Atheist Debates - Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? vs Mike Licona

[@MagnumDB]

0:00:00 - Introductions 0:05:44 - Mike Licona Opening Statement 0:31:39 - Matt Dillahunty Opening Statement 0:57:58 - Mike Licona Rebuttal 1:10:10 - Matt Dillahunty Rebuttal 1:22:58 - Mike Questions Matt 1:28:38 - Matt Questions Mike 1:33:50 - Mike Questions Matt (Second Round) 1:39:18 - Matt Questions Mike (Second Round) 1:44:40 - Moderator/Break 1:46:10 - Audience Questions

[@w.h2957]

Thanks

[@specklecoated5toedyak794]

I love you

[@Kzoowallace]

Thank you boo.

[@niklaslindblad7776]

+

[@ImGoingSupersonic]

Yea i skip past Mike too

[@PetersPianoShoppe]

Licona's First Argument, condensed: "The supernatural realm exists! I heard this strange thing happened. I also heard that strange thing happened. This guy told me about this weird thing that happened. Someone once said a weird thing happened. Here's another strange, unexplained thing that I was told about. Finally, a story about a weird thing that happened. The supernatural realm exists! Thank you."

[@sleepy314]

Peter Zachos thanks for the tl;dr!

[@gandheeznuts4893]

Oh and it's testable! Somehow.....

[@thenowchurch6419]

Peter Zachos. I was wondering how he could consider those little anecdotes as good evidence. Then I remembered, most Christian apologists use the same weak sauce.

[@yhenry77]

The supernatural realm exists! Yes it does....... Have you heard of scientific method? He was using empirical proof of eye witnesses; what about the phenomena of NDEs which is studied by scientists world-wide? You do know what is required for hypothesis? Just because you mock his method doesn't mean those events did NOT occur. Maybe he should have talked about reality of Heaven and Hell as described in detail by NDEs and the bible. Did you know science is revealing an unnatural universe which contain multi-verses. The CERN collider in Geneva just discovered the Higgs Boson at 125 GeV at 5 sigma accuracy. You may say so? The bible has ALWAYS talked about multi-verses of heaven & hell, but most people ignore it. Why? lacking faith or proof? If the Higgs was discovered at 115 GeV it would indicated supersymmetry without multi-verses. If the Higgs was discovered at 140 GeV,. it would have indicated multi-verses only. It was right in middle, because we have both.

[@PetersPianoShoppe]

I think I may have gotten about to discovering the flaw in your argument. It goes something like this: "empirical proof of eye witnesses..." Firstly, eye witness testimony is not empirical proof, it's a kind of evidence, and how extraordinary the claim is dictates how much it needs to be corroborated by other evidence. Even the most mundane eye witness testimony, such as "I saw him at the Rite Aid pharmacy," requires that we must corroborate first that a Rite Aid exists in the vicinity. And the testimonies in this dude's opening statement are very much not mundane. Eye witnesses demonstrate that somebody reports that they saw something. That's all. It does not demonstrate the validity of what they claim to have seen. We use corroborating evidence to zero in on the odds that they saw what they did, and use inference and induction to stipulate the likelihood. But this part of the scientific method, which you correctly pointed out, is not equally applied to all events. Is it possible these things did happen? Maybe, maybe not. But other, more reasonable explanations haven't been ruled out yet.

[@poetryonplastic]

I fucking lost it when this guy started talking about science being a "safe space" and the supernatural "triggering" skeptics. Like okay dude, pander to your socially conservative audience more...

[@DBCisco]

I am what one might call 'socially conservative". I don't buy into any religious bullshit. He is pandering to the millions of ignorant and mentally ill IE: the majority population of the Bible Belt.

[@cryxbaby2250]

Yeah I agree with the guy below I dont belive the argument this guys putting forth but I'm conservative. I belive in keeping our right freedom of speech arms blah blah. But dont bring politics into this come on

[@saintfreezy6914]

they always think talking about supernatural makes us angry by shaking our spirit or something 😂

[@ryandalion8379]

Conservatives have been wrong at every advancement humans have ever made.

[@allgrainbrewer10]

Those terms emerged from left wingers who could not handle anything contrary to their beliefs.

[@eduarchavarria]

Matt, to me your opening statement is one of the most clear and important addresses I have ever heard. Thank you for it.

[@CaptainKirkDiggler]

Apologist: "I can show you the supernatural..." Dillahunty for the win: "Ok then, show me the supernatural..." Apologist: *stammers* "I did, I told you stories about it..." Facepalm. FIN

[@ceeaitch11]

time stamp lol. i missed it. i was listening to this while doing house work, so i might've had the vaccuum cleaner on at that time

[@CaptainKirkDiggler]

@@ceeaitch11 2:00:54

[@julianmanjarres1998]

If he actually believes his stories, then Matt has no answer.

[@CaptainKirkDiggler]

@@julianmanjarres1998 Hmmm... what do you mean?

[@bodricpriest8816]

@@julianmanjarres1998 yup, Matt has no answer to a guy that willfully obtuse...

[@sdc395]

Friend's anecdote about a trashcan lid = strong evidence for the supernatural. Really??

[@harveywabbit9541]

You can get a phd in christian mythology, without understanding the first or last page of the holey bible.

[@RustyWalker]

The first page is often skipped over. It reads, "This is a work of fiction. Any names or characters, events or incidents, are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental."

[@kyleeaton2717]

Honestly I'm dumbfounded by Licona's rebuttal, I can only infer a self deceit but just listening, specially when he talked about the skeptics "safe zone", it reeks of dishonesty. I know he had a rebuttal to extend the debate but any honest and unbiased person would have dropped their case after Matt's opening.

[@chrislrob]

Just shameful.

[@conorpm9009]

Yup. Licona claims that his friend having told him a story about her recollection of an event decades ago when she was a teenage girl, playing with friends and a Ouija board, and seeing a trashcan lid hover, to be strong evidence for a supernatural dimension. Why should anyone take any further claims seriously by someone like that?

[@utl94]

Licona: If we do not have a current understanding of how it happened, it is therefore okay to say that it is in fact supernatural. Horribly fallacious.

[@kaixakusaka658]

Yeah I was done when I heard that, too.

[@alexosle]

just because you don't understand the how it happened, doesnt mean it wasn't supernatural. that's just what the evidence points to more than anything else. and just because you don't understand the supernatural, doesnt mean it wasnt supernatural. and if it was indeed supernatural, than theres is nothing implausible about the supernatural being supernatural

[@LucivarDiablo]

True...but when has evidence ever concluded it was supernatural? How do we test the supernatural? Until we have a reliable way to test the supernatural it can be disregarded as a potential cause of / for anything in the scientific field. This would prevent "supernatural of the gaps". If we ever did find a way to test the supernatural it would open up a great field of science and would potentially propel humans forward great leaps

[@LucivarDiablo]

So define "spiritual" ... And if people can't tap into the supernatural or figure it out how do you know it's even real? How do you know that people can never prove the supernatural or tap into it? Where's your evidence for that? What is the limit for each type of evidence? Other than evidence how would you come to your beliefs that is intellectually honest? Your entire comment needs clarifications...otherwise the whole thing is just fallacious.

[@2tonetony319]

Roc Righteous If “man can’t tap into the supernatural,” then how did you tap into it to discover that it exists?

[@nbartlett6538]

Rather than waste minutes asking for a wireless clicker, why not just advance the slides supernaturally?

[@myopenmind527]

Neil Bartlett I see what you did there.

[@cmack17]

Neil Bartlett God's nature is not compatible with PowerPoint.

[@bobkilla430]

Neil Bartlett or just bring a weejee board to get trash lids to hurl themselves at the computer

[@ahouyearno]

wireless clicker, also known as a mouse. Here's a tip for everyone who ever is going to present something... bring your own "clicker". Bring your own gear, don't trust others. Never trust the electronics of others. Don't trust your own gear either, bring spares. Basically, do not ever have blind faith.

[@DanielBrownsan]

"Jesus is my clicker"

[@colbybridges9314]

At the end, the moderator says “I guess if the resurrection could be proven, there would be no need for faith.” That’s basically admitting that Mike’s arguments were not sufficient. Matt, you were so respectful, graceful, and clear. Good work

[@SameerQumsiyeh]

Neither Matt's argument is sufficient. Both theists and atheists have faith in something. Matt has faith in the idea that science will one day explain the unexplainable. He has faith in the fact that there is no supernatural... these are just assumptions that require faith. I as a former atheist and currently a christian believer, think that it requires more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer.

[@dertechl6628]

@@SameerQumsiyehMatt is not a naturalist.

[@odesseyq9779]

@@SameerQumsiyeh Please don't try to bring us down to your intellectually inferior position by building a strawman of the atheist position. You do not understand the atheist position and you are not qualified to speak on it. Faith is the belief in things unseen, believing something without evidence or with evidence to the contrary. First of all if something is objectively unexplainable then it logically follows that it will never be explained regardless of the efforts of science. However, if some is just currently unexplained it is logically consist to think that it could be explained some day. Afterall, we have a lot of things that were once unexplained and were later explained by science, therefore, it is a belief based on evidence that some things that are currently unexplained may be explained in the future. Not faith. But also did Matt even state those things you mentioned in your comment or are you just inferring his position with your biased mind to build a strawman?

[@jeffdoyle1227]

​@SameerQumsiyeh I've heard Christians make that statement many times. But I've never heard a good explanation of why it would take more faith to be an atheist than a believer. My biggest issue with it is how can one be a believer of something that they don't believe? Can a person force themselves to believe in Jesus? And if so, would Jesus still accept them knowing that it wasn't a natural belief?

[@samuel8354]

For goodness sake. Faith is the belief in what we have good evidence for. Its a faith 'in' not a faith 'that'

[@ivanchytil6279]

Matt being calm when listening to this guy is a supernatural occurrence!

[@petyrkowalski9887]

Sure is. “Dr” Lacona is intellectually dishonest and lazy with his conclusions.

[@thetannernation]

@@petyrkowalski9887 That or he’s sincerely giving his opinion

[@tejasgreen1717]

I agree. He’s just really dumb.

[@amandagirlygirl12]

@@thetannernation Oooh lookee there! It is Ye Olde "He didn't know it wasn't true, so he wasn't LYING .... outright" defense. You're talking BULLSHIT, Tannner. HE does NOT think he's giving his OPINION, he thinks he is stating the facts, scientifically provable. And apparently, so do you.

[@thetannernation]

@@amandagirlygirl12 I don’t recall saying anything you accused me of saying. Why do you think it’s impossible for people to honestly come to conclusions that oppose your conclusions? What kind of narcissist are you

[@johnb7459]

Keep up the good work Matt. I don't know how you have maintained the energy all of these years but I applaud you.

[@2clean4dean]

Religious Apologetic's: When a God is so fragile it needs 21st century word salad 'experts' to argue it into existence.

[@kozhedub]

Dean Mabury Spot on

[@mptyyegdlc]

@@kozhedub Totally

[@Timkast]

I’m just here for the salad buffet!❤

[@Timkast]

@Chief Sitting American I do it for the love of the game. You need a toss?

[@TheElismaShow]

God does not need anyone to defend him nor does he want to prove to Atheists that He exist. This is not new, Philosophers philosophize they cant disprove God exist. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. He says in his first lettet to the Corithians For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 1 Corinthians 1:18‭-‬25

[@jsloan16]

Mr. Licona spoke multiple times about how the accounts of Jesus appearing to multiple people after his crucifixion are unlikely to be due to multiple hallucinations. What he did not address, and perhaps is unwilling to consider, is that these accounts are either stories that were orally passed down and embellished over time, or that the authors intentionally embellished the accounts for their own purposes.

[@JMUDoc]

One person saying "500 people saw it" does not equate to "500 eyewitness accounts". The word for that is "hearsay".

[@FoamySlobbers]

No Google, I don't want to use my real name. Did you see the title of that debate? No where were they supposed to prove Jesus was God.

[@fredbmurphy]

J Sloan we know the Gospel writers lived atleast 30 to 70 years after the time of Jesus. Luke wrote Jesus told one of the 2 criminals being crucified with Him he would be in Paradise with Jesus THAT DAY. After 3 days Jesus rose again? Unlike Luke, Mathew and Mark wrote both criminals reviled Jesus. The Gospel writers were quoting what Jesus supposedly said.

[@davidburroughs7068]

One question is, Jesus died sooner than expected. What if he didn't die, but suffered through a NDE experience and resuscitated afterwards? A gut wound (spear in the side) was virtually a slow and painful and nearly guaranteed death up through the 1800's, but not in all cases. Why did Jesus have to identify himself to everyone he encountered after, even his closest followers who knew him very well? What if his rising on the third day speaks to his initial recovery period, and, his time away from appearances were spent recovering from the crucifixion trauma? The problem with then recognizing him is often answered, most commonly given, is it was very really or very dark. For example, how many of that 500 actually knew Jesus closely and how many there simply accepted the identification and the word of those there who did? Jesus was the oldest of several brothers and sisters, how much did he resemble them? What happened to Jesus father, Joseph? Was he retired, infirm, or dead? Why didn't he identify, ever, his son as the anointed one? Evidence of incidence dependant on hearsay receives, and is due, the harshest and most severe examination. I do not know why a biblical scholar would rush to accepting the resurrection of Christ, but rushed to deny the resurrection of Zoroastrianism mythos? Or, using that criteria, reject a similar story from the Egyptian mythos?

[@davidburroughs7068]

Asserting historical stories often have a supernatural decision, therefore accept supernatural intervention as possible and probable does a serious disservice to historians and serious students. Or does Dr. Licona suggest I run to Delphi and seek out the advice? Wasn't the Oracle there witnessed by thousands of people and repeatedly proved accurate? Such a one sided acceptance and one sided rejection fails when it doesn't exclude the other competing hypotheses.

[@KikiDiki]

Listening to Christians like Mike talk made me an atheist.

[@davidbutler1857]

Pretty much. When I found out that Jesus never actually said what was attributed to him (that we know of) and that the supernatural claims failed basic logical tests... that was enough.

[@CrimsonHelldrake]

Kaelah M. what religion were you before becoming atheist?

[@spacewizard69]

good for you welcome to the club haha

[@ryanspangler4569]

Listening to a grown man talk like this hurts my heart very much

[@antoniodisalvatore6582]

Same here. Started using my critical thinking and questioning everything - I am now an agnostic - I'll leave the idea of God open if there is indeed ever FACTUAL AND LOGICAL evidence for God and the afterlife.

[@bonnie43uk]

2:12:38 one of Matt's old church friends asks Matt what happened in regards to Matt losing his faith, .. worth a listen

[@blackscreennoiseforrelaxat1517]

Thanks for the time stamp. This was a good and interesting as well.

[@nishilsanghvi583]

Thanks for the timestamp m8 I was looking for this moment

[@J05TI]

Was looking for that. Thank you, kind stranger!

[@vatechie21]

The “you were gonna be a star” thing was weird. Otherwise nice (and I believe well intentioned)

[@da3daluz]

Oh man, Lacona's opening is really easy to refute, "the plural of anecdote is not evidence" boom you're done.

[@kingcool6]

Tracie made a good analogy of this on TAE, were she said that it`s like when you multiply 0x0, it doesn't matter how many times you do it will always stay at zero.

[@MBarberfan4life]

It's evidence alright....shitty evidence.

[@amandagirlygirl12]

@@MBarberfan4life if the anecdotes aren't testable, falsifiable etc. then it doesn't matter how much plural they are.

[@Thornspyre81]

Hell yeah!!!

[@andreaferrara1969]

But his friend told him about a garbage can lid that did something supernatural. Maybe you're just too skeptical when presented by solid proof like that.

[@Azirahaelx]

TLDR: 'A bunch of stuff happened that i can't explain. God is real' Matt: 'Nope. That's not how logic works.'

[@tugboat2030]

Licona: "There's a problem with your epistomology."

[@rabid_si]

@@tugboat2030 "The problem is that it doesn't work for my argument, so it's wrong."

[@javiersmith8618]

Paul, a man who never met Jesus, is his best source for the historicity of Jesus. Fail.

[@harveywabbit9541]

Paul is aka Apollo, a Gemini twin.

[@RustyWalker]

..and by the description of what happened to him, probably was an epileptic or had some other kind of fit or seizure, and had an ... NDE, where he *imagined* he saw Jesus, because persecuting the Xtians was the thing he happened to be doing at the time, and why the hell wouldn't Jesus have something to say!!

[@harveywabbit9541]

Saul is a good guy during spring-summer as "Mercury," but come autumn-winter, he becomes Mars the terrible.

[@Bill_Garthright]

+Rusty Walker Yes. Assuming that we can believe what Paul wrote about himself (which we can't, of course, but let's assume that for the sake of the argument), it's exactly what we'd expect in a natural world: _one_ guy who persecuted Christians had a hallucination or 'vision', _one_ guy decided he'd been wrong and changed sides - all perfectly normal, since those things happen sometimes. If a god existed though, why not give a vision to _everyone_ who persecuted Christians? Why not give a vision to everyone in the _world_, all at the same time? A god could do that, certainly. And if he's going to give a vision to one guy, why not be consistent about it? We know that people repent their previous actions sometimes. We know that people occasionally convert to other religions. We know that some people have hallucinations, for any number of different reasons. But Paul's story is not only just what we'd expect in a completely natural world, it's not at _all_ what we'd expect from an all-powerful, all-knowing god. (Maybe Matt got to that, I don't know. I haven't watched the entire video yet. In fact, I think I probably heard that on the Atheist Experience, originally.)

[@thenowchurch6419]

Exactly my position on Paul and his so-called visions. Saul/Paul was a trickster.

[@evolvedaustin4230]

How come Ouiji boards only work with people that also believe in other crazy beliefs? For some reason they never work with skeptical people.

[@AshleyB2314]

I just used them, they work fine after 2 bottles of wine, i realised my name was jesus

[@igotcookies]

I’m an atheist and Ouija boards have worked for me. It’s explained by science though. It’s called the “ideomotor effect”. Basically it’s your subconscious moving it.

[@tonytoka4317]

Easy test... Blind fold the person, mix up the letters and see what they will spell out.

[@augusthome9860]

I suffered from insomnia until I started listening to this christian speaker!

[@ericscaillet2232]

Tut tut

[@allgrainbrewer10]

@@ericscaillet2232 Tit tit.

[@johnokjohn5922]

By watching this debate I learned about intellectual dishonesty. Thanks to Matt for using the term and thanks to Mike for demonstrating it.

[@geico1975]

My bet is, you learned about intellectual dishonesty as a kid, like many, you just didn't know the name for it:) HA! For example, dude! I hit the ball like 500 feet. However, the fence only says 375 feet, and you know it barely went over it. So, you really hit the ball maybe 400 feet, but 500 sounds way better and cooler, so you say the outlandish one:) LOL! I did the same thing... intellectual dishonesty

[@sigmaoctantis1892]

@@geico1975 I'm not sure what your point is. I don't know what you mean by your example, I presume it is some game like cricket or golf. In any case, you are speaking about exaggeration. Believing the claim to be true could be called a delusion. Saying it and not believing would be lying. Although, both exaggeration and delusion can contribute to intellectual dishonesty.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah you learned it from Matt.

[@sigmaoctantis1892]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Intellectual dishonesty is something frequently practised by Christian apologists. True, Matt points it out frequently, however, I learned about it long before encountering Matt.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@sigmaoctantis1892 what apologists in particular,And I can’t just be we disagree with them you have to actually point out intellectual dishonesty.

[@Oboewan]

In Mike's rebuttal, all he says is "You don't have proof that Jesus never rose from the dead; therefore, he rose from the dead." What's his doctorate in? Fish feeding?

[@PraetorDrew]

Where exactly does he say this? Mike gave several lines of evidence and explained why the resurrection hypothesis fits the data pretty well. Matt could have offered an alternative explanation and defended it against criticism, but he didn't. There is good reason to believe that the resurrection hypothesis best fits the data, unless you are not open to supernatural explanations. If you are not, there is no point in watching these debates. It would be like a creationist watching a discussion as to whether or not there was a single ur-organism.

[@Oboewan]

My quote was more of a paraphrase of his entire rebuttal. Now, the problem with the supernatural, there's no evidence for it. If there was evidence for it, it would be "Natural". Drew, before you can say "God resurrected Jesus", you have to prove two things. 1. God exists and 2. Jesus existed. Both situations have no evidence towards them. So, your assertion that "The resurrection hypothesis best fits the data" is invalid, as there is no data for either God existing nor Jesus existing nor any supernatural events occurring in history. You have anecdotes and nothing else. Anecdotal "evidence" is not evidence, it's just hearsay.

[@PraetorDrew]

Do you consider God to be supernatural, meaning that if God exists, then he would be supernatural?

[@PraetorDrew]

And regarding Jesus, do you think it was just Jesus who never existed? What about Paul, James the brother of the Lord, Peter, and John the son of Zebedee? Are they fictions as well? How about Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius of Antioch? Are they also fictions? Where does this chain stop being fiction and include real historical figures?

[@Oboewan]

The Supernatural doesn't exist, so God cannot exist if it's a Supernatural entity. Again, if something exists, it is a part of the Natural World, so being Supernatural means it is not part of the Natural World and does not exist.

[@kiastar67]

Starting at 1:42:31 Matt- "We know that group hallucinations are possible" Mike-"Well, I don't think we even know that. because they're like dreams, so it would seem to me that they are actually impossible." MATT- "There are accounts of... MIKE- "Not credible, uhh, documented accounts [of group hallucinations] MATT-"OK" MIKE-"In fact, in the book, uhh, put out by the American Psychological Association, uhh, "Hallucinations the Science of Idiosyncratic Perception", it's like the most recent thing on the last 100 years on hallucinations. They don't have anything on group hallucinations. I contacted the authors and said "why not" and the said "We couldn't find any documented sources, reliable documented sources, on group hallucinations. They seem impossible." So, I am surprised that doctor Licona has never heard of folie a duex or "madness of two." This is a shared psychosis or "a delusional disorder shared by 2 or, occasionally, more people with close emotional ties." See link-> emedicine.medscape.com/article/293107-overview That is one example. Another is pareidolia, "...a tendency for all humans to perceive a face or pattern where one actually doesn’t exist" I bring this up because it does have a lot to do with how and why we perceive things the way we do. Link-> www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-think-neandertal/201608/why-people-see-faces-when-there-are-none-pareidolia There is also a auditory version of pareidolia. Link-> explorist.futurism.com/understanding-pareidolia-brains-ability-see-what-isnt-there/ Another form of group hallucination was what was called St. Vitus's Dance or dancing mania. It happened mainly, although not totally, in 14th and 17th century mainland Europe. People would dance in groups, sometimes 1000's at one time and often until exhausted or even dead. There were quite a few modern day explanations that have been provided. www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/strange-case-dancing-mania-struck-germany-six-centuries-ago-today-180959549/ There are about 30-35 examples here--> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria There are many, many examples of mass hysteria, group hallucinations and other terms (careful about getting pedantic about terminology just to make the evidence bend to your worldview) The Salem Witch Trials are an example. Many think it was "...convulsive ergotism caused by eating rye bread made from grain infected by the fungus Claviceps purpurea (a natural substance from which LSD is derived)" www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/ergotism Another term is Mass psychogenic illness (MPI) which is ""the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms affecting members of a cohesive group, originating from a nervous system disturbance involving excitation, loss, or alteration of function, whereby physical complaints that are exhibited unconsciously have no corresponding organic" cause.[2] MPI is distinct from other collective delusions, also included under the blanket terms of mass hysteria, in that MPI causes symptoms of disease, though there is no organic cause." Here-> thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-7/dancing-plagues-and-mass-hysteria and here-> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness I have a feeling that Dr, Locina is stuck on ONE term and in doing so, has become caught in a trap of his own making. Whether or not you want to call it group hallucinations, mass hysteria, or one of the other terms above, you need to look into the meanings and how they are alike, different, etc. This Dr. Locina just does not understand evidence and how it all works. That is a shame. I hope he works on that aspect a bit.

[@sokratiskonstantaras320]

There is no mass hallunication in human history. Mass hysteria is not what disciples had. The link u post confirm that

[@sandeman1776]

@@sokratiskonstantaras320 Orson Wells' radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds in 1938 caused mass hysteria. Cults have a slower, longer game that's more insidious. The do things like make rules about things you're not allowed to do or you'll burn in hell for all eternity. And you'd better indoctrinate your child as soon as possible, cuz if they die before you do; they'll burn for all eternity.

[@2tonetony319]

El Greco There are miracle accounts of mass hallucinations. Just like the miracle account of Jesus’s resurrection.

[@sokratiskonstantaras320]

@@2tonetony319 Mass hysteria is not mass hallunication. There is no any record of mass hallunication in human history.

[@dustnite7771]

Considering that mass hysteria is derived from the illusion of a threat, I think its apt to consider the war of the worlds incident as a group hallucination. The sightings of Spring Heeled Jack in Great Britian comes to mind as well

[@Dragoon803]

One thing that really stood out to me about this debate is how many times Matt had to explain to people that it's fallacious to jump from "naturalism can't explain this therefore the supernatural must be the answer." It tells me these people were not listening. The questioner who asked Mike "Why do you use naturalism of the gaps?" during the Q&A is the perfect example. He literally uses Mike's words to ask Matt the question. When someone has to repeat themselves more than 3 times it shows that the person they are engaging with is not listening. When you make a claim you have to demonstrate why it's true. You have to show the method you used to arrive at that conclusion. Mike didn't use a method his logic was "If it's not natural then it must be supernatural because what else could it be?" Until you can demonstrate the method by which you are making the claim the honest answer is "I don't know". The natural and the supernatural must both stand on their own. They are not a dichotomy where if it's not one it's the other. It's not an either or. This I think is what Matt was trying to convey.

[@p0kern00b6]

When I heard the trash can story I thought "So Sesame Street is Real? The only explanation is Oscar the Grouch exists and was angry his trash can was disturbed!"

[@Azadum]

That guy had, by far, the most embarrassingly bad opening to a debate I've ever seen. Most apologists at least try to sound like they're making arguments based in reason or evidence. This guy went straight to unsubstantiated claims about ghosts and shit. My friend had an experience where the laws of gravity were violated. I wasn't there, nobody can't confirm that it really happened, but let's just consider it evidence that the super natural exists. FFS He actually claimed his evidence was empirical. ROFL, I'm dying here.

[@mikemantonya6666]

I agree. Wonder if he would have tried harder if the audience wasn't already overwhelmingly friendly to christianity...?

[@mikemantonya6666]

"I totally have girlfriend, but you don't know her. She lives in Canada."

[@ThePharphis]

Is anyone here pregnant?

[@kerrycollier5297]

It didn't get any better from there either

[@Baldnesz]

He did try hard, very hard.

[@2tonetony319]

I just don't see how Christian apologetics can survive with the way that they are being exposed in discussions like this one.

[@Baldnesz]

For the same reasons Trump was voted in and a lot of Turks voted more powers to Erdogan.

[@fowlintent]

You first must understand how desperate these people are to cling on to their comforting belief in going to heaven to be with their dead family and pets for ever and ever, sitting at the feet of God, singing Holy, Holy, Holy...….

[@davidbutler1857]

Narrator: They don't.

[@whitegoose2017]

@@fowlintent Heaven sounds really boring. What happens after you've lived for an incomprehensible amount of time and you're bored of everything? Are you allowed to give yourself a mercy death? I mean I get bored of a lot of stuff really easily. No need to read the same book many times so on.

[@coryalbright9798]

Your unreasonable. God is real. Deep down, you know this. Open your eyes and look around. A tornado that goes through a junk yard cant create a boeing 747. Stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

[@UltimateBargains]

"In all of human history, the supernatural has never turned out to be the right answer to anything: Natural explanations of phenomena have replaced supernatural ones thousands upon thousands of times, while supernatural explanations have replaced natural ones exactly never." -- Greta Christina

[@speedbird561]

UltimateBargains e

[@Rags]

lol, Mike's comment section is disabled on his channel's debate video. What a coward.

[@atgod6]

ooh the real rags!! such an intellectual doggo !!

[@godlessrecovery8880]

Is it surprising? I mean, I get that the comments can be cespools, but Mike pulled a total Steve Schives with this.

[@NEMOfishZ92]

Its not anymore

[@gargoyleoftruth6032]

Evidently, mike added a comments section. . . and i have already posted comments. . ..dont let me have all the fun.

[@matthewdavid9039]

After watching for 2 hours and 10 minutes I conclude Mike would be a dangerous person on jury duty. No understanding of how to assess evidence. This seems to be the typical issue religious people have.

[@mediadrone01]

Real-Time commenting here. Around 17:00, Licona mentions that after a night of prayer, the church received a check for the exact amount they prayed for. He offers this as a proof of God. Even if this anecdotal story is true (which I highly doubt), of the tens of millions of donations that churches get per year, how many *aren't* the right amount?

[@MrSwartc]

mediadrone01 well all the other checks don't matter, because this one, (may be just chance or coincidence). Is strangely supernatural and can be used as an argument and more proof of god for 2000 years, and you and I aren't even there to run the numbers or have basically no idea about anything, just a story to us, I guess we use faith for this truth story,

[@joebob3719]

If this check is proof to this guy, then where’s the stub? Forget proving whether or not this was God, coincidence, or a hoax, do we even a have evidence that it happened? Lol, Darth Vader might as well have signed the check himself.

[@macbeth5514]

Well, I am sure other checks are many that don't have the right amount, and that's what makes this event a miracle: it is a rare event. The probability of giving the exact amount demanded due to random chance is really low. And the probability of having it planned out is higher. What does that suggest? It is for you to decide.

[@J33-v5j]

Yup, god made the check thing happen and created the universe in a few days. Doesn’t have time to make all the kids with cancer healthy though. The prayers of the parents must not matter to god.

[@janina873]

mediadrone01 Good point! And I can't tell you the amount of times I have heard this story from the pulpit in several variations 🙄

[@2tonetony319]

Bravo Matt for not just exposing the flaws of the apologetic arguments, but more importantly, for doing such an eloquent job of explaining Critical Thinking. You are to todays generation what James Randi is to me and my generation.

[@aviatortrevor]

The apologist's KZbin page doesn't allow comments!

[@stiimuli]

Neither does The Atheist Experience channel.

[@TheGodlessNorwegian]

I think TAE is quite cowards not allowing comments.... Its not like they have to moderate them, free speech?!

[@TheGodlessNorwegian]

Why should they care about stupid, ignorant hatefull comments ? There are threads that go without them... its not like they HAVE to moderate them.

[@PraktikoolSinik]

I prefer that (and appreciate it when) comments are left on, but I'm not too bothered by them being shut off. Free speech means we can all express our opinions; it doesn't mean we can go in someone else's house and do it.

[@TheGodlessNorwegian]

What if there was no comment sections at all.. then no one would be heard.. best thing about News articles is the comment sections i think, it represents the peoples views..which the only way they can be heard.

[@synthdriver8817]

I'm continually and simultaneously amazed at how unimpressive, uninformed, and dishonest the apologetic arguments have become. It's no surprise that some atheists are as adamant about God not existing. The apologetics of the theists are some of the most self-refuting positions I know. I was once a theist who made these same weak arguments to justify the existence of my God, but once I realized how morally bankrupt he is, and how silly those arguments really are in the face of relevant data, I dropped those beliefs and became a free thinker.

[@amandagirlygirl12]

do you believe in a god?

[@Garyskinner2422]

@@amandagirlygirl12 No is the answer

[@amandagirlygirl12]

@@Garyskinner2422 Good answer.

[@jbirdzz]

Yup, 4 years later and this comment holds up incredibly well. Theist arguments have only gotten worse.

[@partyboi8773]

@@jbirdzz This is so true. I was recently talking to someone raised fundamentalist but who claimed to no longer be a Christian (he's now embraced a belief in reincarnation and . . . I don't know what). But his supposed arguments for design and a Creator were in no way different from the faux-scientific blather on, say, the Answers in Genesis website: "If you see a boat, you know there must have been a boat-builder, so if we see a universe around us, it had to be built by someone!", etc., spouted as if this were incontrovertibly convincing.

[@robertcornhole5197]

An invisible man, Playin' with your trash. Who ya gonna call? JESUS!

[@logans.butler285]

I ain't afraid of no Pauls

[@dimitris9724]

*plays ghostbusters themesong in head*

[@losttribe3001]

Matt is good. Dawkins ain't too bad. Harris does a bang up job. But I miss Hitch.

[@zayanwatchel8780]

losttribe3001 I do too... I think we all do.

[@MisterMatthew1984]

Dude, you said it all.

[@kozhedub]

I think Dawkins is probably my favorite, followed by Matt, Harris and hitchen's arguments always fell a little flat for me

[@MattSingh1]

Andrew Huseby- funny, I'm the complete opposite: for me Dawkins is a weak debater, whereas Hitchens died undefeated with a flawless record.

[@johndough6225]

Matthew Singh-Dosanjh Yeah, don't know if we'll ever get as great a debater as Hitch. The man was just too sharp and witty, it makes you take a step back and wonder, "How the fuck could someone be that intelligent?"

[@alchemicalheathen]

Another PhD who doesn't understand methodological naturalism or skepticism. Great. Matt, I don't know how you do it. Listening to the rebuttal is just painful.

[@DBCisco]

In the realm of Theology, PhD means Piled high and Deep.

[@sheezamann2724]

@@DBCisco good one

[@nicosteffen364]

In fact PhD of Theology is just learning the script! Its like reading Darwins Origins of Species often enough to get a PhD in Biology!

[@javiersmith8618]

an Ouiji board? Really? GTFO. ugh..

[@jesperburns]

I just saw a meme about it. Went something like this: "Ouija boards are age restricted; 8 years and older. So you have to 21 years old to consume alcohol, but 8 to summon demons"

[@Baldnesz]

It is only 5 years old in Holland.

[@HassanMohamoud-lg2xw]

Beppe lol😂😂

[@ARoll925]

@@jesperburns that's hilarious

[@atheistmommy3710]

Matt Dillahunty is brilliant! I love how clearly, convincingly he explains things.

[@elijahjns81]

This might be my favorite Dillahunty debate. I especially liked the Q and A. Holy shit, good job Matt.

[@jeremymac9017]

Thank you for the upload, Matt. My Christian friend and I (I've recently deconverted within the past year) have been discussing for some time and so I find these debates especially relevant.

[@malvanlondon8683]

Yes, I watched it there and had to come over here to comment. lol.

[@robertosinger5727]

Atheists are like cocoa beans, you have the dark inedible crust, and the moist inedible center, and you're crusty, therrefore god.

[@jeremymac9017]

I was going to ignore this, but I'm simply fascinated by this seemingly irrelevant and confusing analogy. Could you elaborate?

[@johnpelosi4117]

Indeed, what could it possibly mean?

[@tinaspringer651]

+Roberto Singer making a fool of yourself for Jesus

[@5150Rockstar]

If god had something to tell me, I'd think he'd be fully capable of doing so himself..,

[@amirkb7206]

He can but sorry he's stuck under the trashcan lid right now.

[@Roblx518]

setmedic isn't the knowing what you SHOULD do that? Freewill is what you choose instead.

[@vinny142]

Yeah. odd how god always want's whatever the king wants, or the pope, or whoever has power over the religious dogma of the time...

[@AlbertMarksSokratis]

They will say that you are not listening due to inability or unwillingness.

[@terrancetoth4363]

He hasn't been available since the development of image capture technology. We can see galaxies billions of light years away but our only photo evidence of Jeebus is on a moldy sandwich or rotting door.

[@ixamraxi]

_"but if my head were chopped off, and you saw me a few minutes later with it reattached, you wouldn't conclude the supernatural?"_ Correct, because we still wouldn't have an explanation. Saying the event was supernatural does not explain what happened, how it happened, or why it happened. It's just a relabel of our ignorance. Hypothetically we could come up with all kinds of explanations, from a cell mutation that allows for reattachment, to chi, to metaphysical bob the builders that reattach human limbs, to magic. Having an explanation is not better than no explanation when that explanation doesn't actually explain anything. In Licona's worldview "supernatural" seems nearly indistinguishable from Matts "I don't know", the only difference being that Matts answer is honest. Besides, the fact is: no one alive today has experienced anything even remotely similar to that kind of situation outside of a magic show or being high on drugs, much less having had that experience verified to actually have happened by evidence and corroboration. Comparing these extreme examples to the resurrection is ridiculous because we would be actively witnessing the beheading and reattachment of Licona's head, along with many others. _We can't witness the resurrection of Jesus._ The best we can do is take other peoples word for it. If he doesn't understand the difference between taking someones word for the truth of a story in a book and actively watching an event unfold with that event being verified to be real, I don't know what to say. In this way, I would say his approach is unsound. Claiming the Bible proves the resurrection is like someone 2000 years from now concluding that Spiderman existed because historical evidence proves that New York was a real place. It's fallacious. Even if we verify every place, every town, every person in the Bible to actually have existed, we do not get to assume that the beliefs those people held were also true. That's what Licona doesn't seem to understand. Its like how Sue Grafton bases her murder mystery books around Richmond Va. In fact, if you lived in Richmond, you could actively visit the towns, roads, and buildings she uses as the backdrop for her novels, but that doesn't mean the murders she writes about actually happened, and two thousand years from now, should someone find her books, they might use the historical accuracy of real places and people as evidence to conclude the murders really happened, but they would still be wrong.

[@riplettuce8076]

4 years late but amazing analysis and exactly my thoughts

[@markallen8022]

Cool story dude! Licona is wasting his time at ministry. He should do science fiction movies.

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

A great debate! I've heard Matt mention the moment at 2:12:36 in a couple of his talks, when an acquaintance from his old church asks him what happened. That question and Matt's response deserves to be its own clip.

[@nuoiptertermer4484]

“Reality is a little more complex than atheism would claim.” Atheism makes no claim. It’s just lack of belief in the existence of God.

[@ARoll925]

I would say it is the exact opposite, reality is a little more complex than theists would claim

[@Flayed221]

"emperical data suggest.." proceeds to give nothing but anecdotal evidence

[@ramigilneas9274]

Stefan Imig Nah, 2nd hand hearsay isn’t empirical evidence.😂

[@rabid_si]

@Stefan Imig Anecdotal and empirical evidence are NOT the same.

[@samuraicop4930]

@Stefan Imig lol

[@mikemantonya6666]

So... was anyone else embarrassed for Licona while listening to this...? 😒

[@ianyboo]

Very.

[@MyEstaly]

Haha third person shame! It makes laugh when believers claim to know that god and whatever else operates on a supernatural realm while at the same time acknowledging that we don't. Then, how the fuck do you know about that supernatural realm you don't experience?

[@wolfpup3]

They feel it! Plus there's this book that tells them it's true! Plus this thing happened, and they don't know how, so it was the god they already believe in!

[@Baldnesz]

Yes. There is a huge intellectual divide here. Goliath won this one.

[@TorianTammas]

Mik Mantonya Licona sounded like he got his degree from the Ghostbuster Academy were he majored in hearsay and Ghost stories.

[@MsMsmak]

I bet Mike went home and immediately signed up with the Clergy Project.

[@MBarberfan4life]

MsMsmak lolololol

[@ryanspangler4569]

If he listened back to what he said, he’d prolly be embarrassed. It sucks listening to a grown man talk like that

[@ARoll925]

Doubt it highly, he just will continue to compartmentalize his nonsense

[@ARoll925]

@@ryanspangler4569 doubt it, he should be embarrassed, I would guess he isn't though

[@Jay-ate-a-bug]

Not at all. In his mind he probably believes he won the debate because Matt didn't disprove the Supernatural to him.

[@Theonetruegod-hw2ei]

Matt - thank you for allowing comments. Was just on Dr. Licona's page and he disabled his comments which leads me to believe that he does not like others opinions. Keep doing what you are doing.

[@uofute]

Please pass along my thanks to Mike for the periodic comedy relief from the logic and reason provided by Matt. It was just the thing I needed to keep my attention throughout the debate.

[@jahobr]

Oh man; 8 minuts in and we are talking about wee-jee-boards? Is this kindergarten?

[@alchemicalheathen]

I was about to post the same thing.

[@DragonCharlz]

Apparently having a bunch of unbelievable stories makes one believable one. crazy

[@cloudoftime]

IronchaRiotrider I was talking with a theist friend of mine the other day, and he told me that exact story (it was before this debate took place). I think his exact words were "this isn't someone who would lie about it".

[@alchemicalheathen]

Clearly, the alignment of those two anecdotal stories about the supernatural is convincing. Wait, the plural of anecdote is evidence, right? :-P

[@pumpuppthevolume]

yep 🎅 is for real

[@samuraijack9956]

"Empirical data suggests reality has a supernatural dimension" 6 mins in and I'm laughing my ass off!! this is gonna be great. p.s. it gets much funnier😁

[@thegoat-ishere4414]

Samurai Jack yea all he uses as “empirical data” is personal experience that honestly I think he is exaggerating.

[@spacewizard69]

I think he believed that Final Space is a documentary

[@Thornspyre81]

@@thegoat-ishere4414 yeah, how could he not be embarrassed at actually using a Ouija Board anecdote!!!!!

[@ARoll925]

@@Thornspyre81 he's a Christian apologist, those guys seem to never get embarrassed, the ones that can become atheists

[@amandagirlygirl12]

@@spacewizard69 Since Final Space is a cartoonish animated series, that's funny AF.

[@klumaverik]

I love ya Matt. Thanks for being so awesome. I hope all is well with you and yours.

[@jimmorrison4291]

What an amazing debate, very respectful all round. I look forward to the follow up debate: Did Harry Potter Really Catch the Golden Snitch?

[@montaguesummers]

I've never seen Matt be this kind to someone this poor at debate. Mike was so dense, missing the point over, and over, and over, but Matt kept humoring his weak ass nonsense and never mocked him once. I wouldn't have been able to remain nearly that polite. Update/edit: after listening to the questions, it dawned on me why he's being so unusually patient... I must have missed that he's debating in front of a room of theists. He's adjusting his tone to seem less condescending, and I get it, but damn his opponent doesn't deserve it.

[@PraktikoolSinik]

Holy shit... (1:23:20) "I'm not going to say that it's supernatural" because... "we might find a natural explanation", that's a "nature of the gaps" explanation. I can't believe my own ears. He really said that, right? Not accepting his argument from ignorance *is* an argument from ignorance. That's like meta-apologetics or something going on there.

[@Oswlek]

LOL!

[@pumpuppthevolume]

Praktikool yep apparently saying I don't know what was that ...... actually means nature did it

[@qzh00k]

Bollocks, when you assert your personal god you have no reason to investigate or learn what a real cause is. By finding the cause you can share that knowledge for the benefit of all, you can create medicine, go to the moon, you can make a nuclear reactor or better breads. These one words answers are shallow and childish, they allow polluters to pollute, homes to be built in flood planes and children to be lied too about the real world they live in. When a muslim beheads another, the heads have never been put back on for how many centuries now?

[@PraktikoolSinik]

> when you assert your personal god... But he didn't. Which is why that Christian questioner called him out on it. He was trying to smuggle god in as "supernatural explanation" without saying it, but while defining the supernatural (paraphrasing) as anything outside of our current understanding. So even Christians were like: wait, what?

[@wyrmofvt]

The claim that something is caused by the supernatural is a positive claim, and that requires positive evidence, not "You can't come up with any naturalistic explanation." We have well confirmed that the natural world exists; the supernatural world, much less so. Supernatural explanations aren't even admissible until they can be characterized and confirmed. Hell, I can even construct a scenario where Mr. Licona's decapitation is revered without appealing to natural explanation any more implausible than a supernatural explanation: Mr. Licona's body and head are teleported to an alien spaceship, and with their advanced technology they reattach the head, zap him back to life, and then record a new memory of him in heaven, then teleport him back. Presto. An explanation completely consistent with naturalism, yet replicates every salient fact of the event. Therefore, the supernatural is not the only rational conclusion. As to knowledge "only someone else could know?" How does one go about verifying that? How do you know that any fact is something only you and one other person could possibly know? And if that's so, what good does that do for other people? "Independent verification" and "privileged information" are antithetical.

[@Animuldok]

For Mr. Lacona: The easiest person to fool is oneself. Those beliefs you hold so firmly to are also the ones you should want to attempt to disprove with the most honest vigor. You have proven the first by not adhering to the second. You are comfortable with accepting an answer as an explanation, and that is unnerving.

[@brandonk3146]

Animuldok what does that mean?

[@Animuldok]

Which part? The first part is based on our inherent biases ability to interfere with how we process information. The middle part is the core principle of scientific methodology. The last part, expanded, is a good answer should have explanatory value.

[@andrewwells6323]

You clearly didn't watch the debate.

[@benwhitnell]

So dude’s first line of evidence is “ghosts are real, bro!” Seems legit.

[@JASA_87]

I'm an atheist but I had experience with the supernatural... but yet I don't connect the supernatural with "god"...

[@benwhitnell]

@@JASA_87 seems unlikely. You may have had an experience you perceived to be supernatural but as the possibility of the supernatural has yet to be demonstrated the odds are low that is what it really was.

[@JASA_87]

@@benwhitnell ok... well let me tell you what in my experience... so I was like 23 or so... I was working a in small wearhouse with some family members and that day we decided to work real late... like late late... from 7am to like 1am... so my cousin (still lived with his mom at the time) lived in the same lil town that this wearhouse was located so he told me that I could crash at his place so I won't be late to work the next day... so he gave me a ride to my aunt's house and she prepared a room for me... anyways when I went to bed tired af... I was woken up 2 hours later with the sound of children playing in the hallway and giggling... and I know that only my aunt and uncle was in the house... no kids... and I know they were both asleep too... I froze in fear cause the sound of gigging was kinds sinister... I forced myself to go to sleep and that morning on my way back to work I told my cousin if his house was haunted cause I heard some kids playing in the hallway and he said yes... he has heard them before... so I did not know my aunts house was haunted... so I was a non believer in ghost untill that night... I will never forget that fking sinister giggls the kids were making

[@benwhitnell]

@@JASA_87 boy I hope you have something better than this. You’re telling me that you worked hard all day, well into the night and to the point of exhaustion. Then you went to bed in a strange place that you don’t usually sleep, and woke up a very short period of time later likely interrupting a REM cycle and certainly not well rested. You’re trusting this brain state to be a reliable arbiter of reality? Say nothing of the rest of this story that you “know” that you couldn’t possibly know if you never got out of bed. It strikes me that the more likely explanation is that your brain never came fully out of a dream/ deep sleep State (if you woke up at all) and your now awake brain has tried to rationalize an atypical experience. Your cousin was either a.) making a similar misapprehension that a perfectly mundane phenomenon is being confused for children’s laughter or b.) jacking around with you because that’s what cousins do.

[@JASA_87]

@@benwhitnell maybe your right about my brain been exhausted because I was lol... but im wondering where the cycle come into play... never said that... that right there already tells me you don't care... and that's fine... all I'm going to say now is that if you haven't experienced the supernatural then good for you because I was like you that if you dont have evidence to show then it didn't happen period... so just know I'm an atheist that believes in the supernatural/ghost because of my personal experience

[@XRunner2628]

Is so funny that I watched this entire debate in Mike's channel without realizing it, and when I did I went to see the comments (presuming that they'd be defending his position since is his channel) they were disabled, what a surprice from such a dishonest individual not wanting to risk hearing the other side

[@blatherskite3009]

Regarding "group hallucinations" - the nearest I've ever come to what could be called a "supernatural experience" was when I was 18 or 19 and in a (not very good) band. The landlady of the pub that we were regular at allowed us to do band practice whenever we liked in an unused upper floor of the building. It was quite spooky up there, with no furniture, faded decor from another era, etc.; like something out of Pripyat: an abandoned place. But it was great for our purpose; we could plug our instruments in, make as much noise as we liked, leave the drum kit and everything set up, and just downstairs and through a "staff only" door and you were in a bustling pub, full of life. Anyway, one night one of us got "the fear" and said he thought the place felt haunted, like there was a presence there. I didn't _see_ anything, but I certainly _felt_ something - all of a sudden it was as if something unseen rushed at us, and the next thing we knew all four of us had taken to our heels, down the stairs, out of the pub, and were running like our lives depended on it. No, we weren't on drugs (we were respectful of being allowed to use the place) and had only had maybe one or two beers. Lightly tipsy at most; certainly not enough to cause any unusual effects. Thinking back on it, it was very odd the way that one person's comment that there was something there seemed to plant the idea in all of us, and the decision to get out of there was completely unspoken; no-one said "Let's get out of here" - we were all suddenly just running. I put it down to some kind of group hallucination. Some kind of fear impulse was communicated between the 4 of us, wordlessly, and the "decision" to run was automatic; instinctive. We humans are wired to react to what others in a group do. For example, if someone yawns, we tend to yawn too; if someone vomits, we tend to vomit too. It's survival instinct, to protect us from bad air and bad food, respectively. It's therefore not at all far-fetched to imagine that we're also wired to react in kind if one person in a group suddenly acts like there's something predatory there that needs to be run away from right now. So I definitely believe in "group hallucination" in the form of a shared feeling and understanding that passes through a group of humans and bypasses all conscious rational thought, going straight to the instinctive impulses. And I can well imagine that, discussing the shared experience after the event, you would try to rationalize what happened, conclude that something supernatural must have happened because you all felt it, and embellish the story from there - make it more impressive - as humans are wont to do.

[@w8m4n]

Nice, it's rare to see someone with a sceptical frame of mind when it comes to personal experience, especially when it involves several other people. Here's one for ya.. A few years ago I was standing at the bottom of my stairs, my son was on the third step up. I turned on the light with the switch at the bottom of the stairs. The light is at the top of the stairs along with another light switch controlling the same light. Just as I was about to go up, the light switched off, at the top of the stairs, I heard the switch click and everything. It shot me up a bit even though I don't believe in the supernatural. I immediately switched it back on with the bottom switch and it came on, I then proceeded to march straight upstairs to show my son there's nothing to be afraid of, even though I was a bit spooked going up. I don't know what happened to make the light switch off, but I can't help but think it's more likely a fault with the top switch, maybe i pressed it halfway the last time I used it ( I did check to see if it would balance after but I couldn't quite manage it), than a ghost that likes waiting on the stairs to prank people every now and then by somehow physically switching off a light.

[@LordSlag]

TL;DW: "The personal experiences of everyone who agrees with my superstitions are proof that my superstitions are true, but everyone else's personal experiences that falsify my superstitions should be regarded with fierce skepticism and subjected to intense scrutiny and a high bar of evidence! This doesn't make me an ignorant, tone deaf, willfully stupid, bigoted, prejudiced moron and stop treating me like one." - This dumbshit theist. "That's objectively bullshit and a 5 year old could see it."

[@LughSummerson]

17:45 Mike says that if reality has a supernatural dimension, that gives plausibility to the resurrection. Well, it also gives an equal amount of plausibility to every other legend, myth and fairy tale. Of course, he showed no such thing. If prayer were efficacious, you could easily set up an experiment to show exactly how many times it works versus how many times it doesn't. A few anecdotes about excitable teenagers, dreams that come true and monetary amounts - even if not false memories and exaggerated stories - have to be weighed against the total number of dreams, cheques etc. to test whether they are outside the expected statistical occurrences of ordinary coincidence.

[@LughSummerson]

1:01:42 200 or 300 stories out of 7,000,000,000 people is ordinary coincidence. Why doesn't everyone have these experiences if the world is magic?

[@LughSummerson]

1:26:56 So if Matt performed a slight of hand illusion and Mike couldn't explain how it was done, Mike is saying that he would be convinced that Matt was really magic. The error he is making is that he thinks the only options are a known natural cause or a supernatural cause. It should be obvious even to a logical illiterate like him that there can be natural things that an individual does not know about.

[@LughSummerson]

1:36:50 Jesus's appearance to Paul is not unlikely in the story. Paul wrote the story as a Christian with the intention of convincing other people that the resurrection legend was real. At the time Paul was writing the account, Jesus was not "the last person he wanted to see". On the contrary, it's the kind of thing that benefits him to lie about.

[@chronicler2313]

Lugh Summerson Prayer does work. God doesn't answer the prayers of the wicked nor would they moved to pray.

[@TearTheRoof0ff]

Lugh Summerson - Oh look, 'No True Scotsman' comes out to play again.

[@akaakaakaak5779]

Well done Matt for keeping composed, opponent and audience at times were infuriating.

[@anonymousjohnson976]

Yes, but they are in a Baptist church; explains a lot.

[@eternalreign2313]

_"Mike has a Ph.D. in New Testament (University of Pretoria). He completed all requirements “with distinction” and the highest marks."_ Why does that remind me of the movie Watchmen when Dr. Manhatten says, _"But you, Mike...are just a theist. And the world's smartest theist poses no more threat to me than does its smartest termite."_ lol? Wow Ph.D. in New Testament? I never thought I'd hear of anything more underwhelming than a Ph.D. in gender studies, but here we are. And he had the highest marks too? Was he the best in his class at memorizing bible verses? At-a-boy Mike.

[@DulceN]

He was the fastest at bible-thumping, lol!

[@Andre_XX]

"Matt would have been a star". He IS a star!

[@RoseLawliet]

Instead of a mass hallucination, has anyone ever thought about the story of the Emperor's new clothes? You're telling me that men in what was clearly turning into a cult wouldn't just play along and say they'd witnessed these things out of peer pressure? Sure, they were being persecuted, but it could be a combination of the mass delusion "Yeah, of course the emperor's clothes are magnificent. Of course I can see that. Can't you?" AND a legitimate desire for a supernatural protector/afterlife. Those two factors in combination could be incredibly powerful.

[@ColdCutz]

They even demonstrated in the Asch conformity experiments that people will feel compelled to go with the group, even if the group is asserting something that is clearly incorrect.

[@Cowboy-uw7jz]

Jim Jones? Faith Healers?

[@vinnytaranova6163]

Joseph Smith's followers and the golden plates........ "I saw them with my spiritual eyes."

[@anonymousjohnson976]

Yes, people have all kinds of supernatural stories they attribute to a god instead of looking for the actual facts of the experience.

[@aquataur]

The problem about supernatural - when we saw things disobeying Newton's model of reality as understood back then, what was the most rational thing to do? Raise your hands and say this is supernatural stuff or build a new model like Einstein did? Mike is supporting the former while Matt is supporting the latter. If someone's head is cut off and they come back from the dead, we would have to rebuild the model of reality as we understand it. Not simply say that's supernatural :/

[@sandeman1776]

Ssssshhhhh let a few of them try first.

[@anglomandingo68]

wow...I am speechless at the level of cognitive dissonance in that room. Well done Matt.

[@gatheist6716]

I am so proud of the way you handled that Matt! Excellent job on the debate

[@dantheaussieatheist9972]

I do like the format where you can actually almost go back and forth at the end. Allows for some form of conversation.

[@jayukryn9077]

At 2:13:14, "I would have bet you'd have been a star." Actually, Matt is getting kind of close to that.

[@aleka..]

yup!

[@tshirtjay]

Indeed. I would say is up for the spot as one of the four horsemen.

[@2tonetony319]

Getting close? Maybe two years ago when this comment was posted. Today, he’s a friggin rock star!

[@LeneChibi]

"Ok I'll listen to what Licona has to say." (10 minutes later) "ok I can't do this."

[@Guitcad1]

Thank science and KZbin for the 2x playback speed option!

[@gdobie1west988]

Matt did a excellent job dismantling this guy's argument. Keep up the good work Matt. :)

[@one1charlie643]

Hey Mike, the plural of anecdote is NOT data, FFS

[@MrDtjezus]

Awesome debate. Great job Matt!!

[@catseye10000]

dose anyone else just skip to when mat speaks?

[@Greenbd100]

catseye10000 no. Why would you do that??!?

[@tugboat2030]

I skip to the cross examination

[@ericmoore1493]

I went to Matt after I heard about flying trash cans...😂😂😂

[@agnosticmonkey7308]

That's horrible!

[@HappyHippieGaymer]

Catalina Gearbox I did listen to the entire thing first, but when I come back to it now, I do skip.

[@MrBOASTMAN32]

lmfao! class B answered prayers? dear god lol

[@lucitti8065]

MrBOASTMAN32 Don't forget EXTREME ANSWERED PRAYER it's extreeeeeme

[@Ometecuhtli]

Pff peasants, I pray 4K

[@davidbutler1857]

Yeah, I couldn't believe he even tried that.

[@hamster4618]

Very much "Tim Minchin" and his "Thank you God". Listen all the way through.

[@BlackEpyon]

Hmmm.. -Magicarp- Polycarp was born 2 years after Paul was executed... Not sure how reliable a witness you consider him to be.

[@raycasias8144]

This must have been a wicked "try not to laugh" challenge for Matt! I fucken lost it pretty quick in the opening, and my sides were hurting by the time it was done!

[@NEMOfishZ92]

Watch it again and never take your eyes off Matt there are a few moments where he dose laugh or at least that's how it seemed

[@tomwolfe6063]

“UFOs do things that violate the laws of nature” Now, let me tell you about a guy that walked on water and came back from the dead.

[@kerrycollier5297]

How the hell did Matt not just start laughing hysterically during the first part...

[@Mansandanfan4335]

Kerry Collier He was probably dumbfounded, that Mike uses a floating trash can lid as proof for the supernatural.

[@Juxtavarious]

So anecdotal evidence and selection bias. That's his support? I try to come in with an open mind then someone like this tried to shove crap in front of me.

[@TBContent24]

Matt, that jacket you're wearing is so sick

[@Baldnesz]

Perverted just like his boots I'd say !

[@inscienceitrust1]

Calling Lacona a doctor is an insult to doctors.

[@dingo4229]

I love this dude taking notes the entire time like this is even an intellectual debate at all. He started his evidence out with a trashcan 😂

[@adamsmith9184]

Started there and never left

[@Ffggjjffhhffgjjccfcfffhbvg]

Hey man. Some dude told him that. Are you denying the credibility of “some dude”?

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

Matt is so obnoxiously arrogant at times. I don't know how you don't see it.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Don't have 2:29:20? TLDR: Nope; he didn't.

[@Kzoowallace]

TDLR: Holey book says paul is true bro of truth, therefore Zombie Jesus is true.

[@putzthewondersloth]

Let's put Mike Licona's beheading argument into a slightly different context. Let's say a heart surgeon went back in time a few hundred years and cut out a person's heart in the middle of an auditorium. All the people left the auditorium, confirming that they had witnessed the person die. Then a few hours later the man came back out and was still alive, would that then prove the supernatural?

[@amandagirlygirl12]

Nope. It would prove that the heart is not THE essential factor in survival over a timespan of minutes. But the weak part, or rather the fatal flaw in BOTH your examples is that you NEED the supernatural to prove ..... the SUPERNATURAL. So its a circular reasoning.

[@sandeman1776]

Good luck getting the medical equipment necessary for that procedure to go back in time with you. Unless he has a pocket dimension in his butthole you didn't bother to mention.

[@Gumpmachine1]

sandeman1776 he’s talking about time travel and your getting hung up on whether he could get the equipment back. You’ve missed the point or next level trolling

[@sandeman1776]

@@Gumpmachine1 my bridge 😁

[@Gumpmachine1]

sandeman1776 well played To be fair I’ve heard the religious say some pretty ridiculous things so sometimes it’s hard to distinguish the difference between trolling and genuine stupidity especially in this format

[@MrDwicker]

It is impossible to reason with a theist that has no reasoning power what so ever.

[@montaguesummers]

Dennis Wicker I agree, but if you're going to be condescending, make sure to not type "whatsoever" as three words... it undercuts your credibility.

[@yumeriagirl1231]

Licona... Shamelessly dishonest. Matt takes it home, again👌

[@kingsleyzissou1120]

Anyone who ever watched an episode of Scooby Doo realizes that Licona's second hand stories about levitating metal trash can lids could have explanations other than the supernatural. The footsteps you hear in your attic in the middle of the night could just as easily be a raccoon scurrying across your rooftop as they could be the ghost of your long dead relative. Will people tell you tall tales in order to back up their own belief in the supernatural? In my experience, yes, they definitely will.

[@blackswan8653]

I'm still not finished with the video. In reference to Mr. Licona's head chopping question: Here's what we know. If you were to have your head chopped off, it would be over. Hypothetical situations that don't happen don't happen for a reason. It would be unreasonable to think that you would come back to be able to tell a story. Why go down that rabbit hole?

[@AkosSam]

Right from the beginning "Empirical data strongly suggests, that reality has a supernatural dimension" *Quadruple facepalm* Boy that's gonna be a rough 2 and a half hours...

[@cnault3244]

"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" Even if he did, is it significant? According to the Bible, Jesus was the 7th person do be raised from the dead, and there were 2 people named that were raised from dead after Jesus, as well as an unspecified number of godly people in Jerusalem. Apparently being raised from the dead was no big deal.

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

Elijah and Elisha both raised people from the dead in the old testament; though I'm guessing those are counted in your 7 accounts already.

[@ultravirtual5749]

Thank you for existing Matt!

[@jameswright...]

Every day I expect a call from my mum hoping to get dinner. I'm late 40s but still love my mums cooking. Once she actual rang when I thought about it. Obviously this proves god because it's clearly a miracle. Especially as it was the Lords day and I got a roast with all the trimmings. Truly divine! Especially the dessert. When she doesn't ring that's the devil keeping me in torment just keeping me waiting suffering in hunger.

[@tammyorton6356]

Get behind me deaf fool Can't you see? Nothing stands between mum and me! It's HER blood that courses through my veins. The "thoughts" You give me, shall Never reign! You're earth bound forever. Your place is here. Not standing in front of my mum so dear! By the Grace thats given me from the Lord above, no deaf fool, no evil can conquer LOVE! 💖 --------- * I Love your your story! you should be a writer. I had to chime in, your words got me on a roll. I'm hoping that's alright with you. 😃

[@jameswright...]

@@tammyorton6356 Just why? It's clear to all I'm no writer, my spelling and grammar are terrible due dyslexia and autism. Your all over this place writing nonsense about myths and fables with added lies fictional characters. You know full well my poorly written words where a diss to your make believe book of fables and everything in it based around it and the harm it does to people like you. People who can't see reason and fact for being brainwashed and just have to go for sarcasm disingenuous apologies or statements etc. If you wanna chime in on my word's please do not add the immoral Abrahamic man made god to them as fact.

[@AzimuthTao]

Kind of telling that Licona doesn't allow comments on his KZbin channel.

[@jesperburns]

Yeah he isn't really debating Matt, he's just preaching to the choir.

[@DBCisco]

I find it amazing that we have to debate whether zombies are real.

[@ericscaillet2232]

In all fairness zombies hardly taught anything relevant ,besides zombies are by our perception and creation the living dead.

[@BigZebraCom]

This just in....Trash can lid proves existence of god.

[@EvilToaster77]

Yes, that silly anecdote about a trash can lid is indeed rubbish.

[@MrSwartc]

Steve Bowden I agree that story need to be put under the lid and into what's known as the garbage

[@alexanderweddle3948]

Great job in the first round, Matt. Very calm, very articulate, and very reasonable.

[@carlossantacruz3326]

I think it's curious that this exact video under licona's channel has its comments disabled and yet Matt's is not. Good on you Matt