Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? (Frank Turek vs. Michael Shermer)

[@derrickmensah1135]

I can't just stop listening to Frank. I actually applied some of the things I learnt from his videos and i was able to prove to an atheist that there is God. The person is now a believer.

[@calvinscheck2910]

Amen brother, me too!

[@stevenhird1837]

What did you do hypnotise him or her with a swinging chain..

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

What arguments did you use to do this?

[@AquaNutt]

​@@stevenhird1837nah just common sense

[@stickyrubb]

Small minded gullible man it must've been then

[@6.0hhh]

Actual debate begins at 4:15

[@robertoesquivel4447]

Thank you

[@atlanta0]

Thanks

[@dt7491]

Frank destroyed him

[@redpilledtrooper7523]

Thanks

[@GBlues1]

Thanks Shane

[@josiahhaas4067]

How the heck is frank tureks son 30, frank looks 40

[@anepicflyingbrick_4872]

Josiah Haas well he’s 56 or 57 I think

[@LisaSpirito87]

so true! he looks 40

[@joshuasalazar4316]

he is 58

[@TonyMiyamoto]

I love you guys

[@shemmy95]

God has kept him 😉

[@mr.e432]

"It's ok to be mad at God. He's an infinite being, He can take it." This hit me hard. Thank you

[@solmerlem1073]

Unless you die mad I think it's ok

[@matsbjur2535]

...but he loves you and gets mad if you love another god? 😂

[@mr.e432]

@@matsbjur2535 How would you feel if you had a kid and they called another man "dad?" Not only just that, they actively ignore you for this other dad. You'd be happy about that?

[@jefferyperkins4668]

Mr. E If my kid didn’t love me I’d look to my own self first and ask whether I did anything to deserve his love. Your god’s creation leaves a lot to be desired don’t you think? There maybe a god in another galaxy who did it better. I wouldn’t be surprised.

[@mr.e432]

@@jefferyperkins4668 You obviously haven't watched any debates to listen or learn, just respond and react. I'm actively searching for the truth. Idk what I am. You should try it

[@RealSuedeDuck]

I actually watched the whole thing

[@TonyMiyamoto]

Powerful.. Shalom from Johannesburg South Africa

[@tererairice335]

About to do the same myself 🙂

[@ChristopherDolby]

Congrats!! Definitely worth your time

[@Contornus]

and what a waste of time it is...

[@anthonywchavez]

@josué González Rivera your opinion is subjective

[@kainable8769]

Whenever someone brings up “no God, big bang”. I say I believe in The Big Bang I just know who lit the match!

[@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722]

"I believe in the big bang, I just know who banged it!" - Frank Turek

[@kainable8769]

Samuel Hunter-Gatherer from Spelunker Cell yep, I came up with my phrase before I heard Frank’s... I had so much pride when I heard him say it... and it bothers me when some christians deny the big bang when the big bang actually creates a problem for naturalists.

[@donnnick]

@@kainable8769 first off you have to realize that the Big Bang is the last gap possible for god to be thrown into these days. Imagine all the gaps where god was the answer just 300 years ago. Variety of life, the earth, dinosaurs, and speaking of the earth and science in the beginning god created the heaven and earth and then created light but a generation of stars had to die to create the carbon that then created the planets, I’m not sure why this gets missed by so many, well I should say the few who read it. And the prime mover argument gives you a first cause, a beginning step, not even close to the personal loving knowing watching and judgmental god. That is the dishonest part apart this whole conversation anyone arguing for this from the theists perspective uses this to give us the god of the Bible. But to the point whatever started the universe if it is in fact created, is going to be outside of our intuition, it is going to go against the laws of nature, in order to say nothing to something has to come from something it seems improbable to have nothing pop into existence, but you have no example of nothing existing to compare probability. And what is evidence for god? Loss of faith. Faith requires lack of knowledge, is faith not enough for the believer? It would seem so.

[@guyjosephs5654]

@@kainable8769 the Big Bang does not create a problem for naturalism. Just because we don’t understand the before the Big Bang doesn’t equal an issue.

[@universeoflife1035]

@@guyjosephs5654 it does. The question of life’s creation then is still not answered. You can not like it or not want to accept it but it certainly does cause an issue, what was before it. What made it

[@brotherbread6549]

Year late comment but...More and more evil is being accepted since I can remember. Everytime I listen to a debate against God, it only makes me more cemented in my faith as a believer whom trusts Jesus Christ more and more everyday. Love all my brothers and sisters in here.

[@vuho2075]

Are you sure these beings even exist?

[@DB-rc9ln]

Amen

[@Namato360]

@@vuho2075 100%

[@assininecomment1630]

Are the arguments _against_ atheism - being the basis from which to gain understanding of the existence of what we call reality - all so logical and reasonable and rational that they can't be denied? Are the arguments against theism - being the basis from which we gain understanding of the reality surrounding us - so flawed and incoherent and illogical that they cannot be denied?

[@kevinsilva9357]

Lol funny myth man

[@rayewilliams4431]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

[@ChristopherDolby]

God uses the foolish to shame the wise, and Dr Frank to own Apologetics 👊💀

[@recieve.believe3344]

@demigodzilla that was an inside job! Not "Middle Eastern" terrorist.

[@teresamcmud2605]

@@recieve.believe3344 Yeah sure, now do that with all the other atrocities committed in the name of the "right" god.

[@recieve.believe3344]

@@teresamcmud2605 When atrocities like this happen, the "god" of money is more likely than not the motive! Just ask Bush, Cheney and company.

[@teresamcmud2605]

@@recieve.believe3344 Yeah who cares what the facts show and the actual testimony of the people who committed the act. Is ISIS a Bush plant too?

[@sanvor6016]

you answered in a way that took every doubt I ever had!! I asked God to show me truth. He did through you

[@manuelandalon7365]

Amen, All Glory To Jesus Christ ✞🕊❤️

[@ChristopherDolby]

Great apologists do that! God bless Dr Frank!! 😇😇😇

[@calebgomez8992]

I love how great and simple Frank can explain things. He was one of the first apologists that really strengthened my faith when first coming to Christ.

[@ChristopherDolby]

bob dunson Not a fan?

[@ChristopherDolby]

bob dunson LOL! I inferred what I didn’t know from what I did! 😉

[@rajeshshetty4862]

Frank is becoming a front runner in defending Christian Faith .

[@RobbDepp]

I think at this point he's THE guy. Especially because he's able to explain complex concepts and information in such a concise and simplistic fashion, he was tailor made for today's 30 second soundbite culture.

[@rajeshshetty4862]

@@RobbDepp absolutely right

[@WalliTDM]

Robert Bonilla THE guy is David Wood in my opinion but frank up there

[@ketojenn1669]

I recently became an athiest. The thiest were more crucial in the switch than the athiest. The thiest arguments are not convincing and actually made me question how they can rationalize the immorality of the bible. The only answers they give are "god" and "the bible says so". I think he should find a different argument, this one does not work. If there is no other argument then quit debating.

[@kristofftaylovoski60]

I prefer those 1980's mullet headed Defenders of the Faith that played Led Zeppelin records backwards to get their apologetic message across.

[@shamarwashington5574]

1:17:50 I love how Frank can go along with jokes even when they are against him. Respect✊🏾💯

[@martinboyd447]

There's no way he could do his job otherwise. He'd be dust and tears! You have to have thick skin to be that full of s*** in public

[@assininecomment1630]

But he's _intellectually dishonest._

[@johnaajohni2129]

@@assininecomment1630relax

[@bryanbulmer6716]

hmm was that supposed to be an argument? or was that an insult?@@assininecomment1630

[@assininecomment1630]

Well it _would_ be only my "own personal [sic] opinion", if you disagree with the established definition of the term,@joeturner9219.

[@jamesdavidson7604]

If michael keeps going to these debates he ain't gunna be an atheist for much longer😆

[@falsegospel1640]

@Donald Nadeau C.R.I.M.E.S

[@samael5782]

He learned to think, you can't undo that. ;) Maybe a lobotomie can bring him back to Christianity...

[@mystery6411]

Yeah he's pretty weak to be honest.

[@robertparaday9122]

Intellectual pride is so strong in these atheists. They can't stand the thought of not being god themselves.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@demigodzilla No vultures have an important place in nature and the circle of life. Christianity is just an evil fairy tale, that is only concerned with scaring people into submission.

[@3BigChins]

I think Frank did a better job arguing the existence of God as an explanation and grounding for our reality, than Michael did who mainly argued against religion via thought but couldn’t nail the objectivity of reality as clearly as Frank.

[@Saskobest]

the usual arguments(kinda the only ones left for theists, fine tunning and the comsological argument, both which are mostly refused/refuted by physicsist , philosophers and biologists

[@donparker4521]

What was the argument again? Can you explain arguing against anything without thought? How does an unfalsifiable concept explain anything, much less another concept that being the objectivity of reality?

[@iblogthereforeiam4267]

Mr Shermer is rude, interruptive, uncouth, unsophisticated, obnoxious & Full of Himself!

[@iblogthereforeiam4267]

The moderator is NOT a moderator in any sense of the word, and he should not take on this role Again!! He had Absolutely NO Control! He was useless in this situation. He allowed atheist to run rough shod over the entire proceeding!!! Quite disappointing indeed. It is a very tedious, unproductive, and difficult to get through this entire thing.

[@majm4606]

_3Big,_ how so? He didn't present reasonable evidence of a god, he just made the same old illogical arguments. You know like if Gary tells you leprechauns are the best explanation for objective morality and just says objective morals exist for no reason, do those two non-evidenced claims magically combine and become reasonable evidence of leprechauns? No. It's just Gary saying things without any real grounding in reality. A claim without evidence (baseless assertion) is an error of logic. Well all of Turek's arguments have errors like that, and those errors prevent those arguments from being evidence of a god.

[@t.j.p._ii]

When you have a spiritual lens on life. It makes everything the atheists say sound like rubbish and nonsensical blabbering.💯💯💯

[@DJRickard2010]

But Turek has a religious lens, or more accurately, blinders

[@TonyMiyamoto]

Yeah.. I mean Mike's closing statements sounded like the tower of babel and the whispering serpent.. Let us make a name for ourselves, don't obey The Most High you can be one too..

[@SandShark350]

@@DJRickard2010 Christian lenses are focal lenses, not blinders.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

@@DJRickard2010 where does information come from. There is only one source of information and that is mind. Take note. INFORMATION IS PRIMARY. WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. Jesus was PROPHECISED to come to earth thousands of years before He did and He fulfilled EVERY thing He was supposed to do. Only God knows the future. Jesus said He is coming back when the world is in the state it's in in our generation. So He is coming very soon because He is God.

[@jefferyperkins4668]

Gerard Moloney Only god knows the future? What makes you think that is true?. What future does god know? That the universe will implode someday? We all know that. Does god know when and how you will die, whether there will be a republican victory in November, whether it will rain next month? Silly. God could not possibly want to be bothered by such inane trivia. The concept of god’s omniscience is absurd. But more important , why is it so important to you? You really think god gives a f about what happens to you? And Even if he does what difference does it make?

[@rwharrington87]

This was a fun and respectful discussion. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

[@KairylIkbal]

Agreed, it was interesting to see the thought process of both. Clearly Tyrek is a better "debater", even though he couldn't prove any of his points with evidence

[@marknalley7177]

I'm currently about 45 minutes in. So far I have heard an atheist who is against the God of the gaps argument use the exact argument to prove atheism, comparing God to off the magic dragon, and coy insults to people who disagree woth him. On The other hand Turek laid out a very well thought out and scientific argument for God.

[@willihave308]

Mate I EXACTLY thought the same thing at 45 minutes into the debate!!

[@TheMindIlluminated]

Welcome to the world of Michael Shermer. Dude has no clue how to discuss any of these topics. None whatsoever, none of the popular atheist speakers do. Ask them a philosophical question and they have no clue what you’re even asking.

[@jacoblee5796]

Atheists don’t see the difference between magic dragons and gods. They are all imaginary things. I don’t understand how you people don’t get that!?

[@TheMindIlluminated]

@@jacoblee5796 perhaps internet atheists, but any atheist that knows the subject matter would know that simply comparing god to the tooth fairy is not at all a good argument against god.

[@jacoblee5796]

@@TheMindIlluminated You still don't seem to get it.....the atheist view is that god and tooth fairy are in the same category of imaginary things. I understand the subject matter probably better than you do. My wife says i have an unhealthy obsession with the subject. You say its not a good argument against god, i say there is no good argument for the existence of your god.

[@Max-xf1mw]

I became a Christian through facts and reason as an agnostic, by consuming tons of material on the arguments for Atheism and Theism and Christianity, and also watching countless debates, all at an agnostic standpoint. It took a while to make a decision to become a Christian to follow God, but I made that decision because the Christian God has to be the truth and I couldn't hold that conviction. I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity. I realised that people can believe in any viewpoint or religion if they can make assumptions of the things we can't observe, such as how did everything come to be. Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator, people can decide what they believe in, on the subject of God. Although this worldview is almost certain to be true because of all the evidence, it is not prove able as are other world views, so there is always space for assumptions and theories to deny the existence of God. One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life, in order to stay in their own rebellion against a moral creator, avoid ultimate moral responsibility for themselves and stay in doing evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong. Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded to the proposition of God ask this: If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it?

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

_"One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life"_ Do you really believe that? Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, AND at the same time it is a huge insult. As such, you're not only insulting a billion people here, you are also insulting yourself by making yourself look like a fool. For starters: imagine that I am a Theist believing in God. Now my neighbor has a pretty wife and I want to cheat my own wife by sleeping with the neighbors wife. According to what you say, I'd now tell myself _"Ok, I believe in God right now. But if I pretend not to believe, then God does not exist, and I can cheat on my wife."_ Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you to assume that the deity you worship disappears as soon as you pretend to not believe anymore? It just blows my mind that you consider that to make sense. Also, if we look at the prisons, for example in the USA, then the number of Christians there is much higher than the number of Atheists. And I don't mean the absolute numbers, but those in relative to the number of Christians and Atheists in the entire population. In other words: if you are a Christian, you are much more likely to go to prison than if you are an Atheist. Now tell me: how does that match your claim, that people become Atheists in order to live a less moral life? It's absolutely mindboggling how you believe that this insult and ignorant claim of yours makes any sense whatsoever. You must have never thought about it. I assume that you heard somebody else say it, and as it confirms your faith you decided to just repeat it without ever thinking about it. _"a moral creator"_ A moral creator? Are you shitting me? Now, apart from your God not existing, look at those myths and stories regarding your deity: he supposedly knows everything, right? So when he created adam and eve, he knew exactly that if he planted a tree next to them, they'd eat from it, no matter what he said. Yet he did it. Why? Because he needed a lame excuse to throw them out? And he knew exactly how mankind will unfold in general, resulting in that flood where he murdered 99.99% of all life on the planet. If he knew that in advance, why tf didn't he do things differently? What was going on in his mind? _"Well, yes, I know, if I do this, they will become sinners and criminals, but then I can murder each and every one of them. That is fun, so I will do that."_ Oh, and then let's not get started about how the Bible condones slavery. Or how it says that you should murder all enemies in combat but the women, who you should take. Guess why? What would you do with them? Well, no problem: "do not rape" is not one of the ten commandments, and, as the Bible says, forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist makes everything just fine and ok. Moral? You got to be kidding me. It's insanity. _"evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong"_ Oh yes, like when the Church told millions of people in Africa not to use condoms, infecting hundreds of millions of people with deadly and crippling diseases. Man, how nice that was. Or when priests methodically rape children, to then get protected by the Church with the money people donate. Isn't that awesome. How moral they are, those good Christians. _"Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded"_ Oh yes, more insults please. I mean, if the Theist has no rational arguments, then what has he left but infantile insults? Close minded? I listen to every argument people can bring forth that would support the supposed existence of a deity. And in my entire lifetime, not one person was capable of giving me one rational argument or one shred of evidence supporting gods supposed existence. More the opposite. Just look at your own comment: full of arrogance and insults, without any reason or logic. If anything, then comments like yours convince people that there is no god. _"If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it"_ If anybody would have any rational arguments and/or evidence for it, then yes. But nobody does. It's a fest of ignorance and insults, of violence and crime, of corruption and abuse and hatred. _"Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator"_ Oh yes, the wise Christian, always quick to state that there is lots and lots of evidence, and even quicker to run away if you ask him to present it. Everybody can pretend that there is evidence if you don't have to present it. Here, let me try: _"There is masses of evidence that the Moon is actually shaped like a banana. What, evidence? Uhmm... uhm... I got to go."_ That is the way of the Theist. _"I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity. "_ Magic is the easy answer for the simple minded folk that doesn't care about the truth. That's why people with a higher education are less likely to be Creationists. If you know the actual answers, you don't have to pretend that something is magic.

[@austinmattingly1650]

Well said 🙏🏼

[@J.B24]

So what is your evidence that Jesus is the son of God?

[@kihntagious]

See, reality can be proved, Christianity is opinion. No evidence. Your choice to be Christian isn't based on facts, just opinion. You can believe anything you want but if you want reality to guide your life then atheism or agnosticism are your choices. Otherwise, make believe is where you live.

[@cartertran270]

Same 🙏 I was lost but now I’m saved.

[@ckyung1312]

Dr. Shermer's go-to is a condescending, "we're at different levels here...quantum this - quantum that...quarks...stars...starving children".

[@Macluny]

@demigodzilla lol

[@elil8094]

He’s talking about science and human suffering? In a debate about the existence of a benevolent god? Insane.

[@daviddavenport9350]

I am not sure I understand your disapproval of his argument......

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well to be honest frank turek may know a bit about science, but he twists it around to squeeze god in where god isn't, frank, if you looked closely enough, is dihonest, shermer may be faultering and a poor debate choice, but he's not telling lies, frank turek is telling lies, and telling them to YOU.

[@franklee8483]

@@HarryNicNicholas A lie is something that isn't true, or something you don't believe to be true but profess to be true, a lie IS NOT something that you don't know to be true but profess to be true, if in fact you believe it to be true and/or it is actually true. I can say the light at the end of the road is green as I type this, and I don't know that, but it isn't a lie if the light is actually green. In Turek's defense, not only does he believe what he is saying is true, but in all likelihood it is true based on the evidence. So the reality is that YOU are lying Harry Nicholas if Turek is right. That being said, the only thing of what Turek says that I don't agree with is when he says we come to know God based on external evidence and logical deduction, when the Bible says that we come to know God, not just believe in Him, but Know Him, by His Spirit. God sends His Spirit into all those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and through His Spirit He reveals himself to them internally, and once a person has received this then they know for certain that God exists, even if they cannot show you He exist, they don't need to show it in order to know it. Salvation from sin through the will of God in Christ is enough to prove God's existence, but having proof provided to you is not the same thing as having something proven to you, because I can offer you a sugar cube as proof that sugar is sweet, but until you take the leap of faith and taste it for yourself, nothing has been proven to you. 2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." God will decide if Frank is a liar my friend, and He will decide the same for me and for you, that you can be sure of.

[@garyl6343]

Shermer should talk first. He sounds lost after Turek communicates evidence that he is unequipped to refute.

[@amandamcgovern5744]

Like what?

[@_Lords_7]

Like a single word in his first couple seconds of speaking. Universe Uni = One Verse = A *spoken* sentence Who created this word? Who uses this word to discredit intelligent design and how intelligent are they, really?

[@mattc3510]

Evidence, Turek had none, hard to have evidence for something that doesn’t exist like your god 🤣

[@5va]

@Matt C like “your” oxygen 😂😂😂

[@kurryman]

@@5va or gravity

[@fitleo]

Frank it's always a pleasure listening to you. Can't deny the truth and common sense.

[@josiahhaas4067]

“An atheist tries to put out rotten eggs instead of give good ones”

[@ironforged2329]

Michael Shermer poorly debated on this one.

[@ByronRadstyle]

Its hard to debate against the truth.

[@SomeRandomGuy789]

Buddy Novander I WANT THE TRUTH!! YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

much as i love shermer he's not really cut out to debate, he hesitates too much, his apparent lack of confidence undermines his knowledge base. turek on the other hand would be perfect for selling snake oil. or books in this case. turek may be "eloquant" but makes my skin crawl.

[@t.m.hdebates103]

@@HarryNicNicholas why would he make your skin crawl? I can get David Wood making someone's skin crawl, but Frank Turek?

[@ruslanbatko4892]

And turek turned every serious question into a joke. That how you play tennis without a net as Sam would put it

[@Reeseballin8]

“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools” - That verse couldn’t be more appropriate for Michaels worldview

[@disrupt94]

Or the worldview of many theists.

[@sidusgekst]

This gets really boring

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?

[@Xenotypic]

@@estuchedepeluche2212 first of all, religion is not a science. Secondly, Christianity was responsible for many of the best and most iconic things in western culture. anyone who denies this is denying established facts and reality.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

@@Xenotypic Dear Disciple of Christ, thanks for answering. But it seems to me that you misunderstood my question. I asked about advances and improvements, not iconic or cultural items. With all due respect and curiosity, can you mention examples? This way, we would both know we are referring to the same things. thanks

[@alancooke1131]

I get the impression that Mr Shermer is trying so hard to not believe what he in his heart does.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

how do you know, what is going on in his heart?

[@eliavbenmelech2187]

@@TgfkaTrichter he gets the impression

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@@eliavbenmelech2187 based on what?

[@eliavbenmelech2187]

@@TgfkaTrichter I don't know maybe he has a feeling or the way he speaks

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@@eliavbenmelech2187 or maybe he is just projecting cause of his bias.

[@pierremaixant]

Ah atheists ... You're trying so hard to convice yourself that there is no God by using your rationality, but when you do, you realize he is and therefore because of your pride you end up using irrationality and realize you contradict yourselves. 1 Corinthians 1:27 : But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

[@MinuteMadeVideos]

Atheists* but you ended up describing Theist quite well instead.

[@triplemoyagames4195]

@Scott Scotty They lowkey are my man

[@enochasiedu7761]

This is the most one-sided argument of all time. Jesus is Lord.

[@JMUDoc]

You were not convinced by this argument; you already believed before it started.

[@gabrielmarshall9132]

JMUDoc I think all of us had a preformed opinion before watching this

[@JMUDoc]

@@gabrielmarshall9132 You would be surprised how many atheists do not hold to the position that gods DON'T exist.

[@michaelflores9220]

If Jesus is Lord, the Lord is a tyrant. "I would rather be in Hell than praise 'god' who woulda allow Hell to exist.". I was catholic until age 24,, by the way. I am anxious to read your response, Togba. And yes, I've already read Edward Feser, etc's numerous articles on Hell.

[@gabrielmarshall9132]

Michael Flores It’s okay to be angry at God, he can take it. However, the lord is no tyrant, if he were to remove hell and evil from existence then he would also be removing our free will, and that is ultimately what makes us human

[@Vedder5300]

When believers try to explain science BAHAHAHAHAH !!!! Hilarious

[@ashiejay1496]

What's the joke?

[@mikhailyaremkiv]

Shermer lost

[@cestmoifu1406]

😂😂😂

[@jmros]

"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God". That's the amount of attention God spares for atheists in his Bible. ONE VERSE. God isn't mocked, or swayed or taken by surprise when he looks down upon his creation debating his existence. Infact, I picture him laughing.

[@jonsprague9751]

your last comment says it all. You "picture" him laughing. Your "God" ...every essence of him, her, or it, is only what you picture in your mind.

[@jmros]

@@jonsprague9751 please read the first sentence of my comment again.

[@jonsprague9751]

@@jmros Julian..I can make comments similar to yours all day long..where does that get us? If you wish to reply to me again..try this first. Pray to your God. Ask it what you might say to me to help me to understand what you believe to be true. Ask it for that one solid piece of evidence that only it can provide that will sway me...if only a little. Can your God do that. In the Bible it says "ask and you shall receive". Your God should know exactly what would change mind..correct?. Then..please...wow me. I don't mean to be flippant...my mind is open.

[@jonsprague9751]

@@jmros by the way...I am not saying there is no God. I am only saying I see no evidence for one.

[@jmros]

@@jonsprague9751 I will happily spare time to pray for you, but simultaneously, if you are genuinely interested in seeking and knowing God (Jesus Christ), and allowing Jesus to reveal himself to you, you need to put time aside yourself and honestly pray that prayer.

[@amongthethorns8788]

I really enjoyed hearing both men's arguments, great video!

[@ChristopherDolby]

Me too! You rock my friend! 👊💀

[@yr2180]

Michael Shermer is jumping around like a frog on a hot plate. I cannot even begin to understand what he is on about. He does not stick to basics.

[@jefferyperkins4668]

Try hArder. You’ll get it if you open your ears and your mind.

[@stevewilliams5498]

Just rambled on like all atheists do because none of them want responsibility demanded by almighty god

[@gabrielmarshall9132]

jeffery perkins why are you so angry? If God simply does not exist, then why are you spending so much time trying to disprove him?

[@stevewilliams5498]

Gabriel Marshall he’s here searching for the truth and HE refuses to open HIS eyes and ears. He doesn’t want god to exist so he keeps agreeing with atheist rambling. Atheist need god to be real in their argument because they steal from his principles to try to prove he’s not real.

[@elil8094]

Gabriel Marshall how is he angry? I think he simply wishes for other people to think critically for themselves. We have these discussions because we care about the truth. Finding the truth. And we care about people.

[@MsAnna4040]

Dr. Shermer seems more interested in refuting a “religion” than God. You can find fault with religions. People are flawed, but that has nothing to do with if there is an intelligent designer or not.

[@endistherenown776]

"Which best explains reality, atheism or theism?" Theism is religion. It's not just flawed it's innately irrational, and it targets the most primitive part of our mind. It in no way accurately portrays reality, it is an illusion used to keep the poor and everyone who doesn't rule oppressed. That's it. You do what all religious people do when they realize they have no points and no arguments, they say that you can't disprove the existence of god. It's impossible to prove or disprove, so the best thing to do is to explain how it is illogical and ridiculous, which is what Shermer did.

[@ikwuegbufavour1830]

@@endistherenown776 and failed

[@endistherenown776]

@@ikwuegbufavour1830 Yeah I'll give that to you. I'm an atheist, and he is one of the speakers that I don't like listening to a whole lot.

[@user-xk3hw4sk7m]

Nice.

[@jakobnowakowski1396]

@@endistherenown776 theism is not a religion

[@samanthasly9215]

i really love how Michael makes things wayyyyy more complicated. it takes more faith to believe what hes saying.

[@robocop4345]

Its more like hes having a hard time trying convey complex scientific ideas , not that he makes it more complicated. It is more complicated. God did it is not an answer , its willful ignorance.

[@samanthasly9215]

Robo Cop if you listen to the whole thing franks answers aren’t just “god did it”. It has many layers. But Michael didn’t answer any questions to a full understanding. Almost nothing he said made sense. I think he needed more time or someone else to convey his ideas better

[@robocop4345]

@samantha sly I did watch the whole thing. All his answers are basically put down to a god of the gaps argument. Its only assertions no proofs. I agree Michael's answers were not easy to understand and need work to be easier to understand for everyday people in the short time they both had

[@dan23563]

@@robocop4345 I understood the whole debate by Michael. And no, it doesn't take any faith to agree with what he's saying. You're confused.

[@arlkai9884]

@Reid Elson Waste your days? It sounds like you’re on a pursuit of happiness than a pursuit of truth. Would you believe something even if it hurt to swallow that pill of truth?

[@RealSuedeDuck]

*breathes heavily and profusely* _Okay_

[@Alexcrappell]

Michael has God tugging at his heart so hard, he doesnt even believe what he is saying.

[@SpurnOfHumanity]

Would ya like to substantiate that claim?

[@stevenc8717]

@@SpurnOfHumanity The likes of Atheism tries to disprove *immaterial* God, using the *Materialism* philosophy as a standpoint. This makes no sense. The only thing that would make sense is to use Materialism against a Material matter. A perfectly material matter here being: Jesus. From a *material* standpoint, Christianity proves Jesus, then God, through Jesus. You have to hurdle an argument against Jesus as Son of God before it is possible to logically disprove God from the Atheistic Materialist standpoint. Jesus has already been proven.

[@ACT1ON_JACKSON]

@@stevenc8717 🤣🤣🤣

[@Zlist1994]

@@stevenc8717 Tell that to the Billions of people who believe in Islam and not Jesus as the son of God. If you are religious, the last thing you should be worried about is Athiest. You need to prove that your religion is the Right religion out of all the other religions in the world. Saying that your book just says so isn’t proof. If that where the case then the Quran would also be the one true word of God because it also says so. And soo do many other religions before Christianity even existed. Religion isn’t new. Humans made up all the other religions in the world that you don’t believe in, but somehow you don’t think it’s possible for people to also have made up yours as well? Serious question 🤔

[@stevenc8717]

@@Zlist1994 Islam twists and then teaches people lies about Jesus’ life. If a muslim for example comes to understand the original Jesus story and leaves Islam, he is “to be killed” as Mohammed said; these days, the person is fully disowned as a “Murtadd” (a Muslim Apostate). Pretty much the only choice Muslims have is to believe the lies they’ve been told their entire life or else be disowned by the entire family. Today, there have literally been fake **funerals** made for Muslim Apostates for when they leave their faith. It’s that serious, and so they take believing their Imams and Islams re-written Jesus story just as seriously.

[@ebunny1970]

It's interesting to see a scientist explain what they believe but then for every question or problem or paradox, have a rule or law that supercedes the problem to explain it.

[@mbwilson8592]

Bingo

[@mattr.1887]

I agree, and I find that nearly all Christian apologists are guilty of the same.

[@alphahuner1116]

​@@mattr.1887It's about which makes the most sense.

[@rhumash5977]

You can't try to explain things of the spiritual realm with physical realm logic and philosophy

[@viridian9673]

agreee

[@ChristopherDolby]

Boom!! TRUTH!! It’s like using a metal detector on a beach in search of plastic bottles and concluding that plastic bottles don’t exist cause you don’t find any! 🤣🤣🤣

[@ParadiseLordRyu]

So you want us to jump into belief without testing for proof.

[@Glasstable2011]

How do you define what something spiritual is?

[@kevr8482]

The fact that it can't be explained by the physical world is the problem?...Theism falls apart without MAGIC....Also theism is the belief in a higher power...It doesnt clarify what that power is or if it cares about you lol

[@anzu3439]

Turek uses arguments that have been debunked and explained to many times to count. So to me he is dishonest and a deceitful human being.

[@joey3025]

What about what he says about how what is the standard atheists use to differentiate good from bad... If we r just molecules and atoms how do we differentiate

[@anzu3439]

That’s like saying “how is coffe hot”,or”if a fish is just atoms and molecules,then how do they swim”... kinda dumb

[@buck_maize111]

1:06 Frank got you there Michael.. with this non sense of the meaning of NO THING..

[@edwardkennedy9618]

Turek: if you are a timeless do you have a beginning? Michael: Yes, you can 😂

[@SomeRandomGuy789]

How? You're not in time! I got to be in the audience for the debate and this debate helped strengthen my Christian views. I also got to attend Turek's IDHEFTBAA Seminar and it was amazing!

[@matheusdardenne]

This just serves to prove, that there are atheists who are brilliant mathematicians, brilliant physicists, brilliant engineers, etc... the only thing an atheist can't be, is a brilliant atheist. The smartest atheist has the same argument for atheism the dumbest has: none. Just pretend you can't see the evidence and pretend to be smart.

[@kimbanton4398]

*[Turek] If you are a timeless do you have a beginning?* One question: If God is timeless, then tell me pls, when did God create time?

[@matheusdardenne]

@@kimbanton4398 at the beginning of time. T=0 is "when" He created time. There is no before that, so that's pretty obvious. The concept of "when" does not make sense in the context of creation of time anyway.

[@RealSuedeDuck]

@@kimbanton4398 the idea is that God is beyond time, he is not limited by it

[@JoyElectric567]

Incredibly impressive what Turek is doing here! Jesus is coming back!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

jesus never existed, it doesn't take a great deal of research to find that one out.

[@barrackobongo4842]

Harry Nicholas than by your standards no one remotely historical exists. Jesus mysticism really doesn’t make atheists such as yourself look rational.

[@vidguy0101]

@@barrackobongo4842 there is much more evidence of people that are much older than 2000 years. Ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire, Chinese emperors and so on. Somehow God decided to not plant evidence for the, in the Christian sense, most important human/living God.

[@2ndPigeon]

How long will it take for you to think that he isn't? 2000 years?

[@graham9579]

Don't be silly.

[@nik4087]

frank dont just argue he wants to save michael also

[@blueduck5589]

Saved from what?

[@Ballerin1God]

@@blueduck5589eternal damnation

[@cestmoifu1406]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@cestmoifu1406]

@@Ballerin1God😂😂😂😂😂 ok.

[@BloodnightStudios]

Just because someone is “Deeply religious” doesn’t mean they are searching for truth and not happiness, so for shermer to argue that religious Jews are on a search for truth by default is false and an overgeneralization. Turek is right, people are not on a truth quest, they are on happiness quests.

[@mattr.1887]

Are Christians on a happiness quest?

[@BloodnightStudios]

@@mattr.1887 Some are. But I’d say millions who are being persecuted for their faith, even up to imprisonment and dying chose the wrong faith then. However if they, just like Christ’s apostles are willing to be ridiculed, persecuted, etc then they must have chosen for a different reason.

[@robbiecleighmarks3088]

​@Matt R. Real Christians or "what can God do for me" christians? Because they are both different. A real christian understands that we are not promised a happy and prosperous life in the way an atheist or even secular society might define happiness. We are promised eternal life and forgiveness for our sins regardless of life's up and downs. Our joy is in Jesus, spreading His word, and eternity after death.

[@benitaalmond3991]

@@mattr.1887 I think "happiness" is the wrong word "Fulfillment" is the correct word as long suffering is a fruit of the Spirit. In true worship one is filled with a joy that is indescribable. Even in our suffering we can still experience joy.

[@ultrad-rex1389]

I left my atheistic/anti-theistic life because of many years of critical thinking, critical research, and understanding the concepts of God... In the end, I found no logic, no reasoning, no sensible ideas in the absence of a God, or at least an intelligent designer... I'm still learning about God and how He copes with science, even though many atheists like to think that they can't cooperate with each other... I'm now a semi-agnostic Christian, and I'm happy to be one, so I don't need atheism... I left my atheistic/anti-theistic lifestyle for a reason, and I plan on never going back to it...

[@nicholascernatescu6685]

I’m curious what a semi-agnostic Christian is. Agnosticism is a belief that you can’t possibly know if God exists or not. A true Christian is not concerned with if, but knows that God is real

[@Mr_T.]

Ultra D-Rex "....because of many years of critical thinking, critical research, and understanding the concepts of God". Wow! The same reason why most former theists become atheists.

[@ultrad-rex1389]

+Ozzy Puller: I guess I'm not like the others...

[@dangerboy808]

@@Mr_T. no that's not the reason thiests become athiest because theres no critical thinking involved to become an athiest

[@Mr_T.]

@@dangerboy808 Obviously someone doesn't think deep enough.

[@TimBartja]

I think this was a good debate. One thing I wish was addressed concerning witches, women, race, etc., is that a) skepticism of God/religion is nothing new, and while many political heads used religion as a tool, that doesn't necessarily reflect God; I'm confident that God was equally disgusted - even more so for doing it 'in his name'. b) along the same lines, there have been non-religious/non-christians who would have/still are actively discriminating others; to peg it all on people of faith doesn't do anyone any good.

[@infodisco4097]

Frank Turek Addressed this in his book "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Legislating Morality" He writes, "Another confusion exists between an absolute moral value and the understanding of the facts used in applying that value. For example, a couple of hundred years ago witches used to be sentenced as murders. But now they aren't. A relativist may argue, “See! Our moral values have changed because we no longer seek to kill witches. Morality is relative to time and culture.” But the relativists is claim is incorrect. What has changed is not the moral principle that murder is wrong, but the perception or factual understanding of whether witches can really murder people. People no longer believe they can. Hence, people no longer consider them murders. In other words, the perception of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not. Failure to make this distinction also leads to people to believe that cultural differences reflect essential differences in the core moral values. For example, some people believe that since Hindus Revere cows and Americans eat them, there's an essential difference between the moral values of Americans and Hindus. But the reason people in India consider cows sacred has nothing to do with it or moral value - it has to do with their belief in reincarnation. Indians believe that cows May possess The Souls of deceased human being, so they don't eat cows. In the United States, we do not believe that the soul of our deceased relative maybe in a cow, so we freely eat cows. In the final analysis, what appears to be a difference is actually in agreement. The core moral value that it's wrong to eat grandma is considered absolute by people in both cultures. They only disagree on where Grandma's Soul resides. This is a difference that's paste on the perception of the facts pertaining to the moral value. But there is a fundamental agreement that the moral value must be upheld."

[@tommyo2172]

I love Frank's humour throughout the debate

[@blackkman1324]

TALKING SNAKES AND DONKEYS?

[@saywhatnow2173]

​@@blackkman1324 what?

[@AquaNutt]

​@blackkman1324 I genuinely feel sorry for you. Your profile pic is a pentagram. That tells me everything I need to know. You don't believe in God because you don't want to. God still loves you and died on the cross for you. God won't force you to believe in him. You need to humble yourself and open your heart and genuinely seek him. Once you do that your life will change. I PROMISE.

[@stevenhird1837]

@@AquaNuttno god didn’t die for him he wasn’t even born.

[@gb213]

@@AquaNutt that is not a pentagram, it has six points, a pentagram has 5.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The kid had the best question! It tells you how we lose common sense due to indoctrination over time.

[@TheCondescendingRedditor]

Man, I like to stay neutral but Frank definitely won this one if there was a winner. Michael was fumbling all over the place....

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

I didn’t hear any knock down argument from FT. I heard many suppositions stated as facts.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Shermwr did a really bad job yes.

[@HallofFamerMichael]

Michael contradicted himself again first he said that we're speaking in higher terms, then he goes on to invoke the copernican principle, which means we're not special at all.

[@stevenselleck5460]

Atheists tend to do that

[@roybotha8356]

I learn so much from you Frank, and I KNOW yr blessed by God to do what you do. I hope to do what you do someday because there is no-one here who does what you Apologists do......Keep on doing what you do !!!!!....Love and blessings from Cape Town South Africa

[@JeramyRG]

Do-do bird

[@robertlombardo8437]

A Convenient Truth Bless you friend. I hope things in your country stay safe. God bless you from Palm Springs, California USA.

[@roybotha8356]

God says He will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, so may you be blessed exceedingly more than your words have blessed me Robert...

[@colinjava8447]

Everything frank says is lies pretty much. There's no evidence for a god, not good evidence, don't let him infect you with his nonsense.

[@Delt4_Cr4wfish]

@@colinjava8447 every thing he says is lie.... ummmm lol. Im a Christian, the believes in evolution. If evolution is true than the death of one species for the rise of a new and better one is fact. Without a god u cant say Hitler was wrong because his race could of been the superior and u just put a end to something that was better than the previous. Same with murderers, they are reducing the population so that the fit and healthiest can survive. Rape is just the alpha planting his seed in fertile mothers. Theft is just the strong and smartest acquiring all the wealth to also help reproduce and live better lives. Fact is you cant say im wrong because they are your opinions. You just think its wrong because u are getting scrued over when in reality its survival of the fittest. The strong reproduce and the weak die.

[@jarrelllemos4784]

Shermer was definitely in critiquing arguments rather than hearing Frank's responses. Shermer did not make any attempt to understand, rather he just kept asserting that Franks's teaching illustrations were fallacious, as a means of dismissal. Love Franks comments about cats

[@musicgal9830]

I can smell the bitterness in his eyes lol

[@ramigilneas9274]

Jarrell Lemos Well, it was a desperate attempt at teaching you critical thinking skills and the basics of a sound epistemology. Tureks entire presentation is just an embarrassing collection of logical fallacies.

[@Grimblee-]

This was an amazing debate, especially at the end honestly got me In tears.. beautiful exit

[@17736tja]

This atheist keeps going for “inward worth and morality” yet in his world view, there is no cause or reason to have inner worth only external worth. He is contradicting himself so much it’s sad. However I do wish both speakers had more time to answer questions. Annoying how the guy always cut both off

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

@Nicht von dieser Welt I'd add that most social species have empathy; which is the basis of morality.

[@t.m.hdebates103]

@@BlGGESTBROTHER Well, no. The universe doesn't care about your feelings. Molecules dont care about your feelings. They don't have a conscience to do so.

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

@@t.m.hdebates103 So what? We as social creatures do care about those things.

[@t.m.hdebates103]

@@BlGGESTBROTHER Yes, but we came from non-living molecules, they wouldn't care.

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

@@t.m.hdebates103 Again, so what? That's a false analogy to say that because molecules don't care about moral systems that means they ard ultimately worthless.

[@MultiSplice]

While many of the comments on these videos are often cluttered with a pretty clear audience 😉, I'm very thankful that Frank posts his debates unabridged. It's great for thinking, and it's so valuable to have these debates open to the public who couldn't go themselves. Thank you Frank Turek!!

[@utopiabuster]

Shermer makes the same mistake many atheist do and which he's made his entire career. He conflates the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" thereby making a category error. In his desperation he's not above lying either. Both physicists and cosmologist agree the universe, space-time and matter, had a beginning and the universe is not past infinite, and Shermer's known this for some time. He is contemptuous of arguments for God's existence but sees nothing wrong with introducing the highly speculative, likely indemonstrable multiverse. Figuring out which religion best supports observational experiences you really don't belong on a stage arguing that God does not exist. You've just proven yourself incapable of reason.

[@sammysam2615]

Let's assume a God/Deity is the causer of what we call the big bang. In what way can anyone on earth literally show proof that not only was a God/Deity responsible, but that it was the Abrahamic God? It can't be done. Being an atheist I have to openly admit that I can't disprove the existence of a Deity, for all I know there is one. But according to every belief in every deity, the claim has been made that there is evidence and over time, those God's became myths and the evidence was passed along to the next God(s). The bible isn't reliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, and since we cannot see a God, then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious? But you did make good point about Shermer who I like and have to take in small doses.

[@utopiabuster]

@@sammysam2615, You are making nothing but assertions. "YOU" think the Bible is unreliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, etc.! I have no idea what you mean by, "... then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious?" I have never experienced anyone state God's "demands"(requirements) are mysterious. What does, and according to you, which "god", demand? "IF" there is a 'god" then it would be perfectly within reason to be able to reason which idea of "god" best comports to our observational experiences based on history, philosophy, science and personal attestation. The "Big Bang" is actually a colloquial term used to identify the expansion of the universe. Based on general relativity we are fairly certain that there existed a boundary condition where space, time and matter came into being. Which means that space, time and matter didn't always exist. Any naturalistic explanation results in infinite regress paradoxes and violates Ockham's Razor. Thereby, leaving a supernatural causal impetus as a valid proposition. Since you admit that you cannot disprove God's existence it stands to reason that is based on evidentiary justifications for God's existence. If there wasn't any justifications for God's existence you'd well be able to "prove" God's non-existence solely based on naturalistic mechanisms and processes. Indicating that supernatural phenomenon exist and posit valid justifications for belief. Peace.

[@DaK9boi]

Dude, can we be friends?

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

I find less speculative a multiverse than a timeless, spaceless, matterless, being.

[@utopiabuster]

@@salvadoralvarado8685 , Thanks for sharing, NOT!!

[@alankidd8570]

It's funny watching Shermer almost get stumped by a literal child's quest, lol! He seems to be the king of digression!

[@realfakeguides8031]

Yeah, that child did not come up with that question.

[@robertferraro236]

Lol, a skeptic using the nonsense of quantum theory to support his argument, not to mention the singularity of a black hole. lol.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

At least you can perform some kind of experiment to test the “non sensical” quantum theory, but what kind of experiment can you perform to test the existence of a timeless, spaceless, matterless being ?

[@robertferraro236]

@@salvadoralvarado8685 I wasn't saying that there was a timeless, spaceless, matterless being. I was just stating that Michael Shermer whose claim to fame is being a skeptic believes the nonsense of quantum theory and general relativity. Both theories are the products of wild imaginations by people who are clever with math.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

@@robertferraro236 I think you don’t know about the experiment to determine the nature of the electron, the two slits experiment. Review it and then tell me about this quantum “nonsense”.

[@robertferraro236]

@@salvadoralvarado8685 I know all about the double slit experiment. What one sees is merely one's interpretation in accordance with their confirmation bias. Light is not a particle. It is only a wave. It cannot behave as both but it can if that is how we interpret the results of the experiment.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

@@robertferraro236 I think that evidence shows the dual character of light as proposed by Einstein: wave and particle. If light didn’t posses characteristics of particle (photons) photosynthesis couldn’t be possible.

[@festushaggen2563]

I'm really disappointed with this Shermer guy. I was expecting some intelligent, strong evidence and facts for his argument but his whole routine was full of jokes, sarcasm, emotionalism and manipulation. But I now know that atheists share the same playbook. I've heard these same things over and over again and I wasn't impressed any of those times either. I hope this isn't a star player on Team Atheist. If he is, they're in more trouble than I thought. His fatal mistake though was repeatedly saying he used to be a "born again Christian". He shouldn't say that because he trapped himself in his own words. Why? Because it's impossible. Only God can make someone born again. If God had nothing to do with his rebirth, then he wasn't born again and therefore was never a Christian. If God did make him born again then He knows there's a God and can't be a true atheist. He would also still be a Christian today. But it explains why he can be an atheist now. He only changed intellectual beliefs. Nothing more. And there's much more to being a Christian than an intellectual belief.

[@JMUDoc]

The idea that only Jehovah can make somebody born again is a Christian belief, not necessarily fact. Shermer used to *believe* he was born-again.

[@festushaggen2563]

@JMUDoc That’s not what he said. He said he was a born again Christian. He’s trying to debunk Christianity by saying he was a born again Christian but now he isn’t. He isn’t now because he never was. Simple as that.

[@JMUDoc]

@@festushaggen2563 When he says "I was a born-again Christian" he means that he used to believe Jehovah made him born again. He no longer believes in born-againess as you define it, but he used to. Let's say somebody tells you "I used to believe in God X", but you know that one of the _tenets of that religion_ is "nobody that truly believes in God X ever stops." Would you reject his "I used to believe in God X" statement?

[@festushaggen2563]

@JMUDoc You’re changing what he said. I’m taking his words as he said them because I know what he’s saying and why. I’ve heard it many times before from self professing ex Christians and have debated this issue with those who say it. An atheist can never claim to have been born again. It’s impossible because you can’t be born again without God just as you cannot have ever been a Christian without Jesus Christ. They’re just using that terminology to somehow qualify themselves and make themselves sound more credible but if they actually understood what that meant, they wouldn’t say it. It’s like saying you were married before but got divorced and now you were never married. Or you used to be able to see but now you’re blind not knowing what it is to see. That doesn’t work. Once you’ve met God, you can’t be ignorant later and say He doesn’t exist. I accept that someone says they used to believe but don’t now but they can’t have been born again. That is a spiritual transformation that only God can make. They were religious at best but that’s not Christianity. People who say what this guy is saying don’t understand true Christianity. Just to believe is not enough.

[@JMUDoc]

You are imposing your definitions onto his words. He doesn't mean the same by "born again Christian" as you; I am trying to put his words into terms you would understand. *Because it's impossible. Only God can make someone born again.* According to you (or the Bible, same thing). Shermer doesn't think so.

[@GSpotter63]

"The universe is not perfect so a perfect God could not have made it". The universe is not perfect according to who, You? What makes you an authority on the construction of a universe? Ever make one before?......... No? If you do not know the purpose of a design then your opinion as to its perfection is irreverent. Some designs are in fact made to fall apart within a given period of time.

[@GSpotter63]

@NotACapitalist Like an artist with words: It may be interesting to look at but it really means nothing.

[@GSpotter63]

@NotACapitalist Or perhaps your own poorly formed concept of this world is just as irrelevant as your pointless jumble of words. My "poorly formed concept" as you put it, Is the result of a 45 year careful study of all the data on both sides of the equation. I have come to the conclusion that atheism is a baseless Fantasy. One full of logical fallacies and special pleading. Even evolution itself is based on nothing but massive assumptions built upon even more massive unverified assumptions. In fact it takes more faith in the unseen to be an atheist then a theist.

[@kushalbanerjee8574]

Purpose comes from a mind that sees a pattern in it. That idiotic example that Frank gave about the "Take out the garbage message" was outright rubbish. To someone who doesn't know any English, that message would also have been gibberish. Messages like HTTHHHHTTTHTHTHT and GGGGGCCCCGCGCGCGCCCCCC might not make any sense to you or to most people, but to a minds that are trained in Math and Biology, respectively, these are coin-tossing events and a part of a DNA, respectively. The conclusion is that there is no message that is absolute, there are minds that make messages out of patterns.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

So there is no way to tell what is a design and what is not. When I look at the night sky I see random points of light. No design there. And why does the Cosmos require a Creator? Who decided that?

[@Titan_640]

James Richard Wiley because it had a beginning and therefore needs a cause

[@Dave_Glory]

The term “ candidate “ was used jokingly throughout this debate ; But I think the term is very fitting for Dr Shermer. He answers questions like a politician . Avoiding the question asked and answering the question he wished was asked . This was a landslide . GREAT JOB FRANK 👏🏾

[@2HungerandThirst]

Dr. Turek do you keep debating Shermer? He’s intellectually dishonest and most of his argumentation is fallacious or political!!?

[@davelanger]

LOL nice projection there.

[@JappaKneads]

Shermer's opening talk attempts to conflate Science with Atheism...error...

[@joaotadeufontes9008]

Not as bad as Turek's opening where he just treats the proposition of the debate as "Deism Vs Atheism" which is wrong just by looking at the title of the video

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i love the way religious people use science to prove that science is bad.

[@maow9240]

@@HarryNicNicholas who is saying science is bad?

[@potatoxgaming9466]

We use science to analyse GOD's creation. Science is a study method a tool to understand things your statement is not valid

[@lilchristian3260]

PotatoXGaming exactly when we say their is no need for God because of the way nature works we are essentially saying because the car works without someone inside it no creator is necessary this is why I’m not an atheist and a Christian because I’ve seen the arguments they fail for t atheist don’t respond with I’m a Christian because I’ve not looked because I literally tried to disprove Christianity and I could not because the Cross was my stumbling block

[@lookingforwhiteprivilege9330]

1:50:15 Shermer says “Oh Lord”. 🤔

[@damiancurtis7040]

Subconscious cry for help

[@damiancurtis7040]

Ive also heard hitchens say for heaven's sake to

[@7outofthebox747]

He's using sarcasm, like saying: with the nonsense you're talking, l need a Lord to help me.

[@damiancurtis7040]

@@7outofthebox747 that was not sarcasm he even looked like he knew he stuffed up right after he said it

[@damiancurtis7040]

@Novak Ingood if you were in a life threating situation i almost guarantee you would say omg or jesus . Its a subliminal cry to the creator .its not a figure of speech its far deeper then that dont tell me u think we came from nothing .i bet you dont even not what truth is

[@megamillion2461]

Micheal:this is going to be I’m going to bomb this guy 30 minutes later Frank: you challenge me peasant

[@IBenZik]

Shermer uses $4 words to explain water. Give me a break. When you can't answer the question you make crap up.

[@paulkuppinger458]

Thank you Frank. Dr. Shermer’s presentation was incredibly weak!

[@imkluu]

The only thing in his babbling that gave me thought was the argument that so many die because they are unable to get the care they need to survive even tho we have the knowledge to save them, and why does a good God allow this to happen. It was never answered. I believe the standard answer to this is that we live in a fallen world due to the choices of those first given the ability to either obey God or do as they will, and now the state of being is the natural state to suffer and die, but if we accept the grace of God and believe in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, then we will have our rewards in Heaven. I believe this to be true, but it is beyond the ability to prove, and must be taken on faith. It is a horrible thing that people die, and suffer when their suffering could be ended, or lives could be saved. I believe God cares, and hates that this is the way it is, but it is due to humanities free will, granted by God, that the world is as it is, and not by God's punishment, or apathy of our state of being. This is why coming into the world as a man, to live, suffer and die as a man, showing us the Way, and becoming the final sacrifice, taking on the sins of al of the world thru all of time, so that we all may be redeemed, and one day return to the presence of God, was also part of the plan.

[@stevep6318]

Lies are always weak in the light of truth. Even if the lies are what a man tells himself in the mirror, which is what all atheists do.

[@biancapelzer6016]

just because shermers presentation was weak (which i agree with), doesn't mean that Turek's reasoning was in any way consistent

[@jorgelopez-pr6dr]

"In the beginning it was nothing...then exploted."

[@nething94]

Hahaha

[@jriemofficial983]

Nothing exploded it expanded rapidly and its still expanding today

[@tailwhipolaf]

@@jriemofficial983 i think you just repeated him, but missed a comma haha

[@randomperson-gp8ph]

Lol

[@mmkfantastic]

not too sure how people can say nothing exploded......and nothing was the cause of everything, and how something exploding causes creation, all the explosions ive seen dont cause creation but destruction

[@andrewdobson813]

As an atheist, I am constantly embarrassed by hearing about dragons and unicorns in debates. An analogy is not an argument. Shermer simply attacked existing religions and the idea of an omnipotent good god. He did not address Tuke's general points about theism vs atheism.

[@jacoblee5796]

Because Franks generally points are idiotic….How exactly is Shermer suppose to address them? If you are truly an atheist then you should have no problem understanding why he is brining up dragons and unicorns.

[@cosmin3997]

@@jacoblee5796 what ?😂😂grow up man.

[@jacoblee5796]

@@cosmin3997 Its cool if you don't get it either.....

[@andrewdobson813]

@@jacoblee5796 I can assure you that I am an atheist and that I believe that atheism has a good message. It is not advanced by childish arguments that convince only those who are already convinced, I believe this is known as preaching to the choir. Atheists need to be more critical of themselves and each other. Cosmic sceptic has made some progress in addressing this problem.

[@jacoblee5796]

@@andrewdobson813 What message would that be? Atheism is just the stance on one position. How is Michael’s point childish?

[@thiago2404]

1:01:34 - If you ever wanna know who’s right in any debate about any topic, just side with the guy that says “I want you to put me on the spot”. Turek just won the debate right there 😂

[@matthewsocoollike]

That dude responding to the little kids question using a lot of biological jargon was so funny to me 😂seriously though. Awesome kid. I hope he keeps questioning things, and searches for truth in an unbiased way.

[@hntrl8880]

Who's who?

[@trrrmac]

1:00:16 frank : unless.. unless the woman is in the womb michael : wait wait frank you cant do that lol

[@mandyn0429]

I've been lookong for a comment that explained this but could find none. I understand that what Frank said by this has a meaning to it but I don't fully get it. Please explain it to me. BTW, I am pro-life.

[@trrrmac]

@@mandyn0429 Frank just want them (esp woman whos been fighting the church and all) to see from the baby's perspective that they don't want to be killed

[@SuperEdge67]

So Turek thinks he’s smarter than Stephen Hawking🥲🤣😂😅😂🤣🥲🤣😂

[@Themadk1ng]

😟how did you measure that

[@evelynr.7596]

I love hearing these debates!

[@solarflare4240]

i hate hearing these debates. they are stale and no conclusion is ever reached. they are just running in circles an listing the same points.

[@mr.mayonnaise2095]

@@solarflare4240 meh, it's alright

[@Maikigai]

solar flare I’ve heard it said that the debate is not to convince the other, but rather, to convince those present and listening. I remember Turek’s debates with Hitchens when they first came out. Atheists present said that Turek was the clear winner and they had things to reconsider. THAT is the point of the debates.

[@mr.mayonnaise2095]

@@Maikigai nice bro

[@MLeoM]

@@solarflare4240 Perhaps it is because you don't understand both of their points and meaning but you focus on their arguing and words. Focus on their understanding and you will find meaning.....

[@bigswirl3037]

Frank won "Full Stop"!

[@Bluecollarstrength88]

When i listen to Michael shermer talk and make his case, it sounds like he read many books from other atheïst and has all these fragments of information in his head without ever putting it in a good order, he sounds like he is pulling some parts out of his mind of what he read and uses it to debate, sounds very chaotic and messed up. Doesnt sound like he himself has done a genuine study about anything , and ofcourse at the end of it all, deep inside he knows he cannot explain his worldview because its impossible. He just wants his worldview to be right he doesnt want the truth. Sin is the main issue.

[@BonoMalumSuperate]

I feel so sorry for Michael, my heart aches that he can't understand or see past the end of his nose. He just loves by "because I said so".

[@rushunnhfernandes]

@Merlin Hyde ... Why do you feel sorry for him? Why do Christians keep saying things like this.. 'My heart aches for him'? He's just going by the evidence... Dr turek has a completely wrong understanding of the way things work.. Literally every science related thing he says is a misconception... I feel sorry for dr turek.. I really wish someone could explain to him how physics works..

[@amandamcgovern5744]

And you only believe you have value because you believe your imaginary friend says so. How absolutely pathetic and sad. I hope one day you’ll learn to find worth in yourself. Your life will be fuller and your relationships much healthier. I also hope you open your mind and actually read a book or take a class. Science is a beautiful thing and the scientific method is the most reliable way we have to discover magnificent truths in the universe. It takes an extraordinary lack of depth and imagination to be satisfied with “God did it”. There a world full of wonders out there if you ever decide to think for yourself.

[@rushunnhfernandes]

@@amandamcgovern5744 true... The main problem is that religious people are against science for some reason.. Saying that evolution didn't happen is the modern 'the earth is flat'... The church has always been wrong about how the universe works.. For example they killed scientists who said the earth is round and then 200 years later apologized.. In the next 200 years they will say the same about evolution..

[@kevinangel7289]

@@rushunnhfernandes lol evolution bro? come one man. I have a pet rock for christmas about 20 years ago that im still waiting to evolve into a real pet so i can feed it and love it. lmao smh

[@williamspringer9447]

Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” -Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 10^15 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 10^15, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain! Despite the enormity of the number of connections, the ramifying forest of fibers is not a chaotic random tangle but a highly organized network in which a high proportion of the fibers are unique adaptive communication channels following their own specially ordained pathway through the brain. Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth." -Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of Carbon 12 to the 7.12 Mev level in Oxygen 16. if you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” -Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge Astrophysicist, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections “Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.” -Lee Smolin, American theoretical physicist, "Life of the Cosmos"

[@marcdecock7946]

If we can agree that all there is to anchor god in reality is the bible? The bible is a book that gives testimony for a jealous god that condones slavery and mass murder. If the bible is true, it's a bit silly to hope for the heaven he promises... and if the bible is not true, there's only opinions, and your idea of what god is and will provide for is as good as any atheist or agnost telling you 'he doesn't know'.

[@marcdecock7946]

@joashscottofficial The bible is free for all to consult and study. So indeed, the claim 'I follow the teaching of the bible and that gives me my morality' is a contradiction. And the statement: 'the bible needs to be properly interpreted', is a void claim. No two people think the same about a given phrase, so all that follows is subjective interpretation grounded in wishful thinking. Your idea of what god is risks therefore to be completely different. In laymen's therms: it's all made up, make belief, stories.

[@Whatsisface4]

Premise #1 is a false dichotomy. If the universe is natural, it cannot have been directed by a random process, because there is too much consistency of behaviour in it.

[@marcdecock7946]

@@Whatsisface4 Have you followed logic teachings from Deepak Chopra? Calling evolution a random process is just showing how little you know about it. You don't need a god to be comfortable with how little you know, either science is above your grasp of understanding, or god did it, either way it works in mysterious ways, might as well cut out the imaginary middle man.

[@mickjames7962]

You're so right. If you taught children classical logic and then presented them the choice to choose which argument is more logical they would choose God 100 times out of 100 if left to their own devices. Even children can see this argument and know what the truth is. The corruption takes decades. It is so sad and wicked what we have allowed to be done to children, and what was done to us.

[@SandShark350]

Schermer seems incapable of answering the "why" or "how" beyond being born with an image sense of morality.

[@t.m.hdebates103]

@demigodzilla The proof is all around you my friend. A garden needs a gardener. But, I dont know how we can prove it to atheists. Because atheists already have their answer in their mind, we can with agnostics, but not atheists. God has done all he can to prove his existence. -Hes come down on Earth -Hes appeared to people -Healed people -Wrote his own book What else could God possibly do? If he were to appear to an atheist, they would blame it on hallucinations. When he resurrected, they blamed it on "mass hallucination." There is nothing anyone can do, that can change an atheists mind. So its not about "looking for truth" it's about "destroying other people's truth." I'm only talking to atheists, not agnostics. Agnostics, you can change. Atheists, you cant.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

@@t.m.hdebates103There are no proofs of god existence. All the proofs you are offering are found in a book that says that plants were created before the sun, that women came from some guy’s rib, that people can turn to salt, that the sun stopped moving. Where did he come from? The Bible was not written by god was written by common people with the knowledge of the Bronze Age era, they didn’t even have the genius of the Greek philosophers. The evidence for Christ resurrection is overwhelming just for people that already believe in the resurrection.

[@wysonlegion5398]

@@t.m.hdebates103 Hi, I'd like some proof of your claims. Thanks! Oh.. there is none...

[@adamwilder1407]

Such a great argument, praise God and Jesus💖💕💕🌿✝️✝️✝️ . I knew from the start Frank was going to go off 🤣😂😂

[@RippedPantsss]

Yo straight facts!

[@user-xk3hw4sk7m]

Facts.

[@adamwilder1407]

@Reid Elson Theism better explains reality! With the known science we have, apologetics in my eyes is the umbrella term for our archealogical, scientific, cause & effect, historical, and many more different kinds of evidence that confirms Theism is intellectual and based off of reason! God bless you on your journey or Do🙏✝️💖💕

[@kloppcredig8460]

Theism is every stronger than atheism. But remember to praise only God alone " Why do you call me good? No one is good, but One, that is, God." - Matthew 19:17.

[@michaelalex2910]

The last question was a killer. Left Shermer confused.

[@mattitude9000]

Do you mean the question the guy had about the probability of him meeting his wife? Of course Shermer was confused by that, because the question makes no sense. Even Turek agreed with Shermer on that.

[@rileycj]

Look whoever is rising from the dead,I'm trusting what he's saying 😂🤷‍♂️

[@adriennenicole7687]

🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

[@wysonlegion5398]

Yeah that happened? Prove it.

[@tabithaevans387]

Hallelujah!! All glory to God!! Well done Frank.

[@eugenecoleman8525]

Frank's arguments were absolutely horrible.

[@jibbobdion5072]

Frank lost this debate, what are you talking about lol.

[@avivastudios2311]

He's a wonderful man.

[@calicawley7231]

I would really love to see Frank Turek fed to Matt Dillahunty cause I guarantee Matt wouldn't let Frank get away with theses B.S arguments and Mr. Frank Turek would be demolished philosophically in which he could never recover.

[@DarkFiddle121]

Ooooh that would be a good one!

[@dp1381]

Matt Dillahunty is an arrogant fool. He debated Jay Dyer and proved that he knows little about philosophy. He professes to be a skeptic and isn’t even familiar with the work of David Hume and the problems of skepticism that he exposed. Hume is a skeptical atheist who took the position to its logical conclusion and even he had to admit that without God empiricism is baseless and without justification. Dillahunty’s only move is to say, “those are just claims, show me the evidence.” He cannot understand that the evidence for God is logical, transcendental, and immaterial principles because God is immaterial. He’s so locked into a commitment to gross empiricism that he cannot understand this simple point.

[@funmakers2093]

Lord. Does Turek ever say what the friggin’ message is?? I think he was talking about the DNA “code”. If so, here’s a flash bulletin for you. WE assigned meaning to the proteins found in DNA. It’s not telling us anything. We discovered what it was and how it works. If it was a message from God, wouldn’t it be something like “I exist. Believe in me. Love each other?“

[@jnixa1010]

That Shermer guy sure was sweating and stuttering a lot

[@brandond2868]

He was dumbfounded by Franks nonsense.

[@bienv2lis]

Shermer's never been a good debater, or even speaker for that matter. He easily gets frustrated. Actually it's not hard to find videos of Turek's ass getting kicked by other opponents.

[@asix9178]

@@bienv2lis Every debate Frank has ever done, he's lost so, it's very easy to find one since, this video is one.

[@justspaceex1589]

That message at the end of the video was 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@gregsmith5134]

Son of the Sun why couldn’t Jacky Cruz think Turek ? Everyone has to believe or think what you think ? People can’t make choices in your world or what ?

[@mystery6411]

@Son of the Sun i hope you're not talking about shermer

[@justspaceex1589]

Greg Smith he can’t make choices because he is a robot 🤖 since the molecules in motion in his brain make the decisions 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@HarryNicNicholas]

"just a quick question" - ten minutes later....

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

Energy from the sun, moon, core of the earth, etc. drives symmetrical and repetitious complexity, such as wind, waves, hurricanes, and so on. We have not proven that it can bring about life. Certainly, once you have life, it provides the means to perpetuate it, at least for a time, but perpetuating something and starting it are two different things.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

Probably life is a product of evolution. The transition from chemistry to biology happened somehow early in the history of earth. We know that it did happen, the problem is how. Let’s see if abiogenesis can give us an answer.

[@steeltown825]

God: If you argue for your limitations, you get to keep them.

[@EmperorHero1]

God is not limiting humans.

[@christianwood1042]

Damn Sherman got toasted so badly 😂😂. He wasn’t prepared for this and he keeps prevaricating and dismissing franks questions 😂

[@williamwilliams2592]

He didn't get toasted...not at all. Science and evidence always wins over religious myth and tomfoolery. The problem is religion is not grounded in truth...it is Bronze Age sci-fi

[@ChristopherDolby]

Awesome debate!! LOVE IT!! 😍😍😍

[@skoulikiagamwtanekrasas]

@@williamwilliams2592 can we both agree that this was a great debate

[@ben3673]

1:50:14 He admits. “Oh Lord”

[@Follower0fJesus777]

Thank you JESUS for my best friend the HOLY SPIRIT and for talking to me and showing me your glory and for saving me🙃❤️🙏🏼 JESUS has done so many miracles in my life that no one can take from me :).. one being PEACE that i NEVER had until the presence of the LORD entered my room that one sad sad sad night👀❤️..

[@David-gv6jf]

Great debate. Even though I’m non religious, I get a big kick out of Dr. Turek. Both men got over their points and keep your attention.

[@WISHBONEL7]

What do you believe ?.

[@ZeeeZeee03]

Jesus changed my life seek him bro

[@knxcholx]

@@ZeeeZeee03let them decide that for themselves

[@Eric-en9hk]

I want to thank Dr. Shermer for his presentation. It was so devoid of anything that could be considered a real argument that it served to strengthen my faith in God. Thank you, Dr. Shermer.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

Which god? There are thousands of them, don't forget, all suspiciously invisible?

[@Eric-en9hk]

@@upturnedblousecollar5811 The Christian God. The One that all the evidence points to.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

@@Eric-en9hk You mean _"The only god you researched because he was the most-popular one in your country."_

[@Eric-en9hk]

@@upturnedblousecollar5811 Even if a person only researched the god of their country, that doesn't make their conclusions false. Beliefs are only false if they are in conflict with reality. A person might believe in the Christian God because they were raised Christian, but that does nothing to falsify their beliefs. Their beliefs might be entirely true. Your argument commits the evolutionary fallacy by assuming that a belief is wrong because of where it came from. This assumption is illogical.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

@@Eric-en9hk Whoa, whoa, whoa, I didn't say that anywhere, that's your projection of what you're mistakenly reading into what I said. I didn't say _"Your beliefs are wrong because you only researched the god most-popular in your country"_ so don't correct me on something I didn't say. Thanks.

[@BloodnightStudios]

Shermer didn’t leave Christianity because of the “magnitude of logical reason” found in atheism. He left for personal emotional reasons.

[@jefferyperkins4668]

How do you know that? You’re a psychic Christian.?

[@Justaguyontheinternet123]

I was an Atheist for over 10 years. Loved Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc... Now I'm an devout Catholic. What I realized is that people will believe whatever they want to believe. If God came down to you and showed you miracles to prove he existed; an Atheist will just believe they're hallucinating. At the limits of science you essentially need MORE faith to believe that Atheism is true. What Atheist fail to realize is Atheism is in itself a religion - they are not being neutral and they aren't on a moral high ground that they think they're in. It's not that they don't have a belief, it's that they believe in nonsense, they believe something can come from nothing and we will eventually have all the answers. The fact is we can never have the answers because we cannot make observations outside our universe, at the limits it's all just theories. Saying we'll fill the gaps is like saying we'll have a 100% accuracy for a test we don't know how many questions there are or what the questions will even be. Intellectual arrogance or ignorance.

[@kencress3665]

Prayers for the unbeliever... Holy Spirit open the hearts and Minds.. remove the scales Satan has placed over their eyes.. By the power and authority of Jesus the Christ amen

[@PBuffdaddy00]

Dr. Shermer didn't start out well. He just got worse as he went. Dr. Turek won this one, hands down.

[@perse7830]

Ojalá que puedan poner subtitulos en español, hermanos:( no me puedo deleitar de la misma manera ya que no comprendo mucho la lengua. Saludos de México y bendiciones

[@mateoarteaga8274]

Sí pudiera lo haría para tí

[@phild249]

Do think atheists believe the dove a magician pulls out of his jacket actually came from thin air, after all, if a whole universe can come from nothing, whats a dove?

[@tmblefebvre]

Actually I'm sorry to break it to you but those who believe in sky wizards making things appear out of nothing are called theists.

[@phild249]

@@tmblefebvre I am sorry to have to tell you this, but you are totally deluded when an atheist can even speculate the origins of creation, maybe someone will listen. Even Dawkins is not so naive as to believe in random chance, so what is it?" oh" it just appeared, I think you are the sky wizard believer, look, listen, and learn, nothing from nothing has never happened, and never will.