Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty

In this live discussion, Matt Dillahunty and Mike Winger debate whether believing in the Resurrection is unreasonable.
Playlist of all our live discussions: • Is There "No Evidence"...
Link to Mike's channel: / ekimregniw
Link to Matt's video on Minimal Facts: • Atheist Debates - Mini...
Link to Matt's Patreon: / atheistdebates
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINKS
Website: capturingchrist...
Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donation: donorbox.org/c...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET IN TOUCH
Email: capturingchrist...

[@CapturingChristianity]

Hey everyone! Just wanted to let you know that both Matt and Mike have posted debate reviews. You may access them below: Matt's debate review: kzbin.info/www/bejne/anfSeImGjtFjn5o Mike's debate review: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXbJnJmOrpdoadU Cheers!

[@kimsland999]

But we already know Matt won. If I 'reviewed' it, I'd say it seemed to be teaching Mike how to do basic sound reasoning 101. Which doesn't make a good debate, ie Matt was seen as the teacher to the ignorant fool.

[@CapturingChristianity]

Kim Land Tell us how you really feel ;)

[@kimsland999]

@@CapturingChristianity I feel that Christians base their beliefs on feelings.

[@CapturingChristianity]

Kim Land Btw, you inadvertently admitted that your judgement is based on feeling.

[@kimsland999]

@@CapturingChristianity It was just a mirrored reply to your reply on 'tell us how you really feel', which is generally meant as rhetorical. I was basically having a joke with you on that. But my original reply was spot on to the obvious results of the debate that MOST truthful people would agree to.

[@fekinel]

I've never really thought about the 'resurrection', but after hearing Mike's 'evidence', i'm now convinced that it never happened..

[@GuitarDog_atx]

The best evidence against the resurrection is the fact that almost all the jews were not convinced jesus was divine - and this was after seeing him fulfill their own prophecies, watching him heal people and controlling the weather, seeing his corpse walking around, etc. . Their religion still exists today. and to those below that nit-pick this comment: I'm well aware that the apostles were jews as were the very tiny number of people in the area where jesus taught who bought into his story, but if they followed Jesus then they aint jewish anymore (not talking ethnicity but theology) It should be pretty clear what I was saying. Even ignoring this, if 99% of them rejected him, my point is still valid.

[@michaeldeo5068]

fekinel Why?

[@coolblaze442]

Guitar dog there were Jews that were convinced. They were called Christians. Lol Second, that’s like saying “the best evidence against smoking being unhealthy is that there are still smokers. Clearly if all that smoking being unhealthy stuff were true, there would be no smokers.” Obviously, this is false. Lol it possible for people do reject things that are shown to be true for volitional, emotional reasons. This is called an argumentum ad populism and that is why it is a fallacy.

[@mordec1016]

TheFacts that's not really the case, though. First, it is a little bizarre to say "those who made the prophecies" etc; those people were long dead by the time of the Resurrection. This argument is limited to some first and second century jews in that region. And from that sample, a lot of jews converted at the time, which is how Christianity first started to spread (and it was first seen as a jewish sect). Besides some people resisting reasonable beliefs because of tradition, interpretation, or personal reasons, remember also earliest opponents of Christianity claimed not that Jesus didn't perform miracles, but that he had the power of demons or sorcery and so on), there were a lot of jewish converts to Christianity. Modern Judaism, of course, traces back to Rabbinical Judaism which had its main traditions established centuries after Christianity, as well. So I don't think the argument from "jews who resisted" is good. Being charitable, you could say that it might have a little weight, perhaps. But I find it pretty weak. Especially when you consider that in a way it kinda reinforces the unfriendly context that Christians would face among jews - which only makes the conversions even more extraordinary, given that they went against a lot of their traditions, cultural background, and faced ostracism and even persecution.

[@detective6099]

@TheFacts my friend nice to meet you. I would like to address a few things. 1. You say, "those that talked about the prophecy overwhelming denied it" And that is supposed to be an argument against Christs Resurrection. However, I kindly say this is false because: 1. Saul was a Pharisee, (Philippians 3:5) and was taught at the feet of Gamaliel acts 22:3 (Gamaliel was a teacher of the law and held in high esteem among Jews acts 5:34) Saul believed in Christ's resurrection. 2. Moreover, Paul wasn't the only Pharisee to believe in the risen Jesus. Other did as well (John 12:42, acts 15:5 etc) So there were many believing Pharisees those who studied the prophecys overwhelmingly. Still believed in Christ's resurrection. 3. The credibility of the particular pharisees who saw Jesus commit miracles is low, because there basis and hate for Christ is clearly seen when they get a prohecy blantently wrong taking about Jesus. They said in John 7:52 in regards to Jesus "search and look for no prophet has risen out of Galilee" When this is clearly false, as the prophet Jonah came out of geth hepter which is in Galilee, and the Pharisees who study the prophecies and prophets should know this, so they must have been lieing out of hate towards Jesus. and besides, Jesus came out of Bethlehem anyway which is a prohecy in the OT about the Messiah. Which they should know as well. 4. Finally, you are probably more knowledge than me my friend, and you can always correct me as you see fit my friend, but I can turn your argument against the resurrection as evidence for the resurrection. It goes like this:. 1. The Jews are rigourous in their law keeping, 2. Their law keeping has been going on for thousands of years even before Christ. 3. There were many previous false Messiahs and this didn't even leave a mark on the Jews or their rigerous law keeping. 4. When Jesus arrives on the sence, many Jews believe, including rigourous law keeping Pharisees whos job it is to study the law, all these people risking death and imprisonment for themselves and their loved ones. 5. Jesus managed to put a dent in their rigourous thousands of years of law keeping while no other false Messiah could. 6. The only Pharisees who didn't believe in Jesus had a clear bias against him and they are therefore not credible sources. 7. Conclusion, there was something so special about Christ to be able to break the thousands of years of rigourous and meticulous law keeping, and to make thousands of well versed Jews to believe on him and risk death for him. And therefore Christ resurrected from the dead. Or else none of this is possible. All the best my friend. 🙂

[@HolyKoolaid]

You can tell they're not really listening while Matt's talking.

[@catothatidiot5243]

Oh hey Koolaid Man love your vids

[@MrDigztheswagking]

Exactly

[@matthaze30]

Mike's having a tough time comprehending

[@j2mfp78]

Yeah I know right. Matt's position is basicly it's just a written document. It could be fake or a lie. I personally dont believe anything at all cause everything can be faked including photos an video and experiments and polls. I dont even believe Matt Dillahunty exist. Thanx Matt for showing us how to take skepticism to the limit and not believe anything at all even my own existence. 😃

[@j2mfp78]

@@joshmadden5757 No man im on your side. All these fools believing these stupid documents. You know theres actually idiots out there who believe George Washington existed based on documents. I'm not sure anything in the past existed ever. You gave a great example because the bible is exactly the same I think some guy just found it in a dungeon somewhere an now everyone is like "oh this is real duh da duh" by the way do you exist? All I have from you is KZbin messages.

[@kevincraighead6993]

They were not ready for Matt.

[@zap...]

Mike has convinced me. The resurrection has no supporting evidence that it's true and the Bible is an ancient comic book.

[@dLimboStick]

Somebody claimed to see Elvis at a 7-11 a year after he died. Well, 7-11s DID exist in 1978. This is evidence that Elvis was resurrected.

[@robertaylor9218]

dLimboStick IKR

[@dream1430]

LMAOO

[@GrahamBarth]

When I look at you, I see Elvis.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Can confirm. Zombie Elvis was buying Koolaid.

[@darkwind1812]

Many people saw how Jesus died, then he was resurrected in a healthy human body, not related to a zombie. Elvis Presley's example is not valid.

[@MyTruth1771]

Mike doesn't understand the distinction between a "claim" and "evidence".

[@miischaqi2676]

I claim to be the smartest human that ever existed, people that don't know me deny that as evidence. I just don't get it??

[@juanatthepoconos]

No Christian does.

[@greyknight627]

Life & Light so all facts are now irrelevant then. Our entire basis for history and science are just claims and therefore not substantial pieces of information to develop facts. All of science is just a claim. Any scientist worth his salt would say science is just trying to constantly understand the world around you. Therefore, every scientific fact is just a claim because it can be proven false later. Sorry, but the claims vs evidence argument is just a rhetorical strategy designed to confuse and off kilter opposition. How the hell do you define evidence as evidence? That doesn’t work.

[@tshirtjay]

Most Christians almost all of them don't.

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

greyknight627 all science is a claim. Not really when you can test it over and over and over and get the same result...

[@TimeHandler]

Mike: We have multiple sources Mike: Uses bible quotes as only source

[@nova8091]

Well, to be fair, the Bible is multiple sources in a collective canon

[@TimeHandler]

​@@nova8091 You claim the Bible has multiple sources, but its inclusivity is highly biased. It's akin to me crafting a science textbook, insisting frogs have 10 legs. I recruit like-minded contributors perhaps bribing them, silencing dissenting views. As my group grows, agreement becomes easier and easier. I can even add names without verification. Ie, 10 "Bible sources" may actually just be from 1 contributor. Without confirming contributors, it's essentially one source. The Bible, lacking verifiable contributors, falls into the same category - effectively one biased source.

[@nova8091]

@@TimeHandler all of those extra biblical texts are made like a century later by people who didn’t even know the apostles in the slightest. It’s essentially fa fiction that contradicts almost everything else although I will say the gnostic texts have some good wisdom despite all that

[@noahalban6384]

There are 11 sources in the Bible, even attested to by atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman: Author of mark Author of Matt. Author of Luke “Q” source Author of John, johannine epistles, revelation Paul Author of Peter Author of James author of Hebrews Author of Jude And who knows how many sources Matthew mark luke and John were working with independently. Just because they are labeled as “the Bible” does not take away from their validity as contemporary historical documents at all.

[@PortmanRd]

​@@noahalban6384Doesn't make them true either.

[@shawnt5272]

It's infuriating how Mike REPEATEDLY scolded Matt towards the beginning of the video for interrupting him and demanding that he be allowed to finish, and then spent the rest of the video interrupting Matt.

[@matics2808]

Poor Matt, it’s like he’s arguing with children.

[@christiangeiselmann]

Rather with zealots.

[@matics2808]

Christian Geiselmann YOU are the zealot. Matt is a agnostic atheist, meaning he’s neutral/undecided/ unconvinced. He/I resist ideas that don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. You guys shouldn’t blame us for our skepticism, that’s a natural response to things that don’t make sense it have evidence. It’s the same way you feel when a Muslim or Jew try to convince you of their faith with no evidence to back them up. You are them.

[@christiangeiselmann]

Matics Huh? You totally misunderstood my comment. 180 degrees.

[@matics2808]

Christian Geiselmann Ahhhh, my bad. I’m at work and wrote that quickly. Thought you were calling people like Matt Zealots.

[@j.oaklley8965]

Matt is just a man with a small opnion, Jesus can save you from Hell and only Jesus, your soul is to important to listen to the Demon Mattt.

[@sjhoneywell6235]

Wow. Mike Winger is really dishonest. Also, every time Matt interrupts, Mike demands he be allowed to finish. That doesn't seem to stop him from interrupting Matt or stopping him from making a point. You're dishonest, Mike. Your debate tactics are cheap.

[@johnobrien1528]

He's defending a weak position with flimsy claims.

[@johnobrien1528]

@@HarryNicNicholas I can relate. With one post I'm convinced you're an arrogant, ego-centric twat. Do you really 'think' because you 'think' you're an 'athiest' you automatically like all other athiests? Do you 'think' all Muslims like all Muslims too? Do you think?

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

@doug nut lol Doug Atheism wasn't even taken seriously until the 20th century It's a joke of a belief that even Satan is shocked is working %92 of the world isn't atheist, even to this day It's okay to say there is no good evidence for theism, but it's not okay to say your beliefs/anti-beliefs are going to end up being correct >%51 of the time

[@blanktrigger8863]

The exact opposite is the case. Matt is denying the scholarship (the historical evidence) of a historical claim while saying that there is no evidence, which is a rejection of the entire scientific field of scholarship and history. (Winger didn't even get into the evidence surrounding the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin, surprisingly, which is even more damning.) Actual scholars would look at Dilhuanty and other such hyper-skeptics as fools.

[@armandoc.3150]

@@blanktrigger8863 Dont bother it's an echo chamber of matt fans. Anyone one who brings up christ is immediately dismissed by these people.

[@ITSSKUDDUMMY]

The fact that the single most important event in human history can even be debated is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw with the religion. If there was an all loving god that genuinely wanted his creations to know him, why leave the grand gesture shrouded in mystery?

[@blaise6981]

@hasbulla5740some people do good things and don’t believe in god. Some people are shitty people but believe in god yet it’s those that will go to heaven by the Christian standard.

[@blaise6981]

@hasbulla5740additionally there’s a lot of things you can do that god is okay with that I’d say are immoral and wrong. But yes if there was essentially a powerful judge in the sky always watching us we probably would try at least to act morally. But even Christian’s who literally believe that there is a god in the sky always watching them still commit sin bc they just can’t control themselves. It’s like all the teen boys In church being preached about pre marital sex yet they still do it and watch porn / masturbate. It’s like the age old joke about Jesus watching you beat your meat. Lol

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

What would you like to God to do? And if He did what you wanted Him to do, how do you think that would change the world?

[@sarshanden8033]

It's not a mystery. LOL, God works with the freedom of the will of the people He created. Not on the basis of just showing up. Besides you have no idea of what contingency lies if He didn't made it that way. You can only assume

[@blaise6981]

@@sarshanden8033 prove free will and that there is a god before you act so smug

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Winger’s whole case: “I believe that Some people said some stuff so it’s true”.

[@SirMykus]

That’s essentially religion at its absolute basest.

[@pearsonbrown6740]

How do you know that nitrogen has 5 valence electrons?

[@roems6396]

@@pearsonbrown6740 Because there is evidence that you can verify for yourself. It’s so silly when Christians try to equate studying subjects that they didn’t experience for themselves, with magical stories written by anonymous scribes, and aren’t supported with a single shred of evidence. You’re reaching so hard.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

@@pearsonbrown6740 have you heard of the scientific method? You can test, repeat, examine. Please show me how you do that with the supernatural.

[@pearsonbrown6740]

@@roems6396 The fact of the matter is that you yourself cannot demonstrate that nitrogen has 5 valence electrons. You rely on professionals to do the research. But unless you actually went and did it yourself, you cannot act as if your belief is perfectly rational.

[@metazock]

I feel dumber now after listening to this Winger guy

[@christiangeiselmann]

So he did not square you with these glasses?

[@TheSilverGate]

Jajaja I just posted exactly that

[@wmthewyld]

metazock...If you are an atheists. You cannot get any dumber.

[@charlidog2]

@@wmthewyld Except studies show the opposite. Red states, dumb states, less educated states, more theistic states; positive correlation.

[@charlidog2]

@J w Are you calling Matt dumb? Because you'd be lying. As for his supporters, you think it's dumb to support smart people? This is what these cults do to your brain, you see reality backwards.

[@BestoftheBestz]

Mike is in fact delusional

[@DertBagg]

“Questions aren’t good enough. We want answers to those questions!” Which is exactly why you will accept bad answers to important questions. Because having an answer is more important to finding the truth.

[@dceezy15]

EXACTLY! it seems as though they'll take any answer no matter how absolutely absurd.

[@f.r.etling6226]

I would rather have questions I can’t answer, than answers I can’t question

[@dceezy15]

@@f.r.etling6226 damn that's a good one

[@f.r.etling6226]

@@dceezy15yeah man it is crazy. religious people start with their conclusion (God), and then look for any argument they can find to defend that. And a lot of people just go along with it and ignore their doubts, because they are bullied or their family believes it I am so glad I became agnostic/atheist

[@thesnatcher3616]

​@@f.r.etling6226 Yeah man it is crazy. Atheists start with their conclusion(Naturalism/No God), and then look for any argument they can find to defend that. And a lot of people just go along with it and ignore their doubts, because they are bullied or their online cronies and intellectuals believe it I am so glad I became a Theist/Christian

[@justinhart2831]

Mike: Offers a bunch of claims which he calls evidence, without any actual evidence. Matt: rejects Mike's claims as being without evidence. Mike: "evidence doesn't matter to you!"

[@j85grim4]

Exactly. According to Mike we should just blindly believe something an anonymous author wrote on a piece of paper. Mike is very confused about what real evidence actually is.

[@roems6396]

This is one of the more embarrassing showings for a Christian apologist out there.

[@Asmokedetector]

Matt just proved that Mike was mentally still that same 12 year old boy he was when he wanted to find God. It's really sad. At one point Mike tried to slander Matt by saying there is no evidence that could be provided that would be enough for Matt. I think it is the exact opposite which is true, there is no evidence that could be provided that would shake Mike's childish fantasy.

[@matheusdardenne]

You are going to have to define what you believe "evidence" means, because what he presented was evidence, not claims. Evidence is anything that gives weight to a case, and yes, claims from multiple witnesses also count, especially if they're themselves validated by other means.

[@roems6396]

@@matheusdardenne They are not evidence. They are the claims. They are not witnesses to what they are writing about. There isn’t a single witness that wrote about Jesus. No one who wrote about him ever met him. Those stories are the claim. There wasn’t a previous story, and then someone came out to support that story. There is just the original story. The gospels copy from earlier versions. They aren’t independent “witnesses.” You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. There are many spider man stories written by different authors. Are those stories evidence that Spider-Man exists!?

[@earlgrey2130]

"Debate" starts at 5:04 Facepalming starts at 5:44 ...

[@parthsavyasachi9348]

:-D

[@AsWeSpeak154]

😂😅🤣

[@zaaz8656]

Mike winger’s accusatory nature seems like projection and I found it nauseating.

[@MegaMarlo1]

Here is an idea, there was never a tomb that Jesus was buried in. He was probably left on the cross and what remained of him was buried in a mass grave, a big hole in the ground. Why would Jesus be treated any better than other crucified people?

[@alphaalvey5029]

Because Christians need it to fit their story

[@newmantwine1224]

To answer your question, Jesus was not an ordinary Jew. Flavius Josephus, a 1 century Jewish historian, tells us Jesus was a "doer of startling deeds" and a "teacher" ... who "drew over to himself many Jews & Gentiles." So Jesus had followers. It is not unreasonable then to suppose that some of Jesus' followers were rich enough to have tombs. So it is, according to multiple early sources (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:50-53, John 19:38-42) we learn Jesus was buried in a tomb by a rich man and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin called Joseph of Arimathea who had become a follower of Jesus. Given that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, a group of 70 well-known Jewish officials, it is unlikely this burial account was invented by the Gospel authors because it would have been too easily falsifiable. It would also have been embarrassing for the Christians to invent this story in which the Christian leaders are hiding in fear while Joseph is brave enough to ask Pilate for the body. Also, remember, hostility between Christians and the Sanhedrin was intense. It was the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death! So, furthermore, it is unlikely Christians would invent a story that portrays a member of the Sanhedrin as a follower of Jesus. All these reasons and more are why most scholars today of all stripes hold to the burial account.

[@amberweidenhamer5056]

Almost 30 years ago, I had a parent unalive themselves. Every night for months I had vivid nightmares that they came back to life. I eventually wound up in the hospital because I was both horribly sleep deprived AND believing I had buried them alive. Ten years after that, I went into nursing. I dealt with MANY patients who had vivid delusions and hallucinations. These type of incidents were very much covered in the curriculum for nursing. How exactly does God-lad believe that such things don't happen?

[@bensnow2688]

I don’t think you listened to what he said. He said that there are no documented incidents of *group* hallucinations. If your dreams or hallucinations of your deceased parent (so sorry for your loss btw, especially losing someone in that manner) had been shared by dozens or hundreds of separate people, it would be a different story

[@bensnow2688]

Btw what’s with the use of “un-alive” instead of kill? I get that it’s tough subject matter but it’s not like the implications are any different; I just don’t understand this modern obsession with euphemisms

[@amberweidenhamer5056]

1. Look up the group hallucination at Lourdes. Look up the group delusions at Jonestown (lots of unaliving there, lol, woke). Look up folie a deux. GOOGLE IS FREE. 2. LOL, WOKE. Do you have no idea how the KZbin algorithm works? Did you know it flags certain words like the act my parent committed. Also look that up.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@bensnow2688 Joseph Smith and his followers reportedly had group hallucinations of Angel Moroni likewise with Marian Apparitions.

[@zulunet3285]

​@bensnow2688 Only Paul claimed to have seen Jesus anyway, there's no testimonies from the claim about the 500 witnesses.

[@ChristianIce]

The Bible: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the graves" Everybody: "Zombies" Christians. "That's offensive!"

[@ginaiscoollikethat]

ChristianIce too true xD

[@kobe51]

😅😅😅😅

[@flym256x]

:D yea that was good moment! Funny how christian guy was offended.

[@michaelandrews4783]

Everyone in the city was literally raised from the dead and walked around greeting their loved ones didn't they? Does that make THEM all god too?

[@Canido19]

I'm not a Christian, but I think the issue here comes from how people generally define "zombie" when using it in context. A "zombie" typically refers to a reanimated corpse. Assuming the corpse's animation includes the reinvigoration of their consciousness, can you really call the body a "corpse" anymore? A "corpse" is "a dead body", but if it's alive, it's not dead. Ergo, while "zombie" might be going too far, "undead" would probably still apply to some degree.

[@brianlee8546]

This single video probably had the largest impact in my deconstruction journey out of Christianity. Watching Mike Winger was like looking at myself in the mirror and not liking what i saw. Now three years later my life has gotten so much fuller and more purposeful because I know only believe in things that I have good reason to and let go of my neediness and self-hate.

[@humanbn4331]

Dude, the self hate is real too! It has been my biggest struggle with leaving religion. Glad you are doing better with that.

[@nicolab2075]

Interesting observation. Cheers, and welcome to the sunny side 😊

[@aquinasadefenseforgod1254]

I had the opposite experience. I was a hardcore atheist, a strong atheists that argued God cannot possibly exist. I had what I thought were good arguments against God. I thought there was no possible way for me to ever believe in God again. I would say things like once you know that Santa is fake, you cannot imagine a way you would ever believe in Santa again. That is how I felt about God. I thought it impossible to ever believe again. But like Matt says, God knows exactly what would convince me even if I could not imagine it. God just gave me the faith and I don't know how to deny it.

[@nicolab2075]

@@aquinasadefenseforgod1254 Why is it the only people who call themselves hardcore atheists are the ones who are now Christian?

[@ILootStandingStill]

@@aquinasadefenseforgod1254 When you were an atheist did you think faith was a good reason to believe? What you described doesn’t sound like the opposite of what the OP described as he mentioned having good reasons to believe and your reason/evidence is just “faith”. What caused you to be convinced by something that you once knew wasn’t a good reason?

[@LeoVital]

It took me some time to understand it properly, but Matt's point is actually quite simple: it's not that it's impossible for the resurrection to have happened, but that the burden of proof for something like that is much higher than most historical events. So while it is reasonable to accept, for example, the claim that a man called Socrates existed in ancient Athens, was a great philosopher who inspired the likes of Plato, made fun of powerful people, and ultimately was sentenced to death; it is not reasonable to accept the resurrection. Because the things I've mentioned about Socrates don't have a heavy burden of proof. They do not require you to believe in the supernatural, or that some miracle happened. Meanwhile, for you to accept a resurrection, you have to believe that something fundamentally impossible (as far as we know) happened. And for you to convince me of something that I see as impossible, you need to meet some very heavy burden of proof, which is essentially impossible, since we're talking about something that has supposedly happened 2000 years ago. As Matt said, if God wanted people to believe, the best time to have brought back the Messiah would have been in the modern times, since we would have interviews, photographs, multiple records of Jesus's resurrection etc. But no, he chose a time and place full of illiterate people. So, yeah, it is an unreasonable belief.

[@exomojo]

Spot on.

[@Zachary_Setzer]

Any time you watch a debate on this topic, the real point of disagreement will be the same, whether it is stated explicitly or not, to wit, whether naturalism or supernaturalism is true. If naturalism is true, then the probability of a resurrection is zero; therefore, the belief that a resurrection happened is unreasonable by definition, even if you had a mountain of evidence to the contrary. If supernaturalism is true, then we can't assume the probability of a resurrection is zero, and the evidence matters.

[@karugumureithi3988]

We just witnessed death of an apologist and resurrection of common sense.

[@brandwijkgg]

beautifully said! common sense transcends credulity.

[@valentino3228]

Can a supernatural event and common sense go hand in hand?

[@brandwijkgg]

@@valentino3228 What is the supernatural? Something that does not conform to what is natural? And can we now investigate supernatural events in such a way that we can conclude without doubt that they are supernatural events?

[@winnumber101]

@@brandwijkgg can we investigate the claim that naturalistic evidence is the only manner in which we can "know" something?

[@blaise6981]

@@winnumber101yes

[@garybuseyactorandlover]

Without intending to be, this is a powerful recruitment tool for Atheism. Mike proved himself to be dishonest, smug, and possessing a tenuous grasp on what a 'fact' is.

[@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677]

@J w you should call in and let him know how you feel

[@j2mfp78]

@@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677 For what so Matt can hang up in him 😂😂😂

[@travisdempster4693]

Atheism is a Religion huh? Recruiting? You confirm what most atheist deny. Thanks for that.

[@travisdempster4693]

Matt does not seem to know much about History. Nor the concept of Testimony or Evidence. Matt is relying on claims, as his evidence. He is literally relying on claims to try to invalidate what he claims are claims. Irony? Or just Hypocrisy??

[@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677]

​@@travisdempster4693 How does using the word recruited make something a religion? Are people not recruited into the military? Could you not say that you've been recruited when you are hired for a job? Though it might not be the proper terminology to use, it seems pretty obvious to me that by recruit he just means to convince someone of the nonexistence of god. So obvious in fact that I feel you may be purposely misconstruing his words just to confirm your previously held beliefs.

[@Sparkydr07]

This guy uses the word facts far too loosely ! Simply claiming something is a fact , doesn't make it a fact . There is no evidence what so ever !

[@seanjones2456]

1:32:16 "You don't have to believe this." YOU ARE RIGHT! I DON'T! 1.You have no evidence. 2. You have been indoctrinated. 3. We know there are hundreds of stories similar to the bible that are also bulls**t. 4. Science disproves all the nonsensical claims that are made in the bible.

[@seanjones2456]

Satan, you are correct. Mike is not correct. I am not confident that he will ever get it.

[@michaeldeo5068]

Satan OfScience So, your just expressing an opinion which may or may not be false? Your user name speaks volumes, and validates the Bible Also, Satan translates as adversary! Are you against science?

[@Sparkydr07]

@@michaeldeo5068 My name is irrelevant , the fact you choose to have a go at name speaks volumes ! But since you asked , I used to be a Satanist . But chose to call myself that because Satan is a far more moral character . And I love science . If you disagree with my comment then please state where I am wrong I'm happy to discuss . But if all you have a problem with is my name then I'm really not interested

[@michaeldeo5068]

@@Sparkydr07 I don't think it is irrelevant at all but actually shows the adversarial mind at work in those who follow the Adversary in rebellion. Thinking Satan is more moral, than the source of existence would be absurd. Being against life is not moral! Satan is defined as the adversary, the first liar and murderer! Words have meanings that we cannot just redefine as we choose once they have established meanings.

[@sspbrazil]

Mike: “My supernatural claim is real, but others are not”. That’s religion to a tee. Lol.

[@eeroraute281]

No justin martyr says the other gods are demons the egyptians in moses 2 do magic and use the supernatural we don’t reject their claims we just reject that their deities exist and that they got their powers from them

[@mattr.1887]

Mike says the legend theory requires you to "deny all this history". No, it doesn't. You can still accept the most or all of that history that he is talking about - while ALSO recognizing that the supernatural claims have most likely originated as a mixture of purely human factors (merely wanting to believe, being genuinely mistaken, etc.). I don't see why that's so hard to believe.

[@twitchic1753]

Mike talks like he’s never read the arguments against his position.

[@Psittacosaurus]

Agreed, near the end he seemed on the verge of tears, constantly blinking like a cornered animal

[@dblankenship88]

Twit Chic nice Hitch quote drop. Hannity vs. Hitch......👍🏼

[@dreamingrightnow1174]

@@dblankenship88 OMG, there's a Hannity/Hitch debate? I'm cringing just thinking about it. That must have been before Hannity hired a marketing firm.

[@dreamingrightnow1174]

@@Psittacosaurus I noticed that too, lol.

[@dblankenship88]

Dreamingrightnow no it wasn’t an official debate. Hitch was on the show a long time ago and Hannity asked him a stupid question and followed that up with a stupid comment. Hitch responded with “You strike me as someone who has never read and argument against you position”.

[@ianmoffet5080]

Mike is cringeworthy to watch man. I wouldnt let him finish either if he said I dont believe in evidence. How ironic

[@mikechapman1992]

You are a fool's fool

[@Lymbe06]

Michael Chapman yep, that’s the definition of a fool’s fool. Someone who requires evidence. By the way, I have some magic beans for sale dude. They’re untested but I have a huuuuge belief they will sprout into something magical. When can we meet?

[@roems6396]

Lymbe06 Right? Ian talks about the irony, and then you have this dude calling him a fool’s fool for requiring evidence to believe in a claim. Doubly ironic.

[@alexanderbean7737]

I actually thought this was a productive debate until Mike decided to plainly accuse Matt of not accepting evidence

[@roflmylmao]

If you watch Matt's debates, that's literally all he ever does. People present evidence to Matt and Matt says: "That's not evidence. You have no evidence.". Then, when people press him, he throws a tantrum and pretends like he's smarter than everyone. He's quite boring.

[@alexanderbean7737]

@@roflmylmao I mean, I could see how that would be frustrating if you define hearsay as viable evidence

[@roflmylmao]

@alexanderbean7737 you can't refute the fact that it's evidence. It is. Now, you might call it weak evidence, but it's still evidence nonetheless. Matt pretends it's not evidence so he can hand wave his opponents and choose to not refute their claims. Which is the entire point of debate, and Matt clearly is not skilled at it. Avoiding the opponents' claims means you concede them.

[@alexanderbean7737]

@@roflmylmao you can quibble over semantics, but if I tell you I know a guy who said he saw x, it's either not evidence of x, or its really weak evidence of x. Either way, it has no real bearing on the truth of x

[@roflmylmao]

@alexanderbean7737 Your conclusion is completely false. You're saying: "I have evidence of X, but it's not evidence of X" Just admit it's evidence and move on with your life.

[@jjcole6544]

Props to this channel for keeping this up. I watch this debate on a weekly basis. Very informative.

[@alliek13]

Weekly basis is crazy

[@drdre4397]

​@@alliek13I wonder if they still do.

[@hehexd2896]

@@drdre4397 he remembers it by heart at this point so he just simulates it in his head from start to finish every few days

[@VanHalenIsolated]

I was thinking the same thing: why would this Christian channel keep a clearly lost debate for Christians?

[@totalmassretain6199]

I was Christian for 32 years, and happened to stumble upon The Atheist Experience by accident. I began getting hooked on the vids, and Matt and Hitchens were the main catalysts on my journey to exit this faith

[@BanderaFilmsAndMusic]

Hitchens is my personal hero.

[@danemount6113]

"Hitch" and Richard Dawkins were mine, although I was more of a new age religious skeptic. I always though the stories in the bible as just being myths. If all that kinda stuff happened before people were literate, how come it doesn't happen now? Answer. People are educated and can read and write. There are many still holding onto stupid myths about humanity and the resurrection. etc.

[@matcomb7501]

Hey bro..... yr not alone,,, I was 33yrs christian. Now I've seen the light, and can't believe in a book, that claims to be infallable, inerrant, and god breathed.

[@keithkennard2473]

@DrJames Powers All you need is one. Stand on your own feet and be your own man. A man should never grovel.

[@keithkennard2473]

@DrJames Powers Go get on your knees weak man and pray to your master.

[@hobbes305]

And people wonder why William Lane Craig absolutely refuses to debate Matt Dillahunty.

[@kenokelley9395]

Name one person who has ever beaten WLC in a debate. These popular level atheists don't stand a chance. Just your typical - there's no evidence! When evidence is staring them right in the face.

[@hobbes305]

@@kenokelley9395 Why then has WLC utterly refused to even consider the possibility of debating Dillahunty? It's not as if Dillahunty has not established a significant history of debating these very topics with other prominent theologians and philosophers. If WLC is such a formidable and unbeatable opponent (As you contend), why is he absolutely refusing to even discuss a possible debate with Dillahunty?

[@civone6009]

Ken O'Kelley haha!! Matt has asked WLC to debate for years!!! WLC won’t debate Matt.

[@Dialogos1989]

Ken O'Kelley sure you have evidence. But it’s weak.

[@jllamb88]

Ken O'Kelley Sean Carroll wiped the floor with him from a cosmological basis.

[@isiahromero1353]

Mike winger lost

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

Which points did he lose at can you give the time stamps?

[@isiahromero1353]

​​@@Carpaintry_of_Godmike winger lost lol

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

​@@isiahromero1353Again, where?

[@isiahromero1353]

Mike winger lost ​@@Carpaintry_of_God

[@Carpaintry_of_God]

@@isiahromero1353 but you can't seem to point out where

[@davejann]

Great Freudian slip from Matt “there are things that I’ll correct during the destruction, ah discussion part.” 😂

[@williamrisbridger60]

I noticed that too!

[@babbisp1]

When did he say that?

[@davejann]

@babbisp1 You're in luck, I'm anal enough to check this sort of thing, it's bang on 27 minutes.

[@babbisp1]

@@davejann Thanks!

[@sgartistry1418]

Wtf are you talking about. There are stages of the debate dedicated to different areas of discussion. How is that problematic

[@charless.7701]

Let me save you some time. Matt wins. period.

[@budsio]

You're done.

[@j.oaklley8965]

Jesus always win , Matt never debates a preacher he is to chicken!!!!!

[@MrJoeri01]

@@j.oaklley8965 its the other way arround, no preacher 'really" wants to debate matt, best part about your "rebuttle" try and find matts history, u could find out he was raised to be a preacher.

[@j.oaklley8965]

No Matt is the anti christ atheist Demon God who lies everytimr. hr opens hhis mouth!!!

[@charless.7701]

@@j.oaklley8965 kzbin.info?search_query=matt+dillahunty+vs+preacher+debate

[@Eraser18574]

Mike is totally helpless and outclassed by Matt.

[@Eraser18574]

@J w Not really...but in this discussion, he was the one making the most sense.

[@SPL0869]

J w did Matt lose in your opinion?

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@J w That may be because it's all you focus on. See how that works?

[@j.oaklley8965]

Mat is a lier!!! Jesus is awesome!!!!👍👍👍👍

[@paradisecityX0]

@Eraser What a loyal dog you are *pets you on the head*

[@obiwanshinobi87]

For someone who is against owning people... Matt has been owning people for years now

[@craigregister3780]

This part. Matt is an expert at annihilation. He absolutely destroys all who attempt to justify their ridiculous claims.

[@salbitre]

I think that the more that apologists try to convince others that their religion is historically accurate, the more they drive people away from religion.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Or as another put it if you require people to accept as true what their common sense and experience tells them cannot possibly be true you make them doubt or reluctant to accept anything you assert or claim-they will think you are a loony. Most likely some child or halfwit overheard to pupils talking and saying that *for_them* Jesus was still alive and before you know it you have Chinese whispers that he had come back to life. "send re-reinforcements we are going to advance becomes send three and fourpence we are going to a dance. Iy is said that true masters were or lived their teaching and it is not such a big leap that if the teaching is alive in the pupil do by simple substitution so is the teacher,, and if much much later you se money in the teaching which not jaz it up or mske it more selable by weaving s bit of magic into the tale. Buy new improved christianity with immortality; if the boss can rise from the dead so ca you, but the fact is that what makes laws of the universe laws is that they are of general complication- *No_Exceptions* no gravity only works on Wednesdays when there is an R in the momnonth. The human brain is very delicate and it does not take much to break it and once broken it *Stays* broken and in hwarm temperatures turns to mush within minutes of it not receiving a blood supply; the body's own bacteria decompose the soft tissues within moments of the heart ceasing to beat and just like the cat shut in a cupboard or container during a heatwave you don't need to look inside to know that it is very dead indeed; no brain no walkee, no talkee, and once dead in warm conditions very very *Very* smelleee. Forget three days or two days even after 24 hours in warm conditions *All* the soft tissues will be gone the belly distended by gasses and any longer belly bursts *No_Exceptions* Neverthles the fact remains that the so-called resurrection is both irrelevant to and purely incidental to the teaching in and of of the way of christ for obvious reasons, thus it makes no difference if you dispense with it It is only fluff and in no way fundamental.You might suppose that whoever decided to weave the resurrection lie inyto the teaching was no friend of that teaching; the problem is that the witles and simple minded tend to confuse what is a subtle psychological skill- faith withe the weakness and form of stupidity belief, when they are *Exact_Opposites*.Supposing faith to be form of belief is like supposing buggery and sodomy to be a form of sexusl intercourse. Belief is for the fools while Faith calls for wits.

[@SoulJiuJitsu]

Mike Winger demonstrates one of the worst cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed.

[@JCW7100]

Exactly right.

[@j2mfp78]

FACT: if Matt applied this hyper version of skepticism to anything else in history we would know nothing. Dont believe me? Try me? Tell me about any document in ancient history of real historical figures and see how easy it is to say "we just don't know"....ok who's first? This should fun. 😃

[@barryjones9362]

"Mike Winger demonstrates one of the worst cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed." ----------He's a pastor, he believes he has a greater spiritual duty to be a cheerleader for christ, than to be a scholar.

[@barryjones9362]

I'm not seeing the problem. There's no rule of historiography that says we need to change our ways if what we are doing renders certain ancient sources unworthy of serious consideration. It just might be the case that a more correct application of the rules of historiography will reveal that what we've been accepting as true from ancient historical sources, is more deserving of being labeled "dubious" or "uncertain". As for your direct challenge, suppose you debate a hyper-skeptic who says we cannot really know whether there was a Caesar ruling in Rome in the 1st century. now aside from the fact that he is being unnecessarily skeptical, what consequences follow from this "error"? Aside from discouraging him from becoming a history professor, I'm not seeing the danger. And since Jesus did not teach a doctrine of literal conscious torment, yo are deprived of the "problem" you need to motivate people to worry and "get saved". Rejecting the gospel comes with about as many fearful consequences as rejecting McGyver.

[@j2mfp78]

@@barryjones9362 Unlike Matt who once on his show got upset with a caller debating him on evolution and told the guy "why are you calling here? I'm not an expert you should debate an evolutionary biologists" in other words I cant really defend evolution but I accept what the experts say. Yet when it comes to history the experts no longer matter even the non Christian ones. Yeah someone's got a confirmation bias alright .

[@oguitars3531]

It's moderately terrifying that Mike is an adult who has probably had some education, but has no idea how to discern reality from fable. He doesn't even realize when he's making a claim versus stating a fact. There are people with less understanding than his who run for, and win, political office. As long as Mike's brand of ignorance continues to go unchecked, unless he gets called out on a regular basis, we are doomed as a society and as a species.

[@Kamingo170]

Purge these pests

[@jdocean1]

It is scary to think about that. It requires constant vigilance.

[@Kamingo170]

@@nicholaswheeler507 true

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

Mike is a Con Man.. He can't be that stupid... He is singing the song that Christians want to hear.

[@roems6396]

Reasonable Speculation That is a dangerous sentiment. He is clearly at least dishonest, due to his numerous mischaracterizations of Matt’s statements and views, but to assume he is a conman assumes that people cannot believe his arguments. His arguments are demonstrably fallacious and SHOULD not be convincing, and yet people are convincing by it. We need to acknowledge that humans are easily duped and will go to great lengths to protect their delusions. Only then can we recognize our cultural problems and our educational/thinking deficiencies, in order to combat them and teach the next generation properly.

[@luciferianjesuslover9453]

I’m glad Matt stood up for himself when Mike said “he doesn’t care about evidence”. How absurd!

[@mattr.1887]

Timestamp?

[@gozz7733]

Well, he doesn't. Matt is shown evidence (which is different from proof), and he usually says, "I don't accept that." Matt will never accept any evidence.

[@ED-le1pr]

​@@gozz7733lol @ shown. Matt pointed out that those were claims not the evidence supporting the claim.

[@gozz7733]

@@ED-le1pr atheists are shown evidence all the time. Scientists claim we evolved from bacteria. Well, I don’t accept that. It’s a claim. I can write a book about atheists claims that should never be accepted.

[@sandersGG]

​@gozz7733 1- claims arent evidence 2- nobody accepts bad evidence that the part you're leaving out especially when it comes to proving supernatural claims has been recorded once in history

[@Truth-Be-Told-USA]

If you rose from the dead why would you hide that fact for thousands of years? Especially when you claim you did it out of love. It makes no sense at all

[@beepboop8184]

Christian guy: "Well, there were real tombs like in bible, that means Jesus resurrected. Matt: "Well, New Yourk is real, that means Spider Man is real, that what you are saying" Matt wins just right there.

[@beepboop8184]

@DrJames Powers >>For instance, Matt has no RATIONAL POSSIBLE atheist source for life, intelligence, love, consciousness and morality and why? Well, you have no either! Only claims with no even grit of sand of proof. But first of all - >>atheism has no possible answer for what exists Atheism is JUST lack of believe in any gods by different reasons. Matt's and any other sceptic's reason - there are no sufficient proofs of any god existing. Funny thing, sceptics do not believe in gods, spirits, astrology, homeopathy or crazy conspiracy theories right after they apply this standard of evidence to all these things. And believers are tend to believe in other controversial things, if they already believe in any.

[@beepboop8184]

@DrJames Powers Also, who says there is no explanation for morality, for example? There is possible evolutionary explanation: social species evolved with curtain rules inside their societies - what is bad and what is good. Group with mutual help and sharing resourses might survive better that group of individuals, if overall living in group for that species is better than being alone. Life? Form of existing of matter. Our bodies are built from three most common elements in Universe: hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, plus nitrogen. Intelligence, love, consciousness? Who said these are no more that electrochemical processes in our brains? There are at least tens of thousands of studies that say: damage or kill neurons or whole brain - personality and other cognitive attributes change dramatically. No other sourses of these attributes like soul found.

[@bradzimmerman3171]

@DrJames Powers docdoor of what stupidity ,these rediculous religions exist from ignorance & a poor education system When a child is brainwashed early in life it is hard for them to normalize ( removing your head from your butt ) and start thinking

[@beepboop8184]

@DrJames Powers >>you have no coherent step-by-step ATHEIST explanation of WHATEVER to MANKIND existence But your religion does neither! Claims are not explanations, this is not working. How universe originated? How species evolved? Science provides evidence-supported explanations, and all religious claims become fairytales. Abrahamic religions' explanation of world and life origin is no more relevant to reality that Ancient Greece mythology or Maya religion explanation. And, if you call lack of believing in gods existence (not believing in "no any gods exist") a religion - well, you are profoundly ignorant. Scientific explanation gives us ability to predict further observations. And your religion "explanation" just fails. "God did it" gives zero knowing of how and when universe and life was created and is the same as "unicorn pooped it". How he did that? What proofs that he(actually, she? it? what and who is god in the first place?) created all around us? What arguments lead us specifically to your god, not any other, created in thousands of years of human history? Yoo know what? I'm 32 and last 15 years of looking answers to these questions brought me from orthodox chrisianity to atheism. Yep, that happens when you ask right questions and don't afraid to accept answers if they are proven to be true, but ruin your worldview.

[@beepboop8184]

@DrJames Powers and just try to understand, that atheism is not the answer to all questions - it is not has to be. It is just conclusion of critical and rational thinking, period! Atheism is just byproduct of critical thinking and rationality, which humanity uses to create science, culture and we are all using these fruits right now - arguing in the Internet, healthy, not starving and having comfortable shelter. We would know nothing we know now about universe, if we use just religion to interact with it. And my, Matt's and other sceptics atheism is much more opened to any true god, if it ever exists, than you. If there is a god and anyone can prove it - good! Then we believe. But you? How do you recognise that your or any other god is not false? Please, do not bother to throw bible quotes, I was in scout organisation, patronised by church. I studied bible, talked with pastors and did believe, I guess, in same things you are. But I found them false eventually.

[@jwissick]

He keeps using the word "Fact". I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

[@kimsland999]

'Historical fact'. Like its a historical fact that Harry Potter was a wizard, or Zeus made lightning. Since we can confirm this in books. But if you want to know if something is true, then you need sufficient evidence and/or good reason. I agree 'historical' facts are misleading, its just what historians do. Pyramids were made to keep dead kings safe, or historically the night stars were labelled the 'heavens'.

[@kimsland999]

​ Oliver Bacon And thanks Oliver for hijacking the thread :D Your reply sums up as: I heard claims, and this so called Dr. was merely stating claims. Got it, all good. @DrJames Powers Your question was about rationality. Its a strange thing this word. Probably about 10 years ago atheists would commonly go about and openly state all theists are irrational. THEN a few years after, theists caught onto this and argued that for a THEIST to believe in their mythical God, that actually IS rational. Creationists then picked up on this, and didn't like the science on rationality (and reason). So then maybe about 5 years ago max, they started arguing rationality is just make believe. Again atheists had to come along and clearly state that the theists claim is without sufficient evidence AND lacks any good reasoning, thus their belief is irrational. Creationists (and now the new goto science) argue that the ENTIRE of science is irrational, they all of sudden are happy to use this term. But they forgot 1 thing (all along actually). Even if the entire of the scientific was fully thrown out (and yes that would obviously mean that all of science would inevitably be worked out again, providing the exact same fact based scientific theories). BUT, if all of science was presently totally thrown out, that STILL does not mean 'therefore God'! Since you STILL must supply sufficient evidence of that claim! Not historical evidence like Batman in Gotham city. Or Harry Potter is a wizard. Not philosophical evidence like Muslims (and 9,999 others) believing Jesus was not a God. It MUST be sufficient evidence and or good reasoning to believe in ANY of these claimed Gods. And so far, a big fat ZERO of anything close to sufficient evidence has come from ANY theist. "Dr." Other than science is all wrong in your mind (ie the science that works and gets rockets to the surface of Mars). What sufficient EVIDENCE do you have for your claim? And don't say the -quran- the Bible, because that's not DAMN sufficient obviously. Can't wait for your rant on science again!! So AGAIN, disregarding all of science, what's your sufficient evidence on your particular mythical God existing? You don't have any don't you? Such a damn SHAME. To be simple for your irrational mind. You can't say: Why the Butler didn't do it, therefore it must have been the Maid. As that's just RIDICULOUS. What is the evidence you have that confirms the guilty verdict of your particular God supposedly existing? Do you want me to dumb it down for you further?

[@kimsland999]

@DrJames Powers "Then you've not been around long." I mislead you a little, I've been around since atheist forums started. Too many Creationists I've chatted with, yes they all turn into 100 reply threads. "you're basically calling me "stupid," " Agreed, I AM calling you stupid in this specific area of believing in nonsense. " Isn’t it you that states “stupid” things like MINDLESS NOTHING produced INTELLIGENT EVERYTHING? " Um nope not me, unless you can define this nothing thing you speak of? Oh without quoting your next lines in order. You asked about abiogenics. This is still an unknown area. WAIT, are you saying you have sufficient evidence of knowledge about this? Do tell :) Evolution did not come about 'all at the same time'. And I thought you knew what science has confirmed about the fact of evolution? Obviously not. You shouldn't deceive others with lies, it will be your undoing. Um you got exactly HALF the Big Bang best known explanation of the beginning of our known universe correct, and then you mentioned this nothing thing again?? SO strange. Is your claimed God nothing possibly? You have a big hang up about this thing that science has NO info on at all. Evolution is a known fact. We know more about evolution than even gravity. Actually we know more about evolution than ANY science, since we are the biological life that is part of that evolutionary process. You ended with a BIG unjustified claim again? I think you are a young Creationist, you haven't had enough chats with reasoning atheists online yet haven't you? Wow THINK harder :D Your sufficient evidence of your absurd mythical God belief again? We both know that'll never come don't we ;)

[@kimsland999]

@@lizapatron All good Oliver. @DrJames Powers So that would be a no you don't have sufficient evidence or even a good reason to believe, and your idea is to 'preach the word' of nonsense. Whilst trying to defame the working scientific method. Wow, and some think that's not silly!

[@nathancobb6050]

Lol xD Love that movie 🎥

[@cajohnson130]

"Once you believe in a god that can do anything, everything fits." Great point.

[@dorbdorb25]

Thank you @Capturing Christianity! Uploading this video has made more atheists than God himself. Matt is an insanely talented master of logic.

[@idesel]

Winger was heavily outmatched. Terrible.

[@dorbdorb25]

@@davidburrey9831 I hate when people say, “you already know god exists in your heart… you just have a hardened heart”. That’s the easiest argument to disprove to myself. I genuinely don’t believe that god is real. Why would I seek out someone that I don’t believe exists for no reason other then “he will give you faith when you seek him out”. That’s the biggest pile of nonsense I’ve ever heard. Well, you should go seek out the chicken god of mars. You know in your heart that he is real, you just deny it. Once you devote your life to the chicken god of mars, then and only then will you be rewarded with the knowledge that devoting your life to the chicken god of mars was worth it. That’s a shitty way to come to a reasonable conclusion.

[@lovespeaks777]

@@dorbdorb25Master of logic that denies the obvious

[@dorbdorb25]

@@lovespeaks777 we’re talking about Matt not mike

[@user-pz2lm8fi3c]

​@@davidburrey9831 I like your comment and i think it is a great point for the resurrection.

[@ryann4769]

Love when an atheist crushes an apologist on an apologist channel :D

[@thetruthchannel349]

*TRIBALISM RENDERS YOUR 'LOVE' INERT*

[@00406cc]

Really? You thought Matt won? How so. I thought he got destroyed

[@thetruthchannel349]

Atheists just take up for other atheists. Its TRIBALISM.

[@j2mfp78]

@@00406cc No he meant Matt litterly crushed him cause he is fat.

[@UngoogleableMan]

@@j2mfp78 how Christian of you to critisize your opponants appearance rather than what he said.

[@tarakerac]

So, You see.. the books in the background don't prove anything.

[@XB.DarkKrog]

A bunch of books that prove themselves, without logic. Except Matt's logic books of course

[@damianwhite9058]

All those books are Peppa Pig in different covers

[@Deadnoise6417]

You can’t use sound reason to talk someone out of a position that they didn’t use sound reason to into .

[@winnumber101]

so basically nobody can talk to each other lol, you have to use a priori concepts in order to find some belief system comfortable, everyone does

[@Deadnoise6417]

@@winnumber101 of course they do but when you’re previous concepts are unstable and use bad epistemology to come to the conclusions. There’s a problem.

[@Deadnoise6417]

Sort of like, if you believe Jesus Christ from the dead and your reasoning, for that, is you think testimony from thousands of years ago is a sound concrete form of evidence you’re just flawed if we applied that same logic to other things you’d be living in a world full of delusions

[@winnumber101]

@@Deadnoise6417 oh snap i didn't see this but i like where you were going with the conversation man but i would disagree strongly about "testimony from thousands of years ago" being inherently flawed because the time between testimony and verification/publication is what's important, not the amount of time that's elapsed since the event. if George Washington was said to have chopped down a cherry tree for example, the account doesn't get worse in 3024 simply because thousands of years have passed

[@shardsofice]

Matt is really good at understanding logical implications of everything. Clever dude.

[@pootarock]

Matt is dropping logic bombs and this guy has no clue how to even comprehend them. This was so one sided, I don’t even understand why this guy even agreed to speak to him. Embarrassing.

[@atheisth5066]

@Matthew Petto that was a very little portion of the debate and he was probably just messing around?

[@atheisth5066]

@Matthew Petto also how is killing some animal a substitute for your own sin lmao.

[@233yvan]

@Mty Crew How can killing a animal have anything to do with sin?

[@atheisth5066]

@Mty Crew that seems like blood magic to me lmoa

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Matt dillahunty is amazing at logic. christianity is dead

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

@Straight White Male absurd how? Explain how basic logic 101 is "absurd"

[@delux8007]

Mario mario Matt is amazing at logic, to bad is all magic and games for him. The horror.... the horror....

[@travisdempster4693]

Mike exposed and embarrassed Matt. You prove how illogical you are, as Christianity is still the main world view. You being illogical stating things that are untrue as if true only emphasises the logical conclusion to your statement is that Matt is in fact illogical. Thanks for playing loser.

[@Notthetimeforit]

@Straight White Male wrong pagans used god's (plural) to explain natural phenomenon. Monotheistic religions are fairly rare in comparison and Christianity is just an amalgamation of other religions, even the damn holidays are stolen. Also some immaterial things don't 'exist' in the literal sense. An idea for example isn't tangible in a sense but even something 'immaterial' like that can be measurable by electronic brain activity. However, the metaphysical has zero evidence, there is nothing backing the claim up that it is real. Every time anyone has tried to prove it they fail, there is even huge money prizes up for anyone who can prove it but it's never happened. Claiming something is real doesn't make it so, writing in a book it's real doesn't make it so, having a 'feeling' that is real doesn't make it so.

[@Notthetimeforit]

@Straight White Male oh and what a load of BS saying athiesm can't account for the preconditions for knowledge. Prove that statement to be even remotely true. All we need are brains, evolution made brains possible. Ergo knowledge is possible, simple.

[@nicksapp6543]

All mikes reasons were miracles

[@Conservative-Leftie]

Flawless victory for Matt...

[@juilianbautista4067]

Lol no

[@Voajus]

Wow Mike is so intellectually dishonest that he projects it onto Matt.

[@seanjones2456]

I will forever refer to him as Mike Wingnut. His closing was a monumental pile of feces.

[@ginaiscoollikethat]

Exactly, it was so hypocritical and infuriating

[@chrismathis4162]

Matt is teaching Calculus to 3rd grader. While his argument is overwhelming, the people he is speaking to obviously don't understand anything.

[@lepetitprince2188]

I felt the same.

[@AutotuneSucksBalls]

man it works the other way around too...If I were to explain the bible to you I'd feel like I'm talking to a 3rd grader because I know no skeptic or atheist has ever read the bible cover to cover and understood it. Let me ask you some questions (and I trust you won't use google) in case you are one of the few rebels that say "I've read the entire bible what the heck do you mean?" 1. Which day at creation did God NOT say it was good ...all others he said they were "good" except for one (the 7th day doesn't count) and why? 2. Which day of creation does not have a "morning and evening" and why ? there is a reason 3. Is the seventh day allegoric or literal "rest"? 4. What was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" ? 5. What was the "serpent" ? (hint , it's not a snake) 6. Whatever happened at the rock of Oreb is it past or future? 7. What was the valley of Jehoshaphat and why is it important? 8. Who is the leopard, lion and bear of Hosea 13:7? 9. Who is Mesech-Tubal, Edom , Elam, the Zidonians and nations of the Achilon in Ezekiel 31? 10. Who was the Pharaoh and why was he so stubborn? there is a HUGE reason why If you are honest with yourself you'd admit that you have no idea. These debates are pointless, there is a reason God chose a timeline where nothing could be proven for sure, 33 years after Jesus crucifixion the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground and one million Jews murdered by the armies of Roman general Titus. The gospels took off after such destruction. The gospels not agreeing is DELIBERATE ...Jesus spoke in parables for a REASON. a lot of what Jesus said has double meaning, he spoke in figurative language a lot, the bible is riddled with allegoric language , deliberate omissions , deliberate overlapping historic events and what have you. It's a 1100 chapter very complex collection of ancient books. No concrete proof is going to be found and it's DELIBERATE ...God intended it that way , because of FAITH. The Exodus of the Israelites has a LOT to do with this "faith" premise but space is short here ...God bless brother and keep believing whatever you believe , like I said I find these debates pointless.

[@EugeneParallax]

@@AutotuneSucksBalls Man, the issue is, you're contrasting the "understanding of the Bible" with basic critical thinking skills. Reading and understanding the Bible doesn't mean anything to an unbeliever - it doesn't make a theist position any more feasible. On the other hand, if a theist cannot even make the actual argument and proceed to straw-man his opponent for two hours, that says a LOT about such an individual. Also, sorry to hold it against you, but you might as well advocate for the "deeper understanding" of any fictional novel, and it still never going to prove the content of the novel being a historic record. Books might inform, but the evidence lies in the objective world, not anyone's interpretations.

[@AutotuneSucksBalls]

@@EugeneParallax What you guys are asking is ,excuse my bluntness ...just plain stupid... we are talking about GOD here , a spiritual being from a realm outside our time and space ...of course our responses will include fantastic claims that the bible makes, we don't even have technology available to take footage of pictures of spiritual beings, and our realm cannot be exited and entered at will, so the proof you demand is just not going to be available ...Also atheists often dismiss the bible as horse manure but have NO PROBLEM citing it when pointing out slavery, God slaughtering children, contradictions and what have you. Really? ok that seems fair. It's ok to be an atheist brother and a skeptic ...as long as the "a" doesn't turn into "anti" , but it often does let's be real. And speaking of stupid demands, Matt asks to see a resurrection first hand with means to prove it was indeed a resurrection, like a medical board of experts ...like OMG, This Matt guy should know God has an AGENDA, a grand scheme that he surely isn't going to compromise in order to make this NOBODY happy (I mean nobody to God , I mean no disrespect, I'm sure he's somebody to his family and others). I'll finish with your "basic critical thinking skills" argument. Brother, here you are suggesting christians cannot think in the most basic way. I CAN THINK...I'm sure of it, people like William Lane Craig, are very smart men. Newton was religious and an avid student of the bible ... So it didn't just occurred to us one day to subscribe to this "ludicrous" religious belief...I DID MY HOMEWORK, the bible is an amazing book , it's an intertwined integrated message system, the more I study it the more convinced I am there is a supreme Authority in charge of everything we can see and feel. Understanding God's plan gives you amazing insight on why the geopolitical structure of the world is what it is right now. Even the purpose for the rise of atheism is explained away in the bible. Like I said brother as long as you are an "a" theist , no problem there. Everyone is free to believe what they want. Peace to you and God bless.

[@EugeneParallax]

@@AutotuneSucksBalls - We're talking about a fictional character that has never been proven to even exist, yet alone having an influence on anything at all. We're talking about a proposition, that a fictional character exist simply because it is said so in the associated fictional narrative. Describing his amazing qualities and features only makes it even less plausible to be real, not more. So, if proof we demand isn't oging to be available, then we will be justified to disbelief and refute the claim, and you will be un-justified to believe it. What we should believe in, is something observable or demonstrable, something that persists in the objective reality we share. - I'm an anti-theist, and believe that all religion have outlived itself. Everything we know about the Universe so far suggests, that reality is a product of spontaneous natural processes, and that the intelligence and an agency is a current known pinnacle of the iterative evolutionary events, not an original source of everything. Only a dumb or mentally unstable/vulnerable person can come to the conclusion, that the latest product of the process have to be the initiator of that same process. This is not a personal attack against you or other theists, but an attack against the idea and the principle by which one might become convinced about its validity. - Dismissing the Bible as horse manure and citing it to point ot slavery, slaughter and contradictions are one of the same action against the validity of that book. There's nothing particularly interesting about the Bible for a person moderately-versed in the modern knowledge sources, which beat the crap out of the Bible any day of the week.

[@BluStarGalaxy]

Mike: I really care about truth. Me: Then show it.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Winger wouldn’t have made a good lawyer.

[@sdonald83]

Neither would Mike

[@fabjtown1]

1:23:08 this is the very moment it all ended. Mike destroyed himself and any hopes of credibility. Followed up by an arrogant comment of how he thinks debates work was icing on the cake. All this video did was create more atheists.

[@swankfiber5278]

I love how Matt said no that's not how the debates work! people are used to political debate debates they see on TV but that's not actually how the rules of real debate work at all

[@robertchflynn]

utterly destroyed after this point...

[@paradisecityX0]

You act like being impressionable is a good thing

[@AllThingsFilm1]

Mike is probably one of the most deluded, and illogical, people I've ever heard.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@AllThingsFilm1 All of Matt's opponents are deluded and illogical no matter what they say, we get it

[@TrashTVTreasures]

Wow, Mike is very rude to Matt. I think his bias towards disliking him really makes Mike look unfavorable.

[@shomshomni2314]

I found Matt really insufferable tbh. He seems like a really miserable guy. I feel sorry for him.

[@RADIO1990]

@@shomshomni2314 I was thinking the same thing about Mike,lol

[@leahcimmmm]

@@shomshomni2314 I found Matt to be a bit unfair tbh. From time to time it feels like he was talking down at Mike. Felt rude from time to time.

[@brandwijkgg]

but he still won the debate

[@shomshomni2314]

@@brandwijkgg He didnt. He was just more aggressive. Going against the concensus of historians is just idiotic. How can you have a debate with someone who denies basic facts?

[@eddenz1356]

There were plenty of resurrection stories in biblical times and prior. To me this doesn’t meant they really happened but that the stories weren’t unusual.

[@richieclean]

Or perhaps it's the case that they were relying on very rudimentary methods to determine whether or not someone was dead, and that many people were "misdiagnosed" as being dead. The stories weren't unusual because there were plenty of examples where it DID really happen. The difference is that it wasn't miraculous, it was just that people were being assumed dead when they weren't.

[@MrMarcodarko]

no there wasnt.

[@virtanen5566]

The ability of human body to resurrect from dead is a medical question. Unfortunately the science pretty much proves that the resurrection story did not happen - at least on the way it is written. If you want to believe in magic then it is up to you but please do not ask if such beliefs are reasonable.

[@jacobm727]

Matt dillahunty knows how to logic

[@theoffensivegamer9943]

Saying "i dont know" for everything is very bad logic.

[@BHHartman]

Armand Esterhuizen saying “I don’t know BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE” for everything is very GOOD logic”

[@Pranav-rp8wi]

@J w well do you think Mohammad flew on a winged horse?.. it says so in the Quran & hadiths

[@parthsavyasachi9348]

@J w so you don't know.

[@parthsavyasachi9348]

@J w I off course know. me knowing anything doesn't require your approval.

[@andyashworth7750]

I'm an atheist. My brother is a Christian. He paused the video multiple times to complain about what Mike was saying, and never once had anything to say in response to Matt. In a years time, he will reference this video as what lead to him becoming an atheist. Lol just got to the part where Mike accuses Matt of holding the position that evidence doesn't matter, and then acts like Matt is being disrespectful for not letting him finish his sentence. He said he can't watch the rest. Good job at capturing christianity...

[@andyashworth7750]

@J w elaborate

[@roems6396]

J w He said that his brother, the Christian, couldn’t stand to watch Mike’s ridiculous arguments any more. What does Andy’s bias have to do with anything?

[@andyashworth7750]

@@lemonfresh9396 Fortunately in this case Andy does exist. Correct me saying it doesn't make it true, but it was a true story nonetheless. But watching the video with my brother sparked one of the best conversations we've ever had on the topic so it isn't all bad ey

[@andyashworth7750]

@@lemonfresh9396 I know you were haha. Yeah fpr sure man

[@PhuutThaiMaiDai]

andy ashworth I think Mike needs to go back to an elementary science class to understand what EVIDENCE means.

[@warlordnipple]

As a lawyer I respectfully request that religious people stop using the words evidence and testimony until they know what they mean.

[@warlordnipple]

@@praywithoutceasing4939 testimony is giving a sworn statement in an open court of law or at the very least a sworn statement. Nothing in the bible is testimony. The chapters are at best hearsay within hearsay. Pastors should start saying that they believe anonymous hearsay, not testimony.

[@warlordnipple]

@@praywithoutceasing4939 uh no testimony is not *an utterance to a police officer" I think you may be confusing the excited utterance hearsay exception with testimony. Testimony is anytime you swear to tell the truth under the penalty of perjury, which is always allowed in court. Hearsay exceptions are exceptions not rules. None of the exceptions involve a police officer specifically, you are vaguely misstating the excited utterance exception "Excited utterance, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is defined as a statement that concerns a startling event, made by the declarant when the declarant is still under stress from the startling event. Excited utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule."

[@tonyrelfordjr1579]

So expect explains if you know what it mean please

[@tonyrelfordjr1579]

Because if I’m not mistaken, evidence can be built against a guilty or innocent person, and caused him to either be free or go to jail

[@tonyrelfordjr1579]

And a testimony is a story that someone that is given their true about something that happened or opinion

[@SenseiKreese]

Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Yes. Video done.

[@paolopagliaro980]

You can do better, I hope

[@user-mg8tw7yo4f]

@@paolopagliaro980 Zombies look good in movies.

[@Jesusisimaginary]

Please get help

[@whiteamericannativeslave]

You are so right! If Jesus truly historical and we needed that to get saved, God would make it abundantly concrete and verifiable!

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

It is pretty hard to get passed the supernatural aspect, without a single piece of evidence that the supernatural even exists. Mike seems unable to conceive of a mind that doesn’t accept the supernatural as possible.

[@myopenmind527]

Bad choice of T-shirt for the host.

[@TheNewPatsyBailey]

@MorbidManMusic LOL!!! yeah

[@joeb2588]

Why come here and mock the host? He's just hosting a channel like anyone else?

[@joeb2588]

Why is that? I'm sure you wear items that represent things you like or believe in? No different.

[@myopenmind527]

joe b nope.

[@myopenmind527]

joe b I just find it curious that you have to wear a falsehood on a T-shirt to assert your unjustified beliefs.

[@doornocker93]

I keep hearing "The next FACT, that most likely happen." This is not Fact if you keep adding 'most likely'

[@elephant_888]

Isaiah Stone - Right?! These apologists use words like English was their second language. 🙄😪

[@pyrobryan]

Yea, I noticed at the beginning he set it up that "Fact" means "Something likely to have happened" so the rest of the time he just claim facts which makes it sound like ABSOLUTE TRUTH but if you call him out he can fall back on "No, I said fact = likely".

[@lil-al]

@@pyrobryan Well if you pile up a lot of "most likelies" on top of each other, it becomes fact. Doesn't it...?

[@juandelacruz4679]

And his conclusion was: "Resurrection is the most likely explanation to this very likely events, therefore resurrection 100 % happened".

[@Palalune]

No body is evidence Jesus was resurrected. No tiger in my living room is evidence I ate it.

[@brianbucher1313]

The source of the claim cannot be the source of the evidence....Diliahunty gets the win

[@jonnyrondo507]

This!

[@straycatsean]

Matt's point: There is not enough physical evidence. Mikes point: You're not believing hard enough for it to be real.

[@barryjones9362]

lol, Mike is a pastor. Wooing to the faith will be his specialty, at least for now, not argument.

[@j2mfp78]

What physical evidence would you like to have seen for Jesus?

[@psandbergnz]

@@j2mfp78 , ANY robust evidence for a resurrected Jesus will serve, I want to know who the author of the account (Gospel) is, and I want him to specify his sources, which should be eyewitness testimony, for the claims made. Does that not seem reasonable to you?

[@j2mfp78]

@@psandbergnz First off do you apply this same standard to all ancient historical claims. And secondly I do not believe that would make a difference in your beliefs. You are telling me if tommorow documents were discovered matching the criteria you just stated that you would become a Christian? Yeah right.

[@psandbergnz]

@@j2mfp78 , ALL historical claims must be based on good evidence to be believable. If the claims are extraodinary, then I suppose you would agree that the evidence should be robust. Hearsay is NOT robust evidence! Do YOU permit the same standards for historical documents? Do you believe the testimony of Joseph Smith and his followers, who even signed their testimony for the brass plates (which then disappeared) and other alleged signs? Or do you support the testimony of the Deputy Sheriff at Roswell and other eyewitnesses who claim they saw four dead aliens at Roswell and a flying saucer of 100 feet in diameter? they testified about 30 years after the alleged incident. We know their names, and their testimony was recorded and filmed. But does that make their statement true and real? We have far better evidence for capatured extraterrestrial aliens at Roswell than we do for the resurrrection of Jesus, which is based on anonymous, hearsay accounts (Gospels). You are very naive!

[@naomi-nada]

First few seconds and I'm already cringing from that t-shirt.

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

diigima and it doesnt even make sense...

[@tikirowboat]

The back of his pants says "My head goes here."

[@roems6396]

diigima It only became more cringe inducing as the debate went on and Mike’s position got worse and worse. I almost felt bad for the moderator because the shirt was clearly tying him to the person getting wrecked.

[@outogetyougotyou5250]

It's even more cringe that it doesn't reference which Christianity his t-shirt is so sure is true.

[@repentandfollowjesus3474]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 KJV

[@JenQ_1]

As a Christian turned Atheist, I really appreciate you hosting this kind of debate. I’d say most Christians wouldn’t be brave enough to have smart, articulate Atheists come on their channel. Thumbs up from me!

[@HokageFlete]

Interesting. So creation was made from nothing?

[@sandersGG]

​@HokageFlete dude, nobody knows that the answer

[@HokageFlete]

@@sandersGG No, God created creation. Creation has a creator

[@unrecognizedtalent3432]

The amount of patience Matt had to put onto this!! Ps: I'm not dissing on Mike. I actually think he's a smart, knowledgeable guy. But there wlseems to be a disassociative disorder going on her, IMHO

[@rayz6165]

Wow, Mike is hard to watch. Literally cringing watching him speak.

[@crobeastness]

As a Christian, I agree. He's .really misinformed on his own faith and doesn't argue well.

[@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes]

@@crobeastness Matt Dillahunty Is A Fat Cheater...

[@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes]

@@crobeastness ProTheists Support Each Other No Matter What... If You Were A True Christian Then You Would Say That Mike Is Smart And Matt Is Dumb.

[@gabrieledwards1066]

This was an intellectual crucifixion. I wonder if Mike waited a full 3 days to rise.

[@lawless7859]

Lmao

[@elephant_888]

Gabriel Edwards - 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@carltheturtle8465]

Good one

[@jasonbutler856]

LOL!!!!! hhahahahahahahahaha

[@joqiii3]

I think in the Holy Book, full of holes, but I think the guy that they crucified was “dead” for only a day and a half. Of course if he were dead that would have been it. But since he was killed on a Friday night and “rose” again on Sunday morning, appears it’s only a day and a half the actual time he was supposedly “dead.” They should redo this fairy tale.

[@facelessshadow92]

Matt is a professional skeptic. Gotta give credit where credit is due!

[@paul.c.gregory]

Fascinating watching, I loved how Mike became more and more panicked as time went on, truly clutching at straws, while Matt remained consistent, clear and honest. I felt, purely as an observer, that Mike was stumbling and internally questioning his own position throughout, but stubbornly refusing to accept the flaws in his argument. People who put so much time and effort into their position, will always struggle to accept the futility of that position irrespective of the evidence presented.

[@kiradegler2123]

Matt made no logical argument, he just made claims that everything Mike said is claims. Matt never once backed anything with evidence. You can use Matt's exact same logic to destroy 95% of history taught in universities.

[@brandondriver99]

Matt stayed consistently pissed off and combative the entire debate. Mike was running out of evidence because every time he brought one forth or argued for one, Matt would become hostile.

[@WHIRLWOLF]

​@@kiradegler2123Evidence for what? Mike just made claims without backing them up and Matt pointed that out. Simple

[@roems6396]

@@kiradegler2123 This is completely false. Matt isn’t making claims that need evidence to be presented. Mike is making the claim. When he is asked for evidence, he just points to the claim. This is the definition of a circular argument and it’s fallacious. There is no evidence necessary to point out that it’s fallacious because it’s the textbook definition of a circular argument.

[@roybarrows9733]

​@kiradegler2123 Atheism is not a claim. It's just a rejection of the claims that theists have failed to provide evidence for. Pointing out that Mike failed to provide evidence is not a weakness in Matt's argument. It *is* Matt's argument, and he is correct. Mike failed to provide *any* evidence for the resurrection, not even *bad* evidence. Perhaps you should learn the shifting-of-the-burden--of-proof fallacy.

[@dblankenship88]

The Resurrection is real and the evidence is that I say it is, therefore it’s so. Apologist 101.

[@christiangeiselmann]

Logic in a Trumpian world.

[@dblankenship88]

Paul : who are you addressing?

[@dblankenship88]

Paul : thanks for clearing that up. I watched the full debate from beginning to end.

[@dblankenship88]

Paul : I did pay attention and there’s no reason to watch it again.

[@pooounderscoreman]

@avocado that's quite a strawman. I think it's more along the lines of: 'I personally believe in the resssurection and there is some, very low-quality, historical evidence to support this. Since I'm using motivated reasoning, crappy evidence is sufficient.'

[@bms77]

Pretty typical Christian honestly.. strawman arguments, circular reasoning, special pleading and faulty analogies.. I see this every single time with a Christian vs atheism debate and is the main reason I started re examining my beliefs and “faith” in Christianity.. To this day I have still not heard one convincing extraordinary claim argument from the Christian side. Not one.

[@clinbaker7359]

If you're not convinced, your already an atheist. Welcome to 2019 friend.

[@beriznak]

@DrJames Powers reading through this comment section and watching you spend so much time trying to rationalize the irrational in vain has me laughing my ass off. The only thing more bloated than your comments is your ego. Go spend some time doing something productive rather than camping out in KZbin comments desperately trying to convince yourself that your position isn't ridiculous, you'll be a better person for it.

[@mdace34]

@@beriznak the one being egotistical is you. Unfortunately your ego blinds you from this fact

[@beriznak]

@@mdace34 which parts of my comment would you identify as "egotistical"?

[@mdace34]

@@beriznak for one your accusation against him that the only reason he posts comments is to convince himself. That is your opinion and as such comes from your ego. Furthermore, to actually draw such a conclusion after reading his posts AND THEN post your accusation concerning his motives also comes directly from your ego. What I mean is that to draw such a conclusion (which at best is a mere assumption) and be confident enough to post it requires an ego . In my estimation there are two possibilities as to why you would make such a conclusion and post it. Either you have an ego big enough to post such a claim or you simply couldn't comprehend the rationale and logic of their comments. I certainly dont think you are stupid so the only other option which drove you to make such a comment is your ego.

[@maccusmc]

Thanks for keeping this video up Mike. You're doing so much for the atheist movement!

[@zacharymcleod460]

Matt by far did not win this debate

[@maccusmc]

@@zacharymcleod460 you're adorable.

[@joe5959]

​@@maccusmcnot an argument

[@zacharymcleod460]

@@maccusmc thanks

[@mattysheppy1193]

@@zacharymcleod460it’s not about win and lose. It’s about strength of argument. There are stronger arguments against the resurrection than for it. This was depicted here.

[@houseson]

Matt nailed it at 1:23. Mike, making claims. Matt, show the evidence for those claims. Mike, the claims are the evidence. Matt, oh my oh my oh my...........

[@beaulester8797]

"My persecution complex causes me to find the term "zombie" to be offensive and degrading. I would prefer you refer to the dead people coming out of the grave and walking the streets as "raised saints." Thanks." -Mike "Super Persecuted" Winger

[@brucetopping248]

I felt the same way. got so offended to hear a whole bunch of people raising from graves described as "zombies" (and yet later seems confused when Dillahunty bristles at his "evidence doesn't matter to you" bit.)

[@edluckenbill9382]

Hilarious .

[@edluckenbill9382]

Why is quoting other people that are bias evidence .

[@edluckenbill9382]

It is a well written Greek story in the New Testament. .

[@flowdreas5351]

1:38:04 Mike talks about “weird Indian gurus” and saying how those beliefs are weird. The very next question asks him if he believes in zombies rising out of graves to meet their live relatives. He says yes though admits he could be wrong and doesn’t affect his faith. This is a blatant case of ignoring the crazy things in your own religion and throwing bombs at other religions for their weird things.

[@MrMarcodarko]

ya thats a bad stance to take.

[@A_Stereotypical_Heretic]

There's no real evidence that these saints were undead bodies with agency. The context this is told in seems to say that the temple above which they were buried was utterly destroyed when Jesus gave up the ghost. And all of those burial chambers beneath the temple opened up due to the quake and the bodies were let loose. Not that they walked to and fro, but fell out into the sight of many people. This would be sheer madness if you think about it. It would be chaos seeing long dead saints falling out of tombs and falling and tumbling and rolling into the midst of the city. A frightening sight indeed. This is why everyone who witnessed it was mortified.

[@doomman700]

Mike has zero clue what evidence is.

[@katlinhenry6927]

I am 10 mins and no already Matt is going to destroy Mike.

[@dickenya3278]

Matt Dillahunty once again shows that the burden of proof lies on these two clowns. Not once did they sufficiently give any sound proof.

[@netcompany3]

@DrJames Powers yeah. too bad atheists are just pretending to be open minded and skeptical, when in reality they dont even have basic info about the thing they are trying to debunk

[@williampeterman5048]

@DrJames Powers do you have a video link?

[@JP-dp3kt]

I thought it was frustrating that Matt decides when to answer a claim and when not to. If he was actually debating he should have provided counter-arguments not “I don’t except that as evidence.” Mike have claims. Matt refused to answer any of them, but instead argued what he would answer. That’s not a debate. That’s talking around a debate.

[@eeroraute281]

You can’t justify anything how do you know that the sun is going to rise tomorrow you can’t it could expload we could be living in a 0.0001 propability chance that it doesn’t explode

[@edmedina55]

If you are an atheist... you usually won't believe any evidence.

[@seanbirch9663]

"Btw, Christianity is true". Cool, I'm done from minute one.

[@tonyrock5313]

You don't listen do you?

[@seanbirch9663]

@@tonyrock5313 I listen often enough. I still watched the video ;)

[@MrDigztheswagking]

😂😂😂

[@thedriedge24]

I feel like arguing over Paul seeing a bright light and hearing a voice claiming to be Jesus, is the same as arguing that someone claimed that aliens abducted them and claimed to be the reincarnation of their dead relatives. I can't believe I ever rested so much of my belief on such a random, arbitrary claim. Paul literally just heard a voice say "I'm Jesus, bro. Trust me." And changed his whole life. How is that sane?

[@toms607]

Fascinating conversation. Respectable. I always find myself agreeing with Matt.

[@mrs.morris5506]

I could tell from the beginning that Matt would have the more sound argument. Winger straight used the bible as "evidence" of the bible....and then made the mistake of saying..."historians say...." STILL presenting that as evidence. He has no idea what constitutes evidence.

[@mrs.morris5506]

@Whipsaw Books are updated when more rigorous standards of research are applied. in simpler terms, that means the updated version has the most accurate information. The Bible was created back when people had no clue about what they were talking about and could not explain what was going on in the world around them. You can continue to use the Bible all you want, I could care less about how informed you choose to be. What I do care about is making sure I have the right information.

[@oli073]

@Whipsaw that is such a sad rant. You keep believing your unchanging book. We'll move on and progress.

[@micahbinns2740]

@My name is August West Lmaooooo. Why is it that scientist who are part of all different types of faiths can follow a scientific method and agree on the evidence.

[@bobjohnson5138]

Guy thinking source x claiming source y said or did something is an independent attestation from source y sums it up. Has little understanding of reason and logic. He was even explained to regarding this and still couldn't get it

[@Llamapuncher]

You can tell Matt wanted to and almost did go full atheist experience caller on Mike. It could have been brutal.

[@rijden-nu]

Hmm... I disagree. I could tell that he did NOT want to do that, because that would have been detrimental to his impact on the opponent, the audience and the discussion.

[@j-joe-jeans]

I think he realized he did not need to. I agree with SadBunny in their assessment.

[@ericpierce3660]

I'm glad he didn't. I think that once in a while when he goes berserk it works to shock somebody awake, but most of the time it just turns people off and they stop listening. Getting them to listen was what he was trying to accomplish in the first place, so it defeats his own goal. I like the way he handled himself this time much better, it's more effective.

[@j-joe-jeans]

@Matthew Petto Let us see your exact quote and context of where Matt went wrong by use of a fallacious argument. BTW implication is not a claim.

[@gregmcfarland9376]

@Matthew Petto that is a lie, some or something cannot take your place if you are sentenced to death. I would love to hear why you think someone can be executed in your place

[@Official_YeshuaNasi]

Matt was so ready to hang up multiple times 😂

[@danielduvana]

Matt is incredible in this debate.

[@glossypots]

Why does he restrain himself with well known people and gets bully boy with the most vulnerable. I’m agnostic but I don’t think he’s a good representative of atheism, though I agree with all his political positions too.

[@danielduvana]

@@glossypots yeah I agree with you. Matt is a real bully and lot of the time and it just sucks because clearly he can be civil like in this conversation.

[@myishenhaines1706]

I’m not even trying to be a jerk but .....come on.....people are arguing that zombies were real once. I just.....I just genuinely don’t understand how people can say that someone came back from the dead like it’s totally a valid and logical thing.

[@prudencegrahame1519]

@@justchilling704 Shame you didn't join heavens gate. Yeah good bye, see ya, airhead !

[@prudencegrahame1519]

@@justchilling704 Pray for yourself ,get your mind checked.

[@prudencegrahame1519]

@@justchilling704 Bless yourself. god is a myth.

[@prudencegrahame1519]

@@justchilling704 My god had a hammer, yours was nailed to cross . Go figure.

[@WolfenBluestone]

​@@justchilling704 that seems pretty fucked up to tell someone you hope they dont find peace ever, considering you have ZERO evidence of any petty deity. I think you need to take a long look in a mirror and maybe stop threatening people with magic

[@SeanGCorcoran82]

Matt - "Where's your evidence?" Mike - "Some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Yeah, but some dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it then wrote it in a book" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "Yeah, but some other dude said he seen something thousands of years ago and another dude confirmed he seen it then wrote it in a book" Matt - "That's not evidence, show me the evidence" Mike - "I have already Matt, these are facts"

[@TCLucas40]

Not no mention eye witness testimony is some of the most fallible there is.

[@j2mfp78]

I know right historical records are stupid. I dont believe anything that's been documented in the past cause it can be like fake. I read some documents that Abraham Lincoln existed but thats just "some guy a few 100 years ago said he saw him" Supposedly Lincoln wrote some stuff himself but like it can be faked so yeah there is no way to know anything that happened in the past unless it was a few billion years ago like the big bang or darwinian evolution that we can know for a fact but 2000 years ago that's just KA-RAY-ZEE. I'm not even sure my great great grandfather existed. True story

[@SeanGCorcoran82]

@@j2mfp78 Finally, someone who gets it.

[@j2mfp78]

@@SeanGCorcoran82👍 I'm not even sure I trust my own comment. It might have been photoshopped.

[@Dachrizzist]

@@j2mfp78 A claim can be justified using primary and secondary sources in conjunction with prior probability and explanatory power. There are a myriad of sources that can demonstrate Lincoln existed. However, the majority of claims made in the bible can not be substantiated, as they are not justified outside of canonical and noncanonical religious texts. There is also the issue of prior probability; the claim that Lincoln existed requires far less to justify it than the claim that the ultimately powerful super sky genie created everything, continually fails at everything, and eventually has to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for being angry at the things he created for doing what he knew they would do.

[@grizzlybear73]

From debate to debate, despite being constantly challenged, Mike never admits that claims aren’t evidence- especially hearsay claims.