As a former atheistic-leaning agnostic, biologist and revert to the Catholic Faith largely based on the evidence I have reviewed, I cannot make sense of those who claim that Catholicism or Christianity at large has no strong supporting evidence in good faith. Admittedly, as a skeptic by nature and trained in the scientific method by occupation, it is hard to believe in miraculous events that allegedly occurred over 2000 years ago in a [modern] society that places methodological naturalism at the pinnacle of human knowledge, culture, and achievement. When one considers the contemporary evidence for the miraculous attributes of the Shroud of Turin, all primary sources from the witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima (faithful and anticlerical alike, an event that was predicted 3 months ahead of time down to the specific place, day and hour), the thousands of witnesses of preternatural phenomenon during exorcisms (including laypeople like Dr. Gallagher), Eucharistic miracles, the miraculous healings at Lourdes, etc. the demands for further evidence starts to become ridiculous. For instance, let's consider Dr. Gallagher's specialty of exorcisms. After reading his book, I can think of only two possible naturalistic explanations for his experiences. Dr. Gallagher is either: a. Unreliable as a witness (either by way of lies or delusion) b. Gullible, and was fooled by both the priests and patients he worked with The first seems unlikely given his professional reputation as a board-certified psychiatrist and Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College, and of course for his natural candor. Besides, if Dr. Gallagher is lying or delusional, he would have to cooperate with an entire network of thousands of exorcists and laypeople worldwide who testify to similar preternatural phenomena. What exactly would Dr. Gallagher gain by doing this? Book sales 25 years after his involvement began, as an elderly man? The second would require the close cooperation of the clergy and patients to fool Dr. Gallagher. The patients and clergy would have to fabricate and maintain their backgrounds for years, go through many painful phony regular exorcisms, and learn to speak in foreign and ancient languages. And for what? So Dr. Gallagher would write a book 25 years after the fact, giving credence to the field of exorcism? Both of these explanations are ridiculous, but they are the only ways skeptics can hope to invalidate Dr. Gallagher’s testimony. And if the testimony of Dr. Gallagher and others in the field are to be believed, the evil spirits have an obvious aversion to anything Christianity-related. Even if Mr. Barrows were to admit that “things that science cannot currently explain happen” during exorcisms, there IS evidence that spirits react exclusively negatively to Christian imagery, relics, prayers, etc. At what point does radical doubt become irrational? "Somehow or other the extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them." -G. K. Chesterton
Thank you for sharing love listening to Dr. Gallagher. One thing I can’t figure out-I’ve seen a few “atheists versus Christians/people of faith” debates. Why do the atheists folks seem kind of snarky and pissed off, generally speaking ?? Not saying that the folks who argue for Christianity/faith don’t exhibit emotions, or even argue. But based on general observations of these kinds of discussions, the atheist folks express a good measure of irritation or indignation that seems frequent. Just seems very noticeable !
It seems “ The New Atheists “ strategy is not to understand the Christian argument and try to refute it. Rather they seem to think belittling the Christian belief is a good strategy. When they meet highly educated and brilliant men like Dr. Gallagher their strategy really looks silly.
Atheists are just angry all the time. Their need to mock and belittle Christians with the "no proof" argument when they have no proof themselves makes them the very idiots they claim others are. But, yes, I have noticed, all they have is anger and hostility rather than logic and reason.
That’s an easy one, we’re “snarky” because for hundreds of years, religious zealots have done everything they can to force their unproven beliefs upon the rest of us through legislation. In doing so, they have directly caused serious harm to marginalised communities who don’t happen to adhere to their beliefs. If religious people kept their religion to themselves we’d have nothing to be snarky about.
The Bible ✝️ teaches us to love each other. The Bible ✝️ gives us Gods' ✝️ Rules to live by. atheists do not have that: they are always searching for what's true and right; ironically that's God ✝️ . God ✝️ Bless.
@@yeahsure9035 Yeah, it teaches you to love each other, unless they happen to be gay, trans, non-binary, or identify as anything other than your bigoted world view considers "normal", then nothing but hatred spews. Your evil deity can keep it's "rules", they are misogynistic, bigoted and evil. You're right about one thing, atheists don't have that, and I am so grateful every single moment of every single day that we don't. It means I can be against slavery, misogyny, intolerance and hatred, and do good in the world without doing it just because I fear eternal punishment, I do it because it's the right thing to do. There is no hate like christian love.
Dude has his pronouns in his zoom name 💀💀💀 Atheism is probably the force that is least progressive. If anything, it’s progressing backwards (ultimately into hedonism).
Mr. Barrows hoped for more “Catholic” questions such as the proof/validity of Apostolic succession. ...Yet- he’s unaware Catholic Church adheres to a canon of 73 books in the Bible, not 66?
This was a good debate that presented ideas for me to think about. Mr. Barrows use poor excuses to reject all types of evidence, such as historical accounts, miraculous healings, and exorcisms.
Not poor nor rich excuses. You make extraordinary claim therefore you must provide extraordinary evidence. Pyramid of egypt is extraordinary but that still does not make pharoahs gods try to focus and stop be rude
This was a little hard to watch. Mr. Barrows talked about evidence, but provided no evidence that God does not exist. I thought I would hear evidence from an atheist but no. Why must the Christian provide evidence but not the atheist? But thank you, Rob and son. You should have another debate soon!
Because the person making the claim has the burden of proof. The Christian is claiming there's a god therefore he has to provide evidence. The atheist doesn't make the claim "there is no god"; if he did, he would have to provide evidence to support his claim. (Although I am only on 15:00; the atheist may make the claim later on.)
Correct, because the atheist position is not a positive claim, it is simply a statement that we are not convinced by the claims of theists that a god exists. Ergo, as the ones making the positive claim, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Simple logic.
I wish the debate or future one has Father Robert Spitzer he argues for intelligent designer the creator...he is scientifically smart...he has website the Magis Center..a lot of resources...one point Father Spitzer made was that God is outside of the universe and science can only explain what we can see within the universe.
Praying for an increase in faith... letting go of whatever it is that is in conflict with Christ’s teachings that makes someone want to throw away eternity for a smidgen of time.
I applaud Jim for staying as calm as he did despite the constant verbal abuse on his character from the other side. Shame on the moderator for not intervening here. A debate is about criticism of ideas, not people.
Good show Rob. During the last days of the carnival, when I was making a Holy Hour, I saw how the Lord Jesus suffered as He was being scourged. Oh, such an inconceivable agony! How terribly Jesus suffered during the scourging! O poor sinners, on the day of judgment how will you face the Jesus whom you are now torturing so cruelly? His blood flowed to the ground, and in some places His flesh started to fall off. I saw a few bare bones on His back. The meek Jesus moaned softly and sighed. (188) Saint Faustina. Divine Mercy in my soul.
Mr Barrows was quite an embarrassment for any serious atheist . I’m a Christian but grew up in an agnostic and staunchly anti Christian family who debated ad infinitum against all religions belief (or faith in the existence of God), but respected humanism. Most anti anybody generally make solipsistic arguments that only they think are weighty. I finally excepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I am biased , the atheist is biased. So bring your “A”game and leave your foolish game playing at home. Next time do your home work and bring the facts. Not even interesting to listen to.
I think the format of the debate needs to be rethought it created unnecessary tensions and we need to also establish who the burden of proof is on. Now I’m a believer I have my questions and doubts like most people but I’m not going to engage with people who simply are not open to changing their positions wether it’s believers, atheists or agnostics. I think it’s a fools folly to enter into a position when someone has such a strong emotional bias and so I’d look to avoid debates where people are only looking to attack the person and not the argument. If someone doesn’t want to believe then I respect that similarly if they are open to wanting to believe that’s different. Shake the dust from your sandals and all that. It’s not about destroying beliefs or non beliefs it’s about openness to discussions either way. In the end it all comes down to faith and either you believe or you don’t or you flutter in between. I get that it’s incredible to think possession is a real thing I often question these positions also I am aware that people will go to great lengths for money power or prestige it happens all the time regardless of what side of the fence your on. Bad behaviour is not exclusive to Catholics/ Christians/people of other beliefs etc or atheists. But in the end only these people know themselves and know the truth I will only be honest about my experiences and as a believer I’ve heard no voices, seen no visions, ghosts or experienced the demonic but I do believe in evil. Now could I be fooling myself sure I could but so could the atheist right? I believe in the God of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ and life ever after do I know for a stone cold fact no I don’t. I can tell you though that human beings are far too eager to think that science will one day satisfactorily explain it all away, I think that day just keeps getting further and further away the odds this is random self organising physics is for me impossible to believe. Miracles also happen I can’t explain the attested miracles in Lourdes they seem legit. I mean I literally know very little and I have tons of questions and sometimes wonder what on earth is the truth, in the end I rely on faith and faith isn’t open to the scientific method it’s a belief that’s my take. I think the format is not right though each person could just unpack their positions and then open it up for Q & A in the end these things can end up getting quite uncharitable and I think that’s not something new we have learned from human interaction and discourse. I’m not anxious that an atheist or an agnostic will change my mind or lead to me loosing faith I work with them every day it’s quite normal for people to doubt or not believe today I get that. I also have faith in Christ that good wins in the end and I think that for all believer and otherwise but if people don’t want to change their positions they probably won’t for me my experiences changed me from a science based atheist to a believer and so if God can do that for me I believe he can do it for anyone. All the best guys and God bless
@1woksape I recommend among many books for agnostics and atheists who are interested one being the God of Surprises by G W Hughes (not liked by all) I try not to caricature too much how can I attract someone to something where they don’t feel welcomed or where they are only drawn of fear of damnation alone, to live the Gospel is important and when others are drawn we can be ready to dialogue. I don’t think emotional or verbal attacks on a persons character can help. God is the God of complete perfection he does not draw others through Christ by fear of damnation alone sure Christ is clear that missing the mark does not only mean missing it in this life but also that it resonates beyond. As frustrating as it can be to see brothers and sisters apparently lost in their hearts and lives Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and all not just a few have fallen short of the glory of God. Christ will keep calling have faith and live the Gospel. Pray that I and you and all find our way home, God bless
@1woksape Yeah, it's a common trope to claim a former Atheist turned Christian. Every time I've looked at such a claim, it's usually because of some easily debunked argument. Not all atheists are philosophers, nor are they required to be. Bad reasons for believing don't change. If you have an actual atheist-turned-Christian testimony that isn't based on the typical easily debunked arguments, I'd love to hear it.
So much of what Dr. Gallagher states is either: 1) a fallacy ("a lot of people think", "it's common sense", "it's not believable") 2) untrue ("the disciples were killed for witnessing to their faith" for which there is no evidence and the earliest claims came from Polycarp in the second century and Aphrahat in the fourth century.) 3) vague ("a lot of scientists are spiritual") By the way, Pew research in 2009 found that: Just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. One could interpret this as "the more scientific you are, the less likely you are to believe in God." www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Lol . Zoom puts in whatever you sign in as . I didn’t even notice till halfway through the debate . He’s part of the New Woke Atheist crowd . It seems they purposely renounce natural law . Which is odd for people who claim to love science.
This guy should start playing with quija boards, playing with withcraft and ask the Demons to pay him a visit, IM SURE HE WOULD GET ALL THE "EVIDENCE" HE WOULD EVER NEED!!!!😂😂😂😂
Interesting. Those on the side of Dr. Gallagher say the same thing about Jim . I tried to be neutral in my treatment of both. Honestly, I felt they both tried to be respectful of each other. At times though they were both visibly angry and argued from emotion rather than logic . I felt like two fighters after a prize fight they shook each other’s hands at the end. Yes neither was perfect . But none of us are. That’s why we need a savior. Thanks for watching.
@@bluecollarcatholic8173 Let me respectfully set the record straight about who was actually more snarky and / or guilty of using ad hominem attacks against the other. See the following: Gallagher 15:57 "Mr. Barrows is... just mouthing his prejudices against the Catholic church." Gallagher 22:22 "He [Barrows] is absolutely right: he knows absolutely nothing about biblical scholarship." Gallagher 23:06 "I don't know if Mr. Barrows has heard of the concept of progressive revelation." Gallagher 26:12 "I think Mr. Barrows is right: he knows nothing about biblical scholarship." Barrows: 27:28 "Perhaps what the good doctor [Gallagher] needs to do is get updated on what the current scholarship is on the anonymity of the first four Gospels." Gallagher 28:56 "He [Barrows] is not up on modern scholarship. I am." Gallagher 29:42 "Two of them claim to be eyewitnesses. He [Barrows] doesn't seem to be aware of that." Gallagher 30:00 "Contrary to a lot of pseudo-experts, and I would include Mr. Barrows under that..." Gallagher 30:24 "When we're talking about evidence, because that seems to be a favorite word of his [Barrows]." I quit counting around 31:00, but undoubtedly Dr. Gallagher was more rude towards Mr. Barrows, unless someone here wants to do the legwork I just did and prove otherwise. And no, I'm not on one side or the other, and no I didn't just cherry pick negatives from Dr. Gallagher. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to carefully listen to the debate again and find additional snarky statements or ad hominems from Mr. Barrows. Thank you Blue Collar for hosting this debate. I agree with one other commenter that the format was confusing and not optimal. I recommend looking into this and making changes for future debates.
Some people do not like debates. I originally asked them if they wanted to dialogue but they kept referring to it as a debate lol . So I just called it a debate. I tried to stay neutral, maybe I should’ve got more involved. Sorry you didn’t enjoy it.
@Blue Collar Catholic Jim clearly didn't want to be there, and refused to actually engage with the points being made. And then Dr. Gallagher allowed himself to sink to Mr. Burrows' level. I love your channel and props to you for trying to moderate this
Question for Catholics: When John Paul 2, Benedict XVI, and Francis have done things such as participate in Muslim, Jewish, and Native American folk religion worship services is that okay? Is it okay for John Paul 2 to kiss the Quran? We’re the Assisi prayer meetings okay? We’re all these things okay in light of what is written in Mortalium animos #10?
Sounds like the kind of questions a Sedevacantist would propose. Sedevacantist = Protestant. But in goodwill all that is important is Jesus dined with sinners and chose them as His Apostles. You have to meet people where they are. All things work for the glory of God. God is in control and the gates of hell will not prevail against the holy Catholic Church. Peace.
@@G-MIP with all due respect you did not answer my question. Was it okay for them to do those things? Mortalium Animos #10 clearly states that it is forbidden to take part in assemblies of non catholics. Christ dined with sinners but he also called them to repent of their sins. When did Pope Francis call the Jews, Muslims, or the Native American pagans to repent and come to the one true faith?
@@dukeofsahib4967 Yes it was okay. The Pope is the world leader of the Christian church. God works through all things. St. Augustine even adds the words “even through sin.” I’m not saying it was sinful. I’m saying God’s will was done (Active or Permissive). Also- You didn’t deny being a Sedevacantist. You should publicly deny this. And don’t get hung up on a Pharisee track. Get on the mercy, obedience and goodwill track. Peace.
@@G-MIP I'm just a guy asking questions. If you believe that kissing the quran and participating in pagan worship services aren't sins then I would urge you to at least read Mortalium Animos #10. It makes it crystal clear that such things are forbidden.
@@dukeofsahib4967 “Are you a Sedevacantist guy just asking questions?” “All” truth leads to Christ. Absolutely anything that is true points to Christ. If another religion has a tenet that says to love your neighbor- that truth points to Christ. ...It’s that truth that can lead a person to ultimately become Catholic. That’s not gonna happen if you stay under a rock. Vatican II makes provisions to evangelize and dialog with those in other faiths. You can kiss a holy book with the intent of honoring what is true inside the book- as that truth leads points to Christ. It may not be your cup of tea, but so what. We are talking about the Vicar of Christ. Furthermore, many Christian traditions and customs were once pagan. You have to leave the 99 sheep to go find the 1 lost sheep. There is intent. You don’t have the gift of reading of souls. You must assume the best with goodwill. To do otherwise publicly is itself the sin of detraction at best, or worse calumny- or slander. Note that can. 1373 in the Church’s Code of Canon Law says: “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”
Telling. Time to respond when mistakenly offended due to lack of understanding of language: 24m Time to recant said response when error pointed out: …..
the religion's holy book the new testament talks about Christians casting out demons. The demonic is just part of the christian belief. Specifically its always the Catholics that the people run to in the movies for an exorcist 😅. He's just an individual whose partakes of one aspect of his spiritual beliefs so what's the problem? Just as if I were debating a Hindu who was part of the priestly caste I wouldn't let his spiritual beliefs bother that I couldn't seriously debate.
@@faithwisdom788 The problem, as I see it, is people claiming that their imaginary crap is real without proof. And passing this shit down for countless generations. It's retarding our progress.
That dude is a “medical doctor” with more scientific credentials than you (I’m pretty sure). But I am very sure he has no time, or interest in your mutt. You exercise faith every time you drive a car- “having faith” the person in the oncoming traffic isn’t going to swerve into your lane to kill you. Yet- you cannot put this faith/trust under a microscope. Woman: “I don’t believe in hell or the devil.” St. Padre Pio: “You will when you get there.” Nevertheless- God believes in you. Just take a step toward Him and He will run to you.
As a former atheistic-leaning agnostic, biologist and revert to the Catholic Faith largely based on the evidence I have reviewed, I cannot make sense of those who claim that Catholicism or Christianity at large has no strong supporting evidence in good faith. Admittedly, as a skeptic by nature and trained in the scientific method by occupation, it is hard to believe in miraculous events that allegedly occurred over 2000 years ago in a [modern] society that places methodological naturalism at the pinnacle of human knowledge, culture, and achievement.
When one considers the contemporary evidence for the miraculous attributes of the Shroud of Turin, all primary sources from the witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima (faithful and anticlerical alike, an event that was predicted 3 months ahead of time down to the specific place, day and hour), the thousands of witnesses of preternatural phenomenon during exorcisms (including laypeople like Dr. Gallagher), Eucharistic miracles, the miraculous healings at Lourdes, etc. the demands for further evidence starts to become ridiculous.
For instance, let's consider Dr. Gallagher's specialty of exorcisms. After reading his book, I can think of only two possible naturalistic explanations for his experiences. Dr. Gallagher is either:
a. Unreliable as a witness (either by way of lies or delusion)
b. Gullible, and was fooled by both the priests and patients he worked with
The first seems unlikely given his professional reputation as a board-certified psychiatrist and Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College, and of course for his natural candor. Besides, if Dr. Gallagher is lying or delusional, he would have to cooperate with an entire network of thousands of exorcists and laypeople worldwide who testify to similar preternatural phenomena. What exactly would Dr. Gallagher gain by doing this? Book sales 25 years after his involvement began, as an elderly man?
The second would require the close cooperation of the clergy and patients to fool Dr. Gallagher. The patients and clergy would have to fabricate and maintain their backgrounds for years, go through many painful phony regular exorcisms, and learn to speak in foreign and ancient languages. And for what? So Dr. Gallagher would write a book 25 years after the fact, giving credence to the field of exorcism?
Both of these explanations are ridiculous, but they are the only ways skeptics can hope to invalidate Dr. Gallagher’s testimony. And if the testimony of Dr. Gallagher and others in the field are to be believed, the evil spirits have an obvious aversion to anything Christianity-related. Even if Mr. Barrows were to admit that “things that science cannot currently explain happen” during exorcisms, there IS evidence that spirits react exclusively negatively to Christian imagery, relics, prayers, etc. At what point does radical doubt become irrational?
"Somehow or other the extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them." -G. K. Chesterton
Excellent!
Thank you for sharing love listening to Dr. Gallagher. One thing I can’t figure out-I’ve seen a few “atheists versus Christians/people of faith” debates. Why do the atheists folks seem kind of snarky and pissed off, generally speaking ?? Not saying that the folks who argue for Christianity/faith don’t exhibit emotions, or even argue. But based on general observations of these kinds of discussions, the atheist folks express a good measure of irritation or indignation that seems frequent. Just seems very noticeable !
It seems “ The New Atheists “ strategy is not to understand the Christian argument and try to refute it. Rather they seem to think belittling the Christian belief is a good strategy. When they meet highly educated and brilliant men like Dr. Gallagher their strategy really looks silly.
Atheists are just angry all the time. Their need to mock and belittle Christians with the "no proof" argument when they have no proof themselves makes them the very idiots they claim others are. But, yes, I have noticed, all they have is anger and hostility rather than logic and reason.
That’s an easy one, we’re “snarky” because for hundreds of years, religious zealots have done everything they can to force their unproven beliefs upon the rest of us through legislation. In doing so, they have directly caused serious harm to marginalised communities who don’t happen to adhere to their beliefs. If religious people kept their religion to themselves we’d have nothing to be snarky about.
The Bible ✝️ teaches us to love each other. The Bible ✝️ gives us Gods' ✝️ Rules to live by. atheists do not have that: they are always searching for what's true and right; ironically that's God ✝️ . God ✝️ Bless.
@@yeahsure9035 Yeah, it teaches you to love each other, unless they happen to be gay, trans, non-binary, or identify as anything other than your bigoted world view considers "normal", then nothing but hatred spews. Your evil deity can keep it's "rules", they are misogynistic, bigoted and evil. You're right about one thing, atheists don't have that, and I am so grateful every single moment of every single day that we don't. It means I can be against slavery, misogyny, intolerance and hatred, and do good in the world without doing it just because I fear eternal punishment, I do it because it's the right thing to do.
There is no hate like christian love.
Dude has his pronouns in his zoom name 💀💀💀
Atheism is probably the force that is least progressive. If anything, it’s progressing backwards (ultimately into hedonism).
Obviously, Jim has never seen a Eucharistic miracle. And I know someone very close to me who had a supernatural experience.
I've never seen a Eucharistic miracle with my own eyes. Have you?
Do you have God’s phone number or address? If God is a real person have you met him like any other real person, or do just feel his presence?
@@williamavitt8264 My Mom had one. Amazing.
@@chrisf4268I’ve met him many times❤
Any fool who says he can see miracle goes to asylum period.
Mr. Barrows hoped for more “Catholic” questions such as the proof/validity of Apostolic succession.
...Yet- he’s unaware Catholic Church adheres to a canon of 73 books in the Bible, not 66?
Great debate, thanks brother for this great content. 👍
This was a good debate that presented ideas for me to think about. Mr. Barrows use poor excuses to reject all types of evidence, such as historical accounts, miraculous healings, and exorcisms.
Not poor nor rich excuses. You make extraordinary claim therefore you must provide extraordinary evidence. Pyramid of egypt is extraordinary but that still does not make pharoahs gods try to focus and stop be rude
I find it odd that Athiest always demand proof for God , but at the same time ignore the fact there’s no proof for their own position.
And what position is that?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Can you provide any evidence fairies don’t exist?
Hahaha u guys are the one proposing theres a god atheists only job is to find the flaw on ur arguments …
Jim certainly cant debate Dr. Gallagher on the demonic which he is an absolute expert in.
lol it's like being an expert in the imaginary
@@SenorCinemaReally how many exorcisms have you witnessed you cant count the movies you may have watched
Why no cross examination? That’s usually the most interesting part!
Time . I tried to keep it at an hour . Maybe next time.
This was a little hard to watch. Mr. Barrows talked about evidence, but provided no evidence that God does not exist. I thought I would hear evidence from an atheist but no. Why must the Christian provide evidence but not the atheist? But thank you, Rob and son. You should have another debate soon!
Because the person making the claim has the burden of proof. The Christian is claiming there's a god therefore he has to provide evidence. The atheist doesn't make the claim "there is no god"; if he did, he would have to provide evidence to support his claim. (Although I am only on 15:00; the atheist may make the claim later on.)
@@swerper So all the atheist has to do, is say I am not convinced, I win.
Correct, because the atheist position is not a positive claim, it is simply a statement that we are not convinced by the claims of theists that a god exists. Ergo, as the ones making the positive claim, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Simple logic.
Theres both claims imbeciles he claims there is no GOD and Dr says there is
I wish the debate or future one has Father Robert Spitzer he argues for intelligent designer the creator...he is scientifically smart...he has website the Magis Center..a lot of resources...one point Father Spitzer made was that God is outside of the universe and science can only explain what we can see within the universe.
Praying for an increase in faith... letting go of whatever it is that is in conflict with Christ’s teachings that makes someone want to throw away eternity for a smidgen of time.
Very disrespectful to our lord and saviour jesus christ to say that he is not real
I applaud Jim for staying as calm as he did despite the constant verbal abuse on his character from the other side. Shame on the moderator for not intervening here. A debate is about criticism of ideas, not people.
Jim started the ad hominem.
He came in with an attitude and he got it back: if he wanted to be treated with respect he should have shown some.
Wow what debate are you watching because the FAT GUY started disrespecting DR.Gallager
Good show Rob.
During the last days of the carnival, when I was making a Holy Hour, I saw how the Lord Jesus suffered as He was being scourged.
Oh, such an inconceivable agony! How terribly Jesus suffered during the scourging! O poor sinners, on the day of judgment how will you face the Jesus whom you are now torturing so cruelly? His blood flowed to the ground, and in some places His flesh started to fall off.
I saw a few bare bones on His back.
The meek Jesus moaned softly and sighed. (188) Saint Faustina.
Divine Mercy in my soul.
Wonderful debate, Dr Gallagher for the win!
Mr Barrows was quite an embarrassment for any serious atheist . I’m a Christian but grew up in an agnostic and staunchly anti Christian family who debated ad infinitum against all religions belief (or faith in the existence of God), but respected humanism. Most anti anybody generally make solipsistic arguments that only they think are weighty. I finally excepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I am biased , the atheist is biased. So bring your “A”game and leave your foolish game playing at home. Next time do your home work and bring the facts. Not even interesting to listen to.
Body language speaks Volumes 😮😂
I think the format of the debate needs to be rethought it created unnecessary tensions and we need to also establish who the burden of proof is on. Now I’m a believer I have my questions and doubts like most people but I’m not going to engage with people who simply are not open to changing their positions wether it’s believers, atheists or agnostics. I think it’s a fools folly to enter into a position when someone has such a strong emotional bias and so I’d look to avoid debates where people are only looking to attack the person and not the argument. If someone doesn’t want to believe then I respect that similarly if they are open to wanting to believe that’s different. Shake the dust from your sandals and all that. It’s not about destroying beliefs or non beliefs it’s about openness to discussions either way. In the end it all comes down to faith and either you believe or you don’t or you flutter in between. I get that it’s incredible to think possession is a real thing I often question these positions also I am aware that people will go to great lengths for money power or prestige it happens all the time regardless of what side of the fence your on. Bad behaviour is not exclusive to Catholics/ Christians/people of other beliefs etc or atheists. But in the end only these people know themselves and know the truth I will only be honest about my experiences and as a believer I’ve heard no voices, seen no visions, ghosts or experienced the demonic but I do believe in evil. Now could I be fooling myself sure I could but so could the atheist right? I believe in the God of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ and life ever after do I know for a stone cold fact no I don’t. I can tell you though that human beings are far too eager to think that science will one day satisfactorily explain it all away, I think that day just keeps getting further and further away the odds this is random self organising physics is for me impossible to believe. Miracles also happen I can’t explain the attested miracles in Lourdes they seem legit. I mean I literally know very little and I have tons of questions and sometimes wonder what on earth is the truth, in the end I rely on faith and faith isn’t open to the scientific method it’s a belief that’s my take. I think the format is not right though each person could just unpack their positions and then open it up for Q & A in the end these things can end up getting quite uncharitable and I think that’s not something new we have learned from human interaction and discourse. I’m not anxious that an atheist or an agnostic will change my mind or lead to me loosing faith I work with them every day it’s quite normal for people to doubt or not believe today I get that. I also have faith in Christ that good wins in the end and I think that for all believer and otherwise but if people don’t want to change their positions they probably won’t for me my experiences changed me from a science based atheist to a believer and so if God can do that for me I believe he can do it for anyone. All the best guys and God bless
I agree. I've never seen someone level so many ad hominems at me. It was really annoying, and of course refuted nothing I've said.
@1woksape I recommend among many books for agnostics and atheists who are interested one being the God of Surprises by G W Hughes (not liked by all) I try not to caricature too much how can I attract someone to something where they don’t feel welcomed or where they are only drawn of fear of damnation alone, to live the Gospel is important and when others are drawn we can be ready to dialogue. I don’t think emotional or verbal attacks on a persons character can help. God is the God of complete perfection he does not draw others through Christ by fear of damnation alone sure Christ is clear that missing the mark does not only mean missing it in this life but also that it resonates beyond. As frustrating as it can be to see brothers and sisters apparently lost in their hearts and lives Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and all not just a few have fallen short of the glory of God. Christ will keep calling have faith and live the Gospel. Pray that I and you and all find our way home, God bless
@1woksape Yeah, it's a common trope to claim a former Atheist turned Christian. Every time I've looked at such a claim, it's usually because of some easily debunked argument. Not all atheists are philosophers, nor are they required to be. Bad reasons for believing don't change. If you have an actual atheist-turned-Christian testimony that isn't based on the typical easily debunked arguments, I'd love to hear it.
@@JimBarrows I thought the same thing. It's a thing narcissists do when they're losing.
Believe. Thank you. Stay Catholic and God Bless.
Dr. Gallagher killed it! Very good debate video.
So much of what Dr. Gallagher states is either:
1) a fallacy ("a lot of people think", "it's common sense", "it's not believable")
2) untrue ("the disciples were killed for witnessing to their faith" for which there is no evidence and the earliest claims came from Polycarp in the second century and Aphrahat in the fourth century.)
3) vague ("a lot of scientists are spiritual")
By the way, Pew research in 2009 found that:
Just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.
One could interpret this as "the more scientific you are, the less likely you are to believe in God." www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
@@swerper Very true.
If he wasn't calling his opponent a loser, he was just spouting one fallacy after another.
@@swerper Every scientist that ever lived could be an atheist, and that wouldnt change the fact whether God exists or not.
You watched a very different video than I did 😂
Jim probably wouldnt debate unless he had the he/him pronouns up there. Absolutely ridiculous
Lol . Zoom puts in whatever you sign in as . I didn’t even notice till halfway through the debate . He’s part of the New Woke Atheist crowd . It seems they purposely renounce natural law . Which is odd for people who claim to love science.
Say you’re transphobic without saying that you’re transphobic. 👍
@@paul.c.gregory I dont know what transphobic means, am I afraid of trans people, no. I can see you are probably a she/her Paul.
This guy should start playing with quija boards, playing with withcraft and ask the Demons to pay him a visit, IM SURE HE WOULD GET ALL THE "EVIDENCE" HE WOULD EVER NEED!!!!😂😂😂😂
In my opinion...
If one does not believe in GOD, one will not believe anything unless one's existence or purpose is under question...
People who think they're losing a debate always resort to ad hominem attacks, like Dr. Gallagher is doing.
Interesting. Those on the side of Dr. Gallagher say the same thing about Jim . I tried to be neutral in my treatment of both. Honestly, I felt they both tried to be respectful of each other. At times though they were both visibly angry and argued from emotion rather than logic . I felt like two fighters after a prize fight they shook each other’s hands at the end. Yes neither was perfect . But none of us are. That’s why we need a savior. Thanks for watching.
@@bluecollarcatholic8173 Let me respectfully set the record straight about who was actually more snarky and / or guilty of using ad hominem attacks against the other. See the following:
Gallagher 15:57 "Mr. Barrows is... just mouthing his prejudices against the Catholic church."
Gallagher 22:22 "He [Barrows] is absolutely right: he knows absolutely nothing about biblical scholarship."
Gallagher 23:06 "I don't know if Mr. Barrows has heard of the concept of progressive revelation."
Gallagher 26:12 "I think Mr. Barrows is right: he knows nothing about biblical scholarship."
Barrows: 27:28 "Perhaps what the good doctor [Gallagher] needs to do is get updated on what the current scholarship is on the anonymity of the first four Gospels."
Gallagher 28:56 "He [Barrows] is not up on modern scholarship. I am."
Gallagher 29:42 "Two of them claim to be eyewitnesses. He [Barrows] doesn't seem to be aware of that."
Gallagher 30:00 "Contrary to a lot of pseudo-experts, and I would include Mr. Barrows under that..."
Gallagher 30:24 "When we're talking about evidence, because that seems to be a favorite word of his [Barrows]."
I quit counting around 31:00, but undoubtedly Dr. Gallagher was more rude towards Mr. Barrows, unless someone here wants to do the legwork I just did and prove otherwise. And no, I'm not on one side or the other, and no I didn't just cherry pick negatives from Dr. Gallagher. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to carefully listen to the debate again and find additional snarky statements or ad hominems from Mr. Barrows.
Thank you Blue Collar for hosting this debate. I agree with one other commenter that the format was confusing and not optimal. I recommend looking into this and making changes for future debates.
Terrible moderator
Amen
All you atheists please explain why we have a international team of exorcists if you dont believe in the existence of the supernatural
Just because people levitate and speak 7 languages at one time doesn't mean they're possessed . Lol
@@bluecollarcatholic8173 Yes Emily Rose just had a teenage rebellion
😂
He Lookk like ms. Elton john
This was infuriating. It was like watching children, all the bickering and immature behavior
Some people do not like debates. I originally asked them if they wanted to dialogue but they kept referring to it as a debate lol . So I just called it a debate. I tried to stay neutral, maybe I should’ve got more involved. Sorry you didn’t enjoy it.
@Blue Collar Catholic Jim clearly didn't want to be there, and refused to actually engage with the points being made. And then Dr. Gallagher allowed himself to sink to Mr. Burrows' level. I love your channel and props to you for trying to moderate this
@@williamavitt8264 Barrows is about as low as you can get from an intellectual level.
@@williamavitt8264 Dr. Gallagher didn't sink to Burrow's level. He checked him on his attitude - and that guy came in with a major attitude.
@@jackspring7709 nah, they were both being childish
Question for Catholics:
When John Paul 2, Benedict XVI, and Francis have done things such as participate in Muslim, Jewish, and Native American folk religion worship services is that okay? Is it okay for John Paul 2 to kiss the Quran? We’re the Assisi prayer meetings okay? We’re all these things okay in light of what is written in Mortalium animos #10?
Sounds like the kind of questions a Sedevacantist would propose.
Sedevacantist = Protestant.
But in goodwill all that is important is Jesus dined with sinners and chose them as His Apostles. You have to meet people where they are.
All things work for the glory of God. God is in control and the gates of hell will not prevail against the holy Catholic Church.
Peace.
@@G-MIP with all due respect you did not answer my question. Was it okay for them to do those things? Mortalium Animos #10 clearly states that it is forbidden to take part in assemblies of non catholics. Christ dined with sinners but he also called them to repent of their sins. When did Pope Francis call the Jews, Muslims, or the Native American pagans to repent and come to the one true faith?
@@dukeofsahib4967 Yes it was okay. The Pope is the world leader of the Christian church. God works through all things. St. Augustine even adds the words “even through sin.” I’m not saying it was sinful. I’m saying God’s will was done (Active or Permissive).
Also- You didn’t deny being a Sedevacantist. You should publicly deny this. And don’t get hung up on a Pharisee track. Get on the mercy, obedience and goodwill track. Peace.
@@G-MIP I'm just a guy asking questions. If you believe that kissing the quran and participating in pagan worship services aren't sins then I would urge you to at least read Mortalium Animos #10. It makes it crystal clear that such things are forbidden.
@@dukeofsahib4967 “Are you a Sedevacantist guy just asking questions?”
“All” truth leads to Christ. Absolutely anything that is true points to Christ. If another religion has a tenet that says to love your neighbor- that truth points to Christ.
...It’s that truth that can lead a person to ultimately become Catholic. That’s not gonna happen if you stay under a rock.
Vatican II makes provisions to evangelize and dialog with those in other faiths. You can kiss a holy book with the intent of honoring what is true inside the book- as that truth leads points to Christ. It may not be your cup of tea, but so what. We are talking about the Vicar of Christ.
Furthermore, many Christian traditions and customs were once pagan. You have to leave the 99 sheep to go find the 1 lost sheep.
There is intent. You don’t have the gift of reading of souls. You must assume the best with goodwill. To do otherwise publicly is itself the sin of detraction at best, or worse calumny- or slander.
Note that can. 1373 in the Church’s Code of Canon Law says:
“A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”
Pray for Mr. He/him Jim Barrows. He will need it. He’s a open door for the demonic and spiritual warfare.
The "he/him" pronouns got me cringing.
But other wise a good debate. 👍
The Dr's go to argument, "Well, you're just a poo-poo head that talks in farts!"
I guess that works on some people?!
He didn't say any of those things. Very weird interpretation of what his words actually were.
What?
Horrible format
Well done Jim Burrows, you completely wiped the floor with Gallagher. ❤️
Thanks for watching. Although I disagree with you. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
@@bluecollarcatholic8173What debate did she watch 😢😅😅😢😅
Seriously? “Scientific advisor on the subject of exorcism”! Could anyone come up with a more oxymoronic statement?
When the weak cannot win an argument they always resort to name calling.
@@bluecollarcatholic8173 Seriously? I didn’t call anyone any names! You do know what oxymoronic means, right?
@@bluecollarcatholic8173 Can I assume you didn't know what oxymoronic meant, until now?
Telling.
Time to respond when mistakenly offended due to lack of understanding of language: 24m
Time to recant said response when error pointed out: …..
Another swing and a miss for theists. Falacies and claims delivered by a dude that chases demons away? I wouldn't let him whisper to my dog.
the religion's holy book the new testament talks about Christians casting out demons. The demonic is just part of the christian belief. Specifically its always the Catholics that the people run to in the movies for an exorcist 😅. He's just an individual whose partakes of one aspect of his spiritual beliefs so what's the problem? Just as if I were debating a Hindu who was part of the priestly caste I wouldn't let his spiritual beliefs bother that I couldn't seriously debate.
@@faithwisdom788 The problem, as I see it, is people claiming that their imaginary crap is real without proof. And passing this shit down for countless generations. It's retarding our progress.
That dude is a “medical doctor” with more scientific credentials than you (I’m pretty sure). But I am very sure he has no time, or interest in your mutt.
You exercise faith every time you drive a car- “having faith” the person in the oncoming traffic isn’t going to swerve into your lane to kill you. Yet- you cannot put this faith/trust under a microscope.
Woman: “I don’t believe in hell or the devil.”
St. Padre Pio: “You will when you get there.”
Nevertheless- God believes in you. Just take a step toward Him and He will run to you.
My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love thee, I ask pardon for those you do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love thee. Amen.
We adore you, O Christ and we bless you, because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world. Amen.