@Lucifer_DCLXVI no, to say that “a lot” of us get into science to prove our religion is completely wrong. The one thing most scientists can admit is that we don’t know everything about the world and our existence. To say that you know for sure about anything pertaining to this is ignorant.
That’s a terrible comparison. The is zero history in Harry Potter... we know it was written as a fictional story. There is loads of history in the Bible including genealogies, wars, etc.
@@robertd7717 When 10,000 years from now, afterdoom archeologists will dig up New-York remains, then they will have historical evidence that Spiderman actually existed. Just like we now know that the Iliad and the Odyssey were acurate accounts because we may have found the Troy city. Hence, don't mess with Poseidon, ever.
“There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.” - Ricky Gervais
La Gom And since your are speaking from ignorance, the Bible, which I assume is "the book" which you are referring to, is in fact not "A" book. You may not want to continue speaking out of turn! You're the proverbial person looking up to the empty sky wondering what is happening while your pants have fallen down around your ankles!
@@agnesholloway6612 Not to crush your cookies, but Ron Wyatt's story is outrageous. If that were indeed true, and those Israeli scientists genuinely discovered blood that only contained 23 chromosomes, it would be one of the greatest medical discoveries in human history... And yet... nothing. No follow up, no evidence, and no further studies. This story just comes off as purely fabricated and nonsensical. Radical Christian leaders make up crazy stories all of the time to get a rise out of their congregation, and this claim by Ron Wyatt is no different.
Before anyone tries to get mad at this guy. "Trolltician". - If the name doesn't blow your cover, the use of "retarded", twice may I add, definitely does.
@Trolltician Do you troll everyone? I no longer feel special..... How about telling us what you believe and why. Do you believe because of the minimum facts argument (The flavor of this month) or something else?
@@malirk Trolltician tries very hard to not reveal what he actually believes - I think because he knows he cannot defend a single aspect of it. I do know he's a Trump fan and a climate change denier - make of that what you will.
@Trolltician Trolls often infer what you just did when someone grows tired of a pointless conversation. How about this though.... post whatever question you wanted me to address in a previous conversation we were having and I'll address it here.
@@bengreen171 It's because it's a troll. I'm not even remotely defending that sort of sad behaviour, but how thick do you have to be to take someone with "troll" in their name seriously?
I always like watching these videos because it makes me feel more intelligent until I realize I'm watching it at 3 AM while procrastinating on an assignment that was due at midnight
I disagree. I thought that was a pretty lame thing to say. By labeling theologians as "enemies" you kind of lose some credibility as your goal shouldn't be to debate or fight an enemy but rather to seek the truth
So as atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, you class those who are consistent with the scientific method as your enemies? That's a illogical position to hold.
The fact that somebody is willing to die for their beliefs is not proof that their beliefs are true. If that was the case, then the beliefs of every terrorists who blows themselves up is necessarily true. It's just spurious reasoning.
The difference is that terrorists will think it's true, whereas the apostles would have known it was a lie. A better comparison is Joseph Smith. He died defending the golden tablets book of mormon. My question for non-mormon Christians is if they accept that as evidence it's true?
@@jwmmitch I think the Apostle believed it was true. There is little to suggest otherwise. Dying for a known lie is much harder to explain and less plausible than dying for something that you think is true but actually isn't.
Since when did the apostles die for their beliefs, true or untrue? We have a story about Peter and Paul, amongst a ton of made up stories, and late obvious fictions about a few more.
悲しみLxstVapxr But we have no idea if they even had that “experience” as others have claimed. They didn’t provide an proof for that. The Gospels are not proof that they saw anything. Are you old enough to remember the Branch Davidian Shootout in Waco, TX in the early 90’s? That guy called himself David Koresh. His followers believed he was the second coming. He was stockpiling weapons and he made a “prophecy” that the government would come for him. By the way, he was also sleeping with his followers wives and marrying their young daughters. Some got away and told these stories. So the ATF moved in and there was a drawn out gun battle. Eventually they started a fire and many of them died for their beliefs. That sure as hell didn’t make David Koresh the messiah. Some survived and still claim that he was the second coming. Religion twists the brains ability to use logic.
@@smokerx6291 Watch this video please if you'd like to be educated on the subject why humans are, of course, apes: ruclips.net/video/MgN6gUHXzAc/видео.html If you say that the universe was created by some supernatural being (which obviously can't be the final answer, where did that being come from, where is it now, how does it actually "create" things ect.), by snapping his fingers or something, you are the one who needs to provide the evidence for it. Go ahead.
In the second Harry Potter book, harry "kills" an old journal. In the 6th book, we learn that that was in fact a horcrux. Therfore, Magic is real?? Am I doing this right?
@@anshk7399 She made more: The cursed child, the crimes of grindelwald and fantastic beasts and where to find them. They're set in the same universe, so 'I' would include them in the harry potter series. The meme goes that she is changing some things so as to keep up with modern 'moral' trends.
@@MojoMicah I wouldn't consider people who exercise their rights to bodily autonomy especially when they dont consider a fetus a person to someone who would murder enslave torture and abandon their family based on fairy tales. Maybe try a different example bucko
@C Truth Common misconception, not that I blame you because sometimes the truth gets covered up But we do now know for a fact that fetuses can feel pain. And to your analogy about the fetus dying the instant the mother is killed, that's actually not true. The fetus would survive for quite some time, possibly even hours after the mother's death. But yeah, it would ultimately die, probably from asphyxiation or poisoning from not having it's blood being filtered or something.
@@MojoMicah Why care tho? Extreme Empathy is a Psychological disorder. You're empathizing with a clump of cells that isn't even capable of rational or cognitive thinking, you're no different to a mentally ill person having a conversation with a plant. How about we fix poverty, slavery, discrimination and death of real, functioning , thinking people before we stupefy ourselves in the notion that fetuses are considered a person. Let's be rational and not emotional; the mother, a functioning human being, has more potential and capabilities in contributing to society. You're comparing a real person to a clump of cells that can't survive on its own, it's basically a parasite if you look at it in a biological perspective. Emotion based Arguments - prolifers are quick to assert the guilty of murder and obligation of a parent when the mother did not want the child. Following the accusation, they argue that life is beautiful and it should be given a chance. No. That's an Appeal To Emotion fallacy, I'm not diminishing Morality but you're prioritising a clump of cells rather than a full-grown sentient person. As such, humans are experiencing a Logistic Exponential Growth, our resources aren't infinite and by bringing more babies into the world we will peak. Don't commit a Strawman fallacy and say I want to kill babies now, that's not the issue, fetuses aren't people. Appeal To Possibility with a mix of Appeal To Emotion: Prolifers are quick to argue that "think about how much this kid could do." That phrase is a fallacy but that's not the point, the point is that it's a GAMBLE. Pro-choice can equally argue that the future of the child can potentially be a negative (i.e nobody knew Hitler would become Hitler). Both opposing sides of the spectrum are gambles and they are equal in value. This is when we consider external factors to predict an outcome. 1) The mother puts the child for adoption/abandons her child. The child is now parentless waiting for adoption or is living in the streets. Negative outcome. 2) The mother raises the child but is physically, mentally, emotionally and financially unprepared/unstable. Negative outcome. On the contrary, if the mother is prepared and stable, is she now more obligated to raise the child? No. The rich are not obligated to donate to the poor, why are rich mothers more obligated to raise an unwanted baby? How about we don't coerce women to cater your psychological disorder of Extreme Empathy and fix more urgent contemporary issues. Hm?
44:00 Paraphrasing: - God asked Abraham to kill his son. - Would you do this if God asked you? - I don't answer hypothetical questions like this, I don't believe God would asked me of something like this. ???
Actually he said "I don't think God would ever ask this of me". Why are Christians so confident that they can understand exactly how the omnipotent, all knowing being they worship thinks??? Presuming to understand a being that far beyond human comprehension is ridiculous at best!
@@RaveyDavey I know right! And he says that guys son was too important to kill so obviously god was never going to make him actually kill him, it was just a test! Personally, i believe god thinks about hot chicks boobies all the time, but dont ask me a hypothetical question, im an EVIDENCE BASED CHRISTIAN!
Did anyone else have a moment when Jonathan acknowledged that Alex had made a good point that he didn't have an answer for? It's rare to see humility in these debates. I thought that was admirable.
the very fact that that has become admirable is mirror of how ignorant society is. it shouldn't be admirable. it should be so normal, that nobody would even think about it for a second.
And vise versa too with the historical portion. It was nice to see them both listening to each other even if the debate became somewhat heated at parts
It's admirable, but at the same time, how sad. How sad that we live in a society where simply admitting the opposing side has a decent point is something to be seen as admirable.
@The Roo "whats funny is it's not completely normal by any means,because it never happens in these debates,and the whole point of alex's arguement was that u can't defend the quote,because it goes against his own religion" That's the whole point that Randomly Interesting was trying to make, that society has degraded to the point that things that he thinks should be normal become exceptionally good.
@@bencegobl310 "Is Christianity True?" - what was the debate about then? Which books might those be? Saying you have an argument is not the same as making that argument.
@@SupachargedGaming the debate was about 'is Christianity true', not about how science supports it, or not. Alex is not a scientist is he? He is learning philosophy and theology, so Jonathan is not here, to talk about science, I think this is straight forward, so i don't understand your question... John Lennox: Has science buried God? Werner Gitt: frequently asked questions These are the 2, that i read so far I think, but I am quite sure, Jonathan could recommend some too ;) I am also sure, that if anyone in the room would be interested in those kinds of questions, he would love to talk about them. Have a nice day! :)
Why should everything make sense to you straight away? Does even science claim such lunacy? Ultimately most scientists don’t understand quantum mechanics….
@@Goths-On-The-Beach It shouldn't, but if you don't understand something, you can't honestly claim to live by it or follow it, and you shouldn't try to publicly defend it as if you do understand it. And you're right, we don't understand most of what goes on, on a quantum level, that's why honest scientists don't use it as an explanation, they try to learn more about it and explore it. That is what science is; testing, observing, and learning about the things we don't fully understand.
44:12 "Gives example of Abraham, showing it's something God would do." Immediately after: "I don't believe it's consistent with God's character to ask you do that." What? You just proved it is indeed consistent in his character. You know what's not consistent with God's character? God.
@@ravenhopkins347 That is a false statement. God (i.e. the one that is being discussed) has no properties because he does not exist. The representation of this non-existent God could be described in those terms. Meow WOOF Oink
@@Jc5mith I have read the bible. Not all of it, of course, but I went through 9 years of religious education in school which is still going on, and I did confirmation, and therefore have read and or heard quite a few stories from the bible . I still agree with the comments posted above.
@@Jc5mith Their point isn't that the Bible is necessarily inaccurate (though they certainly imply it), just that "x" cannot be proven true because "x" says it is. They're pointing the circular reasoning being employed. Also, bold of you to assume they haven't ready any of the Bible. Especially with the keyword "any".
@@EsotericallyWikked I'm sure you're absolutely gifted with the power to determine what's a metaphor and what isn't in a book you didn't write and couldn't question the writerS about.
@@EsotericallyWikked everything is a metaphor when it is convenient and when it is not it is literal...just like keep the young girls for yourselves verse it is also a metaphor for something
That depends how you define the word. Common layman connotation is "belief", but "faith", in the sense that it was used in Biblical translation comes from "fidere", meaning _to trust._ Edit>>> I'm a former Christian and atheist, just to be clear
@@jcarby23 With respect, I disagree. In your example, it would be better served to define knowledge. If that is a loose enough definition, then faith might apply. But knowledge as a factual, demonstrable, datum is real regardless of faith. Again, one does not need to believe 1+2=3, it just is. It is why knowledge makes successful predictions when it is a genuine reflection of reality but fails to do so when it is not.
“Would you kill your child if God asked?” “I don’t answer those type of hypotheticals, because I don’t find it to be in line with his character.” That’s literally what god has done tho?!
@@matthewswart1845 God told abraham to kill his son isaac. It doesnt matter if god then later told him not to, because he still told him to kill his son in the first place making it exactly gods character. I was raised christian. I went to a christian scholl where we were forced to study the bible. I know what im talking about and is one of the biggest reasons i turned atheist.
@@matthewswart1845 you are right , its not the whole story - he killed every living man woman and child on the whole planet , even those babies in their mothers womb who hadn't even heard the word, let alone disobey it. He sent two bears to kill 42 children for merely mocking someones bald head. He stopped the sun in the sky so that Joshua could continue a slaughter etc etc he is annoyed when not all the tribe was annihilated Any god who does that isn't worthy of even praise let alone worship.
@@matthewswart1845 Fair enough, but would you personally kill your son if God would command you to do so? As far as I understand Gen 22,1-19, God demands absolute submission. No more, no less.
Damn, Jonathan looked like he needed to get out of that room. Alex was relaxed and cool, Jonathan was nervous because the questions asked stirred him up way too much.
All his claims are philosophical mambo-jumbo It was very hard for me to watch I'm not sure I could have kept my patience if I was in the audience there
I do understand him because I was exactly in his position. It does not change the fact that all he said there are things that are lazy philosophy at best, and intentional distortion of logic principles at worst@Sergeant 235
@John Smith Aside from fee fees what's NOT great about it? (Assuming a system where slaves have opportunity for advancement through demonstrating great value) Slaves let people build and aspire to greater things far more than having the entire population be wagies. Just have half of the population work and the others pursue things beyond subsistence. Slaves should also be castrated and racially segregated for maximum productivity and no infighting; this also means they can undercut each other for slight rewards so they never unite against the prevailing class. Sure it may stagnate mechanization, but not all technological advances are good, and lead to a technocratic enslavement of the entire population. Better to avoid that; patrician vs pleb is the only viable solution. The struggle to the top will forge great individuals.
@@ea-tr1jh thank you for not presenting a response or correcting them, which continues to not convince anyone. It is true that most arguments for Christianity come from one's already existing belief. Often from not understanding something, explaining it as "it must have been God" or some other similar conclusion, removes the ability to actually find an explanation for the argument. Christianity is Faith, which is a belief in a "...proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general"(google). This literally means trusting it is the truth without it being able to be proven. The evidence that is grabbed at as "proof" of Christianity is taken from the bible, which is what christians are trying to prove... using the bible. You say they're using straw man when christianity is a whole other logical fallacy, its a circular argument. You have to assume the claim is true in the first place to even attempt to prove it. To prove the Bible is true, one would look in the Bible saying, "see, it says here that..." but the Bible is not credible unless proven so outside of itself.
@Jason Romo science holds information of everything in our universe. Not at all the same as one single book. Science is finding, testing, and questioning the truth, while questioning a belief for a christian seems impossible.
White Wolf // Thats bullshit. All of the prophecies are extremely vague, I could predict that a war will occur in the future..... anyone could! If the bible said the time/date/place/event exactly then I would no doubt believe in it. However it is not, the prophecies are so vague and predictable. That proves nothing
Debating theist's gets old after a while because their arguments are essentially all the same, just rehashed and rebranded. Everything the theist said is just his own version of "the bible says its true so it must be true", and could just as easily be tweaked to apply to any religion other than Christianity.
The "insufficiency of rationality justification" based upon the needs of human psyche and less ambitious in their claims about the fundamental nature of existence, Jordan Peterson for example, is insightful if not convincing. leads one to question on's understanding of morality, really.
I just can't wrap my head around religious people justifying their belief to a non-believer with "evidence" from their own fiction book. And a doctor of biology at that... smh
I would say yes if God asked . but in Abraham Isaac situation this was a test from God.If by chance God went through with the sacrifice In abraham, Hebrews 18,19 God would have raised issac from the dead.
No such thing as the Bible advocating slavery. They were servants, and the masters weren’t allowed to make them become servants against their own will. Literally says they had to VOLUNTEER THEMSELVES. Usually to pay off debt or because they were beyond poor.
The bible is proven through the scientific method of historical research. You know the science that provides you evidence of history. Science that atheist insist should be the dominant consideration but in this case only when it suites you.
Energie00, can you elaborate on how exact the Bible is proven? Maybe you could start with how the levels of genetic diversity show that all species on the planet, is included, have never been as low as genesis claims. No one has ever been able to sort this one out.
energie00 nope, parts of the bible are proven. Doesn’t make the whole thing true. The scientific evidence you point to actually shows that some events especially the supernatural ones are very unlikely to have occurred. For example every piece of data for physics we’ve ever observed under laboratory conditions contradicts the resurrection narrative.
43:20 Alex: “let me put this simply, I’d say no.” McLatchie: “.........Ugh I don’t answer hypothetical questions.” He was really dodging that question. I like how Alex brought it straight to the point.
The crazy thing is that this is NOT a hypothetical question. God did require Jephthahs daughter to be sacrificed in return for a victory in a campaign. It is very clearly in gods nature to at times require human sacrifice. To say the least it was a slimy dodge
Not defending the Bible, but that one is less clear. God doesn’t prescribe it if I recall correctly, Jepthah merely follows through on a vow he rashly made. But I agree with the serious issues these OT passages pose to Christian belief generally.
Hypotheticals are unfair, but McLatchie was too shy on this one. I mean lets take a hypothetical gander shall we... Abraham was said to be a "friend of God," close friends, God spoke to him directly, made impossible promises to Abraham, and Abraham saw those promises fulfilled by God. So God was not just a friend, or a good friend, but a faithful, all-powerful, all-knowing, long-time friend. And this dear, true, powerful and trusted friend, gave Abraham a command to sacrifice his son (a prefigurement of Christ), the son who God himself promised to be a father of generations. If you were close friends with the creator of the universe, who worked and spoke intimately in your life, would you have listened to him? It seems as if any reasonable person, under those circumstances, would.
@@rex9912 what's even more troubling is that some scholars believe that exodus 22:8-9 really means that God required the actual sacrifice of every firstborn son. Not to mention that he also supposedly preordained and fulfilled sacrificing his own son.
I wish Alex grilled him some more on the Euthyphro dilemma. McLatchie seems to have gotten away with appealing to God's nature, an unsatisfactory defence which could have been criticised as well.
"If God is not the author of confusion, then he is not the author of these passages." I love that one. He was pretty clearly thrown off when he tried to respond
He totally took that passage out of context. When the Bible says "God isn't the author of confusion" he was specifically talking about speaking in tongues and prophecying in the early church, not doctrine or Scripture or anything else. If he reads the actual Bible passage where that verse is written, he would know that.
@@ea-tr1jh So God's fine with confusion in every context except for speaking in tongues? What does it mean to say he is not the author of confusion if not that God didn't create confusion? If not God, was it Satan? Or is confusion beyond God, something he has no control over? Or, is it our fault when we're confused by scripture? I'd wager you think it's mankind at fault, since it's the most consistent with scripture. Makes sense. Why blame the bible for being confusing when you can blame the reader? Now the question is, why would the bible get special treatment over any other book?
The Bible is understandable but few can really understand it. One can never understand it, if just by flipping some pages of it you are already judging the book but not trying to understand.
Yui Jiyien I read the entire Bible through 3 times. I've additionally listened through the Bible twice with Vernon McGee. I used to beleive it was a sacred holy text but the more familiar you become with the Bible the less sense it makes. Learning about the progression of religions of ANE and how the Bible was written/compiled you see how it was all fabricated.
Ye both Alex and Stephen Woodford have done some excellent videos on slavery. The sexual slavery verse floored his opponent and if I remember correctly there are several verses like it in the old testament. The voluntary servitude response seems to be the common rebuttal against claims of slavery in the bible. The problem is there are verses that talk about how slaves can be inheritable property that can be passed down to their children ( but Israelites must not be treated in this manner ) so the references towards voluntary servitude appear to be specific to Hebrews.
The easiest way to answer this is God is omniscient, he knows all, he has to work within the context of humanity and free will otherwise we’re just robots, because slavery was part of society back then he only gave them enough rules that they could handle Otherwise they would outright reject God, heck a lot of them still rejected God and turned to idols even with those rules that we don’t see as strict now but they sure did, Secondly if those choices were made they were only temporary to get to where we are now, we now realize that God is 100% Holy and he cannot allow not even 1 sin into heaven so with that regardless of those rules he made back then people were still under sin, only through Gods love in which he sacrificed his only begotten son to cleanse us from our fallen nature do we have any hope of living the life in which he wants for us. Third if God takes a life it’s not unjust because God made us it is his right as God to do as he pleases not yours or I, Fourth if God does take a life early it might mean he’d rather end our human suffering and take us out of this wicked world early
@@japexican007 It might seem like an easy way to answer but your response carries little substance. If God created the entire universe and everything in it, there is no reason to believe that he is required to follow any rules contained within it, let alone having to act in any specific context. It's an extraordinary claim to suggest that God would limit is his own Omniscience to preserve humanity's free will. Both history and the present has shown that "free will" comes at a huge cost and this will likely still be the case in the future. There has been and will continue to be suffering and barbarism on an unimaginable scale yet God's modus operandi is to preserve free will at all costs. God saw fit to give laws governing many facets of life but you appear to assert that certain things ( including slavery and killing ) where allowed to fly, in these times, because God didn't want to legitimate too much too soon. There are a number of problems with this. Humans existed for 100s of thousands of years before biblical times. If the pace of introducing revelation and God's law was an issue then God had ample time to remedy this. As for killing being undertaken/sanctioned to mitigate suffering that is absolute hogwash. Millions of people around the world live entire lives with horrible suffering. There are children around the world at this moment in time being raped by their parents. In many cases this abuse will go on for years and these kids will grow up as broken people. There will be no divine intervention to save these children in the same way that God stood by as millions of people were killed in the Holocaust. At most you have demonstrated that God is not all knowing ( whether voluntary or not ), and that God values free will over the welfare of all humans. God stands by with indifference to human suffering. Not only that, acts we consider abborant today were once condoned/sanctioned by God and so it's not possible to claim an absolute standard mandated by divine authority.
Give him 10 more years to grown and my guess would be that he could be Christopher Hitchens successor. I mean that as a compliment. I admire his intelligence.
Enjoy and Travel The World! If I may, as someone who has been on both sides of this, please be merciful to these people. The indoctrination and closed-off nature of religion makes it SO hard to grasp concepts that now are quite painfully obvious to me. And remember, to doubt in many religions is to make yourself vulnerable to eternal damnation. In their minds, there’s a lot at stake. However, I understand it’s frustrating and if you don’t feel like you can handle the frustration, I think it’s wise of you to not engage.
@@autumnatheism5352 when he said he didnt answer hypotheticals it was very clear that he just couldnt answer them, not that he was actually against them
Alex did a great work overall, but i actually think Jonathan made a better point here. The parable (or maybe example story, wcich some scholars think is different than parables) in Luke 16 should not be compared with John 13 in that way. Why not? Because: 1. It’s not at all the same genre as John 13. Parables overall should not be read as something Jesus believed in. In this particular case Jesus accually tells a version of a story, which original is unclear. Jewish and pagan sources have their own versions. 2. Lazarus made no claim that he wanted to get back. It was the ’evil’ rich man that wanted to. 3. Lazarus in John 13 was a friend to Jesus, wich makes the situation different in my view. 4. John 13 has prophetic (and maybe mythical) undertones to intertwine the prophetic litterature with the ressurection of Jesus. The gospel of John does these things a lot, wich make some exegets to think that this gospel is more about theology than historical facts. My point here is that these texts are way different. So is that really contradictory? I think Alex made a mistake, even though the point makes no real difference in whether christianity is true or not. What do you think?
Carl Ershag The bible is the claim. Until Yahweh is shown to exist, quoting the bible is a waste of breath. So, do that first, and then we can discuss the biblical assertion that Yahweh sanctions murder, war, rape, slavery, abortion, child abuse, genocide, filicide, infanticide, and much more fun stuff.
Carl Ershag Jonathan, by default, could not count as having made the better point unless he had provided an argument that proves the truth and consistency of the Christian worldview without possibility for refutation. This is because the discussion was inherently Christianity vs Not Christianity, and skepticism immediately falls under Not Christianity since Christianity is inherently not skeptical in nature.
Johnathan is definitely not an expert in atheism. Based on his arguments from irreducible complexity in a latter debate, it seems he is not an expert in biology either.
@PharoTalon no it’s not atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods that’s it nothing more nothing less, to argue anything else is simply dishonest 💖
While I agree where your head is at, I’d like to testify to the fact that they were discussing the historical reliability of the Bible. Both have arguments as to why or why not the Bible should be a reliable source of evidence. The accounts of Paul and the antagonizations on Christians has been extraneously proven to be historically accurate, not just based in the Bible. I’m saying this simply to add substance and considerations to each ends of the argument. I too agree that a lot of arguments many Christians make that are based in the Bible should not be taken as evidence at all, but the ones in this video (at least the majority) have been extraneously accounted for, outside of the Bible.
Well it isn’t really reasonable for someone to make a claim and then say disprove my claim, they would have to provide the evidence. Otherwise I could just say that unicorns and flying pigs exist and not really take responsibility for my claim and pass the legibility of it onto another person. It’s their claim they have to provide the evidence and if it doesn’t hold up it doesn’t hold up. It’s simple
@@anifina163 (One of) the only way to believe in religion is through _faith._ I agree, the onus is on the religious to provide evidence, or keep their personal fantasy to themselves. I'm not against religion, I think it's a personal choice, and should be exercised/treated as such. Any attempt to impose such nonsensical/personal ideology on another person is simply evil.
Alex, you are a powerhouse of intellect, but I must admit that a few things fustrates me when watching the debate. (1) you are simply too polite to hold your opponent accountable for answering your questions and (2) you have a tendency to allow your opponent to lead the conversation or distract you. We mustn't be impolite in debates, but we should also avoid being compliant (not that I thought you were). Good job and I'll look forward to you filling some of the empty hole Christopher Hitchens left behind!
I wouldn't call him an intellectual powerhouse. The facts he presented are commonly overlooked by most Christians. Alex has a great knowledge of logic and of his opponent's position but that's a given in any debate. His opponent's own position compromised his ability to utilize logic and try to attack a position as formless and blameless as atheism. The term 'intellectual powerhouse' seems more suitable for a revolutionary in his field. Most of these arguments are basic (but nonetheless potent) arguments commonly seen on Athiest Reddit forums.
Sure it's his fault. To study biology, yet believe in "alleged" testimonies from a couple thousand yrs ago that were passed on through writings from a pig, which were heard from a cow that claimed to have heard it from the horses mouth & seen by Charlotte the spider.
@i1_e not necessarily, if your critical faculties are impaired when it comes to a specific area such that you have a blind spot, questioning those beliefs is out of your hands. I think you've assumed that the brain is sufficiently plastic to permit that kind of shift to happen, but I think once you reach a certain age, or your beliefs have become particularly entrenched for some other reason, the very notion of being challenged entrenches your position (cognitive immunity). This is to say that at some point it is difficult to argue that it is a person's 'fault' (i.e. their free choice) not to sufficiently question beliefs you hold.
You guys do realise that indoctrination is not exclusive to religion, right? Atheist households can indoctrinate their children to be closed-minded just as easily as theist households...
He is not particularly bright at all, unfortunately-- just has high verbal IQ due to autistic hyperlexia. It seems he does not possess the capability to see past his the logical fallacies he's been conditioned to believe.
The evidence is found in medical text books, describing cognitive forms of of disability. In the case of having an invisible friend that's just got to be real, those are the elements perhaps gradient at best, of skitzo affective afterlife expectations disorder, the result of paranoid levels of narcissism, left medically untreated. Narcissism is not something easily overcome, and that is what sadly causes them to go through life as if a moth to a lightbulb. Oops, now I can't be a tourist in bonesaw $audiland.
@@steven4428 Eye-witnesses are not scientific. Stupid people love to say that observations are science. That is wrong. Science is experimentation and repeatable studies where we can produce consistent outcomes and draw conclusions based on those consistent outcomes. Science is always repeatable. "I saw this happen" is not science. Especially when those eye-witnesses are the only "evidence" for something. Eye-witnesses alone arent enough to convict someone of a crime for example. You can just say "I saw this person steal this" and expect a conviction. It is the same in this case.
@@myles6235 *Science:* the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through *observation and experiment* An observation is considered as scientific. Eye-witnesses recording what they observed is scientific. That is how science is conducted. People OBSERVE things and they RECORD what they observed. The only problem here is that it was recorded 2000 years ago. *"Eye-witnesses alone arent enough to convict someone of a crime for example. You can just say "I saw this person steal this" and expect a conviction. It is the same in this case."* So no eye-witness is capable of telling the truth? If that is the case then how can we trust ANY historical documents since they are not "repeatable"? You must not believe that people like George Washington or Julius Caesar existed.
@@steven4428 You misrepresent me. History is one thing. We know for a fact that some guy saw "Jesus get resurrected" we know that that guy existed and that he reported seeing that. It is NOT scientific evidence. I cannot make a scientific paper in which the only evidence for a finding is "I saw it". The SYSTEMIC study of structure and behavior. Did this person interact with a resurrected Jesus? How did this person know it was Jesus? There are too many unanswered questions and vague details for this type of eye-witness report to EVER be used in a scientific way. The only way for this to be used scientifically is compiled together with several accounts from different sources saying the same things. There is not enough physical evidence backing up these claims. Science is not simply seeing things and writing them down. A scientific observation requires a precise time and date and location and information beyond "I saw a thing happen". That is merely the starting point for a scientific evaluation to be made. Eye-witness reports are NOT inherently scientific. If I told you "I see a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, but he's just invisible to everyone else" that's not a scientific observation in the slightest. There are way too many factors to account for. Was the person mentally ill? Was the person telling the truth? Was the person under any sort of drugs? Are there any pieces of evidence we can use to cross-reference the claims made? Is there any physical evidence backing the claim up? You get the point. No science has EVER been conducted on eye-witness report alone. It cannot be done.
@@myles6235 *"Science is experimentation and repeatable studies where we can produce consistent outcomes and draw conclusions based on those consistent outcomes."* Can you cite the source of your definition of science, or is this just a definition that you made up? I have looked online and I do not find your definition of science any where so I am going to assume that you just made up this definition. *"Stupid people love to say that observations are science."* People in denial love to say that observations are not science. "Observation consists of *receiving knowledge of the outside world through our senses,* or recording information using scientific tools and instruments." explorable.com/scientific-observation In any case, agree to disagree. It does not matter if you consider eye-witness accounts as scientific evidence or not, the truth of the matter is that it is still evidence. So tell me, is it possible that those eye-witness accounts were correct?
External Objective reality is the same reality for everyone, but each individual person will experience a unique subjective perception of the places and events in their lifetime. Both are correct, and both objective reality and subjective impressions have value. Facts & Feelings go together. :-)
Am I the only one who felt like the Jonathan answered questions and arguments like a politician? Dancing around the question, finding a loosely connected rabbit hole, and diving in.
Marissa Austin ...I agree, but I also think he’s a fast-talker, like a used car salesman. What does he have to hide? Further, it’s also an attempt to overwhelm the listeners with information and sensory overload. If I were to debate, or speak, with this guy, I would tell him he needs to slow down, if he wants to continue.
Although this is essentially the argument and its a bad one, don't underestimate its effectiveness. I was surprised not to see this one on the tier list. The key to the effectiveness of the argument is that ties the authenticity of of the bible as a whole to parts of describing what are true events. Even better it ties it to events that may or may not be true. So for example we know that Romans controlled Judea. And maybe there were people who saw what they thought was a risen religions teacher. And then we use those two generally accepted biblical theories to imply(but never state) that the stories of the 500 people in different groups seeing Jesus over the course of several days while touching him and eating with him are true. And then use the generally accepted ideas of hallucinations and eyewitness reliability to say that well its unlikely that that would be caused by hallucinations. The argument is great because it appeals to simple expert opinion and common sense on the surface. And almost all of the attacks on the idea lead to messy places that most people just tune out. By the time you arguing about which details of the bible are likely to based on history most people have left the building. If you approach it as why would God write such an unreliable account for such an important event you end up debating theology not the validity of theology. There are other approaches but they all end up messy. The right approach is besides just ignoring the argument is to simply refuse to engage on the particulars. Simply state that books are not reliable by default, even those with some correct information. And that our standard of evidence in almost any other debate has to be independently verifiable outside of the book itself. Any of the details could be made up otherwise. Historians might use an ancient book to learn about past events but there is no reason to put any particular trust in a book beyond what you would believe in a modern book. The great weakness of the argument though is that although people tune out the rebuttals people also tune it out all together. You will get into 10 times as many debates about how can atheists be moral which are much easier to deal with. So the slow to inevitable decline of Christianity will continue. Christianity is just not standing up to modern society like newer religions because the elite true believers are still trying to honestly justify the religion which just does not work anymore. Qanon doesn't waste time with that BS. And that scares me.
Ian Adams Ian Adams No worries, he could just tell 5 different people to write separate books of the event, but everyone has their own touch on it, surely it must be true now!
@@Alex-02 So somebody told 5 different people at multiple different times within a hundred years to write dozens of books to deceive the world into thinking Jesus rose from the dead? Then die horrible deaths because of this lie and they only had to recant their story to survive which all 12 deciples refused to do? Yea that sounds about right.
@@Alex-02 and only decades later may it be documented in a language that he's never spoken, so we know damn sure these authors know what they're talking about
Rob Lowe because the questions did have relevance to the questions and if he did not have the mental ability to understand that he is certainly not wiser.
Rob Lowe when asked a question about killing his he said he believed that God would not do that (the abraham question I believe) and attempted to go on to another question. If he fails to see the relevance in a question that should challenge his views (this is a debate) than he is not wiser than Alex. You can prove this by watching Alex in this debate. If you need further confirmation watch more of Alex’s videos and see that he is much wiser than this fool.
Alex "so if God puts you in the position he put Abraham in what would you do?" Other dude "I don't awnser questions inconsistent with God's behavior and he wouldn't do that"
@WingsOfTruth You must not be a true Christian. The new testament in your Bible says "until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved." If your god wasn't a myth he would be a truly despicable maniac.
I think the christian seems really nice and actually smart, but it can be extremely hard to look past your bias when it has been instilled in you since birth and propagated through your entire life :(
53:40 - 54:30 that was one of the most civil and mature things I have witnessed since ages. Alex is truly an excellent thinker and speaker, a great representative for atheists.
@@Chepperz There's no defense really, unless you are that kinky. But seriously tho, I hardly can think on a context where slavery is "ok", I used to ask my mother about topics like that, and her answer kinda was "those were different times with different ideas" but if that's the case, the Bible can't stand very well today.
Alex is truly an excellent thinker and speaker,I agree ,to bad he doesn't see that science backs up Theism as the only logical explanation of the origins of life and creation,he speaks his own ideas but science does not agree with Alex or Aron, or Matt ,or any other Atheist.
@@frankamodeo3640 Prove not only that thiesm proves *anything,* but _which_ thiesm and by what repeatable experiment can i conduct to come to the same results you did?
He doesnt answer hypotheticals that are incoherent and make no possible bearing in the world, which is perfectly rational. I have no clue what you guys are on about.
@@Dissandou no, the only reason he didn't want to answer the question is because he knew he couldn't give an honest answer, so he weaselled his way out of it. "Would you kill your child if God asks you to?" _Shit. Gotta dodge this one._ "I don't answer hypocriticals."
@@Dissandou Here's an incoherent hypothetical that makes no possible bearing in the world. "Would you fuck your mom to save your dad?" Here's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical while discussing morality in the bible. "Would you kill your own son if God commanded you to?" (It's not as if it's out of his character) know the difference.
I have 2 GCSE's tomorrow. Well, today now. Thank you for this comment, you got me to check the time. I'm going to add this to watch later and go to sleep.
Although I agree that it is pretty funny. I was actually impressed with this response. The standard approach to getting around questions you don't want to answer is to try to talk about something else or say a jumble of words that mean nothing. As he does later. But for someone who does not care about rules of logic simply declaring a line of inquiry off bounds, with the implication that the fight to put it in bounds is highly abstract, is really powerful. Your audience will disengage with the entire line of reasoning without a need to justify. Unfortunately for him this was a set up for a trap that though perhaps avoidable he could not help but walking into. The refusal to answer the hypothetical being Segwayed into an obviously practical question just totally caught him off guard. I was also super impressed with his opening argument(I don't buy it of course but its clever). Basically confuse the likely partially history based parts of the bible with the bible as a whole being true. I think this is now the most common Christian apologist tactic for good reason. Islam uses it too now. But it is very much a set piece argument. All the ways of attacking it, while often valid, end up truing into messes which take a long time to untangle. Which is all Christian apologists really need. Some defense to use when needed while using the normal appeals to religion for people they actually want as members. But its set piece nature also presents problems. Mostly that it can just be ignored and is honestly not that memorable to most people compared more classical approaches. And by spending so much time on it Christian apologists tend to get caught flat footed when opponents just ignore it.
First he says that it wouldn't be in character for God to ask him to kill his son, then he said that the genocide God ordered was for a greater cause... That's a GIGANTIC contradiction, my sir.
Or the fact that his God did indeed order Abraham (or dude X) to pointlessly murder his own child, even if he rescinded the order at the last moment--think of the terror and permanent physiological damage done to that poor child. My dad would have told God to GO TO HELL or I'd have zero respect for him.
@@theplushtoywolf1038 The 10 Commandments did not exist during the time of Abraham, they were created several generations later in Moses' time. Humanity had already fallen into lives of sin, there was no concrete law or supreme ruler telling people how to live their lives correctly. It is because of this reason that the Commandments were created by God, to show people how to live holy and right by God. The moral humanity in Abraham would make him feel the pain of murdering his own son, without any law or society telling him that it's wrong. He knew it would hurt to commit this, but God's command is greater than his hurting. God had a bigger plan for Abraham, and making him do this was all part of it. God's ways are higher than mere humans. We can't pretend to comprehend how an infinite and mighty God thinks and works with our limited knowledge.
You need to realize the authority of God. God is the creator and as such has command over his creation. It is noted in the Bible that the Potter (God) has every right to do what what he wants with the clay (humans). You're looking at this from a HUMAN morality, not God's morality. God cannot live with unholy beings, he knew that the world was lost forever therefore in order to save it while maintaining free will, he sent the flood. You cannot use the argument of God being contridictory with murder, without fully understanding God.
OMG that closing! Jonathan sounded like he was rethinking his whole life while mumbling through his prepared speel, then Alex slams home the absolute absurdity of it all.
I walked on water. My friend Jeff will tell you I walked on water. Have faith, for I am the messiah and the embodiment of god. You need not evidence, you simply need faith and to believe in me and to believe in god.
For a bloke who's unwilling to engage in hypotheticals, he's amazingly willing to speculate about his god's opinions, justification, afterlife, etc. Is it cowardly to only answer your own questions?
@@1999_reborn It's not really because it isn't a claim using irrelevant information about the apologists in a sort of ad hominem way...if you listen to this guy, you will actually hear all the same crap they always use. So I would suggest in an informal way that the well has already been poisoned, and it is the apologists who did it themselves.
Apologetics were concoted by contractually-obligated individuals who could never question the existence of God, coming up with literally any way to try and excuse logical fallacies.
@@1999_reborn And I would add that I am more convinced in a sincere faith of a regular, even simple person than I am in the faith of a professional apologist.
I just love how when Alex brought up the issue of sex slavery Jonathan tried to avoid it by talking about murder instead of answering the actual question. I also think that a lot of his stuttering was to pass the time. And then he goes on to say “well we don’t know what was happening at the time.” I don’t care what the context of the passage was and you can’t use that to justify disgusting behavior like that. That’s like trying to defend Jeffery dahmers actions by saying that we don’t know what his situation was. Christians always use the “we don’t know the context” thing when they aren’t able to explain the obvious encouragement of garbage like this. It’s absolutely disgusting.
Not to forget, that we knew very exactly what was going on with jesus resurrection because it was said in the bible, but there it was like oh we need more information to know the situation 😂
When you say "evidence" you are talking about a specific kind that is limited to laboratories and perceptions. There are many things within the realms of science that really can't be captured or studied. A lot of this takes places in quantum mechanics, for example. In fact, most of what makes the universe operate can't be seen or contained. Most of what we can only theorize about is 95% of the universe. Only 5% is what we call, "physical" or chemical. And even the physical isn't really, physical. Everything is energy and frequencies. So to say, "show me god", is really like saying, "show me hyper space" or "show me where non locality particles are when they disapear". The only way we can really study those things are by how they affect things we can see or sense in some way. They seem to be beyond the limitations of our minds and dimensions.
@@preachercaine I don't think it's convenient at all. It seems our senses are very limited and almost, disabled. If there were a "fallen state" of a universe, I would expect it to be very limited and chaotic, like the one we are in.
Questions aren't arguments especially when the question is designed to do nothing more than probe his opponent's psychology. How does the Christian's answer to whether or not he would kill someone if God asked him to have any relevance to the Resurrection? CosmicSkeptic lost! His opponent made arguments. He didn't even address the arguments. His point that there are contradictions in the Bible is not an argument against the Resurrection. It's an argument against Biblical Inerrancy. His point that he doesn't like the consequences of the Resurrection and how it doesn't fit his lifestyle is also not an argument against the Resurrection. The Christian wins again! I can't even comprehend how biased you have to be to think that CosmicSkeptic won this debate when he didn't even try to tackle the evidence presented by his opponent.
@@jaymiddleton1782 Give me one argument that CosmicSkeptic made against the evidence presented by the Christian? From where I'm standing he conceded everything but then argued that the Bible has contradictions, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Resurrection occurred, and that he didn't like the consequences of the Resurrection.
Is Christianity true? 1) Christianity bases its doctrine on the Bible, claiming it is infallible. 2) Book has glaring mistakes that start on the first page. 3) Christianity is not true Done, look at that, took me 30 seconds.
Christianity bases it's doctrine on the legitimacy of the bible. The Bible has glaring errors on the first page alone, let alone the rest of the book. Therefore, Christianity is not true There it is, in syllogistic form
@@jordancox8294 Christianity is predicted on the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired. The argument here is to demonstrate the incredible level of unreliability that the book on shows SO FREQUENTLY that you don't even need to look past the first page to find really bad mistakes. Because Christianity is based around said book, the legitimacy of Christianity is thus called into question
I find it astounding that he claims that science, especially micro biology, proves God's existence. If anything, science of all kinda does quite the opposite.
@Jeff T phd's especially in science isn't about regurgitating information. It's about critical thinking. have to account for the fact that how a person acts and or responds to logic isn't the same as him being able to reason when there is no stake. There are stakes in his christian argument so he will twist and turn to defend it but if he's analysing the microbial growth of tubercolosis on agar and 20 percent humidity he can be objective because there is no stake.
God- "I have written my understanding of morality within your hearts." Human- "I don't understand why you would allow sex slavery." God- "I work in mysterious ways." Human- "So are we supposed to understand your morality?" God- "Yes, for that is the only way towards your reward." Human- "I still don't understand as you are mysterious but I'll have faith." God- "Faith is your path to me. What are you doing?" Human- "Having a sex slave." God- "WHAT! Why are you doing that!" Human- "I had faith that you would give me your understanding of morality." God- "Me damn it, I'm sending you straight to Hell." Human- "But you revealed to me that faith is the path to you even if your morality is mysterious." God- "You damned yourself with your free will." Human- "What's free will now?" God- "It's something I gave you so that you could choose things other than my morality." Human- "I had faith my heart was guiding me towards your morals. My heart can be wrong?" God- "Yes, which is why I'm punishing you for choosing the wrong morals." Human- "How was I supposed to know your morals if faith couldn't guide me?" God- "You couldn't, I work in mysterious ways." Human- "I'm confused." God- "Which is why I wrote my morality into your heart." Human- "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!"
@@janepatton8100 No, I'm having a bit of fun with the moral argument for god. Any moral authority would have a moral obligation not to be ambiguous and confusing.
@@janepatton8100 You quote Ezekiel 18:20 "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." The use of soul varies across versions but Ezekiel references putting a father to execution in versus 18:18- 18:19 so the context of this line is referring to physical death. Even if Ezekiel 18:20 refers to soul, this is directly contradicting God's cursing of generations for the actions of fathers in Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;" Ezekial also says in 18:13 "He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head." Making mortgage plans, interest loans, and 401ks a sin worthy of execution. You don't profit off interest in any way,(sharpens axe) do you?
40 minutes: 'I refuse to answer hypothetical questions... I don't believe God would ask me that question'. In other words 'I only believe in the god i want to believe in'. The killing of the firstborn and various slaughters, killing a fig tree out of spite and condemning billions to eternal burning is kind of not-nice. The gospels are pretty overly damning of the poor bewildered Pharisees, however daft they were.
Thats the problem with debating with christians, All of their "evidence" comes from a single book. All of the points they have are basically just "I know he is real because this book says so"
Galen Williams The Bible was written by different men on different continents and lived hundreds of years apart, yet they all foretold something about Jesus - there are more than 300 prophecies about him. A study was conducted and found that Jesus just fulfilling 7 prophecies was 1 in 10 with 18 zeros. Secondly, science taught us 200 years ago that the earth was flat and mounted on 3 tortoises, yet in the oldest book in the Bible ( the book of Job), he said god hangs the *globe* 🌎 upon nothing - it was written there hundreds of years before mankind saw the earth from space. And lastly eternity has been placed in our hearts, that simply means that everyone that’s ever existed deep down in their hearts know that they are eternal beings and that there is something after death - are you going to choose Jesus and go to heaven? Because whether you believe it or not, you’re soul is eternal and you’re either going to spend you’re eternity in Heaven or hell, and it’s you’re choice. Jesus proved to the world he was the son of god, and the Bible has been proven over and over again.
@@brandonwhite2231 For starter I didn't say one thing about any of that. Only stated a simple fact, that the man that happens to be a Christian is talking in circles and never truly answering the questions that are presented. I would have said the same thing if an Atheist had acted the same. And for two. A Greek discovered that the Earth was round and calculate it's circumference. The numbers were slightly off but he still got it close. This was much further back than the 200 years that you had brought up. He did this by waiting until he could see the bottom of a well at high noon and then compared his data to a well that was in another city(some of the details might be slightly off. It has been awhile since I read that, but feel free to look into it yourself if you don't believe me.) So from this we can already discount one of your points and that is just without me having to do any research at all. Lastly what evidence do you have that supports your claim that I don't believe in a soul? I believe that there are things that science can't explain yet. For example if you went back into the stone age cavemen wouldn't know how electricity works but fast forward a few thousand years and you have a civilization build on it. So a "soul" is not impossible. It could just be a form of science that we don't yet have a level of understanding. If you read all of this thank you for your time.
That argument is wrong on so many levels: 1: It hurts to believe if he isnt real, since you go your whole life living after made-up rules that restrict your life pretty heavily 2: If God is good and merciful like they claim, he'd just forgive you for not believing in him 3: If you suffer in Hell for not believing in God without concrete proof, God isnt good and I wouldnt want to worship him anyway
@deathstalkerx4415 also pascal's wager implies only 2 options the Abrahamic god is real or hes not. When in reality there could be in infinite number of possibilities.
@@HillBelichick Hey, he who is without sin shall throw the first stone, no? And how is it lying, exactly? I dont believe in God until I see concrete proof. If I get beamed up after I die and Gods like "well you doubted, but here I am", Id obviously start "believing", but at that point, Faith is no longer required due to concrete proof. I dont think he is gullible, but he is portrayed to be forgiving. I dont think hed be too mad that I didnt believe in something I had no proof of. And if he is, read point no.3
"God asked a man to kill his son, would you do that if God asked?" "That's not consistent with God's character" He did it once, why wouldn't he do it again
Apple Pi what? You are missing the point. We all broke the law, Jesus paid the fine so God can legally let us go. ( a easier way for you to think of it ). Do sure, how is his death protecting him? He is God, he doesn’t need us, yet he loves us so much that he gave his only son so that we may have a way through Jesus.
@@Artist-bs3ib Agreed to a point, we as part of creation, I would say are all loved by god. There are humans on this planet who will live their whole lives, never to hear about Jesus. And some of them are likely to be loving people, who care for their community and help each other out, as a service to others, like the examples that Jesus provided. But when they die, even though they were what we would generally call "good people", go to hell for all eternity after because they never heard of Jesus? If one believes that they exist after death, whether it's heaven or hell, means you must have existed prior to birth.
"Morality carved on our hearts" I hear this a lot and would love to know what they have to say to someone like me who doesn't have guilt, remorse, a conscious or knows internally what right and wrong is. As a borderline psychopath, I don't have any of these so-called feelings. That's if they even truly exist. I have to take what professionals say about me and I have to accept that most people have these types of feelings. Then you want to try and prove to me that a god carved these feelings on everyone's hearts except me (and others like me) seriously how fucking arrogant...
So do you go around killing people? Ia it totally ok to you to hurt others? Why do you even consult with professionals, if lack of moral feelings is totally ok? That is if they even exist
@@DartNoobo I didn't insult you. I merely told the truth, if the truth insults you then do better. Your comment to me said things I never said nor implied. You know right from wrong through being taught. Just like everyone else.
Christian dude: "I've got loads of evidences (first time I see this word in the plural btw..) that Jesus was resurrected". Here we go: 1. The Bible says there were many eye-witnesses and they are most probably reliable and truthful (no justification) 2. A Jewish scholar said "well, the disciples must have seen something. I'm not saying it was Jesus, but something" 3. A German scholar said "the disciples must have had experiences in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" 4. Bible quote (Corinthians) 5. Another Bible quote (Corinthians) 6. There were so many martyrs, they wouldn't have gone through that if what they believed was a lie (ding dong, suicide bombers... anyone?) 7. More Bible references of Jesus appearing to people 8. Stating there is an "avalanche" (really?) of cumulative evidence that the bible is trustworthy (again, no justification) 9. The end Seriously now, these people are at uni, studying physics. I get shivers down my spine. Makes me wanna feed my degrees to my dog..... and I don't have a dog.
How do you explain the empty tomb and the rise of Christianity? Before you say you don't believe there was a Jesus or empty tomb, many fine secular historians believe unreservedly that Jesus existed and was crucified. So what is the most logical explanation for the behavior of Jesus' followers in the weeks after his execution?
I really hate when Christian debaters spend their opening/closing statements treating the stand like it's a pulpit to give a sermon on... You're here in academia to give an intellectually honest opinion and argumentation, *not* to preach your doctrine like this is sunday school...
@@bloodrain4361 Again insane behaviour from atheists. All CAPS and lots of emojis is not an argument. I notice that Cosmic Skeptic is so butt hurt about his failure; is now dreaming up non-existent theories of malpractice by his opponents.
Very nice debate as a whole here. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, watch from the 40 minute mark to 54:30. I think this generally will have the information needed to know who wins this debate. Or at least it will provide reasoning for you to make a decision for yourself
Its kind of funny that Jonathan as a Christian has a degree in biology and Alex as an Atheist has a degree in Religion
Lol
That is actually hilarious xD
Talk about coming to a fight unarmed
Smart men
@Lucifer_DCLXVI no, to say that “a lot” of us get into science to prove our religion is completely wrong. The one thing most scientists can admit is that we don’t know everything about the world and our existence. To say that you know for sure about anything pertaining to this is ignorant.
Snape killing Dumbledore is proven to be historical because both Harry and Malfoy witnessed it and those are eyewitness accounts.
And 500 students as witnesses, according to the writings of Hermione. 500!!
@@MBarberfan4life well according to the gospel of Weasley there were 700 students at his funeral!
That’s a terrible comparison. The is zero history in Harry Potter... we know it was written as a fictional story. There is loads of history in the Bible including genealogies, wars, etc.
@@robertd7717 So if they simply add in a few real world historical references, you would believe Harry Potter was completely true?
@@robertd7717 When 10,000 years from now, afterdoom archeologists will dig up New-York remains, then they will have historical evidence that Spiderman actually existed.
Just like we now know that the Iliad and the Odyssey were acurate accounts because we may have found the Troy city. Hence, don't mess with Poseidon, ever.
“There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.” - Ricky Gervais
Ayyy this is awesome. Hey Jay, I've been following your channel for 3 or 4 years (can't remember lol). Super cool to see that you follow Alex as well.
In my opinion a much more relevant quotation than either CS Lewis quote ;)
@RoadKillzine only one God is logical.
Another very childish way of answering to thiests.
@BUInvent I'm pretty certain theres allot of myths about bringing people/coming back from the dead. Like, its a common theme.
Alex claims to be against owning another human being and yet here we are...
Damn... underrated
Oooof
Savage
Took me a second, but... BUUUURRRRNNN! :D
Nice
😂😂😂here we are
"o you don't believe my book? let me find something in my book to convince you"
Watch this. www. youtube.Com/watch?v=Wi2eFjnPQqY&feature= share
La Gom
Reductio ad absurdum...
Whether something is in a book or not has nothing to do with its truth status!
La Gom
And since your are speaking from ignorance, the Bible, which I assume is "the book" which you are referring to, is in fact not "A" book. You may not want to continue speaking out of turn! You're the proverbial person looking up to the empty sky wondering what is happening while your pants have fallen down around your ankles!
If you don't believe in GOD or JESUS CHRIST watch the link I have above.
@@agnesholloway6612 Not to crush your cookies, but Ron Wyatt's story is outrageous. If that were indeed true, and those Israeli scientists genuinely discovered blood that only contained 23 chromosomes, it would be one of the greatest medical discoveries in human history...
And yet... nothing. No follow up, no evidence, and no further studies. This story just comes off as purely fabricated and nonsensical. Radical Christian leaders make up crazy stories all of the time to get a rise out of their congregation, and this claim by Ron Wyatt is no different.
"I don't answer hypotheticals" is just another way of saying "stop asking me hard questions"
This response from him is maddening. I don't have a real answer, so I will just say that I don't ask those kind of questions.
Before anyone tries to get mad at this guy. "Trolltician". - If the name doesn't blow your cover, the use of "retarded", twice may I add, definitely does.
You sure do live up to your name Trolltician.
No, it's because hypotheticals are fallacious. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
@Trolltician People still say "triggered"? How's Kekistan treating you?
Well done, Alex! The breadth of your knowledge and clarity of communication continually impresses. Thank you.
Hi Paul, nice to see you here too
@Trolltician Do you troll everyone? I no longer feel special..... How about telling us what you believe and why. Do you believe because of the minimum facts argument (The flavor of this month) or something else?
@@malirk
Trolltician tries very hard to not reveal what he actually believes - I think because he knows he cannot defend a single aspect of it. I do know he's a Trump fan and a climate change denier - make of that what you will.
@Trolltician Trolls often infer what you just did when someone grows tired of a pointless conversation. How about this though.... post whatever question you wanted me to address in a previous conversation we were having and I'll address it here.
@@bengreen171 It's because it's a troll. I'm not even remotely defending that sort of sad behaviour, but how thick do you have to be to take someone with "troll" in their name seriously?
I always like watching these videos because it makes me feel more intelligent until I realize I'm watching it at 3 AM while procrastinating on an assignment that was due at midnight
So
true
Painfully true
Same. Only that I still have some time 😓🥲
Dude you are literally describing me rn.
Literally me right now as well xDD@@geografixxxx
"If God is not the author of confusion, then God is not the author of these passages."
Only 15 likes wow
Why you don't got check mark ??
Great quote. But was skimmed over since the Christian basically agreed.
Thomas in the house!!!!!!
I’m not sure if you answered this, but what are your thoughts on RR and the ACA?
-Alex O’Connor
"I decided to do theology as a case of, uh, keeping your enemies closer' - best argument for studying theology -ever-
youtube formatting is against me grrr
Yes but no physics. Gets into Oxford, doesn't wanna do physics. Alex dude, you only get one chance to explore college level science bro.
I disagree. I thought that was a pretty lame thing to say. By labeling theologians as "enemies" you kind of lose some credibility as your goal shouldn't be to debate or fight an enemy but rather to seek the truth
I was raised Christian, but once I studied theology (and philosophy) I became agnostic ☪️✡️✝️🕉☯️⚛️
So as atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, you class those who are consistent with the scientific method as your enemies?
That's a illogical position to hold.
The fact that somebody is willing to die for their beliefs is not proof that their beliefs are true.
If that was the case, then the beliefs of every terrorists who blows themselves up is necessarily true.
It's just spurious reasoning.
The difference is that terrorists will think it's true, whereas the apostles would have known it was a lie. A better comparison is Joseph Smith. He died defending the golden tablets book of mormon. My question for non-mormon Christians is if they accept that as evidence it's true?
@@jwmmitch
I think the Apostle believed it was true. There is little to suggest otherwise. Dying for a known lie is much harder to explain and less plausible than dying for something that you think is true but actually isn't.
Since when did the apostles die for their beliefs, true or untrue? We have a story about Peter and Paul, amongst a ton of made up stories, and late obvious fictions about a few more.
That was completely not his point. He was stating that if they were lying about his resurrection why would they die for a lie.
悲しみLxstVapxr
But we have no idea if they even had that “experience” as others have claimed. They didn’t provide an proof for that. The Gospels are not proof that they saw anything.
Are you old enough to remember the Branch Davidian Shootout in Waco, TX in the early 90’s? That guy called himself David Koresh. His followers believed he was the second coming. He was stockpiling weapons and he made a “prophecy” that the government would come for him. By the way, he was also sleeping with his followers wives and marrying their young daughters. Some got away and told these stories. So the ATF moved in and there was a drawn out gun battle. Eventually they started a fire and many of them died for their beliefs. That sure as hell didn’t make David Koresh the messiah. Some survived and still claim that he was the second coming. Religion twists the brains ability to use logic.
50:00 it's painful to watch a grown up unable to say that slavery is morally wrong because it contradicts the magic book
@@imwondering3885 The presumed magic book.
If God exist morality is created by God . Therefore anything God does is morally right no matter what. Also without God there is no real morales
@@narayasuiryoku1397 lol that’d be crazy if god was real
@@gotsukcy and its painful to see a grown man say the humans were apes and the universe's creation is by chance
@@smokerx6291 Watch this video please if you'd like to be educated on the subject why humans are, of course, apes: ruclips.net/video/MgN6gUHXzAc/видео.html
If you say that the universe was created by some supernatural being (which obviously can't be the final answer, where did that being come from, where is it now, how does it actually "create" things ect.), by snapping his fingers or something, you are the one who needs to provide the evidence for it. Go ahead.
In the second Harry Potter book, harry "kills" an old journal. In the 6th book, we learn that that was in fact a horcrux. Therfore, Magic is real??
Am I doing this right?
Zeres I would even argue that Harry Potter is a far better and much more consistent a book series than bible🤓
@@anshk7399
Not after book 7.
Edward Nygma since there are only seven books, I assume you're making a joke. So, hahahahaha
@@anshk7399
She made more: The cursed child, the crimes of grindelwald and fantastic beasts and where to find them.
They're set in the same universe, so 'I' would include them in the harry potter series.
The meme goes that she is changing some things so as to keep up with modern 'moral' trends.
@@anshk7399
I've read every book.
I even studied the works of Aleister Crowley, magic'k' is a confusing subject.
"Would you commit a terrible atrocity if you thought God told you to?"
"I don't answer that kind of question."
That's a big oof
And he claims to know the character of his god who sometimes "moves in mysterious ways" right after. Laughable.
@C Truth
...Abortion is legal
I think your argument doesn't apply only to Christians
@@MojoMicah I wouldn't consider people who exercise their rights to bodily autonomy especially when they dont consider a fetus a person to someone who would murder enslave torture and abandon their family based on fairy tales. Maybe try a different example bucko
@C Truth
Common misconception, not that I blame you because sometimes the truth gets covered up
But we do now know for a fact that fetuses can feel pain.
And to your analogy about the fetus dying the instant the mother is killed, that's actually not true. The fetus would survive for quite some time, possibly even hours after the mother's death. But yeah, it would ultimately die, probably from asphyxiation or poisoning from not having it's blood being filtered or something.
@@MojoMicah Why care tho? Extreme Empathy is a Psychological disorder. You're empathizing with a clump of cells that isn't even capable of rational or cognitive thinking, you're no different to a mentally ill person having a conversation with a plant. How about we fix poverty, slavery, discrimination and death of real, functioning , thinking people before we stupefy ourselves in the notion that fetuses are considered a person. Let's be rational and not emotional; the mother, a functioning human being, has more potential and capabilities in contributing to society. You're comparing a real person to a clump of cells that can't survive on its own, it's basically a parasite if you look at it in a biological perspective.
Emotion based Arguments - prolifers are quick to assert the guilty of murder and obligation of a parent when the mother did not want the child. Following the accusation, they argue that life is beautiful and it should be given a chance. No. That's an Appeal To Emotion fallacy, I'm not diminishing Morality but you're prioritising a clump of cells rather than a full-grown sentient person. As such, humans are experiencing a Logistic Exponential Growth, our resources aren't infinite and by bringing more babies into the world we will peak. Don't commit a Strawman fallacy and say I want to kill babies now, that's not the issue, fetuses aren't people.
Appeal To Possibility with a mix of Appeal To Emotion: Prolifers are quick to argue that "think about how much this kid could do." That phrase is a fallacy but that's not the point, the point is that it's a GAMBLE. Pro-choice can equally argue that the future of the child can potentially be a negative (i.e nobody knew Hitler would become Hitler). Both opposing sides of the spectrum are gambles and they are equal in value. This is when we consider external factors to predict an outcome. 1) The mother puts the child for adoption/abandons her child. The child is now parentless waiting for adoption or is living in the streets. Negative outcome. 2) The mother raises the child but is physically, mentally, emotionally and financially unprepared/unstable. Negative outcome. On the contrary, if the mother is prepared and stable, is she now more obligated to raise the child? No. The rich are not obligated to donate to the poor, why are rich mothers more obligated to raise an unwanted baby?
How about we don't coerce women to cater your psychological disorder of Extreme Empathy and fix more urgent contemporary issues. Hm?
44:00
Paraphrasing:
- God asked Abraham to kill his son.
- Would you do this if God asked you?
- I don't answer hypothetical questions like this, I don't believe God would asked me of something like this.
???
It's almost like it was a dishonest dodge to a question he knew he couldn't answer honestly.
God so loved the world that he gave his only son.
She loved the drugs so much she sold her baby.
Actually he said "I don't think God would ever ask this of me".
Why are Christians so confident that they can understand exactly how the omnipotent, all knowing being they worship thinks???
Presuming to understand a being that far beyond human comprehension is ridiculous at best!
@@RaveyDavey I know right! And he says that guys son was too important to kill so obviously god was never going to make him actually kill him, it was just a test!
Personally, i believe god thinks about hot chicks boobies all the time, but dont ask me a hypothetical question, im an EVIDENCE BASED CHRISTIAN!
"Everything in that book isn't true"
"Oh yeah? But the book says it's true."
He’s citing atheist sources you just don’t want to hear it
Also,not to add or take away from it!!!
Did anyone else have a moment when Jonathan acknowledged that Alex had made a good point that he didn't have an answer for? It's rare to see humility in these debates. I thought that was admirable.
the very fact that that has become admirable is mirror of how ignorant society is. it shouldn't be admirable. it should be so normal, that nobody would even think about it for a second.
And vise versa too with the historical portion. It was nice to see them both listening to each other even if the debate became somewhat heated at parts
It's admirable, but at the same time, how sad. How sad that we live in a society where simply admitting the opposing side has a decent point is something to be seen as admirable.
@@TheVardener how sad that we live in a society
@The Roo
"whats funny is it's not completely normal by any means,because it never happens in these debates,and the whole point of alex's arguement was that u can't defend the quote,because it goes against his own religion"
That's the whole point that Randomly Interesting was trying to make, that society has degraded to the point that things that he thinks should be normal become exceptionally good.
Alex is an incredibly well-spoken and humble speaker; despite his youth he is wise beyond his years.
Going on tour to expose religious idiocracy seems to be the appretenship since hitchens.
I've learned so much from him
He has been possessed by Hitchens
@@kianadresse3554 and only 20yrs. Im looking forward to the next 40 years or so.
He’s probably a reincarnation of a previously living academic.
That’d explain it.
"I studied science and it assured me of the existence of God" - Doesn't use science to make his argument.
He's a pure man that doesn't need obvious things
lol, you don't seem to realise, he didn't have time for that, this debate wasn't about that anyway... but there are very cool books about it...
@@bencegobl310 "Is Christianity True?" - what was the debate about then? Which books might those be? Saying you have an argument is not the same as making that argument.
@@SupachargedGaming the debate was about 'is Christianity true', not about how science supports it, or not. Alex is not a scientist is he? He is learning philosophy and theology, so Jonathan is not here, to talk about science, I think this is straight forward, so i don't understand your question...
John Lennox: Has science buried God?
Werner Gitt: frequently asked questions
These are the 2, that i read so far I think, but I am quite sure, Jonathan could recommend some too ;)
I am also sure, that if anyone in the room would be interested in those kinds of questions, he would love to talk about them.
Have a nice day! :)
Maybe it was the Christian Science 😂
"I confess, I struggle with this text."
- man speaking on text he lives his life by
I want to like this but it’s at 69 like. My brain is overwhelmed
@@funkgremlin2765 I'll dislike it for you
It’s at 71 now sir you have your like
Why should everything make sense to you straight away?
Does even science claim such lunacy? Ultimately most scientists don’t understand quantum mechanics….
@@Goths-On-The-Beach It shouldn't, but if you don't understand something, you can't honestly claim to live by it or follow it, and you shouldn't try to publicly defend it as if you do understand it.
And you're right, we don't understand most of what goes on, on a quantum level, that's why honest scientists don't use it as an explanation, they try to learn more about it and explore it. That is what science is; testing, observing, and learning about the things we don't fully understand.
“I really struggle with these texts” - every moral person when confronted with biblical passages they don’t want to accept.
Christopher Vaushen At least he can admit that if nothing else...
Alex 02
I guess that IS the first step to overcoming a problem.
Habitually truthful witnesses. Sweet jesus. What a lot of crock
@@unggrabb That was a very odd sentence wasn't it? "Habitually truthful witnesses" that's the definition of no human being that has ever existed.
You should read the Koran that is the words of God and his Prophet is Momahamed is his Prophet.
44:12 "Gives example of Abraham, showing it's something God would do."
Immediately after: "I don't believe it's consistent with God's character to ask you do that."
What? You just proved it is indeed consistent in his character.
You know what's not consistent with God's character?
God.
God is a monster and so many just cant admit it. Hes a genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic freak.
@@ravenhopkins347 Read "Is God a moral monster?"
@@jordancox8294 Answer: Yes
@@ravenhopkins347 That is a false statement. God (i.e. the one that is being discussed) has no properties because he does not exist. The representation of this non-existent God could be described in those terms. Meow WOOF Oink
@@meowymeow282 obviously he's referring to the God mentioned in the Bible...
So basically he's claiming that Christianity is true because the Bible says so. 🙄🙄🙄
*paulogia "for the Bible tells me so" jingle*
@@CptnCardboard
I'll have to check that out.
that's what i heard.
@@Jc5mith I have read the bible. Not all of it, of course, but I went through 9 years of religious education in school which is still going on, and I did confirmation, and therefore have read and or heard quite a few stories from the bible . I still agree with the comments posted above.
@@Jc5mith
Their point isn't that the Bible is necessarily inaccurate (though they certainly imply it), just that "x" cannot be proven true because "x" says it is. They're pointing the circular reasoning being employed.
Also, bold of you to assume they haven't ready any of the Bible. Especially with the keyword "any".
“I don’t believe god would ask that”
Ok but he literally did in the story lol
Human sacrifice is a metaphor
@@EsotericallyWikked I'm sure you're absolutely gifted with the power to determine what's a metaphor and what isn't in a book you didn't write and couldn't question the writerS about.
@@pascalsimioli6777 yes I am pretty decent at figuring things out. LoL
@@EsotericallyWikked everything is a metaphor when it is convenient and when it is not it is literal...just like keep the young girls for yourselves verse it is also a metaphor for something
@@EsotericallyWikked Sure it is. Stoning people to death must be a metaphor too.
And thanks for adding subtitles to the audience questions. No-one EVER does this!
How can you have evidence-based faith? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Henry Ambrose Exactly! No one speaks of faith in 1+2=3. Faith is the excuse used when no evidence is available.
Well to a certain degree, all knowledge is faith based. Dependent upon your definition of faith of course.
jcarby23 well if I define god as my iPhone then I guess god exists
That depends how you define the word. Common layman connotation is "belief", but "faith", in the sense that it was used in Biblical translation comes from "fidere", meaning _to trust._
Edit>>> I'm a former Christian and atheist, just to be clear
@@jcarby23 With respect, I disagree. In your example, it would be better served to define knowledge. If that is a loose enough definition, then faith might apply. But knowledge as a factual, demonstrable, datum is real regardless of faith. Again, one does not need to believe 1+2=3, it just is. It is why knowledge makes successful predictions when it is a genuine reflection of reality but fails to do so when it is not.
“Would you kill your child if God asked?”
“I don’t answer those type of hypotheticals, because I don’t find it to be in line with his character.”
That’s literally what god has done tho?!
TheBossManBoss319 that’s not the entire story bud
@@matthewswart1845 God told abraham to kill his son isaac. It doesnt matter if god then later told him not to, because he still told him to kill his son in the first place making it exactly gods character. I was raised christian. I went to a christian scholl where we were forced to study the bible. I know what im talking about and is one of the biggest reasons i turned atheist.
Despite the fact that he asked somebody to do that once. Sure, it was a trick to test a man's devotion to religion, but he still asked for it.
@@matthewswart1845 you are right , its not the whole story - he killed every living man woman and child on the whole planet , even those babies in their mothers womb who hadn't even heard the word, let alone disobey it.
He sent two bears to kill 42 children for merely mocking someones bald head.
He stopped the sun in the sky so that Joshua could continue a slaughter etc etc
he is annoyed when not all the tribe was annihilated
Any god who does that isn't worthy of even praise let alone worship.
@@matthewswart1845 Fair enough, but would you personally kill your son if God would command you to do so? As far as I understand Gen 22,1-19, God demands absolute submission. No more, no less.
Damn, Jonathan looked like he needed to get out of that room. Alex was relaxed and cool, Jonathan was nervous because the questions asked stirred him up way too much.
Alex: You're using the tu quoque fallacy.
Christian: Right.
*Continues to use the tu quoque fallacy*
lmao!!! Nice!!! Doh!! You caught him!!
All his claims are philosophical mambo-jumbo
It was very hard for me to watch
I'm not sure I could have kept my patience if I was in the audience there
How so?
I do understand him because I was exactly in his position.
It does not change the fact that all he said there are things that are lazy philosophy at best, and intentional distortion of logic principles at worst@Sergeant 235
"The bible is true."
"How do you know?"
"The bible said so."
--- smh
I almost felt bad for the guy when he started to stutter while defending slavery.
@DimensionalBattleStudios watch the debate again, and clean your ears for when the apologetic was trying to convince us that slavery isn't wrong.
DimensionalBattleStudios Around minute 53
Best way to counter it: "slavery is good, seethe and whine."
@John Smith Aside from fee fees what's NOT great about it? (Assuming a system where slaves have opportunity for advancement through demonstrating great value) Slaves let people build and aspire to greater things far more than having the entire population be wagies. Just have half of the population work and the others pursue things beyond subsistence. Slaves should also be castrated and racially segregated for maximum productivity and no infighting; this also means they can undercut each other for slight rewards so they never unite against the prevailing class. Sure it may stagnate mechanization, but not all technological advances are good, and lead to a technocratic enslavement of the entire population. Better to avoid that; patrician vs pleb is the only viable solution. The struggle to the top will forge great individuals.
@John Smith well, yes, in fact I could.
“How do u know the Bible is true?”
*bc it says it is*
Thanks for making a straw man and proving to everyone that you don't have an actual argument.
@@ea-tr1jh thank you for not presenting a response or correcting them, which continues to not convince anyone. It is true that most arguments for Christianity come from one's already existing belief. Often from not understanding something, explaining it as "it must have been God" or some other similar conclusion, removes the ability to actually find an explanation for the argument. Christianity is Faith, which is a belief in a "...proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general"(google). This literally means trusting it is the truth without it being able to be proven. The evidence that is grabbed at as "proof" of Christianity is taken from the bible, which is what christians are trying to prove... using the bible. You say they're using straw man when christianity is a whole other logical fallacy, its a circular argument. You have to assume the claim is true in the first place to even attempt to prove it. To prove the Bible is true, one would look in the Bible saying, "see, it says here that..." but the Bible is not credible unless proven so outside of itself.
@Jason Romo science holds information of everything in our universe. Not at all the same as one single book. Science is finding, testing, and questioning the truth, while questioning a belief for a christian seems impossible.
@Jason Romo lol most pathetic response i've seen
White Wolf // Thats bullshit. All of the prophecies are extremely vague, I could predict that a war will occur in the future..... anyone could!
If the bible said the time/date/place/event exactly then I would no doubt believe in it. However it is not, the prophecies are so vague and predictable. That proves nothing
Debating theist's gets old after a while because their arguments are essentially all the same, just rehashed and rebranded. Everything the theist said is just his own version of "the bible says its true so it must be true", and could just as easily be tweaked to apply to any religion other than Christianity.
totally agree. I think that's why this was a fad on YT that lasted only during the early-2010s. Shooting fish in a barrel gets old after awhile.
The "insufficiency of rationality justification" based upon the needs of human psyche and less ambitious in their claims about the fundamental nature of existence, Jordan Peterson for example, is insightful if not convincing. leads one to question on's understanding of morality, really.
I would try debates with Buddhists. Unfortunately there aren't many debates between western-style atheists and Buddhist monks on RUclips.
I just can't wrap my head around religious people justifying their belief to a non-believer with "evidence" from their own fiction book. And a doctor of biology at that... smh
@Atheist Deprogramming nah
"Would you kill your child of god asked?"
*Refuses to answer question*
"Do you think Slavery is wrong?"
*Refuses to answer question*
joey joestar but he can’t answer honestly because that contradicts with his god
When cognitive dissonance becomes palpable.
I would say yes if God asked . but in Abraham Isaac situation this was a test from God.If by chance God went through with the sacrifice In abraham, Hebrews 18,19 God would have raised issac from the dead.
@@josephsalazar7643 Abraham could not know that.
No such thing as the Bible advocating slavery. They were servants, and the masters weren’t allowed to make them become servants against their own will. Literally says they had to VOLUNTEER THEMSELVES. Usually to pay off debt or because they were beyond poor.
It's almost impressive how much the Christian avoids answering your questions
Muslims are just as good at dodging questions, and for exactly the same reasons.
@@popcultexpress
Because politicians work for Government....another invisible entity.
@@tofu_golem that doesnt matter, muslims were not mentioned anywhere.
You👏can👏not👏prove👏the👏bible👏with👏the👏bible.
The the bible says I can. Checkmate, atheists!
Goji Boy haha true
The bible is proven through the scientific method of historical research. You know the science that provides you evidence of history. Science that atheist insist should be the dominant consideration but in this case only when it suites you.
Energie00, can you elaborate on how exact the Bible is proven? Maybe you could start with how the levels of genetic diversity show that all species on the planet, is included, have never been as low as genesis claims. No one has ever been able to sort this one out.
energie00 nope, parts of the bible are proven. Doesn’t make the whole thing true.
The scientific evidence you point to actually shows that some events especially the supernatural ones are very unlikely to have occurred.
For example every piece of data for physics we’ve ever observed under laboratory conditions contradicts the resurrection narrative.
Alex: Says a argument
Jonathan: I dont have time to talk about that right now
Whenever I hear the term apologist, I imagine the person is apologizing for their poor arguments trying to prove such ridiculous fables.
Haha good one
LOL
Yup notice we don’t need apologists to defend the belief in aeroplanes.
exactly...
Seriously, I thought this too, and still do... What am I missing?
43:20
Alex: “let me put this simply, I’d say no.”
McLatchie: “.........Ugh I don’t answer hypothetical questions.”
He was really dodging that question. I like how Alex brought it straight to the point.
The crazy thing is that this is NOT a hypothetical question. God did require Jephthahs daughter to be sacrificed in return for a victory in a campaign. It is very clearly in gods nature to at times require human sacrifice.
To say the least it was a slimy dodge
Not defending the Bible, but that one is less clear. God doesn’t prescribe it if I recall correctly, Jepthah merely follows through on a vow he rashly made. But I agree with the serious issues these OT passages pose to Christian belief generally.
Hypotheticals are unfair, but McLatchie was too shy on this one. I mean lets take a hypothetical gander shall we... Abraham was said to be a "friend of God," close friends, God spoke to him directly, made impossible promises to Abraham, and Abraham saw those promises fulfilled by God. So God was not just a friend, or a good friend, but a faithful, all-powerful, all-knowing, long-time friend. And this dear, true, powerful and trusted friend, gave Abraham a command to sacrifice his son (a prefigurement of Christ), the son who God himself promised to be a father of generations. If you were close friends with the creator of the universe, who worked and spoke intimately in your life, would you have listened to him? It seems as if any reasonable person, under those circumstances, would.
@@rex9912 what's even more troubling is that some scholars believe that exodus 22:8-9 really means that God required the actual sacrifice of every firstborn son. Not to mention that he also supposedly preordained and fulfilled sacrificing his own son.
I wish Alex grilled him some more on the Euthyphro dilemma. McLatchie seems to have gotten away with appealing to God's nature, an unsatisfactory defence which could have been criticised as well.
"If God is not the author of confusion, then he is not the author of these passages."
I love that one. He was pretty clearly thrown off when he tried to respond
He totally took that passage out of context. When the Bible says "God isn't the author of confusion" he was specifically talking about speaking in tongues and prophecying in the early church, not doctrine or Scripture or anything else. If he reads the actual Bible passage where that verse is written, he would know that.
@@ea-tr1jh "god isn't the author of confusion"
everyone, turn their bibles to Genesis 11....
@@ea-tr1jh So God's fine with confusion in every context except for speaking in tongues? What does it mean to say he is not the author of confusion if not that God didn't create confusion? If not God, was it Satan? Or is confusion beyond God, something he has no control over? Or, is it our fault when we're confused by scripture? I'd wager you think it's mankind at fault, since it's the most consistent with scripture.
Makes sense. Why blame the bible for being confusing when you can blame the reader? Now the question is, why would the bible get special treatment over any other book?
The Bible is understandable but few can really understand it. One can never understand it, if just by flipping some pages of it you are already judging the book but not trying to understand.
Yui Jiyien I read the entire Bible through 3 times. I've additionally listened through the Bible twice with Vernon McGee. I used to beleive it was a sacred holy text but the more familiar you become with the Bible the less sense it makes. Learning about the progression of religions of ANE and how the Bible was written/compiled you see how it was all fabricated.
I love Alex's facial expressions at 34:45. You can almost see him thinking "Well about that... oh, you're not gonna let me respond... how lovely!" :D
The Christian guy trying so hard to defend biblical slavery is too painful to watch.
Ye both Alex and Stephen Woodford have done some excellent videos on slavery.
The sexual slavery verse floored his opponent and if I remember correctly there are several verses like it in the old testament.
The voluntary servitude response seems to be the common rebuttal against claims of slavery in the bible. The problem is there are verses that talk about how slaves can be inheritable property that can be passed down to their children ( but Israelites must not be treated in this manner ) so the references towards voluntary servitude appear to be specific to Hebrews.
jimbob4484
Ex:21:16 discredits that idea though.
@@CRAFTE.D discredits what idea?
The easiest way to answer this is God is omniscient, he knows all, he has to work within the context of humanity and free will otherwise we’re just robots, because slavery was part of society back then he only gave them enough rules that they could handle Otherwise they would outright reject God, heck a lot of them still rejected God and turned to idols even with those rules that we don’t see as strict now but they sure did, Secondly if those choices were made they were only temporary to get to where we are now, we now realize that God is 100% Holy and he cannot allow not even 1 sin into heaven so with that regardless of those rules he made back then people were still under sin, only through Gods love in which he sacrificed his only begotten son to cleanse us from our fallen nature do we have any hope of living the life in which he wants for us. Third if God takes a life it’s not unjust because God made us it is his right as God to do as he pleases not yours or I, Fourth if God does take a life early it might mean he’d rather end our human suffering and take us out of this wicked world early
@@japexican007
It might seem like an easy way to answer but your response carries little substance.
If God created the entire universe and everything in it, there is no reason to believe that he is required to follow any rules contained within it, let alone having to act in any specific context. It's an extraordinary claim to suggest that God would limit is his own Omniscience to preserve humanity's free will. Both history and the present has shown that "free will" comes at a huge cost and this will likely still be the case in the future. There has been and will continue to be suffering and barbarism on an unimaginable scale yet God's modus operandi is to preserve free will at all costs.
God saw fit to give laws governing many facets of life but you appear to assert that certain things ( including slavery and killing ) where allowed to fly, in these times, because God didn't want to legitimate too much too soon.
There are a number of problems with this. Humans existed for 100s of thousands of years before biblical times. If the pace of introducing revelation and God's law was an issue then God had ample time to remedy this.
As for killing being undertaken/sanctioned to mitigate suffering that is absolute hogwash. Millions of people around the world live entire lives with horrible suffering.
There are children around the world at this moment in time being raped by their parents. In many cases this abuse will go on for years and these kids will grow up as broken people. There will be no divine intervention to save these children in the same way that God stood by as millions of people were killed in the Holocaust.
At most you have demonstrated that God is not all knowing ( whether voluntary or not ), and that God values free will over the welfare of all humans. God stands by with indifference to human suffering. Not only that, acts we consider abborant today were once condoned/sanctioned by God and so it's not possible to claim an absolute standard mandated by divine authority.
How does Alex just sit there and not look like he's about to have his head explode, gosh, his patience is quit admirable
@@allasar very, very true. Alex is a wise person.
@@allasar so true, I made a mental note on that comment
Give him 10 more years to grown and my guess would be that he could be Christopher Hitchens successor. I mean that as a compliment. I admire his intelligence.
This is how civilised people engage in a discussion and debate.
Enjoy and Travel The World! If I may, as someone who has been on both sides of this, please be merciful to these people. The indoctrination and closed-off nature of religion makes it SO hard to grasp concepts that now are quite painfully obvious to me. And remember, to doubt in many religions is to make yourself vulnerable to eternal damnation. In their minds, there’s a lot at stake. However, I understand it’s frustrating and if you don’t feel like you can handle the frustration, I think it’s wise of you to not engage.
"The audience can decide who made the better argument" haha indeed they can
_ Yerfdog _ I didn’t like how Jonathon was in charge when they moved to another topic .... Alex was making clear points ...
@@autumnatheism5352 when he said he didnt answer hypotheticals it was very clear that he just couldnt answer them, not that he was actually against them
Alex did a great work overall, but i actually think Jonathan made a better point here. The parable (or maybe example story, wcich some scholars think is different than parables) in Luke 16 should not be compared with John 13 in that way. Why not? Because:
1. It’s not at all the same genre as John 13. Parables overall should not be read as something Jesus believed in. In this particular case Jesus accually tells a version of a story, which original is unclear. Jewish and pagan sources have their own versions.
2. Lazarus made no claim that he wanted to get back. It was the ’evil’ rich man that wanted to.
3. Lazarus in John 13 was a friend to Jesus, wich makes the situation different in my view.
4. John 13 has prophetic (and maybe mythical) undertones to intertwine the prophetic litterature with the ressurection of Jesus. The gospel of John does these things a lot, wich make some exegets to think that this gospel is more about theology than historical facts. My point here is that these texts are way different.
So is that really contradictory?
I think Alex made a mistake, even though the point makes no real difference in whether christianity is true or not. What do you think?
Carl Ershag
The bible is the claim. Until Yahweh is shown to exist, quoting the bible is a waste of breath.
So, do that first, and then we can discuss the biblical assertion that Yahweh sanctions murder, war, rape, slavery, abortion, child abuse, genocide, filicide, infanticide, and much more fun stuff.
Carl Ershag Jonathan, by default, could not count as having made the better point unless he had provided an argument that proves the truth and consistency of the Christian worldview without possibility for refutation. This is because the discussion was inherently Christianity vs Not Christianity, and skepticism immediately falls under Not Christianity since Christianity is inherently not skeptical in nature.
Cosmic Skeptic: "Hi, I'm an atheist and I'm an expert in theism."
Johnathan: "Hi, I'm a theist and I'm an expert in atheism."
@Pharaoh and yet, Theists never seen to understand it
Only Alex was telling the truth there lol
Johnathan is definitely not an expert in atheism. Based on his arguments from irreducible complexity in a latter debate, it seems he is not an expert in biology either.
@PharoTalon no it’s not atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods that’s it nothing more nothing less, to argue anything else is simply dishonest 💖
@PharoTalon yeah looking at what u wrote I don’t even know why I wrote that it was incoherent at best my bad 🤯🤯💖
Why do we as a people automatically give religions the Benefit of being able to create their own evidence?
Ikr
While I agree where your head is at, I’d like to testify to the fact that they were discussing the historical reliability of the Bible. Both have arguments as to why or why not the Bible should be a reliable source of evidence. The accounts of Paul and the antagonizations on Christians has been extraneously proven to be historically accurate, not just based in the Bible. I’m saying this simply to add substance and considerations to each ends of the argument. I too agree that a lot of arguments many Christians make that are based in the Bible should not be taken as evidence at all, but the ones in this video (at least the majority) have been extraneously accounted for, outside of the Bible.
@@aidansmith1580 We don't even have accurate/honest role of Christopher columbus, yet you are sure that we have accurate account of this Paul?
Well it isn’t really reasonable for someone to make a claim and then say disprove my claim, they would have to provide the evidence. Otherwise I could just say that unicorns and flying pigs exist and not really take responsibility for my claim and pass the legibility of it onto another person. It’s their claim they have to provide the evidence and if it doesn’t hold up it doesn’t hold up. It’s simple
@@anifina163 (One of) the only way to believe in religion is through _faith._ I agree, the onus is on the religious to provide evidence, or keep their personal fantasy to themselves.
I'm not against religion, I think it's a personal choice, and should be exercised/treated as such. Any attempt to impose such nonsensical/personal ideology on another person is simply evil.
Alex, you are a powerhouse of intellect, but I must admit that a few things fustrates me when watching the debate. (1) you are simply too polite to hold your opponent accountable for answering your questions and (2) you have a tendency to allow your opponent to lead the conversation or distract you. We mustn't be impolite in debates, but we should also avoid being compliant (not that I thought you were).
Good job and I'll look forward to you filling some of the empty hole Christopher Hitchens left behind!
I wouldn't call him an intellectual powerhouse. The facts he presented are commonly overlooked by most Christians. Alex has a great knowledge of logic and of his opponent's position but that's a given in any debate. His opponent's own position compromised his ability to utilize logic and try to attack a position as formless and blameless as atheism. The term 'intellectual powerhouse' seems more suitable for a revolutionary in his field. Most of these arguments are basic (but nonetheless potent) arguments commonly seen on Athiest Reddit forums.
Hitchens was trash.
LogosTheos Why do you say that?
When he is w/ Matt D . Alex is awesome he will learn a lot from Matt
@@jacobmillar5048 Considering his age this titel isnt that far out there. It really isnt.
In 50yrs I'll be able to say "I watched him before he was popular!"
I don't think we'll need to wait 50 years let alone 10 lol
@@amaanyahya9863 not even 5....
why 50
You can already say that. I'd say almost 300k subscribers is rather popular.
Same
Jonathan is incredibly bright, but he's indoctrinated. That's not his fault in my opinion.
Sure it's his fault. To study biology, yet believe in "alleged" testimonies from a couple thousand yrs ago that were passed on through writings from a pig, which were heard from a cow that claimed to have heard it from the horses mouth & seen by Charlotte the spider.
I totally get where you’re coming from about his indoctrination not being his fault, I agree
@i1_e not necessarily, if your critical faculties are impaired when it comes to a specific area such that you have a blind spot, questioning those beliefs is out of your hands. I think you've assumed that the brain is sufficiently plastic to permit that kind of shift to happen, but I think once you reach a certain age, or your beliefs have become particularly entrenched for some other reason, the very notion of being challenged entrenches your position (cognitive immunity). This is to say that at some point it is difficult to argue that it is a person's 'fault' (i.e. their free choice) not to sufficiently question beliefs you hold.
You guys do realise that indoctrination is not exclusive to religion, right? Atheist households can indoctrinate their children to be closed-minded just as easily as theist households...
He is not particularly bright at all, unfortunately-- just has high verbal IQ due to autistic hyperlexia. It seems he does not possess the capability to see past his the logical fallacies he's been conditioned to believe.
So, McLatchie starts off with "I believe in evidence" then spends the *next hour* demonstrating that he *_doesn't_*
😁
The evidence is found in medical text books, describing cognitive forms of of disability. In the case of having an invisible friend that's just got to be real, those are the elements perhaps gradient at best, of skitzo affective afterlife expectations disorder, the result of paranoid levels of narcissism, left medically untreated. Narcissism is not something easily overcome, and that is what sadly causes them to go through life as if a moth to a lightbulb.
Oops, now I can't be a tourist in bonesaw $audiland.
"There is scientific proof" -Cites eye-witnesses
Recorded observation is not scientific evidence?
@@steven4428 Eye-witnesses are not scientific. Stupid people love to say that observations are science. That is wrong. Science is experimentation and repeatable studies where we can produce consistent outcomes and draw conclusions based on those consistent outcomes. Science is always repeatable. "I saw this happen" is not science. Especially when those eye-witnesses are the only "evidence" for something. Eye-witnesses alone arent enough to convict someone of a crime for example. You can just say "I saw this person steal this" and expect a conviction. It is the same in this case.
@@myles6235 *Science:* the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through *observation and experiment*
An observation is considered as scientific. Eye-witnesses recording what they observed is scientific. That is how science is conducted. People OBSERVE things and they RECORD what they observed. The only problem here is that it was recorded 2000 years ago.
*"Eye-witnesses alone arent enough to convict someone of a crime for example. You can just say "I saw this person steal this" and expect a conviction. It is the same in this case."*
So no eye-witness is capable of telling the truth? If that is the case then how can we trust ANY historical documents since they are not "repeatable"? You must not believe that people like George Washington or Julius Caesar existed.
@@steven4428 You misrepresent me. History is one thing. We know for a fact that some guy saw "Jesus get resurrected" we know that that guy existed and that he reported seeing that. It is NOT scientific evidence. I cannot make a scientific paper in which the only evidence for a finding is "I saw it". The SYSTEMIC study of structure and behavior. Did this person interact with a resurrected Jesus? How did this person know it was Jesus? There are too many unanswered questions and vague details for this type of eye-witness report to EVER be used in a scientific way. The only way for this to be used scientifically is compiled together with several accounts from different sources saying the same things. There is not enough physical evidence backing up these claims. Science is not simply seeing things and writing them down. A scientific observation requires a precise time and date and location and information beyond "I saw a thing happen". That is merely the starting point for a scientific evaluation to be made. Eye-witness reports are NOT inherently scientific. If I told you "I see a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, but he's just invisible to everyone else" that's not a scientific observation in the slightest. There are way too many factors to account for. Was the person mentally ill? Was the person telling the truth? Was the person under any sort of drugs? Are there any pieces of evidence we can use to cross-reference the claims made? Is there any physical evidence backing the claim up? You get the point. No science has EVER been conducted on eye-witness report alone. It cannot be done.
@@myles6235 *"Science is experimentation and repeatable studies where we can produce consistent outcomes and draw conclusions based on those consistent outcomes."*
Can you cite the source of your definition of science, or is this just a definition that you made up? I have looked online and I do not find your definition of science any where so I am going to assume that you just made up this definition.
*"Stupid people love to say that observations are science."*
People in denial love to say that observations are not science.
"Observation consists of *receiving knowledge of the outside world through our senses,* or recording information using scientific tools and instruments."
explorable.com/scientific-observation
In any case, agree to disagree.
It does not matter if you consider eye-witness accounts as scientific evidence or not, the truth of the matter is that it is still evidence.
So tell me, is it possible that those eye-witness accounts were correct?
By the time alex is in his thirties he'll be famous for debating people been here since 10k subs and dude you've come far.
Trolltician ANOTHER ONE
IKR? I always though he is like a young version of Richard Dawkins.
I'd like to see a conversation with Alex and Peterson
@@vilmiswow agreed
If only Alex was as popular as Hitchens ay?
I can't help loving Alex's point if views on these issues, and of course, his deliveries.
This Christian is in denial that he’s in denial. He admits that morality is subjective well still defending absolute morality
Châteaux
He never said that?
Objective morality isn't exclusive to Christianity. Rationality rules gave this skeptic guy a run for his money on that subject.
External Objective reality is the same reality for everyone, but each individual person will experience a unique subjective perception of the places and events in their lifetime. Both are correct, and both objective reality and subjective impressions have value. Facts & Feelings go together. :-)
SeaJay Oceans
That’s quite poetic
Isnt everyone who in denail in denial
Am I the only one who felt like the Jonathan answered questions and arguments like a politician? Dancing around the question, finding a loosely connected rabbit hole, and diving in.
There isn't any other way to answer those questions if you want anybody to "believe" you...
They're basically the same, they tell you, you're broke, then try and sell you nonsense to fix it.
Marissa Austin ...I agree, but I also think he’s a fast-talker, like a used car salesman. What does he have to hide? Further, it’s also an attempt to overwhelm the listeners with information and sensory overload.
If I were to debate, or speak, with this guy, I would tell him he needs to slow down, if he wants to continue.
absolutely. he barely answered any of the questions
I had enough at 33:07 and am done. I'd rather watch paint dry or grass growing than listen to Johnathan. Pathetic apologetic arguments.
“I know the good book’s good because the good book says it’s good. I know the good book knows it’s good because a really good book would.”
You did it. You broke Abrahamic religion down to its bare essentials.
I read this as some kind of atheist Dr. Suess poem. Love it! 😂
Although this is essentially the argument and its a bad one, don't underestimate its effectiveness. I was surprised not to see this one on the tier list. The key to the effectiveness of the argument is that ties the authenticity of of the bible as a whole to parts of describing what are true events. Even better it ties it to events that may or may not be true. So for example we know that Romans controlled Judea. And maybe there were people who saw what they thought was a risen religions teacher. And then we use those two generally accepted biblical theories to imply(but never state) that the stories of the 500 people in different groups seeing Jesus over the course of several days while touching him and eating with him are true. And then use the generally accepted ideas of hallucinations and eyewitness reliability to say that well its unlikely that that would be caused by hallucinations.
The argument is great because it appeals to simple expert opinion and common sense on the surface. And almost all of the attacks on the idea lead to messy places that most people just tune out. By the time you arguing about which details of the bible are likely to based on history most people have left the building. If you approach it as why would God write such an unreliable account for such an important event you end up debating theology not the validity of theology. There are other approaches but they all end up messy. The right approach is besides just ignoring the argument is to simply refuse to engage on the particulars. Simply state that books are not reliable by default, even those with some correct information. And that our standard of evidence in almost any other debate has to be independently verifiable outside of the book itself. Any of the details could be made up otherwise. Historians might use an ancient book to learn about past events but there is no reason to put any particular trust in a book beyond what you would believe in a modern book.
The great weakness of the argument though is that although people tune out the rebuttals people also tune it out all together. You will get into 10 times as many debates about how can atheists be moral which are much easier to deal with. So the slow to inevitable decline of Christianity will continue. Christianity is just not standing up to modern society like newer religions because the elite true believers are still trying to honestly justify the religion which just does not work anymore. Qanon doesn't waste time with that BS. And that scares me.
🤣😂
Around 32 minutes in the Christian is visibly shaken after Alex points out his strawmanning regarding the story of Lazarus.
Imagine if Alex claimed he had seen a resurrection? Every Christian would be sceptical and ask to see evidence
All he had to say was just to have faith in me
Ian Adams Ian Adams No worries, he could just tell 5 different people to write separate books of the event, but everyone has their own touch on it, surely it must be true now!
@@Alex-02 So somebody told 5 different people at multiple different times within a hundred years to write dozens of books to deceive the world into thinking Jesus rose from the dead? Then die horrible deaths because of this lie and they only had to recant their story to survive which all 12 deciples refused to do? Yea that sounds about right.
@@Alex-02 and only decades later may it be documented in a language that he's never spoken, so we know damn sure these authors know what they're talking about
Not every Christian. Quite a few Christians would probably worship Alex solely on his claim. Oh, they are already doing that ;-)
Alex, you're so much wiser than the opponent; and I appreciate your amazing ability to answer calmly and respectfully.
Rob Lowe who’s to say that he isn’t wiser? He certainly seems wiser as this guy only dodged questions because they’re too hard to answer.
Rob Lowe because the questions did have relevance to the questions and if he did not have the mental ability to understand that he is certainly not wiser.
Rob Lowe when asked a question about killing his he said he believed that God would not do that (the abraham question I believe) and attempted to go on to another question. If he fails to see the relevance in a question that should challenge his views (this is a debate) than he is not wiser than Alex. You can prove this by watching Alex in this debate. If you need further confirmation watch more of Alex’s videos and see that he is much wiser than this fool.
Alex "so if God puts you in the position he put Abraham in what would you do?"
Other dude "I don't awnser questions inconsistent with God's behavior and he wouldn't do that"
But the problem with that is that Yahweh did do it. Oh, goodness, I felt sorry for the Christian dude.
Yahweh had no problem drowning all the unborn babies on the planet
because their parents had fallen into sin
while he watched
and did nothing.
Kids make fun of a bald prophet!
(God's response) "What?! That is outrageous, I just sent bears to kill the little bastards".
Actual verse...Lol
@WingsOfTruth Yeah, and jesus said he was there to fulfill the old covenant, not replace it.
@WingsOfTruth You must not be a true Christian. The new testament in your Bible says "until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved." If your god wasn't a myth he would be a truly despicable maniac.
“The scriptures predict the future, for example the second coming of jesus” uh... that hasn’t happened yet
“I don’t answer questions that make me look bad”
Man, I hate it when preaching breaks out at a debate.
Fuckin hell that closin statement. Dude went straight into conversion mode.
Yeah, that was quite confusing lol. Imo he only hurt his own credibility with that though
Happens when you preaching to the sceptic. Do you want to invite them to your House? Btw, what kind of person do you invite to your home
the guy was such an idiot. didn't have any closing arguments, so he went into preaching mode. " follow christ and don't question him..."
He needs "dmt ayahuasca" to debate with the serpent
I think the christian seems really nice and actually smart, but it can be extremely hard to look past your bias when it has been instilled in you since birth and propagated through your entire life :(
It's amazing what religion can do to even the smartest of us.
Most of you just basically lacks experience that's why. I can't even imagine what look your faces would've made if you've seen something supernatural.
All of his arguments were literally anecdotal...nothing was scientific nor was it real evidence
@@late8641 Do you mean, "..do TO even the smartest.."
@@paulvr9964 I love the kind of people in the comments section who point out grammatical mistakes. I fixed it, are you happy now?
McLatchie: "My passion and heartbeat in life is to promote an intelligent, rational and evidence based christian faith"
No.
Lol
53:40 - 54:30 that was one of the most civil and mature things I have witnessed since ages. Alex is truly an excellent thinker and speaker, a great representative for atheists.
@lary Snw okay then what is your defense for slavery and sex slaves?
@@Chepperz There's no defense really, unless you are that kinky.
But seriously tho, I hardly can think on a context where slavery is "ok", I used to ask my mother about topics like that, and her answer kinda was "those were different times with different ideas" but if that's the case, the Bible can't stand very well today.
@@blarghgaefbleeeergargflgar5249 exactly, well said.
Alex is truly an excellent thinker and speaker,I agree ,to bad he doesn't see that science backs up Theism as the only logical explanation of the origins of life and creation,he speaks his own ideas but science does not agree with Alex or Aron, or Matt ,or any other Atheist.
@@frankamodeo3640 Prove not only that thiesm proves *anything,* but _which_ thiesm and by what repeatable experiment can i conduct to come to the same results you did?
I don't answer hypotheticals (when they aren't supporting me).
He doesnt answer hypotheticals that are incoherent and make no possible bearing in the world, which is perfectly rational. I have no clue what you guys are on about.
@@Dissandou no, the only reason he didn't want to answer the question is because he knew he couldn't give an honest answer, so he weaselled his way out of it.
"Would you kill your child if God asks you to?"
_Shit. Gotta dodge this one._ "I don't answer hypocriticals."
@@Dissandou He's talking about what someone would do if they were put in the Bible.
@@mantassalavejus7625 I explained exactly why this interpretation isn't too reasonable to hold
@@Dissandou Here's an incoherent hypothetical that makes no possible bearing in the world.
"Would you fuck your mom to save your dad?"
Here's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical while discussing morality in the bible.
"Would you kill your own son if God commanded you to?" (It's not as if it's out of his character)
know the difference.
I love that this man keeps pulling out the Bible without proving that the Bible itself is true and to be used as evidence
A voice inside my brain told me to kill my son.
I have to do what the voice says even though I know it is forbidden by Yahweh's sixth commandment.
Watch the debate between Alex O'Connor vs Mohammad Hijab at Oxford: ruclips.net/video/1n-zYRZy5NQ/видео.html
@@JamesRichardWiley Watch the debate between Alex O'Connor vs Mohammad Hijab at Oxford: ruclips.net/video/1n-zYRZy5NQ/видео.html
Most apologetics do this. They use the Bible to prove itself. Or they take the next step of already assuming the bible is the truth.
@RetroMan Not sure if this is a troll attempt or you just don't know that this is categorically false.
CosmicSkeptic, you articulate what's on your mind so well. You are the new and improved Hitchens of this era. Congrats.
@SabumnimPR Alex is in a class of his own. I believe he will surpass Hitchens.
It's 3am and I need to sleep. Oh look an hour long cosmic skeptic video
I have 2 GCSE's tomorrow. Well, today now.
Thank you for this comment, you got me to check the time.
I'm going to add this to watch later and go to sleep.
@@xenorenaus7198 Same. I have my GCSE exam tomorrow too yet here I am up at 00:51 AM watching this
@@xenorenaus7198 same here, hope they go well today :)
Good luck to you all and remember, these exams aren’t your whole world.
@@deltanovember1672 cheers for that :)
"I dont answer hypotheticals" he says while talking about a hypothetical god
True
And then he says "how much would it take for you to consider your brother the messiah"
Although I agree that it is pretty funny. I was actually impressed with this response. The standard approach to getting around questions you don't want to answer is to try to talk about something else or say a jumble of words that mean nothing. As he does later. But for someone who does not care about rules of logic simply declaring a line of inquiry off bounds, with the implication that the fight to put it in bounds is highly abstract, is really powerful. Your audience will disengage with the entire line of reasoning without a need to justify. Unfortunately for him this was a set up for a trap that though perhaps avoidable he could not help but walking into. The refusal to answer the hypothetical being Segwayed into an obviously practical question just totally caught him off guard.
I was also super impressed with his opening argument(I don't buy it of course but its clever). Basically confuse the likely partially history based parts of the bible with the bible as a whole being true. I think this is now the most common Christian apologist tactic for good reason. Islam uses it too now. But it is very much a set piece argument. All the ways of attacking it, while often valid, end up truing into messes which take a long time to untangle. Which is all Christian apologists really need. Some defense to use when needed while using the normal appeals to religion for people they actually want as members. But its set piece nature also presents problems. Mostly that it can just be ignored and is honestly not that memorable to most people compared more classical approaches. And by spending so much time on it Christian apologists tend to get caught flat footed when opponents just ignore it.
@@peterisawesomeplease yep same here ngl
It is called an assumption you dumb?
First he says that it wouldn't be in character for God to ask him to kill his son, then he said that the genocide God ordered was for a greater cause...
That's a GIGANTIC contradiction, my sir.
Or the fact that his God did indeed order Abraham (or dude X) to pointlessly murder his own child, even if he rescinded the order at the last moment--think of the terror and permanent physiological damage done to that poor child. My dad would have told God to GO TO HELL or I'd have zero respect for him.
Are we even going to point out that in the 10 commandments God says “thou shalt not kill” and yet here we are, God telling this guy to murder his son
@@theplushtoywolf1038 The 10 Commandments did not exist during the time of Abraham, they were created several generations later in Moses' time.
Humanity had already fallen into lives of sin, there was no concrete law or supreme ruler telling people how to live their lives correctly. It is because of this reason that the Commandments were created by God, to show people how to live holy and right by God.
The moral humanity in Abraham would make him feel the pain of murdering his own son, without any law or society telling him that it's wrong. He knew it would hurt to commit this, but God's command is greater than his hurting. God had a bigger plan for Abraham, and making him do this was all part of it.
God's ways are higher than mere humans. We can't pretend to comprehend how an infinite and mighty God thinks and works with our limited knowledge.
Srujith Vanganuru I still think that it’s worrying that someone would be willing to kill their son, just because a voice in their head told them so
You need to realize the authority of God. God is the creator and as such has command over his creation. It is noted in the Bible that the Potter (God) has every right to do what what he wants with the clay (humans). You're looking at this from a HUMAN morality, not God's morality. God cannot live with unholy beings, he knew that the world was lost forever therefore in order to save it while maintaining free will, he sent the flood. You cannot use the argument of God being contridictory with murder, without fully understanding God.
OMG that closing! Jonathan sounded like he was rethinking his whole life while mumbling through his prepared speel, then Alex slams home the absolute absurdity of it all.
I walked on water. My friend Jeff will tell you I walked on water. Have faith, for I am the messiah and the embodiment of god. You need not evidence, you simply need faith and to believe in me and to believe in god.
You son of a bitch, I'm in.
@@dillonferreira3529 love the reference
I’m in
I don't see anything wrong with that argument
Yeah... But evidence helps. Would you like me to supply you some?
For a bloke who's unwilling to engage in hypotheticals, he's amazingly willing to speculate about his god's opinions, justification, afterlife, etc. Is it cowardly to only answer your own questions?
As soon as a person starts introducing himself as doing Christian apologetics, they might just open up with: I'm really into lying and sophistry.
Exactly.
To dismiss all Christian apologists as being liars is just poisoning the well
@@1999_reborn It's not really because it isn't a claim using irrelevant information about the apologists in a sort of ad hominem way...if you listen to this guy, you will actually hear all the same crap they always use. So I would suggest in an informal way that the well has already been poisoned, and it is the apologists who did it themselves.
Apologetics were concoted by contractually-obligated individuals who could never question the existence of God, coming up with literally any way to try and excuse logical fallacies.
@@1999_reborn And I would add that I am more convinced in a sincere faith of a regular, even simple person than I am in the faith of a professional apologist.
I just love how when Alex brought up the issue of sex slavery Jonathan tried to avoid it by talking about murder instead of answering the actual question. I also think that a lot of his stuttering was to pass the time. And then he goes on to say “well we don’t know what was happening at the time.” I don’t care what the context of the passage was and you can’t use that to justify disgusting behavior like that. That’s like trying to defend Jeffery dahmers actions by saying that we don’t know what his situation was. Christians always use the “we don’t know the context” thing when they aren’t able to explain the obvious encouragement of garbage like this. It’s absolutely disgusting.
You're not wrong
Not to forget, that we knew very exactly what was going on with jesus resurrection because it was said in the bible, but there it was like oh we need more information to know the situation 😂
I haven't watched this yet but I am guessing the "evidence" for will basically be "because the Bible says so".
Nailed it.
Pretty much
When you say "evidence" you are talking about a specific kind that is limited to laboratories and perceptions. There are many things within the realms of science that really can't be captured or studied. A lot of this takes places in quantum mechanics, for example. In fact, most of what makes the universe operate can't be seen or contained. Most of what we can only theorize about is 95% of the universe. Only 5% is what we call, "physical" or chemical. And even the physical isn't really, physical. Everything is energy and frequencies. So to say, "show me god", is really like saying, "show me hyper space" or "show me where non locality particles are when they disapear". The only way we can really study those things are by how they affect things we can see or sense in some way. They seem to be beyond the limitations of our minds and dimensions.
@@nathanelder7872 Convenient, isn't it
@@preachercaine I don't think it's convenient at all. It seems our senses are very limited and almost, disabled. If there were a "fallen state" of a universe, I would expect it to be very limited and chaotic, like the one we are in.
I thought the theist guy would blow my mind with some scientific evidence to prove Christianity is true but he just used the Bible to prove the Bible.
I've been in enough youtube arguments to not be surprised at all
they all do that, you shouldn't expect anything lol.
Yeah use Bible to beat a bible believer
He spouts Bible passages, poems, and feelings like they hold some kind of weight in an argument lol
Another one bites the dust...
CosmicSkeptic: You tossed him a bunch of softball questions and he still failed miserably.
debate jay dyer
AK SHUALLY is that another theist that would lose?
Questions aren't arguments especially when the question is designed to do nothing more than probe his opponent's psychology. How does the Christian's answer to whether or not he would kill someone if God asked him to have any relevance to the Resurrection? CosmicSkeptic lost! His opponent made arguments. He didn't even address the arguments. His point that there are contradictions in the Bible is not an argument against the Resurrection. It's an argument against Biblical Inerrancy. His point that he doesn't like the consequences of the Resurrection and how it doesn't fit his lifestyle is also not an argument against the Resurrection. The Christian wins again! I can't even comprehend how biased you have to be to think that CosmicSkeptic won this debate when he didn't even try to tackle the evidence presented by his opponent.
@@jaymiddleton1782 Give me one argument that CosmicSkeptic made against the evidence presented by the Christian? From where I'm standing he conceded everything but then argued that the Bible has contradictions, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Resurrection occurred, and that he didn't like the consequences of the Resurrection.
Michael Sayad the Christian didn’t present *any* evidence, so... yeah.
Belief in god isn’t justifiable, friend. Sorry.
"I don't like to answer hypothetical questions, because that would show my beliefs up to be total bullshit"
Is Christianity true?
1) Christianity bases its doctrine on the Bible, claiming it is infallible.
2) Book has glaring mistakes that start on the first page.
3) Christianity is not true
Done, look at that, took me 30 seconds.
Christianity bases it's doctrine on the legitimacy of the bible. The Bible has glaring errors on the first page alone, let alone the rest of the book. Therefore, Christianity is not true
There it is, in syllogistic form
Christianity isn't based on biblical inerrancy. Yikes. Strawmanning is your specialty.
Trolltician BONUS ROUND, BLESS MY SOUL
@Trolltician So, firstly, it's not MY syllogism, but if it's "sad" maybe you should, idk, debunk it?
@@jordancox8294 Christianity is predicted on the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired. The argument here is to demonstrate the incredible level of unreliability that the book on shows SO FREQUENTLY that you don't even need to look past the first page to find really bad mistakes. Because Christianity is based around said book, the legitimacy of Christianity is thus called into question
If you have a PHD in anything & are still arguing for the literal interpretation of the Bible, you should demand a refund from your alma mater.
Same thing if you believe in God and have the internet. Ask your isp for a refund.
@Jeff T a PhD is not about memory
I find it astounding that he claims that science, especially micro biology, proves God's existence. If anything, science of all kinda does quite the opposite.
@Jeff T phd's especially in science isn't about regurgitating information. It's about critical thinking. have to account for the fact that how a person acts and or responds to logic isn't the same as him being able to reason when there is no stake. There are stakes in his christian argument so he will twist and turn to defend it but if he's analysing the microbial growth of tubercolosis on agar and 20 percent humidity he can be objective because there is no stake.
@Jeff T that is quite bold of you to assume a PhD at Oxford is about regurgitating information.
God- "I have written my understanding of morality within your hearts."
Human- "I don't understand why you would allow sex slavery."
God- "I work in mysterious ways."
Human- "So are we supposed to understand your morality?"
God- "Yes, for that is the only way towards your reward."
Human- "I still don't understand as you are mysterious but I'll have faith."
God- "Faith is your path to me. What are you doing?"
Human- "Having a sex slave."
God- "WHAT! Why are you doing that!"
Human- "I had faith that you would give me your understanding of morality."
God- "Me damn it, I'm sending you straight to Hell."
Human- "But you revealed to me that faith is the path to you even if your morality is mysterious."
God- "You damned yourself with your free will."
Human- "What's free will now?"
God- "It's something I gave you so that you could choose things other than my morality."
Human- "I had faith my heart was guiding me towards your morals. My heart can be wrong?"
God- "Yes, which is why I'm punishing you for choosing the wrong morals."
Human- "How was I supposed to know your morals if faith couldn't guide me?"
God- "You couldn't, I work in mysterious ways."
Human- "I'm confused."
God- "Which is why I wrote my morality into your heart."
Human- "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!"
So you believe in God then?
I love it
@@janepatton8100 No, I'm having a bit of fun with the moral argument for god. Any moral authority would have a moral obligation not to be ambiguous and confusing.
@@productivediscord5624
The soul that sins shall die... what's confusing about that?
@@janepatton8100 You quote Ezekiel 18:20 "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." The use of soul varies across versions but Ezekiel references putting a father to execution in versus 18:18- 18:19 so the context of this line is referring to physical death.
Even if Ezekiel 18:20 refers to soul, this is directly contradicting God's cursing of generations for the actions of fathers in Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;"
Ezekial also says in 18:13 "He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head."
Making mortgage plans, interest loans, and 401ks a sin worthy of execution. You don't profit off interest in any way,(sharpens axe) do you?
Nice job Alex, love how you eloquently helped him walk himself into a major fail on morality. Very nicely done sir!
@I'm wondering yeah, but that is a quote from the Bible. Which is unreliable. Try again.
40 minutes: 'I refuse to answer hypothetical questions... I don't believe God would ask me that question'. In other words 'I only believe in the god i want to believe in'. The killing of the firstborn and various slaughters, killing a fig tree out of spite and condemning billions to eternal burning is kind of not-nice. The gospels are pretty overly damning of the poor bewildered Pharisees, however daft they were.
Alex is so eloquent I'm almost convinced of his divinity
Its joke man, chill
You all KNOW that God exists
Nate Perez yeah, we all just pretend he doesn't, right? Think again, lol
It's called brown nosing CG : )
Watch his debate with muhammed hijab
The Christian keeps talking in circles and answering vaguely.
That’s because he’s an idiot
Thats the problem with debating with christians, All of their "evidence" comes from a single book. All of the points they have are basically just "I know he is real because this book says so"
This guy was mediocre. If you want a real debate I'd be happy to suggest some videos👍
Galen Williams The Bible was written by different men on different continents and lived hundreds of years apart, yet they all foretold something about Jesus - there are more than 300 prophecies about him. A study was conducted and found that Jesus just fulfilling 7 prophecies was 1 in 10 with 18 zeros. Secondly, science taught us 200 years ago that the earth was flat and mounted on 3 tortoises, yet in the oldest book in the Bible ( the book of Job), he said god hangs the *globe* 🌎 upon nothing - it was written there hundreds of years before mankind saw the earth from space. And lastly eternity has been placed in our hearts, that simply means that everyone that’s ever existed deep down in their hearts know that they are eternal beings and that there is something after death - are you going to choose Jesus and go to heaven? Because whether you believe it or not, you’re soul is eternal and you’re either going to spend you’re eternity in Heaven or hell, and it’s you’re choice. Jesus proved to the world he was the son of god, and the Bible has been proven over and over again.
@@brandonwhite2231 For starter I didn't say one thing about any of that. Only stated a simple fact, that the man that happens to be a Christian is talking in circles and never truly answering the questions that are presented. I would have said the same thing if an Atheist had acted the same.
And for two. A Greek discovered that the Earth was round and calculate it's circumference. The numbers were slightly off but he still got it close. This was much further back than the 200 years that you had brought up. He did this by waiting until he could see the bottom of a well at high noon and then compared his data to a well that was in another city(some of the details might be slightly off. It has been awhile since I read that, but feel free to look into it yourself if you don't believe me.) So from this we can already discount one of your points and that is just without me having to do any research at all.
Lastly what evidence do you have that supports your claim that I don't believe in a soul? I believe that there are things that science can't explain yet. For example if you went back into the stone age cavemen wouldn't know how electricity works but fast forward a few thousand years and you have a civilization build on it. So a "soul" is not impossible. It could just be a form of science that we don't yet have a level of understanding.
If you read all of this thank you for your time.
If I hear the "it doesn't hurt to believe even if he isn't real, but hurts if he is real and you don't believe" argument one more time I swear.
That argument is wrong on so many levels:
1: It hurts to believe if he isnt real, since you go your whole life living after made-up rules that restrict your life pretty heavily
2: If God is good and merciful like they claim, he'd just forgive you for not believing in him
3: If you suffer in Hell for not believing in God without concrete proof, God isnt good and I wouldnt want to worship him anyway
@@deathstalkerx4415 This exactly and: Pascal's Wager + accounting for the infinite doom when adding in other religions to the exists/belief matrix.
@@deathstalkerx4415 "Thou shalt not lie, but it's totally cool to lie to god to selfishly save your soul. He's all-knowing but super gullible."
@deathstalkerx4415 also pascal's wager implies only 2 options the Abrahamic god is real or hes not. When in reality there could be in infinite number of possibilities.
@@HillBelichick Hey, he who is without sin shall throw the first stone, no? And how is it lying, exactly? I dont believe in God until I see concrete proof. If I get beamed up after I die and Gods like "well you doubted, but here I am", Id obviously start "believing", but at that point, Faith is no longer required due to concrete proof. I dont think he is gullible, but he is portrayed to be forgiving. I dont think hed be too mad that I didnt believe in something I had no proof of. And if he is, read point no.3
“Certainly nothing real so I went for Theology” oooooofffff
Jonathan: *OoO*
_Jonathan:_ *:-o*
bars
when you lie to yourself, everything is real then
I am not sure if that says oof, of or off, but I like ur vibe
Asking you to kill someone isn't consistent with God's character? Um...
I was amused by that joke too
"God asked a man to kill his son, would you do that if God asked?"
"That's not consistent with God's character"
He did it once, why wouldn't he do it again
Yeah, definitely a bit strange thing to say.
...and Alex didn't press him on his blatant lie.
@@ericcraig3875 Alex is too polite for that, still he's done a wonderful job here.
God when he sacrifices himself to himself to protect himself from himself: "Oh yeah, it's all coming together"
Holy Shi-
LMAO!!! Pretty much yeah
Apple Pi what? You are missing the point. We all broke the law, Jesus paid the fine so God can legally let us go. ( a easier way for you to think of it ). Do sure, how is his death protecting him? He is God, he doesn’t need us, yet he loves us so much that he gave his only son so that we may have a way through Jesus.
@@Artist-bs3ib it’s a joke.
@@Artist-bs3ib Agreed to a point, we as part of creation, I would say are all loved by god.
There are humans on this planet who will live their whole lives, never to hear about Jesus. And some of them are likely to be loving people, who care for their community and help each other out, as a service to others, like the examples that Jesus provided. But when they die, even though they were what we would generally call "good people", go to hell for all eternity after because they never heard of Jesus?
If one believes that they exist after death, whether it's heaven or hell, means you must have existed prior to birth.
You killed this Alex. Keep it up man.
You know you are doing something wrong when u are trying to defend slavery and abuse for 10 mins straight
Maybe for his encore he can defend Yahweh straight up murdering David newborn son. Very few Christians know about that little gem of a tale.
@@ianyboo and that time god sent a bear to kill children for making fun of a bald man.
You know you are a Christian apologist when u are trying to defend slavery and abuse for 10 mins straight
@@styot and then, OFC, it still defeats you in the end but tou still maintain enough ignorance to continue to perpetuate it. SMFH
Starts by claiming he is a proponent of proving Christianity with evidence based arguments but instead gives a sermon... how disappointing.
I love "historical documents" with ANGELS in them.
Well if there are angels that's too bad.
Well Roman text and historical artifacts show Jesus’s death along with about 400 people witnessing his resurrection
Ancient Aliens shows 80 ton stones cut and 'dragged' for miles and miles... UFOs or did they just drink a lot of Power Lifter Whey Powder ?
Mario G
That doesn’t mean he was a fucking messiah. Many people remember Mandela dying in prison and yet he didn’t.
@@mariog1490 They don't, everyone knows that the passages mentioning jesus were added by later scribes.
"Morality carved on our hearts" I hear this a lot and would love to know what they have to say to someone like me who doesn't have guilt, remorse, a conscious or knows internally what right and wrong is. As a borderline psychopath, I don't have any of these so-called feelings. That's if they even truly exist. I have to take what professionals say about me and I have to accept that most people have these types of feelings. Then you want to try and prove to me that a god carved these feelings on everyone's hearts except me (and others like me) seriously how fucking arrogant...
You and David Wood should start a podcast.
So do you go around killing people? Ia it totally ok to you to hurt others? Why do you even consult with professionals, if lack of moral feelings is totally ok? That is if they even exist
@@DartNoobo Dude your reading comprehension needs work. I never said nor implied any of these things.
@@KoolBreeze420 thanks for insult. Anyway, since you do not have any moral feelings, so to say, how do you distinguish right from wrong?
@@DartNoobo I didn't insult you. I merely told the truth, if the truth insults you then do better. Your comment to me said things I never said nor implied. You know right from wrong through being taught. Just like everyone else.
You're spoiling us, Alex! And so much content out of the blue. I applaud you, sir!
Christian dude: "I've got loads of evidences (first time I see this word in the plural btw..) that Jesus was resurrected". Here we go:
1. The Bible says there were many eye-witnesses and they are most probably reliable and truthful (no justification)
2. A Jewish scholar said "well, the disciples must have seen something. I'm not saying it was Jesus, but something"
3. A German scholar said "the disciples must have had experiences in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ"
4. Bible quote (Corinthians)
5. Another Bible quote (Corinthians)
6. There were so many martyrs, they wouldn't have gone through that if what they believed was a lie (ding dong, suicide bombers... anyone?)
7. More Bible references of Jesus appearing to people
8. Stating there is an "avalanche" (really?) of cumulative evidence that the bible is trustworthy (again, no justification)
9. The end
Seriously now, these people are at uni, studying physics. I get shivers down my spine. Makes me wanna feed my degrees to my dog..... and I don't have a dog.
My fave comment by far.😆😆
How do you explain the empty tomb and the rise of Christianity? Before you say you don't believe there was a Jesus or empty tomb, many fine secular historians believe unreservedly that Jesus existed and was crucified. So what is the most logical explanation for the behavior of Jesus' followers in the weeks after his execution?
a nice summary of the confusion in ML's head.
@@markmooroolbark252 what is the most logical explanation for suicide bombers today?
Somebody with such contradictory thinking will not get far in a practice as focused on truth and fact as physics. I’m sure it will not stay that way.
I really hate when Christian debaters spend their opening/closing statements treating the stand like it's a pulpit to give a sermon on... You're here in academia to give an intellectually honest opinion and argumentation, *not* to preach your doctrine like this is sunday school...
In other words the Christian won and you do not like it.
@@TBOTSS NOPE HE LOST AN YOU DONT LIKE IT. IF I QUOTE ISLAM DO I WIN NOPE DUMBASS🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
@@bloodrain4361 Again insane behaviour from atheists. All CAPS and lots of emojis is not an argument. I notice that Cosmic Skeptic is so butt hurt about his failure; is now dreaming up non-existent theories of malpractice by his opponents.
@@TBOTSS EXACTLY NO PROOF YOU HAVE THE PASTOR AN YOU ARE BUTT HURT IM NOT HERE TO DEBATE THERE IS PROOF THAT YOUR OBIVIOUSLY WRONG
@@TBOTSS YOU DONT KNOW ME IM NOT ATHIEST ARE YOU I DONT KNOW
Very nice debate as a whole here. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, watch from the 40 minute mark to 54:30. I think this generally will have the information needed to know who wins this debate. Or at least it will provide reasoning for you to make a decision for yourself