Відео

I love the way the cicadas are singing so loudly throughout. Beautiful

ua-cam.com/users/shortsi5ZwbS_il0Q?si=ynF1hIzQMQicCrDl

so matt says god didnt cure his child because he chose not to. and he still believes morality comes from god? the atheist wins hands down.

“God did it” is not an explanatory view.

Now 11 years later and Dr Carrier says Jesus in all likelihood never actually existed. I think he is right. The case he makes is very compelling and seems to fit the actual facts.

a question that can never be given a proper answer. not until you can figure out what is this god everybody keeps talking on n on about but knowing nothing about !! so what is god ??

Perhaps morality comes from pre-capitalist formations, but many would disagree with the grammar of that.

Given the logical problem of evil, which posits that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly benevolent God would logically prevent unnecessary suffering, how can one reconcile the existence of such a God with the detailed and documented instances of gratuitous and intense suffering experienced by innocent beings throughout history and across the natural world, especially when considering events such as the Holocaust, natural disasters like tsunamis that indiscriminately kill thousands, and the inherent suffering seen in predation and disease within the animal kingdom

Isn’t it convenient that anything supernatural, by definition cannot be tested, proven or disproven? Deities don’t exist.

Dan Banker was a non-converted Christian. He had doubts and conflicts with his faith and he is still confused with no answers and proof of the nonexistence of creationism.

Answer "We don't know!" Both Atheists & Theists are Agnostics in denial, but at least thè latter accept that theirs is a faith based position! Atheism doesn't negate God, just a Theistic God, it allows for the possibility of a Deistic God. There's also the confusion caused by the two main catagories of Atheism, that of "Stong or Gnostic" Atheism as against "Weak or Agnostic" Atheism, the former who believe God doesn't exist & the latter who simply don't believe in a God, but don't necessarily deny his existence. (Which I think should just be called Agnosticism). Matt Slick's laws of logic are those of Aristotle's formal logic, there are a number of non-formal logics that can include paradoxes such as quantum logic.

This question does not mean anything. There are thousands of gods. The question should be: Do they all exist? Do some of them exist? Are they all created by our imagination?

Matt isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is. He seems so self-satisfied even when his arguments are lame. Dan wins.

I think I’m a Christian, I don’t know, but I have yet to see someone beat Dan Barker in an argument.

Atheists are just as bad as religions when it comes to morals. Think of how religions and atheists both teach robbery is wrong, yet both support robbery. Christian’s and atheists both support robbery. Printing money is inflationary or stealing purchasing power from others. It’s why those that can borrow the most wins in this monetary system.

You would think the God he's defending would bless his voice so as to defend him strongly lol smh this realy has just gone too far

Even after years of regurgitation, Matt has to read his whole speech.

Dan cooooooked him

The Christian is just seething. LOL

Ya can tell mr slick has practiced this in front of mirror dozen times. Ohhhh i gota website" Big deal... Its all bs. So they say ohhhh all these kids god dont kill.. Ok if gods real.. n itsl all planed. What. Ohhh all these 5 yr olds. Ooops.. my bad. They were supposed to not live. Now they die. If god creates all these kids. Then why kill em. And iant dna in apes like reality. Arent we cousins. Yah it shows. I dont need see dna. To see humans as savage monkys We fight. We fuck. We lie. We steal. Looking like a bunch of monkies

Matt has the very appropriate name for a Christian apologist 🙂

Matt is another spokesperson of an imaginary entity. Why do I suspect it's imaginary? Because it needs spokespersons, can't speak for itself and clear things. .

Dan Barker is full of crap!! I gave him the benefit of the doubt by watching a few of his videos and this debate convinced of that! I expected his atheist arguments to be at least somewhat convincing!

For theologians to teach devotees that prayers will be “answered” … leads to great disappointments. And why would the devotees in the following story not WANT the soul of the child to go to heaven … if they believe that heaven is a desired place TO go? From the book … Does This Mean You'll See Me Naked?: Field Notes from a Funeral Director ... author Robert Webster Never have I seen the holidays more prominent than in the case of a minister's seven-year-old daughter. She was afflicted with erythroblastosis and finally succumbed, outliving her doctor's predictions by three years. She died in late November. This charismatic minister and several of his flock waited for me to arrive at the hospital to take his child to the funeral home. I placed her little body in the vehicle, and the entire group returned to their cars to follow me. The pastor-led mourners even accompanied me into the preparation room and assisted me in placing the girl on the table. My waiting employer and I soon learned that the assembled congregation planned to keep vigil while we embalmed the body. As soon as the doors closed, they began chanting, wailing, and saying desperate heart-felt prayers--and they continued for hours. I wept as I worked, hearing this heartbroken clergy, his wife, and his friends pleading with God to please bring their little girl back to life. Of course, it was not to be, and even I felt a little cheated on their behalf that God did not answer prayers so genuinely offered.

From the book … SPOOK … Science Tackles the Afterlife … author … Mary Roach. On December 26, 1993, the Hubble Telescope made visual contact with Heaven and took hundreds of pictures and sent these pictures of Heaven to Goddard Space Center in Maryland…. In the pictures of Heaven, you can see bright light and what looks like the Holy City…. Heaven is located at the end of the Universe. This dispatch comes to us courtesy of the Internet Religious News service. One fine day I called Goddard Space Flight Center to see what they had to say about this. “Well,” said a good-natured NASA spokesperson named Ed Campion, “it is true that Hubble focuses on faint lights at the most distant parts of the universe.” That’s why NASA sent a telescope way out into space-to get closer to the oldest, most distant parts of the universe, the stuff that dates to the Big Bang. But Campion hadn’t heard about the heaven photos. Or the secret NASA space probe that recorded millions of voices singing “Glory, Glory, Glory to the Lord on high” over and over-as reported, here again, by our imaginative friends at the Internet Religious New service. Or the NASA photos of the “Two Giant Human-Looking Eyes in deep space that are billions of light years around the billions of light years apart looking at earth.” "That last one,” said Campion, “kind of gives me the willies.”

Go Matt Go! keep going my man! You are awesome!

God: “I’m trying to save you.” Me: “From what?” God: “from me!”

Matt Slick was a fake intellectual 9 years ago and he remains one today

Keep off the zoom button.

This theist simply ignored the whimsicality of Judeo-Christian God in the Old Testament, like his commandment to Israelites to kill women and children in Canaan after they left Egypt under Aaron's rule.

Cardinal Pell, admitted that adam and eve is a myth to Richard Dawkins check it out for your self.

Dan is the new man, christopher Hutchins would love this guy

His plane was running late, he can't speak, Well he must not have enough faith in his god.

I also pose the same challenge to some Christians who were convincing me back to their fold which is "get your act together with other Christian congregations, then circle back to me". Their usual rebuttal is "that's impossible because there's free will".

If a theist claims the scientific method can’t work on their god because it “transcends the natural world”, then that claim also requires a burden of proof and is just a copout excuse to justify the lack of evidence. What kind of self evident god can’t provide evidence for itself?

team #DanBarker

Right let’s be a bit more clear. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China were SECULAR states as they disregarded religion. They became religious in nature, because the humans following their governments were and are naturally religious beings with the inclination towards religious way of life. Do not LIE about the reality of these oppressive states or you risk it happening again. They happened because of the absence of belief in a higher power and so believed they could do whatever they wanted.

Matt is numb,no reality contacts what so ever. when you cannot give empirical evidence , no god.

Dan Barker is a better debater but logic forgiveness and the laws of nature don’t just exist in the mind

Unwatchable

Of course. Just look around me, how big the evil mess is wright now and read revelation. It’s spot on

@1:04:00 Matt wants to pose the fune tuning argument with, which can also be "big numbers therefore god". Yet no theist can show that the laws of nature COULD be different, perhaps this is the only setting that the universe can have. This is perhaps the worst argument after "Look at the trees"

What if i define my Christianity as just the absense of belief that any non-Christian worldview is true. Do I have no burden to defend anything now, too? So both sides have no burden of proof? Of course not. That would just be me committing the same linguistic fallacy lacktheists use. Obviously, both sides have an equal burden to justify why their particular worldview is true and their interlocutor's worldview is false. No one can evade this burden in paradigm-level debates like this. It is impossible. Because all worldviews include an entire system of positive claims.

25:49 Barker: "Matt and I both agree that there's a natural world." This is false. Matt does not agree that the Naturalism worldview is true, and, in fact, Matt understands that worldviews are mutually exclusive. As a Presup, he regularly demonstrates why the Naturalism worldview is internally contradictory and therefore false by necessity. This is a very common misunderstanding among atheists in which they think there's agreement - about anything. There is not, about literally any proposition, when fully and properly understood. There appears to be superficial agreement. For example, they'd both agree the statement "we are debating" is true. But they believe that proposition is true within completely different worldviews or models of reality. So, ultimately, they're not in agreement about anything. Nor could they possibly be, as long as they're operating through different worldviews.

Eather= Earth. "Science" is what liars agree upon to push an agenda to sell to the ignorant public. Moon landing was faked, Earth is flat. The universal truth is being exposed. Both men are "somewhat" right, and the contrary.

Seeing people like Matt Slick sometimes convinces me that some people really need to be saved... from their ignorance at the very least.

Barker says you can apply contingency to every part of the universe but not to the universe as a whole. Does that sound logical? Does necessity emerge from contingency? If the universe is a group of contingent things, then how does it escape being a contingent thing?

Dan should have mentioned survival of the group as well, about the grenade incident. Vet speaking here 😊.

Lol they say should we lay hands on your for prayer

Listening to Matt makes my ears bleed. His whispering remarks to what Dan is saying is so childish.