INTENSE Debate: Which is Better for Humanity? Christianity OR Secularism?

[@CollinBoSmith]

“Secularism values evidence based reasoning” *Secularist rejects scholarly consensus*

[@pierrelabounty9917]

They may say that, but they don't. They value their ends not means. Undermine, by twisting science into scientism.

[@vincentthendean7713]

*Pregnant men*

[@keifer7813]

​@@pierrelabounty9917 Nope. We just reject dogma and prefer critical thinking. The kind that says "hey maybe we shouldn't base the laws we govern by on a book that claims to be from a divine source...without any proof"

[@eshoosca]

As Christians we also often times reject scholarly consensus. It's not necessarily bad to reject scholarly consensus if the evidence takes you that way.

[@CollinBoSmith]

@@eshoosca Right. But it's just ironic that this particular skeptic appeals to "evidence based reasoning" and then dismisses a scholarly consensus with no argument at all, but rather just declaring it to be "bullshit".

[@pintswithaquinas]

It’s like somebody told Phil that if he could just be super unlikable, he might win. It did not work.

[@bigfootapologetics]

If the debate was on who could come up with the cringiest strawmans for things the other person never even said, he destroyed IP. Maybe if he read Aquinas, he'd understand how to steelman his opponents.

[@lastoflancas]

Eyyy. It’s Matt!

[@tandrew651]

PROOF that IP is a Roman Catholic! Just joshing, love ya Matt

[@DrBustdown66]

@bluebible1199that’s the joke. Reference to a denomination, then people think IP is in that denomination. Like people said he’s Catholic cause tweeted something about Mary. It’s just a joke people make anytime IP makes a statement relating to a particular denomination.

[@tandrew651]

Haha, yeah it’s just a meme at this point

[@mac-1157]

What in the r/atheism did I just listen to? IP absolutely trounced this man.

[@BoScotty]

I'm losing my mind. He actually interrupts Mike on his second rebuttal and scoffs, is this real life? lmao. Mike really got under his skin by just being cordial.

[@YTuser2019]

Bro, never in a thousand years would I’ve envisioned you being in a Christian apologetics KZbin channel. Still, it’s a welcome surprise!

[@mac-1157]

@@YTuser2019 What are you talking about? Pretty sure you don't know me.

[@danhallett4952]

@@mac-1157 you’re a better man then I, I tried but I couldn’t get through it. So cringey, I couldn’t take it.

[@Becca_Lynn]

Actually though 💀

[@Dhavroch]

Note how in the opening statement, Michael doesn’t insult the beliefs of secularists, but Zuckerman spends a good time mocking Christian beliefs.

[@danhallett4952]

Always, it’s pride and arrogance that blinds these people to how foolish they are.

[@standard-user-name]

A reflection of “evidence based” secularist values. Surely we can all get along by just trusting our egos and flesh. Phil Zuckermann is such a good example.

[@Dhavroch]

@@standard-user-name It seems a common go to strategy if “evidence” and “rational” secularists don’t prepare properly for debates. Kind of ironic…

[@keifer7813]

I'm on Phil's side of the argument but yeah he could've been a little less passive aggressive

[@standard-user-name]

@ I’d reconsider your side. It’s full of this.

[@sunny.litty353]

The rules of KZbin clearly state that posting footage of real murder is prohibited, yet, this video has been up for several hours.

[@machariagithu3056]

💀💀

[@angirel]

@@sunny.litty353 genuinely funny comment, you deserve a like and a good day

[@TheTemplar168]

that's a good one. got a chuckle from it. I may borrow this...

[@shinmalestat9272]

Ba dum tish!

[@nikduke23]

🎉winning comment🎉

[@不幸屋の娘-o6l]

I used to think atheism was better but now I'm convinced that it's Christianity 🙏✝

[@Pessi-m7e8h]

You were never a atheist

[@dariusga6752]

​@@Pessi-m7e8h Basically, former atheists are not real atheists while former Christian can? You seem to be enjoying living in double standards life.

[@Pessi-m7e8h]

​@dariusga6752 this person was never a real atheist

[@apimpnamedslickback5936]

What convinced you that atheism was true and then what convinced you that Christianity was then better?

[@1sosukeaizen1]

Tbh both are mad, atheists have no clue about life, Christians don’t satisfy their mind because if they try to scrutinize their belief it collapses.

[@bannie6151]

This was on par with Mike’s debate with Aron Ra, where both Aron and Phil underestimated Michael, but he ended up destroying them

[@adamstewart9052]

Ironically, Aron Ra exhibits confirmation bias in the debate given the type of arguments he used where he used his presupposed conclusion despite him telling Mike he wasn't biased.

[@gotgunpowder]

New Atheist types tend to constantly assume any Christian they debate is going to be easy prey. They never account for educated people like Michael.

[@lionofamos]

I guess Phil's career and impact will be virtually over after this as well.

[@Snow-Willow]

​@@lionofamosWe can only hope, but considering how cringe and deslusionally in his favor the comments on the original video are I'm not so sure.

[@lionofamos]

@Snow-Willow The internet is not real life. Hold the line.

[@elijahjohnson_3]

It almost seems like they were arguing two different topics. Michael was actually debating the debate topic: Which is better for the world, Christianity or Secularism and Phil was just stating why he doesn’t like Christianity

[@turkeybobjr]

Welcome to Christian vs. Atheist debates. 😂

[@ysteinberg5084]

He’s an actual professor? I’d stay away from whatever university let him through.. And he says he’s in the nordics? I for sure have a completely different experience about religion in the nordics than this guy.. 3.5 million out of 5 is still part of the church in Norway, by their own choice.. Even though not all of them consider themselves practising christianity, they still want to keep the tradition.. could it be because we realize it has a role in keeping our society together? Cause it for sure does..

[@avivastudios2311]

Pretty much. I hardly remember what the good things about secularism were from him. One of them was that you get to masterbate.

[@ImTiredOfThisChurch]

@@elijahjohnson_3 this might explain why I found this painful to watch

[@tombo3689]

What a surprise - a dude hating on Christianity because it shows him how bad he is and he has to stop sinning. No more lies, no more porn, no more cheating, no more lusting, no more pride, no more greed for you Mr. Zuckerman. Of course he hates it - because he is already dead from the inside.

[@living.is.christ]

This debate is so difficult to watch. Mike's arguments are rooted in essays, published papers, scholars and experts, whereas Phil's authority is himself. Love you Mike, keep up the good work & integrity.

[@zachindes]

"Authority is himself." Exactly. When he got mad about humans being depraved, I couldn't help but think, "He's upset that Christianity is calling him out on how he lives."

[@TheChandiDeadmoon]

"We must abandon blind dogmatic faith in our judgments and adopt a scientific method in order to judge what is good and what is bad" "We must all adhere to human rights" Bruh. Good luck to this person to discover human rights in the world using the scientific method.

[@thesnatcher3616]

Science can't prove the scientific method. Unless you define science as simply a rigourous study where one tries to find truth. But going by that logic, every philsopher, including philosophers of religion is a scientist and thats not what these people usually mean when they throw claims like this out. Science as it is understood traditionally is defined as a rigorous study and analysis of the natural/physical world that often involves empirical evidence and hypotheses that are held up to scrutiny.

[@heavnxbound]

Science was also pioneered by Christians. The amount of straw manning in his arguments was sad.

[@Sky-xd2nu]

He'd be so surprised to suddenly rediscover eugenics😅😅😂

[@catholicbeth2371]

Scientific method pioneered by Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler all Christians...

[@markmcflounder15]

Yeah! This is just old time Soviet Leninism & is so incredibly dumb. The statement is a philosophical statement & not scientific. Therefore it is a basic obvious self-Contradiction & embraces what it denounces

[@theylivewesleep.5139]

1:35:00 Oh yes, because the UK is such a lovely place right now thanks to zuckerman’s timeless values. Really enjoying the spiral into the void over here.

[@RedcoatHistory-gj7xf]

As a UK citizen I can confirm that I am thoroughly enjoying the Utopian paradise secular atheism has created and am in no way considering moving to Florida with it's silly ideas like "human rights".

[@avivastudios2311]

​@@RedcoatHistory-gj7xf Did they take away your free speech? I've heard they've been fining people for being mean which is just ridiculous.

[@chrisanderson7258]

​@RedcoatHistory-gj7xfAre you being sarcastic or...?

[@theylivewesleep.5139]

@@chrisanderson7258 it’s a little obvious.

[@wgo523]

What the f are you talking about. You're gonna flee transphobic island that hates trans people to go to a shitty red state that hates all queer people? I just don't nsee the logic here, not even offended or anything ​@RedcoatHistory-gj7xf

[@SuperBossGiovanni]

So, I'm only partway through Dr Zuckerman's opening statement and all I'm hearing is him not engaging with the actual question, while attacking a strawmaned characature of Christianity.

[@SuperBossGiovanni]

Edit: Did Dr Zukerman just admit that his "secular" society built on Christian values was superior? I don't even think he realizes he just conceded the debate. I think this proves that he doesnt even really understand what IP was actually saying. For some reason, even though IP clearly stated that he wasn't arguing for a Christian theocracy, yet Dr Zukerman treated the debate like he was and argued accordingly.

[@jarednon3426]

@@SuperBossGiovanni He didn't concede the debate with that. Best I can tell, he's arguing that Christianity was like a chrysalis and while it may have been good for humanity in the past, we need to metamorphosis to something more suited for the future. Which, in his opinion is secularism. Him ceding that Christianity was good for the past does not mean that Christianity is the superior choice for humanity in the present or future. That said, Mike provided more and better evidence than Phil. Phil seemed to be focused on trying to inject doubt into Christianity/Mike's argument for a good portion of the debate rather than presenting a positive case for secularism. Which is a bold choice when debating a well prepared apologist of a religion that says to be ready to present a defense for their hope.

[@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD]

The opening statements shouldn't be to refute the other's positions or opening statement, but to present your positions... the refutations comes in the corresponding sections of the debate.

[@SuperBossGiovanni]

@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD I have completed the debate now, but my point stands. He didn't engage with the actual question of the debate at all in his opening. All he was doing (and continued to do throughout the debate) was mock a characature of Christianity. His refutations were weak and as I alluded to in my edit reply, he seemed to be attacking a strawman of Mike's position.

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

he certainly was tiring to listen to ... it felt like every single atheist comment section talking point wrapped in arrogance and privilege.

[@aaronharlow2137]

Mindlessly parroting "no evidence" wont make the mountains of evidence disappear, Phil.

[@crazyfast5593]

Atheist don’t like evidence or science studies when it doesn’t appeal to them

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@aaronharlow2137 There is no evidence for God. None.

[@lclyd]

@@davethebrahman9870 This is not the topic of the debate. The debate is which belief system is better for humanity, and IP came with the data and sources from theist and non-theist alike, historians, etc to back his position while Phil only rejected the data without providing any of his own (because there's none) except "trust me bro".

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@lclyd You miss the point. We don’t know where an irrational belief system will lead next, and Christianity was as bad as Islam before the Enlightenment.

[@lclyd]

@@davethebrahman9870 Again, that's not the subject of the debate, and what is your proof and evidence? IP's evidence and sources prove the opposite of your claim.

[@tylerbird606]

Michael not only demonstrated academic integrity and competence, but outclassed a PhD in Sociology! Michael exemplified a Christian witness in the midst of strawman attacks and handled the debate with grace. Thanks Michael for showing Christians can be intellectually honest and respectful. I mean, some of Phil’s arguments would have been silenced if he only knew about Biblical Christianity. We care for animals Proverbs 12:10 (explicit). There is inherent value in all human life Gen. 1:27 (implicit). Jesus reinforces the value of the Ten Commandments by summarizing the core principles of the Mosaic Law that as followers of His, we must Love God with all our heart, soul, MIND, and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31).

[@Frodojack]

Phil Zuckerman showed us why being a horrible person probably isn't the best way to win a debate.

[@basedautistic6021]

I used to sound a lot like this dude when I was an atheist. Ppl like Mike are a huge reason why I went back to church. Thank you so much for what you do! ❤ also love hearing you call out Christian nationalists whenever you do

[@KitKat4Christ]

I agree that IP is great at strengthening people's faith. He also strengthened mine.

[@Nasaj_Tengras]

Zuckerman comes off as insanely arrogant and basically unwilling to actually have a dialogue with the opposition. Pretty much par for the course for secularists though. He also doesn’t understand multivariate analyses. He just sees “Scotland > Ethiopia” and “Scotland = More Secular” and can’t comprehend any reason other than religiosity that Scotland may have a better quality of life.

[@avivastudios2311]

Which is so weird. It's not like religious people can't have better healthcare no matter what.

[@constantineolkasis]

@@avivastudios2311 and it aint like scotland wasnt built off the back of religion

[@TheDragonageorigins]

It's unfortunately a quality of new-age atheists. Begin argument with presupposition. Reassert and restate assertion without evidence. Leave argument with same presupposition, never understanding that being convinced of your own arguments isn't evidence for said argument.

[@FarSeeker8]

@@constantineolkasis Well, Christianity and some seriously stubborn Scots!

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

my gosh your right ... ive paused at his rebuttal and my gosh "well um uh i don't really think those scholar's could really get the human condition" like give me a break! ...

[@ScarletPhoenix0]

Phil sounds like an r/atheism user

[@raven-chan2071]

Precisely

[@factandsuspicionpodcast2727]

I'm an atheist, but Phil should be embarrassed by his performance. That rambling opening statement alone demonstrated how woefully unprepared he was, and it didn't get any better.

[@standard-user-name]

Who would you consider a strong atheist debater ? The best I’ve seen is maybe Alex O’Connor but my hunch is he is gonna be Christian in time. It’s like how there are no educated Muslims. There’s no wise atheists.

[@1surfpesca_]

Thank you for being genuine seriously

[@ElasticGiraffe]

@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 The "ha ha, religion is so obviously stupid to smart people like me that debate prep isn't worth my time" tactic might have flown in the era of New Atheist cults of personality and unimaginative, formulaic, apologist-in-a-box debaters. But times have changed. The world is a different place. American Christians have become more well read and widely read, educated themselves on opposing views and kept up with developments in many areas of research, and generally gotten their act together, whereas so many pugnacious antitheists don't sound any different today than they did in 2004.

[@avivastudios2311]

He didn't even show that secularism is better in any meaningful way, honestly. Only that some secular societies are nice to live in. But what about China? Would he want to live there?

[@standard-user-name]

@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 Quite the sign when THE professor of secular sociology studies puts up this amount of a defense.

[@gotgunpowder]

Atheists: Christians just pick and choose which values to believe in the bible! Also atheists: I want to pick an choose the values from Christianity I find more appealing.

[@pharlan777]

Based on Phil's opening statement, I'm not sure he's at the right debate. He spent half his time bashing religion, and I learned nothing about secularism.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

"As a Jew, I wouldn't want to live in a Christian society", -meanwhile living in a society who's flag is a cross. "Christians are our greatest allies," -President of the one Jewish nation on Earth. "In an atheist society, Christians can keep their practices." -Like in China, North Korea, or Russia, Czechia, Slavakia, or Hungary when they embraced Communism?

[@avivastudios2311]

I only remember one point he made about why secularism is better: you get to masterbate. I'm only kidding btw but yeah, he didn't say much about how being secular helps us.

[@voltekthecyborg7898]

You just had a taste of secularism in the video. To the Secularist, no viewpoint is right, except the secular atheist view, but from my understanding, most secularists believe in Subjectivism, not Objectivism, so that's hypocrisy right there.

[@wgo523]

What do you mean? Of course he pointed out negatives in Christianity. That is literally what the debate is about Wanting him to not have made great arguments is delusional lol

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

​@@wgo523All he did in his opening statement was say what he disliked about certain religions. No arguments. No evidence.

[@thatonguy2407]

Mike: "Here, have all these studies that show that Christianity and reliosity build all these good ideas" Phil: "You believe in sky daddy, where's the evidence for what you said!" Phil somehow managed to both come off as entirely uneducated on the topic and insanely unlikeable. Phil's point about rights vs the 10 commandments is nonsensical. Rights are a list of things the government can't do, the laws laid out in the Bible are what you individually do. Comparing the 10 commandments a list of rights is a nonstarter. They aren't designed for the same purpose.

[@MajorTomFisher]

I honestly don't understand what exactly Sociologists study based on his debate performance besides maybe learning how to sound uneducated and crass. His degree is like the educational equivalent of pre-torn designer jeans.

[@avivastudios2311]

And the ten commandments were partially spiritual. That's why it says "thou shall not covet."

[@stephengray1344]

I'm left wondering whether Zuckerman did any actual prep for this debate, because he doesn't give the impression that he did. I was particularly stunned by two badly-thought threw points. The first was claiming that historians can't tell how people in the past thought (does he not know that their writings literally tell us in many cases?) The second is claiming that Nigerian is a theologically Christian country (has nobody told him that most of Northern Nigeria has Sharia law?)

[@Sky-xd2nu]

😂😂😂 Maybe he had some persona issues or underestimated Mike.

[@ElasticGiraffe]

Stereotypical left-wing academic elitist figuring he needs no prep to take on anyone silly enough to disagree with him. His innate smartness was supposed to carry the debate. It didn't.

[@IdolKiller]

The Debate says it's over what's best, but Phil keeps positing it's which is true.

[@RabidLeech1]

Tbf he could make that argument but he would have to do 2 things: 1. Prove that Christianity is false 2.Prove that false things lead to worse societies. He didn’t do either of those things. Thus his argument doesn’t stand.

[@RabidLeech1]

Tbf he could make that argument but he would have to do 2 things: 1. Prove that Christianity is false 2.Prove that false things lead to worse societies. He didn’t do either of those things. Thus his argument doesn’t stand.

[@thomasperez9255]

@@danielboone8256 In other words, the debate is whether Christianity or Secularism is better for society. It’s not about whether Christianity is true or not.

[@danielboone8256]

@@thomasperez9255 Yeah, idk why I didn't understand that initially. Didn't have a problem understanding it reading his comment a 2nd time (before I read your reply)

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

​@RabidLeech1 to add even if we grant Christianity is false it still doesn't show that secular humanism is true. Zuckerman is presuposing that secular athiesm is the neutral position when it's not

[@martianmars]

Dude Mike did you pick this guy to make secularism look bad 🤣

[@martianmars]

It felt like he was arguing a different debate too. He kept thinking someone was trying to force him to convert

[@Joanne-t6j]

😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣

[@MajorTomFisher]

It almost makes me lose respect for Mike by proxy just because I don't understand how Mike respects this guy. I almost have to worry that this is like when Creationists debate Bill Nye (a non-scientist) over evolution instead of a real Evolutionary Biologist. I do hope Mike brings on better opponents than Mr. "Skydaddy and gay rights"... but somehow I have a funny feeling those people are hard to find.

[@showmeanedge]

​@@MajorTomFisherthere are no better atheist debaters. I've watched all the best and they all do the same thing - the debate topic is thrown aside into "but God not real though" even when that's not the topic. Christian debaters are smart to not even get into that discussion because the atheist can't help but show their true colours by arguing outside of the topic.

[@forests.9597]

I'm pretty sure Mike wasn't expecting this shitshow, the thing with these guys is that they make relatively reasonable arguments when they write their books and academic papers, where their views face little to no intellectual questioning from the other side of the argument because they're arguing with themselves against the strawmen they've created, and then when they step into the ring, they lose by knockout because they spend most of their time in their bubble, where their word and self-proclaimed authority on the matter rules over reason and facts.

[@robertbelcher8297]

Zuckerman: Did you know it’s current year? Sky daddy won’t solve climate change. Virgin vagina. Magic man. Checkmate!” As a former atheist I was constantly cringing whenever he spoke and hoping I never sounded like that. Great debate IP!

[@TheCristianalvarez]

You probably did tbh. But hey, at least you changed. Just ask God for forgiveness, lol. Its what i do, when im too angry.

[@theodorerogers5809]

I got terrible second hand embarrassment from Zuckerman. Thanks so much for being so kind and polite with him.

[@bigfootapologetics]

Also, I said it before: this dude is Matt Dillahunty from Temu.

[@SuperBossGiovanni]

Ouch, that's quite a roast. And accurate.

[@desertsand8778]

Nope Dillamonkey has always been a temu product griftor

[@FarSeeker8]

@@SuperBossGiovanni Someone might say that burn was so bad it looked like the N-1 launches. 😏🤨🤔😳

[@zupremo9141]

I've seen him debate, he sounds good because most Christians are polite in debates. his technique is basically "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" and he is somehow proud of that as an answer, that's why when he finally faced a Christian that is willing to call out and don't let go of any of his BS answer, he quit to avoid ruining his career.

[@carsonthehill2033]

Can’t wait to watch this

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You better

[@Frostx-t7m]

Apparently Phil's Secular Values came from a Christian community in Europ and Not from Saudia Arabia or India or Africa 😅.

[@philippbrogli779]

IP argues Christian societies tend to be lasting and improve over time. Secular society can't reproduce and has other detrimental effect, which probably makes them wither away over longer periods of time Phil argues that he likes the current state of secular post Christian societies and that his humanist manifesto is superior in morals to the Bible. The two are having a different debate. IP wants to debate two scientific views about societal effects. Phil wants to talk about his feelings on certain nations in their current state and his feelings about his interpretation of humanism an Christianity.

[@1faithchick7]

Brah. Japan is massively influenced by the US Christian values. They are also so culturally religious they don't even realize how much of their culture is religion.

[@ifirespondiamstupid7750]

And there is a growing trend towards Christianity that is slowly growing in Japan.

[@angirel]

​@@ifirespondiamstupid7750 still in its infancy, though. Pray for Japan.

[@ElasticGiraffe]

Brah used Japan as an example of secular values at work, right after condemning tribalism and nationalism....

[@zupremo9141]

Japanese was constantly at war with themselves before they got invaded by the west and got westernized. also the human experiment they did in WW2 was pretty scary.

[@wgo523]

​@@zupremo9141the one where they had two bombs dropped on cities full of civillians just so the US could pound its chest to russia? Those experiments? Yes imperial japan was bad but lets not forget the mirror

[@irenecronin]

Is it a requirement to be insufferably obnoxious when arguing against Christianity? It's almost as if his arguments wouldn't be sufficient on their own without emotional disdain doing the heavy lifting. Great job IP, glad one of you could walk away with dignity and having substantiated their position with historic data and studies. Phil lost the debate on merit not beliefs.

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

Without Christianity. The world would been in a worse place

[@1sosukeaizen1]

True the crusades, ww1 and ww2 just happen to be between Christians and from them for some reason 😂

[@justadude189]

@@1sosukeaizen1 thats false information concerning WW1 and 2.

[@Gabriel-hx6wc]

@@1sosukeaizen1 Ah yes, the evil Nazis went to war against the Jews, Russia France and the world because of the divine order from God and Hitler called himself the reincarnation of Christ and pope, such a true story...

[@kennymendez381]

@@1sosukeaizen1 You are terrible at cherry picking that it's so obvious. Don't embarrass yourself.

[@1sosukeaizen1]

@@justadude189 yes Mr H*tler and his camarades had belts with the cross on them. The pope told the crusaders :”go k*ll your sins are forgiven” and Americans prayed in the church before k*lling 2M Muslims in Iraq. All in the name of your religion you can’t run away

[@KillerofGods]

That ending from his was atrocious. Im surprised thats how he chose to end the debate. He was fully tilted and mad IP didnt fall for any of his bait tactics.

[@MajorTomFisher]

He says the quiet part out loud. It's not about homelessness, it's not about poverty, it's not about education and it's not about charity. It's not even about "science" or ontological naturalism. It's about him protecting his ability to have sex with a bunch of women without consequence (because they can block it or kill it if the need arises) and protecting his ability to have sex with men. I wonder why secular people have such low birth rates... 🤔

[@helpfulldeadguy8150]

IP: here’s the statistics and facts. PZ: sky daddy!

[@avivastudios2311]

David Wood was right.

[@paradisecityX0]

IP deals with facts and logic, Zuckerman just comes off as an uncultured bigot.

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

he also straight up lied in several of his talking points, like the "largest p ring in history" being catholic ? what an absolute hack.

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

Self-titled liberals can be the worst bigots

[@paradisecityX0]

@@jaskitstepkit7153 Leftists are illiberal

[@_.incredible_magnum._291]

​@@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w but even then, he doesn't ever prove Christianity caused that evil. He just pointed out something that Christians did. You'd have to use scripture in order to determine whether or not the doctrine commands this or condems it. On top of that, he makes multiple correlation causation mistakes. Insinuating that countries are doing good because they aren't religious.

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

@@_.incredible_magnum._291 i agree. Hpwever Those countries are religious. Japan and acandinavia are both majority religious. He took credit for a secular government. Completly denying their history and culture which shows how ignorant he is on the matter. Also both countries listed proves IPs opening statement about decular governments resulting in lower birth rates.

[@dariusga6752]

I believe Phil doesnt deserved to be called an "intelectual", since the way he arguing is either dishonesty or dismissing the study cases. Like seriously, who would have thought to consider every experts are liar? Phil, you need to do more research before blaming these professors, who are more expert on the fields than you.

[@tb.9kba93g]

I was particularly impressed by him writing off ancient cultures not sharing "enlightenment values" by saying basically, "well historians are full of s#!t".

[@shin.511]

Michael respect for your patience man, you were very nice and respectful throughout the debate, despite of him mocking your beliefs every 2 minutes, then assuming you don't apply the same thinking to your beliefs as for these studies, trying to get points by talking about things that aren't part of this debate, and I'm glad you didn't talk about them, i really love how professionally you handle things. Around 1:20:00 he becomes ultra cringe and you handle it nicely. Much love man, show em how Christ teaches us. ☦️

[@FarSeeker8]

@@shin.511 I wish I could hit the thumbs up button on your statement more than once. 👍👍👍

[@Coptic-2024]

@@shin.511 👌👌👌

[@RobClayJoker]

Congrats to Michael, this was great. I love how he misrepresented many of your positions in his closing statement and decided to just complain about his conception of Christianity. I’ve never seen a more thorough and meticulous win in a religious debate against a Secular Academoid in my life

[@ldevasure]

It's amazing how woefully unprepared Phil came to this.. was looking forward to a much more interesting conversation.

[@robertbelcher8297]

He came in thinking bluster and confidence was enough to win.

[@raven-chan2071]

Fr!!

[@Seraph_888]

Ironically the secularist claim to be motivated by science but gives no studies or statistics in his opening statement. Where IP in his opening statement gives a mountain of studies and statistics

[@theylivewesleep.5139]

Zukerman even pointed this is out with a backhanded compliment.

[@benclark4823]

Apparently the people who say “believe the science” are the ones who will dismiss it because it doesn’t fit their “progressive” atheistic worldview. 😒

[@Elioc-ed6wr]

@@theylivewesleep.5139 Just a couple tidbits too about science and Christianity: Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minister who coined Bayes Theorem, which supports a lot of the math behind most AI algorithms today. Thomas Mendel was a Catholic iirc.

[@urmumwota4185]

@@Elioc-ed6wr Hell, the father of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a catholic priest and physicist. The whole point of it was to prove that the universe did not always exist and had a beginning, an origin point, which just so happens to line up with "Let there be light".

[@robertfreid2879]

The problem with Phil Zuckerman's version of secularism, is that it is a Luxury Belief. It's something that emerged long after the struggles and upheavals associated with state formation and industrial process. And part of more liberal "individual autonomy". Unlike say, the secularism of the Soviet Union (which was aggressive and doctrinaire atheism).

[@andrear4954]

Oh yeah I think I see what you mean, a lot of people forget the deep hole that society has been carrying itself out of for the past thousands of years where enforceability of rules in growing societies wasn't very easy back then, also its harder to deal with the more detailed things of human rights when you're bigger priority is getting basic rights (e.g. food) in a place with a lower economy

[@wgo523]

I agree with the part about secularism emerging from relative luxury/wealth-- but I don't know how that's a problem for his arguments

[@trashboat4228]

1:02:22 Man that was really cringe

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

😂

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

It's also interesting how he was able separate Christian vales and faith here but when IP does it later by separating theological and sociological Christianity he had a melt down

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

It's beautiful.

[@chriper77]

The professor was essentially a troll who prepared for the debate by reading memes from Facebook and Reddit and used arguments from 'trust me bro'

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

Zuckerman sounds painful to listen to. He is still living in the new athiest era. His arguments against Christianity being true is not even relevant

[@bluecat4802]

Nobody is arguing Christianity isn’t true

[@theamericanpotatonamedphil4306]

​@@bluecat4802 Phil in this debate was literally doing that

[@bluecat4802]

@@theamericanpotatonamedphil4306 I think for the most part he was arguing about its utility. He did slip here and there but on the whole he was arguing about utility. His first half was fairly on point for consistency with his argument, but then he started straw manning. I could always be mistaken though. Could you point me to where you think he was arguing about truth?

[@plantbasedwater9274]

@@bluecat4802 well you already admitted to him doing the thing you said he isnt doing in this comment which i find to be self defeating. But Phils comments in his closing statement where he says "the main claims that Michael says that makes you a Christian (the Nicene creed), there is no evidence for" that would imply the birth of jesus from a virgin, he is the son of God, death on a cross, his resurrection etc. Hes also done this a couple times earlier in the debate but this is not the main topic or question of the debate is it?

[@theamericanpotatonamedphil4306]

@@bluecat4802 re listen to his opening statement, a major part of his argument is pointing out how silly and stupid he thinks Christianity is, he references that it's bad because it's not true multiple times. He had no substance on why secularism is better past his poor attempts at logical arguments. He had no actual sources so he relied on attacking Christianity.

[@calebrohnke2176]

Is this what atheists consider to be good debating? Basing 90 percent of your argument on emotional appeals, making a whole bunch of disparaging statements, avoiding the topic and barely addressing your opponents arguments. Pretty pathetic.

[@showmeanedge]

They reject the Truth with a capital T and at the root they reject truth in the general sense. Of course they can't craft an argument.

[@kbeetles]

And this man talks about the "arrogance of faith"?? Amidst his smirking condescension all throughout and his snide remarks and hurtful intentions - he forgets what the debate is about! Well done Mike for staying focused, well prepared and not falling for his provocations (Santa/fairy jokes). How sad! How ignorant!!

[@rickydettmer2003]

I think IP’s opening statement basically sealed the debate. Well done Mike 👍

[@perennem_equitem_57]

Fr, it doesn't get better and phil didn't engage with most of those studies at all during this debate. This wasn't a debate, it was murder.

[@dennisravndal]

IP gained aura in this debate

[@7urak]

Currently writing my Bachelor Thesis on this topic, which you inspired me (no pun intended) alot to. While there are some instances of missionaries (especially Protestants, that's what I'm focusing on) mishandling situations and even doing some evil things, the absolute majority of evidence points towards the great, long-term effects which Protestant missionary had on socioeconomic development in Southeast Asia and colonial Africa.

[@takeshi_bennett]

I said this in the live chat, but you are beyond appreciated for this ministry Mike. I would not be a Christian today if I had not found your videos that defended theistic evolution, the guests you invite into your live streams, as well as your studies on ANE and your exodus series that David Falk helped you with. In fact, I found these right as I was beginning the process of abandoning Christianity. Now, I plan to get my bachelor's and eventually a PhD in Old Testament/Ancient Near East, and that is heavily due to my being introduced to the study of these topics by your videos. So the bottom line is, thank you, Mr. Jones. I'm just one person out of many who I'm sure share the same gratitude for this channel and you. God bless sir 🙏

[@rescuehamster1734]

I was going to watch AP and the Dizzle's coverage of this, but the debate speaks for itself. Good work, Mike. I appreciate just how much prep you put into this debate. God Bless!!! 🙏

[@Daily-PE]

1:00:25 He actually thought he just owned IP with the most comically new atheist argument 😂

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I know 😂

[@Daily-PE]

@InspiringPhilosophy I know you said you won't do anymore shorts, but can you do one last on a channel called Jeff ( yes that is the entire name) titled "you can't argue for God." I listened to the one minute video and I know it has dumb arguments but I just can't explain why it's dumb.

[@joshuastubblefield2671]

It’s funny how IP been stooping this guy left right and center throughout the whole debate and IP says it’s okay, but the one time he thinks he’s done the same he starts starts yelling “I got ya”

[@mathewryan4881]

Michael brought facts and research, and Phil brought his emotions. Someone should tell Phil that having strong feelings on a topic doesn't make you correct.

[@wgo523]

Yet here you are strawmanning his arguments emotionally

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

​@@wgo523Phil brought zero sources to the debate. What strawman are you referring to?

[@BrandonPerezOne]

A Christian man came with facts and evidence. The atheists dude came with nothing to convince me. I use to be agnostic, this channel has open me up to be more excepting to religion and has made into a believer.

[@JamesS805]

The comments on the original video are a dumpster fire of r/atheism level nonsense

[@UUu-xl3gk]

Yes, 0 iq comments.

[@thesnatcher3616]

They don't even address many of IP's points lol. They just parrot antitheistic nonsense from their leaders that don't even really have anything to do with the debate. Absolutely embarrassing. I would be ashamed if I was an atheist.

[@Pessi-m7e8h]

Cope

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

Fr

[@brandonrobinson3829]

@@Pessi-m7e8h No u

[@JesusisKing134]

I feel like he spent so much time just bashing religion rather than actually showing how secularism is a better option for society

[@filmsterproductions3620]

My whole thing watching this debate for the third time was, Why exactly does he talk about christianity not being true when the debate was WHICH IS BETTER FOR SOCIETY? whether or not christianity is true is fundamentally irrelevant to the conversation

[@metalgear-]

It’s the whole I hate GOD cuz GOD denounces LGBT stance ofc hence now I MUST denounce Christianity as being True. Meanwhile you can simply be both & accept that GOD does NOT condone such. Why is that such an Issue when it’s obvious we were NOT created for such acts

[@Kelconk]

It's hilarious to hear Zuckerman citing The Arrogance of Faith in the most pretentious attitude and tone.

[@avivastudios2311]

Yup. Secularism doesn't mean humility.

[@SubconsciousAmbience]

Seems like Phil’s rebuttals quickly became “I don’t think so, but I could be wrong”. And then threw his arms up in victory?

[@crazyfast5593]

He did that w the birth rates “he’s like damn that sucks” but then says it’s the answer to society

[@wgo523]

The birth rates thing is nazi-esque. Rich, well-off nations get more secular. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with immigrants from a range of places . Making more people in service of a myth just to keep more of society Christian? That's stupid as hell @@crazyfast5593

[@f.of.c.fullonforchrist8200]

You did great Michael, thanks for you Jesus for using your Child in this way. Thanks for all you do. Reading research and articulation. We appreciate you God Bless you and yours in Jesus name 🙏🏻

[@fr.jeremiahcaughran6191]

Is it me or did Phil just shift goal posts in his cross examination section? And then celebrates a ‘gotcha’ after the attempt.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes

[@fr.jeremiahcaughran6191]

@ I’m amazed you kept your cool there at the end. It was apparent Phil didn’t prepare very well for this whereas you came guns blazing with evidence of your argument.

[@wgo523]

​@@fr.jeremiahcaughran6191he was plenty prepared

[@glitchy000]

42:58 My step-father began his multi-citywide property sanitation business to help and hire homeless people expressly motivated by his belief in Christianity. He also works with local churches who also help in this way by providing necessities for the homeless by donating his time and resources. These were needs that were not being fulfilled within the secular framework.

[@codeblood2000]

All I heard was a guy that was full of hate and anger towards Christianity Where was the evidence that Christianity is bad All I heard was evidenced that human beings do horrible things

[@benclark4823]

Funny how the people who go on and on about racism, sexism, bigotry, and “hatred” towards other’s people are the same ones who are the MOST hateful, bigoted, and emotional towards ANYONE who even slightly disagree with them. Just look at how they reacted to Trump becoming president. 😠

[@GeometryCube1]

man... phil's opening was rough. kept forgetting what the debate was about, very common among atheist and seculars, like not even Muslims are this bad.

[@perennem_equitem_57]

Idk man, maybe go rematch the Daniel ineedtopoo debate again.

[@GeometryCube1]

@@perennem_equitem_57 uff, rough one as well

[@Nenezar]

This dude really appealed to Scandanavia and Japan as examples of secular success. Two parts of the world that have massive population decline. Nordic countries are being filled and replaced with muslim populations, and as a result will see freedom of speech limited (Denmark has anti-blasphemy laws disguised as anti Islamophobia laws)and antisemitism rise. Meanwhile Japan, who until WW2 was hated by its neighbors because of how violent and cruel they could be, is now suffering from a loneliness epidemic, and still has a racism problem against darker skinned asians. This video should just get re-titled: IP vs Reddit Athiest

[@ayobithedark2772]

Not to mention the sue i cide rates in both Scandinavia and Japan

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

i found that hilarious considering Japan's history and what they did to Christians before ww2. he also completely ignored why the Japanese are the way they are, which is their culture which is rooted in Buddhism and Taoism, so even if you remove Christianity from the equation its still not secularism. the only reason they have a secular society today is the American influence after ww2. before that Japan was run by emperors whom they called kami aka divine. if you look to the history of Christianity in Japan, the emperor and daimio found it a threat, not because they were doing anything horrible but because it undermined their power hold on the population with teachings of freedom.

[@MrWaves-oj9ge]

Japanese people are not atheist on average anyway

[@wgo523]

Yeah all the Muslim immigrants that make up like 3% after a decade of hysteria. Maybe just consider if you're a bit racist

[@brookshawkins9201]

What I don’t understand is why he was idealizing Nordic nations and Japan. Sweden has had a large scale influx of crime and murder. While Japan’s wealth inequality, lack of worker protections, and suicide rates are a massive problem…. Japan and Nordic nations have massively profited off the US’ war against communism. Nordic nations have served as the US’ buffer against Russia and Japan against China. He’s also selectively choosing “secular” nations. North Korea and China are also secular nations. Unlike the Nortic nations there is no Christian tradition underlying their culture nor are they culturally Christian. They have been secular for generations. It blows my mind to say that North Korea would be a better place to live than the US because it is more secular.

[@DrakonPhD]

"I think I've got you in a corner." Who says that in a debate?!

[@ghostlypitou2746]

Bro said Tom hollands historical records on ancient Babylon is “historical bullshit you can’t read their minds”😭😭😭😭 that’s when he conceded.

[@mj2061]

Good work Mike, I used to think I was a patient person, but you are much more patient than me.

[@carsonthehill2033]

This bros argument was “Cosmic Santa Clause” 😂 I’m dying. Never heard that phrase before

[@EmilyTodicescu]

I suppose it's a refreshing change from "sky daddy" 😂

[@carsonthehill2033]

@ indeed 😂

[@ejbooth4176]

Good job on this debate, IP. I almost stopped watching because of how snarky Phil was, but you stood your ground well. It’s always interesting watching atheists try to take the moral high ground while simultaneously being insufferable and insulting.

[@InfinityExt]

YES please do more debates. It’s better when you actually show that you know what your talking about

[@whiskeredtuna]

Democracy doesn’t flow from secularism just ask the one’s abandoning family and friends because of their political ideology. The spirit of democracy doesn’t flow from them.

[@Ranchy_Ranch]

This is like watching a rebellious teenager who dislikes religion, because they think it does bad things, but when told otherwise starts mocking all the evidence proving otherwise... what a brutal debate.

[@ryanevans2655]

“If you’re afraid of the Religious Right, wait till you see the non-religious Right” as Al Mohler likes to quip

[@TourchezArt]

I’m confused was this about Christianity being true or beneficial seemed like Phil was more concerned about that

[@Brandon2777]

It’s about what’s beneficial for human society.

[@mtamer2943]

I would love to see Michael talk with Alex O'Connor. Alex is the best face of atheism - while skeptic, he's full of wonder, legitimate curiousity, honesty and respect. He recently debated with the Knechtles and while the debate was respectable and very interesting for both sides, the comments are full of anger and arrogance towards Cliffe and his son.

[@olacogumelo3789]

I don’t understand why atheists hate them so much

[@Anli_ger]

They talked about god sending people to hell together

[@ThouserEdits]

They've had 2 debates, just search Alex O Connor vs Michael Jones

[@Mark_Jonas]

“Knechtles” 🤣🤣🤣

[@nothing26375]

Phil using countries which are Christians and build on Christian values and saying that it's better because of secularism 😂 phil is a clown

[@crazyfast5593]

Dude was complaining abt mediaeval Christian’s and what they did then appeals to the people who put the foundation as secular😭

[@Pessi-m7e8h]

It's better because they got rid of Christianity

[@MarkelMathurin]

​@@Pessi-m7e8hthey are getting worse

[@wgo523]

Countries which are secular, with large christian populations. Created, in the us case, specifically to prevent religion from controlling society

[@benmizrahi2889]

Just watching the first 3 minutes of Zuckerman's statement gave me a headache. The guy does not debate the topic, he simply pointed out that religious authoritarianism is bad. Newsflash: As a former Atheist/secular Jew, and now a confessional Lutheran Christian, I fully agree that a Christian theocracy is a bad idea. It ended badly for us Lutherans in Calvinist Geneva and, Zurich, and it ended badly for us under the Puritans in the 13 Colonies. However, that is not the debate topic. The debate topic is whether Christianity or secularism are better for humanity as a whole, and, even if I disagree with Michael Jones about some of the basic presuppositions of what is better for humanity (I am highly skeptical of liberal democracy, among other things), I do think he makes a much better case for the position that Christianity is better for civilization as a whole than Zuckerman did for secularism. One point in favour of Zuckerman though: He at least acknowledge Stalinism as a form of secularism rather than deflect on the topic. P. S.: On a side note, as a Lutheran, I really appreciate Michael Jones referencing the Augsburg Confession, which is the most basic confession of faith of the Lutheran church.

[@Kelconk]

Next time, IP should just stream while responding to r/Atheism.

[@avivastudios2311]

😂

[@Kiltzombie]

Why are atheists so smug and snide with almost contempt for religion?

[@showmeanedge]

"I don't think that.." "I don't want to..." "obviously.." This is what atheism arguments boil down to without fail

[@jnhofzinser]

Z: secularism results in science (invokes no science) J: here's some science Z: it is all nonsense Z: secularism results in reason (argues from emotion) J: here's some reason Z: it is all nonsense Z: secularism is responsible for HOW we do things me: but it has nothing to say about WHY we do anything

[@C0smicNINJA]

I feel like this debate was like an Aran Ra debate 2.0. On one side, you have IP presenting the science. Then on the other hand, you have Aran Ra 2.0 over here preaching at you and giving surface level, first impression type arguments.

[@perennem_equitem_57]

Please give aron ra more respect, because he deserves it. He was unprepared for the debate but he wasn't such an arrogant prick as to interrupt Mike multiple times and then do some chest thumping "i gotcha" like he is Mohammed hijab. Aron ra is aron ran phil is great value matt dillahunty.

[@mb123tdt]

I am from Norway and Phil is wrong on multiple statements in this debate, he is shockingly ignorant tbh. First of all, most scandinavians will NOT say they are christians. What kind of ridicilous claim is that? It is a long time ago that most people in Scandinavia believe they are christians or identify with it. Most are atheists, but christians on the paper because they have not bothered with the formalities to unsubscribe from the church...2023 statistics in Norway show that 1 in 3 women have been raped, sky rocketing in suicides for young girls last then years etc. Sweden is the most dangerous country for women in Europe and POland the safest, and Sweden is the first feminist government in the World *oh the irony. I now live in Poland and have for seven years. Sweden have currently almost 200 rapes in Sweden per 100.000 people...And btw> Hookup culture, sex drugs n rock roll are antireligious (anti)culture whith horrible consequences... did it improve the health of homosexuals, minorities, addicts? I would recommend Phil to read Louise Perrys book about the sexual revolution. IN Norway the behaviour in schools is so bad now, that liberals are advocating for going back to conservative politics, where a teacher actually is allowed to protect himself....

[@LeatherStraps-fm8dt]

IP, you came off the same way you do in your informational videos. Forgot I was watching a debate until the end of your opening statement. Always a great presenter!

[@adamwarren8689]

How does phil talk about how great these secular countries are when they are literally built on Christian values

[@reyis_here945]

Secular humanism will always lead to population decreasing

[@lament22]

@@reyis_here945 how?

[@reyis_here945]

@lament22 abortion leads to declining birthrates

[@reyis_here945]

@lament22 abortion and single women entering the workforce leads declining birth rates These are statistical facts

[@reyis_here945]

@@lament22 women in the workforce and abortion are the direct cause of decline birth rates in society

[@seizureseizer]

@@lament22 Less focus on families, more abortions, "freedoms" and individuality leading to a more lax lifestyle.

[@StileandRailWoodworking]

Does this guy think this is a debate on the truthfulness of Christianity? He seems very emotional in his arguments, also.

[@Daniel-Marson]

I've been watching you since your debate with Aron Ra and your famous Pistis correction, that he sadly never learned from. Brother you have gone from strength to strength. Sort of like the Goku of the Christian apologetics and debate scene :D I appreciate all the meta analysis, data and studies you reference in your discussions.

[@Vapememes]

I don't usually watch debates but this one intrigued me, especially knowing that Phil is a trained sociologist. While I've heard that sociological data shows that Christianity is beneficial for humanity, I was hoping he could provide some insight to show if this was perhaps just confirmation bias. After listening to both opening statements I can't deny that I was genuinely disappointed by Phil's opening. Whereas IP presented numerous studies to demonstrate the benefits of Christianity on the world, Phil seemed to have almost missed the point of the debate at times, constantly going back to whether Christianity is true or not. While that's an extremely important question, it seems almost hypocritical for him to focus on that when one if his critiques against Christianity is that it focuses too much on abstract, metaphysical, big picture concepts while ignoring practical matters (something he never actually substantiated with data mind you). I also find it strange how he repeatedly notes that science can't actually give us a framework to know right from wrong, yet he claims it's the best way to progress morally. While I could be misunderstanding his point, it does seem like a contradiction to me. While it's possible he does better later in the debate, I'll admit this is a disappointing start for someone I'd assume would be very well informed on this topic. Edit: I've made it though the first rebuttals and while Phil has cited more sources in favor of his position, he's also outright rejected many mainstream views on the history of ethics and science. Not to mention he repeatedly grossly misrepresents Christian views to the point of being close to a straw man. So, no, it hasn't gotten much better. Edit 2: Made it through the second rebuttal and the only thing Phil had to offer were disparaging remarks, appeals to authority, and interrupting IP while he was making his point. Given just how much he emphasized using rationality to come to conclusions I'd at least hope he would try doing that a few times.

[@Vapememes]

Edit 3: I think while Phil did pretty poorly when being cross examined, his cross examination of IP wasn't too bad. There were definitely some flaws regarding methodology on determining whether secularism is causing the positive effects seen in Nordic countries for example, but at least he seemed to be arguing about what the debate was actually about and did genuinely seem to make some reasonable points.

[@Vapememes]

Final edit: My overall impression of the debate is fairly simple. One side used multiple studies and meta analyses to demonstrate the positive benefits Christianity provides to societies, the other side used primarily empty conjecture and missed the point of the debate for about 25% of it. Frankly, kind of disappointing when it comes to the arguments in favor of secularism. I will commend IPs patience during the debate as that was genuinely hard to sit through.

[@BigStack-vg6ku]

I choose Christianity and IP to BE HONEST ABOUT IT…

[@mitslev4043]

You know Michael winning is always cool but i actually like when the other side has a strong case that makes you think and not just being a angry atheist. He really seemed unprepared for this and more dogmatic. I like a slam dunk as much as anyone but sometimes its just boring to listen to.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

I think even IP was underwhelmed by Zuckerman considering how much time it must have taken him to make such an air tight opening argument

[@majorphenom1]

Thanks for sharing 🙏🏿 Prayers going out for Phil 🕊️ His grace and mercy be upon you and your loved ones 🕊️🥛🍯

[@aaronharlow2137]

Zuckerman likes confidently to say the Bible is bs, but when asked about his own views hes a deer in headlights.

[@jameswitt108]

Im really looking forward to this

[@jameswitt108]

I was not disappointed, great debate.👍

[@lulny12]

Michaels opening statement: shows genuine facts that show That Christianity is better for the world Phil’s opening statement: RAHH SECULARISM BETTER

[@PriddyBoy1992]

Well, this was rough. I didnt even want to get through his opening statement. A demonstration of what proper preparation does for you. Good job Mike! And as always, showing respect for your interlocutor.