1 Atheist vs. 25 Christians - What Could’ve Gone Better

[@Faltron533]

The reason Jubilee uses this format is not because it's conducive for great debate but because it gets lots of views. Anyone can make a debate video. Jubilee has mastered the mob video.

[@Snow-Willow]

"Mob" This is exactly Jubilee's audience, so it's the perfect way to put it that they make mob videos.

[@AnsweringLDS]

We need to get IP on Jubilee next

[@Modal-d4l]

@AnsweringLDS real

[@malirk]

@Modal-d4l The problem is, IP won't be able to answer questions like: 1) Why would a perfect God create anything? 2) Why is there unnecessary suffering? 3) What good reason is there to trust the Bible?

[@jude2007]

@@malirk 😭

[@malirk]

@@jude2007 I know! All apologists can do is cry. There are no answers here. You question their God and they get mad.

[@Modal-d4l]

@malirk Thanks for the questions I will answer them 1) God created us because he chose to and because of his infinite love for us. For more information please go to IP’s video “God’s hand was not forced” 2) First of all, your assuming their is objective morality. But on Atheism, there is no morality, it’s all subjective. When ever you say statements like “X is Good” or “Y is bad” your presupposing the theistic world view. Your question is the problem of evil. IP already addresses this argument and gives his response go to his video “ Why would a Good God cause suffering?” 3) We can trust it because they are eyewitness accounts and the gospels are preserved well and you can trust them. Go to his gospel reliability playlist. IP makes a great case that the gospels were eye witness account. God bless you !

[@paradisecityX0]

IP effortlessly defeated Dilladodge, Aron Ra Nelson, and Zuckerman. 25 Jubilee atheists should be a breeze

[@malirk]

Just ask IP: *Why believe in this God?* Listen to him go on for a long time and then point out he didn't give any good reasons. Prove me wrong though. Give me good reasons.

[@catalyst3713]

​@@malirk Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oveido, historical reliability of the Bible, especially the gospels, confirmed miracles, testimony of former occultists, exorcisms, unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP's) etc. shall I go on?

[@paradisecityX0]

We're far too intricate to not have a creator. Atheism is not only false but woefully ridiculous, and blatenly nonsensical. The only argument in favor of it that has any substance is the problem of evil, which even then has several problems

[@piage84]

IP couldn't defeat anyone mate. He's the embodiment of dishonesty

[@chuckalakatoob]

​@@malirknice to see you lurking through every top comment. I know IP lives in your head rent free, but don't make it so damn obvious buddy 😂

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

Unfortunately, jubilee won't change the format, no matter how much we criticize them. Its designed to be a s***show. And most people click on the video for the s***show.

[@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205]

Don't curse, even if censored.

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205 because...

[@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205]

@@TheUnapologeticApologists It's sinful.

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205 I see. So, um, no, there's not a good biblical case that it is. Passages people tend to cite, are clearly talking about language used for deceit or harm, not an arbitrarily defined list of words devoid of any context.

[@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205]

@TheUnapologeticApologists Ephesians 5:4 "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving" Proverbs 4:24 "Keep your mouth free of perversity; keep corrupt talk out from your lips". Colossians 3:8: "But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips." These three passages are talking about anger; obscenity, perversity, filthy language. Not language that is filled with hate or deceit. Also, from natural law: cursing is impulsive and childish. It doesn't do anything to glorify God and expresses emotional immaturity. And literally all the Saints and theologians for all of Church history have condemned cursing.

[@john-xp4em]

"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY" had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today! "His name is JESUS❤" Edit :- this is for those who are saying Jesus was not historical person. Here are some ancient historians who mentioned Jesus Christ or the early Christian movement: *Non-Christian Historians* 1. *Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE)*: Jewish historian who mentioned Jesus in his work "Antiquities of the Jews" (Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3). 2. *Tacitus (56-120 CE)*: Roman historian who mentioned Jesus and the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate in his work "Annals" (Book 15, Chapter 44). 3. *Pliny the Younger (61-113 CE)*: Roman administrator and historian who mentioned early Christian worship and the singing of hymns to Christ in his letters to the Roman Emperor Trajan. 4. *Suetonius (69-122 CE)*: Roman historian who mentioned the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius, which may be related to the early Christian movement. 5. *Thallus (circa 52 CE)*: Samaritan historian who mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus and the subsequent darkness. *Christian Historians* 1. *Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339 CE)*: Early Christian historian who wrote extensively on the history of the Church and the life of Jesus. 2. *Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE)*: Early Christian theologian and historian who mentioned Jesus and the early Christian movement. 3. *Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 CE)*: Early Christian bishop and historian who mentioned Jesus and the apostolic succession. *Other Sources* 1. *The Jewish Talmud*: Mentions Jesus and the early Christian movement in several passages. 2. *The Roman historian Mara bar Sarapion*: Mentions the execution of Jesus and the subsequent fate of his followers.

[@TheoSkeptomai3]

Yet, he wasn't a historical person. Amazing!!!

[@malirk]

This same man... told people to follow the law of Moses... The law that tells people they can own slaves... That man should've abolished the law.

[@crazyand2099]

@@malirk What are you on about? He said he fulfilled the Law of Moses and gave a new law and never said anything about supporting slavery. Also Revelation 18:13 can be interpreted as a condemnation of slavery. You are wrong on absolutely everything you said.

[@TheoSkeptomai3]

@@crazyand2099 How do you know this Jesus was a historical person?

[@crazyand2099]

@@TheoSkeptomai3 literally every historian says He was and contemporary historians mention Him. That is more than enough.

[@fandude7]

To summarize: being on Jubilee was a frustrating event. Got it.

[@LukeBowman08]

IP might need a cat cam like Mike Winger with how the cat wants to be on stream.

[@gotgunpowder]

Personally, I love the idea of IP appearing on a Jubilee "debate" and getting so pissed off that he throws a chair. It would be the most interesting thing to happen on that channel.

[@Stranzua]

Alex beginning the entire debate with the topic of animal suffering reminds me of Mindshift's video where he blames God for giving children cancer. Ultimately, it's an argument where anyone can blame God for everything. For example, stubbing your toe. Imagine stubbing your toe and then blaming God for creating pain, giving you toes, or not giving us the ability to see in the dark. It's an argument that you can create about literally ANYTHING!

[@General_Maximus]

almost like saying god created everything.

[@hannes8978]

@@Stranzua No you can’t. God is omnipotent and omnibelevolent. Doctors are NOT omnipotent, they can not stop you from getting cancer. God however can. He simply states that the amount of suffering in the world is unexpected under an omnipotent omnibelevolent god

[@satoatsuji8392]

Wow you thought you ate with that huh? In fact, you can blame god for these things especially when you give him these grand titles as all good, all loving, all powerful and all knowing. You cant give him these titles and expect him to not carry the blame 😭

[@Latenight82]

Imagine typing this much to equate childhood cancer to stubbing your toe. Cope hard.

[@rileymorgan2801]

The premise that God would not allow suffering isn't even justifiable. Don't @ me dawg Alex even defined suffering as a 'state of being in which it is not enjoyed when experience' (may be paraphrasing). I mean that literally includes eating a food you don't like the taste of, or stubbing your toe, but of course he only focuses on the emotional appeals. 🦌🌲 I think there are many great answers to the question of suffering, but, ultimately, the fact that we are not omniscient and it is simultaneously conceivable that God could have some possible reason for allowing the suffering in the world (even if we are unable to ascertain it), defeats the argument. So how exactly is this supposed to dissuade someone from being a theist/Christian? Even if we just grant the emotional side of it, and the existence of things that we do not like/don't prefer to happen, how does it logically follow that God does not exist? Or even, as Alex said, 'unlikely' exists? At minimum it's just a question of why does God allow suffering? It doesn't get you to God's existence being false, or unlkely. If suffering is not in and of itself evil, and Alex even purposely avoids this because he knows that the Problem of Evil is easily refutable given that evil's existence is dependent upon the existence of God (esp. given an internal critique), what's the contradiction?

[@intrustt]

Jubillee's debate video was clearly made for entertainment and not for actual answers and Alex knows this, thats why I think he was more trying to make a gotcha moment, throw a bunch of questions etc. so that Christians cant really get their point across and thats why debates and conversations off camera were better and more sincere

[@samueljennings4809]

That might be true, but if you know that Jubilee is all about clicks and entertainment over “meltdowns” then you should be even more careful about what you say and how you present your point, as it’s even easier to take comments and moments out of context.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

thats all Alex ever does

[@ye_zus]

Or he could have made good points and none of the 25 Christians could sufficiently answer him...

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@ye_zus in order to make the claim the "or" would have to be proven the only... not just one possibility. Which is why to defeat it, all i need is a viable possible alternative. Task completed. I think it is also very easy to demonstrate that many of Alex's points were not good. If Science types can act like engaging with Ken Ham is silly, or flat earthers is silly - certainly fallacious, strawman depictions like Alex's are equally "difficult" to speed-debate on because they have not merit to start with. Engaging with the ideas is a mercy to Alex that affords him legitimacy he doesn't deserve. What he did, however, was take advantage of the format. Playing skeptic, asserting wild claims that take time to mop up, and running out the clock - it's all strategy of the format - not victory over the ideas.

[@ye_zus]

@ithurtsbecauseitstrue that's a lot of words and no substance. It's easy to accuse the other side of using disingenuous tactics, particularly when you are losing... but ironically it is you who are casting aspersions, and resorting to emotional reasoning. Thus far you've provided zero rebuttal to Alex's straightforward points.

[@Vapememes]

29:25 I would have challenged Alex on the claim that a world without carnivores would result in less suffering compared to one with carnivores. Just from an ecological standpoint, without carnivores herbivores can very quickly reach the carrying capacity of a given environment and overexploit said environment for resources (like food, water, etc.). This can result in there being significantly more herbivores in an environment, all of which have a worse quality of life, being more prone to starvation, dehydration, malnutrition, and disease in such an environment. Without carnivores, carcasses are also more likely to rot and cause disease. Not only that, by overexploiting the environment, one herbivore species can cause basically all other species within that environment to suffer the same issues they're facing, if not suffer outright extinction/extirpation if they can't adequately compete with said herbivore species for resources. These are just some of the issues we see when suitable carnivores aren't present in a given environment. So, if we assumed that the entire planet lacked such carnivores, it seems like such suffering and mass extinctions would be magnified even more so. I recognize this is speculative, but even so, given that we're considering possible worlds, I actually find it hard to believe that a world without carnivores would have significantly less suffering in it compared to a world like our own.

[@that1metalhead792]

Predation was only a part of his argument. the other would be disease, cancer. His biggest point with the animals was the deer that had it's leg stuck and starved to death. Isaiah even mentions the end of predation (...the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat...) but still doesn't answer what he was getting at in whole, and it still doesn't make right the suffering the animals had before anyways by Alex's resoning.

[@that1metalhead792]

Apologists should ring the bell. They've been taking Ls since Origen tbh.

[@Peter_Ivanov23]

@@Vapememes you are a bit slow aren’t you? God can’t create a world without carnivores where the herbivores don’t harm the environment? What kind of a god is that? 😂 This world is literally dependent on carnivores, this is his argument - that God could’ve created a different one where there’s no need for them…

[@KasperKatje]

How hard can it be to imagine that your claimed all good, just , all loving and all powerful god can created a perfect world without suffering? I can imagine a world where animals don't need to eat at all, where a god doesn't require animal sacrifice or doesn't condone slavery. A world where is no death etc. etc. At is as if you can't imagine that claimed god wouldn't be able to create....heaven. 😮

[@MichaelOwusu-c1s]

​@@KasperKatjebecause it's philosophically viable for the Christian God to exist. You're just too closed minded

[@CovocNexus]

Liberals focus too much on skin color in an effort to divide us. However, I also see a lot of conservatives make jokes about skin color in order to lighten the mood. To sprinkle some in here and there is fine, but I swear every five minutes a cringe joke has to be made about Tim's blackness. I say this as a conservative myself. It's like having a Polish friend and making Polish jokes all the time. We as conservatives have to learn to move past this. This is not to say we don't need to make jokes. I make jokes and fun of my Hispanic friends all the time, and vice versa. But too often and it starts to seem forced.

[@romansmusicreview]

@@CovocNexus not that deep my friend

[@Theohybrid]

But that’s the point, it’s a habit on both sides to focus on race but liberals don’t use it to “divide” they do it to acknowledge an issue in society. Conservatives don’t see this issue but also can’t stop mentioning said issue which Mary-go-round’s the issue of race. Neither will stop talking about it for reasons outside of those races for some strange fixation.

[@fletcher373]

​@@romansmusicreviewnot for you, I wonder why you dont care?

[@romansmusicreview]

@ you got me!

[@CovocNexus]

@ Liberals do do it to divide. The whole liberla movement is that the conservatives are too accepting of capitalism and so we need a way to bring about the communist revolution by other means. At least for the most progressive among them. The moderate liberals focus on race because ever since Barak Obama won, they assumed that the only way to win elections from then on was to form a racial coalition. A coalition of minorities. So yes, liberals focus on race in order to divide so that they can get elected. You can look at charts of newspaper usage of terms like "racism" an exponential growth curve of it started around Obama's second term. Why? Democrats thought if they mastered it, Republicans could never win another election.

[@onetowardslove]

Irenaeus versus 25 gnostics when

[@nperium9886]

Next is Augustine vs 25 Manichaeans

[@theistguy]

It will be 1 Calchedonian vs 25 Nestorian next time

[@viniciusl.fontclara1476]

Athanasius versus 25 arians next time

[@nperium9886]

@@viniciusl.fontclara1476 That would be a banger

[@Rams507_2]

🤣

[@polarisnorth4875]

Alex properly demolished you guys tbh

[@Im_that_guy_man]

with class

[@monarchblue4280]

Yeah, he properly demolished people in format that favours him disproportionately.

[@PlaylistWatching1234]

I only knew Tim Howard was an excellent goalie. Didn't know he was a good debater, too!

[@King01589]

same here. he performed pretty well.

[@iamdanielmonroe]

I’m not even the type to get offended at race jokes but the constant references to Tim being black in this stream were cringe and obnoxious. Like come on we get it…😩

[@thebigbadrascal3398]

IP made way to many cringe jokes it got annoying asf

[@magerjohn]

NO WAY MY BOY BIGJONSTEEL IN A IP VIDEO!!!

[@bigjonsteel]

[@isaelreyes5042]

Just a heads up he’s also in another video of his I think “top 10 questions asked by Christian’s” or something

[@JCC_137]

We need to get Alex vs IP or Jay Dyer asap

[@cerealbowl7038]

Jay Dyer is not credible.

[@Dan_the_metal_man]

Jay dyer would destroy ☦️

[@veridicusmind3722]

Alex and IP has debated on numerous occasions

[@lostworld4252]

Jay Dyer is literally the Alex Jones of Religion... Tell your dad to get it together and maybe he could debate Alex

[@JCC_137]

@@lostworld4252what a random response lol, but if Alex ever got the courage to debate Jay, it wouldn’t even be close…

[@noahalban6384]

All the Mormons in the comments so mad 😂

[@jacobmayberry1126]

More like amused that y'all are mad that we got more spotlight than you.

[@BroEthan]

It’s really hilarious that their first point in the video was that we’re not Christian XD Can’t help but talk about them 🤷‍♂️

[@noahalban6384]

@@jacobmayberry1126dude, I saw u yapping in the comments. U just proved my point.

[@danensosnore9011]

​@@BroEthanbut you're not christian

[@viniciusl.fontclara1476]

Lol

[@Truck_Kun_Driver]

We need David Wood or I.P vs 25 atheists next

[@KasperKatje]

🤡 wait till he snaps again and blames Christianity or god this time...

[@OfficialDenzy]

@@Truck_Kun_Driver nah David Wood vs 25 Muslims 💀

[@Truck_Kun_Driver]

@OfficialDenzy you need to give the muslims some slacks, how can they survive 😭😭😭

[@parker_rey]

Ward Radio was right. The vibes on creedal Christian channels are way more somber

[@brenthardaway3704]

True. But what if Alex had spent as much time studying Mormonism and its problems and challenges as he had done for Christianity and he had the same advantages in the format? He lives in a place where it's barely on anybody's radar.

[@Deadite_Scholar]

We would have still fared better because the restored gospel is objectively more rational than credal Christianity and our doctrine has answers for some of his biggest challenges

[@blacktuesdayfilms8636]

IP had some jokes this stream😂

[@LukeBowman08]

lol i was dying

[@johnwiggins3950]

Yooooooo big Jon steal on the channel let’s gooo, been watching you since the start bro

[@PiotrDrzymkowski]

Thank you for this response, Michael - you never let me down! Great guests and I would love to see you in the place of Alex some day!

[@bfastje]

Why don't you debate Jacob from Thoughtful Faith about the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon?

[@Cleeveable]

This would be awesome!

[@catherinemcdavid1533]

Why would anyone debate such nonsense? Those witnesses were mighty weak, back tracked, ultimately diverted to a “mind’s eye” view, and then the plates conveniently disappeared. Jacob knows that, he just conveniently denies that. There are multiple events surrounding The Book of Mormon that prove it fails the truth test.

[@alexwatson3064]

Agreed. Stop hiding behind the bigotry and talk to us rather than about us.

[@catherinemcdavid1533]

@@alexwatson3064 Why do you all whine about people saying you are not Christian “theologically” when the LDS church called the Catholic Church the Great and Abominable Church and the wh*re of Babylon forever? Still do behind closed doors. I think you win the hypocrite and bigot award. Jacob separated the LDS church as he claimed a superior cosmology, Jacob is a dishonest debater. He lies, partially discloses, and picks the best version of several LDS teachings/historical event, depending on his opponent. He would fit right in with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and that is not something to be proud of.

[@thomasm1996]

I tried watching Jubilee political and religious debates, but for both categories I could not sit there and watch for very long because there never ends up being deep conversations. And whenever there is deep conversation being brought up, the person always seems to get voted out.

[@catherinemcdavid1533]

There was a girl in a yellow shirt with Our Lady of Guadeloupe on the front. I doubt she was Mormon, most likely Catholic.

[@samara7938]

Ya the comments about Tim’s Blackness was really off putting, I’m not gonna lie. I get that you’re all just joking around, but it seemed as though he was a bit uncomfortable by it.

[@Theohybrid]

Yeah, it’s strange. Hearing it is makes me wonder if these guys are from a certain political party. I thought this was about Christian truth?

[@samara7938]

@@Theohybrid I know, and I understand people want to push back against “wokeness” whether that’s unconsciously or subconsciously, and have some sort of equal playing field where everyone makes fun on everyone in a light hearted manner, but I really believe that sort of thing has nothing to do with and no place within this conversation about Christian truth. People need to stop doing it, it’s uncomfortable to watch, uncomfortable for the person, and it could possibly alienate some viewers

[@WarMetalChud]

Whiny

[@samara7938]

@ downvoted for being wrong!

[@WarMetalChud]

@@samara7938 you would’ve had no problem if someone made jokes about being white. Lighten up

[@Autobotmatt428]

That debate channels format just seems flawed to me when I looked at it.

[@azza9652]

I used to like IP until he threatened to throw Alexs personal tea store into the harbour. How dare you threaten the tea Michael Jones.

[@VVooshbait]

Inspiring philosotea

[@Emma2039-dd3wl]

True debates have always been between two interlocutors for thousands of years for a reason. Ask Socrates and Aristotle why. The "25 vs 1 debate" is a cheap gimmick created for views.

[@castanedamusic1578]

Facts!! And it relies on the intuitive reactions of the flag holders, many of whom may not know what they are even listening to lol

[@Joking_jinglin_jonkler]

Many of my brain cells were lost reading the chat 😔

[@aakinfowosere]

Tim is really smart. His silence in the beginning would make you assume he didn't know that much.

[@jandj8355]

Definitely a terrible format for a debate. Much harder for the 25 no matter the topic.

[@muppetonmeds]

I think they set these things up so the host has the best advantage in the situation. But then again, I am a very suspicious person. Take care

[@lostworld4252]

I would say most of the 25 have seen and heard all of Alex's arguments... plus the fact they could prepare for questions. So no the 25 were not in the more difficult position

[@muppetonmeds]

@ You could be right. But the clock reminds me of speed dating. It doesn't seem like you would really know what a person really believes or thinks about any real topic or even how they came to those beliefs as true?

[@lostworld4252]

@ I agree. This system of debate is totally unproductive

[@lennonkelly-james2693]

The format is fine. It's your weak ideology that's the problem.

[@jtbasener1810]

Very interesting. Thank you for having these intelligent gentlemen over, my friend.

[@jtbasener1810]

Oh, by the way, as much as I think the competition was unfair, it was a clear who, between the well-dressed O'Connor and his competitors, was the winner of the fashion competition.

[@The_Man_Chidi]

Ironically. It was the Mormons that made meaningful arguments. 😅😅

[@Cleeveable]

So true.

[@Kvint-kh12345]

Regarding appearances of the dead people during the crucifixion, yes, it is an extraordinary event, but how would it be widely known? Only few (if any, given that it was Passover time, so not many people would roam around graveyards) would be able to see people coming out of their graves, and people would only know their relatives. Let's assume some ancient prophet got up that evening, say, Micah, who would've known him at that time? He'd be your average passer-by in a city packed with pilgrims. I feel like Alex uses that argument because he heard it from someone,and didn't actually think, if his objection to the reliability of the Gospel of Matthew based on that story is good or not. Feeding of the 5000 seems more likely to be widely noticed and discussed, which it is, since it is mentioned in every Gospel account,

[@KasperKatje]

You don't think it would be witnessed by many? Zombies walking through the streets of Jerusalem after an earthquake? It litterly says "The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people." You would assume that would be the talk of the town. But since Matthew made up and added a lot of stuff, it isn't surprising. The only thing I wonder is why add this claim? Many things like the spear and the guards serve a purpose, most of them to make extra links between Jesus and the OT claims.

[@Fassnight]

Oh dang! And these three were the three I was most impressed with also. Why am I surprised haha

[@VVeremoose]

THANK YOU for making David prepare. I've been sick to my stomach worried that he's not taking it seriously

[@Im_that_guy_man]

admit it. alex wiped the floor with all of them

[@rexgoodheart3471]

Biggest takeway: Alex demolished them. Not surprising because he's obviously very intelligent and very knowledgeable of his subject matter.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

No the takeaway is that Alex did not demolish them because they didn't get the chance to even show their worldview so he may demolish them

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

he obtuse. thats not hard

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@Rocky-ur9mnAlex doesnt need their worldview. What he does is load up a strawman version he has prepared an execution for. He would never actually debate real philosophy.

[@friedrice7312]

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue”debating philosophy” just equals debating word salads 99% of the time when it comes to theological arguments. Especially the ontological one

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@ and just using cheap debate tricks leads to strawmen and cheap shots

[@stuff2edit]

Guys, Alex rarely answers the direct argument. In most debates, he just slightly shifts his point to something he knows about and something that he can argue. He doesn’t engage with the topic of debate engages with his rhetoric.

[@Ironsharpensiron89]

24:50 bro hasn’t read Genesis 1 where God tells us He created the earth and it’s vegetation then created the sun moon and stars on day 4

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

If you dont know that YEC is not the only interpretation of Genesis 1, I dont know what to tell you. When someone is clearly using the OEC “Epoch” interpretation, you have to address their position - not assume or superimpose YEC on it

[@Ironsharpensiron89]

@ it’s not the only interpretation that people hold. But it is the only interpretation to hold without relegating the 1st book to nothing more than legend. And the only interpretation that doesn’t make God a Liar. Despite what many Christians want to believe evolution isn’t compatible with the Bible. This is why I’m quite great full that I am functionally retarded. I don’t fall for the lies that twist Gods word my mind is simple and I see things simply. God tells us he created everything in 6 days well by golly that’s what happened. God tells us the first man was Adam then it’s Adam. God tells us he created trees the day before he created the sun moon and stars then that’s what happened. Simple minded I know

[@ryanevans2655]

Genesis 1:24 actually says “let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds,” which is perfectly compatible with theistic evolution as a developmental process resulting from God’s design on Earth. If I create a graph charting results of a science experiment by drawing it by hand, or I create by writing dozens of lines of code that spit out the graph once the computing process is initiated, I have still created the graph.

[@Ironsharpensiron89]

@ the order is incompatible. And again God tells us in 6 Days God created the Heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. With Genesis giving us the order. And no young earth Christian has a problem with dogs coming from wolves. We take issue with wolves coming from frogs. I forget that in a crowed such as this I need to be overly specific. So I will rephrase, evolution as presented by the secular world and the process they present is not compatible with how God tells us he did it.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@Ironsharpensiron89 From the YEC that is correct. OEC uses the same text. They interpret it differently. And in doing so, get an EPOCH model. If they are working from that model, you cannot simply assert the YEC. You have to either understand their model and work with what they are saying from within that perspective - or CHANGE the subject over to a YEC/OEC debate instead. Some OEC people accept broad evolution and some do not. But certainly OEC opens up that as a possible means for evolution. What harms OEC on evolution more than YEC is the fall. With OEC you MUST then view the garden of Eden and the fall in different ways as well.

[@pktheviking]

Basic answer for the differences in the 4 gospels. Just like 4 witnesses will have varying accounts of an incident, but tell the same story, the 4 gospels are the same. They each highlight different aspects of Christ's life, but their underlying truths about Christ are the same.

[@CovocNexus]

I'm gonna keep saying this until you guys understand this. Michael seems to be under the impression that Alex is an open-minded actor, unlike RationalityRules. The truth is they are motivated by the same beliefs, and they are not much different. They are both secular humanist polemicists. Alex just has a British accent and is posh. So, he comes off way more agreeable. But just like all the other secular humanists polemicists that Michael has to constantly deal with, Alex will hear the Christian arguments and then mischaracterize them later. Why? Because he is a POLEMICIST. He's not an inquirer, he's already decided what world view works for him like the rest of us.

[@PlaylistWatching1234]

I think this fundamentally misunderstands Alex. If, for example, you booked a Jesuit priest who specialized in early deuterocanonical manuscripts, you would have Alex hooked for the full hour-long podcast. (Or look to his convos with Justin Brierly or William Lane Craig) I don't think the same is true for RR, who doesn't seem to think that kind of thing is worth investigation.

[@CovocNexus]

@@PlaylistWatching1234 Yes he will be hooked in that discussion. But then later on, when it's time for him to debate. He will misrepresent the position of that person, or switch goalposts. Why? Because he's a POLEMICIST. This whole video, they kept complaining about little "slight of hands" Alex is doing. They dismiss it as just something in the spur of the moment thing, but if I see a pattern of conduct, that is repeated in multiple videos? I start to question if it is unintetional. I guarantee you, in a couple of months another video with Alex will pop up. Michael will do another post-debate analysis. And he and his guest will be saying the same thing as they did this time. "Sleight of hand." Misinterpretations, etc. Again, just because someone has a British Accent and is polite, doesn't mean they also can't understand tactics to use to win a debate. It's OK for Alex to be a polemicists. I am one against Islam. But I am honest. I am not open-minded about Islam. I find their prophet false and detestable. This does not mean I stop using logic or am uncharitable in debates, but this does mean I will spend most of my time looking for attack vectors to the Muslim position.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@CovocNexusagree 100%. I've seen enough of Alex's stuff to know that he's definitely not an honest actor. He claims he studied theology but ultimately only gives you one side of the theological debate about the Bible and especially the gospels. He ever only presents the typical Bart Ehrman/German higher criticism stuff and never mentions the problems with that. He also repeated a lot of the anti-Christian propaganda that came up during the French Revolution and later on in the 19th century. And he always attacks strawman positions. He argues always from the fundamentalist literalist perspective and then attacks the Bible and thinks, if he can attack one particular thing, the whole house of cards will crumble. But basically how he's making his points is as follows - let's take slavery as an example. So slavery is in the Bible, we all agree. But he implicitly claims that every word of God in the whole Bible is always relevant for every Christian and so if it wasn't for the secular humanist societies we have today, every Christian would certainly still like to own slaves, therefore - Bible bad! Let's just ignore the golden rule or the double commandment of love which Jesus says are the "law and the prophets". Alex at some point decided he's gonna become a "poor man's Christopher Hitchens" and that's when he stopped being a truth seeker and became a propagandist for atheism.

[@KasperKatje]

​@@CovocNexusthe British accent really gets under your skins, right? 😂 It is as deep down you guys are triggered and it feels like incoming truth bombs and it hurts...

[@CovocNexus]

@ Lol, no it doesn't. I like British accents, but there is a common trope that it causes Americans to think of someone as smart and as polite. Well let's be specific, it's the posh British accent, not just any British accent. Like the new London accent wouldn't illict the same feelings. Even the British themselves will tell you there is a difference in treatment based on accent. Alex has an upper-class accent and talks politely. Still will not change the fact that he is a polemicist.

[@shin.511]

Much love guys!

[@ClintBeastwood-034]

Ok Mormons are definitely Christian and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Yes we have a radically different view of God and divinity, but you can’t classify us for instance in a classroom setting as a non Christian branch. We are clearly a branch of Christianity. I agree that under traditional Christianity we aren’t considered saved, but as far as classifications go we are a branch of Christianity. And we strongly affirm the divinity of Christ and that He is God. And that salvation comes only through Him. But again yes we believe extremely different things about Him.

[@VVooshbait]

And that He is the literal son and that his brother is satan yeah ok

[@ClintBeastwood-034]

@@VVooshbait yes so I’m right. You can make fun of how crazy our beliefs are as much as you want but we are still a branch of Christianity

[@ClintBeastwood-034]

@@VVooshbait also Satan being the brother of Jesus isn’t the gotcha you think it is. You guys believe God created Satan. What a horrible thing to bring into existence. But you making that point and me making mine doesn’t actually add anything to anyone. We both believe in goodness and making the world a better place. People who are striving for goodness should try to lift others up not tear down. If you wanna correct me from my supposed horrible mistake in my beliefs engage with actual theological issues instead of just saying those weird nonsense “gotchas”

[@BrghtScorpio]

I'm an atheist and I agree with you, mate.

[@VVooshbait]

@@ClintBeastwood-034 yeah God created Satan just like he created humans why would that make a problem I don't get it. It's not like God imbued Satan with an evil nature. No, Satan, just like other angels and other humans, had a free will and Satan chose to rebel just like how humans chose to rebel. The problem with your beliefs is that they don't have a historical base, a scriptural base, a traditional base or a philosophical base. I am not doing gotchas I am stating plain facts. You are not a christian or a branch of christianity and never will be.

[@weeks0319]

Self proclaiming Christians throwing shade against the LDS faith. Perfect Christian behavior. The 20 non LDS got destroyed by alex

[@ManonDeLArt]

The “mormons aren’t Christian’s” debate isn’t about trying to pretend we’re the same. We’re obviously not, we operate from a framework that Jesus never intended for public revelation to end and therefore the bible as a book was compiled by those who didn’t have authority because they did it as an attempt to close the canon. So if we accept a larger canon than of course the doctrines will be substantially different just like the christians have different theology than Judaism. The issue is people trying to gate keep Christ who’s grace is working in and through us and the fruits are manifest in our lives. “If their not against us, their for us.” Is the gospel faith plus intellect to be able to sort through the many claims about who is right about Jesus? Because that’s how people make it sound. One could “always be learning and never come to a knowledge of the truth” with all the arguments and debates out there now. Is the way to Jesus through faith or through intellect? Or do you suggest it’s faith plus intellect? You make it seem like we’re closer to muslims but one could say creedal christians are because they believe God intended to put his authority in a book and stop speaking. Except Jesus chastised the Pharisees for killing the prophets and closing the canon. Similarity is such a subjective claim. Unlike them, we claim Jesus Christ as God and the way to salvation. So the debate is not, “are mormons christian’s” but “who’s model for authority is correct and how do we come to know that?”

[@hatehoes]

We say mormons aren’t Christian because they misunderstand that Jesus is God, not just a prophet or “JUST” “A son of God”. He is God in living flesh, not a human who became like a god. Mormons get that part way wrong from my experience

[@Anna-gb1vi]

The Church that Christ founded has the authority to identify inspired books. Look at some of Joe Heschmeyer's videos (Shameless Popery) he adds clarity on differences in belief and Church authority. He welcomes correction if he misstates any belief but is good about citing sources. I think his video on The Great Apostasy might address the core differences if you are curious.

[@Fassnight]

You run into such a big problem because you aren't being entirely honest. You guys believe the Bible has been corrupted and/or things in them have been lost. That is a major claim that has never been proved or supported... Then, when you consider Paul warning us against people who teach a different Christ and a different Jesus, and then Mormons come along and teach Jesus is the literal son of the Father and his heavenly wife? And Jesus is brothers with Satan?? That's a different Jesus. And by virtue, you have a different Gospel. This isn't even getting into the other plethora of horribly different doctrines and beliefs Mormons have. At no point in history would Mormons be recognized as Christians. Paul wouldn't recognize you. Peter wouldn't recognize you. Jesus wouldn't recognize you.

[@ManonDeLArt]

@ I agree that the church Christ founded can identify inspired books. The question is which church is the primitive church? I’ve seen Joe Heschmeyer’s and at least appreciate him telling people to actually engage with us and not just straw man and mock. Robert Boylan is a scholar who studied in Catholic seminary for five years and then converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and discusses on his channel why the Catholic Church has a burden to bear as well at proving they are the primitive church. He discusses why the Catholic Church doesn’t meet the criteria. Honestly to go through each argument and get a strong footing to even analyze each one would take at least the time Joe and Robert devoted to study and maybe plus because the history of any religion is very complex, let alone to understand all the dogma’s. And yet Jesus seemed less interested in praising the scholarly class and more interested in the layman. Unless the works Jesus talks about is theological study then there needs to be a better way of finding his church. Joseph Smith is mocked by the idea that he would take it to God and yet Jesus said to Peter, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you, but my Father who art in heaven.” Where is the threshold of enough study? And what about those who are apart of the correct faith because of tradition and aren’t academically inclined? Are they better off than the person who desperately seeks but never comes to a knowledge of the truth? Would a just God require that?

[@ManonDeLArt]

@@Fassnight I’d say you’re being dishonest if you’re pretending like no one in the academic field thinks the Bible has been corrupted. The first codex of the NT has written in the margins “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!” Biblical corruption is literally one of Alex’s biggest beefs. Margaret Barker for instance is a Methodist and has a lot to say on the corruption of the Old Testament at the time when it says it happened in the Book of Mormon. She also talks about how the historical evidence is that the israelites believed God had a wife. You presuppose that we think those doctrines must be found in a Bible. Bible just means library. If you remember the Sadducees only accepted the 5 Books of Moses and the Pharisees believed in the prophets as authoritative and inspired. We posit that the compilation of which books should be included in the New Testament were done by the same process. By one lacking authority. And therefore just like the scribes rejected the New Testament, creedal Christian’s reject additional revelation. The creeds are an attempt to create a cohesive theology from a book that isn’t even supposed to be complete. Just like the people in Jesus’s day weren’t looking for a suffering messiah because they were operating on a limited revelation(in your view) but calling it sufficient, we believe Jesus reveals truth today to his prophets like he always has. So we don’t need to proof text to prove our doctrines because we don’t expect them to need to be there.

[@JustaGuy-dv9hf]

Keep up the good work, guys. You all are the reason I got introduced to apologetics.

[@jacobmayberry1126]

Recommending Rob Bowman as a resource for our faith 😂😂😂😂. Let me assure you, those of us in the LDS apologetic world are well aware of Bowman's work. While he's much more informed than your average Christian on our faith, Bowman has been taken to task multiple times by LDS scholars/apologists on various LDS/Evangelical engagement forums (e.g. Robert Boylan, Blake Ostler, Christopher Davis). Nice guy, but he's a hired gun. Bowman is the guy that Christians turn to when it comes to Mormonism because they're too lazy to learn about it themselves and so they just assume that he's done all the research correctly without any spin or bias. Try reading the LDS works he's supposedly debunking before you think he's slam dunked on us.

[@Ab44778]

Agreed. There really isn’t someone out there, at least that I’ve found, who’s pulled a slam dunk on Mormons. No one can give an even half decent theory of how the Book of Mormon was “written by Joseph smith cause he’s a fraud”. lol

[@thirstywhitehead4443]

@@Ab44778 ""No one can give an even half decent theory of how the Book of Mormon was “written by Joseph smith cause he’s a fraud”"" I'm trying to parse this sentence and I'm confused by it. Are you saying that the claim is 'joespeh smith is a fraud who wrote the bom', and that people are unable to provide a legitimate theory of how he did it?

[@IJN-33]

​@@Ab44778But it's so obviously a fraud. After all it's easy to dictate 588 pages with unknown Hebrew and Egyptian names, unknown old world geography, undiscovered Hebrew poetry, and a consistent geographic landscape with your head in a hat and no notes. So easy... Wait a minute...

[@omgitsatree4503]

​@@Ab44778false prophet.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Mormonism is wrong

[@I-Am-He]

He assumes that suffering doesn’t have upsides. In Genesis 3 it says: “cursed is the ground for your sake.” In other words the curse upon the ground is a blessing from God; we may have screwed up but we have a way to redeem ourselves. What if suffering was designed to alert others to danger? What if suffering was designed to bring the best out in others to fight against evil? What if suffering was designed to build empathy?

[@KasperKatje]

Why the need for evil? No evil, no need to fight it. Which empathy or morality? Didn't god try to prevent Adam and Eve from gaining knowledge of good and evil? But go ahead and tell me your definition of "all good".

[@VVooshbait]

​@@KasperKatjeDo you think suffering is intrinsically evil?

[@KasperKatje]

@VVooshbait no, but certainly not part of good, let alone all good.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@@KasperKatjeso you think a world separated from God, in a fallen state … should be pretty cozy? lol

[@KasperKatje]

@ithurtsbecauseitstrue which fallen state? Think outside of your bubble for once

[@jessekoeven3757]

9:17, absolutely not! Muslims deny the divine Sonship of Christ, we Latter-Day Saints do not deny it.

[@ThatBibleStudyChannel2023]

No you just believe he was a god.. and that you might become one as well.

[@chronnyc]

You believe Christ is a different being from the Father. Christians believe in the Trinity.

[@thyikmnnnn]

Muslims are closer to Christianity than Mormons. Mormons don’t even believe in an immaterial God.

[@MetalVannan]

@chronnyc Many Christians do, and they do so in error, trusting in extra-biblical interpretations of scripture to make him fit into a Hellenistic idea of God.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@MetalVannanwrong. But nice try.

[@Seraph_888]

I wish all 4 of you started a podcast together

[@jacobmayberry1126]

Be careful about this desire to "destroy" Jacob Hansen my fellow Latter-day Saint brother. He has several mentors and friends behind the scenes who are some big names in LDS apologetics/scholarship and have gained quite a bit of respect even among Christian scholars like Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. A few that come to mind are Robert Boylan and Blake Ostler. You platform him, and you may inadvertently end up platforming them through him. They don't have large platforms, but they know their stuff and if they end up debating big name youtubers like yourselves, the Christian world may end up finding out that LDS theology and history is much more defendable than ya'll like to portray. Ya'll got a small taste of that in Jacob's debate with Trent Horn, but if you platform the big guns, then all I have to say is you ain't seen nothing yet 😂

[@IJN-33]

That debate with Trent was epic.

[@thekolobsociety]

People fear and mock what they don't understand. It says more about the mocker than the mocked.

[@Mimi-kl9st]

@@jacobmayberry1126 shiver me timbers

[@Fassnight]

@@thekolobsociety People also mock what they do understand

[@ayobithedark2772]

When actual Christians hear polygamy, they lose interest very quickly. You are on the same level as Islam, but thankfully you're not a threat anymore, as in the days of Brigham Young

[@Drummer1000George]

His response to the question on suffering was a perfectly valid response to the question you asked. If you didn't like the answer, you should have changed the question

[@The_Man_Chidi]

LDS. We are Christians, but not Creedal Christians.

[@mysteryman8122]

Your neither

[@ClintBeastwood-034]

@@mysteryman8122Mmmmmm we definitely are. Go to any classroom setting where they are teaching about different sects of Christianity and you will learn about Mormons. According to your beliefs we will burn in hell but we are still a branch of Christianity we believe Christ is God and are classified as Christian

[@davidmathews9633]

Neither are you. I bet you don't follow Sabbath or food laws. Jesus and the first followers did

[@celestialknight2339]

@@mysteryman8122 Credal Christians: disguised polytheism. LDS: Open Polytheism.

[@thelatterdaynerd]

‘Christians’ still trying to argue Mormons aren’t Christians will never not be hilarious 😂 IP, I love you, you were a big part of my spiritual journey, but any time you try to defend this position it’s just incoherent nonsense

[@sethhousley5940]

56:00 We LDS love having these conversations, so you can just ask us. Invite some on your show. Invite Jacob from this jubilee episode, or anyone. Ask us about it, don’t just guess or share info with others you’re not sure about. Talk to us.

[@William-syd]

What an incredible video! It’s a great reminder to keep our hearts focused on God, trusting that He will guide us through life’s challenges.

[@downenout8705]

It demonstrably didn't do a very good job at guiding those 25 Christians.

[@downenout8705]

What could have gone better? That's easy, the Christians could have addressed the actual claims being made by Alex instead of constantly deflecting and running away from them.

[@ramadadiver7810]

P1 if the presence of suffering reduces the probability of theism being true then the absence of suffering increases the probability of theism being true P2 the absence of suffering does not increase the probability of theism being true C therefore the presence of suffering doesn't decrease the probability of theism . Defence of p2 . A world without suffering is a world where evil immorality and sin still exists it simply lacks the suffering . Remove the suffering people would still eat animals, abuse steal kill, and natural disasters still happen . There would still be wars famines and pagues and . There would still be death. Ergo the existence of suffering has no relevance to existence of evil or immorality when immorality is reduced to mere suffering

[@KasperKatje]

​@@ramadadiver7810suffering doesn't include killing for food and suffering and/or dying from natural disasters??? Why don't create a world without the need to eat and without natural disasters? And does each religion teach their god is all good and just? (Since you argue for theism) I know of religions with bad gods, gods of the underworld, gods of war etc. Something Judaism and Christianity converted into a devil/satan.

[@ramadadiver7810]

​​@@KasperKatje Theism within a Christian context . It's a Christian channel which only Alex interacts with. Are you willing to concede that the existence and non existence of suffering plays no relavenace in wither the Christian God exists?

[@ramadadiver7810]

​​@@KasperKatje Which premise do you disagree with because your comment has not interacted with any of my premises

[@KasperKatje]

@@ramadadiver7810 I asked the questions because you used theism. Since the debate is about Christianity, I gave you my objections when it is about the biblical/Christian god and the "all good" claim but left the options open when it is about any god or gods. I don't know the stance and claims about suffering within all religions so it is hard to discuss premises based on theism in general.

[@weeks0319]

Please explain justice and mercy. If God and Jesus are the same, why did he ressurect?

[@joeriv4151]

As a LDS I testify that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. If people want to know what we really think of Christ I recommend The Living Christ Proclamation.

[@Fassnight]

We know what you think of Jesus. We've listened to your apologists and read your book. You believe Jesus and Satan are brothers haha You believe in a different Jesus and a false gospel

[@danensosnore9011]

But you also believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan. And because Jesus is God, Satan is also God. Do Mormons hear themselves when they speak?

[@The_Man_Chidi]

As an LDS. Satan is not a God. Satan is a Fallen Angel. The idea that Satan is the Brother of Jesus stems from the fact that we are all Children of God, and existed in the premortal life. Where due to choices, the Son of the Morning fell. I don't think that Satan can be considered that brother of Jesus or even our brother in effect because he has fallen. ​@@danensosnore9011

[@lovegod8582]

Do you believe that Jesus is eternal God? NO

[@The_Man_Chidi]

@@lovegod8582 Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is not God the Father whom he prayed to "let this cup pass over me, but not mine will but thine be done." Is Jesus the Son of God?

[@joshuawoodin]

Have any of you heard that in Joseph Smith's day he proudly took the title from the news papers that called Joseph Smith the "American Muhammad" that's not a compliment, so we as christians, never back down in comparing Islam & LDS theology & history.

[@GldnClaw]

Creed-ism is incoherent and indefensible, let alone 'un-biblical'.

[@H982_FKL]

Imagine: 1 Christian (IP) Vs. 25 Atheists.

[@midimusicforever]

All 25 should have gotten together before the debate to plan it, that would have gone a lot better, and counterworked the bad format to some degree. For example, agree to vote out the Mormon immediately.

[@VICTOR7oh2]

Bias

[@mattherron173]

There were more mormons. I would suggest coming up with a better strategy of addressing your disagreements. The idea that this is a bad format because there are mormons in your group is silly. Maybe start working on your personal approach to addressing atheists rather than treating them like enemies to be defeated. But hey, if you want to play identitarianism with the gospel so that it will serve you better, go ahead I guess.

[@dylandavis7295]

That not a very Christ-like thing to do, to exclude people because of their beliefs.

[@professorchimp1]

Interesting how the “Mormons” were the most equipped to handle Alex’s arguments

[@VVooshbait]

​@@dylandavis7295How is excluding someone making a grave image of God not Christ-like

[@johnmacias488]

At min 1:39. It’s wild how ole boy in the red beanie explained his epistemology. The boy needs a lot of help. His way to find truth is broken

[@darkphoenixreborn1154]

they keep talking about the "issues" with mormonism but everything they have said about it are strawmen arguments. they have no idea what they're talking about.

[@carsonteuscher2519]

Unfortunately the whole "they're not Christian" trope reeks of the same type of pride and self-assurance that Christ warned against

[@sweetxjc]

@@carsonteuscher2519no they’re not Christians they deny basic Christian beliefs like the Trinity. We don’t worship the same God as Mormons.

[@TheLastFailbender]

There are so much variance amongst Christians about the nature of God it feels like you're drawing the line to exclude Mormons

[@qwerty_104]

​@@TheLastFailbender the trinity is non-negotiable It has always been the case, if you deny the Trinity, you are not a Christian, no exceptions. Cope with it

[@thyikmnnnn]

⁠@@TheLastFailbenderI can’t think of any other difference as big as ‘God the father having a material body’.

[@ReapersOcean]

it was also a bit eye opening how many people in a small room had different views of christianity all from the same words inspired by God. Gives thought that if there really was a god, he didnt really succeed in convaying his message really well in the way he chose to do it.

[@malirk]

I love how the comments of the video said things like, *"I wish they had people on who knew the religion."* Everyone things they know the religion but they're all just making it up to suit their own needs. That's why virtually every Christian will disagree with every other Christian.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

U know nothing Jon Snow: i do agree with IP on many theological positions. U just show your ignorance in all your posts. Keep defending that your intelligence came from nonintelligence: best atheist argument.

[@HubertAgamasu]

Scientists disagree on scientists. What's your point?

[@malirk]

@Oh, scientists don't disagree like Christians disagree. Get a Catholic, Mormon and JW in the same room. They'll all themselves Christian and have massive disagreements. They'l even say the others aren't Christians. Get 3 scientists in a room and they'll agree on 99% of things.

[@Noname-ol8ef]

​@malirk However, most Catholics, Protestants, and people of the Orthodoxy church have all agreed that Mormons and JW aren't TRULY Christian due to them denying Jesus' divinity. You also have to consider that the MAIN Christian denominations all believe the original truths of the faith (like Jesus' divinity). You're also CLEARLY showing confirmation bias, as scientists can also HEAVILY disagree with one another.

[@JCC_137]

@@malirkjust because Christians (which would not include heretical non Christian groups like Mormonism or JW) disagree on different issues, does not mean that there is no true position or that Christianity is therefore false.

[@jeremims9044]

LDS guy here. Thanks for all the work you do at IP.

[@Pessi-m7e8h]

WITHOUT LIES CHRISTIANITY DIES !!!!😂😂😂😂🤣

[@JamesNuttall-tj2mg]

Definitely would love to see Jacob Hansen on the show!

[@diewollsocke2674]

I think O'Connor is lucky that he has the dialect he has. He interrupted very often, filibustered etc. If he wouldn't sound as sophisticated and polite, he wouldn't have come across well here. He didn't perform at his level here

[@KasperKatje]

Oh dear, the dialect as an argument...do you really want to sound as lame as Dinesh? 🤡

[@diewollsocke2674]

@KasperKatje I don't know the person that you are talking about, what I do know is that dialect and word choice does effect how people perceive you. I also know that he repeatedly interrupted and steamrolled the other person. I think that if he wouldn't sound as proper due to his dialect people would perceive his as more off-putting. Don't get me wrong he is a very intelligent man, but he also frequently uses these tactics and similar and I think he gets away with more due to the way he sounds.

[@KasperKatje]

@diewollsocke2674 yup, and Christians are especially sensitive to that and forget about the message. It's almost as if looks are more important than actions...that's why abuse is so rampant in Christianity: "such a nice father, neighbor, trustworthy authoritive priest/pastor".

[@lennonkelly-james2693]

​@@diewollsocke2674 He interrupts rude people who try to gish gallop. It's common courtesy to let someone respond to one of your points at a time.

[@diewollsocke2674]

@@lennonkelly-james2693 he rarely let anyone make a point also he constantly distracted from his original question and when someone tried to bring it back he interrupted them and started to filibuster about more unrelated points. There were multiple examples of this in the clips in the stream let alone the whole video. That kind of behavior should be beneath him.

[@castanedamusic1578]

This right here is how I used to feel on TikTok debates.

[@JohnDoe-eo8gi]

The mormon’s totally changed my opinion on that show. I’m definitely looking into them now. I even requested a free Book of Mormon!

[@selderane]

Look up James White's argument against Mormonism. Here's the thing: Modern Mormons don't know what their faith actually teaches. It's not just the Book of Mormon. It's the King Follet Discourse too. Itw Smith's other writings too. It's also Brigham Young's teachings. Mormonism today is a liberalized watered down cult. It still denies the essentials of orthodox Christianity, but it is also willfully ignorant of the complete teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[@shanetlogan]

You'd be better off to look into the history of mormonism and the church and how how they both got started.

[@jacobmayberry1126]

That's awesome. We'd love to have you!

[@jacobmayberry1126]

​@@selderaneJames White is a joke.

[@AnsweringLDS]

@@shanetlogangood point😂

[@nicoleikrebs]

How do we explain, that the person who go to the table and end up giving the STRONGEST arguments for why the Bible actually DO teach about CHRIST'S devinity, is the same guy (Jacob) whom the rest of Christianity sees as: not a "true Christian"??? 🤔

[@HopefulRain]

Dude the animal suffering question annoyingly easy to argue against, the “deer in the jaws of a lion” isn’t unjust or unnecessary because it’s death DIRECTLY contributes to the circle of life, which is beneficial to EVERYONE including other deer. Alex even said something dumb like “Why didn’t God just make all animals herbivores?” as if that wouldn’t be a disaster? The circle of life literally balances out all of creation, making every animal a herbivore would be terrible, plant life an vegetation would be in constant threat with no predators being able to keep them in place. Pointing this out to Alex would’ve completely shut that non-sense down but no one did it.

[@KasperKatje]

So god developed/created suffering as a needed part of nature/life. So you don't agree with the Christian claim that suffering is the result of sin and free will?

[@HopefulRain]

@ What? Suffering by nature isnt bad, even Alex admitted this. Suffering can happen without sin and suffering can even be just. EVIL is the result of sin and free will, not suffering. You misunderstood this completely.

[@KasperKatje]

@@HopefulRain well, in that case you have to take that up with the Christians who use that as their explaination. Suffering is bad but sometimes needed or at least serving a purpose. But if you want to claim your god is all good he shouldn't have introduced suffering or limit it to a minimum...he didn't. Your whole religion is based on unnecessary suffering.

[@downenout8705]

So your god isn't capable of designing an ecosystem that contains a way of maintaining its balance without the need for animals being torn apart alive. The god that freely chose the ecosystem we live in demonstrably loves suffering because it filled its creation brimful of it. That god also manufactured a scenario where it could try to pass the blame for this suffering onto the very creatures that are experiencing the suffering.

[@HopefulRain]

@@KasperKatje “Suffering is bad” I just said it wasn’t and you acknowledged this, yet you said it again for some reason. So no, there is still no “unjust suffering” when it comes to animals because it *does* contribute to something. You haven’t proven anything.

[@HodgePodgeVids1]

IP or Trent Horn vs 25 atheists

[@FuddlyDud]

Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin! I love Michael, but Jimmy just has more time and knowledge with the evidence. :)

[@joepug11]

The imageyou see here is so disgusting,the atheist heathen is sitting there calm,making everyone SCRAMBLING Fighting to talk to him,as a Christian I'm so repulsed by this,what your doing is putting this atheist on a pedestal,treating him like a film STAR,an Idol,you need to stop this behaviour

[@General_Maximus]

lmfao 🍼🍼🍼🍼

[@ohhellno8759]

You don’t know what the word idol means

[@lennonkelly-james2693]

You wouldn't be complaining if the shoe was in the other foot. Christians are not a minority, you are the MAJORITY, so of course the format makes perfect sense.

[@strider_hiryu850]

you should've invited Alex on for this convo!

[@COOlguy-ed5bq]

poor jon😂

[@AnsweringLDS]

Did he actually do bad or was he just being trolled

[@COOlguy-ed5bq]

@ he honestly didn’t even do that bad lol, sure he probably lost the discussion but that doesn’t mean he got “destroyed”

[@AnsweringLDS]

@@COOlguy-ed5bq 😭

[@Yehoshua1.9]

Another possibility for the lack of multiple attestation to the rising of the dead saints is that the gospel writers were writing to different audience within different churches. It's possible that the churches to which the other gospels were addressed, knew about the risen saints and/or had witnessed them directly, making it unnecessary to include that detail in the accounts.

[@KasperKatje]

And you don't think it would be on the "8 'o' clock" news and spread like wildfire? Earthquake, zombies walking through Jerusalem etc., etc. and only one guy making the claim decades after it supposed to have happened...🤯

[@Alien1375]

I like how the Jesus cultists always know exactly what to say when Alex is not in the room. Just smack talking from the side lines.

[@Drewman56]

Ip's debated him bud

[@Fassnight]

What are you even talking about

[@KasperKatje]

​​@@Drewman56IP wasn't there. But this is damage control. Why don't discuss how come that at least 20 of the Christians failed so miserabele? Isn't it sad and telling you need full-time apologists to defend Christianity in a reasonable way? Isn't the subtitle "what could have gone better?"? The clear and honest answer: "Everything".

[@GetsugaTensho-p2c]

​@@KasperKatjeMaybe because they are debating full atheist critics, or the fact jubilee doesn't have a good debating format.

[@GetsugaTensho-p2c]

​@KasperKatje You know these are questions from a dishonest full-time atheist critique. This is analysis critiquing Alex flaws and inability to allow someone speak.

[@ironny2419]

Man we need wes huf responding to Alex's appearance on jubilee now. He said some pretty wild stuff in here too

[@Savedsmile]

Christians unintentionally working for satan is sad.

[@jameslaver9545]

Wimped out on talking with Jacob Hansen 😂 you seemed nervous 😅

[@bilbobaggins9893]

How did they wimp out?

[@christopherpowell9220]

Such a weird response to the Synoptic problem. Like, obviously, if we had several internally anonymous accounts of something that happened in WW2 and one of the accounts is talking about Bob Jones being present and an important figure in specific scenes, we would not expect that account to be authored by Bob Jones if the author never mentioned that he was the person in the scene. This is especially true if we had really strong evidence that the author of the ‘Battle According to Bob Jones’ was clearly lifting *word for word* from accounts that we know weren’t written by a direct eyewitness. The Gospels are not independent (which destroys the undersigned coincidences argument) and they do not appear to be convergent eyewitness accounts so much as redactions of each other to various degrees. This obviously isn’t fatal to Christianity but it puts one in dire straits when trying to argue for anything approaching reliability.

[@samueljennings4809]

Iirc the issue is more along the lines of, “how are they offering seemingly contradictory details if they’re supposed to have copied off each other?”.

[@christopherpowell9220]

@samueljennings4809 it's not a mystery-- they have different aims than the source(s) they're redacting. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother writing a gospel in the first place. Matthew copies Mark verbatim in places, but also changes parts that no doubt seemed awkward (like the weird story where Jesus has to try several times to completely heal the blind man). Matthew also adds a guard at the tomb that Mark never mentions, almost certainly for apologetic purposes. The differences between gospels are not accidental. Kf Matthew chooses to omit something from Mark, that's a choice. Same if he changes or adds to something in Mark. Which is to say nothing, btw of John's *obvious* literary invention of Jesus sayings that the synoptics dont include. To me, that's a *much* bigger problem than the synoptic problem.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

this whole thing only makes sense if you assume they must have been written entirely independently, blind of each other, and at the same time. Awareness of a previous account, written and in circulation, does not remove credibility in an account. Its just really born of mere obtuse skepticism and not born of actual historical or textual criticism.

[@christopherpowell9220]

@ not sure what point you’re making. Like, obviously the burden is on the apologist to establish sources a reliable. More reliable than any ancient source, really. Because despite the relative reliability of Tacitus or Josephus, no one is tempted to believe *their* miracle claims. And so what do we find out about these alleged independent corroborative eyewitness accounts? Namely that they aren’t independent, often don’t corroborate each other, and aren’t eyewitness accounts. This is a problem for the apologist who is forced to try to make a meal from such meager ingredients. It’s not merely that Matthew and Luke are ‘aware’ of Mark, it’s that they are directly copying from Mark, but also changing things and adding to the text. They are not neutral observers but are themselves converts trying to convert others. So when Luke has Jesus going out of his way to eat fish in his post-resurrection body, critical scholars recognize that this is an obvious anti-gnostic polemic, not a historically grounded detail that the earlier gospels just forgot to mention.

[@danielboone8256]

Your dad bod’s looking great IP, make sure to keep drinking so that beer belly can truly reach its potential.

[@LiamBeanComedy]

The threshold for animals suffering is basically zero suffering I’m guessing. They don’t learn moral lessons like humans as their limited by cognition and often memory, non of the typical theodicies I hear for evil/ suffering apply to animals. Also in Tim’s argument talking about animals , I imagine Alex would have replied with the Bullington club analogy he used in the debate with the Mormon.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

which is why the animal suffering argument is a distraction, emotional appeal, and immature fallacious argumentation.

[@LiamBeanComedy]

@ it’s is emotional but not an to appeal emotion in the slightest. Also religion appeals to emotion all the time, god gives you free will cos he loves you etc. I’ve never heard a coherent response for a good god allowing excessive suffering, not one. If you’ve witnessed extreme suffering in the flesh, very high chance it’ll wipe the idea of “good” out your mind. If there is a creator, he doesn’t care or can’t intervene which doesn’t fit most definitions of god.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

@ If God sees it as good that we are allowed to see life as separated from his goodness.... what would that look like? I think it might include suffering. To put bumpers around the edges - and bubble wrap around all the animals would be a FALSE, cushioned, not-so-bad view.... and give us a FALSE appearance that being apart from God wasn't so bad. If we are seeing a world apart from goodness being in full connection with us - why would you expect ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN SUFFERING. You either want a neutered, false-view of sin and a sinful world. Or you want heaven now. I have yet to see any atheist present a coherent view of why suffering isn't 100% logic in a world where heaven is "to come" and not now... and where the now is specifically called "fallen." I have yet to see any atheist present a coherent view of who morals are arbitrary and non-existent - and yet the Christian view so inadequate and God so ineffective by judgement of the atheist sense of that false illusion of that morality that doesn't exist. You have literally no standard to judge God's supposed failing by. I have yet to hear any atheist present to me why suffering is considered evil, unneeded, or contrary to life or God. They just posit it and pretend it is somehow contrary to a good God.

[@LiamBeanComedy]

@ firstly heaven doesn’t come for everyone. You don’t get to brutally hurt someone with extreme suffering just because you may reward them afterwords. You don’t live your life like that, you wouldn’t be justified in kicking the crap out of a kid if you gave them unlimited candy afterwards. It’s unjust. It makes way more sense on a naturalistic world view. If someone experiences extreme suffering and questions god because of it, they also get the pleasure of hell fire on top of that. The fact you’re judged by belief rather than your virtues is psychotic. A serial killer who repents gets to spend eternity in heaven whilst a person generally good who does good independently who just hasn’t been convinced (which you can’t really control) get the void or fire is the most unjust thing I’ve ever heard. I honestly can’t sincerely come into belief if I don’t think it’s true and for that hell awaits. Anything else I’ve done with my life counts for nothing. Humans show more justice and empathy than god.

[@OverGrownBean]

@@LiamBeanComedyagain no one is good but God. Atheists do this all the time. They come into our world and bring their subjectivity toward it. If God is real and Christianity is true. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. Do you support sex before marriage? If you do, instantly you can’t argue with the problem of evil. That culture has caused so much death and harm to society it’s scary. You support pubs, clubbing, festivals? Again causes way more harm than good. You can’t come into our world view and then take yourself out from it and bring your subjectivity with it.

[@riccard1n0]

This is one of the problems with Christian debaters. They easly get too emotional and personal with the debates. IP had multiple good points in his past video (both YT and TikTok). I don’t really know about the others, but through what was shown in the debate on Jubilee, they do could not hold their ground against Alex, and it feel that this video is both a backtracking and a way to find excuses on how they actually did not lose, but Alex was wrong. I honestly did not like all the analogy Alex Made, but I Also pretty much easly see how he come in a debate with the goal of making the other understand, and the curiousity about the other side points, unlike the two that were on Jubilee, that both from this and their video, appear to be here with the only goal of proving the other wrong

[@bekindrewind6981]

Kudos to Alex, once again he was a master debater. However for the most part the Christians on the show represented us well. Still not a fan of the format though. The flags, having to run to the chair and the constant time pressure participants had to deal with all took away from some important discussion that needed to happen.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

master “debater” is correct. everything he does is debate strategy not philosophy, truth gathering or any real discussion. Everything is a debate tactic. He leverages tricks to confuse and distract rather than illuminate

[@kylepetruzziello3321]

You would have people put their flags up just to sit down and say “but I just love God so much and so loving” like seriously

[@johnmacias488]

Yall all got cooked on jubilee by Alex

[@LeoBeard-wk8kc]

Hey IP I live just south of Brisbane in NSW near the QLD border but unfortunately I’ll be in Indonesia for most of May, but I hope you enjoy your time.

[@johnmacias488]

Yall are so dishonest. Alex didn’t switch back and forth between gratuitous suffering and animal suffering. The Christian’s did that. Because gratuitous suffering has no effect on the animal suffering argument. Both exist but one is used for the argument

[@afrotron]

The jubilee 'debate' format is unserious and only geared toward engagement.

[@bunnybunnyyyy]

Alex O'Connor is what these religious grifters fear the most.

[@Jamo12]

About the heart being deceitful in Jeremiah… ancient Jews thought that logical thought came from the heart. Emotions came from the bowels. It literally means the opposite of what you are saying it means.