I was there! It was awesome to say the least. I was actually expecting Jay to put up a better argument, loved that collective groan when he tried to bring up Soviet Russia.
I love Jay Lucas's arguement. "We live in a fallen world so God had to regulate slavery rather then call it wrong" Under that logic God's why isn't God's 10 commandments look more along the lines of. -if thou must bear false witness, don't get caught -thou shall not commit murder, if it can be helped and so on. I mean if you just give a free pass to god on slavery, you've given a free pass on objective morals.
Slavery was a long-existing institution prior to Christianity. The question isn't who participated in it. Everyone did. But who ended it. Christians did: www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=27-04-017-v
yeoberry You seem to be entirely missing the point. If your "God" was so moral he could have easily said "thou shall not own other humans as property" like he did with all the other commandments. And yet, he didn't. Instead there were rules for how to treat your slaves (which wasn't good in many cases) Therefore your "god" condoned slavery, which means your "god" is immoral. Also, it wasn't Christians as a whole who ended slavery. The south was predominantly Christian and they fought to continue slavery. But nice try at revisionism.
Sarah Santos 1. You're assuming that slavery is an absolute evil; that is, that it is always the worst possible evil in all situations. 2. You're assuming that slavery is evil based on no moral authority that you've presented. 3. In many cases in the ancient world, people sold themselves into slavery rather than starve to death. 4. Your entire objection is based on assuming the level of economic prosperity (brought to you by the Christian ethic, by the way) that makes slavery an unnecessary evil. What happens when food, shelter, and goods are so scarce that people choose slavery as a necessary evil? You don't appear to have even contemplated that. 5. I lived in Ethiopia and some people there live in de facto slavery because the alternative -- living homeless, without access to food and water -- is so horrendous. In that situation, if the choice were between survival and slavery, would you still insist that regulating and mitigating slavery is a sign of being "evil"? 6. You've accused God of being "evil" based on your opinion which suggests you think you are God. 7. I don't believe you can show that the rules regulating slavery were not good. First, you need to recognize that immediate emancipation of slavery in the ancient world was not a possibility. Your suggestion that it was shows your utter lack of historical understanding. Then, once you've accepted the inevitability of slavery in the ancient world, show how the Biblical regulations protecting slaves were not good. Don't just assert your opinion, prove it. 8. When studying the question who ended slavery, the facts of the people who perpetuated it are irrelevant. One finds your convoluted line of reasoning with apologists for the South all the time. Say, "The South fought the Civil War for slavery" and they will reply, "The North didn't fight it to free the slaves." True, but irrelevant. Your point that some professed Christians defended slavery doesn't change the FACT that Christians ended it. 9. Read the linked article with an open mind (if possible). Your calling the historical FACT that Christians ended slavery "revisionism" suggests you're a bigot. Prove otherwise. 10. Robert W. Fogel, a self-professed "secular Jew" who won a Nobel Prize for his work on slavery, said that Christians ended it. Accuse him of "revisionism".
#1. It IS an absolute evil. We don't need any hypocritical morally bankrupt deity to tell us what is good and evil. We can judge an action's moral value by its effects on a human being. There is no context in which owning another human being and taking away their free will is a positive thing for the person being owned. And there are ALWAYS alternatives but I will get to that in a moment. #2. I don't need one. I rely on reason and empathy for other humans to dictate my morality. Its far better than basing it on an ancient book that promotes genocide, slavery, stoning people, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, etc... Sorry but your book is no moral authority at all. Its a sadist guide to committing every kind of evil imaginable. #3. And many people were simply forcefully taken and sold in slavery against their will. Also, are you condoning slavery by saying some people had no other choice unless they wanted to starve? Couldn't god have just said "Hey stop taking slaves and just feed the hungry." Or "Hey give the hungry people some kind of work and pay them with food." Why would it have to go straight to owning them as property, beating them, etc... #4. Your objection is based on the idea that slaves only came willingly because they were hungry but we know for a fact that there were countless people forcefully sold into slavery. The bible even has different rules for these people. lol Sorry but your argument is more than a bit disingenuous. Also, if you have food to give slaves then you also have it to give to regular workers who are not slaves. Again, we must we skip being a worker and go straight into slavery? #5. Yes, I absolutely would. Owning people as property dehumanizes them and it is ALWAYS evil in all situations. There are also ALWAYS alternatives as I pointed out. If you have food to give to slaves then you have it to give to a non-slave worker as well. Slavery is never necessary. #6. lol No, I don't need to be a god. I use my reason and empathy. If you can't distinguish between right and wrong without being told by a book then what does that say about you? If your book told you that rape was okay would you go out and start raping people? First of all, I don't accuse god of being evil because I am positive god doesn't exist in the first place. But the fictional god in your bible is an evil character. #7. lol No. The god of your bible could have easily ended slavery if he wanted to just by proclaiming that "thou shall not own slaves." and then smiting people if they didn't obey. After all, he certainly wasn't shy about bringing down that wrath any other time. ;) Murder wasn't realistically something that could easily end either but that didn't stop him from saying "thou shall not murder" so what is your excuse now? Your grasping at straws. Slavery never needed to be regulated when he could have just flat out said slavery is immoral. But he didn't, did he? lol No instead he gives you rules for owning your slaves, such as how you can beat them as long as they don't die within a few days. If they die AFTER the few days then its okay. But if they die before then you get punished. lol #8. So you're saying that because some christians ended an atrocity that was started by other christians, then christianity is somehow absolved from all wrong-doing? What? lol So if one of Hitler's officers would have assassinated him then that would absolve the nazis of all of the horrific acts they committed? That is quite a moral compass you have there. #9. That isn't how burden of proof works. When Christians claim they did something then burden of proof is on them to support their claim. No, what I called revisionism was the fact that you tried to pretend that Christians were the "good guys" when it came to slavery when in reality they were responsible for it's existence in the United States in the first place. #10. See previous comment. Also, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. ;)
Sarah Santos 1. Oh, it "is" an absolute evil. Because? Oh, that's right, because you say so. You simple dogmatically state your opinion. You have no basis to show that your opinion is an absolute moral good. A person who imagines that her opinions are moral absolutes is a very dangerous person. 2. You've demonstrated no reasons whatsoever but simply assert your opinions as moral absolutes, making you a potential tyrant. 3. You dodged the historical fact I presented because you didn't want to deal with it. In the real ancient world, people often sold themselves into slavery and the level of economic development was such that the alternative to slavery for many people would have been starvation and death. 4. Again, you simply refuse to deal with history and real-world situations, preferring the imaginary world of your opinions which you imagine to be moral absolutes. When people like you get into power they become totalitarian dictators because they can't imagine that there is any truth outside the narrow confines of their ignorant opinions. 5. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You live in an imaginary world. 6. You've presented no basis for right or wrong outside of your opinions which are based on the imaginary world you've insulated yourself in. 7. Again, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.You are thoroughly ignorant. Immediate emancipation of slavery in the ancient world was not a possibility nor would it have been a moral good because the result would have been mas starvation and death. The scenario you present would have resulted in the killing of millions of people. You don't understand that because you don't understand anything about this subject but rather you're living in an imaginary world where everyone can go get a job at McDonalds or apply for welfare. Grow up and learn about the real world. 8. Slavery was not started by Christians. Once again, you show astounding ignorance. Slavery was a long-existing institution prior to Christianity. The question isn't who participated in it. Everyone did. But who ended it. Christians did: www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=27-04-017-v 9. Your statement is such astounding stupidity it's difficult to know where to begin. First, it's YOU making the revisionist history statement. Likely you're so indoctrinated in your imaginary world you don't even know that. Second, I've proved the proof: in the link provided. Third, again, slavery long existed before Christianity. That's such an obvious fact, it requires a remarkable level of ignorance to not know it. 10. You've committed a wrong "fallacy" fallacy. Referring you to the pre-eminent authority on the subject under question is not a "fallacy". But your comment shows you are resistant to facts and real history.
There is a silver lining in Jay's presentation, though. Thanks to him we got an almost comprehensive enumeration of the most popular fallacious arguments by Christian apologetics. ;-)
Jay Lucas really falls apart at around 1:17:10, when asked about slavery and hell. The audience realises this and keep laughing out loud at some of Jay's statements: "If you can give me an example of God torturing someone"! Then, in response to Matt's claim that Exodus condones slavery, Jay says "What it does is REGULATE slavery"!!!
It takes a real twisted person to justify slavery in ANY form. And an all "powerful" god would never need to "regulate" anything. And to believe that eternal torture for a finite offense is justified is evil.
Aye. Epic Fail. Jay had to switch the subject by trying to talk about indentured servants instead of slaves. The look on Matt's face was priceless. How about this? Being so sweet, Jesus and his dad make allowances for people who are "severely retarded". Gee. How big of them. Um, let's back up a sec, Jay. Why is god ok with such things as Downs Syndrome in the first place? Another fail.
Hey Charlie... Matt asked the question... Why didn't God just condemn the buying and selling of other people then the argument would simply be over. Perhaps Exodus ch21 v16 should be considered... "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." It could not be clearer... God forbids the slave trade! An unfortunate problem with translating ancient texts into modern English are that the mistranslation of words like 'slave'. The passages Matt quoted are often translated in many bible versions as 'Bondsman' but as very few people today understand the concept of the 'Bondage' system the lazy translators often go with 'Slave' In brief... If I owed you a debt that I could not pay I could work for you for up to seven years (the laws of jubilee limit this to six) to pay back my debt. I could volunteer to work for you beyond that time as a paid worker. If during that six year period a member of my immediate family was to pay off my debt (a bondsman redeemer) then I would be out of bondage and free to go. As with every example in the Old Testament this is a 'Shadow picture' of Christ's ministry to pay our debt for sin and set those in bondage free. Christ is our redeemer! An example today would be the practice of borrowing from a high street lenders or pawn brokers. You leave an item of value with the broker to be redeemed later. If you don't redeem it the broker can sell it on for a profit. Stealing someone from their home and selling them is forbidden by God but some know how to manipulate Gods word to convince themselves and others that the slave trade is permitted. In truth man cannot be trusted but God can.
You realize you are just using one big circular logic argument.I don't accept your claims of the divinity of Jesus (or any other figure) without evidence. And the bible isn't evidence. You can't meet your burden of proof. Faith isn't evidence, and a "personal revelation" isn't either. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan
Baal Buster Hmmm! Now let me think this one out... I wrote that God said Exodus ch21 v16 "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." But Baal Buster changed that to "you can't steal a SLAVE" I'm not trying to mock the terminally dim here but as you seem to have very limited Reading and Comprehension skills I'll write a lot slower so you can keep up. God said If you steal a man and sell him you shall be put to death! God said if such a man is found in your possession you shall be put to death! Are you with me so far?.... Now think carefully... which part of that statement tells you that God gives the slave trade the old thumbs up. Christ is a redeemer and came to set the captive free. Now add to that the simple fact that the ancient word translated as slave has other more accurate translations For example the word 'slave' is used in Exodus Ch 21 in the ESV or English Standard Version and the NAV or New American Standard version. The same word is translated as 'Servant' in the KJV or King James Version and the ASV or American Standard Version. We can all agree that a servant is not the same as a slave but the most accurate translation of the word would be Bondsman (not a slave or a servant) found in more literal translations such as the Derby Bible Translation or DBT You would need to study the culture and customs of the day to fully grasp the meaning and significance of the word 'Bondsman' but it all goes to paint a prophetic picture of the coming ministry of Christ in years to come.
Matt was fantastic during this debate, but I'm always a little disappointed with his answer to the question of morality, not that he's wrong, but his answer for this always seems to skirt the actual meat of the topic. I would say that a sense of morality is both inherent and societal. It is inherent in the sense that we are a social species, and as such things like empathy, cooperation and camaraderie were beneficial to our survival. As such, they were naturally selected through selective pressures, which is why even studies of very young children (or even animals) show that they have social and cooperative tendencies. Additionally, it is societal in the sense that Matt talked about, that as we learn more, as we shrug off more and more prejudices, biases and our understanding of what is right and wrong becomes clearer. If you want an objective foundation for morality, then it is that things that are bad make us feel bad, and we need each other to survive in this world, so it matters to us what happens to other people. And of course, that it is better to live in a society where we agree that punching each other in the face is wrong.
@@ceceroxy2227 1, they already have better stuff 2, then there's no one else to do tasks and have a society from which all their better stuff comes from.
@@ceceroxy2227 If they do not do so, it certainly is not because they looked in their Rule Book (bible) and said: "Oh, wait! It says here we're not supposed to do that."
Honestly couldn't listen to Jay Lucas for 2 mins without wanting to bash my head against a table. He has no idea what he is talking about and even I could of refuted every single point he made.
But when given the opportunity you didn't refute one single thing he says! What's the bet you lied about bashing your head on a table too... You start with 'Honestly' but you're dishonest! Can we trust anything you say?
Patrick Van Gelder Thank you Patrick for your truly enlightening interjection. You say so little yet say so much. You start without a capital letter as though we have just caught the end of a conversation overheard in a crowded room. You tease us with modicum of curiosity pretending to be 'The answer'. (or is that simply a mask of deception?). You're grammatically playful yet thoughtful and profound!. The three question marks repeat like the last heart beats emphasizing Man, Woman and Child... Body, Soul and Spirit... and so many triune energies that are at play as we march along life's journey. Then your comment dies suddenly leaving it's sinister smirk on a soul free, empty cadaver. Are we LOL or is that just the sarcastic last embers of life's final mystery? The punch line without a joke... but then! What comes next..... Nothing! Patrick... you're deep... You've touched me and I cried... What an awesome comment!
Please be careful Joe. the proof of the one true creator God is all around you in abundance. Your problem is that once you accept even the tiniest shred of evidence that a Holy God does exist in some form, tangible or otherwise..... what will you do with that information? It will either be the greatest news that you could ever have heard or it will be the worst news you ever heard. I'm guessing but my reading of your comment tells me that your position is set in stone. Throughout all of time mankind has tasked it's greatest philosophers to consider the question of what comes next once this life is over. I imagine that the early explorers would see migrating birds fly out to sea and disappear over the far horizon and ponder... what lies beyond that far horizon? If only one out of a million options is that death could unite us with a Holy Creator God in a glorious Kingdom where he's prepared a place just for you, then surely you owe it to your eternal soul to search out and consider the consequences of that one possibility. Maybe you will and you'll conclude that nothing lies beyond the grave. Then again maybe .... just maybe....
billymodo I hate to be rude but you really didn't say anything in your comment except for: Anything can happen after death...so why not believe in the Christian theory. You say he owes it to his "eternal soul" as if that is any more proven than your God. Faith is belief without evidence. And as far as if there was proof of God...why did God so readily reveal himself in the past (to illiterate people that believed germs were demons and other nonsense). Something tells me it would have been easier to get those people to believe in nonsense without proof (seeing they already did)...and today you would real proof, but now Christians say if he did that would not be a good thing. Well isn't that convenient for something that (most likely) doesn't exist.
billymodo Are you trolling or joking or something? You respond to Joe's true statement, 'the Christian debater in this video did not prove the existence of any god(s),' with an unsupported bare assertion that proof of God is all around in abundance. Next from you comes an uncharitable speculation about Joe's open mindedness (I'd be interested to hear what line of logic you used to make a guess about Joe's open mindedness based on Joe's true statment that the Christian in this video did not prove god, because I'm pretty sure you agree with Joe that the Christian in the video did not say anything to prove god or you would have pointed out where in the video that the Christian proved god). All of that followed by Pascal's wager in the form of wistful pontification that there might be something after death- which is no more a reason to believe in Yahweh than Allah or any other theoretically possible creator being or even believe in non-theistic forms of Buddhism where there is no creator being.
Badnewz730 Do you really hate to be rude? The word Gospel means 'Good News' so you've chosen to call yourself 'Badnewz'. That kinda sets out the limitations of your thinking. I didn't say " anything can happen after death". I suggested that the question of what comes after death is not only a valid question but one that is vital to consider now before death confronts each of us personally. Only a lazy, ignorant, fool would suggest the question is irrelevant but that's the stance taken by Atheists. As an atheist you may say God (almost certainly) does not exist but does that give you the right to deride others who may want to search the matter out for themselves. It seems to me that Atheism should cause every atheist to keep silent on matters that they have chosen to reject. If I decided to give up mountain climbing tomorrow, I would not campaign against mountain climbing or start an anti-mountain climbing web site. It would simply be None of my business anymore. If your best friend became a 'Born Again Christian' would you stop being friends? Would you tell him how much damage his new found faith has done to you? What would that damage be? Where are the bruises? I had no religious exposure until I got to uni when a good friend gave his life to Christ. I wanted him to go on tour with me in my Rock band so I started to look into this religious nonsense in the hope that I'd gain enough 'ammo' to blast his religion out of the water and make him 'Normal' again. I was shocked to find professors and department heads surprisingly open about the limitations of science and the validity of scripture. I spent three years trying to prove the Bible was nonsense but in the end I committed my life to Christ. That's when the real adventure began and here I am thirty years later still exploring scripture more than ever. You may think I'm nuts but Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, Lineaus and others who we regard as the founding fathers of modern science were on their own great adventure and they didn't leave any bruises on you either!
billymodo burden is on you. I know the truth and what you are selling isnt true at all. What you need to do is Beg this Moron of a god to show himself otherwise there will be no more followers for this big ass lie. lol Proof is all i want.
@@youtubeisawebsite7484 i said CHRISTIANS dont die. Read carefully i wrote CHRISTIANS. Because he mentioned religion in a general way. Others religions may in fact die but Christians live🙏🏼♥️
The problem with claiming that there is a god given moral framework which renders personal ethical opinions irrelevant is that god doesn't arbitrate disputes about the implications of said framework. Because of this, people end up imposing their ethical opinions on other people. Since some ethical imposition by way of arbitration is necessary, the method of arbitration should be based on demonstrable facts and principles, i.e. all other thing being equal, suffering is bad, flourishing is good.
"I believe that God's existence is obvious to everyone" says Jay Lucas, in his opening sentence. He is a prick for saying this. Doesn't he realize how insulting that statement is to Buddhists, or atheists, who see no evidence for the existence of a God? So right from his very first sentence I lose all respect for him. Well done, Jay Lucas.
The statement happens to be true. The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is not eternal. If it were, energy/matter would be evenly distributed already but it's not. It's like a clock that can last a week on one winding. If you see that it is still ticking, you can surmise that it was wound less than a week ago. Just so, the universe is finite. It can only last so long because entropy is bringing it to a state of evenness (to use layman's terms). "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase. So the universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). So: P1. The universe came into existence (i.e. it is not eternal).> Proven above. P2. The universe could not have created itself. > This is proven by reason. Something that does not exist does not have the quality to make itself exist. In other words, a non-existent universe cannot act to create itself. Hence: C. Therefore, the universe has a Creator whom we call "God". > "God" is the name, in English, for the uncaused Cause, the Creator, the Prime Mover. You can argue that God may not be personal or may not have revealed Himself or may not be the Christian God. That's fine; that's not the question yet. The question is: Is there a God. As Aristotle showed on other grounds (i.e. motion), there is. It's proven.
yeoberry "the universe is not eternal" It depends what you mean by "universe". Some people use the word "universe" to mean "everything" (eg, the multiverse), and this indeed could be eternal. In fact, it is necessarily eternal, since there is nothing other than itself. It doesn't exist in time since it includes time.
Kevin Solway First, the word "universe" does indeed mean everything (i.e. all matter/energy). It is "uni-" (meaning "one") and "-verse" (as in the diversity of all of the cosmos). There can, then, be no matter/energy outside the universe. Second, when anyone speaks of a "multiverse" or other "universes" he is speaking science fiction. Third, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us the universe is not eternal. Your statement "it is necessarily eternal" is scientifically false. Fourth, since it came into existence and could not have created itself, then there must be something other than itself, namely the creator, whom we call "God".
yeoberry "First, the word "universe" does indeed mean everything" There isn't just one possible meaning. Some people use the word "universe" to refer to the matter associated with our "big bang", whereas other people use the term to refer to the entire multiverse, or even "everything". "There can, then, be no matter/energy outside the universe." If the universe is "everything" then there can't by anything outside of the universe - not even a "God". "Second, when anyone speaks of a "multiverse" or other "universes" he is speaking science fiction." It is also fiction to suggest that there isn't a multiverse. We don't know either way. "Third, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us the universe is not eternal" No it doesn't tell us that, since it doesn't apply on the universal level. "since it came into existence" If the universe is "everything" then it can't possibly "come into existence", since it includes time. It doesn't exist in time.
Kevin Solway We do know that there aren't "other universes" a the word "universe" means everything. To speak of multiple universes makes as much sense as to speak of multiple everythings. The universe includes time. When it came into existence, time came into existence. Since it could not cause itself, there must be a cause beyond it, outside of the universe and time. We call this cause "God".
Presuppositional Apologetics: the form of argumentation that lets the opponent know up front that the theist they are debating will never change their mind no matter what they say because the god they believe in is the assumed conclusion they start from.
watch Hitchen/ Fry debate the catholic church, best debate I;'ve ever watched hands down.. Hitchens &Fry hammered home what was long over due and even had votes
Matt absolutely slaughtered him. Matt can’t say slavery is wrong and then himself own Jay like that. You could literally feel the humiliation flowing out of him time and again. If you try and defend ridiculous fairytales that’s the result.
@@princegobi5992 after a few hundred years you'd be used to the torture and it would just be normal and then you'd have forever of just hanging out to be bored.
Theist loose ALL debates lately, by far, but yet, there's no fear to loose believers. As Dr. House said, If you could reason with religious people there will not be religious people.
This Lucas guy does not understand that you can have an external imposed morality without a god. He sets up a false dichotomy, which is incorrect and also a logical fallacy.
Spacecade35 is this interpreted through your subjective moral truth? Hitler had a moral subjectivity truth why is your concept of moral subjective truth better than his or let’s say Mao or Lenin or Stalin? Your moral law is subjective isn’t it because there is no God correct?
@@elijonah1421 I am talking about Absolute Moral truth. Why are you raising a red herring like "Subjective moral truth"? Morality is imposed upon humans by external forces. By using terms like "subjective" it allows people to do what ever they like, especially if it is immoral. As somebody once said, religion is how you get good people to do evil acts. The same can be said about subjective morality.
@@spacecadet35 because your moral law is subjective as it does not stem from anywhere but what you feel is right? What makes Stalin or Mao wrong in killing millions and makes you right ? Where does your moral truth come from? It’s truth to you but it’s not truth to me. So what makes your moral truth the right truth or is your moral truth not subjective? Jeffery Daumier was perfectly ok with having sex with his victims then cannibalizing them is your moral truth better than his? He did those things and accepted them as truth as they reinforced his views of what was moral aka perfectly ok in his life.
How does Jay Lucas not see the contradiction in his belief when he says that everything to forgive our sins has been done, when he previously appeared to hold that peoples actions can get them sent to hell to be tortured forever..... If everything has already been done to save us from sin, why would anyone go to hell from that point on?
An atheist is a theist suppressing their belief in god? Really? I guess I was born repressed. The good new is that since I don't believe in god I have no worries of sin, I have no fear of hell and I can be a good person because I choose to be a good person and not because I think I will be rewarded with heaven, which quite frankly sounds dreadful to me.
Thank you for this Tom! You're my kind of Atheist. It's puzzled me for a long time why it is that atheists get so bothered about going to a Hell they know doesn't exist or being punished by a God they don't acknowledge exists etc etc! I spend a lot of time in airports but I have no flight to catch tomorrow so I have no concern about delays, cancellations etc. I will not be writing to the Aviation board to complain about the flights I didn't miss because I wasn't going anywhere. If I did they would think I was nuts! You don't believe in God so Hell means nothing to you. It would be silly to complain about going to a place you know doesn't exist. Well done Tom! Just on a technical note the Bible doesn't say that Good people go to heaven it says everyone... the good the bad and the Ugly all get to heaven! The problem is that heaven is like the waiting room in a law court. The bible says that if a man believes in Jesus he is reconnected with God by the indwelling Holy Spirit and his name is written in the lamb's book of life. This is called being 'Born again' and it comes about by simply believing, not by being good. Once we all get to heaven there will come a day of judgment where the books of your life and the lambs book of life will be opened and all will be judged according to the ten commandments. All those whose names are written in the lambs book of life are judged according to Christ's righteousness not their own. The books of their life are closed because their names are found in the Lamb's book of life. No judgment takes place and they go on to the mansion God prepared for them in his coming Kingdom. Those whose names were NOT written in the Lamb's book of life will be judged according to the ten commandments (It's pretty much an automatic fail) and instead of taking up the place prepared for them in Gods Kingdom they are cast into the lake of Fire which was prepared for Satan and his followers. Technically being Good or bad will never earn you a place in Gods eternal Kingdom. In fact the only requirement for getting in is to believe in Jesus! Now could it be simpler than that?! There you have it... You may choose to be Good or Bad because it will make no difference on Judgment day
billymodo Yes but since I don't think there is a god all that is just much ado about nothing. No waiting room, no judgement. Just fools and cretans telling people that they are going to hell if they don't except Jesus into their hearts. Atheist don't get bothered about going to a Hell, they get bothered by over eager theologian wannabes telling them they are going to hell. It's funny that you talk about how silly it would be to spent time in an airport when you have no flight and yet you are waiting to go to a waiting room to see if you go where you hope. Technically there is nothing in reality to make anyone think there is a heaven or hell and yet so many people are convinced they are both real. It all sounds pretty foolish to me. I wish I could say that you have enlightened me but you are just presenting another version of the heaven fantasy. But if believing that makes you happy then I have no reason to squash you joyful dream.
Tom Leeds I like your style and think you should give lessons to all those crazy atheists who think we believers are 'sending' them to the Hell they don't believe in. The Bible is clear that even God isn't sending them to Hell. God has invited everyone to take up the free invitation he sent out. He made it clear time and time again that he doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. He didn't make Hell for people he made it for Satan and his followers. Some years ago the civic leaders of my city built a new prison facility. I didn't complain about it or ask why are they building a prison unless they want to send me to this horrible place. They'll tell me that the prison wasn't meant for people who abide by the laws and ordinances. They might even tell me that if they had things there way nobody would break the law and be sent to prison. What they really want is for the prison to be empty because everyone stays within the Law. You should educate all those atheists out there who say they don't believe in Hell but won't stop whinging on and on about it, blaming God for building a prison that wasn't meant for them anyway! The technical point I pulled you up on was the notion of going to heaven if you're 'Good'. 1. Heaven is not the final destination but the coming kingdom of God. 2. Being Good has got nothing to do with who gets into Gods Kingdom and who doesn't. Nevertheless I'm glad you have actively chosen to be a 'Good' person If only to stay out of our new prison during your time here on earth. Thank you for your good wishes. Being a Christian does make me happy as it gives me immense liberty on this earth and an absolute guarantee of a place in Gods Kingdom after this life is over. Got to go as I'm working on a new recipe for dog food that tastes just like a postman's leg. I went to an inventors conference the other day and someone said to me " Correct me if I'm wrong but did you invent Tippex?"
billymodo Well, for one, the bible is not clear on anything. It is especially vague in areas where the shit is just completely made up. And as for Atheist, they are not bother by threats of hell, they are, once again, bothered by the misguided fools who try to warn them about their impending doom. And as to your prison analogy, your the same guy with the airport right? Well most prisons were built for people who believe in a god since around 98% of inmates in american prisons say they believe in a personal god that is looking out for them. I will just go along my merry way assured that there is no gods kingdom because that just makes no sense at all and because being a good person has nothing to do with morals or believing in god or a lack of sin or any other god fearing excuse you want to give for it.
Tom Leeds It is amazing how many prisoners leave prison with a new found faith in God. In truth it's because most people never really take the time to look into such matter very deeply. Prisoners have plenty of time to reflect upon such things which is why our prisons used to be called penitentiaries. The hope was that those who were incarcerated would become penitent or repentant for ones sin. I'll have to award you vague sentence of the year when you write "Well, for one, the bible is not clear on anything. It is especially vague in areas where the shit is just completely made up"??? Could you point out to me where it is that you believe the Bible has just made 'Shit' up? The Bible is a collection of 66 books and letters written over a period of 1600 years by over 44 very different authors each inspired by Gods Holy Spirit. The books cover subjects like Law, History, Genealogy, poetry and song, Prophecy, proverbs and sayings, erotica, and so much more. New architectural finds are confirming that more and more of the early scriptures is supremely accurate. The Book of Daniel for example sets out a very specific event that can be checked against the history recorded by historians from other architectural and historical finds. (it's hardly 'Once upon a time') Even the gospel of Luke starts off with a historically accurate and checkable fact. You say the Bible is not clear on 'Anything' but You'll have to be a little less vague yourself before you convince anyone of your point. Let me help you if you stuck on an 'unbelievable' bit of scripture. Given time you'll have to agree that the Bible is nowhere near as vague as your accusation! On a final note I'm sure that your standards will be the same as most of the people around us who have been raised in a Judeo/Christian culture. That is to say you're most probably a very decent fellow. The Bible does set out a basis of Lawful behavior which is acceptable to God and by and large most people would agree with scripture that it is wrong to Murder, swindle, lie, be unfaithful, be constantly drunk etc... Sadly a time is coming when our nation will face total economic collapse when our civility and cohesiveness as a community will fall apart utterly. At that time we'll see how honest you are when some one has something you need for the survival of your family. A barrowful of cash won't buy you a tank of gas and a few days of hunger with no provisions on sale at your grocers store may lower your ethical standards a little. If you can make it to my place I'll protect you and your family and share all I have with you. Lets see just how long it takes for the true nature of man to emerge under such uncivilized circumstances.
Just look at how many religions treat or should say mistreat gay people. They prove the just because you are religious does not mean that you are moral, just or ethical.
I really dislike these formally formatted debates; they're too stiff and unsatisfyingly stultified. It's two guys putting out prepared statements, given limited time to address each others' points, and don't interact. I prefer a more natural conversational debate format, where the opponents can have a real dialogue with each other, ask each other questions, follow lines of thought, going point by point, etc. Also, at least half the event should be given to audience questions. Matt would have eaten this guy's lunch, had it been so.
not true ^ did I not mention to watch where Matt gets destroyed? Matt is wrong dude, he doesn't know everything. Theists are humble enough to admit that they don't know it all, where most atheists I've met have been self proclaiming assholes who claim to know all the answers to existence. I say fuck those people. Who are you to know shit if you haven't died. stfu atheists. Get over the fact that you may be wrong. I'm at least smart enough to admit that I don't know for sure what happens when you die.
***** lol good for you. I know people who have died and seen things, and come back after a few minutes, so it goes both ways. As far as evidence...well it isnt a scientifc evidential matter, it's a philosophical matter (the existence of God), so I don't think I need to chart it, dissect it, nor have any scientic "proof" of God. If I was God, I wouldn't just come on demand and speak to people and perform miracles whenever they want...lol fuck that why should I have to....Its fine to have an opinion (even if yours is stupid). Matt is wrong because he claims to 100% have the facts. That is untrue, you cannot disprove God. You can only disprove him through the laws that govern this earth, and the mere five senses you have to experience it. Atheists believe in 5 senses, Christians believe in 6. *flies away*
Since the Bible was written 3000 years ago how did mankind survive with out a moral guide before that... it goes to show that morality is a survival instinct.
Jays entire initial presentation is a logical falacy known as appealing to authority. How many famous names is he going to bring up? Doesn't he have any intrinsic personal opinions that can be logically sound on their own? Ah, but that would defy the mindset of any theist, whom only obtain direction from others smarter than they.
From the fact that Nazareth almost certainly didn't exist when Jesus lived, to the conflicting nativity tales, to a census that apparently never took place, we can be certain the NT is wrong on some things, and we cannot definitely demonstrate that any story therein is true. A few characters - Herod, Quirinius, Pilate, Paul were real people, and Tacitus' Annals give us at least some evidence of the crucifixion. That's about it.
He debates theists all the time. After awhile, you will have encountered every argument the theists can present. He is well versed in the subject and fairly intelligent.
It's odd that there are so many apologetics for something that's supposedly so obvious. There aren't apologetics for trees, or butterflies, or gravity, or chocolate. The fact that morality's a complex issue doesn't negate the fact that we're responsible for it. Even the morals, or lack thereof, in "holy" books were created by humans. In any event, being obedient to authority is not morality.
I think it's a shame that Jay didn't actually answer the final question. He pointed out the difference between Christianity and other religions, but how does that make it true? Hinduism is most likely unique among all other religions in another way, does that make it true as well?
I don't know what it was about Jay, but he seemed so damn arrogant throughout this debate. I just listened to Matt's second debate with Cliff, and while he barely made a point of addressing any concerns of the debate, I could actually stand to listen to the guy. Perhaps it's because he didn't bring up Communists.
Jay lost all credibility in his opening statement with his remark on atheist truly believing but not admitting to their belief in god, as always the theist falls short on arguments.
Is it wrong that I only listen to the atheist's side of the debate in these things? It may be a little bias, but these creationists all say the same shit. I only listened to Jay Lucas's opening statement, but I'm confident the rest of his debate is dribble.
Yes you got that right. All have the same statements, the same "reasons", the same stupid answers. Every time they can't answer something (and that's ALL THE TIME someone asks them reasonable question) they say WE DON'T NEED PROOF and that's the end of their statements. Actually I think those people deserve the life they got, it's their own fault they are so stupid, but I feel bad about the kids that are born in such brainwashed families. I think it's better to be born in 3rd world country, than in such brainwashed family, because from 3rd world country you can escape, but if the brainwashing begins since age of 0... you almost don't have a chance.
Wilbur Jenkins in most cases I’d say you should listen to both sides in a debate and if you don’t you’re being intellectually lazy, but in this case you’re correct: all theists recite the same tired lines and bullshit arguments. They preach because that’s all they can do. What use is logic and evidence (which debates are based on) to those who would arrogantly and laughably proclaim truth without them? These brainwashed idiots lose before they even begin.
Jay might be right that ancient slavery was a lot different then modern slavery of blacks and indians in the Americas, but an all-powerful God would know about American slavery, so why wouldn't he tell moses to put "Thou Shalt Not Own Slaves" in the 10 Commandments, so that American slavery was considered immoral and forbidden?
The universe does need a beginning, a infinite regress causes may problems and is just illogical. Actually it is not a big jump if you listen to Craig he logically justifies why only omniscience can fill the gap of the first cause. Matt is a professional atheist ,surely something not to be proud of, he is not qualified in philosophy so his opinions are just like those of people not associated in this debate. By the way I'm a deist, so just saying revelation and religious experience is not evidence does not prove the non-existence of God.
littlebit080780 (My haven't you progressed from 'shut up' to full sentences!) Are you aware of the difference between Eternal and Infinite. In John 3v16 (For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.) Everlasting has a beginning but no end.) Eternal has no beginning and no end and stands outside of the dimension of time. Infinite simply has no measure. Why should it present a problem that a creator God who stands outside of all perceptible dimensions would create a time dimension that has been shown not to be a constant. Psalm 90v4 'For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.'
"As atheist, you ought to belive that", "being atheist, you need to suppose this". No i don't. Atheism means i don't find god hypotesis convincing, that's all.
What I meant is it is very hard to prove the power which lighten the lamp, because you can't see it smell it hear it but it's there some were in New York
So let me get this, right? GOD has the power to eradicate slavery but he is being merciful to the one group of people who enslaved another group of people and tortured little kids and raped many! ... how is it that a all powerful being can turn a blind eye to wrongful doing just to prove to the very people that are being hurt that he is a loving God??? It is funny how the one who was never inflicted can say God has patience for those who commiting the error!... i won
Jay is a wonderful example of just how horrible the abrahamic religions are. Not only in the various versions of the monster God but also in how deep the cognitive dissonance must go to buy into it. And his take on presupposition is ... defective.
He hasn't even made an argument, he said that evolution could make you feel as though something is evil, and then said that things were evil because they felt evil.... He tried to demonstrate that you only have objective morals if god exists but never even made an attempt to show that objective morals DO exist, only that it feels like they do, but he already conceded that evolution would also give you that feeling.
@ 48 mins…… ‘ if you dispose of god then you’ll have to get rid off objective moral values, some atheists agree objective moral values don’t exist…..’ If objective moral values don’t exist then you couldn’t get rid of them ( when you get rid of hod ) as originally claimed. Let’s see what other contradictory nonsense is espoused…..
Didn’t take long, next obvious contradiction - claims Russia is an atheist state then mentions someone with a faith and contrasts that with STATE RELIGION……an atheist state with a state religion and people of other faiths !!! 😂
So in these people's minds, a god specifically and clearly condemned (to death) those who perform "homosexual acts", but refused to do anything but regulate those who own other human beings as property.
The verdict is: Matt did a decent job of answering the question "does god exist"? Jay did his best to derail the debate to "morals prove God" and even then, unsuccessfully argued his case using emotional pleas, sermons and overall non-sequiturs. The funny thing is I started watching these debates to increase my knowledge, thinking I was missing out on learning experiences. Turns out I feel dumber (when the theist opposition starts talking, that is.)
1) Why does the hormone increase when required? 2) We are bound by physics because we do not try to explore further.Welcome to the world of spirituality - open yourself once and you'll know that what we haven't discovered in physics. 3) Those people were not necessarily spiritual, they were just religious who were bound by religion. But spirituality is not bound by any rituals etc. I am talking about logical spiritualism.
But aren't there people who have never had a guilty concious? Aren't those people called psychopaths? Now, I'm not talking about psychopathy in a negative but in a psychological meaning that a person isn't able to feel remorse or guilt.
So, in case I was vague, what that means is that the very first verse of Genesis tells us that God created everything, it just doesn't phrase it exactly like that. You got to remember, ancient people thought the earth (ground, rivers, lakes, seas, mountains) and the sky (air, wind, clouds, moon, sun, stars) was everything. They didn't know someone could someday travel to the moon. The books of the bible must be read in proper context. Some of the bible is in fact very historically based.
46:40~ "This request is not some cheap debate tactic or appeal to emotion..." Proceeds to execute cheap appeal-to-emotion debate tactic. This guy is fairly charismatic, well-spoken, and has a likable personality, but still a scumbag at heart so far (halfway through).
In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."
Catholicism, which is a Christian religion, has always believed that simple belief in Jesus is NOT enough.... that good works and acting morally is necessary to enter heaven. The idea of grace alone is a protestant concept.
11 years later, and I still feel the same pain as the audience when Jay brought up the USSR. 😵
I was there! It was awesome to say the least. I was actually expecting Jay to put up a better argument, loved that collective groan when he tried to bring up Soviet Russia.
My daughter (12) and I were there - Matt did an excellent job!!!
I love Jay Lucas's arguement.
"We live in a fallen world so God had to regulate slavery rather then call it wrong"
Under that logic God's why isn't God's 10 commandments look more along the lines of.
-if thou must bear false witness, don't get caught
-thou shall not commit murder, if it can be helped
and so on.
I mean if you just give a free pass to god on slavery, you've given a free pass on objective morals.
Vote UP for MATT
Vote DOWN for Jay
Loved their entire face-off. Matt is so admirable.
Download this video. Open it in audacity. Copy the entire left audio track then paste that into the other stereo track, the right side. Save it.
Lucas lost the debate when he said, "God doesn't advocate slavery, God regulates slavery." I had the same reaction as the crowd. lol
Slavery was a long-existing institution prior to Christianity. The question isn't who participated in it. Everyone did. But who ended it. Christians did: www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=27-04-017-v
yeoberry You seem to be entirely missing the point. If your "God" was so moral he could have easily said "thou shall not own other humans as property" like he did with all the other commandments. And yet, he didn't. Instead there were rules for how to treat your slaves (which wasn't good in many cases) Therefore your "god" condoned slavery, which means your "god" is immoral.
Also, it wasn't Christians as a whole who ended slavery. The south was predominantly Christian and they fought to continue slavery. But nice try at revisionism.
Sarah Santos 1. You're assuming that slavery is an absolute evil; that is, that it is always the worst possible evil in all situations.
2. You're assuming that slavery is evil based on no moral authority that you've presented.
3. In many cases in the ancient world, people sold themselves into slavery rather than starve to death.
4. Your entire objection is based on assuming the level of economic prosperity (brought to you by the Christian ethic, by the way) that makes slavery an unnecessary evil. What happens when food, shelter, and goods are so scarce that people choose slavery as a necessary evil? You don't appear to have even contemplated that.
5. I lived in Ethiopia and some people there live in de facto slavery because the alternative -- living homeless, without access to food and water -- is so horrendous. In that situation, if the choice were between survival and slavery, would you still insist that regulating and mitigating slavery is a sign of being "evil"?
6. You've accused God of being "evil" based on your opinion which suggests you think you are God.
7. I don't believe you can show that the rules regulating slavery were not good. First, you need to recognize that immediate emancipation of slavery in the ancient world was not a possibility. Your suggestion that it was shows your utter lack of historical understanding. Then, once you've accepted the inevitability of slavery in the ancient world, show how the Biblical regulations protecting slaves were not good. Don't just assert your opinion, prove it.
8. When studying the question who ended slavery, the facts of the people who perpetuated it are irrelevant. One finds your convoluted line of reasoning with apologists for the South all the time. Say, "The South fought the Civil War for slavery" and they will reply, "The North didn't fight it to free the slaves." True, but irrelevant. Your point that some professed Christians defended slavery doesn't change the FACT that Christians ended it.
9. Read the linked article with an open mind (if possible). Your calling the historical FACT that Christians ended slavery "revisionism" suggests you're a bigot. Prove otherwise.
10. Robert W. Fogel, a self-professed "secular Jew" who won a Nobel Prize for his work on slavery, said that Christians ended it. Accuse him of "revisionism".
#1. It IS an absolute evil. We don't need any hypocritical morally bankrupt deity to tell us what is good and evil. We can judge an action's moral value by its effects on a human being. There is no context in which owning another human being and taking away their free will is a positive thing for the person being owned. And there are ALWAYS alternatives but I will get to that in a moment.
#2. I don't need one. I rely on reason and empathy for other humans to dictate my morality. Its far better than basing it on an ancient book that promotes genocide, slavery, stoning people, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, etc... Sorry but your book is no moral authority at all. Its a sadist guide to committing every kind of evil imaginable.
#3. And many people were simply forcefully taken and sold in slavery against their will. Also, are you condoning slavery by saying some people had no other choice unless they wanted to starve? Couldn't god have just said "Hey stop taking slaves and just feed the hungry." Or "Hey give the hungry people some kind of work and pay them with food." Why would it have to go straight to owning them as property, beating them, etc...
#4. Your objection is based on the idea that slaves only came willingly because they were hungry but we know for a fact that there were countless people forcefully sold into slavery. The bible even has different rules for these people. lol Sorry but your argument is more than a bit disingenuous. Also, if you have food to give slaves then you also have it to give to regular workers who are not slaves. Again, we must we skip being a worker and go straight into slavery?
#5. Yes, I absolutely would. Owning people as property dehumanizes them and it is ALWAYS evil in all situations. There are also ALWAYS alternatives as I pointed out. If you have food to give to slaves then you have it to give to a non-slave worker as well. Slavery is never necessary.
#6. lol No, I don't need to be a god. I use my reason and empathy. If you can't distinguish between right and wrong without being told by a book then what does that say about you? If your book told you that rape was okay would you go out and start raping people? First of all, I don't accuse god of being evil because I am positive god doesn't exist in the first place. But the fictional god in your bible is an evil character.
#7. lol No. The god of your bible could have easily ended slavery if he wanted to just by proclaiming that "thou shall not own slaves." and then smiting people if they didn't obey. After all, he certainly wasn't shy about bringing down that wrath any other time. ;) Murder wasn't realistically something that could easily end either but that didn't stop him from saying "thou shall not murder" so what is your excuse now? Your grasping at straws. Slavery never needed to be regulated when he could have just flat out said slavery is immoral. But he didn't, did he? lol No instead he gives you rules for owning your slaves, such as how you can beat them as long as they don't die within a few days. If they die AFTER the few days then its okay. But if they die before then you get punished. lol
#8. So you're saying that because some christians ended an atrocity that was started by other christians, then christianity is somehow absolved from all wrong-doing? What? lol So if one of Hitler's officers would have assassinated him then that would absolve the nazis of all of the horrific acts they committed? That is quite a moral compass you have there.
#9. That isn't how burden of proof works. When Christians claim they did something then burden of proof is on them to support their claim. No, what I called revisionism was the fact that you tried to pretend that Christians were the "good guys" when it came to slavery when in reality they were responsible for it's existence in the United States in the first place.
#10. See previous comment. Also, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. ;)
Sarah Santos
1. Oh, it "is" an absolute evil. Because? Oh, that's right, because you say so.
You simple dogmatically state your opinion. You have no basis to show that your opinion is an absolute moral good. A person who imagines that her opinions are moral absolutes is a very dangerous person.
2. You've demonstrated no reasons whatsoever but simply assert your opinions as moral absolutes, making you a potential tyrant.
3. You dodged the historical fact I presented because you didn't want to deal with it. In the real ancient world, people often sold themselves into slavery and the level of economic development was such that the alternative to slavery for many people would have been starvation and death.
4. Again, you simply refuse to deal with history and real-world situations, preferring the imaginary world of your opinions which you imagine to be moral absolutes. When people like you get into power they become totalitarian dictators because they can't imagine that there is any truth outside the narrow confines of their ignorant opinions.
5. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You live in an imaginary world.
6. You've presented no basis for right or wrong outside of your opinions which are based on the imaginary world you've insulated yourself in.
7. Again, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.You are thoroughly ignorant. Immediate emancipation of slavery in the ancient world was not a possibility nor would it have been a moral good because the result would have been mas starvation and death. The scenario you present would have resulted in the killing of millions of people. You don't understand that because you don't understand anything about this subject but rather you're living in an imaginary world where everyone can go get a job at McDonalds or apply for welfare. Grow up and learn about the real world.
8. Slavery was not started by Christians. Once again, you show astounding ignorance. Slavery was a long-existing institution prior to Christianity. The question isn't who participated in it. Everyone did. But who ended it. Christians did: www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=27-04-017-v
9. Your statement is such astounding stupidity it's difficult to know where to begin. First, it's YOU making the revisionist history statement. Likely you're so indoctrinated in your imaginary world you don't even know that. Second, I've proved the proof: in the link provided. Third, again, slavery long existed before Christianity. That's such an obvious fact, it requires a remarkable level of ignorance to not know it.
10. You've committed a wrong "fallacy" fallacy. Referring you to the pre-eminent authority on the subject under question is not a "fallacy". But your comment shows you are resistant to facts and real history.
My left ear is loving this so far.... 2:25 in...
1:21:00 Matt backed him into a major corner with slavery. "You'd have to give me the verse" "Exodus 21:21-23" Ouch.
There is a silver lining in Jay's presentation, though. Thanks to him we got an almost comprehensive enumeration of the most popular fallacious arguments by Christian apologetics. ;-)
Jay Lucas really falls apart at around 1:17:10, when asked about slavery and hell. The audience realises this and keep laughing out loud at some of Jay's statements: "If you can give me an example of God torturing someone"! Then, in response to Matt's claim that Exodus condones slavery, Jay says "What it does is REGULATE slavery"!!!
It takes a real twisted person to justify slavery in ANY form. And an all "powerful" god would never need to "regulate" anything. And to believe that eternal torture for a finite offense is justified is evil.
Aye. Epic Fail. Jay had to switch the subject by trying to talk about indentured servants instead of slaves. The look on Matt's face was priceless.
How about this? Being so sweet, Jesus and his dad make allowances for people who are "severely retarded". Gee. How big of them.
Um, let's back up a sec, Jay. Why is god ok with such things as Downs Syndrome in the first place?
Another fail.
Hey Charlie... Matt asked the question... Why didn't God just condemn the buying and selling of other people then the argument would simply be over.
Perhaps Exodus ch21 v16 should be considered... "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
It could not be clearer... God forbids the slave trade!
An unfortunate problem with translating ancient texts into modern English are that the mistranslation of words like 'slave'. The passages Matt quoted are often translated in many bible versions as 'Bondsman' but as very few people today understand the concept of the 'Bondage' system the lazy translators often go with 'Slave'
In brief... If I owed you a debt that I could not pay I could work for you for up to seven years (the laws of jubilee limit this to six) to pay back my debt. I could volunteer to work for you beyond that time as a paid worker. If during that six year period a member of my immediate family was to pay off my debt (a bondsman redeemer) then I would be out of bondage and free to go.
As with every example in the Old Testament this is a 'Shadow picture' of Christ's ministry to pay our debt for sin and set those in bondage free. Christ is our redeemer! An example today would be the practice of borrowing from a high street lenders or pawn brokers. You leave an item of value with the broker to be redeemed later. If you don't redeem it the broker can sell it on for a profit.
Stealing someone from their home and selling them is forbidden by God but some know how to manipulate Gods word to convince themselves and others that the slave trade is permitted. In truth man cannot be trusted but God can.
You realize you are just using one big circular logic argument.I don't accept your claims of the divinity of Jesus (or any other figure) without evidence. And the bible isn't evidence. You can't meet your burden of proof. Faith isn't evidence, and a "personal revelation" isn't either. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan
billymodo
So you can't steal a slave. So what? How does that negate any of the verses Matt quoted?
Baal Buster Hmmm! Now let me think this one out... I wrote that God said Exodus ch21 v16 "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
But Baal Buster changed that to "you can't steal a SLAVE"
I'm not trying to mock the terminally dim here but as you seem to have very limited Reading and Comprehension skills I'll write a lot slower so you can keep up.
God said If you steal a man and sell him you shall be put to death!
God said if such a man is found in your possession you shall be put to death!
Are you with me so far?.... Now think carefully... which part of that statement tells you that God gives the slave trade the old thumbs up.
Christ is a redeemer and came to set the captive free.
Now add to that the simple fact that the ancient word translated as slave has other more accurate translations For example the word 'slave' is used in Exodus Ch 21 in the ESV or English Standard Version and the NAV or New American Standard version.
The same word is translated as 'Servant' in the KJV or King James Version and the ASV or American Standard Version.
We can all agree that a servant is not the same as a slave but the most accurate translation of the word would be Bondsman (not a slave or a servant) found in more literal translations such as the Derby Bible Translation or DBT
You would need to study the culture and customs of the day to fully grasp the meaning and significance of the word 'Bondsman' but it all goes to paint a prophetic picture of the coming ministry of Christ in years to come.
Man. It's hard to watch this. Jay's so entrenched in dogma that he basically says, "If you're christian, you're superior to others."
About half way through. Really excited for him to start talking about if God exists. Sure hope it happens
It's almost like Jay Lucas is saying, believe there is a God unless you want to world to go to hell.
Matt was fantastic during this debate, but I'm always a little disappointed with his answer to the question of morality, not that he's wrong, but his answer for this always seems to skirt the actual meat of the topic.
I would say that a sense of morality is both inherent and societal. It is inherent in the sense that we are a social species, and as such things like empathy, cooperation and camaraderie were beneficial to our survival. As such, they were naturally selected through selective pressures, which is why even studies of very young children (or even animals) show that they have social and cooperative tendencies.
Additionally, it is societal in the sense that Matt talked about, that as we learn more, as we shrug off more and more prejudices, biases and our understanding of what is right and wrong becomes clearer.
If you want an objective foundation for morality, then it is that things that are bad make us feel bad, and we need each other to survive in this world, so it matters to us what happens to other people. And of course, that it is better to live in a society where we agree that punching each other in the face is wrong.
Why not the powerful people just get rid of the other people they dont like and take their stuff.
Objective is mind independent, your last paragraph describing objective morality is dependent on a mind , meaning it is subjective
@@ceceroxy2227
1, they already have better stuff
2, then there's no one else to do tasks and have a society from which all their better stuff comes from.
@@ceceroxy2227 If they do not do so, it certainly is not because they looked in their Rule Book (bible) and said: "Oh, wait! It says here we're not supposed to do that."
@SpiffyHarry Really well said.
( and cool name )
😁🌏☮️
This debate was not even close. Matt brought astounding logic. Jay brought bible preaching and a lack of understanding.
Jay Lucas' arguments in a nutshell: I believe, I believe, I believe, Bible, Bible, Bible.
Honestly couldn't listen to Jay Lucas for 2 mins without wanting to bash my head against a table. He has no idea what he is talking about and even I could of refuted every single point he made.
But when given the opportunity you didn't refute one single thing he says!
What's the bet you lied about bashing your head on a table too... You start with 'Honestly' but you're dishonest! Can we trust anything you say?
billymodo what is this for an answer??? lol
Patrick Van Gelder Thank you Patrick for your truly enlightening interjection. You say so little yet say so much. You start without a capital letter as though we have just caught the end of a conversation overheard in a crowded room. You tease us with modicum of curiosity pretending to be 'The answer'. (or is that simply a mask of deception?).
You're grammatically playful yet thoughtful and profound!. The three question marks repeat like the last heart beats emphasizing Man, Woman and Child... Body, Soul and Spirit... and so many triune energies that are at play as we march along life's journey.
Then your comment dies suddenly leaving it's sinister smirk on a soul free, empty cadaver.
Are we LOL or is that just the sarcastic last embers of life's final mystery? The punch line without a joke... but then! What comes next..... Nothing!
Patrick... you're deep... You've touched me and I cried... What an awesome comment!
You ever heard tale of shuttin' up?
billymodo ShUt Up!!
All this guy did was preach, never once proved god.
Please be careful Joe. the proof of the one true creator God is all around you in abundance. Your problem is that once you accept even the tiniest shred of evidence that a Holy God does exist in some form, tangible or otherwise..... what will you do with that information? It will either be the greatest news that you could ever have heard or it will be the worst news you ever heard.
I'm guessing but my reading of your comment tells me that your position is set in stone.
Throughout all of time mankind has tasked it's greatest philosophers to consider the question of what comes next once this life is over. I imagine that the early explorers would see migrating birds fly out to sea and disappear over the far horizon and ponder... what lies beyond that far horizon?
If only one out of a million options is that death could unite us with a Holy Creator God in a glorious Kingdom where he's prepared a place just for you, then surely you owe it to your eternal soul to search out and consider the consequences of that one possibility.
Maybe you will and you'll conclude that nothing lies beyond the grave. Then again maybe .... just maybe....
billymodo I hate to be rude but you really didn't say anything in your comment except for: Anything can happen after death...so why not believe in the Christian theory. You say he owes it to his "eternal soul" as if that is any more proven than your God. Faith is belief without evidence.
And as far as if there was proof of God...why did God so readily reveal himself in the past (to illiterate people that believed germs were demons and other nonsense). Something tells me it would have been easier to get those people to believe in nonsense without proof (seeing they already did)...and today you would real proof, but now Christians say if he did that would not be a good thing. Well isn't that convenient for something that (most likely) doesn't exist.
billymodo
Are you trolling or joking or something? You respond to Joe's true statement, 'the Christian debater in this video did not prove the existence of any god(s),' with an unsupported bare assertion that proof of God is all around in abundance. Next from you comes an uncharitable speculation about Joe's open mindedness (I'd be interested to hear what line of logic you used to make a guess about Joe's open mindedness based on Joe's true statment that the Christian in this video did not prove god, because I'm pretty sure you agree with Joe that the Christian in the video did not say anything to prove god or you would have pointed out where in the video that the Christian proved god). All of that followed by Pascal's wager in the form of wistful pontification that there might be something after death- which is no more a reason to believe in Yahweh than Allah or any other theoretically possible creator being or even believe in non-theistic forms of Buddhism where there is no creator being.
Badnewz730 Do you really hate to be rude? The word Gospel means 'Good News' so you've chosen to call yourself 'Badnewz'. That kinda sets out the limitations of your thinking.
I didn't say " anything can happen after death". I suggested that the question of what comes after death is not only a valid question but one that is vital to consider now before death confronts each of us personally.
Only a lazy, ignorant, fool would suggest the question is irrelevant but that's the stance taken by Atheists. As an atheist you may say God (almost certainly) does not exist but does that give you the right to deride others who may want to search the matter out for themselves.
It seems to me that Atheism should cause every atheist to keep silent on matters that they have chosen to reject. If I decided to give up mountain climbing tomorrow, I would not campaign against mountain climbing or start an anti-mountain climbing web site. It would simply be None of my business anymore.
If your best friend became a 'Born Again Christian' would you stop being friends? Would you tell him how much damage his new found faith has done to you? What would that damage be? Where are the bruises?
I had no religious exposure until I got to uni when a good friend gave his life to Christ. I wanted him to go on tour with me in my Rock band so I started to look into this religious nonsense in the hope that I'd gain enough 'ammo' to blast his religion out of the water and make him 'Normal' again.
I was shocked to find professors and department heads surprisingly open about the limitations of science and the validity of scripture. I spent three years trying to prove the Bible was nonsense but in the end I committed my life to Christ. That's when the real adventure began and here I am thirty years later still exploring scripture more than ever.
You may think I'm nuts but Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, Lineaus and others who we regard as the founding fathers of modern science were on their own great adventure and they didn't leave any bruises on you either!
billymodo burden is on you. I know the truth and what you are selling isnt true at all. What you need to do is Beg this Moron of a god to show himself otherwise there will be no more followers for this big ass lie. lol Proof is all i want.
You can skip the part from 1:02:16 to 1:10:28 as it is just the chunk right before that repeated.
and no one thanked you for that? well thank you
I love watching Dillahunty. He really has them squirm. Religions come here to die....
+Andulsi
Dillahunty, the religion destroyer.
yup
Christians dont die in fact because of Christ we live 🙂♥️🙏🏼
@@bss7254 they didnt say christians die, they said religions die
@@youtubeisawebsite7484 i said CHRISTIANS dont die. Read carefully i wrote CHRISTIANS. Because he mentioned religion in a general way. Others religions may in fact die but Christians live🙏🏼♥️
It seems like Christian apologists are utterly incapable of actually debating the chosen topic.
A "fallen world". Does anybody know what the fuck that's supposed to mean, and is there any non-fallen worlds we can compare it to?
The problem with claiming that there is a god given moral framework which renders personal ethical opinions irrelevant is that god doesn't arbitrate disputes about the implications of said framework. Because of this, people end up imposing their ethical opinions on other people.
Since some ethical imposition by way of arbitration is necessary, the method of arbitration should be based on demonstrable facts and principles, i.e. all other thing being equal, suffering is bad, flourishing is good.
"I believe that God's existence is obvious to everyone" says Jay Lucas, in his opening sentence.
He is a prick for saying this. Doesn't he realize how insulting that statement is to Buddhists, or atheists, who see no evidence for the existence of a God? So right from his very first sentence I lose all respect for him. Well done, Jay Lucas.
The statement happens to be true.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is not eternal. If it were, energy/matter would be evenly distributed already but it's not. It's like a clock that can last a week on one winding. If you see that it is still ticking, you can surmise that it was wound less than a week ago. Just so, the universe is finite. It can only last so long because entropy is bringing it to a state of evenness (to use layman's terms). "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase. So the universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state).
So:
P1. The universe came into existence (i.e. it is not eternal).> Proven above.
P2. The universe could not have created itself. > This is proven by reason. Something that does not exist does not have the quality to make itself exist. In other words, a non-existent universe cannot act to create itself.
Hence:
C. Therefore, the universe has a Creator whom we call "God". > "God" is the name, in English, for the uncaused Cause, the Creator, the Prime Mover. You can argue that God may not be personal or may not have revealed Himself or may not be the Christian God. That's fine; that's not the question yet. The question is: Is there a God. As Aristotle showed on other grounds (i.e. motion), there is. It's proven.
yeoberry "the universe is not eternal"
It depends what you mean by "universe". Some people use the word "universe" to mean "everything" (eg, the multiverse), and this indeed could be eternal. In fact, it is necessarily eternal, since there is nothing other than itself. It doesn't exist in time since it includes time.
Kevin Solway First, the word "universe" does indeed mean everything (i.e. all matter/energy). It is "uni-" (meaning "one") and "-verse" (as in the diversity of all of the cosmos). There can, then, be no matter/energy outside the universe.
Second, when anyone speaks of a "multiverse" or other "universes" he is speaking science fiction.
Third, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us the universe is not eternal. Your statement "it is necessarily eternal" is scientifically false.
Fourth, since it came into existence and could not have created itself, then there must be something other than itself, namely the creator, whom we call "God".
yeoberry "First, the word "universe" does indeed mean everything"
There isn't just one possible meaning. Some people use the word "universe" to refer to the matter associated with our "big bang", whereas other people use the term to refer to the entire multiverse, or even "everything".
"There can, then, be no matter/energy outside the universe."
If the universe is "everything" then there can't by anything outside of the universe - not even a "God".
"Second, when anyone speaks of a "multiverse" or other "universes" he is speaking science fiction."
It is also fiction to suggest that there isn't a multiverse. We don't know either way.
"Third, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us the universe is not eternal"
No it doesn't tell us that, since it doesn't apply on the universal level.
"since it came into existence"
If the universe is "everything" then it can't possibly "come into existence", since it includes time. It doesn't exist in time.
Kevin Solway We do know that there aren't "other universes" a the word "universe" means everything. To speak of multiple universes makes as much sense as to speak of multiple everythings.
The universe includes time. When it came into existence, time came into existence. Since it could not cause itself, there must be a cause beyond it, outside of the universe and time. We call this cause "God".
Presuppositional Apologetics: the form of argumentation that lets the opponent know up front that the theist they are debating will never change their mind no matter what they say because the god they believe in is the assumed conclusion they start from.
watch Hitchen/ Fry debate the catholic church, best debate I;'ve ever watched hands down.. Hitchens &Fry hammered home what was long over due and even had votes
My left ear enjoyed this debate
Nice debate..Matt did a great job...
But these debates need a lot more asking/answering questions and less presenting.
Matt absolutely slaughtered him. Matt can’t say slavery is wrong and then himself own Jay like that. You could literally feel the humiliation flowing out of him time and again. If you try and defend ridiculous fairytales that’s the result.
I can’t imagine a worse punishment than eternal life.
Eternal life in hell tbh, they are both awful circumstances though lol
@@princegobi5992 after a few hundred years you'd be used to the torture and it would just be normal and then you'd have forever of just hanging out to be bored.
Theist loose ALL debates lately, by far, but yet, there's no fear to loose believers. As Dr. House said, If you could reason with religious people there will not be religious people.
This Lucas guy does not understand that you can have an external imposed morality without a god. He sets up a false dichotomy, which is incorrect and also a logical fallacy.
Spacecade35 is this interpreted through your subjective moral truth? Hitler had a moral subjectivity truth why is your concept of moral subjective truth better than his or let’s say Mao or Lenin or Stalin? Your moral law is subjective isn’t it because there is no God correct?
@@elijonah1421 I am talking about Absolute Moral truth. Why are you raising a red herring like "Subjective moral truth"? Morality is imposed upon humans by external forces. By using terms like "subjective" it allows people to do what ever they like, especially if it is immoral. As somebody once said, religion is how you get good people to do evil acts. The same can be said about subjective morality.
@@spacecadet35 because your moral law is subjective as it does not stem from anywhere but what you feel is right? What makes Stalin or Mao wrong in killing millions and makes you right ? Where does your moral truth come from? It’s truth to you but it’s not truth to me. So what makes your moral truth the right truth or is your moral truth not subjective? Jeffery Daumier was perfectly ok with having sex with his victims then cannibalizing them is your moral truth better than his? He did those things and accepted them as truth as they reinforced his views of what was moral aka perfectly ok in his life.
Why does Lucas remind me of Vizzini from the Princess Bride? Is it inconceivable for him to think that Matt might be right?
Inconceivable!
I bet Matt was thrilled that his opponent took the Does God Exist question straight to Morality...
How does Jay Lucas not see the contradiction in his belief when he says that everything to forgive our sins has been done, when he previously appeared to hold that peoples actions can get them sent to hell to be tortured forever..... If everything has already been done to save us from sin, why would anyone go to hell from that point on?
An atheist is a theist suppressing their belief in god? Really? I guess I was born repressed. The good new is that since I don't believe in god I have no worries of sin, I have no fear of hell and I can be a good person because I choose to be a good person and not because I think I will be rewarded with heaven, which quite frankly sounds dreadful to me.
Thank you for this Tom! You're my kind of Atheist.
It's puzzled me for a long time why it is that atheists get so bothered about going to a Hell they know doesn't exist or being punished by a God they don't acknowledge exists etc etc!
I spend a lot of time in airports but I have no flight to catch tomorrow so I have no concern about delays, cancellations etc. I will not be writing to the Aviation board to complain about the flights I didn't miss because I wasn't going anywhere. If I did they would think I was nuts!
You don't believe in God so Hell means nothing to you. It would be silly to complain about going to a place you know doesn't exist.
Well done Tom!
Just on a technical note the Bible doesn't say that Good people go to heaven it says everyone... the good the bad and the Ugly all get to heaven! The problem is that heaven is like the waiting room in a law court. The bible says that if a man believes in Jesus he is reconnected with God by the indwelling Holy Spirit and his name is written in the lamb's book of life. This is called being 'Born again' and it comes about by simply believing, not by being good.
Once we all get to heaven there will come a day of judgment where the books of your life and the lambs book of life will be opened and all will be judged according to the ten commandments. All those whose names are written in the lambs book of life are judged according to Christ's righteousness not their own. The books of their life are closed because their names are found in the Lamb's book of life. No judgment takes place and they go on to the mansion God prepared for them in his coming Kingdom.
Those whose names were NOT written in the Lamb's book of life will be judged according to the ten commandments (It's pretty much an automatic fail) and instead of taking up the place prepared for them in Gods Kingdom they are cast into the lake of Fire which was prepared for Satan and his followers.
Technically being Good or bad will never earn you a place in Gods eternal Kingdom. In fact the only requirement for getting in is to believe in Jesus! Now could it be simpler than that?!
There you have it... You may choose to be Good or Bad because it will make no difference on Judgment day
billymodo Yes but since I don't think there is a god all that is just much ado about nothing. No waiting room, no judgement. Just fools and cretans telling people that they are going to hell if they don't except Jesus into their hearts. Atheist don't get bothered about going to a Hell, they get bothered by over eager theologian wannabes telling them they are going to hell.
It's funny that you talk about how silly it would be to spent time in an airport when you have no flight and yet you are waiting to go to a waiting room to see if you go where you hope.
Technically there is nothing in reality to make anyone think there is a heaven or hell and yet so many people are convinced they are both real.
It all sounds pretty foolish to me.
I wish I could say that you have enlightened me but you are just presenting another version of the heaven fantasy. But if believing that makes you happy then I have no reason to squash you joyful dream.
Tom Leeds I like your style and think you should give lessons to all those crazy atheists who think we believers are 'sending' them to the Hell they don't believe in. The Bible is clear that even God isn't sending them to Hell. God has invited everyone to take up the free invitation he sent out. He made it clear time and time again that he doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. He didn't make Hell for people he made it for Satan and his followers.
Some years ago the civic leaders of my city built a new prison facility. I didn't complain about it or ask why are they building a prison unless they want to send me to this horrible place. They'll tell me that the prison wasn't meant for people who abide by the laws and ordinances. They might even tell me that if they had things there way nobody would break the law and be sent to prison. What they really want is for the prison to be empty because everyone stays within the Law.
You should educate all those atheists out there who say they don't believe in Hell but won't stop whinging on and on about it, blaming God for building a prison that wasn't meant for them anyway!
The technical point I pulled you up on was the notion of going to heaven if you're 'Good'.
1. Heaven is not the final destination but the coming kingdom of God.
2. Being Good has got nothing to do with who gets into Gods Kingdom and who doesn't.
Nevertheless I'm glad you have actively chosen to be a 'Good' person If only to stay out of our new prison during your time here on earth.
Thank you for your good wishes. Being a Christian does make me happy as it gives me immense liberty on this earth and an absolute guarantee of a place in Gods Kingdom after this life is over.
Got to go as I'm working on a new recipe for dog food that tastes just like a postman's leg.
I went to an inventors conference the other day and someone said to me " Correct me if I'm wrong but did you invent Tippex?"
billymodo Well, for one, the bible is not clear on anything. It is especially vague in areas where the shit is just completely made up. And as for Atheist, they are not bother by threats of hell, they are, once again, bothered by the misguided fools who try to warn them about their impending doom.
And as to your prison analogy, your the same guy with the airport right? Well most prisons were built for people who believe in a god since around 98% of inmates in american prisons say they believe in a personal god that is looking out for them.
I will just go along my merry way assured that there is no gods kingdom because that just makes no sense at all and because being a good person has nothing to do with morals or believing in god or a lack of sin or any other god fearing excuse you want to give for it.
Tom Leeds It is amazing how many prisoners leave prison with a new found faith in God. In truth it's because most people never really take the time to look into such matter very deeply. Prisoners have plenty of time to reflect upon such things which is why our prisons used to be called penitentiaries. The hope was that those who were incarcerated would become penitent or repentant for ones sin.
I'll have to award you vague sentence of the year when you write "Well, for one, the bible is not clear on anything. It is especially vague in areas where the shit is just completely made up"???
Could you point out to me where it is that you believe the Bible has just made 'Shit' up?
The Bible is a collection of 66 books and letters written over a period of 1600 years by over 44 very different authors each inspired by Gods Holy Spirit. The books cover subjects like Law, History, Genealogy, poetry and song, Prophecy, proverbs and sayings, erotica, and so much more.
New architectural finds are confirming that more and more of the early scriptures is supremely accurate.
The Book of Daniel for example sets out a very specific event that can be checked against the history recorded by historians from other architectural and historical finds. (it's hardly 'Once upon a time')
Even the gospel of Luke starts off with a historically accurate and checkable fact.
You say the Bible is not clear on 'Anything' but You'll have to be a little less vague yourself before you convince anyone of your point.
Let me help you if you stuck on an 'unbelievable' bit of scripture. Given time you'll have to agree that the Bible is nowhere near as vague as your accusation!
On a final note I'm sure that your standards will be the same as most of the people around us who have been raised in a Judeo/Christian culture. That is to say you're most probably a very decent fellow. The Bible does set out a basis of Lawful behavior which is acceptable to God and by and large most people would agree with scripture that it is wrong to Murder, swindle, lie, be unfaithful, be constantly drunk etc...
Sadly a time is coming when our nation will face total economic collapse when our civility and cohesiveness as a community will fall apart utterly. At that time we'll see how honest you are when some one has something you need for the survival of your family. A barrowful of cash won't buy you a tank of gas and a few days of hunger with no provisions on sale at your grocers store may lower your ethical standards a little.
If you can make it to my place I'll protect you and your family and share all I have with you.
Lets see just how long it takes for the true nature of man to emerge under such uncivilized circumstances.
Just look at how many religions treat or should say mistreat gay people. They prove the just because you are religious does not mean that you are moral, just or ethical.
I really dislike these formally formatted debates; they're too stiff and unsatisfyingly stultified. It's two guys putting out prepared statements, given limited time to address each others' points, and don't interact. I prefer a more natural conversational debate format, where the opponents can have a real dialogue with each other, ask each other questions, follow lines of thought, going point by point, etc. Also, at least half the event should be given to audience questions. Matt would have eaten this guy's lunch, had it been so.
Yeah me too and don't forget to SHUT UP!!!!!!
littlebit080780 Matt is that you?
matt got severely owned in a format just like that. lol heres link:
watch?v=jUKlovm5580
not true ^ did I not mention to watch where Matt gets destroyed? Matt is wrong dude, he doesn't know everything. Theists are humble enough to admit that they don't know it all, where most atheists I've met have been self proclaiming assholes who claim to know all the answers to existence. I say fuck those people. Who are you to know shit if you haven't died. stfu atheists. Get over the fact that you may be wrong. I'm at least smart enough to admit that I don't know for sure what happens when you die.
***** lol good for you. I know people who have died and seen things, and come back after a few minutes, so it goes both ways. As far as evidence...well it isnt a scientifc evidential matter, it's a philosophical matter (the existence of God), so I don't think I need to chart it, dissect it, nor have any scientic "proof" of God. If I was God, I wouldn't just come on demand and speak to people and perform miracles whenever they want...lol fuck that why should I have to....Its fine to have an opinion (even if yours is stupid). Matt is wrong because he claims to 100% have the facts. That is untrue, you cannot disprove God. You can only disprove him through the laws that govern this earth, and the mere five senses you have to experience it. Atheists believe in 5 senses, Christians believe in 6. *flies away*
Since the Bible was written 3000 years ago how did mankind survive with out a moral guide before that... it goes to show that morality is a survival instinct.
Jays entire initial presentation is a logical falacy known as appealing to authority. How many famous names is he going to bring up? Doesn't he have any intrinsic personal opinions that can be logically sound on their own? Ah, but that would defy the mindset of any theist, whom only obtain direction from others smarter than they.
From the fact that Nazareth almost certainly didn't exist when Jesus lived, to the conflicting nativity tales, to a census that apparently never took place, we can be certain the NT is wrong on some things, and we cannot definitely demonstrate that any story therein is true. A few characters - Herod, Quirinius, Pilate, Paul were real people, and Tacitus' Annals give us at least some evidence of the crucifixion. That's about it.
He debates theists all the time. After awhile, you will have encountered every argument the theists can present. He is well versed in the subject and fairly intelligent.
It's odd that there are so many apologetics for something that's supposedly so obvious. There aren't apologetics for trees, or butterflies, or gravity, or chocolate.
The fact that morality's a complex issue doesn't negate the fact that we're responsible for it. Even the morals, or lack thereof, in "holy" books were created by humans. In any event, being obedient to authority is not morality.
Well, my left hear enjoyed this.
:) lol right?
+Able D-G So there's an audio issue for you too?
+Pluto Dog Yes. it's restricted to the left channel and way too low in volume. even with headphones it was impossible to enjoy.
Yep
+Greg Enright no left.
"Slavery was the social safety net of the Israelite" wow
Now I've made you think of rape, betrayal, and STDs, let me hand over to my opponent.. Emotional Manipulation 101
"So a creator would be morally right in torture someone"?
"Gasp..hã...hã...hã..""
Brave guy - taking on Matt on on Secular Morality.
I think it's a shame that Jay didn't actually answer the final question. He pointed out the difference between Christianity and other religions, but how does that make it true? Hinduism is most likely unique among all other religions in another way, does that make it true as well?
Another demonstration of theistic failure in debates, in both inability to understand the debate topic, and bad logic.
It's funny when a Christian complains about moral relativity, and then say things in Bible were written for people at that time.
"...the atheist world view", "...atheist (insert name here) said...", "...presupposition of atheists..."
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, shut up!
Hey guess what!! SHUT UP!
Yet they get so pissed when we quote some crazy ass pastor telling people to play with snakes or kill doctors who preform abortions.
I don't know what it was about Jay, but he seemed so damn arrogant throughout this debate. I just listened to Matt's second debate with Cliff, and while he barely made a point of addressing any concerns of the debate, I could actually stand to listen to the guy. Perhaps it's because he didn't bring up Communists.
Hahah! God in his mercy gave us slavery. That's hilarious.
Jay lost all credibility in his opening statement with his remark on atheist truly believing but not admitting to their belief in god, as always the theist falls short on arguments.
Matt's better at this stuff than his call-in show.
Jay Lucas started off with the false premise that "God" is self-evident.
Is it wrong that I only listen to the atheist's side of the debate in these things? It may be a little bias, but these creationists all say the same shit. I only listened to Jay Lucas's opening statement, but I'm confident the rest of his debate is dribble.
Yes you got that right. All have the same statements, the same "reasons", the same stupid answers. Every time they can't answer something (and that's ALL THE TIME someone asks them reasonable question) they say WE DON'T NEED PROOF and that's the end of their statements. Actually I think those people deserve the life they got, it's their own fault they are so stupid, but I feel bad about the kids that are born in such brainwashed families. I think it's better to be born in 3rd world country, than in such brainwashed family, because from 3rd world country you can escape, but if the brainwashing begins since age of 0... you almost don't have a chance.
It's not because you're biased. It's because you're a closed minded bigot afraid of the truth.
Wilbur Jenkins in most cases I’d say you should listen to both sides in a debate and if you don’t you’re being intellectually lazy, but in this case you’re correct: all theists recite the same tired lines and bullshit arguments. They preach because that’s all they can do.
What use is logic and evidence (which debates are based on) to those who would arrogantly and laughably proclaim truth without them? These brainwashed idiots lose before they even begin.
Jay might be right that ancient slavery was a lot different then modern slavery of blacks and indians in the Americas, but an all-powerful God would know about American slavery, so why wouldn't he tell moses to put "Thou Shalt Not Own Slaves" in the 10 Commandments, so that American slavery was considered immoral and forbidden?
Jay is silly. First he says I'm not gonna appeal to emotions then he says look in your heart.
I thought the debate is on whether God exists, not what morality is...sigh.
Matt is a true MASTER DEBATOR!!!
Judging Matt from the things he states and with all those attendants joining in I would describe him as more of a Mass Debator!
His arguments are not valid and are barely arguments, compared to William lane Craig ( theist) he is awful
The universe does need a beginning, a infinite regress causes may problems and is just illogical. Actually it is not a big jump if you listen to Craig he logically justifies why only omniscience can fill the gap of the first cause.
Matt is a professional atheist ,surely something not to be proud of, he is not qualified in philosophy so his opinions are just like those of people not associated in this debate. By the way I'm a deist, so just saying revelation and religious experience is not evidence does not prove the non-existence of God.
Joe Jones Does it bother you that an eternal God would also need an infinite regress?
littlebit080780 (My haven't you progressed from 'shut up' to full sentences!) Are you aware of the difference between Eternal and Infinite.
In John 3v16 (For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.)
Everlasting has a beginning but no end.)
Eternal has no beginning and no end and stands outside of the dimension of time.
Infinite simply has no measure.
Why should it present a problem that a creator God who stands outside of all perceptible dimensions would create a time dimension that has been shown not to be a constant. Psalm 90v4 'For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.'
Hey, RUclips. It's really hard to follow the conversation in the comments given the new format.
Say _world view_ one more time...
I double dare you.
Mattias Sollerman world view
bakuya99 That's _not_ funny!
One more *word* from you and I'll swear...
Mattias Sollerman
Mattias Sollerman just kidding but yeah sorry.
+Mattias Sollerman world viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld viewworld view
amazing debate i enjoyed watching this
Seen it several times - LOVED IT!
We will never know the truth; so we live the way that makes us feel the best.
Whoever recorded this - thanks, but wish the audio wasn't in left-sided only and at such low volume.
"As atheist, you ought to belive that", "being atheist, you need to suppose this". No i don't. Atheism means i don't find god hypotesis convincing, that's all.
I liked the debate, but I also agree that the audio had potential for improvement.
Wow.... I love Matt's end speech!
Jay is irrational and he hangs his hat on it for a "personal relationship based on faith". Ok, then it's imaginary.
I hate it when Theists try to tell Atheists what their world view is. They really should try another dodge, or of course they could try EVIDENCE.
Jay Lucas is an insulting human that degrades those that don’t agree with his fantasy
What I meant is it is very hard to prove the power which lighten the lamp, because you can't see it smell it hear it but it's there some were in New York
So let me get this, right? GOD has the power to eradicate slavery but he is being merciful to the one group of people who enslaved another group of people and tortured little kids and raped many! ... how is it that a all powerful being can turn a blind eye to wrongful doing just to prove to the very people that are being hurt that he is a loving God???
It is funny how the one who was never inflicted can say God has patience for those who commiting the error!... i won
I agree with compassion, forgiveness, and love; I need a God to pray to; so, the truth really doesn’t matter.
Jay is a wonderful example of just how horrible the abrahamic religions are. Not only in the various versions of the monster God but also in how deep the cognitive dissonance must go to buy into it. And his take on presupposition is ... defective.
He hasn't even made an argument, he said that evolution could make you feel as though something is evil, and then said that things were evil because they felt evil....
He tried to demonstrate that you only have objective morals if god exists but never even made an attempt to show that objective morals DO exist, only that it feels like they do, but he already conceded that evolution would also give you that feeling.
@ 48 mins……
‘ if you dispose of god then you’ll have to get rid off objective moral values, some atheists agree objective moral values don’t exist…..’
If objective moral values don’t exist then you couldn’t get rid of them ( when you get rid of hod ) as originally claimed.
Let’s see what other contradictory nonsense is espoused…..
Didn’t take long, next obvious contradiction - claims Russia is an atheist state then mentions someone with a faith and contrasts that with STATE RELIGION……an atheist state with a state religion and people of other faiths !!! 😂
I have problem hearing this but must use my headset to here it. Was there. Found Jay too preachy. Would loved to have heard Matt speak more!
So in these people's minds, a god specifically and clearly condemned (to death) those who perform "homosexual acts", but refused to do anything but regulate those who own other human beings as property.
I think it should be something like, Do not do to others what you don't like done to you.
The verdict is: Matt did a decent job of answering the question "does god exist"? Jay did his best to derail the debate to "morals prove God" and even then, unsuccessfully argued his case using emotional pleas, sermons and overall non-sequiturs.
The funny thing is I started watching these debates to increase my knowledge, thinking I was missing out on learning experiences. Turns out I feel dumber (when the theist opposition starts talking, that is.)
To paraphrase Matt, every single thing that Jay said could be summed up simply by saying "erm....because it says so in the Bible........?"
Why does it repeat Matt's first response/rebuttal?
at the 1:02:** time stamp, if seems like part of the debate got skipped (Matt speaks, then Matt Speaks again
1) Why does the hormone increase when required?
2) We are bound by physics because we do not try to explore further.Welcome to the world of spirituality - open yourself once and you'll know that what we haven't discovered in physics.
3) Those people were not necessarily spiritual, they were just religious who were bound by religion. But spirituality is not bound by any rituals etc. I am talking about logical spiritualism.
I fully agree with Matt's standpoint on debating religion.
I am the way, the truth and the life. I guess everyone should follow me now.
Very good rebuttal my friend.
But aren't there people who have never had a guilty concious? Aren't those people called psychopaths? Now, I'm not talking about psychopathy in a negative but in a psychological meaning that a person isn't able to feel remorse or guilt.
Makes you wonder why we don't have debates on if trees exist.. or turds, or dirt...
So, in case I was vague, what that means is that the very first verse of Genesis tells us that God created everything, it just doesn't phrase it exactly like that. You got to remember, ancient people thought the earth (ground, rivers, lakes, seas, mountains) and the sky (air, wind, clouds, moon, sun, stars) was everything. They didn't know someone could someday travel to the moon. The books of the bible must be read in proper context. Some of the bible is in fact very historically based.
Keep telling yourself that and when you have some good evidence that can be tested and verified, we'll listen.
46:40~ "This request is not some cheap debate tactic or appeal to emotion..."
Proceeds to execute cheap appeal-to-emotion debate tactic.
This guy is fairly charismatic, well-spoken, and has a likable personality, but still a scumbag at heart so far (halfway through).
In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."
Catholicism, which is a Christian religion, has always believed that simple belief in Jesus is NOT enough.... that good works and acting morally is necessary to enter heaven. The idea of grace alone is a protestant concept.