt Dillahunty hosts the " I don't believe that something exists" Experience (' Atheist Experience '), and is a member of the " I don't believe that something exists " community ( atheist community)of Austin,Texas.
@@kubejunkie It does. I won't argue with that. What's so incredibly strange about it, however, is that Matt Dillahunty is on record, repeatedly saying...... that all atheism is is a "lack of belief in God or gods '. Period.
Matt Dillahunty goes far far beyond a simple"lack of belief ". He pathologically rants, argues, hosts podcasts, has joined fellow pathological ranters against something that doesn't exist according to them, etc.
@@kubejunkie I agree with you one hundred percent. Matt Dillahunty's moral compass is "make it up as we go along '. It's incredibly amazing that he will categorically judge the actions of something that doesn't exist according to him as" immoral ", and then state that there is no" Objective Morality '.
@robinrobyn1714 It's literally his job.
I cannot understand how you watch this debate and think matt won? What was his best argument, really?
All of them?
I like Cliff but all his arguments end with "god did it". He just uses logical fallacy after logical fallacy to make his points. Now you'll want an example. Ok. The old "watchmaker" argument. We see a watch and we know it didn't come into existence by throwing metal up in the air therefore it must have been designed. That is design by complexity, which is false and an argument from ignorance. We don't evaluate design by complexity we evaluate design by comparison to something else that is designed. Because something is complex does not necessarily mean it was designed. Logical fallacy.
We can continue. The assumption that causality applies to the universe may not be true. Causality applies to the known world but we have no evidence to verify that it applies to the universe at large, that is simply an assumption. When we think of the big bang, the rapid expansion of the early universe from the singularity, we think of that as the start of both space and also time. The thought that something causes something else describes a sequence of events one after the other in space-time. If you then ask questions such as what caused the big bang, the start of space-time, you are in fact asking a meaningless question. It is perhaps akin to asking what is south of the south pole.
So if everything that had a beginning has a cause, what caused god? Cliff has the answer. God is an uncaused-caused. Special pleading. See how nicely it all fits together? When your argument is based on magic it trumps all. Magic requires no evidence. For example:
What caused the universe?
God
What caused god?
He has always existed
But the universe is not eternal
He existed outside space and time
And we get into an infinite loop.
Also it's just flat out wrong when Cliff asserts that you can't love without god. There are cultures in this world that have no concept of a superior being and they care for each other, what could be described as love.
Matt also made a brilliant point about heaven. His mother is a follower of Jesus, so she will be in heaven. He is not, so he will go to hell. His mother could not experience eternal paradise if she knew her son was suffering in hell. So what is the solution here?
Was there a particular point Matt made that you disagree with?
You haven't understood Cliffe's argument if you think that Cliffe was asserting "concepts of God" lead us to care/love other people. What Cliffe was stating is how do you explain love's origins? God has wired each human up with the ability to love or hate regardless of whether they believe in him or not. Watch my homepage video, I explain it a bit better on there in my third point.
I understood them just fine, do not condescend to me, thanks. Maybe you didn't understand that you don't need god to have love. Meaning we don't need to be "wired" or other concepts with no evidence in order to experience love. Yes, I understand Cliff's assertions on love's origins. They are false. Next.
No comment on the other points?
I'll ask the question again since you dodged it: What particular point of Matt's did you disagree with?
Yeah christians just like to assert things. Like the op who claimed Matt made no solid arguments. I presented evidence that in fact Cliff's arguments were based on fallacies and then offered a couple of Matt's for discussion.
I then asked, not once but twice, what arguments Matt made that he found objectionable. The question was dodged both times and the only comment was a lame suggestion that I didn't "understand" Cliff's argument which was complete bullshit.
It's very common. Christians will post how in a debate the atheists made no good points, lost the debate, got destroyed etc and when questioned they run away since they really have no points it just makes them feel better to say the atheist lost.
But to be honest, these debates, while fun, are pretty pointless. It's science and logic vs magic. So in the eyes of the theist they always win since they have magic on their side.
Example:
I have a box and you have a box. In your box you claim to have an apple. In my box I claim to have a purple unicorn that sings and dances. I do not believe that you have an apple in your box so you open the box and show me the apple. You do not believe that I have a purple unicorn in my box that sings and dances but I won't open the box. I just assert it is in there.
That is what it's like debating a theist.
You state that evolution explains why we love because we would "reproductively successful group" and thus be more likely to survive? But what about the people who for instance dived into a dangerous river to help save another person, these people would be less likely to survive and pass on their genes. So why so we have more selfless people than selfish people?
Cliffe fails to recognize that the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
I would say the bible does make lot's of claims, and evidence for something. I do not believe it is evidence that a god exist, or for the existence for a god. It might be evidence that people wrote stories, or that people did believe a god exist.
Jason Roelle
Its evidence that the bible exists.
It's a fact that a book when contains, certain sentences, that make up different books is referred to as the bible.
no idea what that means.
Is the eyewitness reliable?
Is he alive to say?
Is he real?
The bible's stories have eyewitnesses, but the problem is the bible says that there are witnesses. See the problem?
Now, historians try to crosscheck with other cultures history of that time to see if major events happened. Very often there is no correlation, which leads to several conclusions:
1) The event didn't happen
2) The event happened but completely different then described
3) The event happened , BUT TO SOME OTHER CULTURE (Very common in the bible, half the stories happened to the Babylonians, Canaanintes, Persians, etc)
4) They chose not to commemorate it (Hard to prove this, as its a negative).
Every time Cliffe speaks in this video he spend a ton of time developing a strawman point of view so he can defeat it because he doesn't have any real arguments for what Matt has actually said.
Add to that the countless appeals to emotion and you have an exchanges that came nowhere near resembling a real debate.
I usually have a level of empathy for pastors who so passionately defend their faith, even though there's no good ground. But the "personal experience proof" he gives and the antagonistic attitude he has towards science is awful.
Around 56:25, Cliffs says that athiests live for something besides (a god or gods). He says he knows a few that "live for money". Money, an item exchanged for goods in our society.
I don't think they "live" for that, but they probably spend a portion of their time, mind AND money to increase how much they have, why, because this allows people to have more in our societies.
Does money buy everything, no, but it provides a level of security. If we aren't giving that away, then it must be bought.
Many circumstances impact our starting point and we may overcome those in time, but they certainly have an effect on how and when we could get to our intended goal, and we may not have enough time for what we want.
We all make compromises, and we do not always go with our own philosophies as they are mindset that are not locked in, even consistency takes practice.
And this is why mid-life crisis’ occur.
Wow. Matt Dillahunty is one of the most genius people I have ever heard speak. Hits every point, every time.
And yet Matt said: “I believe I can have confidence, not faith.”
Confidence= con fe de (Latin)= with faith.
Matt also said Hitler was a Christian. To say Hitler was a Christian is dishonest or uneducated.
Seth Bohnart Hitler followed the catholic doctrine (fact)
@Joel M - Hitler was not a Christian- he was most likely a Deist or possibly even an Atheist. There are some that claim Hitler was a Christian in a vague attempt to establish a link between God and evil. Here are some direct quotes from Adolf Hitler...
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.”
April 9th, 1942 (Hitler’s Table Talk p.339)
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”
October 19th, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p.96)
“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will be that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar.”
February 27th, 1942 (Hitler’s Table Talk p.278)
“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone.”
(Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944)
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”
July 11-12, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p. 6-7)
“But Christianity is the invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless...”
December 13, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p. 118-119)
“The only way to get rid of Christianity is to let it die...little by little...Christianity is the liar...we’ll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”
October 14, 1941 (Hitler’s Table Talk p. 49-52)
This is just a small selection of his quotes against Christianity, so clearly he was not one himself. He thought it as a “disease,” the work from “sick minds,” “lies,” he saw it as “incompatible” with the State, and he hoped for the day that it would one day completely disappear from the earth.
In 1930’s Germany- the majority of the people were either Christian or Catholic, and the church was a powerful institution with a significant amount of influence. Hitler feared its influence and realized that it would be foolish to take them on while fighting a world war, and so, “in the pursuit and maintenance of power [he] was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.” In other words, he made a tactical choice not to take on the churches until after the war was over. As Allen Bullock writes: “once the war was over, [Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian churches, but until then he would be circumspect.”
Hitler’s strategy was to appear sympathetic to Christianity in public, tailoring his speeches to whatever he thought his audience wanted to hear, and he ordered his staff to play along, too. His propaganda chief and closest confidant Joseph Goebbels wrote: “He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that’s noble in humanity.” And “...though Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons.” On December 29th, 1939 Joseph Goebbels writes: “The Führer is...completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race...in the end they will be destroyed.” And “But although the Fuhrer will “have to get around to a conflict between church and state” in the future, he says in the meantime “The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a positive Christian.”
His chief architect Albert Speer quoted Hitler, saying: “Once I have settled my other problem (the war)...I’ll have my reckoning with the church. I’ll have it reeling on the ropes.” Speer says that Hitler would go off on rants of fiery against Christianity which “raised him to a white heat,” but in the meantime- he tried to keep his intentions under wraps.
Matt's in non-rare form, doing what he does well - speaking on common sense and the dangers of distorted sense and logic.
It amazes me that Cliffe can stand up there and claim to be one that follows evidence. Hee heeee! It's both funny and sad. It suggests that Cliffe has sentenced himself to a life of deep delusion.
Mudder Teresa was a deluded person who thought that one got closer to Jesus through suffering.
She made some sick folk die instead of heal as they could have. Agnes was her real first name.
She became a shill for the catholic church.
She loved having power and attention.
She knew, in the end, that she was doing wrong. It's in her writings.
Anyone who still thinks mother Teresa was a good person should go read some Christopher Hitchens ...
You mean Hitch who go his ass whipped by WLC? that Hitchins? lol Who matt wants to debate but it will be the end of his RUclips fantasy atheist charade--
Matt went seminary and yet doesn't know anything about the Bible
@@ada2step997 What did Matt get wrong about the Bible?
@@GUYMAN261 41 he got wrong slavery God never condoned it. If he remembers godfried Israel from slavery. It was indentured servitude and back then people worked off their debt. If not cause that slavery then if he works I guess he would be considered a slave. Matt doesn't even know the context of scripture. Matt also doesn't understand that there were examples of people sin in the Bible because God doesn't want us to sin. The Bible shows the repercussions of what sin causes
"What do you live for?"
"Money/pleasure."
"What's the evidence that what you're living for is TRUE?"
What do you mean "true"?! Turth is a property of propositions.
@Jacob Watson Don't understand the question.
Because Cliffe lives his life on the basis that some claim - Christianity, in his case - is true, he assumes Matt does the same. He doesn't.
JMUDoc If he doesn’t live based off of what he believes is true, than I would ask, why debate my friend?
God bless you and Jesus loves you!
John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Truth is exact and it doesn't change. You have feelings and truth feels good. So use your feelings and figure it out ☝🏻
yet another creationist that say "i dont understand science, therefor god" and "i'm special therefor god".
holy.. every time he speak, all he does is use emotional appeal.. there is no evident, there is no argument...
You understand science?
yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loves us, for i am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord AMEN. I LOVE YOU JESUS
Amen hermano 💯🙏
Embarrassing.
Nope, try again.
Dillahunty makes valid points. Cliffe tells made up stories planned for a debate. Guess that's what christians like.
ruclips.net/video/We_XIq-k66c/видео.html
Lol I think you didn’t hear anything your authority (Matt) said. Remember in the beginning of the debate when Matt talked about the Luke kid who wanted to punch an atheist in the face? You probably don’t care do you? Doesn’t seem like you care too much for truth regardless either.
@@jadon7696 I don't remember. It's been 7 years.
@@JustAGuy85 true. Doesn’t really change your comment though. It’s still hypocritical
@@jadon7696 I don't think so. I'm saying one of them uses real life examples and facts. The other one makes up "fables" and stories to create a point.
Matt is a great debater... Cliffe is just a preacher.......
He didn't come across as preaching to me
36:42 Knechtle contradicts his own bible when he says "this is not about intimidation..." but his own bible says "the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom." He also contradicts his bible when he says at 36:51 this is about logical thinking. his own bible says trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not to thine own understanding. ... he constantly uses appeals to emotion and when he is put on the spot by dilahunty he contradicts scripture... FAIL
42:57 yet another contradiction. he says jesus christ cherished individualism. but in Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me
yet not I but christ... in other words there is no more ME once I accept christ... the bible is against individualism. this dude is a shill
He said jesus cherished individualism.... lets see what jesus actually said regarding individualism....
*I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.*
how can matt allow this guy to contradict the scripture over and over.... the bible is clearly against individualism.
45:08 the shill says that jesus taught that you can know god... but the bible says no man can know god... Job 36:26 "*Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.*"
also in Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
he contradicted his bible yet again
+joseph waring typical selfish atheist. Bruh! stop disproving God you simply can't. thank you
Carlos Villatoro LOL, is that your attempt to refute any of the arguments presented? Typical religitard posting ad-hominems with no ability to address any of the arguments presented. Don't waste my time, go pay your tithes.
"become fertilizer"
I couldn't imagine a more glorious eternity than to die and still help cause everything else that happens... why does Cliffe downplay this and raise up the notion of having no choice but to either burn in Hell or be forced to look at perfection forever, knowing there will never be an end to it? I don't think it's possible to make a person happy given the choice 'do you want to die or live forever' ONCE, and not subsequently. As a human being, we would regret it in some shape or form--and in this heaven scenario, regret it for eternity. Death is the end of regret, and we have an opportunity to be finally satisfied, KNOWING we will die, before 'THE END' is put in big bold letters to our story. Christians somehow want to taint that, with a punchline afterwards and the realization that everything you've done, embarrassing and alone, pathetic and by yourself, is being watched by everybody admirable and saintly, but worst of all by angels and a god who, even as a human, didn't particularly find a need to have sex or be weak to the things you were... just looking down and judging it. It's not noble, it's not a final resolution--it's REAL degradation to human life. Worse than fertilizer.
This is what it essentially says:
"What you've done for the past 80-90 years, since you were lucky, was just a test that for some is a lot easier to pass than others. I'm sorry it was difficult for you growing up in the bad neighborhood, when it wasn't for suburban Johnny here, but the goal, the purpose, is to get here, given my rules... oh, and you'll both be staring at perfection, infinity, etc. exactly the same because there aren't really 'levels' of that. So your whole life has no more REAL merit than Johnny's did; it's not a story worth telling more for any reason, and the moral here is 'be born and grow up in better circumstances'--does that make sense as a moral? Oh, it doesn't? Too bad. I say it does."
If our lives aren't IT, if the journey isn't the final thing, then that is what you have to believe.
I coudlnt agree more! It's beautiful! Send me back to the earth which created me! My death will give life to everything around my rotting corpse! So.... my body is truly immortal within the earth that recycled me.
Its not being forced to look at perfection forever as you arent being forced into heaven or hell. its a choice that you make
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. John 20:29
"You're a wizard Harry" see we can quote fiction too....it doesn't help the situation
@@SNORKYMEDIA Did you get the point that I was pointing out Knechtle's dishonesty over the definition of faith?
Cliffe looks like a Christian version of Bill Nye.
@1:19:00 Seriously? A grown man, coming to a debate with an athiest like Matt, and you *seriously* want to bring up the watchmaker argument? Personal incredulity?
It has been said before in the comments, Cliffe is not debating, he is preaching, he is blindly repeating the arguments that he has heard over the years, and that he has not investigated once he found out that they appear, at first glance anyway, to support his argument.
My problem with that is that it is dishonest, because he would demand a doctort keep searching for the real cause of a disease,he would want his mechanic to really fix his car, he would never accept anyone just sitting down and saying "well, that seems to be a possible reason so I'll stop here'. But when it's about god, suddenly he doesn't *WANT* more research, suddenly it's bad to try to find out if his argument is correct.
Faith makes people dishonest, it has been shown here once again.
why does a debate like this actually exist?!
why is noone debating about the existence of Batman?
seriously its a mindnumbing thought that in the 21st century we're having debates about the existence of characters from bronze age fables...
you cant prove Batman doesnt exist ! therefore belief in him is justified ! lol
youweechube agreed! and look at the pretty trees! obviously there is no explanation to their existence except batman cast batseeds from his utility belt! :D
Raptor Jesus
Come on then, prove that batman truly exists by presenting some historical evidence instead of a "Once upon a time" story.
Daniel Arnold seems like you understand the point !
Daniel Arnold
Thousands of people in Gotham have seen Batman. Commissioner Gordon has seen him. The Penguin, the Joker, the Riddler, and Two-Face won't deny his existences. Thousands of documents have been written about him.
Faith = not evidence
Bible = not evidence
Preaching = not evidence
Stories = not evidence
Who or what do you live for? What's the evidence that what your living for is true? Who or what is more reliable than Jesus Christ?
@@localfarmdude7243they want evidence but they don’t even understand where the word “faith” comes from. Faith is not provable and we use faith everyday whether we like it or not
@@localfarmdude7243 "What do you live for?" is an ought question (you ought to live this way). It can not be "true" because factual statements can never lead to ought statements (google "David Hume ought is" problem if you want to know more).
@@localfarmdude7243I live for myself and my happiness. Next question
Are you also a midwit like Matt that says history is not evidence?
Cliffe once again demonstrates that he has already thought logically ahead of any atheistic interpretation of reality and arrives correctly to the idea of intelligent design. Extrapolating further leads us down the path toward Christ because there simply is nothing better.
Keep telling yourself that
@@maccusmc no, you keep telling yourself that Matt is a genius. Secular morality is superior according to Dillpickle. Are you serious? That is a sign of a clueless man. Follow the God/Man, Christ Jesus. Eternity awaits
@@maccusmc what imperfection are you a slave to to make such a negative reply.
@Michael Brickley great now prove God man exists... oh wait, you can't, you can only assert it.
@@danpozzi3307 Cliffe doesn't debate, he preaches. I was stating the obvious
I may or may not believe in Matt’s claim that he may or may not believe. As usual, Matt’s statements crumbling on its own weight. He says he doesn’t argue there is or isn’t a God. That’s like saying I don’t believe I exist or not exist.
That falls under its own weight again because he’s making a claim. He’s a walking contradiction.
OK. So. If my wife dies (loving me) and I remarry and love that person as well...when we both die and all three of us are in heaven. What do we do? Aaaaawkwaaaarrrd!
oh mromni your wife would have hooked up with some other angel-daddy in the interim, you can all then get together and preen each other's wings ;)
LOL! Thank goodness! Clears everything up! =] I thought I'd have some awkward conversations waiting for me. Now...what about babies? Do they go to heaven as babies? Cuz that'd be fucking annoying...eternal babies? Shit. Maybe they get aged to their prime...like 25 and sexy or something.
MrOmniblast
babies are kept as babies i'm afraid (haven't you seen all those cherub paintings)... however, of course the babies defecate chocolate mousse and vomit vanilla ice cream, yahweh thought of everything 8-)
Lol, it's funny because those Cherubs aren't even cherubs...Cherubs are fucking terrifying.
fc04.deviantart.net/fs17/i/2007/133/0/1/One_of_the_Cherubim_by_loucat.jpg
***** thanks chrissy, of course one of my faves would be found in the chronicles of trek...
“You’ve never really faced death, have you?” “...No; not like this. I haven’t faced death. I’ve cheated death. I’ve tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity; I know nothing.”
and who could forget
“Of my friend I can only say this: of all the souls that I met on my travels, his was the most… human.”
;-) nd
Cliffe is a preacher and uses that skill set (acting, theatrics, sounding confident and heartfelt and using repeated buzzwords). He refuses to engage or address the many difficult points that Matt raises. He just ignores them and goes back to the generalised claims that skim the surface. It consequently was not an attempt to get to an objective agreement but instead a sermon.
Cliffe did not win me over at all
Oh well, the Word of God does state that the vast majority will remain unconvinced until they breathe their last, at which point they will have a great and terrifying awakening.
@@michaelbarnes2478 not really any better of an argument than Cliff's.
Dillahunty lost bec he said faith, without certainty is meaningless!
Degrees vs historical eyewitness testimony absurd says Dillahunty,so he doesnt believe in history or the judicial system then!That's absurd!
Jesus said Blessed are those who have'nt seen me yet believe John 20:28!
He who believes will be saved,those who don't condemned John 3:18-36!
27:00 Well sir, you can subjectively change the meaning of a word according to your needs, but that wont change what it really means. There is no "the way I use it" or "for me faith is this..." No, faith, as a word, has non subjective definition. Thats the whole point of definitions. And thats why words have them, to stop these conflicts.
The problem starts when people actually start changing the definition.
Faith is clearly not a synonym of no evidence, because as Cliff explained there is a lot of evidence behind the belief, and a lot of logic and reason. He even made a clear difference between closing your eyes and cover your ears just repeating "I believe I believe" than to actually think.
The modern definition of faith says "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence".
This is a marked change from the 1904 definition; "the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation."
"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation." I guess to an atheist or maybe just someone who isn't convinced that a certain faith is correct that translates as: "a belief that has been reached through an inner monologue according to subjective experiences where the person is convinced they have accessed a divine truth"
Definitons of words change, because there can be change in the way they are used by the majority of people. Take for instance the word: gay. It used to mean something like happy. Then it has been adopted to describe homosexuals which led to a derisive usage that culminated in using the word equivalent to stupid. We are at a very peculiar moment in time because we are aware that all these defintions can apply to a certain extent and they basically exist alongside each other.
>>I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay - and I pity every girl that isn't me, today.
ZDProletariat
Well, in the case of Catholics, there is no belief, there is knowleage.
As I said before, faith is no synonym of "no evidence". If you Mr, say that the definition proposing that, is widely accepted, you got yourself a sweet example of a global misconception. Which, as a matter of fact, are quite common these days.
ZDProletariat
Why not? Because it does not mean that.
"If you want to use the word "faith" to mean what "knowledge" and "confidence" already mean, that's up to you."
Its not me, its that way.
Actually, Its Matt that wants to use the word "faith" to characterize a belief without proof.
Why he mentions his definition of faith debating with a Catholic no idea. Catholicism is not a belief.
ZDProletariat
Faith:"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation."
Belief: a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
Knowledge: awareness, consciousness, or familiarity gained by experience or learning
Confidence: a feeling of trust in a person or thing. (Nothing to do with faith, its not about a feeling, a hunch, its about knowing.
What the word faith does is put these together, belief and knowleage and even add something too. That in not way makes it a meaningless word, and its obviously not wrong in semantics.
There is a big difference in believing something is true, and knowing something is true.
Its not a matter of accepting something as true, because even if you dont, it wont stop it from being true.
ZDProletariat
And you just exposed Satans work, congratulations.
I ignored the word trust in the definition of confidence? Excuse me sir, but you cant just ignore a full sentence, and leave only the words, I ignored it because the word that anticipated it was "feeling/hunch"
For you to know something it must be true.
I known how to add, 2+2=4
If you say 2+2=6 then you simple dont know how to add.
If you actually choose to change the meaning of a word, when it already has a definition, be my guest. I wont.
And no, as I clearly explained, the word "faith" is not simply defined by the definitions of knowleage and belief.
Mr. Knechtle, the more I hear you talk, the more I doubt that you've ever had an honest conversation with an atheist.
or maybe just with himself
So, we heard a rational argument from Matt and a bunch of preaching from Cliff...
Know your audience.
delusion, matt made wild assertions and got embarrassed. stop being an ostrich
@@jobless5866 name one "wild assertion"
@@nudsh claiming he’s of a higher moral standard. As an atheist he cannot make such assertions because nothing gives him the right to say if somethings right or wrong. If I say the opposite how can he prove who’s right. And he spoke about how it benefits people. Leaning into utilitarianism and the arguments against it such as the sadistic guards beating up a single person. In this scenario let’s say they steal from a widow. They gained benefit. Is that morally right? Whatever you claim you can’t prove
@@jobless5866 you useless moron. Matt CAN say he is of a higher moral standard because he demonstrated WHY. He demonstrated that the god of the bible, by his own measure, is immoral. Cliff's moral standard is ONLY an appeal to blind authority, an authority that is shown to be immoral itself. The god of the bible would send someone to hell for an eternity of pain for simply not believing in an unbelievable god that hides himself from objective view. An atheist would not do this which IS by definition a HIGHER moral position. You have now been educated you idiot. You are also now dismissed.
"even when I've always addressed it."