Hey everyone! Just wanted to let you know that both Matt and Mike have posted debate reviews. You may access them below: Matt's debate review: ruclips.net/video/4FoGVPYl0i8/видео.html Mike's debate review: ruclips.net/video/OEfkfXy253s/видео.html Cheers!
But we already know Matt won. If I 'reviewed' it, I'd say it seemed to be teaching Mike how to do basic sound reasoning 101. Which doesn't make a good debate, ie Matt was seen as the teacher to the ignorant fool.
@@CapturingChristianity It was just a mirrored reply to your reply on 'tell us how you really feel', which is generally meant as rhetorical. I was basically having a joke with you on that. But my original reply was spot on to the obvious results of the debate that MOST truthful people would agree to.
Yeah I know right. Matt's position is basicly it's just a written document. It could be fake or a lie. I personally dont believe anything at all cause everything can be faked including photos an video and experiments and polls. I dont even believe Matt Dillahunty exist. Thanx Matt for showing us how to take skepticism to the limit and not believe anything at all even my own existence. 😃
@@joshmadden5757 No man im on your side. All these fools believing these stupid documents. You know theres actually idiots out there who believe George Washington existed based on documents. I'm not sure anything in the past existed ever. You gave a great example because the bible is exactly the same I think some guy just found it in a dungeon somewhere an now everyone is like "oh this is real duh da duh" by the way do you exist? All I have from you is RUclips messages.
The Bible: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the graves" Everybody: "Zombies" Christians. "That's offensive!"
I'm not a Christian, but I think the issue here comes from how people generally define "zombie" when using it in context. A "zombie" typically refers to a reanimated corpse. Assuming the corpse's animation includes the reinvigoration of their consciousness, can you really call the body a "corpse" anymore? A "corpse" is "a dead body", but if it's alive, it's not dead. Ergo, while "zombie" might be going too far, "undead" would probably still apply to some degree.
“Questions aren’t good enough. We want answers to those questions!” Which is exactly why you will accept bad answers to important questions. Because having an answer is more important to finding the truth.
@@dceezy15yeah man it is crazy. religious people start with their conclusion (God), and then look for any argument they can find to defend that. And a lot of people just go along with it and ignore their doubts, because they are bullied or their family believes it I am so glad I became agnostic/atheist
@@f.r.etling6226 Yeah man it is crazy. Atheists start with their conclusion(Naturalism/No God), and then look for any argument they can find to defend that. And a lot of people just go along with it and ignore their doubts, because they are bullied or their online cronies and intellectuals believe it I am so glad I became a Theist/Christian
This single video probably had the largest impact in my deconstruction journey out of Christianity. Watching Mike Winger was like looking at myself in the mirror and not liking what i saw. Now three years later my life has gotten so much fuller and more purposeful because I know only believe in things that I have good reason to and let go of my neediness and self-hate.
I had the opposite experience. I was a hardcore atheist, a strong atheists that argued God cannot possibly exist. I had what I thought were good arguments against God. I thought there was no possible way for me to ever believe in God again. I would say things like once you know that Santa is fake, you cannot imagine a way you would ever believe in Santa again. That is how I felt about God. I thought it impossible to ever believe again. But like Matt says, God knows exactly what would convince me even if I could not imagine it. God just gave me the faith and I don't know how to deny it.
@@aquinasadefenseforgod1254 When you were an atheist did you think faith was a good reason to believe? What you described doesn’t sound like the opposite of what the OP described as he mentioned having good reasons to believe and your reason/evidence is just “faith”. What caused you to be convinced by something that you once knew wasn’t a good reason?
I was Christian for 32 years, and happened to stumble upon The Atheist Experience by accident. I began getting hooked on the vids, and Matt and Hitchens were the main catalysts on my journey to exit this faith
"Hitch" and Richard Dawkins were mine, although I was more of a new age religious skeptic. I always though the stories in the bible as just being myths. If all that kinda stuff happened before people were literate, how come it doesn't happen now? Answer. People are educated and can read and write. There are many still holding onto stupid myths about humanity and the resurrection. etc.
Hey bro..... yr not alone,,, I was 33yrs christian. Now I've seen the light, and can't believe in a book, that claims to be infallable, inerrant, and god breathed.
Matt is dropping logic bombs and this guy has no clue how to even comprehend them. This was so one sided, I don’t even understand why this guy even agreed to speak to him. Embarrassing.
Almost 30 years ago, I had a parent unalive themselves. Every night for months I had vivid nightmares that they came back to life. I eventually wound up in the hospital because I was both horribly sleep deprived AND believing I had buried them alive. Ten years after that, I went into nursing. I dealt with MANY patients who had vivid delusions and hallucinations. These type of incidents were very much covered in the curriculum for nursing. How exactly does God-lad believe that such things don't happen?
I don’t think you listened to what he said. He said that there are no documented incidents of *group* hallucinations. If your dreams or hallucinations of your deceased parent (so sorry for your loss btw, especially losing someone in that manner) had been shared by dozens or hundreds of separate people, it would be a different story
Btw what’s with the use of “un-alive” instead of kill? I get that it’s tough subject matter but it’s not like the implications are any different; I just don’t understand this modern obsession with euphemisms
1. Look up the group hallucination at Lourdes. Look up the group delusions at Jonestown (lots of unaliving there, lol, woke). Look up folie a deux. GOOGLE IS FREE. 2. LOL, WOKE. Do you have no idea how the RUclips algorithm works? Did you know it flags certain words like the act my parent committed. Also look that up.
1:38:04 Mike talks about “weird Indian gurus” and saying how those beliefs are weird. The very next question asks him if he believes in zombies rising out of graves to meet their live relatives. He says yes though admits he could be wrong and doesn’t affect his faith. This is a blatant case of ignoring the crazy things in your own religion and throwing bombs at other religions for their weird things.
There's no real evidence that these saints were undead bodies with agency. The context this is told in seems to say that the temple above which they were buried was utterly destroyed when Jesus gave up the ghost. And all of those burial chambers beneath the temple opened up due to the quake and the bodies were let loose. Not that they walked to and fro, but fell out into the sight of many people. This would be sheer madness if you think about it. It would be chaos seeing long dead saints falling out of tombs and falling and tumbling and rolling into the midst of the city. A frightening sight indeed. This is why everyone who witnessed it was mortified.
After a second listen, this struck me really hard. At 1:32:23 Mike admitted that he believed in Jesus and Christianity first without any data, and then later found evidence to support his believe. This is exactly what he had accused Matt earlier, when he said something like "to Matt, evidence is secondary". Wow, he shot himself in the head and didn't even realize it.
Yes I noticed that, goes along with his rhetoric of being young and a bit clueless, therefore I found something in Jesus and am now really happy? Which describes some of my Christian friends looking for meaning, due to a lack of focus and direction in their life. It’s very deceiving.
Matt has convinced me. Matt would deny all evidence while demanding evidence that would be unreasonable for the circumstances at the time or he would use a methodology that would not only render the resurrection of Jesus as a falsehood but the majority of ancient history.
@@seesmann638 "would not only render the resurrection of Jesus as a falsehood but the majority of ancient history" I'm not aware of any supernatural claim that has ever been accepted as a historical fact.
@@seesmann638 You're right, Matt's epistemology would not only render the resurrection of Jesus as a falsehood, but it would also force him to reject the divinity of Julius Caeser, who resurrected as a God according to solid historical accounts
@@kappasphere 1. Thats not Matts epistimology. 2. There has never been anybody who claimed that Julius Ceasar rised from the dead. That is differrent for Jesus.
1:23:08 this is the very moment it all ended. Mike destroyed himself and any hopes of credibility. Followed up by an arrogant comment of how he thinks debates work was icing on the cake. All this video did was create more atheists.
I love how Matt said no that's not how the debates work! people are used to political debate debates they see on TV but that's not actually how the rules of real debate work at all
I'm an atheist. My brother is a Christian. He paused the video multiple times to complain about what Mike was saying, and never once had anything to say in response to Matt. In a years time, he will reference this video as what lead to him becoming an atheist. Lol just got to the part where Mike accuses Matt of holding the position that evidence doesn't matter, and then acts like Matt is being disrespectful for not letting him finish his sentence. He said he can't watch the rest. Good job at capturing christianity...
J w He said that his brother, the Christian, couldn’t stand to watch Mike’s ridiculous arguments any more. What does Andy’s bias have to do with anything?
@@lemonfresh9396 Fortunately in this case Andy does exist. Correct me saying it doesn't make it true, but it was a true story nonetheless. But watching the video with my brother sparked one of the best conversations we've ever had on the topic so it isn't all bad ey
True, Matt D. Has been in the game a long time and Mike has only done 3 debates. It really shows here. Watching many debates with Matt and watching the Atheist Experience for years, its obvious he was going easy on Mike as well. Like when I pretend box my 6 year old.
The fact that the single most important event in human history can even be debated is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw with the religion. If there was an all loving god that genuinely wanted his creations to know him, why leave the grand gesture shrouded in mystery?
@hasbulla5740some people do good things and don’t believe in god. Some people are shitty people but believe in god yet it’s those that will go to heaven by the Christian standard.
@hasbulla5740additionally there’s a lot of things you can do that god is okay with that I’d say are immoral and wrong. But yes if there was essentially a powerful judge in the sky always watching us we probably would try at least to act morally. But even Christian’s who literally believe that there is a god in the sky always watching them still commit sin bc they just can’t control themselves. It’s like all the teen boys In church being preached about pre marital sex yet they still do it and watch porn / masturbate. It’s like the age old joke about Jesus watching you beat your meat. Lol
It's not a mystery. LOL, God works with the freedom of the will of the people He created. Not on the basis of just showing up. Besides you have no idea of what contingency lies if He didn't made it that way. You can only assume
Would us atheists be reasonable to avoid bothering with the Shroud of Turin until more Christian scholars stop calling it a fraud? if even spiritually alive people deny the authenticity of the Shroud, how can you possibly expect spiritually dead atheists to understand more correctly? answersingenesis.org/archaeology/testing-the-shroud-of-turin/
@@valentino3228I don’t condone needlessly insulting people either, but pretending Christians don’t do the same thing an even, or even greater, amount and referring to it as “typical atheist approach” is dishonest and pitiful.
I could tell from the beginning that Matt would have the more sound argument. Winger straight used the bible as "evidence" of the bible....and then made the mistake of saying..."historians say...." STILL presenting that as evidence. He has no idea what constitutes evidence.
@Whipsaw Books are updated when more rigorous standards of research are applied. in simpler terms, that means the updated version has the most accurate information. The Bible was created back when people had no clue about what they were talking about and could not explain what was going on in the world around them. You can continue to use the Bible all you want, I could care less about how informed you choose to be. What I do care about is making sure I have the right information.
@My name is August West Lmaooooo. Why is it that scientist who are part of all different types of faiths can follow a scientific method and agree on the evidence.
Guy thinking source x claiming source y said or did something is an independent attestation from source y sums it up. Has little understanding of reason and logic. He was even explained to regarding this and still couldn't get it
Wow. Mike Winger is really dishonest. Also, every time Matt interrupts, Mike demands he be allowed to finish. That doesn't seem to stop him from interrupting Matt or stopping him from making a point. You're dishonest, Mike. Your debate tactics are cheap.
@@HarryNicNicholas I can relate. With one post I'm convinced you're an arrogant, ego-centric twat. Do you really 'think' because you 'think' you're an 'athiest' you automatically like all other athiests? Do you 'think' all Muslims like all Muslims too? Do you think?
@doug nut lol Doug Atheism wasn't even taken seriously until the 20th century It's a joke of a belief that even Satan is shocked is working %92 of the world isn't atheist, even to this day It's okay to say there is no good evidence for theism, but it's not okay to say your beliefs/anti-beliefs are going to end up being correct >%51 of the time
The exact opposite is the case. Matt is denying the scholarship (the historical evidence) of a historical claim while saying that there is no evidence, which is a rejection of the entire scientific field of scholarship and history. (Winger didn't even get into the evidence surrounding the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin, surprisingly, which is even more damning.) Actual scholars would look at Dilhuanty and other such hyper-skeptics as fools.
@@davidburrey9831 I hate when people say, “you already know god exists in your heart… you just have a hardened heart”. That’s the easiest argument to disprove to myself. I genuinely don’t believe that god is real. Why would I seek out someone that I don’t believe exists for no reason other then “he will give you faith when you seek him out”. That’s the biggest pile of nonsense I’ve ever heard. Well, you should go seek out the chicken god of mars. You know in your heart that he is real, you just deny it. Once you devote your life to the chicken god of mars, then and only then will you be rewarded with the knowledge that devoting your life to the chicken god of mars was worth it. That’s a shitty way to come to a reasonable conclusion.
A brief summary of the debate is: -Mike equivocates "claims" with "evidence" throughout the conversation -Matt points this out and corrects it several times -Mike straw-mans Matt's position to be one of disregard toward evidence, where Matt then is forced to interrupt him and correct this mischaracterization -Mike eventually discloses that he formed his conclusion at age 12 and sought only to affirm and never to falsify that conclusion thereafter (the definition of pseudo-science) -Matt follows suit by disclosing that he was saved at age 5, and eventually came to value epistemic soundness and logical consistency to such a degree that maintaining a belief in god wasn't possible -Mike claims prophecy is an enormous facet of the faith that often goes untapped, but should be addressed more. He claims he will begin producing content along those lines; however, at the outset of this conversation, he tells Matt he has watched practically every video of Matt's regarding religion-based topics. If this were true, he should be aware of the dozens of videos wherein Matt has thoroughly debunked the legitimacy of Biblical prophecy.
Yea, I noticed at the beginning he set it up that "Fact" means "Something likely to have happened" so the rest of the time he just claim facts which makes it sound like ABSOLUTE TRUTH but if you call him out he can fall back on "No, I said fact = likely".
Christian Geiselmann YOU are the zealot. Matt is a agnostic atheist, meaning he’s neutral/undecided/ unconvinced. He/I resist ideas that don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. You guys shouldn’t blame us for our skepticism, that’s a natural response to things that don’t make sense it have evidence. It’s the same way you feel when a Muslim or Jew try to convince you of their faith with no evidence to back them up. You are them.
@@pearsonbrown6740 Because there is evidence that you can verify for yourself. It’s so silly when Christians try to equate studying subjects that they didn’t experience for themselves, with magical stories written by anonymous scribes, and aren’t supported with a single shred of evidence. You’re reaching so hard.
@@roems6396 The fact of the matter is that you yourself cannot demonstrate that nitrogen has 5 valence electrons. You rely on professionals to do the research. But unless you actually went and did it yourself, you cannot act as if your belief is perfectly rational.
@@j2mfp78 , ANY robust evidence for a resurrected Jesus will serve, I want to know who the author of the account (Gospel) is, and I want him to specify his sources, which should be eyewitness testimony, for the claims made. Does that not seem reasonable to you?
@@psandbergnz First off do you apply this same standard to all ancient historical claims. And secondly I do not believe that would make a difference in your beliefs. You are telling me if tommorow documents were discovered matching the criteria you just stated that you would become a Christian? Yeah right.
@@j2mfp78 , ALL historical claims must be based on good evidence to be believable. If the claims are extraodinary, then I suppose you would agree that the evidence should be robust. Hearsay is NOT robust evidence! Do YOU permit the same standards for historical documents? Do you believe the testimony of Joseph Smith and his followers, who even signed their testimony for the brass plates (which then disappeared) and other alleged signs? Or do you support the testimony of the Deputy Sheriff at Roswell and other eyewitnesses who claim they saw four dead aliens at Roswell and a flying saucer of 100 feet in diameter? they testified about 30 years after the alleged incident. We know their names, and their testimony was recorded and filmed. But does that make their statement true and real? We have far better evidence for capatured extraterrestrial aliens at Roswell than we do for the resurrrection of Jesus, which is based on anonymous, hearsay accounts (Gospels). You are very naive!
It's infuriating how Mike REPEATEDLY scolded Matt towards the beginning of the video for interrupting him and demanding that he be allowed to finish, and then spent the rest of the video interrupting Matt.
Without intending to be, this is a powerful recruitment tool for Atheism. Mike proved himself to be dishonest, smug, and possessing a tenuous grasp on what a 'fact' is.
Matt does not seem to know much about History. Nor the concept of Testimony or Evidence. Matt is relying on claims, as his evidence. He is literally relying on claims to try to invalidate what he claims are claims. Irony? Or just Hypocrisy??
@@travisdempster4693 How does using the word recruited make something a religion? Are people not recruited into the military? Could you not say that you've been recruited when you are hired for a job? Though it might not be the proper terminology to use, it seems pretty obvious to me that by recruit he just means to convince someone of the nonexistence of god. So obvious in fact that I feel you may be purposely misconstruing his words just to confirm your previously held beliefs.
Life & Light so all facts are now irrelevant then. Our entire basis for history and science are just claims and therefore not substantial pieces of information to develop facts. All of science is just a claim. Any scientist worth his salt would say science is just trying to constantly understand the world around you. Therefore, every scientific fact is just a claim because it can be proven false later. Sorry, but the claims vs evidence argument is just a rhetorical strategy designed to confuse and off kilter opposition. How the hell do you define evidence as evidence? That doesn’t work.
Mike: Offers a bunch of claims which he calls evidence, without any actual evidence. Matt: rejects Mike's claims as being without evidence. Mike: "evidence doesn't matter to you!"
Exactly. According to Mike we should just blindly believe something an anonymous author wrote on a piece of paper. Mike is very confused about what real evidence actually is.
Matt just proved that Mike was mentally still that same 12 year old boy he was when he wanted to find God. It's really sad. At one point Mike tried to slander Matt by saying there is no evidence that could be provided that would be enough for Matt. I think it is the exact opposite which is true, there is no evidence that could be provided that would shake Mike's childish fantasy.
You are going to have to define what you believe "evidence" means, because what he presented was evidence, not claims. Evidence is anything that gives weight to a case, and yes, claims from multiple witnesses also count, especially if they're themselves validated by other means.
@@matheusdardenne They are not evidence. They are the claims. They are not witnesses to what they are writing about. There isn’t a single witness that wrote about Jesus. No one who wrote about him ever met him. Those stories are the claim. There wasn’t a previous story, and then someone came out to support that story. There is just the original story. The gospels copy from earlier versions. They aren’t independent “witnesses.” You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. There are many spider man stories written by different authors. Are those stories evidence that Spider-Man exists!?
'Historical fact'. Like its a historical fact that Harry Potter was a wizard, or Zeus made lightning. Since we can confirm this in books. But if you want to know if something is true, then you need sufficient evidence and/or good reason. I agree 'historical' facts are misleading, its just what historians do. Pyramids were made to keep dead kings safe, or historically the night stars were labelled the 'heavens'.
Oliver Bacon And thanks Oliver for hijacking the thread :D Your reply sums up as: I heard claims, and this so called Dr. was merely stating claims. Got it, all good. @DrJames Powers Your question was about rationality. Its a strange thing this word. Probably about 10 years ago atheists would commonly go about and openly state all theists are irrational. THEN a few years after, theists caught onto this and argued that for a THEIST to believe in their mythical God, that actually IS rational. Creationists then picked up on this, and didn't like the science on rationality (and reason). So then maybe about 5 years ago max, they started arguing rationality is just make believe. Again atheists had to come along and clearly state that the theists claim is without sufficient evidence AND lacks any good reasoning, thus their belief is irrational. Creationists (and now the new goto science) argue that the ENTIRE of science is irrational, they all of sudden are happy to use this term. But they forgot 1 thing (all along actually). Even if the entire of the scientific was fully thrown out (and yes that would obviously mean that all of science would inevitably be worked out again, providing the exact same fact based scientific theories). BUT, if all of science was presently totally thrown out, that STILL does not mean 'therefore God'! Since you STILL must supply sufficient evidence of that claim! Not historical evidence like Batman in Gotham city. Or Harry Potter is a wizard. Not philosophical evidence like Muslims (and 9,999 others) believing Jesus was not a God. It MUST be sufficient evidence and or good reasoning to believe in ANY of these claimed Gods. And so far, a big fat ZERO of anything close to sufficient evidence has come from ANY theist. "Dr." Other than science is all wrong in your mind (ie the science that works and gets rockets to the surface of Mars). What sufficient EVIDENCE do you have for your claim? And don't say the -quran- the Bible, because that's not DAMN sufficient obviously. Can't wait for your rant on science again!! So AGAIN, disregarding all of science, what's your sufficient evidence on your particular mythical God existing? You don't have any don't you? Such a damn SHAME. To be simple for your irrational mind. You can't say: Why the Butler didn't do it, therefore it must have been the Maid. As that's just RIDICULOUS. What is the evidence you have that confirms the guilty verdict of your particular God supposedly existing? Do you want me to dumb it down for you further?
@DrJames Powers "Then you've not been around long." I mislead you a little, I've been around since atheist forums started. Too many Creationists I've chatted with, yes they all turn into 100 reply threads. "you're basically calling me "stupid," " Agreed, I AM calling you stupid in this specific area of believing in nonsense. " Isn’t it you that states “stupid” things like MINDLESS NOTHING produced INTELLIGENT EVERYTHING? " Um nope not me, unless you can define this nothing thing you speak of? Oh without quoting your next lines in order. You asked about abiogenics. This is still an unknown area. WAIT, are you saying you have sufficient evidence of knowledge about this? Do tell :) Evolution did not come about 'all at the same time'. And I thought you knew what science has confirmed about the fact of evolution? Obviously not. You shouldn't deceive others with lies, it will be your undoing. Um you got exactly HALF the Big Bang best known explanation of the beginning of our known universe correct, and then you mentioned this nothing thing again?? SO strange. Is your claimed God nothing possibly? You have a big hang up about this thing that science has NO info on at all. Evolution is a known fact. We know more about evolution than even gravity. Actually we know more about evolution than ANY science, since we are the biological life that is part of that evolutionary process. You ended with a BIG unjustified claim again? I think you are a young Creationist, you haven't had enough chats with reasoning atheists online yet haven't you? Wow THINK harder :D Your sufficient evidence of your absurd mythical God belief again? We both know that'll never come don't we ;)
@@lizapatron All good Oliver. @DrJames Powers So that would be a no you don't have sufficient evidence or even a good reason to believe, and your idea is to 'preach the word' of nonsense. Whilst trying to defame the working scientific method. Wow, and some think that's not silly!
Name one person who has ever beaten WLC in a debate. These popular level atheists don't stand a chance. Just your typical - there's no evidence! When evidence is staring them right in the face.
@@kenokelley9395 Why then has WLC utterly refused to even consider the possibility of debating Dillahunty? It's not as if Dillahunty has not established a significant history of debating these very topics with other prominent theologians and philosophers. If WLC is such a formidable and unbeatable opponent (As you contend), why is he absolutely refusing to even discuss a possible debate with Dillahunty?
Christian guy: "Well, there were real tombs like in bible, that means Jesus resurrected. Matt: "Well, New Yourk is real, that means Spider Man is real, that what you are saying" Matt wins just right there.
@DrJames Powers >>For instance, Matt has no RATIONAL POSSIBLE atheist source for life, intelligence, love, consciousness and morality and why? Well, you have no either! Only claims with no even grit of sand of proof. But first of all - >>atheism has no possible answer for what exists Atheism is JUST lack of believe in any gods by different reasons. Matt's and any other sceptic's reason - there are no sufficient proofs of any god existing. Funny thing, sceptics do not believe in gods, spirits, astrology, homeopathy or crazy conspiracy theories right after they apply this standard of evidence to all these things. And believers are tend to believe in other controversial things, if they already believe in any.
@DrJames Powers Also, who says there is no explanation for morality, for example? There is possible evolutionary explanation: social species evolved with curtain rules inside their societies - what is bad and what is good. Group with mutual help and sharing resourses might survive better that group of individuals, if overall living in group for that species is better than being alone. Life? Form of existing of matter. Our bodies are built from three most common elements in Universe: hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, plus nitrogen. Intelligence, love, consciousness? Who said these are no more that electrochemical processes in our brains? There are at least tens of thousands of studies that say: damage or kill neurons or whole brain - personality and other cognitive attributes change dramatically. No other sourses of these attributes like soul found.
@DrJames Powers docdoor of what stupidity ,these rediculous religions exist from ignorance & a poor education system When a child is brainwashed early in life it is hard for them to normalize ( removing your head from your butt ) and start thinking
@DrJames Powers >>you have no coherent step-by-step ATHEIST explanation of WHATEVER to MANKIND existence But your religion does neither! Claims are not explanations, this is not working. How universe originated? How species evolved? Science provides evidence-supported explanations, and all religious claims become fairytales. Abrahamic religions' explanation of world and life origin is no more relevant to reality that Ancient Greece mythology or Maya religion explanation. And, if you call lack of believing in gods existence (not believing in "no any gods exist") a religion - well, you are profoundly ignorant. Scientific explanation gives us ability to predict further observations. And your religion "explanation" just fails. "God did it" gives zero knowing of how and when universe and life was created and is the same as "unicorn pooped it". How he did that? What proofs that he(actually, she? it? what and who is god in the first place?) created all around us? What arguments lead us specifically to your god, not any other, created in thousands of years of human history? Yoo know what? I'm 32 and last 15 years of looking answers to these questions brought me from orthodox chrisianity to atheism. Yep, that happens when you ask right questions and don't afraid to accept answers if they are proven to be true, but ruin your worldview.
@DrJames Powers and just try to understand, that atheism is not the answer to all questions - it is not has to be. It is just conclusion of critical and rational thinking, period! Atheism is just byproduct of critical thinking and rationality, which humanity uses to create science, culture and we are all using these fruits right now - arguing in the Internet, healthy, not starving and having comfortable shelter. We would know nothing we know now about universe, if we use just religion to interact with it. And my, Matt's and other sceptics atheism is much more opened to any true god, if it ever exists, than you. If there is a god and anyone can prove it - good! Then we believe. But you? How do you recognise that your or any other god is not false? Please, do not bother to throw bible quotes, I was in scout organisation, patronised by church. I studied bible, talked with pastors and did believe, I guess, in same things you are. But I found them false eventually.
@J w Are you calling Matt dumb? Because you'd be lying. As for his supporters, you think it's dumb to support smart people? This is what these cults do to your brain, you see reality backwards.
@@nova8091 You claim the Bible has multiple sources, but its inclusivity is highly biased. It's akin to me crafting a science textbook, insisting frogs have 10 legs. I recruit like-minded contributors perhaps bribing them, silencing dissenting views. As my group grows, agreement becomes easier and easier. I can even add names without verification. Ie, 10 "Bible sources" may actually just be from 1 contributor. Without confirming contributors, it's essentially one source. The Bible, lacking verifiable contributors, falls into the same category - effectively one biased source.
@@TimeHandler all of those extra biblical texts are made like a century later by people who didn’t even know the apostles in the slightest. It’s essentially fa fiction that contradicts almost everything else although I will say the gnostic texts have some good wisdom despite all that
There are 11 sources in the Bible, even attested to by atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman: Author of mark Author of Matt. Author of Luke “Q” source Author of John, johannine epistles, revelation Paul Author of Peter Author of James author of Hebrews Author of Jude And who knows how many sources Matthew mark luke and John were working with independently. Just because they are labeled as “the Bible” does not take away from their validity as contemporary historical documents at all.
"My persecution complex causes me to find the term "zombie" to be offensive and degrading. I would prefer you refer to the dead people coming out of the grave and walking the streets as "raised saints." Thanks." -Mike "Super Persecuted" Winger
I felt the same way. got so offended to hear a whole bunch of people raising from graves described as "zombies" (and yet later seems confused when Dillahunty bristles at his "evidence doesn't matter to you" bit.)
I can see myself in mike and I would suggest that he work on his listening skills. He seems to have gotten lost in trying to prove a point or win an argument, which prevented him for hearing Matt. Particularly referring to the point when mike was arguing against a point never made by Matt. Mike seemed to assume a direction and conclusion rather than waiting. He then complained of not being allowed to finish yet cut off and continued down a line of argument again which wasn’t being made. Just a tip
No justin martyr says the other gods are demons the egyptians in moses 2 do magic and use the supernatural we don’t reject their claims we just reject that their deities exist and that they got their powers from them
diigima It only became more cringe inducing as the debate went on and Mike’s position got worse and worse. I almost felt bad for the moderator because the shirt was clearly tying him to the person getting wrecked.
@DrJames Powers The video is not about nothing producing everything, it's about the unreasonableness of belief in the Resurrection. Speaking of learning, it might help to watch the video. Good talking. Bye-bye now. Take care.
DrJames Powers that still doesn’t prove anything about the Christian god. I believe that it’s unreasonable to believe that nothing exploded into everything and produced intelligence too but that doesn’t mean that that start to the universe was the Christian god.
@@00406cc Why should be If I say to you that I have seen a ghost in a house. No matter how good and compelling I am going to describe it to you, it wont be convincing enough if I dont have real evidence to back it up. Even If I have many proof i was in the house i am describing, at that time was saying, bla bla bla and that some other people experience the same thing in the same house. The true facts surrounding a story doesn't make a story more true. 10 crappy evidences doesn't make one super good evidence. If 9 things out of 10 things I say are true, it doesn't make the 10th I say more true.
Made for Glory Yet Mike didn’t make a single good point. He had no evidence for anything he asserted. All of his arguments were logically incoherent. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of logic and epistemology should be embarrassed by his debate “skills”.
Well, he doesn't. Matt is shown evidence (which is different from proof), and he usually says, "I don't accept that." Matt will never accept any evidence.
@@ED-le1pr atheists are shown evidence all the time. Scientists claim we evolved from bacteria. Well, I don’t accept that. It’s a claim. I can write a book about atheists claims that should never be accepted.
@gozz7733 1- claims arent evidence 2- nobody accepts bad evidence that the part you're leaving out especially when it comes to proving supernatural claims has been recorded once in history
Matt - "Where's your evidence?" Mike - "Some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Yeah, but some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it then wrote it in a book" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Yeah, but some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it then wrote it in a book" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "I have already Matt, these are facts"
I know right historical records are stupid. I dont believe anything that's been documented in the past cause it can be like fake. I read some documents that Abraham Lincoln existed but thats just "some guy a few 100 years ago said he saw him" Supposedly Lincoln wrote some stuff himself but like it can be faked so yeah there is no way to know anything that happened in the past unless it was a few billion years ago like the big bang or darwinian evolution that we can know for a fact but 2000 years ago that's just KA-RAY-ZEE. I'm not even sure my great great grandfather existed. True story
@@j2mfp78 A claim can be justified using primary and secondary sources in conjunction with prior probability and explanatory power. There are a myriad of sources that can demonstrate Lincoln existed. However, the majority of claims made in the bible can not be substantiated, as they are not justified outside of canonical and noncanonical religious texts. There is also the issue of prior probability; the claim that Lincoln existed requires far less to justify it than the claim that the ultimately powerful super sky genie created everything, continually fails at everything, and eventually has to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for being angry at the things he created for doing what he knew they would do.
@@brandwijkgg He didnt. He was just more aggressive. Going against the concensus of historians is just idiotic. How can you have a debate with someone who denies basic facts?
1:32:16 "You don't have to believe this." YOU ARE RIGHT! I DON'T! 1.You have no evidence. 2. You have been indoctrinated. 3. We know there are hundreds of stories similar to the bible that are also bulls**t. 4. Science disproves all the nonsensical claims that are made in the bible.
Satan OfScience So, your just expressing an opinion which may or may not be false? Your user name speaks volumes, and validates the Bible Also, Satan translates as adversary! Are you against science?
@@michaeldeo5068 My name is irrelevant , the fact you choose to have a go at name speaks volumes ! But since you asked , I used to be a Satanist . But chose to call myself that because Satan is a far more moral character . And I love science . If you disagree with my comment then please state where I am wrong I'm happy to discuss . But if all you have a problem with is my name then I'm really not interested
@@Sparkydr07 I don't think it is irrelevant at all but actually shows the adversarial mind at work in those who follow the Adversary in rebellion. Thinking Satan is more moral, than the source of existence would be absurd. Being against life is not moral! Satan is defined as the adversary, the first liar and murderer! Words have meanings that we cannot just redefine as we choose once they have established meanings.
In England, a forest existed with trees (actually Barnsdale Forest) - hence forth there where trees.. this proves Robin shot an arrow thru another arrow to win. Whether Robin hood was a Fox (Disney) is up to debate.
It took me some time to understand it properly, but Matt's point is actually quite simple: it's not that it's impossible for the resurrection to have happened, but that the burden of proof for something like that is much higher than most historical events. So while it is reasonable to accept, for example, the claim that a man called Socrates existed in ancient Athens, was a great philosopher who inspired the likes of Plato, made fun of powerful people, and ultimately was sentenced to death; it is not reasonable to accept the resurrection. Because the things I've mentioned about Socrates don't have a heavy burden of proof. They do not require you to believe in the supernatural, or that some miracle happened. Meanwhile, for you to accept a resurrection, you have to believe that something fundamentally impossible (as far as we know) happened. And for you to convince me of something that I see as impossible, you need to meet some very heavy burden of proof, which is essentially impossible, since we're talking about something that has supposedly happened 2000 years ago. As Matt said, if God wanted people to believe, the best time to have brought back the Messiah would have been in the modern times, since we would have interviews, photographs, multiple records of Jesus's resurrection etc. But no, he chose a time and place full of illiterate people. So, yeah, it is an unreasonable belief.
Any time you watch a debate on this topic, the real point of disagreement will be the same, whether it is stated explicitly or not, to wit, whether naturalism or supernaturalism is true. If naturalism is true, then the probability of a resurrection is zero; therefore, the belief that a resurrection happened is unreasonable by definition, even if you had a mountain of evidence to the contrary. If supernaturalism is true, then we can't assume the probability of a resurrection is zero, and the evidence matters.
@@juilianbautista4067100% yes. Mike doesn't know the difference between a claim and evidence. He was rude. He was childish. He got upset that he couldn't get away with just saying things were just so without being challenged.
I’m not even trying to be a jerk but .....come on.....people are arguing that zombies were real once. I just.....I just genuinely don’t understand how people can say that someone came back from the dead like it’s totally a valid and logical thing.
@@justchilling704 that seems pretty fucked up to tell someone you hope they dont find peace ever, considering you have ZERO evidence of any petty deity. I think you need to take a long look in a mirror and maybe stop threatening people with magic
Michael Chapman yep, that’s the definition of a fool’s fool. Someone who requires evidence. By the way, I have some magic beans for sale dude. They’re untested but I have a huuuuge belief they will sprout into something magical. When can we meet?
Lymbe06 Right? Ian talks about the irony, and then you have this dude calling him a fool’s fool for requiring evidence to believe in a claim. Doubly ironic.
@avocado that's quite a strawman. I think it's more along the lines of: 'I personally believe in the resssurection and there is some, very low-quality, historical evidence to support this. Since I'm using motivated reasoning, crappy evidence is sufficient.'
Watching Matt do this was like watching a pro team play a high school team. Just wasn't fair. Game was over 5 minutes into Matt's opening. Matt just ran the score up the rest of the time.
His arguments aren't good dude. He later claimed "I don't know." Once the question came up, "Was Jesus crucified?" Then right there broke it for me because he truly never looked into the evidence. A lot of scholars confirmed that Jesus did, in fact, die under the ruler of Pontius Pilate.
@@MultiBigAndy you didn’t pay attention did ya? What possible historic information could prove a resurrection happened? You are asking us to suspend our understanding of reality in support of an ancient story. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
@Eternaldragon4 Yes, I did, actually, and it shows that Matt can't have it both ways in his "argument." He later proceeds the whole "Whataboutism" where x, y, and z appens but can't see it happen because he claims there is no evidence. If you listen carefully throughout his claims, you can tell that he leans on Naturalism/Scientism where he doesn't even acknowledge supernatural events.
The thing that theists often overlook regarding the claim vs. evidence issue is the difference between plausibility and evidence. For example: The North Pole is a real place. If someone described an event that took place at the North Pole, it would be reasonable to accept the North Pole as a plausible setting because we're confident it's a real place where things could happen. That one element of the story *could* be true, but doesn't add or subtract from our confidence about the events claimed to have taken place there. However, the existence of a real North Pole is not evidence of any specific claim about what may have happened there. For example a real North Pole is not evidence a person can use magic to enter and exit any house through its chimney. It merely means one element of the Santa Claus story is plausible in some way. So remember: - The existence of my house is not evidence my house is actually haunted. - The existence of the ocean is not evidence of a real Flying Dutchman ghost ship. - The existence of King's Cross Station is not evidence of a real Hogwarts.
What are your thoughts on soft tissue that has been found in dinosaur bones, are you familiar with Mark Armitage? Are you familiar with what Ron Wyatt found on Mount Ararat? I used to be an atheist, but I believe the truth of God is out there.
@@michaelpaulholmes9667 "there are people who have had different experiences from them" People who CLAIM to have had "different experiences". Please provide a single scrap of verifiable evidence that they actually did have experiences that were supernatural. You seem to have no skepticism or sound epistemology at all.
@@IRGeamer I am a person who has had different experiences from you. I take the Jesus with the blind man outside of bethsaida approach to people such as yourself though. There exist people who have no interest in making any claims about the miraculous, but have still experienced it. They don't care about things like Hume's argument because they aren't the ones that need convincing.
@michaelpaulholmes9667 😂😂😂😂😂 ....that's the only response I can give to your comments. Your experience(s) are not evidence of anything other than you believe you had an experience. You cannot show your experiences to anyone else, that's how we verify information. Try again, that was pathetic. 🤣🤣🤣
I think in the Holy Book, full of holes, but I think the guy that they crucified was “dead” for only a day and a half. Of course if he were dead that would have been it. But since he was killed on a Friday night and “rose” again on Sunday morning, appears it’s only a day and a half the actual time he was supposedly “dead.” They should redo this fairy tale.
Mike, this is super easy to comprehend. When Homer wrote the Odyssey, he wrote about all the mundane stuff of the time, because that's the time period he was writing about. Does the fact that Odysseus sailed a ship that Greeks sailed at that time period make the Greek Pantheon real?
Straight White Male *woosh* this joke obviously went over your head. So you know what a joke is right? It’s something that can be used to break tension and isn’t always used to attack or state an opinion. You should understand what a joke is because your acting like one getting angry over a joke.
Straight White Male how are you so dense, I don’t give two shits about any of that. All I did was make a joke, not trying make a statement or attack you in any way. So please stop being a snowflake and get over it.
I am very aware of this disgusting behavior of theists, I am faced daily by these people claiming the bible historical fact just because some historian wrote about what early Christians believed.
Dragon Of Valachia I hope you find patience with us... Please realize that Christians base their entire reality on the faith of Christ. It would be nice if we recognized that we wouldn’t need to call it faith if it’s fact. But It’s real to us just as much as you find anything real in your own life. It would be like having a fact that you know is true without a shadow of a doubt and then not being able to “prove” it to others. On top of that, we feel we need to prove it because if we are right and it IS actually true, then you’re salvation and well being hinges on it. Everything else could be false in this world and it won’t matter because we all die and lose consciousness anyway. So you’re right it’s not historical fact, but there is a lot of historical indicators that it is. Ultimately I agree with Matt about salvation needing to fall on God. The Bible talks about those who have the Gospel are nothing more than the planters of seeds in a garden. I can give the seed things in order to help grow, but I truly have no power over the seed growing and turning into a plant. In the book of Isaiah, it says God will be the one to remove the heart of stone and give it flesh. Whether you believe that passage is true or not is irrelevant, it’s for the believer to recognize that salvation for others isn’t dependent on his actions, but of Gods.
jeff rossavik what specifically is historical fact? And by historical fact, do you mean that it happened as described accurately? Because we may agree that it is possible a person named Jesus existed (out of the sole reason that this is not an incredulous feat) but what is under the microscope here is that he rose from the dead among other things.
@@defiance1790 "But It’s real to us"; " It would be like having a fact that you know is true without a shadow of a doubt". How is it real to you, how do you KNOW it is true, if there is no evidence to show that it is true? How do you know it's not just all in your head? "but there is a lot of historical indicators that it is" no, Jeff, there are NO historical indicators AT ALL that a man rose from the dead - a man for whom there is not even ANY historical evidence that he lived at all. We only have evidence that some people believed, or wanted others to believe that there was a resurrection. And all the evidence points to them promoting a celestial resurrection, as was in common with other mystery religions of the time. You are operating purely on faith, on what you want to believe. You have no evidence whatsoever. And faith, Jeff, is NOT a reliable way to determine truth.
Fascinating watching, I loved how Mike became more and more panicked as time went on, truly clutching at straws, while Matt remained consistent, clear and honest. I felt, purely as an observer, that Mike was stumbling and internally questioning his own position throughout, but stubbornly refusing to accept the flaws in his argument. People who put so much time and effort into their position, will always struggle to accept the futility of that position irrespective of the evidence presented.
Matt made no logical argument, he just made claims that everything Mike said is claims. Matt never once backed anything with evidence. You can use Matt's exact same logic to destroy 95% of history taught in universities.
Matt stayed consistently pissed off and combative the entire debate. Mike was running out of evidence because every time he brought one forth or argued for one, Matt would become hostile.
@@kiradegler2123 This is completely false. Matt isn’t making claims that need evidence to be presented. Mike is making the claim. When he is asked for evidence, he just points to the claim. This is the definition of a circular argument and it’s fallacious. There is no evidence necessary to point out that it’s fallacious because it’s the textbook definition of a circular argument.
@kiradegler2123 Atheism is not a claim. It's just a rejection of the claims that theists have failed to provide evidence for. Pointing out that Mike failed to provide evidence is not a weakness in Matt's argument. It *is* Matt's argument, and he is correct. Mike failed to provide *any* evidence for the resurrection, not even *bad* evidence. Perhaps you should learn the shifting-of-the-burden--of-proof fallacy.
The way Mike is asking for specifics because his claims are insufficient to warrant belief, is pretty pathetic. Thats a shifting of the burden of proof.
It's moderately terrifying that Mike is an adult who has probably had some education, but has no idea how to discern reality from fable. He doesn't even realize when he's making a claim versus stating a fact. There are people with less understanding than his who run for, and win, political office. As long as Mike's brand of ignorance continues to go unchecked, unless he gets called out on a regular basis, we are doomed as a society and as a species.
Reasonable Speculation That is a dangerous sentiment. He is clearly at least dishonest, due to his numerous mischaracterizations of Matt’s statements and views, but to assume he is a conman assumes that people cannot believe his arguments. His arguments are demonstrably fallacious and SHOULD not be convincing, and yet people are convincing by it. We need to acknowledge that humans are easily duped and will go to great lengths to protect their delusions. Only then can we recognize our cultural problems and our educational/thinking deficiencies, in order to combat them and teach the next generation properly.
Ro Ems.. Con Man = Confidence Man; he is friendly, articulate, and charismatic.... he talks about things you believe are true in a way that reassures you... Then when he has your Confidence,, he sells you a questionable ,,, or even a completely defective product.. This "sale" produces some combination of money, status, and positioning (to sell more product,,, BS in this case,,, to others ), and so keep his career going. The ConMan has an easy mark with in a person who is gullible, or already has interest in the product being sold.. A good ConMan can also convince someone, who doesn't understand the product, to also buy,,, that's the average uninformed person.. That's just my take on it.. I can see your point also.
man it works the other way around too...If I were to explain the bible to you I'd feel like I'm talking to a 3rd grader because I know no skeptic or atheist has ever read the bible cover to cover and understood it. Let me ask you some questions (and I trust you won't use google) in case you are one of the few rebels that say "I've read the entire bible what the heck do you mean?" 1. Which day at creation did God NOT say it was good ...all others he said they were "good" except for one (the 7th day doesn't count) and why? 2. Which day of creation does not have a "morning and evening" and why ? there is a reason 3. Is the seventh day allegoric or literal "rest"? 4. What was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" ? 5. What was the "serpent" ? (hint , it's not a snake) 6. Whatever happened at the rock of Oreb is it past or future? 7. What was the valley of Jehoshaphat and why is it important? 8. Who is the leopard, lion and bear of Hosea 13:7? 9. Who is Mesech-Tubal, Edom , Elam, the Zidonians and nations of the Achilon in Ezekiel 31? 10. Who was the Pharaoh and why was he so stubborn? there is a HUGE reason why If you are honest with yourself you'd admit that you have no idea. These debates are pointless, there is a reason God chose a timeline where nothing could be proven for sure, 33 years after Jesus crucifixion the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground and one million Jews murdered by the armies of Roman general Titus. The gospels took off after such destruction. The gospels not agreeing is DELIBERATE ...Jesus spoke in parables for a REASON. a lot of what Jesus said has double meaning, he spoke in figurative language a lot, the bible is riddled with allegoric language , deliberate omissions , deliberate overlapping historic events and what have you. It's a 1100 chapter very complex collection of ancient books. No concrete proof is going to be found and it's DELIBERATE ...God intended it that way , because of FAITH. The Exodus of the Israelites has a LOT to do with this "faith" premise but space is short here ...God bless brother and keep believing whatever you believe , like I said I find these debates pointless.
@@BeNice3525 Man, the issue is, you're contrasting the "understanding of the Bible" with basic critical thinking skills. Reading and understanding the Bible doesn't mean anything to an unbeliever - it doesn't make a theist position any more feasible. On the other hand, if a theist cannot even make the actual argument and proceed to straw-man his opponent for two hours, that says a LOT about such an individual. Also, sorry to hold it against you, but you might as well advocate for the "deeper understanding" of any fictional novel, and it still never going to prove the content of the novel being a historic record. Books might inform, but the evidence lies in the objective world, not anyone's interpretations.
@@EugeneParallax What you guys are asking is ,excuse my bluntness ...just plain stupid... we are talking about GOD here , a spiritual being from a realm outside our time and space ...of course our responses will include fantastic claims that the bible makes, we don't even have technology available to take footage of pictures of spiritual beings, and our realm cannot be exited and entered at will, so the proof you demand is just not going to be available ...Also atheists often dismiss the bible as horse manure but have NO PROBLEM citing it when pointing out slavery, God slaughtering children, contradictions and what have you. Really? ok that seems fair. It's ok to be an atheist brother and a skeptic ...as long as the "a" doesn't turn into "anti" , but it often does let's be real. And speaking of stupid demands, Matt asks to see a resurrection first hand with means to prove it was indeed a resurrection, like a medical board of experts ...like OMG, This Matt guy should know God has an AGENDA, a grand scheme that he surely isn't going to compromise in order to make this NOBODY happy (I mean nobody to God , I mean no disrespect, I'm sure he's somebody to his family and others). I'll finish with your "basic critical thinking skills" argument. Brother, here you are suggesting christians cannot think in the most basic way. I CAN THINK...I'm sure of it, people like William Lane Craig, are very smart men. Newton was religious and an avid student of the bible ... So it didn't just occurred to us one day to subscribe to this "ludicrous" religious belief...I DID MY HOMEWORK, the bible is an amazing book , it's an intertwined integrated message system, the more I study it the more convinced I am there is a supreme Authority in charge of everything we can see and feel. Understanding God's plan gives you amazing insight on why the geopolitical structure of the world is what it is right now. Even the purpose for the rise of atheism is explained away in the bible. Like I said brother as long as you are an "a" theist , no problem there. Everyone is free to believe what they want. Peace to you and God bless.
@@BeNice3525 - We're talking about a fictional character that has never been proven to even exist, yet alone having an influence on anything at all. We're talking about a proposition, that a fictional character exist simply because it is said so in the associated fictional narrative. Describing his amazing qualities and features only makes it even less plausible to be real, not more. So, if proof we demand isn't oging to be available, then we will be justified to disbelief and refute the claim, and you will be un-justified to believe it. What we should believe in, is something observable or demonstrable, something that persists in the objective reality we share. - I'm an anti-theist, and believe that all religion have outlived itself. Everything we know about the Universe so far suggests, that reality is a product of spontaneous natural processes, and that the intelligence and an agency is a current known pinnacle of the iterative evolutionary events, not an original source of everything. Only a dumb or mentally unstable/vulnerable person can come to the conclusion, that the latest product of the process have to be the initiator of that same process. This is not a personal attack against you or other theists, but an attack against the idea and the principle by which one might become convinced about its validity. - Dismissing the Bible as horse manure and citing it to point ot slavery, slaughter and contradictions are one of the same action against the validity of that book. There's nothing particularly interesting about the Bible for a person moderately-versed in the modern knowledge sources, which beat the crap out of the Bible any day of the week.
@@paolopagliaro980 here's what was said and tell me where I'm getting wrong: "historically accurate descriptions of tombs in the gospels are evidence for the validity of the resurrection account."
The mockery is painful because you’re taking the wrong things seriously. If you step back and evaluate certain Christian religious claims from the standpoint of an outsider, they’re going to appear just as fantastical as other mythologies. The fact of the matter is that the Bible reads exactly like a “sacred text” should. It’s “mythological” on purpose. Christians need to accept this as coming with the territory. Hell, every religious adherent does. 🤷🏽♀️
Why people continue to believe this in the 21st century is baffling. I boil it down to two fundamental reasonings; 1 - FEAR. Fear of the unknown the fear of death and comfort religion gives them to guide their life (in a moral way of course) to ensure they get to enjoy the magical paradise beyond. 2 - The indoctrination of religion. Muslims who have near death experiences don't come face to face with Jesus, nor would a Christian have visions of Mohammed. Essentially like more primitive societies of ancient times it is story taking passed on to one generation to another.
FACT: if Matt applied this hyper version of skepticism to anything else in history we would know nothing. Dont believe me? Try me? Tell me about any document in ancient history of real historical figures and see how easy it is to say "we just don't know"....ok who's first? This should fun. 😃
"Mike Winger demonstrates one of the worst cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed." ----------He's a pastor, he believes he has a greater spiritual duty to be a cheerleader for christ, than to be a scholar.
I'm not seeing the problem. There's no rule of historiography that says we need to change our ways if what we are doing renders certain ancient sources unworthy of serious consideration. It just might be the case that a more correct application of the rules of historiography will reveal that what we've been accepting as true from ancient historical sources, is more deserving of being labeled "dubious" or "uncertain". As for your direct challenge, suppose you debate a hyper-skeptic who says we cannot really know whether there was a Caesar ruling in Rome in the 1st century. now aside from the fact that he is being unnecessarily skeptical, what consequences follow from this "error"? Aside from discouraging him from becoming a history professor, I'm not seeing the danger. And since Jesus did not teach a doctrine of literal conscious torment, yo are deprived of the "problem" you need to motivate people to worry and "get saved". Rejecting the gospel comes with about as many fearful consequences as rejecting McGyver.
@@barryjones9362 Unlike Matt who once on his show got upset with a caller debating him on evolution and told the guy "why are you calling here? I'm not an expert you should debate an evolutionary biologists" in other words I cant really defend evolution but I accept what the experts say. Yet when it comes to history the experts no longer matter even the non Christian ones. Yeah someone's got a confirmation bias alright .
If you rose from the dead why would you hide that fact for thousands of years? Especially when you claim you did it out of love. It makes no sense at all
A reanimated corpse resurrected by a mystery pathogen that causes said corpse to seek to consume the flesh of the living, or do the bidding of the one who resurrected it. In other words, a fully conscious and fully functional resurrected person is not a zombie, even based on pure lore.
Because even he realized that his honest answer ("yes") would highlight how absolutely silly his beliefs are. So instead, he deflected and tried to argue semantics.
All the way through the program, Winger completely conflates the "Facts of the Story ", with "the Story is Factual" I find it near impossible to believe he can be that dense. But I'm apparently wrong.
@@zacharymcleod460it’s not about win and lose. It’s about strength of argument. There are stronger arguments against the resurrection than for it. This was depicted here.
Dreamingrightnow no it wasn’t an official debate. Hitch was on the show a long time ago and Hannity asked him a stupid question and followed that up with a stupid comment. Hitch responded with “You strike me as someone who has never read and argument against you position”.
because Mike is a pastor, who didn't realize that by dabbling in apologetics, he was implicitly assenting to the validity of "worldly logic", which he would loudly object to in his role as a pastor. Pastors are begging for trouble by dabbling in apologetics, because the method of apologetics is so close to what we do when using "worldly logic" that it could be argued on biblical grounds that doing anything more substantial than preaching at somebody, constitutes the "word-wrangling" that apostle Paul forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14. Now you know why the examples of "apologetics" in the NT are laughably superficial and constitute nothing more than blind presumption. You can easily fulfill Jude 3 and 1st Peter 3:15 with nothing more than a few sentences.
There were plenty of resurrection stories in biblical times and prior. To me this doesn’t meant they really happened but that the stories weren’t unusual.
Or perhaps it's the case that they were relying on very rudimentary methods to determine whether or not someone was dead, and that many people were "misdiagnosed" as being dead. The stories weren't unusual because there were plenty of examples where it DID really happen. The difference is that it wasn't miraculous, it was just that people were being assumed dead when they weren't.
100% irrelevant and a non sequitur too boot. *Spiderman* #1 didn't happen #2 you'd have to explain the villains impossible transhuman abilities powers as well. #3 where's the evidence of the destroyed NYC?
@@Alec_Cox You missed the point. Mike is trying to use mentions of mundane things in the bible as evidence that the miraculous "facts" are also true. Matt is just pointing out that you can't do that rationally, using Spiderman as an analogy. Let me expound on it, too: Imagine that humanity dies out somehow, and in 2000 years, some alien archaeologists visit earth and uncover the remains of a shopping mall. In it, they find remnants of some Batman comics and remnants of some Spiderman comics. In another part of the mall, they find some old maps, atlases, and globes of the earth. All Matt was saying is the fact that Gotham city did not exist IS evidence that Batman is also fictional, BUT the fact that New York is a real city DOES NOT mean that Spiderman was also real.
@@Alec_Cox 100% not irrelevant, and the non-sequitur is the point of the analogy, because it is meant to show why all Mike Winger's "accurate but mundane historical details --> Jesus was resurrected" is also a non-sequitur. Christians say mundane historical details in the Bible mean the supernatural stuff happened. The Spiderman example has future people saying that mundane historical details in Spiderman comics/the ruins of NYC, where Spiderman lived in the comics, mean Spiderman existed. Simple. 1. Bald assertion, could be applied equally to the resurrection 2. You'd have to explain the talking donkey, worldwide flood, giants, 900 year old people, the dead rising and walking into Jerusalem (I could go on) 3. The 'future destroyed NYC' is the hypothetical. You're not very good at following analogies.
@@CausalityLoop Irrelevant according to who? Oh, now you're the authority of thought? Man, you are way under paid. Get a life in Jesus Christ and get real instead of your childish stupidity. We're talking facts here, not your *claims.*
Utter nonsense what you just claimed. Matt actually said that a testimony from a person in the witnesses would be a claim. That is crazy. That is an evidence. Matt clearly does not understand history. It's hard to argue history with people who don't understand how history works, and the difference between claims, evidence, and probability.
@@shieldofpistis9557 the scientific history I know cites multiple sources including archaeology and manuscripts that are independent from the claim we want to investigate. The resurrection of Jesus claims made by the bible cannot be verified independently. We cannot use it as the source of the claim and it's evidence. That's how I understand history. Of course I like and admire Matt's understanding of history. Maybe you're the one who should check yours!
@@shieldofpistis9557 What Matt said is that merely saying that "he then appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time", is not evidence. That's a claim. I can say that too: I was dead, I rose from the dead and 1000 people saw me. Is this post evidence that I rose from the dead? No it's not, because I'm CLAIMING that I rose from the dead and I'm CLAIMING that 1000 people saw me alive after I died. Evidence would be at least some of those 1000 people personally writing their report of my resurrection. It would still be weak, because eyewitness testimony is weak, but it'd be something. But in the case of Jesus' resurrection, we find that none of them wrote anything at all, we have a bunch of anonymous authors who report what has been part of the oral tradition for decades. They weren't first hand accounts, and probably they weren't second hand accounts either.
@MrDX1118 I get it. And I agree. Certain Claims are evidence....such as the eye witnesses in the Bible. Their claims are evidence. Matt is the one that doesn't understand that. Most of history is founded on claims- eye witness, or those who interview eye witness testimonies, gather evidence. Matt doesn't get it.
You are being misled unknown. And Matt did not say that it only applied to the 500 claim. He said the claims in the New Testament. You do know that we do not have 1,000 eye witnesses that state Caesar defeated Pompey right? Or Hannibal was brilliant at the Battle of Cana or that Scipio invaded Carthage? We do not have 1,000 eye witnesses. Actually, compared to other historical events, the claims of the New Testament hold up strongly. Yes, may be some errors in the New Testament which only strengthens their claim because it shows that they did not gather together afterward and form a faith. John, James, Paul, Peter, Matthew are eye witnesses in the Bible. Then we have the modern historian Luke who interviewed eye witnesses. Then we have the apostolic fathers and church fathers---and they DID NOT teach a uniform faith, but they did teach that Jesus resurrected. From the oral tradition, to the eye witnesses, to the second and third generation that interviewed eye witnesses, the claims of the resurrection form a huge amount of evidence that Winger mentions in his opening statement. Bart Ehrman even admits this. This is something that Atheists can't get around. If you are going to be an atheist then be an educated atheist. Come up with a theory that at least shows research. But the lack of history claim is silly, as I have just explained.
Matt's passion for finding the truth and his amazing intellect is truly inspiring. His work in rooting out mythology from our social fabric, and the work of others like him, may be humanity's best hope for survival.
🤣🤣🤣 Oh yeah blindly dismissing scholars you’ve never read based on ad hominem attacks. Conceding the debate by saying you don’t even know what would constitute as evidence, yet telling your opponent that he didn’t provide evidence without justification.
I mean seriously buddy Matt is a joke there is no reason to ever debate him he’s a waste of time. There’s absolutely no reason to take anything he says in this debate or any of his objections into consideration, because they’re not objections they’re just claims they’re baseless assertions. He’s nothing but a rhetorician, Who comes into debates with no justification for his beliefs and fully myths he’s not even qualified to talk about this topic whatsoever and he hasn’t done the homework, and he doesn’t even know what would constitute as evidence for the resurrection or warrant reasonable belief. Yep he’s going to critique winger for not providing evidence? I mean he literally said he doesn’t even know what would constitute as evidence, despite the fact he said that’s not evidence 1000 times. And on top of that he blindly dismisses non-Christian scholars claims smugly based on ad hominem attacks, 1:13:00, Ann says that’s not how you do history, despite the fact he admits he doesn’t know how historians verify claims historically. But he’s gonna tell them that they are wrong and stupid. How is that not dishonest and arrogant?
Believes death bodyes raised from their tombs Gets ofendended when the word zombie appears and starts whining how atheists are meanies Cringe overcharge
Same thing happened with my cousin when I dared remind her that Jesus was a human blood sacrifice. She didn't like thinking of it in those factual terms.
Here is an idea, there was never a tomb that Jesus was buried in. He was probably left on the cross and what remained of him was buried in a mass grave, a big hole in the ground. Why would Jesus be treated any better than other crucified people?
To answer your question, Jesus was not an ordinary Jew. Flavius Josephus, a 1 century Jewish historian, tells us Jesus was a "doer of startling deeds" and a "teacher" ... who "drew over to himself many Jews & Gentiles." So Jesus had followers. It is not unreasonable then to suppose that some of Jesus' followers were rich enough to have tombs. So it is, according to multiple early sources (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:50-53, John 19:38-42) we learn Jesus was buried in a tomb by a rich man and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin called Joseph of Arimathea who had become a follower of Jesus. Given that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, a group of 70 well-known Jewish officials, it is unlikely this burial account was invented by the Gospel authors because it would have been too easily falsifiable. It would also have been embarrassing for the Christians to invent this story in which the Christian leaders are hiding in fear while Joseph is brave enough to ask Pilate for the body. Also, remember, hostility between Christians and the Sanhedrin was intense. It was the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death! So, furthermore, it is unlikely Christians would invent a story that portrays a member of the Sanhedrin as a follower of Jesus. All these reasons and more are why most scholars today of all stripes hold to the burial account.
Mike exposed and embarrassed Matt. You prove how illogical you are, as Christianity is still the main world view. You being illogical stating things that are untrue as if true only emphasises the logical conclusion to your statement is that Matt is in fact illogical. Thanks for playing loser.
@Straight White Male wrong pagans used god's (plural) to explain natural phenomenon. Monotheistic religions are fairly rare in comparison and Christianity is just an amalgamation of other religions, even the damn holidays are stolen. Also some immaterial things don't 'exist' in the literal sense. An idea for example isn't tangible in a sense but even something 'immaterial' like that can be measurable by electronic brain activity. However, the metaphysical has zero evidence, there is nothing backing the claim up that it is real. Every time anyone has tried to prove it they fail, there is even huge money prizes up for anyone who can prove it but it's never happened. Claiming something is real doesn't make it so, writing in a book it's real doesn't make it so, having a 'feeling' that is real doesn't make it so.
@Straight White Male oh and what a load of BS saying athiesm can't account for the preconditions for knowledge. Prove that statement to be even remotely true. All we need are brains, evolution made brains possible. Ergo knowledge is possible, simple.
Hey everyone! Just wanted to let you know that both Matt and Mike have posted debate reviews. You may access them below:
Matt's debate review: ruclips.net/video/4FoGVPYl0i8/видео.html
Mike's debate review: ruclips.net/video/OEfkfXy253s/видео.html
Cheers!
But we already know Matt won.
If I 'reviewed' it, I'd say it seemed to be teaching Mike how to do basic sound reasoning 101.
Which doesn't make a good debate, ie Matt was seen as the teacher to the ignorant fool.
Kim Land Tell us how you really feel ;)
@@CapturingChristianity I feel that Christians base their beliefs on feelings.
Kim Land Btw, you inadvertently admitted that your judgement is based on feeling.
@@CapturingChristianity It was just a mirrored reply to your reply on 'tell us how you really feel', which is generally meant as rhetorical. I was basically having a joke with you on that.
But my original reply was spot on to the obvious results of the debate that MOST truthful people would agree to.
You can tell they're not really listening while Matt's talking.
Oh hey Koolaid Man love your vids
Exactly
Mike's having a tough time comprehending
Yeah I know right. Matt's position is basicly it's just a written document. It could be fake or a lie. I personally dont believe anything at all cause everything can be faked including photos an video and experiments and polls. I dont even believe Matt Dillahunty exist. Thanx Matt for showing us how to take skepticism to the limit and not believe anything at all even my own existence. 😃
@@joshmadden5757 No man im on your side. All these fools believing these stupid documents. You know theres actually idiots out there who believe George Washington existed based on documents. I'm not sure anything in the past existed ever. You gave a great example because the bible is exactly the same I think some guy just found it in a dungeon somewhere an now everyone is like "oh this is real duh da duh" by the way do you exist? All I have from you is RUclips messages.
The Bible: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the graves"
Everybody: "Zombies"
Christians. "That's offensive!"
ChristianIce too true xD
😅😅😅😅
:D yea that was good moment! Funny how christian guy was offended.
Everyone in the city was literally raised from the dead and walked around greeting their loved ones didn't they? Does that make THEM all god too?
I'm not a Christian, but I think the issue here comes from how people generally define "zombie" when using it in context. A "zombie" typically refers to a reanimated corpse. Assuming the corpse's animation includes the reinvigoration of their consciousness, can you really call the body a "corpse" anymore? A "corpse" is "a dead body", but if it's alive, it's not dead. Ergo, while "zombie" might be going too far, "undead" would probably still apply to some degree.
Somebody claimed to see Elvis at a 7-11 a year after he died. Well, 7-11s DID exist in 1978. This is evidence that Elvis was resurrected.
dLimboStick IKR
LMAOO
When I look at you, I see Elvis.
Can confirm. Zombie Elvis was buying Koolaid.
Many people saw how Jesus died, then he was resurrected in a healthy human body, not related to a zombie. Elvis Presley's example is not valid.
“Questions aren’t good enough. We want answers to those questions!”
Which is exactly why you will accept bad answers to important questions. Because having an answer is more important to finding the truth.
EXACTLY! it seems as though they'll take any answer no matter how absolutely absurd.
I would rather have questions I can’t answer, than answers I can’t question
@@f.r.etling6226 damn that's a good one
@@dceezy15yeah man it is crazy. religious people start with their conclusion (God), and then look for any argument they can find to defend that. And a lot of people just go along with it and ignore their doubts, because they are bullied or their family believes it
I am so glad I became agnostic/atheist
@@f.r.etling6226 Yeah man it is crazy. Atheists start with their conclusion(Naturalism/No God), and then look for any argument they can find to defend that. And a lot of people just go along with it and ignore their doubts, because they are bullied or their online cronies and intellectuals believe it
I am so glad I became a Theist/Christian
This single video probably had the largest impact in my deconstruction journey out of Christianity. Watching Mike Winger was like looking at myself in the mirror and not liking what i saw. Now three years later my life has gotten so much fuller and more purposeful because I know only believe in things that I have good reason to and let go of my neediness and self-hate.
Dude, the self hate is real too! It has been my biggest struggle with leaving religion. Glad you are doing better with that.
Interesting observation. Cheers, and welcome to the sunny side 😊
I had the opposite experience. I was a hardcore atheist, a strong atheists that argued God cannot possibly exist. I had what I thought were good arguments against God. I thought there was no possible way for me to ever believe in God again. I would say things like once you know that Santa is fake, you cannot imagine a way you would ever believe in Santa again. That is how I felt about God. I thought it impossible to ever believe again. But like Matt says, God knows exactly what would convince me even if I could not imagine it. God just gave me the faith and I don't know how to deny it.
@@aquinasadefenseforgod1254 Why is it the only people who call themselves hardcore atheists are the ones who are now Christian?
@@aquinasadefenseforgod1254 When you were an atheist did you think faith was a good reason to believe? What you described doesn’t sound like the opposite of what the OP described as he mentioned having good reasons to believe and your reason/evidence is just “faith”.
What caused you to be convinced by something that you once knew wasn’t a good reason?
I was Christian for 32 years, and happened to stumble upon The Atheist Experience by accident. I began getting hooked on the vids, and Matt and Hitchens were the main catalysts on my journey to exit this faith
Hitchens is my personal hero.
"Hitch" and Richard Dawkins were mine, although I was more of a new age religious skeptic. I always though the stories in the bible as just being myths. If all that kinda stuff happened before people were literate, how come it doesn't happen now? Answer. People are educated and can read and write. There are many still holding onto stupid myths about humanity and the resurrection. etc.
Hey bro..... yr not alone,,, I was 33yrs christian. Now I've seen the light, and can't believe in a book, that claims to be infallable, inerrant, and god breathed.
@DrJames Powers All you need is one. Stand on your own feet and be your own man. A man should never grovel.
@DrJames Powers Go get on your knees weak man and pray to your master.
Matt is dropping logic bombs and this guy has no clue how to even comprehend them. This was so one sided, I don’t even understand why this guy even agreed to speak to him. Embarrassing.
@Matthew Petto that was a very little portion of the debate and he was probably just messing around?
@Matthew Petto also how is killing some animal a substitute for your own sin lmao.
@Mty Crew How can killing a animal have anything to do with sin?
@Mty Crew that seems like blood magic to me lmoa
Almost 30 years ago, I had a parent unalive themselves. Every night for months I had vivid nightmares that they came back to life. I eventually wound up in the hospital because I was both horribly sleep deprived AND believing I had buried them alive.
Ten years after that, I went into nursing. I dealt with MANY patients who had vivid delusions and hallucinations. These type of incidents were very much covered in the curriculum for nursing.
How exactly does God-lad believe that such things don't happen?
I don’t think you listened to what he said. He said that there are no documented incidents of *group* hallucinations. If your dreams or hallucinations of your deceased parent (so sorry for your loss btw, especially losing someone in that manner) had been shared by dozens or hundreds of separate people, it would be a different story
Btw what’s with the use of “un-alive” instead of kill? I get that it’s tough subject matter but it’s not like the implications are any different; I just don’t understand this modern obsession with euphemisms
1. Look up the group hallucination at Lourdes. Look up the group delusions at Jonestown (lots of unaliving there, lol, woke). Look up folie a deux. GOOGLE IS FREE.
2. LOL, WOKE. Do you have no idea how the RUclips algorithm works? Did you know it flags certain words like the act my parent committed. Also look that up.
@@bensnow2688 Joseph Smith and his followers reportedly had group hallucinations of Angel Moroni likewise with Marian Apparitions.
@bensnow2688 Only Paul claimed to have seen Jesus anyway, there's no testimonies from the claim about the 500 witnesses.
1:38:04 Mike talks about “weird Indian gurus” and saying how those beliefs are weird. The very next question asks him if he believes in zombies rising out of graves to meet their live relatives. He says yes though admits he could be wrong and doesn’t affect his faith. This is a blatant case of ignoring the crazy things in your own religion and throwing bombs at other religions for their weird things.
ya thats a bad stance to take.
There's no real evidence that these saints were undead bodies with agency. The context this is told in seems to say that the temple above which they were buried was utterly destroyed when Jesus gave up the ghost. And all of those burial chambers beneath the temple opened up due to the quake and the bodies were let loose. Not that they walked to and fro, but fell out into the sight of many people. This would be sheer madness if you think about it. It would be chaos seeing long dead saints falling out of tombs and falling and tumbling and rolling into the midst of the city. A frightening sight indeed. This is why everyone who witnessed it was mortified.
After a second listen, this struck me really hard. At 1:32:23 Mike admitted that he believed in Jesus and Christianity first without any data, and then later found evidence to support his believe. This is exactly what he had accused Matt earlier, when he said something like "to Matt, evidence is secondary". Wow, he shot himself in the head and didn't even realize it.
Great observation!
Matt proceeded to point out that he’d done it the wrong way round
Yes I noticed that, goes along with his rhetoric of being young and a bit clueless, therefore I found something in Jesus and am now really happy? Which describes some of my Christian friends looking for meaning, due to a lack of focus and direction in their life. It’s very deceiving.
That was reality the fatality of this debate, where Matt finished him
He shoots himself into the foot whenever he opens his mouth.
"Debate" starts at 5:04
Facepalming starts at 5:44
...
:-D
😂😅🤣
Mike has convinced me. The resurrection has no supporting evidence that it's true and the Bible is an ancient comic book.
Matt has convinced me. Matt would deny all evidence while demanding evidence that would be unreasonable for the circumstances at the time or he would use a methodology that would not only render the resurrection of Jesus as a falsehood but the majority of ancient history.
@@seesmann638 "would not only render the resurrection of Jesus as a falsehood but the majority of ancient history"
I'm not aware of any supernatural claim that has ever been accepted as a historical fact.
@@seesmann638 You're right, Matt's epistemology would not only render the resurrection of Jesus as a falsehood, but it would also force him to reject the divinity of Julius Caeser, who resurrected as a God according to solid historical accounts
@@kappasphere 1. Thats not Matts epistimology.
2. There has never been anybody who claimed that Julius Ceasar rised from the dead. That is differrent for Jesus.
@@WhiteScorpio2 At least not by athesit scholars.
1:23:08 this is the very moment it all ended. Mike destroyed himself and any hopes of credibility. Followed up by an arrogant comment of how he thinks debates work was icing on the cake.
All this video did was create more atheists.
I love how Matt said no that's not how the debates work! people are used to political debate debates they see on TV but that's not actually how the rules of real debate work at all
utterly destroyed after this point...
You act like being impressionable is a good thing
Mike is probably one of the most deluded, and illogical, people I've ever heard.
@@AllThingsFilm1 All of Matt's opponents are deluded and illogical no matter what they say, we get it
I'm an atheist. My brother is a Christian. He paused the video multiple times to complain about what Mike was saying, and never once had anything to say in response to Matt. In a years time, he will reference this video as what lead to him becoming an atheist.
Lol just got to the part where Mike accuses Matt of holding the position that evidence doesn't matter, and then acts like Matt is being disrespectful for not letting him finish his sentence. He said he can't watch the rest. Good job at capturing christianity...
@J w elaborate
J w
He said that his brother, the Christian, couldn’t stand to watch Mike’s ridiculous arguments any more. What does Andy’s bias have to do with anything?
@@lemonfresh9396 Fortunately in this case Andy does exist. Correct me saying it doesn't make it true, but it was a true story nonetheless. But watching the video with my brother sparked one of the best conversations we've ever had on the topic so it isn't all bad ey
@@lemonfresh9396 I know you were haha. Yeah fpr sure man
andy ashworth I think Mike needs to go back to an elementary science class to understand what EVIDENCE means.
True, Matt D. Has been in the game a long time and Mike has only done 3 debates. It really shows here.
Watching many debates with Matt and watching the Atheist Experience for years, its obvious he was going easy on Mike as well. Like when I pretend box my 6 year old.
Jesus is an awesome God👍👍👍👍👏👏👏👏
I was hoping for a little Eric from Mesa, AZ Matt D. We got Patient Camp Counselor Matt D., instead. lol
Jaha
I believe Matt was using mucho grande patience with winger ...for our cause.
Ok Jaha????
The fact that the single most important event in human history can even be debated is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw with the religion. If there was an all loving god that genuinely wanted his creations to know him, why leave the grand gesture shrouded in mystery?
@hasbulla5740some people do good things and don’t believe in god. Some people are shitty people but believe in god yet it’s those that will go to heaven by the Christian standard.
@hasbulla5740additionally there’s a lot of things you can do that god is okay with that I’d say are immoral and wrong. But yes if there was essentially a powerful judge in the sky always watching us we probably would try at least to act morally. But even Christian’s who literally believe that there is a god in the sky always watching them still commit sin bc they just can’t control themselves. It’s like all the teen boys In church being preached about pre marital sex yet they still do it and watch porn / masturbate. It’s like the age old joke about Jesus watching you beat your meat. Lol
What would you like to God to do?
And if He did what you wanted Him to do, how do you think that would change the world?
It's not a mystery. LOL, God works with the freedom of the will of the people He created. Not on the basis of just showing up. Besides you have no idea of what contingency lies if He didn't made it that way. You can only assume
@@sarshanden8033 prove free will and that there is a god before you act so smug
Two Vs one and Matt still wiped the floor with these fools
Would us atheists be reasonable to avoid bothering with the Shroud of Turin until more Christian scholars stop calling it a fraud? if even spiritually alive people deny the authenticity of the Shroud, how can you possibly expect spiritually dead atheists to understand more correctly? answersingenesis.org/archaeology/testing-the-shroud-of-turin/
This comment denotes too much frustration and resentment 😂😂 there was no need to insult them, typical atheist approach.
@@valentino3228two vs one and Matt still wiped the floor with these clowns 😁🤡
@@valentino3228I don’t condone needlessly insulting people either, but pretending Christians don’t do the same thing an even, or even greater, amount and referring to it as “typical atheist approach” is dishonest and pitiful.
I could tell from the beginning that Matt would have the more sound argument. Winger straight used the bible as "evidence" of the bible....and then made the mistake of saying..."historians say...." STILL presenting that as evidence. He has no idea what constitutes evidence.
@Whipsaw
Books are updated when more rigorous standards of research are applied. in simpler terms, that means the updated version has the most accurate information. The Bible was created back when people had no clue about what they were talking about and could not explain what was going on in the world around them. You can continue to use the Bible all you want, I could care less about how informed you choose to be. What I do care about is making sure I have the right information.
@Whipsaw that is such a sad rant. You keep believing your unchanging book. We'll move on and progress.
@My name is August West Lmaooooo. Why is it that scientist who are part of all different types of faiths can follow a scientific method and agree on the evidence.
Guy thinking source x claiming source y said or did something is an independent attestation from source y sums it up. Has little understanding of reason and logic. He was even explained to regarding this and still couldn't get it
Wow. Mike Winger is really dishonest.
Also, every time Matt interrupts, Mike demands he be allowed to finish. That doesn't seem to stop him from interrupting Matt or stopping him from making a point.
You're dishonest, Mike. Your debate tactics are cheap.
He's defending a weak position with flimsy claims.
@@HarryNicNicholas I can relate.
With one post I'm convinced you're an arrogant, ego-centric twat.
Do you really 'think' because you 'think' you're an 'athiest' you automatically like all other athiests? Do you 'think' all Muslims like all Muslims too?
Do you think?
@doug nut lol Doug
Atheism wasn't even taken seriously until the 20th century
It's a joke of a belief that even Satan is shocked is working
%92 of the world isn't atheist, even to this day
It's okay to say there is no good evidence for theism, but it's not okay to say your beliefs/anti-beliefs are going to end up being correct >%51 of the time
The exact opposite is the case. Matt is denying the scholarship (the historical evidence) of a historical claim while saying that there is no evidence, which is a rejection of the entire scientific field of scholarship and history. (Winger didn't even get into the evidence surrounding the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin, surprisingly, which is even more damning.)
Actual scholars would look at Dilhuanty and other such hyper-skeptics as fools.
@@blanktrigger8863 Dont bother it's an echo chamber of matt fans. Anyone one who brings up christ is immediately dismissed by these people.
Thank you @Capturing Christianity! Uploading this video has made more atheists than God himself. Matt is an insanely talented master of logic.
Winger was heavily outmatched. Terrible.
@@davidburrey9831 I hate when people say, “you already know god exists in your heart… you just have a hardened heart”. That’s the easiest argument to disprove to myself. I genuinely don’t believe that god is real. Why would I seek out someone that I don’t believe exists for no reason other then “he will give you faith when you seek him out”. That’s the biggest pile of nonsense I’ve ever heard. Well, you should go seek out the chicken god of mars. You know in your heart that he is real, you just deny it. Once you devote your life to the chicken god of mars, then and only then will you be rewarded with the knowledge that devoting your life to the chicken god of mars was worth it. That’s a shitty way to come to a reasonable conclusion.
@@dorbdorb25Master of logic that denies the obvious
@@lovespeaks777 we’re talking about Matt not mike
@@davidburrey9831 I like your comment and i think it is a great point for the resurrection.
A brief summary of the debate is:
-Mike equivocates "claims" with "evidence" throughout the conversation
-Matt points this out and corrects it several times
-Mike straw-mans Matt's position to be one of disregard toward evidence, where Matt then is forced to interrupt him and correct this mischaracterization
-Mike eventually discloses that he formed his conclusion at age 12 and sought only to affirm and never to falsify that conclusion thereafter (the definition of pseudo-science)
-Matt follows suit by disclosing that he was saved at age 5, and eventually came to value epistemic soundness and logical consistency to such a degree that maintaining a belief in god wasn't possible
-Mike claims prophecy is an enormous facet of the faith that often goes untapped, but should be addressed more. He claims he will begin producing content along those lines; however, at the outset of this conversation, he tells Matt he has watched practically every video of Matt's regarding religion-based topics. If this were true, he should be aware of the dozens of videos wherein Matt has thoroughly debunked the legitimacy of Biblical prophecy.
Scott Demirjian, Excellent summary. It was a maddening dialogue to follow.
Yeah - excellent. Spot on.
Matt didn't debunk much of anything. All he does is give his present strawmen and give his opinion.
@@paradisecityX0 Matt repeatedly demonstrates Mike's claims are hollow claptrap.
@@s0ld4u Not really, he was mostly "l don't believe you". Matt's followers give him way to much credit
I keep hearing "The next FACT, that most likely happen." This is not Fact if you keep adding 'most likely'
Isaiah Stone - Right?! These apologists use words like English was their second language. 🙄😪
Yea, I noticed at the beginning he set it up that "Fact" means "Something likely to have happened" so the rest of the time he just claim facts which makes it sound like ABSOLUTE TRUTH but if you call him out he can fall back on "No, I said fact = likely".
@@pyrobryan Well if you pile up a lot of "most likelies" on top of each other, it becomes fact. Doesn't it...?
And his conclusion was: "Resurrection is the most likely explanation to this very likely events, therefore resurrection 100 % happened".
Poor Matt, it’s like he’s arguing with children.
Rather with zealots.
Christian Geiselmann YOU are the zealot. Matt is a agnostic atheist, meaning he’s neutral/undecided/ unconvinced. He/I resist ideas that don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.
You guys shouldn’t blame us for our skepticism, that’s a natural response to things that don’t make sense it have evidence.
It’s the same way you feel when a Muslim or Jew try to convince you of their faith with no evidence to back them up. You are them.
Matics Huh? You totally misunderstood my comment. 180 degrees.
Christian Geiselmann Ahhhh, my bad. I’m at work and wrote that quickly. Thought you were calling people like Matt Zealots.
Matt is just a man with a small opnion, Jesus can save you from Hell and only Jesus, your soul is to important to listen to the Demon Mattt.
Winger’s whole case:
“I believe that Some people said some stuff so it’s true”.
That’s essentially religion at its absolute basest.
How do you know that nitrogen has 5 valence electrons?
@@pearsonbrown6740
Because there is evidence that you can verify for yourself. It’s so silly when Christians try to equate studying subjects that they didn’t experience for themselves, with magical stories written by anonymous scribes, and aren’t supported with a single shred of evidence. You’re reaching so hard.
@@pearsonbrown6740 have you heard of the scientific method? You can test, repeat, examine. Please show me how you do that with the supernatural.
@@roems6396 The fact of the matter is that you yourself cannot demonstrate that nitrogen has 5 valence electrons. You rely on professionals to do the research. But unless you actually went and did it yourself, you cannot act as if your belief is perfectly rational.
Mike is in fact delusional
Matt's point: There is not enough physical evidence.
Mikes point: You're not believing hard enough for it to be real.
lol, Mike is a pastor. Wooing to the faith will be his specialty, at least for now, not argument.
What physical evidence would you like to have seen for Jesus?
@@j2mfp78 , ANY robust evidence for a resurrected Jesus will serve, I want to know who the author of the account (Gospel) is, and I want him to specify his sources, which should be eyewitness testimony, for the claims made.
Does that not seem reasonable to you?
@@psandbergnz First off do you apply this same standard to all ancient historical claims. And secondly I do not believe that would make a difference in your beliefs. You are telling me if tommorow documents were discovered matching the criteria you just stated that you would become a Christian? Yeah right.
@@j2mfp78 , ALL historical claims must be based on good evidence to be believable. If the claims are extraodinary, then I suppose you would agree that the evidence should be robust. Hearsay is NOT robust evidence! Do YOU permit the same standards for historical documents? Do you believe the testimony of Joseph Smith and his followers, who even signed their testimony for the brass plates (which then disappeared) and other alleged signs?
Or do you support the testimony of the Deputy Sheriff at Roswell and other eyewitnesses who claim they saw four dead aliens at Roswell and a flying saucer of 100 feet in diameter? they testified about 30 years after the alleged incident. We know their names, and their testimony was recorded and filmed. But does that make their statement true and real?
We have far better evidence for capatured extraterrestrial aliens at Roswell than we do for the resurrrection of Jesus, which is based on anonymous, hearsay accounts (Gospels). You are very naive!
Mike winger’s accusatory nature seems like projection and I found it nauseating.
It's infuriating how Mike REPEATEDLY scolded Matt towards the beginning of the video for interrupting him and demanding that he be allowed to finish, and then spent the rest of the video interrupting Matt.
Without intending to be, this is a powerful recruitment tool for Atheism. Mike proved himself to be dishonest, smug, and possessing a tenuous grasp on what a 'fact' is.
@J w you should call in and let him know how you feel
@@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677 For what so Matt can hang up in him 😂😂😂
Atheism is a Religion huh? Recruiting? You confirm what most atheist deny.
Thanks for that.
Matt does not seem to know much about History.
Nor the concept of Testimony or Evidence.
Matt is relying on claims, as his evidence.
He is literally relying on claims to try to invalidate what he claims are claims.
Irony? Or just Hypocrisy??
@@travisdempster4693 How does using the word recruited make something a religion? Are people not recruited into the military? Could you not say that you've been recruited when you are hired for a job?
Though it might not be the proper terminology to use, it seems pretty obvious to me that by recruit he just means to convince someone of the nonexistence of god. So obvious in fact that I feel you may be purposely misconstruing his words just to confirm your previously held beliefs.
Mike is totally helpless and outclassed by Matt.
@J w Not really...but in this discussion, he was the one making the most sense.
J w did Matt lose in your opinion?
@J w That may be because it's all you focus on. See how that works?
Mat is a lier!!! Jesus is awesome!!!!👍👍👍👍
@Eraser
What a loyal dog you are *pets you on the head*
Mike doesn't understand the distinction between a "claim" and "evidence".
I claim to be the smartest human that ever existed, people that don't know me deny that as evidence. I just don't get it??
No Christian does.
Life & Light so all facts are now irrelevant then. Our entire basis for history and science are just claims and therefore not substantial pieces of information to develop facts. All of science is just a claim. Any scientist worth his salt would say science is just trying to constantly understand the world around you. Therefore, every scientific fact is just a claim because it can be proven false later. Sorry, but the claims vs evidence argument is just a rhetorical strategy designed to confuse and off kilter opposition. How the hell do you define evidence as evidence? That doesn’t work.
Most Christians almost all of them don't.
greyknight627 all science is a claim. Not really when you can test it over and over and over and get the same result...
Mike: Offers a bunch of claims which he calls evidence, without any actual evidence.
Matt: rejects Mike's claims as being without evidence.
Mike: "evidence doesn't matter to you!"
Exactly. According to Mike we should just blindly believe something an anonymous author wrote on a piece of paper. Mike is very confused about what real evidence actually is.
This is one of the more embarrassing showings for a Christian apologist out there.
Matt just proved that Mike was mentally still that same 12 year old boy he was when he wanted to find God. It's really sad.
At one point Mike tried to slander Matt by saying there is no evidence that could be provided that would be enough for Matt. I think it is the exact opposite which is true, there is no evidence that could be provided that would shake Mike's childish fantasy.
You are going to have to define what you believe "evidence" means, because what he presented was evidence, not claims.
Evidence is anything that gives weight to a case, and yes, claims from multiple witnesses also count, especially if they're themselves validated by other means.
@@matheusdardenne
They are not evidence. They are the claims. They are not witnesses to what they are writing about. There isn’t a single witness that wrote about Jesus. No one who wrote about him ever met him. Those stories are the claim. There wasn’t a previous story, and then someone came out to support that story. There is just the original story. The gospels copy from earlier versions. They aren’t independent “witnesses.” You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.
There are many spider man stories written by different authors. Are those stories evidence that Spider-Man exists!?
BTW, your shirt is a great advertisement for ignorance
That's hilarious
One person's ignorance is another person's freedom.
Its stupid even on a grammatical level.
He keeps using the word "Fact". I don't think it means what he thinks it means.
'Historical fact'. Like its a historical fact that Harry Potter was a wizard, or Zeus made lightning.
Since we can confirm this in books. But if you want to know if something is true, then you need sufficient evidence and/or good reason.
I agree 'historical' facts are misleading, its just what historians do.
Pyramids were made to keep dead kings safe, or historically the night stars were labelled the 'heavens'.
Oliver Bacon And thanks Oliver for hijacking the thread :D Your reply sums up as: I heard claims, and this so called Dr. was merely stating claims. Got it, all good.
@DrJames Powers
Your question was about rationality.
Its a strange thing this word. Probably about 10 years ago atheists would commonly go about and openly state all theists are irrational.
THEN a few years after, theists caught onto this and argued that for a THEIST to believe in their mythical God, that actually IS rational.
Creationists then picked up on this, and didn't like the science on rationality (and reason). So then maybe about 5 years ago max, they started arguing rationality is just make believe.
Again atheists had to come along and clearly state that the theists claim is without sufficient evidence AND lacks any good reasoning, thus their belief is irrational.
Creationists (and now the new goto science) argue that the ENTIRE of science is irrational, they all of sudden are happy to use this term. But they forgot 1 thing (all along actually).
Even if the entire of the scientific was fully thrown out (and yes that would obviously mean that all of science would inevitably be worked out again, providing the exact same fact based scientific theories). BUT, if all of science was presently totally thrown out, that STILL does not mean 'therefore God'! Since you STILL must supply sufficient evidence of that claim!
Not historical evidence like Batman in Gotham city. Or Harry Potter is a wizard.
Not philosophical evidence like Muslims (and 9,999 others) believing Jesus was not a God.
It MUST be sufficient evidence and or good reasoning to believe in ANY of these claimed Gods.
And so far, a big fat ZERO of anything close to sufficient evidence has come from ANY theist.
"Dr." Other than science is all wrong in your mind (ie the science that works and gets rockets to the surface of Mars). What sufficient EVIDENCE do you have for your claim? And don't say the -quran- the Bible, because that's not DAMN sufficient obviously.
Can't wait for your rant on science again!!
So AGAIN, disregarding all of science, what's your sufficient evidence on your particular mythical God existing? You don't have any don't you? Such a damn SHAME.
To be simple for your irrational mind.
You can't say: Why the Butler didn't do it, therefore it must have been the Maid. As that's just RIDICULOUS.
What is the evidence you have that confirms the guilty verdict of your particular God supposedly existing?
Do you want me to dumb it down for you further?
@DrJames Powers
"Then you've not been around long."
I mislead you a little, I've been around since atheist forums started. Too many Creationists I've chatted with, yes they all turn into 100 reply threads.
"you're basically calling me "stupid," "
Agreed, I AM calling you stupid in this specific area of believing in nonsense.
" Isn’t it you that states “stupid” things like MINDLESS NOTHING produced INTELLIGENT EVERYTHING? "
Um nope not me, unless you can define this nothing thing you speak of?
Oh without quoting your next lines in order. You asked about abiogenics. This is still an unknown area. WAIT, are you saying you have sufficient evidence of knowledge about this? Do tell :)
Evolution did not come about 'all at the same time'. And I thought you knew what science has confirmed about the fact of evolution? Obviously not. You shouldn't deceive others with lies, it will be your undoing.
Um you got exactly HALF the Big Bang best known explanation of the beginning of our known universe correct, and then you mentioned this nothing thing again?? SO strange. Is your claimed God nothing possibly? You have a big hang up about this thing that science has NO info on at all.
Evolution is a known fact. We know more about evolution than even gravity. Actually we know more about evolution than ANY science, since we are the biological life that is part of that evolutionary process.
You ended with a BIG unjustified claim again? I think you are a young Creationist, you haven't had enough chats with reasoning atheists online yet haven't you? Wow THINK harder :D
Your sufficient evidence of your absurd mythical God belief again? We both know that'll never come don't we ;)
@@lizapatron
All good Oliver.
@DrJames Powers
So that would be a no you don't have sufficient evidence or even a good reason to believe, and your idea is to 'preach the word' of nonsense. Whilst trying to defame the working scientific method. Wow, and some think that's not silly!
Lol xD Love that movie 🎥
Mike Winger, you have got no idea and have been schooled by Matt. If anything, you should go and learn what EVIDENCE is.
Props to this channel for keeping this up. I watch this debate on a weekly basis. Very informative.
Weekly basis is crazy
@@alliek13I wonder if they still do.
@@drdre4397 he remembers it by heart at this point so he just simulates it in his head from start to finish every few days
I was thinking the same thing: why would this Christian channel keep a clearly lost debate for Christians?
@@drdre4397yep. Just enjoyed another listen :)
And people wonder why William Lane Craig absolutely refuses to debate Matt Dillahunty.
Name one person who has ever beaten WLC in a debate. These popular level atheists don't stand a chance. Just your typical - there's no evidence! When evidence is staring them right in the face.
@@kenokelley9395
Why then has WLC utterly refused to even consider the possibility of debating Dillahunty? It's not as if Dillahunty has not established a significant history of debating these very topics with other prominent theologians and philosophers. If WLC is such a formidable and unbeatable opponent (As you contend), why is he absolutely refusing to even discuss a possible debate with Dillahunty?
Ken O'Kelley haha!! Matt has asked WLC to debate for years!!! WLC won’t debate Matt.
Ken O'Kelley sure you have evidence. But it’s weak.
Ken O'Kelley Sean Carroll wiped the floor with him from a cosmological basis.
Christian guy: "Well, there were real tombs like in bible, that means Jesus resurrected.
Matt: "Well, New Yourk is real, that means Spider Man is real, that what you are saying"
Matt wins just right there.
@DrJames Powers
>>For instance, Matt has no RATIONAL POSSIBLE atheist source for life, intelligence, love, consciousness and morality and why?
Well, you have no either! Only claims with no even grit of sand of proof.
But first of all -
>>atheism has no possible answer for what exists
Atheism is JUST lack of believe in any gods by different reasons. Matt's and any other sceptic's reason - there are no sufficient proofs of any god existing. Funny thing, sceptics do not believe in gods, spirits, astrology, homeopathy or crazy conspiracy theories right after they apply this standard of evidence to all these things. And believers are tend to believe in other controversial things, if they already believe in any.
@DrJames Powers Also, who says there is no explanation for morality, for example? There is possible evolutionary explanation: social species evolved with curtain rules inside their societies - what is bad and what is good. Group with mutual help and sharing resourses might survive better that group of individuals, if overall living in group for that species is better than being alone.
Life? Form of existing of matter. Our bodies are built from three most common elements in Universe: hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, plus nitrogen.
Intelligence, love, consciousness? Who said these are no more that electrochemical processes in our brains? There are at least tens of thousands of studies that say: damage or kill neurons or whole brain - personality and other cognitive attributes change dramatically. No other sourses of these attributes like soul found.
@DrJames Powers docdoor of what stupidity ,these rediculous religions exist from ignorance & a poor education system When a child is brainwashed early in life it is hard for them to normalize ( removing your head from your butt ) and start thinking
@DrJames Powers
>>you have no coherent step-by-step ATHEIST explanation of WHATEVER to MANKIND existence
But your religion does neither! Claims are not explanations, this is not working. How universe originated? How species evolved? Science provides evidence-supported explanations, and all religious claims become fairytales. Abrahamic religions' explanation of world and life origin is no more relevant to reality that Ancient Greece mythology or Maya religion explanation.
And, if you call lack of believing in gods existence (not believing in "no any gods exist") a religion - well, you are profoundly ignorant.
Scientific explanation gives us ability to predict further observations. And your religion "explanation" just fails. "God did it" gives zero knowing of how and when universe and life was created and is the same as "unicorn pooped it". How he did that? What proofs that he(actually, she? it? what and who is god in the first place?) created all around us? What arguments lead us specifically to your god, not any other, created in thousands of years of human history? Yoo know what? I'm 32 and last 15 years of looking answers to these questions brought me from orthodox chrisianity to atheism. Yep, that happens when you ask right questions and don't afraid to accept answers if they are proven to be true, but ruin your worldview.
@DrJames Powers and just try to understand, that atheism is not the answer to all questions - it is not has to be. It is just conclusion of critical and rational thinking, period! Atheism is just byproduct of critical thinking and rationality, which humanity uses to create science, culture and we are all using these fruits right now - arguing in the Internet, healthy, not starving and having comfortable shelter. We would know nothing we know now about universe, if we use just religion to interact with it.
And my, Matt's and other sceptics atheism is much more opened to any true god, if it ever exists, than you. If there is a god and anyone can prove it - good! Then we believe. But you? How do you recognise that your or any other god is not false? Please, do not bother to throw bible quotes, I was in scout organisation, patronised by church. I studied bible, talked with pastors and did believe, I guess, in same things you are. But I found them false eventually.
I feel dumber now after listening to this Winger guy
So he did not square you with these glasses?
Jajaja I just posted exactly that
metazock...If you are an atheists. You cannot get any dumber.
@@wmthewyld Except studies show the opposite. Red states, dumb states, less educated states, more theistic states; positive correlation.
@J w Are you calling Matt dumb? Because you'd be lying. As for his supporters, you think it's dumb to support smart people? This is what these cults do to your brain, you see reality backwards.
Mike: We have multiple sources
Mike: Uses bible quotes as only source
Well, to be fair, the Bible is multiple sources in a collective canon
@@nova8091 You claim the Bible has multiple sources, but its inclusivity is highly biased.
It's akin to me crafting a science textbook, insisting frogs have 10 legs. I recruit like-minded contributors perhaps bribing them, silencing dissenting views. As my group grows, agreement becomes easier and easier.
I can even add names without verification. Ie, 10 "Bible sources" may actually just be from 1 contributor. Without confirming contributors, it's essentially one source. The Bible, lacking verifiable contributors, falls into the same category - effectively one biased source.
@@TimeHandler all of those extra biblical texts are made like a century later by people who didn’t even know the apostles in the slightest. It’s essentially fa fiction that contradicts almost everything else although I will say the gnostic texts have some good wisdom despite all that
There are 11 sources in the Bible, even attested to by atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman:
Author of mark
Author of Matt.
Author of Luke
“Q” source
Author of John, johannine epistles, revelation
Paul
Author of Peter
Author of James
author of Hebrews
Author of Jude
And who knows how many sources Matthew mark luke and John were working with independently. Just because they are labeled as “the Bible” does not take away from their validity as contemporary historical documents at all.
@@noahalban6384Doesn't make them true either.
"My persecution complex causes me to find the term "zombie" to be offensive and degrading. I would prefer you refer to the dead people coming out of the grave and walking the streets as "raised saints." Thanks."
-Mike "Super Persecuted" Winger
I felt the same way. got so offended to hear a whole bunch of people raising from graves described as "zombies" (and yet later seems confused when Dillahunty bristles at his "evidence doesn't matter to you" bit.)
Hilarious .
Why is quoting other people that are bias evidence .
It is a well written Greek story in the New Testament. .
I can see myself in mike and I would suggest that he work on his listening skills. He seems to have gotten lost in trying to prove a point or win an argument, which prevented him for hearing Matt. Particularly referring to the point when mike was arguing against a point never made by Matt. Mike seemed to assume a direction and conclusion rather than waiting. He then complained of not being allowed to finish yet cut off and continued down a line of argument again which wasn’t being made.
Just a tip
Wow Mike is so intellectually dishonest that he projects it onto Matt.
I will forever refer to him as Mike Wingnut. His closing was a monumental pile of feces.
Exactly, it was so hypocritical and infuriating
Mike: “My supernatural claim is real, but others are not”. That’s religion to a tee. Lol.
No justin martyr says the other gods are demons the egyptians in moses 2 do magic and use the supernatural we don’t reject their claims we just reject that their deities exist and that they got their powers from them
First few seconds and I'm already cringing from that t-shirt.
diigima and it doesnt even make sense...
The back of his pants says "My head goes here."
diigima It only became more cringe inducing as the debate went on and Mike’s position got worse and worse. I almost felt bad for the moderator because the shirt was clearly tying him to the person getting wrecked.
It's even more cringe that it doesn't reference which Christianity his t-shirt is so sure is true.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6 KJV
Matt's knowledge is pearls before swine here.
Wow! Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? If it wasn't... it is now.
@DrJames Powers The video is not about nothing producing everything, it's about the unreasonableness of belief in the Resurrection. Speaking of learning, it might help to watch the video. Good talking. Bye-bye now. Take care.
DrJames Powers that still doesn’t prove anything about the Christian god. I believe that it’s unreasonable to believe that nothing exploded into everything and produced intelligence too but that doesn’t mean that that start to the universe was the Christian god.
Really? How? You think because Matt keeps screaming He believes only by evidence yet never dealing with the points is a good arguments?
@@00406cc
Why should be If I say to you that I have seen a ghost in a house. No matter how good and compelling I am going to describe it to you, it wont be convincing enough if I dont have real evidence to back it up. Even If I have many proof i was in the house i am describing, at that time was saying, bla bla bla and that some other people experience the same thing in the same house. The true facts surrounding a story doesn't make a story more true.
10 crappy evidences doesn't make one super good evidence.
If 9 things out of 10 things I say are true, it doesn't make the 10th I say more true.
Made for Glory
Yet Mike didn’t make a single good point. He had no evidence for anything he asserted. All of his arguments were logically incoherent. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of logic and epistemology should be embarrassed by his debate “skills”.
I’m glad Matt stood up for himself when Mike said “he doesn’t care about evidence”. How absurd!
Timestamp?
Well, he doesn't. Matt is shown evidence (which is different from proof), and he usually says, "I don't accept that."
Matt will never accept any evidence.
@@gozz7733lol @ shown. Matt pointed out that those were claims not the evidence supporting the claim.
@@ED-le1pr atheists are shown evidence all the time. Scientists claim we evolved from bacteria. Well, I don’t accept that. It’s a claim. I can write a book about atheists claims that should never be accepted.
@gozz7733
1- claims arent evidence
2- nobody accepts bad evidence that the part you're leaving out especially when it comes to proving supernatural claims has been recorded once in history
Matt - "Where's your evidence?"
Mike - "Some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago"
Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence"
Mike - "Some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it"
Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence"
Mike - "Yeah, but some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it then wrote it in a book"
Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence"
Mike - "Some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago"
Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence"
Mike - "Some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it"
Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence"
Mike - "Yeah, but some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it then wrote it in a book"
Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence"
Mike - "I have already Matt, these are facts"
Not no mention eye witness testimony is some of the most fallible there is.
I know right historical records are stupid. I dont believe anything that's been documented in the past cause it can be like fake. I read some documents that Abraham Lincoln existed but thats just "some guy a few 100 years ago said he saw him" Supposedly Lincoln wrote some stuff himself but like it can be faked so yeah there is no way to know anything that happened in the past unless it was a few billion years ago like the big bang or darwinian evolution that we can know for a fact but 2000 years ago that's just KA-RAY-ZEE. I'm not even sure my great great grandfather existed. True story
@@j2mfp78 Finally, someone who gets it.
@@SeanGCorcoran82👍 I'm not even sure I trust my own comment. It might have been photoshopped.
@@j2mfp78 A claim can be justified using primary and secondary sources in conjunction with prior probability and explanatory power. There are a myriad of sources that can demonstrate Lincoln existed. However, the majority of claims made in the bible can not be substantiated, as they are not justified outside of canonical and noncanonical religious texts. There is also the issue of prior probability; the claim that Lincoln existed requires far less to justify it than the claim that the ultimately powerful super sky genie created everything, continually fails at everything, and eventually has to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for being angry at the things he created for doing what he knew they would do.
Wow, Mike is very rude to Matt. I think his bias towards disliking him really makes Mike look unfavorable.
I found Matt really insufferable tbh. He seems like a really miserable guy. I feel sorry for him.
@@shomshomni2314 I was thinking the same thing about Mike,lol
@@shomshomni2314 I found Matt to be a bit unfair tbh. From time to time it feels like he was talking down at Mike. Felt rude from time to time.
but he still won the debate
@@brandwijkgg He didnt. He was just more aggressive. Going against the concensus of historians is just idiotic. How can you have a debate with someone who denies basic facts?
So, You see.. the books in the background don't prove anything.
A bunch of books that prove themselves, without logic. Except Matt's logic books of course
All those books are Peppa Pig in different covers
They were not ready for Matt.
This guy uses the word facts far too loosely ! Simply claiming something is a fact , doesn't make it a fact .
There is no evidence what so ever !
1:32:16 "You don't have to believe this." YOU ARE RIGHT! I DON'T! 1.You have no evidence. 2. You have been indoctrinated. 3. We know there are hundreds of stories similar to the bible that are also bulls**t. 4. Science disproves all the nonsensical claims that are made in the bible.
Satan, you are correct. Mike is not correct. I am not confident that he will ever get it.
Satan OfScience
So, your just expressing an opinion which may or may not be false?
Your user name speaks volumes, and validates the Bible
Also, Satan translates as adversary! Are you against science?
@@michaeldeo5068
My name is irrelevant , the fact you choose to have a go at name speaks volumes !
But since you asked , I used to be a Satanist . But chose to call myself that because Satan is a far more moral character . And I love science .
If you disagree with my comment then please state where I am wrong I'm happy to discuss . But if all you have a problem with is my name then I'm really not interested
@@Sparkydr07
I don't think it is irrelevant at all but actually shows the adversarial mind at work in those who follow the Adversary in rebellion.
Thinking Satan is more moral, than the source of existence would be absurd.
Being against life is not moral!
Satan is defined as the adversary, the first liar and murderer!
Words have meanings that we cannot just redefine as we choose once they have established meanings.
Love when an atheist crushes an apologist on an apologist channel :D
*TRIBALISM RENDERS YOUR 'LOVE' INERT*
Really? You thought Matt won? How so. I thought he got destroyed
Atheists just take up for other atheists. Its TRIBALISM.
@@00406cc No he meant Matt litterly crushed him cause he is fat.
@@j2mfp78 how Christian of you to critisize your opponants appearance rather than what he said.
In England, a forest existed with trees (actually Barnsdale Forest) - hence forth there where trees.. this proves Robin shot an arrow thru another arrow to win. Whether Robin hood was a Fox (Disney) is up to debate.
Daniel Powers in America, you would have failed your English classes.
@@frenchtoast2319 I didn't- more an issue with replying via TEXT/PHONE.
And Kings Cross station in London is real therefore Harry Potter is the savior of the Wizarding world.
@@saje239 And if you watch the movies it is clearly Paddington station. Lies within lies!
Robin Hood was a fox because furries exist. 100% proof.
It took me some time to understand it properly, but Matt's point is actually quite simple: it's not that it's impossible for the resurrection to have happened, but that the burden of proof for something like that is much higher than most historical events.
So while it is reasonable to accept, for example, the claim that a man called Socrates existed in ancient Athens, was a great philosopher who inspired the likes of Plato, made fun of powerful people, and ultimately was sentenced to death; it is not reasonable to accept the resurrection. Because the things I've mentioned about Socrates don't have a heavy burden of proof. They do not require you to believe in the supernatural, or that some miracle happened.
Meanwhile, for you to accept a resurrection, you have to believe that something fundamentally impossible (as far as we know) happened. And for you to convince me of something that I see as impossible, you need to meet some very heavy burden of proof, which is essentially impossible, since we're talking about something that has supposedly happened 2000 years ago.
As Matt said, if God wanted people to believe, the best time to have brought back the Messiah would have been in the modern times, since we would have interviews, photographs, multiple records of Jesus's resurrection etc. But no, he chose a time and place full of illiterate people.
So, yeah, it is an unreasonable belief.
Spot on.
Any time you watch a debate on this topic, the real point of disagreement will be the same, whether it is stated explicitly or not, to wit, whether naturalism or supernaturalism is true. If naturalism is true, then the probability of a resurrection is zero; therefore, the belief that a resurrection happened is unreasonable by definition, even if you had a mountain of evidence to the contrary. If supernaturalism is true, then we can't assume the probability of a resurrection is zero, and the evidence matters.
"Btw, Christianity is true".
Cool, I'm done from minute one.
You don't listen do you?
@@tonyrock5313 I listen often enough.
I still watched the video ;)
😂😂😂
26:59 "There were things said that I'll correct during the destruction...I mean discussion"
I have no doubt it'll be both Matt. lol
Matt dillahunty knows how to logic
Saying "i dont know" for everything is very bad logic.
Armand Esterhuizen saying “I don’t know BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE” for everything is very GOOD logic”
@J w well do you think Mohammad flew on a winged horse?.. it says so in the Quran & hadiths
@J w so you don't know.
@J w I off course know. me knowing anything doesn't require your approval.
Flawless victory for Matt...
Lol no
@@juilianbautista4067100% yes. Mike doesn't know the difference between a claim and evidence.
He was rude. He was childish. He got upset that he couldn't get away with just saying things were just so without being challenged.
I’m not even trying to be a jerk but .....come on.....people are arguing that zombies were real once. I just.....I just genuinely don’t understand how people can say that someone came back from the dead like it’s totally a valid and logical thing.
@@justchilling704 Shame you didn't join heavens gate. Yeah good bye, see ya, airhead !
@@justchilling704 Pray for yourself ,get your mind checked.
@@justchilling704 Bless yourself. god is a myth.
@@justchilling704 My god had a hammer, yours was nailed to cross . Go figure.
@@justchilling704 that seems pretty fucked up to tell someone you hope they dont find peace ever, considering you have ZERO evidence of any petty deity. I think you need to take a long look in a mirror and maybe stop threatening people with magic
"When I say facts, I mean like things that were very likely to happen".
6:00 mins in and you already lost.
Surely virgin birth and resurrection are the most likely explanation. Not like they're impossible based on all available evidence or anything.
wao you are totally right!!!
I'm more impressed with Winger saying he is a man that looks for truth.
@@dizzyspinner648
Wrong
@@dodumichalcevski I don't believe in the Bible having read it, so I don't believe in the resurrection. In what way am I wrong?
Mike is cringeworthy to watch man.
I wouldnt let him finish either if he said I dont believe in evidence. How ironic
You are a fool's fool
Michael Chapman yep, that’s the definition of a fool’s fool. Someone who requires evidence. By the way, I have some magic beans for sale dude. They’re untested but I have a huuuuge belief they will sprout into something magical. When can we meet?
Lymbe06
Right? Ian talks about the irony, and then you have this dude calling him a fool’s fool for requiring evidence to believe in a claim. Doubly ironic.
Great Freudian slip from Matt “there are things that I’ll correct during the destruction, ah discussion part.” 😂
I noticed that too!
When did he say that?
@babbisp1 You're in luck, I'm anal enough to check this sort of thing, it's bang on 27 minutes.
@@davejann
Thanks!
Wtf are you talking about. There are stages of the debate dedicated to different areas of discussion. How is that problematic
The Resurrection is real and the evidence is that I say it is, therefore it’s so.
Apologist 101.
Logic in a Trumpian world.
Paul : who are you addressing?
Paul : thanks for clearing that up. I watched the full debate from beginning to end.
Paul : I did pay attention and there’s no reason to watch it again.
@avocado that's quite a strawman. I think it's more along the lines of: 'I personally believe in the resssurection and there is some, very low-quality, historical evidence to support this. Since I'm using motivated reasoning, crappy evidence is sufficient.'
Watching Matt do this was like watching a pro team play a high school team. Just wasn't fair. Game was over 5 minutes into Matt's opening. Matt just ran the score up the rest of the time.
I think winger is a egotistical ass but almost felt bad for him. Your example was exactly what I was thinking.
His arguments aren't good dude.
He later claimed "I don't know." Once the question came up, "Was Jesus crucified?"
Then right there broke it for me because he truly never looked into the evidence.
A lot of scholars confirmed that Jesus did, in fact, die under the ruler of Pontius Pilate.
@@MultiBigAndy Christian scholars... We can't take their word for truth, as they have something to sell.
@@MultiBigAndy you didn’t pay attention did ya?
What possible historic information could prove a resurrection happened? You are asking us to suspend our understanding of reality in support of an ancient story. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
@Eternaldragon4 Yes, I did, actually, and it shows that Matt can't have it both ways in his "argument."
He later proceeds the whole "Whataboutism" where x, y, and z appens but can't see it happen because he claims there is no evidence.
If you listen carefully throughout his claims, you can tell that he leans on Naturalism/Scientism where he doesn't even acknowledge supernatural events.
The thing that theists often overlook regarding the claim vs. evidence issue is the difference between plausibility and evidence. For example:
The North Pole is a real place. If someone described an event that took place at the North Pole, it would be reasonable to accept the North Pole as a plausible setting because we're confident it's a real place where things could happen. That one element of the story *could* be true, but doesn't add or subtract from our confidence about the events claimed to have taken place there.
However, the existence of a real North Pole is not evidence of any specific claim about what may have happened there. For example a real North Pole is not evidence a person can use magic to enter and exit any house through its chimney. It merely means one element of the Santa Claus story is plausible in some way.
So remember:
- The existence of my house is not evidence my house is actually haunted.
- The existence of the ocean is not evidence of a real Flying Dutchman ghost ship.
- The existence of King's Cross Station is not evidence of a real Hogwarts.
The thing people who have not seen the miraculous often overlook is the fact that there are people who have had different experiences from them.
What are your thoughts on soft tissue that has been found in dinosaur bones, are you familiar with Mark Armitage? Are you familiar with what Ron Wyatt found on Mount Ararat? I used to be an atheist, but I believe the truth of God is out there.
@@michaelpaulholmes9667 "there are people who have had different experiences from them"
People who CLAIM to have had "different experiences". Please provide a single scrap of verifiable evidence that they actually did have experiences that were supernatural.
You seem to have no skepticism or sound epistemology at all.
@@IRGeamer I am a person who has had different experiences from you. I take the Jesus with the blind man outside of bethsaida approach to people such as yourself though. There exist people who have no interest in making any claims about the miraculous, but have still experienced it. They don't care about things like Hume's argument because they aren't the ones that need convincing.
@michaelpaulholmes9667 😂😂😂😂😂 ....that's the only response I can give to your comments.
Your experience(s) are not evidence of anything other than you believe you had an experience. You cannot show your experiences to anyone else, that's how we verify information.
Try again, that was pathetic. 🤣🤣🤣
Fascinating conversation. Respectable. I always find myself agreeing with Matt.
This was an intellectual crucifixion. I wonder if Mike waited a full 3 days to rise.
Lmao
Gabriel Edwards - 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Good one
LOL!!!!! hhahahahahahahahaha
I think in the Holy Book, full of holes, but I think the guy that they crucified was “dead” for only a day and a half. Of course if he were dead that would have been it. But since he was killed on a Friday night and “rose” again on Sunday morning, appears it’s only a day and a half the actual time he was supposedly “dead.” They should redo this fairy tale.
Mike, this is super easy to comprehend. When Homer wrote the Odyssey, he wrote about all the mundane stuff of the time, because that's the time period he was writing about. Does the fact that Odysseus sailed a ship that Greeks sailed at that time period make the Greek Pantheon real?
Yes all hail Zeus (jk don’t lynch me lol)
Straight White Male you do realize I was just making a quick joke right? Pull stick from your butt and enjoy a darn joke.
Straight White Male *woosh* this joke obviously went over your head. So you know what a joke is right? It’s something that can be used to break tension and isn’t always used to attack or state an opinion. You should understand what a joke is because your acting like one getting angry over a joke.
Straight White Male how are you so dense, I don’t give two shits about any of that. All I did was make a joke, not trying make a statement or attack you in any way. So please stop being a snowflake and get over it.
@Straight White Male there have been thousands of gods/godesses throughout history, why is yours the correct one?
Matt: "evidence matters"
Mike: "so what you're saying is, evidence doesn't matter"
How disgustingly dishonest
Not dishonest just doesn't listen. He might be deaf.
I am very aware of this disgusting behavior of theists, I am faced daily by these people claiming the bible historical fact just because some historian wrote about what early Christians believed.
Dragon Of Valachia I hope you find patience with us... Please realize that Christians base their entire reality on the faith of Christ. It would be nice if we recognized that we wouldn’t need to call it faith if it’s fact. But It’s real to us just as much as you find anything real in your own life. It would be like having a fact that you know is true without a shadow of a doubt and then not being able to “prove” it to others. On top of that, we feel we need to prove it because if we are right and it IS actually true, then you’re salvation and well being hinges on it. Everything else could be false in this world and it won’t matter because we all die and lose consciousness anyway.
So you’re right it’s not historical fact, but there is a lot of historical indicators that it is. Ultimately I agree with Matt about salvation needing to fall on God. The Bible talks about those who have the Gospel are nothing more than the planters of seeds in a garden. I can give the seed things in order to help grow, but I truly have no power over the seed growing and turning into a plant. In the book of Isaiah, it says God will be the one to remove the heart of stone and give it flesh. Whether you believe that passage is true or not is irrelevant, it’s for the believer to recognize that salvation for others isn’t dependent on his actions, but of Gods.
jeff rossavik what specifically is historical fact? And by historical fact, do you mean that it happened as described accurately? Because we may agree that it is possible a person named Jesus existed (out of the sole reason that this is not an incredulous feat) but what is under the microscope here is that he rose from the dead among other things.
@@defiance1790 "But It’s real to us"; " It would be like having a fact that you know is true without a shadow of a doubt". How is it real to you, how do you KNOW it is true, if there is no evidence to show that it is true? How do you know it's not just all in your head?
"but there is a lot of historical indicators that it is" no, Jeff, there are NO historical indicators AT ALL that a man rose from the dead - a man for whom there is not even ANY historical evidence that he lived at all. We only have evidence that some people believed, or wanted others to believe that there was a resurrection. And all the evidence points to them promoting a celestial resurrection, as was in common with other mystery religions of the time.
You are operating purely on faith, on what you want to believe. You have no evidence whatsoever. And faith, Jeff, is NOT a reliable way to determine truth.
Fascinating watching, I loved how Mike became more and more panicked as time went on, truly clutching at straws, while Matt remained consistent, clear and honest. I felt, purely as an observer, that Mike was stumbling and internally questioning his own position throughout, but stubbornly refusing to accept the flaws in his argument. People who put so much time and effort into their position, will always struggle to accept the futility of that position irrespective of the evidence presented.
Matt made no logical argument, he just made claims that everything Mike said is claims. Matt never once backed anything with evidence. You can use Matt's exact same logic to destroy 95% of history taught in universities.
Matt stayed consistently pissed off and combative the entire debate. Mike was running out of evidence because every time he brought one forth or argued for one, Matt would become hostile.
@@kiradegler2123Evidence for what? Mike just made claims without backing them up and Matt pointed that out. Simple
@@kiradegler2123
This is completely false. Matt isn’t making claims that need evidence to be presented. Mike is making the claim. When he is asked for evidence, he just points to the claim. This is the definition of a circular argument and it’s fallacious. There is no evidence necessary to point out that it’s fallacious because it’s the textbook definition of a circular argument.
@kiradegler2123 Atheism is not a claim. It's just a rejection of the claims that theists have failed to provide evidence for. Pointing out that Mike failed to provide evidence is not a weakness in Matt's argument. It *is* Matt's argument, and he is correct. Mike failed to provide *any* evidence for the resurrection, not even *bad* evidence. Perhaps you should learn the shifting-of-the-burden--of-proof fallacy.
Mike's body language when Matt is talking cracks me up.
Way to go Matt.
The way Mike is asking for specifics because his claims are insufficient to warrant belief, is pretty pathetic. Thats a shifting of the burden of proof.
Yes, you can tell that Matt's logic is like he's smashing a baseball bat all up inside Mike's head.
It's moderately terrifying that Mike is an adult who has probably had some education, but has no idea how to discern reality from fable. He doesn't even realize when he's making a claim versus stating a fact. There are people with less understanding than his who run for, and win, political office. As long as Mike's brand of ignorance continues to go unchecked, unless he gets called out on a regular basis, we are doomed as a society and as a species.
It is scary to think about that. It requires constant vigilance.
@@nicholaswheeler507 true
Mike is a Con Man.. He can't be that stupid... He is singing the song that Christians want to hear.
Reasonable Speculation
That is a dangerous sentiment. He is clearly at least dishonest, due to his numerous mischaracterizations of Matt’s statements and views, but to assume he is a conman assumes that people cannot believe his arguments. His arguments are demonstrably fallacious and SHOULD not be convincing, and yet people are convincing by it. We need to acknowledge that humans are easily duped and will go to great lengths to protect their delusions. Only then can we recognize our cultural problems and our educational/thinking deficiencies, in order to combat them and teach the next generation properly.
Ro Ems.. Con Man = Confidence Man; he is friendly, articulate, and charismatic.... he talks about things you believe are true in a way that reassures you... Then when he has your Confidence,, he sells you a questionable ,,, or even a completely defective product.. This "sale" produces some combination of money, status, and positioning (to sell more product,,, BS in this case,,, to others ), and so keep his career going. The ConMan has an easy mark with in a person who is gullible, or already has interest in the product being sold.. A good ConMan can also convince someone, who doesn't understand the product, to also buy,,, that's the average uninformed person.. That's just my take on it.. I can see your point also.
Matt is teaching Calculus to 3rd grader. While his argument is overwhelming, the people he is speaking to obviously don't understand anything.
I felt the same.
man it works the other way around too...If I were to explain the bible to you I'd feel like I'm talking to a 3rd grader because I know no skeptic or atheist has ever read the bible cover to cover and understood it. Let me ask you some questions (and I trust you won't use google) in case you are one of the few rebels that say "I've read the entire bible what the heck do you mean?"
1. Which day at creation did God NOT say it was good ...all others he said they were "good" except for one (the 7th day doesn't count) and why?
2. Which day of creation does not have a "morning and evening" and why ? there is a reason
3. Is the seventh day allegoric or literal "rest"?
4. What was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" ?
5. What was the "serpent" ? (hint , it's not a snake)
6. Whatever happened at the rock of Oreb is it past or future?
7. What was the valley of Jehoshaphat and why is it important?
8. Who is the leopard, lion and bear of Hosea 13:7?
9. Who is Mesech-Tubal, Edom , Elam, the Zidonians and nations of the Achilon in Ezekiel 31?
10. Who was the Pharaoh and why was he so stubborn? there is a HUGE reason why
If you are honest with yourself you'd admit that you have no idea. These debates are pointless, there is a reason God chose a timeline where nothing could be proven for sure, 33 years after Jesus crucifixion the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground and one million Jews murdered by the armies of Roman general Titus. The gospels took off after such destruction. The gospels not agreeing is DELIBERATE ...Jesus spoke in parables for a REASON. a lot of what Jesus said has double meaning, he spoke in figurative language a lot, the bible is riddled with allegoric language , deliberate omissions , deliberate overlapping historic events and what have you. It's a 1100 chapter very complex collection of ancient books. No concrete proof is going to be found and it's DELIBERATE ...God intended it that way , because of FAITH. The Exodus of the Israelites has a LOT to do with this "faith" premise but space is short here ...God bless brother and keep believing whatever you believe , like I said I find these debates pointless.
@@BeNice3525 Man, the issue is, you're contrasting the "understanding of the Bible" with basic critical thinking skills. Reading and understanding the Bible doesn't mean anything to an unbeliever - it doesn't make a theist position any more feasible. On the other hand, if a theist cannot even make the actual argument and proceed to straw-man his opponent for two hours, that says a LOT about such an individual.
Also, sorry to hold it against you, but you might as well advocate for the "deeper understanding" of any fictional novel, and it still never going to prove the content of the novel being a historic record. Books might inform, but the evidence lies in the objective world, not anyone's interpretations.
@@EugeneParallax What you guys are asking is ,excuse my bluntness ...just plain stupid... we are talking about GOD here , a spiritual being from a realm outside our time and space ...of course our responses will include fantastic claims that the bible makes, we don't even have technology available to take footage of pictures of spiritual beings, and our realm cannot be exited and entered at will, so the proof you demand is just not going to be available ...Also atheists often dismiss the bible as horse manure but have NO PROBLEM citing it when pointing out slavery, God slaughtering children, contradictions and what have you. Really? ok that seems fair.
It's ok to be an atheist brother and a skeptic ...as long as the "a" doesn't turn into "anti" , but it often does let's be real. And speaking of stupid demands, Matt asks to see a resurrection first hand with means to prove it was indeed a resurrection, like a medical board of experts ...like OMG, This Matt guy should know God has an AGENDA, a grand scheme that he surely isn't going to compromise in order to make this NOBODY happy (I mean nobody to God , I mean no disrespect, I'm sure he's somebody to his family and others). I'll finish with your "basic critical thinking skills" argument. Brother, here you are suggesting christians cannot think in the most basic way. I CAN THINK...I'm sure of it, people like William Lane Craig, are very smart men. Newton was religious and an avid student of the bible ... So it didn't just occurred to us one day to subscribe to this "ludicrous" religious belief...I DID MY HOMEWORK, the bible is an amazing book , it's an intertwined integrated message system, the more I study it the more convinced I am there is a supreme Authority in charge of everything we can see and feel. Understanding God's plan gives you amazing insight on why the geopolitical structure of the world is what it is right now. Even the purpose for the rise of atheism is explained away in the bible.
Like I said brother as long as you are an "a" theist , no problem there. Everyone is free to believe what they want. Peace to you and God bless.
@@BeNice3525 - We're talking about a fictional character that has never been proven to even exist, yet alone having an influence on anything at all. We're talking about a proposition, that a fictional character exist simply because it is said so in the associated fictional narrative. Describing his amazing qualities and features only makes it even less plausible to be real, not more.
So, if proof we demand isn't oging to be available, then we will be justified to disbelief and refute the claim, and you will be un-justified to believe it. What we should believe in, is something observable or demonstrable, something that persists in the objective reality we share.
- I'm an anti-theist, and believe that all religion have outlived itself. Everything we know about the Universe so far suggests, that reality is a product of spontaneous natural processes, and that the intelligence and an agency is a current known pinnacle of the iterative evolutionary events, not an original source of everything. Only a dumb or mentally unstable/vulnerable person can come to the conclusion, that the latest product of the process have to be the initiator of that same process. This is not a personal attack against you or other theists, but an attack against the idea and the principle by which one might become convinced about its validity.
- Dismissing the Bible as horse manure and citing it to point ot slavery, slaughter and contradictions are one of the same action against the validity of that book. There's nothing particularly interesting about the Bible for a person moderately-versed in the modern knowledge sources, which beat the crap out of the Bible any day of the week.
"Once you believe in a god that can do anything, everything fits." Great point.
We can prove that Oliver Twist was a real person because we can prove that 19th century child workhouses existed exactly how Dickens describes them.
is it satire or?
No, and it has no relation with what was said.
@@paolopagliaro980 here's what was said and tell me where I'm getting wrong: "historically accurate descriptions of tombs in the gospels are evidence for the validity of the resurrection account."
If Oliver Twist was claimed to perform miracles would make the case all the more silly.
@@zach2980 well Oliver twist never existed, Jesus did however
The mockery is painful because you’re taking the wrong things seriously.
If you step back and evaluate certain Christian religious claims from the standpoint of an outsider, they’re going to appear just as fantastical as other mythologies.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible reads exactly like a “sacred text” should. It’s “mythological” on purpose. Christians need to accept this as coming with the territory. Hell, every religious adherent does. 🤷🏽♀️
Why people continue to believe this in the 21st century is baffling. I boil it down to two fundamental reasonings; 1 - FEAR. Fear of the unknown the fear of death and comfort religion gives them to guide their life (in a moral way of course) to ensure they get to enjoy the magical paradise beyond. 2 - The indoctrination of religion. Muslims who have near death experiences don't come face to face with Jesus, nor would a Christian have visions of Mohammed. Essentially like more primitive societies of ancient times it is story taking passed on to one generation to another.
Who determined that that's a fact?
Mike Winger demonstrates one of the worst cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed.
Exactly right.
FACT: if Matt applied this hyper version of skepticism to anything else in history we would know nothing. Dont believe me? Try me? Tell me about any document in ancient history of real historical figures and see how easy it is to say "we just don't know"....ok who's first? This should fun. 😃
"Mike Winger demonstrates one of the worst cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed."
----------He's a pastor, he believes he has a greater spiritual duty to be a cheerleader for christ, than to be a scholar.
I'm not seeing the problem. There's no rule of historiography that says we need to change our ways if what we are doing renders certain ancient sources unworthy of serious consideration. It just might be the case that a more correct application of the rules of historiography will reveal that what we've been accepting as true from ancient historical sources, is more deserving of being labeled "dubious" or "uncertain".
As for your direct challenge, suppose you debate a hyper-skeptic who says we cannot really know whether there was a Caesar ruling in Rome in the 1st century. now aside from the fact that he is being unnecessarily skeptical, what consequences follow from this "error"? Aside from discouraging him from becoming a history professor, I'm not seeing the danger. And since Jesus did not teach a doctrine of literal conscious torment, yo are deprived of the "problem" you need to motivate people to worry and "get saved". Rejecting the gospel comes with about as many fearful consequences as rejecting McGyver.
@@barryjones9362 Unlike Matt who once on his show got upset with a caller debating him on evolution and told the guy "why are you calling here? I'm not an expert you should debate an evolutionary biologists" in other words I cant really defend evolution but I accept what the experts say. Yet when it comes to history the experts no longer matter even the non Christian ones. Yeah someone's got a confirmation bias alright .
If you rose from the dead why would you hide that fact for thousands of years? Especially when you claim you did it out of love. It makes no sense at all
Imagine crying about the word Zombie being used in relation to dead people coming out of the grave. In what other instance would you use it?
A reanimated corpse resurrected by a mystery pathogen that causes said corpse to seek to consume the flesh of the living, or do the bidding of the one who resurrected it. In other words, a fully conscious and fully functional resurrected person is not a zombie, even based on pure lore.
@@ManoverSuperman Based on your specifically narrow definition.
@Scourge Purger Have you heard of the Voodoo Zombies of Haiti?
@@ManoverSuperman that's difference between a vote a nibble like you people ate getting really butthurt over the undead being called zombies why?🤣
Because even he realized that his honest answer ("yes") would highlight how absolutely silly his beliefs are. So instead, he deflected and tried to argue semantics.
All the way through the program, Winger completely conflates the "Facts of the Story ", with "the Story is Factual"
I find it near impossible to believe he can be that dense.
But I'm apparently wrong.
I'm pretty sure Mike Winger blew me at Dallas airport. There were witnesses who are willing to die defending my claim.
If that's what it takes to stop him talking...I'm with you.
DFW or Love Field?
I remember that. Msg me if you need the infaliability of eyewitness testimony.
I'm your enemy and I support this claim. Checkmate non-believers
Oh behave...
Thanks for keeping this video up Mike. You're doing so much for the atheist movement!
Matt by far did not win this debate
@@zacharymcleod460 you're adorable.
@@maccusmcnot an argument
@@maccusmc thanks
@@zacharymcleod460it’s not about win and lose. It’s about strength of argument. There are stronger arguments against the resurrection than for it. This was depicted here.
Mike talks like he’s never read the arguments against his position.
Agreed, near the end he seemed on the verge of tears, constantly blinking like a cornered animal
Twit Chic nice Hitch quote drop. Hannity vs. Hitch......👍🏼
@@dblankenship88 OMG, there's a Hannity/Hitch debate? I'm cringing just thinking about it. That must have been before Hannity hired a marketing firm.
@@Psittacosaurus I noticed that too, lol.
Dreamingrightnow no it wasn’t an official debate. Hitch was on the show a long time ago and Hannity asked him a stupid question and followed that up with a stupid comment. Hitch responded with “You strike me as someone who has never read and argument against you position”.
The Mike dude looks like he's almost having a panic attack every time he has to respond to logic :D
because Mike is a pastor, who didn't realize that by dabbling in apologetics, he was implicitly assenting to the validity of "worldly logic", which he would loudly object to in his role as a pastor. Pastors are begging for trouble by dabbling in apologetics, because the method of apologetics is so close to what we do when using "worldly logic" that it could be argued on biblical grounds that doing anything more substantial than preaching at somebody, constitutes the "word-wrangling" that apostle Paul forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14. Now you know why the examples of "apologetics" in the NT are laughably superficial and constitute nothing more than blind presumption. You can easily fulfill Jude 3 and 1st Peter 3:15 with nothing more than a few sentences.
Mike, please learn the difference between claims and evidence as it's painfully obvious you don't grasp this.
There were plenty of resurrection stories in biblical times and prior. To me this doesn’t meant they really happened but that the stories weren’t unusual.
Or perhaps it's the case that they were relying on very rudimentary methods to determine whether or not someone was dead, and that many people were "misdiagnosed" as being dead.
The stories weren't unusual because there were plenty of examples where it DID really happen. The difference is that it wasn't miraculous, it was just that people were being assumed dead when they weren't.
no there wasnt.
The Spider-Man comment was amazing. A+
100% irrelevant and a non sequitur too boot.
*Spiderman*
#1 didn't happen
#2 you'd have to explain the villains impossible transhuman abilities powers as well.
#3 where's the evidence of the destroyed NYC?
@@Alec_Cox You missed the point. Mike is trying to use mentions of mundane things in the bible as evidence that the miraculous "facts" are also true. Matt is just pointing out that you can't do that rationally, using Spiderman as an analogy.
Let me expound on it, too:
Imagine that humanity dies out somehow, and in 2000 years, some alien archaeologists visit earth and uncover the remains of a shopping mall. In it, they find remnants of some Batman comics and remnants of some Spiderman comics. In another part of the mall, they find some old maps, atlases, and globes of the earth.
All Matt was saying is the fact that Gotham city did not exist IS evidence that Batman is also fictional, BUT the fact that New York is a real city DOES NOT mean that Spiderman was also real.
@@Alec_Cox 100% not irrelevant, and the non-sequitur is the point of the analogy, because it is meant to show why all Mike Winger's "accurate but mundane historical details --> Jesus was resurrected" is also a non-sequitur.
Christians say mundane historical details in the Bible mean the supernatural stuff happened.
The Spiderman example has future people saying that mundane historical details in Spiderman comics/the ruins of NYC, where Spiderman lived in the comics, mean Spiderman existed. Simple.
1. Bald assertion, could be applied equally to the resurrection
2. You'd have to explain the talking donkey, worldwide flood, giants, 900 year old people, the dead rising and walking into Jerusalem (I could go on)
3. The 'future destroyed NYC' is the hypothetical. You're not very good at following analogies.
@@CausalityLoop
Irrelevant according to who?
Oh, now you're the authority of thought?
Man, you are way under paid.
Get a life in Jesus Christ and get real instead of your childish stupidity.
We're talking facts here, not your *claims.*
@@Alec_Cox "Jesus resurrected" and "Jesus was God" are claims, my man.
Everything else you said was just barking.
Matt was incredibly more convincing showing Mike that the bunch of so called facts he put forth are actually claims!
Utter nonsense what you just claimed. Matt actually said that a testimony from a person in the witnesses would be a claim. That is crazy. That is an evidence. Matt clearly does not understand history. It's hard to argue history with people who don't understand how history works, and the difference between claims, evidence, and probability.
@@shieldofpistis9557 the scientific history I know cites multiple sources including archaeology and manuscripts that are independent from the claim we want to investigate. The resurrection of Jesus claims made by the bible cannot be verified independently. We cannot use it as the source of the claim and it's evidence. That's how I understand history. Of course I like and admire Matt's understanding of
history. Maybe you're the one who should check yours!
@@shieldofpistis9557 What Matt said is that merely saying that "he then appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time", is not evidence. That's a claim.
I can say that too: I was dead, I rose from the dead and 1000 people saw me. Is this post evidence that I rose from the dead? No it's not, because I'm CLAIMING that I rose from the dead and I'm CLAIMING that 1000 people saw me alive after I died.
Evidence would be at least some of those 1000 people personally writing their report of my resurrection. It would still be weak, because eyewitness testimony is weak, but it'd be something.
But in the case of Jesus' resurrection, we find that none of them wrote anything at all, we have a bunch of anonymous authors who report what has been part of the oral tradition for decades. They weren't first hand accounts, and probably they weren't second hand accounts either.
@MrDX1118 I get it. And I agree. Certain Claims are evidence....such as the eye witnesses in the Bible. Their claims are evidence. Matt is the one that doesn't understand that. Most of history is founded on claims- eye witness, or those who interview eye witness testimonies, gather evidence. Matt doesn't get it.
You are being misled unknown. And Matt did not say that it only applied to the 500 claim. He said the claims in the New Testament. You do know that we do not have 1,000 eye witnesses that state Caesar defeated Pompey right? Or Hannibal was brilliant at the Battle of Cana or that Scipio invaded Carthage? We do not have 1,000 eye witnesses. Actually, compared to other historical events, the claims of the New Testament hold up strongly. Yes, may be some errors in the New Testament which only strengthens their claim because it shows that they did not gather together afterward and form a faith.
John, James, Paul, Peter, Matthew are eye witnesses in the Bible. Then we have the modern historian Luke who interviewed eye witnesses. Then we have the apostolic fathers and church fathers---and they DID NOT teach a uniform faith, but they did teach that Jesus resurrected.
From the oral tradition, to the eye witnesses, to the second and third generation that interviewed eye witnesses, the claims of the resurrection form a huge amount of evidence that Winger mentions in his opening statement. Bart Ehrman even admits this. This is something that Atheists can't get around.
If you are going to be an atheist then be an educated atheist. Come up with a theory that at least shows research. But the lack of history claim is silly, as I have just explained.
The most exciting part of this was hearing CosmicSkeptic is going to be on the Atheist Experience
My prediction is Mike will not show up.
@@dreamingrightnow1174 if you get this right, we will hail as a profit and invite you to our cult to help us burn the pineapple pizza eaters
@@catothatidiot5243 F U pineapple pizza is delicious...fact!
Matt is really good at understanding logical implications of everything. Clever dude.
Matt's passion for finding the truth and his amazing intellect is truly inspiring. His work in rooting out mythology from our social fabric, and the work of others like him, may be humanity's best hope for survival.
🤣🤣🤣
Oh yeah blindly dismissing scholars you’ve never read based on ad hominem attacks.
Conceding the debate by saying you don’t even know what would constitute as evidence, yet telling your opponent that he didn’t provide evidence without justification.
I mean seriously buddy Matt is a joke there is no reason to ever debate him he’s a waste of time. There’s absolutely no reason to take anything he says in this debate or any of his objections into consideration, because they’re not objections they’re just claims they’re baseless assertions. He’s nothing but a rhetorician, Who comes into debates with no justification for his beliefs and fully myths he’s not even qualified to talk about this topic whatsoever and he hasn’t done the homework, and he doesn’t even know what would constitute as evidence for the resurrection or warrant reasonable belief. Yep he’s going to critique winger for not providing evidence? I mean he literally said he doesn’t even know what would constitute as evidence, despite the fact he said that’s not evidence 1000 times.
And on top of that he blindly dismisses non-Christian scholars claims smugly based on ad hominem attacks, 1:13:00, Ann says that’s not how you do history, despite the fact he admits he doesn’t know how historians verify claims historically. But he’s gonna tell them that they are wrong and stupid. How is that not dishonest and arrogant?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 evidence is easy,,,, there is none because Christianity is a lie,,,, a man walked on water? Smfh
@@pleaseenteraname1103
Hahaha dude, you’re so pathetic.
What truth? Dude got countless videos and argues for hours against what he believes to be fairy tales and make believe
Believes death bodyes raised from their tombs
Gets ofendended when the word zombie appears and starts whining how atheists are meanies
Cringe overcharge
Same thing happened with my cousin when I dared remind her that Jesus was a human blood sacrifice. She didn't like thinking of it in those factual terms.
Hume went crazy
I mean godly resurrected bodies are different than rptting corpses that walk around and eat peoples' brains
Props to any theist who uploads a debate they have with Matt, can't be easy losing this badly then having to upload it
Its trivial if you think you are right before, during, and after the debate. These people are incredibly confused.
That’s assuming he lost lol
@@Joshcaldwell24 it's not an assumption it's an observation
@@Joshcaldwell24 not assuming at all*
Matt concedes these debates before even starting lol he puts himself in a no burden of proof position. Anyone can appear to win that
Here is an idea, there was never a tomb that Jesus was buried in. He was probably left on the cross and what remained of him was buried in a mass grave, a big hole in the ground. Why would Jesus be treated any better than other crucified people?
Because Christians need it to fit their story
To answer your question, Jesus was not an ordinary Jew. Flavius Josephus, a 1 century Jewish historian, tells us Jesus was a "doer of startling deeds" and a "teacher" ... who "drew over to himself many Jews & Gentiles." So Jesus had followers. It is not unreasonable then to suppose that some of Jesus' followers were rich enough to have tombs.
So it is, according to multiple early sources (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:50-53, John 19:38-42) we learn Jesus was buried in a tomb by a rich man and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin called Joseph of Arimathea who had become a follower of Jesus. Given that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, a group of 70 well-known Jewish officials, it is unlikely this burial account was invented by the Gospel authors because it would have been too easily falsifiable. It would also have been embarrassing for the Christians to invent this story in which the Christian leaders are hiding in fear while Joseph is brave enough to ask Pilate for the body. Also, remember, hostility between Christians and the Sanhedrin was intense. It was the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death! So, furthermore, it is unlikely Christians would invent a story that portrays a member of the Sanhedrin as a follower of Jesus.
All these reasons and more are why most scholars today of all stripes hold to the burial account.
Matt dillahunty is amazing at logic. christianity is dead
@Straight White Male absurd how? Explain how basic logic 101 is "absurd"
Mario mario Matt is amazing at logic, to bad is all magic and games for him. The horror.... the horror....
Mike exposed and embarrassed Matt.
You prove how illogical you are, as Christianity is still the main world view.
You being illogical stating things that are untrue as if true only emphasises the logical conclusion to your statement is that Matt is in fact illogical.
Thanks for playing loser.
@Straight White Male wrong pagans used god's (plural) to explain natural phenomenon. Monotheistic religions are fairly rare in comparison and Christianity is just an amalgamation of other religions, even the damn holidays are stolen. Also some immaterial things don't 'exist' in the literal sense. An idea for example isn't tangible in a sense but even something 'immaterial' like that can be measurable by electronic brain activity. However, the metaphysical has zero evidence, there is nothing backing the claim up that it is real. Every time anyone has tried to prove it they fail, there is even huge money prizes up for anyone who can prove it but it's never happened.
Claiming something is real doesn't make it so, writing in a book it's real doesn't make it so, having a 'feeling' that is real doesn't make it so.
@Straight White Male oh and what a load of BS saying athiesm can't account for the preconditions for knowledge. Prove that statement to be even remotely true. All we need are brains, evolution made brains possible. Ergo knowledge is possible, simple.
Bad choice of T-shirt for the host.
@MorbidManMusic LOL!!! yeah
Why come here and mock the host? He's just hosting a channel like anyone else?
Why is that? I'm sure you wear items that represent things you like or believe in? No different.
joe b nope.
joe b I just find it curious that you have to wear a falsehood on a T-shirt to assert your unjustified beliefs.
Our schools need to do a better job at teaching our children the meaning of facts,evidence, theories, and claims as well as critical thinking skills.
No! We can't do that. How could politicians possibly cope?
Maybe mike did not even go to public school
@DrJames Powers He sent Trump you derp