If you were to actually listen and respect the words coming out of cliffes mouth, you would realize that he actually is having an intellectual discussion. Yes he's preaching, but he's not preaching blind faith. In the beginning he shows how us as human beings are evidence for a creator. It is intellectualy dishonest of you to think he's just preaching. For example, morality. Matt as an atheist will create his own morality. But if you follow the atheistic thinking, then everyone can decide what is morality. If I think that one thing is evil, but you think that it is not, then there is no morality, it just is. And if an atheist follows their faith to the end, then they must sit back and do nothing when something happens, whether good or evil. That event just "is", in the eyes and mind of someone who does not believe in God. With God their is objective good and objective evil and if you will be honest with yourself and realize that yes, there are things in this life that are absolutely wrong, and absolutely right, then you can come also realize that there must be something deciding that morality. God
Very good debate format : Short first statement and then straight to q&a from the public and both answers can be compared right on the spot. All these debates should adopt a similar format.
My favorite part is when they have the giving standoff. Love that these guys were able to speak freely and have a moment of jest, despite being completely opposed ideologically and spiritually.
@dogelife7901 I really like when debaters who are normally angry at each other start experiencing technical difficulties and complaints about there connection
I used to be agnostic, until one day I started to think what’s the meaning of it all? Work, make money, having a family, kids, death, for what? A limited time. Then I became so scared of life after death and for the first time ever I prayed to God that if he was real he would send someone to guide me towards him because doing it alone was too hard. Months later, I met someone in college from Chi Alpha, and they introduced me to the Bible. I Did my research, read and investigated the chronological timeline, authors, time, and the word of God. As I read through the book of John, my heart was being transformed in a way that I can’t explain.... I was filled with the Holy Spirit and repented of my sins and even though I don’t understand everything; I accept it because Christ died for me. He set me free of my sins, and transformed my heart. Thank you God for changing my stubborn, and prideful self. I pray for you, that you will seek the truth and find out that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life✨💖 Take your time, God is so patient and loving.
So . . . you became so scared of death, and if there is life after death, that you decided it is better to play it safe and save yourself instead of finding truth itself: wherever, that might lead you.?
As an ex-atheist, what I did was read the gospels and left out whether it all happened or not, and simply came to the conclusion that if Jesus were real, I would want to know Him. Well that is exactly what God did.
Personal testimonies of having transcendent and personal experiences with god(s) aren't unique to Christianity. If you want to make the case that *_your_* particular experience is true, then you should provide the actual evidence for the existence of your deity. That would then make your comment unique from every other religious convictions, and it'll no longer be based on a non sequitur and actually have some explanatory value.
@@onionbelly_ The problem is, science is limited to material, so what you are asking is not possible at this time anyway. I do remember at age 10 or 11 I considered how one could see and process things material without contact, and wondered what Genius put this all together? There had to be a Creator Genius unexplainable and unseen. However, evolution taught as fact in honors history class took that away from me at age 15. You choose to believe me or anyone else or not, but, I do understand. You have to have your own encounter experience. I'm here to simply say you or anyone else who wanted to can.
@@onionbelly_ there’s evidence of the flood. There’s evidence of the parting of the Red Sea. There’s evidence of the crucifixion. Evidence of Mt Sinai. Evidence of the plagues. Evidence of Babylon. Etc etc
Had the same experience except I wanted to know the historical evidence as well. For me it was reading through Gospels again and asking God for clarity on Jesus. Isn't God great?
I am an ex-Muslim. It was very hard to leave Islam. Many years of struggle to leave the faith I was born into. However, now I know it is Jesus the Christ who chose me. I am happy for those days of pain. I like to watch debates on God's existence but never debate with anyone. It is useless according to me. Someone who is looking for God will only find Him. And also, if Jesus does not select someone he can't have faith. Many people who only debate about God's existence are not seeking truth. But I like honesty of some Atheists. Matt is one of them. At least he is far far better than a hypocrite who calls himself Christian for convenience but has not denied himself yet and not carrying his cross and following Christ. Cliffe has patience like a tortoise. I love him. May "Abba" bless him and his family. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Christ and He is the King.
Children can't understand the concept of a god until they're at least 3 or 4. And yet, they are born with the capacity to love. Animals never know anything about god, and yet they love.
You can brainwash anyone to do anything. A baby born in a loving family will understand love. A child growing up in a violent family will be a violent child. Abuse happens behind closed doors. Same with dogs and cats. Freedom of will makes us do good or evil acts. God is with you. I hope you can pray and find God.
It is not the fact that love proves god. But Love proves that you do have a free will, and since Free Will is something immaterial, it must’ve been created by something immaterial. Hope this helped 😊 (btw we are talking about the Love that Cliffe is talking about not the Bio-Chemical reaction)
@@flowerboyjess8160 I agree. I'm an atheist and neither myself nor any atheist I have ever met or corresponded with thinks this. However, many Christians have no problem with the concept, since according to them, God 'spoke everything into existence' from absolutely nothing.
@@darkeen42 According to you. Bravo. Now tell me who Jesus was, and where we can learn about the historical Jesus, because I would Love to ascertain your claims about Jesus without manuscripts to back them up. Please, go on and explain who Jesus was, and where we can find this well preserved historical account of the Jesus of Nazareth that you are submitting, without sourcing the Gospel records that you reject. Please enlighten us all with your historical evidence of Jesus; without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD.
@@darkeen42 But the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD is rejected by you as accurate history, so please do not source this manuscript according to your world-view that rejects it as True. Instead I am asking you to provide evidence for your bold submission regarding who Jesus was, and provide your historical evidence of who Jesus was without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands P52. I'm ascertaining your historical claim that you made on Jesus, and I am requesting your historical evidence for Jesus without sourcing the first and second century NT manuscripts.
@@darkeen42 Muhammad was indeed a historical space-time person who really lived and really died and we have historical evidence to verify Muhammad and who Muhammad was. But now we are talking about Jesus and who Jesus was, and I promise I am not throwing you curve-ball here; in that I am merely requesting your historical evidence of the Jesus you have submitted without sourcing any of the NT manuscripts as your historical evidence, like Rylands Library Papyrus P52.
I found Cliffe to be disingenuous, consistently misrepresenting both the bible and Matt's position. I was hoping for some deep arguments from the Christian perspective, but instead Cliffe flowed anecdotes and built straw men enough to fill all the fields of England.
"deep arguments from the Christian perspective" Those do not exist. Religious people don't have a good proof of their god, that's pricesely why they rely on faith. Those religious public talkers are always dishonest like this one or for the few that are not they have a major flaw in their logic that they can't see because of their indoctrination into religion.
@@joshlete Wow are you really going to keep insulting me like this, it's really not nice and not deserved. What the fuck is wrong with you? Let's start with the first thing that CK said after his introduction with a useless example: "Love shows us that there is more to reality than matter and energy. And the only way there could be more to reality is if there is some kind of god... blablabla" Do you realise the amount of bullshit in this opening he chose? You get two sentences from this apologist, but they are simply two dumb assertions without any proof. As to why he gives us no proof for what he says here? Looks to me like he doesn't have any proof and try to find justifications. If he had a proof of that, he would have given it. He starts from the conclusion and then looks for unrelated things like "love" that could be vaguely interpreted to justify his conclusion. He doesn't build up arguments to reach a conclusion, he already has it. So yes, I do say those words he said here are dumb bullshit, I suppose you won't agree, so please give me your enlightened opinion on how this is a rational way of thinking what he said there. Do I really need to go further in this debate? Also, are you really calling me "stuck in a rut" because I have a higher quality level of requirements than you? I won't accept the existence of any god until there is a rational proof that a god exist. Faith is just wishful thinking, I need some valid evidence before reaching a conclusion and anyone who doesn't follow this method of thinking either doesn't care about the truth of what they believe in, or they are too dumb to understand why they are believing in things that they don't have a good reason to believe in.
@@joshlete Yes I admit that was not a true logical or, so I'll rephrase what I meant to avoid the fallacy. But I disagree on the rest of your paragraph. If you care about the truth of what you believe in, you cannot believe in something without an satisfying evidence. I am calling dumb the people who don't care about the truth of what they believe in. Don't you agree that it is justified? I am also calling out those who have a very low standard of evidence. Because indeed it is true that people have different standards for what a satisfying evidence is. However for something as important as an all powerful invisible magical deity existing, I am convinced that people should require evidence of the highest quality before being convinced. Nothing supernatural has ever been observed. So to make an extraordinary claim like your christian god, I need pretty much extraordinary proof to know. And yet, the proofs we get are barely passable at best. I have heard so many times christians/muslims/jews say that they believe their god is real because it is written in their holy book... Most religious people have a bad understanding of why they believe in god. Don't say that I do not understand them. I simply do not agree at all with their reasoning, or rather sometimes lack of it... What's wrong with calling people dumb because of what they believe in? Beliefs can be dangerous, we should not be scared of challenging people on their beliefs, whether religious or not. If you told me you believe the Earth is flat or that you believe in a young 6000 years old Earth I'd call you stupid.... Wouldn't I be justified? Yes, as much as possible I use evidence to guide myself to truth or to take an action. I'll always look left and right before crossing a road, etc. That's enough evidence to know if it is safe. I'm saying that for a claim as crazy as religion, you need even better evidence that normal. I'm not seing any evidence. And miracles... come on please you should know they are not real. The ones documented are severely lacking in evidence and swimming in a sea of fabricated false miracles. And even if they were real, why would they point to the christian god? Muslims for exemple also believe in miracles... Also... why would your god bother to heal a single person? Was it because he was bored after killing 15 thousands innocent babies that day? If your god is real he'd be the worst mass killer in the world. And maybe even in fiction... pick whatever dark lord from a book you want and I'm pretty sure your god supposedly killed more people than him according to the bible... "do you think they are dumb to assume that there was a God involved? Or perhaps it's much wiser to believe that we all came into existence from... nothing" Facepalm... The classic we come from nothing bullshit. I'll remind you that the bible say even more stupid things about your creation idea: the universe was created in 7 days, and he created plants before creating light ahah Ah also the first man was created from clay... lol By the way here that's the same fallacy you accused me of. A nice false logical dichotomy. There are other possibilities that a god creating the universe or nothing. Adding god to the mystery of the universe would only raise more questions. You don't have any proof that a deity was there to create the universe, adding it just adds a supernatural complexity needlessly. I don't know if there was a god, but what you said is clearly not a good argument for it. "concluding that God doesn't exist sounds far more foolish than the alternative" When did I say that your god doesn't exist? You just proved that you didn't understand my main point. We don't have any satisfying evidence for the christian god, we don't have it either for any other god. That's why I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god. That does not mean I think there is no god. That means I don't know if there is a god, but I do not believe in any god because the evidence I have found is severely lacking so I simply refuse to accept the theistic claim. You can't prove that there is no god at all. Can you prove that ghosts don't exist ? That's the problem with the supernatural, particularly when it's invisible and does not interact with us... You can't disprove those things, and yet we are no closer to being justified in believing they exist. The burden of proof is on theists. That's why I am waiting for evidence, and that's why I am pissed of at apologists who appeal to emotions and only do preaching instead of debating and giving arguments and evidences. Same reason I do not respect much religious people who can't justify why they believe in their god. By the way.... Do you believe that Allah is real and that the Koran was of divine inspiration too? How about Krishna, are The Vedas the word of god too? There has been so many religions, the arguments people make to justify are the same that the arguments people of another religion make to justify their god. Those people generally can point out the flaws in that other person reasoning, but they can't find it on themself even though the arguments are often pretty much the same.
A fascinating debate! I think that God is a concept to help us humans live within certain boundaries and avoid becoming monsters. Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Mohammad were all great human beings and wanted to give our lives a certain direction according to their ideas and concepts prevalent in their times. Unfortunately in the name of God humanity has done a lot of wrong things - just to prove my God is better than yours. The situation has become alarming today. Muslims and Christians are out o destroy the world - each religious community assuming that they have been wrongly hurt by the other. Based on just this fact and that science has provided many solutions for the benefit of human-kind, I tend to agree with Matt. Let's keep our God love or Christ love private. Let's be secular. Let our laws be secular. Let's love each other not because we are Muslims or Christians or Hindus but because love makes a lot of sense - economically or otherwise.
***** the only people that believe we came from nothing are people like you. There are not 2500 prophecies that is simply a lie, and it is also a lie that anything like that has come true, a prophecy is something that can be interpreted at the time, not something you need to look back on later to confirm. Furthermore you argument that people were not there to observe something clearly applies to your belief in the bible. Homosexuals were created by your so called god, it is a natural thing, it is evident in animals, if you disagree please let me know the moment you chose to be a heterosexual. Abortion has no relevance to evolution, before I thought you were stupid but that statement proves you are either a troll or under the age of 12. There are many good people in the world that do not need god for anything, your blanket, wild and false assertions are not backed by evidence at all. The bible is easily proven to be false because of the huge falsehoods in it. We know evolution is true so that shows the bible got the origin of man wrong, we know the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old so that shows the timeline is wrong in the bible, we know there has been no global flood for at least 40 000 years which proves the flood story wrong, we know the ark story is ludicrous anyway and we know how the earth was formed. All these things the bible got wrong and quite frankly if it was inspired by god you'd think he would get them right. Educate yourself from unbiased non creationist sources or stay our of adult conversations
@@blueice8683 doest work like that. He isn't making that claim. He's saying there's not sufficient evidence to show there is a God. An example is me telling you to prove to me big foot or the tooth fairy don't exist. Hard to prove a negative. One believes there isn't big foot until one shows evidence. Cliff states there is with no evidence.
@@ifibelieve8193 are you saying to prove the bible you should read the bible ? Lol that's like saying read the Quran and you'll see the proof of Islam. I don't think you apply that logic to any religion but your own. So you have to think harder than that. I've read the bible many times :) I bet you haven't read it through once. Itsays some crazy stuff lol
Cliff seems to be intelligent that is why it is a waste of intelligence and a life to use that brainpower to fight the point of a so clearly fictional book
yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loves us, for i am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord AMEN. I LOVE YOU JESUS
Matt opened with an elegant and respectful definition of terms and a great explanation of his position. Cliffe opened with an emotional appeal and rhetorical tricks without making a single valid point. Sadly the debate flow continued this way for the duration of the recording. While Cliffe entirely failed as a debater he may have a future as a politician or actor.
You’ve missed the point entirely, respect to Matt but I found his opening hollow and leaving much to desire. Cliffe hit on the main point of the topic which is philosophy.
Hi Marco, so what are the alternative ,? This guy gives rational explanation for how we experience reality. how do you live your life and what is the evidence that what you believe and stand for is truth?
I love debates like this because they provide great food for thought and really challenge peoples' beliefs. I do agree with many of the comments that say CK's positions and rebuttals sound much more like sermons based on his faith, than cogent arguments based on sound logic. Of course, considering that he is a minister who's given sermons weekly for years, it makes does sense that he'd do that in this debate. What it doesn't do, however, is make a strong case for the argument ... especially when facing someone like Matt.
Like Matt? He is hardly a threat to the faith. He is considered a bit of a joke. People debate him because in planting seeds you might get a few converts. At the end of the day, I could care less…I’m not going to lose sleep over atheists who believe they have serious evidence for their beliefs. They don’t, that’s why there is a book the Devils Delusion. Look it up.
@@michaelbrickley2443 you realise that just by implying that atheists need to provide evidence for their beliefs, you admit to not even understand what atheism is. Let alone its arguments.
@@catposter2361 I understand that atheism is for people afraid of the light. You think this is some deep philosophical belief system? Explain to me why approx. 50% of scientists are followers of Yeshua and why there are more agnostics than atheists of the remaining. You should do more research into your alleged reasonable arguments. First, Christianity is not a philosophy of religion, it is the belief in an historical incident. Please don’t bring up the claims of dick carrier. No serious ancient historian agrees with him. Oh, maybe one or two. Smh
@@michaelbrickley2443 afraid of light 😂😂😂. If we were afraid we’d be christans. Any god who damns people for eternity based on the location of their birth is not one I want any part of. If you were born in the Middle East you probably wouldn’t be Christian. What makes Christianity right and not all the other story book myths. How did someone rise from the dead? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth if their offspring would have been related, and had retarded babies. How did Noah build an ark, find 2 of every animal on planet earth of opposite sex, and fit them on a boat. Then over 6,000 years all the evolution happened that made ALL our modern animals. How did millions of spices go extinct . There is no evidence of any of these events, except that they’re found in a book
@@michaelbrickley2443 and don’t claim they’re figurative because that’s BS. Anytime they can’t prove their way and get proved wrong they simply get rid of it. They pick and choose what to take literally and what to not based on what we discover. Science doesn’t care about religion
In regards to the design argument of the world. Do we not engage surveyors, architects, engineers, builders, etc when we are in the process of constructing dwellings? Based on this I believe it is a fair enough approach to have the opinion that it is logical for a creator to exist rather than just chance.
I'm glad that Matt doesn't fall into the "win or lose" mindset when it comes to these debates. As he said, it's about both sides making a case for their ideas and beliefs, not who wins or loses. I've seen too many debates where people stoop to using tactics like sarcastic remarks that have no purpose but to ridicule the other, and it solves nothing and does nothing to further the cause of the person doing it.
Did Cliffe even present a SINGLE piece of evidence? That part about afterlife being true because YOU WANT to be with your loved ones after death was worthy of a stand up comedy act. This wasn't a debate. Matt presents arguments, Cliffe hardy does anything other that preach and assume.
Yeah his evidence is love because only god can love and without god love isn't love and then your love isn't worth it so bang another lady when yours dies of cancer. FML worst debate I've watched yet.
Akhamesh The sad (apparent) truth is that for many believers, the kinds of things Cliffe says in this discussion about wanting, believing, feeling etc. counts as "evidence" for them - this is how the trick of self-deception is done. The whole exercise of religious or superstitious belief involves this move of letting faith stand in as a kind of evidence. The key is to figure out how to convince yourself of something when you don't actually have good reasons to believe it's true, and then figuring out how to make it seem like you had good reasons in the first place (apologetics in a nutshell). Religious belief then (to distinguish the psychological aspects from the traditional practices and rituals) is just art of apologizing for and obscuring the core non-sequitur of wishful thinking that forms the epistemological foundation for the rest of the belief system. I think Sam Harris is really the only person I've heard speak about this fundamental philosophical point as clearly or perhaps in someways better than Dillahunty does, but they both make it very clear and unpack it very well (each to their own). For believers, faith can stand in as a sufficient reason to believe, and so it becomes the line upon which so many of their beliefs are strung. You can see this in the whole "evidence of things unseen" bit, and I think it's also closely connected to the psychology behind the idea of faith being a virtue (building on a conflation with the idea of basic trust - which I suppose is a kind of virtue once it is actually earned and justified of course). Having said this, psychoanalytic moves of the sort I just made border on being non-falsifiably vague also... As a result, I'm going to go out on a limb here and "trust" you to take what I've said here with precisely the right amount of salt. I certainly wouldn't want to ask you to just take my word for it, which is really what we skeptics and non-believers are on about in the first place. "We ought to act in such a way so that whatever IS true can be verified to be so." This is a pretty useful quote from Bronowski IMHO, perhaps a few caveats to qualify the inherent uncertainty of the scientific method are needed, but this communicates the general idea. In an unrelated point, I also just wanted to add - thumbs up on the Daedalus avatar! Deus Ex - now there is a game that had a rather masterful blend of philosophy, storytelling and plot for its time. There are ideas from that game and its sequels / prequels that I'd maintain are extremely useful for framing conversations about what kind of society we should attempt to build and how we ought to attempt to do it however much the technical details of sci-fi vs. actual viable science may vary (also provided we manage to make it that far...). It's fairly rare to find a science fiction story arc that manages to portrays a future scenario that's this plausible, and certainly its rare for it to include the relevant philosophical points in conjunction with it (conspiracy theories not withstanding of course). I suspect the details of the path we'll actually take is likely to be quite different than what is depicted in the game arc, but the destination we're headed for seems closer to being on the mark than most sci-fi anyway. At the very least, Deus Ex does a good job of forcing us to examine just what our nature is and what's reasonably likely to happen the moment we develop tools sufficient to alter or enhance it.
ConQuiX I understand. I have been known to come up with my theories on the tragic self-deception of the religious folk as well. Of course for now it's all speculation based on what we know of the human mind and the fascinating ways it can go "haywire", but I think in the end it really is just another form of addiction. Evidence, the scientific method, rational thinking, none of them have any power or relevance when faced with years of indoctrination in combination with those human desires and wishful thinking that you mentioned. This sort of theist becomes incapable of imagining for ONE second that this "perfect" world is possible or can at least sustain itself without the Allfather. To "wake up" and realize that the beliefs they have held and based their life around for decades are flawed and do not stand up to the most basic of rational thought? You would be trapped in a living nightmare. The point i'm trying to make is, I would not be surprised if many of these people consider these possibilities and simply *choose* to keep on believing (subconsciously or not), afraid of the consequences of a life free from the eternal gaze of God. A life where no one reaps any rewards or is judged after death, a life where you know that that person who made you so miserable might never be punished, where your actions have no long term consequences, a worthless existence in a rotating blue sphere in a remote corner of the universe. And many people would just be too "weakened" by this mental abuse to deal with the shock of reality and keep on living. I believe that scene in the first Matrix movie which shows Reeves panicking after he learns that the planet has actually been a post-apocalyptic wasteland for centuries in contrast to the 21st century world he was used to when plugged in to the machines has been used by other atheists to illustrate points similar to this one. It's a bit similar to the fear of hell in a way as well. It would also explain those ludicrous rationalizations that you hear from many theists when you confront them with some of the more immoral parts of their holy books. That is why the religious worldview will always be the dominating mindset, until at least a couple of generations die off. Well, that's my theory anyway. Regarding Deus Ex, i can do little more except agree with you. The game was a masterpiece and its influence is still felt in the industry to this very day. And the story was indeed so brilliant, that some of its "predictions" ended up being true only a couple of years later (Deus Ex = 1, Bible = 0). And some were truly freaky. Like the story behind the absence of the Twin Towers from the NYC skyline in the game. Do you know about that one?
Akhamesh I think the fear of death is also a huge barrier to be overcome by theists. Since as long as they can recall, they've always been told that they would go to paradise (if they behave as god wants them to), that otherwise they'll be punished, that they need to believe in paradise, that it'll be the happiest place where everyone you loved and lost are waiting for you, and where you'll simply be able to live. I recall a conversation with a christian friend. I'm french, and around here fundamentalists are extremely rare. But there are still a large number of christians, specifically catholics. What she said really struck me. She said that she thought about death that day, and I was surprised to see her answer when I said that it was a hard thing to think about. She immediately said that it wasn't, that she didn't fear death at all, this kind of thing. But everything she said went like this: if it wasn't for christianity, she was abso-fucking-lutely terrified to die. Terrified to not go to heaven. In short, she was terrified by death. This fear was exacerbated by christianity, and then it gave her an armor of delusion to make her believe she was protected against it. Deus Ex fan here too, by the way, I find the first one to be great as well. What I also really liked is how even though it happens in 2052, the world is a lot like today's, a bit as if progress has stopped in many ways. It feels like a realistic future (although maybe a bit pessimistic), conspiracy theories aside, where shitty politicians and corrupted administrations got their way and the rest of the population suffers the consequences. And I didn't notice the absence of the WTC. Do you know if it was intentional or if it was just an oversight on the developers' part ?
I find extreme irony in Cliffes story and disgust at the man from MIT dating his computer. How is that any different from a monk or nun or priest who takes vow of celibacy and devote their entire life to chanting to a god and reading a book over and over again? I don't find either to be healthy but if they are fulfilling to the individual I'm not gonna stop em. They aren't hurting anything or anyone. But don't have double standards about it. The geek with his PC is no different than the monk with his bible.
See the problem is that beliefs can and DO hurt others. When one has the belief that God told them to drown their kids and they do are they not hurting anyone? When the US government decides to outlaw stem cell research because of religious beliefs does the harm that something like that creates not harmful to those that could benefit the cures that could be found through research like this? So you see...there is a difference.
When did i ever make the claim that drowning kids isn't hurting anyone? I made the comparison of someone going celibate and someone marrying their PC. Neither one is healthy but as long as they aren't hurting anyone I'm not going to stop them.
No one is saying ALL atheists are immoral. we are all sentient, moral, spiritual beings having a very brief earthly experience. The abject poverty of a materialistic worldview implies, if you dont worship God u have to worship at the altar of something! How u make sense of your world moreover, will have profound influence on how u view your role in life. So what's your god then- power, wealth, self image, career, sport, gambling, drugs porn, violence etc? . When morality is doing no more than what is fashionable in some culture at some point in history, mankind is doomed. 100mill killed by godless despots in the 20th century and then today, the likes of Assad, SI and Kim Jong Un believing there is no accountability and certainly no ultimate justice.
And I reject your implication because you have started with assumption that their even is a god. So to assume that because you feel YOU need a god to fear means I need a god to fear is just plain ignorant. I do good things because I think of the consequences of those good things and the outcome I make up combined with my ability to empathize makes me feel good. The same works in reverse. I don't do bad things because I think of the consequences and the outcome combined with my ability to empathize makes me feel bad. I have no reason to believe that i will ever be rewarded for the random good things I do. All I can do is hope those people thought "Hey that was a swell guy." when I lend them a hand or something. There are logical reasons to be a good person. You don't need the threat of judgement in order to be good. So that answers you're question. I worship nothing. I wouldn't even know how to worship something. It's not a skill I possess. Now a question for you, is your god the only thing that keeps you morally good? If he or she suddenly said you could kill, rape and pillage all you liked, would you? I'll answer my own question first if you'd like to show I'm a good sport about this. My answer would be to murder exactly no one. To rape literally no one and pillage absolutely nothing. I've literally zero desire to do any of that shit. So even if a god magically appeared in the sky and said "Hey here I am I exist and you can now murder and rape each other!" I still wouldn't do it. Apart from defending myself and family from any raping people who were hiding in the shadows because they feared a god would hurt them. Trouble is if your answer is the same as mine what use have you for these moral code in your holy book? You're morally good without them. With or without god you are a good person. However if you WOULD rape, murder and pillage, then you aren't a good person. If the only thing that keeps you good is threat of punishment then I am more moral than you because I don't need the fear, you do.
Well,in all fairness, Matt Dillahunty has been pathologically ranting against something that doesn't exist according to him, for years. 😂Indeed, Matt Dillahunty 's pathological fixation on something that doesn't exist according to him, causes Matt to insult it at times. Matt Dillahunty called something that doesn't exist according to him, he called it a "thug". Matt Dillahunty hosts the " I don't believe that something exists" Experience (' Atheist Experience '), and is a member of the " I don't believe that something exists " community ( atheist community)of Austin,Texas.
@@kubejunkie It does. I won't argue with that. What's so incredibly strange about it, however, is that Matt Dillahunty is on record, repeatedly saying...... that all atheism is is a "lack of belief in God or gods '. Period. Matt Dillahunty goes far far beyond a simple"lack of belief ". He pathologically rants, argues, hosts podcasts, has joined fellow pathological ranters against something that doesn't exist according to them, etc.
@@kubejunkie I agree with you one hundred percent. Matt Dillahunty's moral compass is "make it up as we go along '. It's incredibly amazing that he will categorically judge the actions of something that doesn't exist according to him as" immoral ", and then state that there is no" Objective Morality '.
Around 56:25, Cliffs says that athiests live for something besides (a god or gods). He says he knows a few that "live for money". Money, an item exchanged for goods in our society. I don't think they "live" for that, but they probably spend a portion of their time, mind AND money to increase how much they have, why, because this allows people to have more in our societies. Does money buy everything, no, but it provides a level of security. If we aren't giving that away, then it must be bought. Many circumstances impact our starting point and we may overcome those in time, but they certainly have an effect on how and when we could get to our intended goal, and we may not have enough time for what we want. We all make compromises, and we do not always go with our own philosophies as they are mindset that are not locked in, even consistency takes practice.
There must be a god, because when Matt was religious he felt God calling him to do the Good Work. Well, God must exist cause Matt is doing the good work so eloquently
About seventy Matt's fans (who believes that life comes from nonlife) trying to prove by comments, that he won:) The fruits of rejection of Christ's way/commandments: Stalin (and USSR), Chernobyl, Mao, Pol Pot, French revolution, Hitler, North Korea, Islamists and other terrorists etc. Experiments on people. All crimes, AIDS, satanism, racism, all kinds of porn, drugs, GMOs, perverted churches (of the hypocrites, who pretend to be disciples of Christ), the most terrible weapons of mass destruction etc. = destroyed planet! That is why rejection of Christ's way is wrong and foolish. End of the debate! You know what Jesus Christ taught, and you know that this is right, but you're doing the opposite. And all that I have listed - It is the opposite to Christ's teaching.
Why would a Christian like someone who leads people to hell? Are you sure you are a Christian? I wouldn't want my worse enemy spend eternity in hell. For you that is ok?
"Since God is dead all things are permitted" must be an ironic tombstone epitaph for many of the deniers over the past 3000yrs when the Psalmist proclaimed "a fool in his heart says there is no God' Ps 19
Since the Bible is the only scripture that concerns you, allow me assure deniers of one fact. It might shock u but no one goes to hell in a Biblical sense unless they want to. The idea that people are in hell crying to be let out is false. Just read Dante or CS Lewis who put it this way, “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” People will go to hell because they want to avoid an ultimate authority who tells them what they should and shouldn’t do. People in hell are saying it’s miserable, but they wouldn’t want to be in heaven if God is just pushing us around all the time. On the other hand people want to go to heaven and submit to God in a loving relationship, a fact that give their life meaning, hope and destiny. The most fair understanding of the afterlife is the Christian view that God only gives you what you want. If you want to be your own savior and lord, you will get it. Your choice! As atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, “If God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist.” Such perfect circular logic will appeal to many who demand moral autonomy at the price of "unyielding despair." (B. Russell)
oh good the Xtian is starting with an allegorical tale... Matt opened with 5 minutes. This guy is still going on at 15 minutes. Further... was this guy a preacher? The whole thing is one long memorized script.
Yeah, Cliffe actually lives a few towns over from me (he hails from New Caanan, CT). He has been doing this talk for decades. He frequently goes to universities and holds talks outside. He challenges questions of non-believers. I have to say that he takes on all comers which I do respect. I just do not agree with his assertions.
all these people critical of Cliff, wouldn't talk like this in public or in any serious forum. typical keyboard warriors that get no respect here or in open, honest discussions.
I would pay money to speak in front of him. What in the world makes you think ANYONE would be afraid to speak in public. He is on the losing side of this argument. Just because your parents brainwashed you into having false heroes and believing in sky daddies doesnt give any of these morons any credibility. Keyboard warriors ? LOL uhh that is a title for people who talk tough. Nobody in here (on the skeptics' side) is talking tough. They are talking from doubt, skepticism, education, research, and the reluctance to not jump to conclusions, and only believe in things with evidence. Try reading some harder books, not just 1 easy one that promises you cake at the end.
@TechSys If your own parents had given you no moral training, would you be looking for someone to love, or would you have fallen into taking advantage of others? I saw an NDE where the man stood before God asking Him questions. He asked about all the people who have never heard of Jesus. He asked about a man in an isolated African village, for instance. God actually said to Him: "He would know not to steal his neighbour's goat, "for instance", meaning that we all have our consciences, right? Many people who meet the Creator come away with the feeling that we give Him a few laughs, as do our own small children, when we actually will speak to Him. Selfish little fallen brats, we usually treat Him like poochie and ignore or make fun of Him! No wonder when we choose Justice over Love, we get sent to outer darkness or are mocked by demons. But the REAL question is, even if what you said is true, why do you care. By caring, you sort of prove yourself incorrect...
28:38 Did Matt use the term Solipsism? He hates that word and refuses to talk about it when someone brings it up. ACA was the first time I had heard of the term and when I researched the topic, a part of me began to believe in it.
I don't understand the NEED to have a purpose. If the nature of the universe is such that it was not created, and that our lives have no inherent purpose, then so be it. I see no reason to fabricate myths in order to make our lives worth living. Atheism does not imply nihilism. I enjoy my life perfectly well without believing that there is any meaning or reason behind it.
I find it humorous how so many atheist make the statement that "I'm not saying God doesn't exist" JUST so they can try to avoid any kind of questioning about what they believe. Then spend their time attacking others who make the claim that they believe in God. You might have fun attacking people who believe in God but keep in mind those people have the courage to stand for what they believe in while you hide behind semantics. (Just a heads up don't bother trying to engage me in a debate. I wont reply to any messages)
Wezlb8 Yeah its circular reasoning and also why some theists wont debate this Matt guy. His wordplay is good, but he has a habit of declaring that "people are putting words in his mouth" when they catch him circling around in his arguments. Then he hangs up on them. Sad!
So do you accept everything's existence on someone's word or do you want evidence? Why would I not want evidence? Bigfoot, aliens.....I guess you take those on FAITH.
Are you really so daft that you missed the irony of refusing to stand by your position? I really try not to believe that theists are dumb but boy do they make it hard...
Sorry I'm abit late to the party but I had to comment What's wrong with people? Even being a Christian I can see how illogical cliff is! The strength he has is his orating abilities which deserves an A+ no doubt about it. But it looks like he appeals to peoples emotions whereas Matt seems to make sense with facts I duno rethinking my faith
15:20 Is Cliffe not aware that most animals can also love? It is hardly a uniquely human trait. Is he so blinded by his creation myth fantasy reality that he is unaware that HE to is an animal? Religion may not make you stupid but it certainly helps make you clueless, or at least to appear so.
@Phelan If love and all these things are mechanical, then love can mean anything. Not only that, it means things like murder can show to just be a byproduct of our evolution. Love in its totality cannot be described by science, unless you can show me sources.
Opening statement leads me to better understand the logic of no absolutes. It's true that it isn't true. We don't know what we believe... We don't believe that we believe anything... We trust that we don't have faith...
Cliff uses so many tired old arguments from Christian apologetics that have already been shelved while ignoring everything Matt says... so much #Facepalm
Cliffe Knechtle was adequately prepared for the circumstance, articulating his thoughts with eloquence. I find the likelihood of God's existence to be quite compelling, supported by substantial evidence concerning Jesus.
As a Christian, I will not throw Matt under the buss like some atheists might do to Cliffe - just to show support for my position. I do think this debate was way long...but I give credit to both sides doing a good job presenting what they believe in.
P Foster I do see what you are saying as Cliffe seemed to give more of a reason(s) why he believes in God, rather than providing any kind of evidence that people can take away and do some research on for themselves. However, in fairness, although he seemed pretty mellow in this debate, Matt can get a little demeaning with people as well. I was impressed with Matt because I have seen some debates where he really didn't do very well. But in this situation, I don't feel like he did well because Cliffe did bad - instead I think he did well on the merits of his own arguments and rebuttals. To me the real test is to see how they answer questions - like if they try to slither out of it or not. I think in this debate, neither attempted to do so, which is why I think they both did a pretty good job.
I have been a long time subscriber of this channel. The comments are usually quite civil except for when cliffe debates matt, then some of the people who follow matt get very bitter in the comments. I find it strange how some of the atheists in the comments claim to be morally superior, yet mock at the same time.
Matt is the only one on stage actually participating in a debate. He presents rational points, explains his position clearly, makes reasoned arguments, and actually responds to what his opponent says and frequently corrects misconceptions. By contrast, Cliffe merely recites his pre-written script and tells pointless anecdotes. Everything he says is coming from someone who either wasn't listening to Matt, or didn't understand. It's like he's just waiting for his turn to talk, and participating in the discussion he imagined ahead of time would take place rather than the one that's actually happening.
I had a feeling this would be the case from the very beginning. Notice that Cliffe had a couple stacks of books prepared and had prepared his entire speech ahead of time. Matt has a notepad, a pen and the jar of gumballs. He had one thing planned (the gumballs), then a pen and pad to take notes and respond to what is actually said. It was Matt vs. no one with some guy saying nonsensical things while Matt took breaks.
Bryan West "It was Matt vs. no one with some guy saying nonsensical things while Matt took breaks." Ha ha ha ha, I love how you phrased that. So true! :-)
no, he seems more to spout pre-prepared statements than actually answering them legitimately... like blatantly stating that atheists "have faith" IMMEDIATELY after Matt rebutted it AND Matt's opening statement, which was PRIMARILY discussing that very point...
Why do christians always say things like "it is objectively wrong to hurt children for fun" I don't get it. Haven't they read Psalm 137:9? "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Well it says "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" And I interpret that as meaning "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" The implication being that according to the bible, enjoying killing children is at least sometimes right, which means that it can't be objectively wrong.
Jesus said " But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." So fantasizing about sinning is the same as doing it. The "psalmist' as you call it is traditionally thought of as being Jeremiah. The words Jeremiah used were god's own, as said in Jeremiah 1 “The lord… …said to me: I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” So this verse about being happy when killing children is condoned by god. It is not the only place in the bible where god condones the killing of children, often as a part of a genocide he orders. I only chose the verse I did, because it used the word "happy", I could have chosen from many more. You need to read your bible more.
You say that these culture's were vile, were the children vile too? The bible says nothing about sending them to heaven. What about the first born of Egypt, are Egyptians vile too, or was it just the oldest children of that generation that happened to be vile? 2nd Timothy 3 16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." So the verse saying "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" was "inspired by god" and "make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.". I can't remember the verse were it is recanted, nor the verse that explains that god didn't agree with it. In fact, when reading it in context with the rest of the books of the old testament, it doesn't seem out of line with gods personality at all. I'm sure you are a good person, your comments here show that you are more moral than your god. You would be an even better person if you didn't let your morality be corrupted by ancient superstitions. I hope you do read the bible objectively.
You do seem relatively friendly (abuse comes from both sides). I also realize you don't have all the answers (neither do I), and I don't expect to change your mind on an internet forum. I honestly hope you consider the bible objectively. It is a rare christian that does, and they often walk away non believers. I maintain that you would be at least as good, and probably a better person if you didn't believe. There is nothing moral that you couldn't do as a non believer that you do do now. On the other hand, as a non believer you wouldn't feel the need to justify genocide and child killing. Don't be scared to doubt. There is no bogey man on the other side of the door.
***** Surely if god sent these kids to heaven, that would make him worse? Think about it: If god has the ability to make a pre-emptive strike and kill children, therefore ushering them straight into heaven, when they would have otherwise (as you put it) grown up to become heathens and condemned, then why does he only do it for THOSE children? That would mean that billions upon billions of people that are going to go to hell could had been saved by god via this method, but he chose not to.
Something that Cliffe said that bothered me very much, something that was highly suspect. He said he grew up in New England (as did I). As a matter of fact, he lives 4 towns over from me. He said that at his school that he and 1 other were the only believers in Christ. Now, I will go out on a limb and say that is a lie because just 4 towns over I experienced the exact opposite.
Exactly, i live in NYC, work in CT, and travel alot in New England, where some of the largest Dioceses exist. Not to mention huge populations of Irish Catholics, Roman Catholics, and other religious denominations. It was a flat out lie!
It fits better with his plot of misunderstood, self-sacrificing and brave christians. It's hard to prove in a society where christianity is the religion of the majority.
If we find something and we don't understand how it works, say we discover some material deep underground that we have never seen before that is anti gravitational, it floats. Do we take this stuff to scientists or priests? How would "god does it" help at all in understanding anything about this material or process?
Are youbsuggesting all people who believe in God that stupid? You are incredibly judgemental... Someone can believe in God and still make a great advancement in science... Check out newton
Science is studying the process... Duh... Im a firm believer of Christ.. But I'm so fascinated with science like dark matter, string theory, quantum physics... Like by understanding science how everything works out well together makes me even more amaze of how the world is created...i didn't stop myself to learn the process by saying God did it... But I will be amazed with God on how He produce that process... Don't be judgemental please.. Believing in God is not the same with being ignorant with science... You are false
Cliff made assertion after assertion after assertion without any evidence in any way to back up his claims then refused to speak about anything that Matt gave in response to those assertions with actual facts to support Matts arguments. It amazes me that someone can get up and preach for the entire time and someone else can actually provide evidence based arguments and this is still called a "debate" in any way.
Except that he did give evidence. You believe Columbus sailed here, you believe there was a man named napoleon and what he did, you believe there was a Greek philosopher names Aristotle, etc etc. why do you believe these things? Historical records from eyewitness testimony..that is evidence
The laws of reality as you know it say something can’t be made out of nothing. Yet the entire universe exploded into existence out of nothing. Reality is reality, but this experience is not all of reality.
45 minutes in... is Cliffe actually going to make real points... or just preach? EVERYTHING he is saying is just a sermon with fluffy thoughts and wishful thinking. This guy doesn't actually know how to debate.... kind of sad really. At least Matt is addressing the points very clearly and not with tales of yore, and excepts from the bible that are subject to interpretation. Cliffe pretty much proves my point in his response to life after death... wishful thinking. He is clearly being intellectually dishonest. Appeals to claims with no proof and asserting that it is true. Matt already rebutted that with the alien analogy. You have thousands of people alive today that "claim" aliens, why shouldn't I believe them, but believe a 2000 year old account in a book that has been translated and rewritten many times.
Matt, an atheist, kept making appeals to objective morality?!?!! His worldview is not privy to make such appeals....you have none. Cliffe kept emphasizing that the existence of an intricately designed universe and its intelligibility point to an intelligent origin,, as all of humanity has inferred in our history. They used their reason to conclude that...even your great prophet Dawkins said it seems designed, but the lack of reason to see that it logically follows that something that seems designed might have a designer, but nope! The evidence that has sufficed for all other humans, atheists are too dense or disingenuous to admit. Science and reason, ok. Science: never has anyone observed one species turn into another, Evolutionists make that inference(faith by what they consider fossil evidence)...reason: never have we observed something coming from nothing, life from non-life...so the universe is something, it did not come from nothing...life did not come from a rock and primordial soup...that's reason, which the lot of you seem to lack. MORALITY: You have no right if you claim no God. And if you think you do go ahead and try to make the case for it.
@@walterdaems57 you call the dialogues he has with students bullying? Why don't you rebut his points instead of this soft soap you try to comfort yourself with....you like Matt, all you do is refuse all evidence that confront you and when pressed on an issue you fall on that cheap cop out of, like Hitchens said, "our beliefs are not beliefs" type of rationale,, as if you don't have a worldview.....you do, just no good arguments, zero evidence, and insults,, Atheists comments are the most ad hominem in nature. Can't argue reason so you go after the person. Please. Grow some balls and be honest with yourself, you want atheism to be true coz the existence of God and the chance that you'll be morally accountable is highly inconvenient, and you wanna live your life how you want. You wanna be God.
2:06 Yeah, they are "unique perspectives" but the most important event of that religion, the resurrection, is not even remotely consistent across the 4 gospels. The details of who was there, who saw what, how many angels (or if any angels were present), zombie jews or no zombie jews... the BIG news stories aroind this cemtral belief vary widely to the point of absurdity. And NOBODY saw the resurrection event itself! They just discovered an empty tomb. Of course WHO discovered the empty tomb is ALSO not in agreement between the 4 books, and those who "saw" zombie jesus didnt even recognize him. Consistency? Hardly. But of course few Christians have read and compared all four accounts. And it is all beside the point. Written stories (especially ones written decades after the event as in all of the gospels) are not evidence of the true nature of actual events.
I'm with you on the logistics. Who could hear mumbles from a broken battered face hoisted high on a cross?..the garden where jesus prays alone - how is there a transcript? or of his temptation by satan? Thomas is like who are you and the voice, nothing clicks? So this guy has stigmata or something and Thomas is playing about in a man's wounds, yet believers think that makes the crap more credible?
and how superior and blessed a man could have been if he was allowed to see the resurrecting body of Christ! When Jesus himself rose, Peter saw his bare hands with the marks of crucifiction.
I am not convinced in the existence of any god for I have never encountered _any_ credible evidence, including _any_ sound argument, that suggests such an existence. Therefore, I will suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god _until_ such evidence or argument is introduced. Am I not rationally justified in my position?
He also seems like he is purposefully distorting the truth when he says his atheist friends live for money. That is complete bullshit. This is nasty ugly fallacy (Dicto simpliciter). That frankly disgusts me in how he uses it. Trying to make it seem as if atheist are greedy people. I think most humans live for the experience. That entails everything our experience comes with. If you live in a society where money is necessity for food and needed resources then you do "need" money in that sense. Especially as a means of promoting philanthropy (charity organizations). He doesn't make this distinction. He continues by saying pleasure is what they live for. As if god isn't just an opiate for the people who fear death. He says many people do like money... its beneficial. Its so sad he generalizes people who cant defend themselves to make other people who are watching think the wrong things... this is dishonesty. I cant understand why people are saying they admire his honesty. All he did the whole time was appeal to emotion and fallacies. And then in his own words passed it off as "logic/ clear thinking" and "truth".
@ryan gray "He also seems like he is purposefully distorting the truth when he says his atheist friends live for money." - let's give it up for prosperity theology
Come on Ryan! No one is saying ALL atheists are greedy. we are all sentient, moral, spiritual beings having a very brief earthly experience. The abject poverty of a materialistic worldview implies, if you dont worship God u have to worship at the altar of something! What's your god then- power, wealth, self image, career, sport, gambling, drugs porn, violence etc? We all have a worldview of how we make sense of our world and our place in it. When morality is doing no more than what is fashionable in some culture at some point in history, mankind is doomed. 100mill killed by godless despots in the 20th century and then today, the likes of Assad, SI and Kim Jong Un believing there is no accountability and certainly no ultimate justice.
"My atheist friends". Hard to imagine an atheist putting up with Cliff foe more than four minutes. High on my list of men not to be stuck in a lift with.
Lying is a core Christian tenet, Cliffe is in all probability lying when he says he has atheist friends, he may have acquaintances that are atheist , but atheist never, no atheist could befriends with a biased bigot like Knectle that can't stand any one having a different view to his, he demonstrated theirs in another debate with Matt Dillahunty were he lost himself big time and constantly shouted and ranted at Dillahunty to shut up.
My brother the other day said.. "well if there is no god, where did everything come from?" And to be honest, that was the question that kept me holding on to my fatih..and then I realized just because I don't know, doesn't mean there being a god helps make any more sense out of it. Life is fascinating and I believe it is fascinating solely because we don't know all the answers..and I wouldn't trade that for the world
rsr789 That's a false dichotomy. There are varying degrees of knowledge, with scientifically proven things being the highest form of knowledge for any falsifiable claims. But, for example, what about something like "my favourite ice cream is vanilla" - how do I apply the scientific method to that? It's knowledge, but it's not a valid scientific question. And besides that, we're not talking about the acceptance of claims, which is a question of belief, anyway. What I said was that I wouldn't want to meet someone who says "unless you can scientifically prove it it's not true". Truth is a question of KNOWLEDGE with reference to a claim - and I wouldn't want to meet someone who claims that EVERYTHING must be scientifically proven or they are automatically deemed to be untrue.
Exactly, Mr Knechtle. It requires a mind to have morality. That is why it is inherently subjective - God or no God! Humans value human life, regardless of whether your god does. From that axiom all of Mr Dillahunty's conclusions follow consistently.
You can clearly see the Priest has a listening device in his left sleeve. Watch his watch and him listening to it before he gets up at 34:50 and other times in the background.
Bill Brown : He's laughing because it's a non sequitor argument. That is, what one wishes to be true has nothing to do with what IS true. I didn't laugh either, Bill, chiefly because I've heard the same silly argument about a thousand times. For me it's lost its edge.
Yeah with the shirt and everything. Also, he insisted we need to exclude nature from this, which may seem logical but is not since nature is the one thing we have 0 evidence to support a creator with.
@@nsignific Maybe, but Natural Law and modern science today was founded by a Judeo-Christian philosophy which states that humans can observe there is Law and order to the universe... Not God-denying subjectivists who cannot intellectually justify their existence between their personal revelation and vain opinionated perspective.
Seems that for any religious person, it mostly boils down to the need of an answer for how anything became too. Just the god of the gaps fallacy, I don't know therefore god. Then feelings back up the belief to the person.
Does Cliffe not know the counterarguments? I know that he does because I've seen him in other debates where the flaws in his arguments were pointed out. So, he chooses to ignore those valid counterarguments, which is disingenuous.
Yes, and that's one of the rasons we invented the concept of eternal life after death. Evolution produced being who is aware of its death, but has not provided solution of being aware to cease to exist. Becouse of that we tell ourselves fairy tales to keep our mind in peace.
Also. Future is not set. Death is also not certain. Future generations could overcome death. Please check www.sens.org/ mfoundation.org/ www.sierrasci.com/
That was not even close Matt talks about reality and truth and Cliffe makes a lot of claims that are not proven in anyway. Sorry Cliffe but magic has never been shown to be real.
@@svmarshmallow8399 Seriously 🤣 atheists spend all of their time trying to disprove Theism. They Religiously attack it and even though they no-life their studies they still don't even get close to it.
Knechtle is a stereotypical caricature of every apologist out there. His arguments hold not one iota of value in logical reasoning. If I were a theist while still possessing the ability to reason, I would be cringing at every word this guy spewed out in this debate.
@@rrock2025 ironically you used reason to come to that (false) conclusion, and since laws of logic are eternal, abstracted and metaphysical entities, yes they require the mind of God to exist.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. Tried it but god didn't turn up. June 26 2014 a number of us held a surprise birthday party for our mum and she did turn up.
Would like to know you for the rest of your life and right down each time you point out really get and wrong so I can say it's none of your business or dint worry about it. There are no absolutes therefore it is not your concern
@@havard94 cliffe is basically going "if god doesnt exist then good and evil is subjective, and we dont want that. If there is no god then life is meaningless and we dont want meaningless lives."
@@carlosbecerril3317 call it God or intelligent design it shows there has to be a superior being than us. Otherwise your the person that defines good and evil, which if you believe that then how can you say who’s right and who’s wrong and yes your life would be meaningless in the big picture if there is no superior being or intelligent design. These are evidence that there has to be some superior being than us. He’s trying to emphasise nobody would can live them out truly!
@@havard94 no, you are literally making a leap in logic. The ONLY way you can say any of this is with an appeal to emotion: "if god foes not exist then life is ultimately meaningless." Is fine, but reason cliffe is giving for why its wrong is because we dont want a meaningless life, that's an appeal to emotion. What we want is irrelevant to whether or not its true.
I'm sorry Cliffe, but your attitude pushes myself and others I know away from being able to listen to a word you are saying. Very difficult trying to understand that you actually believe what you are saying, due to the edge in your voice.
ironic how your username is "alwaysthinkforyourself" but you are affected by how others react to things. Im guessing you have never heard of something called rhetoric we cant all be as boring as dillahunty sad to say.
Vegeta3739, Having the inability to follow along with the individual due to the edge in his voice is a normal human reaction. Not an inability for me to not be able to think for myself. Having reason and logic, has nothing to do with a human reaction to his attitude. If he lowered his attitude, it might be easier to listen. Simple.
vegeta3739 alwaysthinkforyourself didn't say s/he's "affected by how others react to things." Rather that Knechtle's tone is off-putting. He sounds insincere, as though he's giving a sermon, not speaking extemporaneously. Disagreeing with Matt is one thing, but I have the impression you didn't even listen to anything he said, if you think he's boring.
The mere fact of having to ask the question centuries after the invention of gods puts believers at a disadvantage. Claims & faith is all there ever was, ever will be. What a waste of time for humanity.
Matt I commend you for this debate u did a great Job, do I think u won, no.... but I commend you at this debate. Your other ones have been ehhhh you had more fire here
This christian guy is just preaching rather than having an intellectual discussion
Of course he is, he is a preacher. If they wanted science, should have called a Christian scientist.
If you were to actually listen and respect the words coming out of cliffes mouth, you would realize that he actually is having an intellectual discussion. Yes he's preaching, but he's not preaching blind faith. In the beginning he shows how us as human beings are evidence for a creator.
It is intellectualy dishonest of you to think he's just preaching. For example, morality. Matt as an atheist will create his own morality. But if you follow the atheistic thinking, then everyone can decide what is morality. If I think that one thing is evil, but you think that it is not, then there is no morality, it just is. And if an atheist follows their faith to the end, then they must sit back and do nothing when something happens, whether good or evil. That event just "is", in the eyes and mind of someone who does not believe in God.
With God their is objective good and objective evil and if you will be honest with yourself and realize that yes, there are things in this life that are absolutely wrong, and absolutely right, then you can come also realize that there must be something deciding that morality. God
Very good debate format : Short first statement and then straight to q&a from the public and both answers can be compared right on the spot.
All these debates should adopt a similar format.
My favorite part is when they have the giving standoff. Love that these guys were able to speak freely and have a moment of jest, despite being completely opposed ideologically and spiritually.
@dogelife7901 I really like when debaters who are normally angry at each other start experiencing technical difficulties and complaints about there connection
I used to be agnostic, until one day I started to think what’s the meaning of it all? Work, make money, having a family, kids, death, for what? A limited time. Then I became so scared of life after death and for the first time ever I prayed to God that if he was real he would send someone to guide me towards him because doing it alone was too hard. Months later, I met someone in college from Chi Alpha, and they introduced me to the Bible. I Did my research, read and investigated the chronological timeline, authors, time, and the word of God. As I read through the book of John, my heart was being transformed in a way that I can’t explain.... I was filled with the Holy Spirit and repented of my sins and even though I don’t understand everything; I accept it because Christ died for me.
He set me free of my sins, and transformed my heart. Thank you God for changing my stubborn, and prideful self.
I pray for you, that you will seek the truth and find out that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life✨💖
Take your time, God is so patient and loving.
My goodness this is amazing
Praise the Lord, God bless you sister, stay on His path, He's always with you 🙌🏾
What did you discover about the authors of the Gospels?
Keep seeking Him!(:
So . . . you became so scared of death, and if there is life after death, that you decided it is better to play it safe and save yourself instead of finding truth itself: wherever, that might lead you.?
As an ex-atheist, what I did was read the gospels and left out whether it all happened or not, and simply came to the conclusion that if Jesus were real, I would want to know Him. Well that is exactly what God did.
Personal testimonies of having transcendent and personal experiences with god(s) aren't unique to Christianity. If you want to make the case that *_your_* particular experience is true, then you should provide the actual evidence for the existence of your deity. That would then make your comment unique from every other religious convictions, and it'll no longer be based on a non sequitur and actually have some explanatory value.
@@onionbelly_ The problem is, science is limited to material, so what you are asking is not possible at this time anyway. I do remember at age 10 or 11 I considered how one could see and process things material without contact, and wondered what Genius put this all together? There had to be a Creator Genius unexplainable and unseen. However, evolution taught as fact in honors history class took that away from me at age 15. You choose to believe me or anyone else or not, but, I do understand. You have to have your own encounter experience. I'm here to simply say you or anyone else who wanted to can.
@@onionbelly_ there’s evidence of the flood. There’s evidence of the parting of the Red Sea. There’s evidence of the crucifixion. Evidence of Mt Sinai. Evidence of the plagues. Evidence of Babylon. Etc etc
Had the same experience except I wanted to know the historical evidence as well. For me it was reading through Gospels again and asking God for clarity on Jesus. Isn't God great?
@@nathang2465 So Great! It may not seem so many times, but He hears every desire of our hearts. Many blessings.
I am an ex-Muslim. It was very hard to leave Islam. Many years of struggle to leave the faith I was born into. However, now I know it is Jesus the Christ who chose me. I am happy for those days of pain. I like to watch debates on God's existence but never debate with anyone. It is useless according to me. Someone who is looking for God will only find Him. And also, if Jesus does not select someone he can't have faith. Many people who only debate about God's existence are not seeking truth. But I like honesty of some Atheists. Matt is one of them. At least he is far far better than a hypocrite who calls himself Christian for convenience but has not denied himself yet and not carrying his cross and following Christ. Cliffe has patience like a tortoise. I love him. May "Abba" bless him and his family. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Christ and He is the King.
May Jesus Bless you!❤
True Jesus is not God but rather Lord Jesus has a God Who is the only true God and this leads to eternal life
@BreazyAU
One what? Plz respond
@BreazyAU
Ok so not one God right? Ok i thought you meant one God... Definitely not one God cause thats not what the verse says
amen brother, welcome to the truth
This isn't really a debate. Cliff is just preaching.
Children can't understand the concept of a god until they're at least 3 or 4. And yet, they are born with the capacity to love. Animals never know anything about god, and yet they love.
I never believed in gods. God's are fictional characters that appear in human literature.
You can brainwash anyone to do anything. A baby born in a loving family will understand love. A child growing up in a violent family will be a violent child. Abuse happens behind closed doors. Same with dogs and cats. Freedom of will makes us do good or evil acts. God is with you. I hope you can pray and find God.
Its cause it takes atleast a few years of brainwashing.
It is not the fact that love proves god. But Love proves that you do have a free will, and since Free Will is something immaterial, it must’ve been created by something immaterial. Hope this helped 😊 (btw we are talking about the Love that Cliffe is talking about not the Bio-Chemical reaction)
@@user-nh3qn4lt3p cliff loves his own voice
Just featured Cliffe in my latest video listing my top 7 CZcams street preachers. Thanks for your ministry!
Practical ? Faith are you collecting a group of delusionists cause Cliffe falls into that catagory ,no thinking there
@@bradzimmerman3171you're delusional if you think the universe came from nothing and that life also came from nonlife
@@flowerboyjess8160 I agree. I'm an atheist and neither myself nor any atheist I have ever met or corresponded with thinks this. However, many Christians have no problem with the concept, since according to them, God 'spoke everything into existence' from absolutely nothing.
the emotional appeals are strong with this one.....not one ounce of evidence towards his wold view...just faith
You're on a wing and a prayer as an atheist it's a blind cold delusion and it's running out of time
views aside, a debate on religion where people don't talk over each other... respect
That was definitely not a debate, that was a Q&A
Respect to Cliffe for keeping comments open.
Seriously
@@darkeen42 Name one.
@@darkeen42 According to you. Bravo. Now tell me who Jesus was, and where we can learn about the historical Jesus, because I would Love to ascertain your claims about Jesus without manuscripts to back them up. Please, go on and explain who Jesus was, and where we can find this well preserved historical account of the Jesus of Nazareth that you are submitting, without sourcing the Gospel records that you reject. Please enlighten us all with your historical evidence of Jesus; without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD.
@@darkeen42 But the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is John dated ~95 AD is rejected by you as accurate history, so please do not source this manuscript according to your world-view that rejects it as True. Instead I am asking you to provide evidence for your bold submission regarding who Jesus was, and provide your historical evidence of who Jesus was without sourcing the first and second century manuscripts like Rylands P52. I'm ascertaining your historical claim that you made on Jesus, and I am requesting your historical evidence for Jesus without sourcing the first and second century NT manuscripts.
@@darkeen42 Muhammad was indeed a historical space-time person who really lived and really died and we have historical evidence to verify Muhammad and who Muhammad was. But now we are talking about Jesus and who Jesus was, and I promise I am not throwing you curve-ball here; in that I am merely requesting your historical evidence of the Jesus you have submitted without sourcing any of the NT manuscripts as your historical evidence, like Rylands Library Papyrus P52.
I found Cliffe to be disingenuous, consistently misrepresenting both the bible and Matt's position. I was hoping for some deep arguments from the Christian perspective, but instead Cliffe flowed anecdotes and built straw men enough to fill all the fields of England.
"deep arguments from the Christian perspective" Those do not exist.
Religious people don't have a good proof of their god, that's pricesely why they rely on faith. Those religious public talkers are always dishonest like this one or for the few that are not they have a major flaw in their logic that they can't see because of their indoctrination into religion.
@@joshlete Wow are you really going to keep insulting me like this, it's really not nice and not deserved. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let's start with the first thing that CK said after his introduction with a useless example: "Love shows us that there is more to reality than matter and energy. And the only way there could be more to reality is if there is some kind of god... blablabla"
Do you realise the amount of bullshit in this opening he chose? You get two sentences from this apologist, but they are simply two dumb assertions without any proof.
As to why he gives us no proof for what he says here? Looks to me like he doesn't have any proof and try to find justifications. If he had a proof of that, he would have given it. He starts from the conclusion and then looks for unrelated things like "love" that could be vaguely interpreted to justify his conclusion. He doesn't build up arguments to reach a conclusion, he already has it.
So yes, I do say those words he said here are dumb bullshit, I suppose you won't agree, so please give me your enlightened opinion on how this is a rational way of thinking what he said there.
Do I really need to go further in this debate?
Also, are you really calling me "stuck in a rut" because I have a higher quality level of requirements than you? I won't accept the existence of any god until there is a rational proof that a god exist. Faith is just wishful thinking, I need some valid evidence before reaching a conclusion and anyone who doesn't follow this method of thinking either doesn't care about the truth of what they believe in, or they are too dumb to understand why they are believing in things that they don't have a good reason to believe in.
@@joshlete Yes I admit that was not a true logical or, so I'll rephrase what I meant to avoid the fallacy. But I disagree on the rest of your paragraph. If you care about the truth of what you believe in, you cannot believe in something without an satisfying evidence.
I am calling dumb the people who don't care about the truth of what they believe in. Don't you agree that it is justified?
I am also calling out those who have a very low standard of evidence. Because indeed it is true that people have different standards for what a satisfying evidence is.
However for something as important as an all powerful invisible magical deity existing, I am convinced that people should require evidence of the highest quality before being convinced. Nothing supernatural has ever been observed. So to make an extraordinary claim like your christian god, I need pretty much extraordinary proof to know.
And yet, the proofs we get are barely passable at best. I have heard so many times christians/muslims/jews say that they believe their god is real because it is written in their holy book... Most religious people have a bad understanding of why they believe in god. Don't say that I do not understand them. I simply do not agree at all with their reasoning, or rather sometimes lack of it...
What's wrong with calling people dumb because of what they believe in? Beliefs can be dangerous, we should not be scared of challenging people on their beliefs, whether religious or not. If you told me you believe the Earth is flat or that you believe in a young 6000 years old Earth I'd call you stupid.... Wouldn't I be justified?
Yes, as much as possible I use evidence to guide myself to truth or to take an action. I'll always look left and right before crossing a road, etc. That's enough evidence to know if it is safe. I'm saying that for a claim as crazy as religion, you need even better evidence that normal. I'm not seing any evidence. And miracles... come on please you should know they are not real. The ones documented are severely lacking in evidence and swimming in a sea of fabricated false miracles. And even if they were real, why would they point to the christian god? Muslims for exemple also believe in miracles...
Also... why would your god bother to heal a single person? Was it because he was bored after killing 15 thousands innocent babies that day? If your god is real he'd be the worst mass killer in the world. And maybe even in fiction... pick whatever dark lord from a book you want and I'm pretty sure your god supposedly killed more people than him according to the bible...
"do you think they are dumb to assume that there was a God involved? Or perhaps it's much wiser to believe that we all came into existence from... nothing"
Facepalm... The classic we come from nothing bullshit. I'll remind you that the bible say even more stupid things about your creation idea: the universe was created in 7 days, and he created plants before creating light ahah Ah also the first man was created from clay... lol
By the way here that's the same fallacy you accused me of. A nice false logical dichotomy. There are other possibilities that a god creating the universe or nothing. Adding god to the mystery of the universe would only raise more questions. You don't have any proof that a deity was there to create the universe, adding it just adds a supernatural complexity needlessly. I don't know if there was a god, but what you said is clearly not a good argument for it.
"concluding that God doesn't exist sounds far more foolish than the alternative"
When did I say that your god doesn't exist? You just proved that you didn't understand my main point. We don't have any satisfying evidence for the christian god, we don't have it either for any other god. That's why I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god. That does not mean I think there is no god. That means I don't know if there is a god, but I do not believe in any god because the evidence I have found is severely lacking so I simply refuse to accept the theistic claim.
You can't prove that there is no god at all. Can you prove that ghosts don't exist ? That's the problem with the supernatural, particularly when it's invisible and does not interact with us... You can't disprove those things, and yet we are no closer to being justified in believing they exist.
The burden of proof is on theists. That's why I am waiting for evidence, and that's why I am pissed of at apologists who appeal to emotions and only do preaching instead of debating and giving arguments and evidences. Same reason I do not respect much religious people who can't justify why they believe in their god.
By the way.... Do you believe that Allah is real and that the Koran was of divine inspiration too? How about Krishna, are The Vedas the word of god too? There has been so many religions, the arguments people make to justify are the same that the arguments people of another religion make to justify their god. Those people generally can point out the flaws in that other person reasoning, but they can't find it on themself even though the arguments are often pretty much the same.
@@phg3646What arguments were strawmen? And why would you think that?
@@PRPWR zero is mentally ill, pay no attention to that
cliffe knechile vs Scott Hahn on the topic of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. That's what I want to see!
Thank you!
that was just brutal.
just watched it. I think I died little inside.
@@AlfapiomegaLol me too
A fascinating debate! I think that God is a concept to help us humans live within certain boundaries and avoid becoming monsters. Krishna, Buddha, Christ and Mohammad were all great human beings and wanted to give our lives a certain direction according to their ideas and concepts prevalent in their times. Unfortunately in the name of God humanity has done a lot of wrong things - just to prove my God is better than yours. The situation has become alarming today. Muslims and Christians are out o destroy the world - each religious community assuming that they have been wrongly hurt by the other. Based on just this fact and that science has provided many solutions for the benefit of human-kind, I tend to agree with Matt. Let's keep our God love or Christ love private. Let's be secular. Let our laws be secular. Let's love each other not because we are Muslims or Christians or Hindus but because love makes a lot of sense - economically or otherwise.
***** the only people that believe we came from nothing are people like you. There are not 2500 prophecies that is simply a lie, and it is also a lie that anything like that has come true, a prophecy is something that can be interpreted at the time, not something you need to look back on later to confirm. Furthermore you argument that people were not there to observe something clearly applies to your belief in the bible.
Homosexuals were created by your so called god, it is a natural thing, it is evident in animals, if you disagree please let me know the moment you chose to be a heterosexual.
Abortion has no relevance to evolution, before I thought you were stupid but that statement proves you are either a troll or under the age of 12.
There are many good people in the world that do not need god for anything, your blanket, wild and false assertions are not backed by evidence at all.
The bible is easily proven to be false because of the huge falsehoods in it.
We know evolution is true so that shows the bible got the origin of man wrong, we know the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old so that shows the timeline is wrong in the bible, we know there has been no global flood for at least 40 000 years which proves the flood story wrong, we know the ark story is ludicrous anyway and we know how the earth was formed.
All these things the bible got wrong and quite frankly if it was inspired by god you'd think he would get them right.
Educate yourself from unbiased non creationist sources or stay our of adult conversations
I think you didn't even read my comment accurately! You sound so frustrated.
Of course, you know what you're talking about!
What do you mean? the worst monsters on the planet, do stuff In the name of their God all the time.
What do you mean the worst monsters on earth do things for no reason at all simply because they want to.
Actual debate content begins at 4:43.
Thank you
thx
Cliff just preached. Man he is annoying. He provided no evidence or actual debate. Felt like I was in church.
I mean, Matt didn't provide any evidence that god didn't exist..
@@blueice8683 doest work like that. He isn't making that claim. He's saying there's not sufficient evidence to show there is a God. An example is me telling you to prove to me big foot or the tooth fairy don't exist. Hard to prove a negative. One believes there isn't big foot until one shows evidence. Cliff states there is with no evidence.
@@gm-wv2ytread the Bible and you'll have all the evidence you need
@@ifibelieve8193 are you saying to prove the bible you should read the bible ? Lol that's like saying read the Quran and you'll see the proof of Islam. I don't think you apply that logic to any religion but your own. So you have to think harder than that. I've read the bible many times :) I bet you haven't read it through once. Itsays some crazy stuff lol
@@ifibelieve8193 the Bible is the claim, it can’t be evidence as well.
Cliffe you should go on the actors studio for wonderful art exhibit of a "Christian Plea"
Cliff seems to be intelligent that is why it is a waste of intelligence and a life to use that brainpower to fight the point of a so clearly fictional book
thanks for uploading
yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loves us, for i am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord AMEN. I LOVE YOU JESUS
Amen hermano 💯🙏
Embarrassing.
Nope, try again.
Matt opened with an elegant and respectful definition of terms and a great explanation of his position. Cliffe opened with an emotional appeal and rhetorical tricks without making a single valid point. Sadly the debate flow continued this way for the duration of the recording. While Cliffe entirely failed as a debater he may have a future as a politician or actor.
this cliffe guy came to give a sermon, it doesn't say much for him to have completely missed the point of "debate".
You’ve missed the point entirely, respect to Matt but I found his opening hollow and leaving much to desire. Cliffe hit on the main point of the topic which is philosophy.
Cliffe's entire discourse is drowned in assumptions and false assertions, it's soooooooooo painful to watch.
Hi Marco, so what are the alternative ,? This guy gives rational explanation for how we experience reality. how do you live your life and what is the evidence that what you believe and stand for is truth?
Because you get scared of reality that’s why you feel pain
I love debates like this because they provide great food for thought and really challenge peoples' beliefs. I do agree with many of the comments that say CK's positions and rebuttals sound much more like sermons based on his faith, than cogent arguments based on sound logic. Of course, considering that he is a minister who's given sermons weekly for years, it makes does sense that he'd do that in this debate. What it doesn't do, however, is make a strong case for the argument ... especially when facing someone like Matt.
Like Matt? He is hardly a threat to the faith. He is considered a bit of a joke. People debate him because in planting seeds you might get a few converts. At the end of the day, I could care less…I’m not going to lose sleep over atheists who believe they have serious evidence for their beliefs. They don’t, that’s why there is a book the Devils Delusion. Look it up.
@@michaelbrickley2443 you realise that just by implying that atheists need to provide evidence for their beliefs, you admit to not even understand what atheism is. Let alone its arguments.
@@catposter2361 I understand that atheism is for people afraid of the light. You think this is some deep philosophical belief system? Explain to me why approx. 50% of scientists are followers of Yeshua and why there are more agnostics than atheists of the remaining. You should do more research into your alleged reasonable arguments. First, Christianity is not a philosophy of religion, it is the belief in an historical incident. Please don’t bring up the claims of dick carrier. No serious ancient historian agrees with him. Oh, maybe one or two. Smh
@@michaelbrickley2443 afraid of light 😂😂😂. If we were afraid we’d be christans. Any god who damns people for eternity based on the location of their birth is not one I want any part of. If you were born in the Middle East you probably wouldn’t be Christian. What makes Christianity right and not all the other story book myths. How did someone rise from the dead? How did Adam and Eve populate the earth if their offspring would have been related, and had retarded babies. How did Noah build an ark, find 2 of every animal on planet earth of opposite sex, and fit them on a boat. Then over 6,000 years all the evolution happened that made ALL our modern animals. How did millions of spices go extinct . There is no evidence of any of these events, except that they’re found in a book
@@michaelbrickley2443 and don’t claim they’re figurative because that’s BS. Anytime they can’t prove their way and get proved wrong they simply get rid of it. They pick and choose what to take literally and what to not based on what we discover. Science doesn’t care about religion
In regards to the design argument of the world. Do we not engage surveyors, architects, engineers, builders, etc when we are in the process of constructing dwellings? Based on this I believe it is a fair enough approach to have the opinion that it is logical for a creator to exist rather than just chance.
I'm glad that Matt doesn't fall into the "win or lose" mindset when it comes to these debates. As he said, it's about both sides making a case for their ideas and beliefs, not who wins or loses. I've seen too many debates where people stoop to using tactics like sarcastic remarks that have no purpose but to ridicule the other, and it solves nothing and does nothing to further the cause of the person doing it.
Unlike others *cough* Aaron Ra *cough*
Did Cliffe even present a SINGLE piece of evidence? That part about afterlife being true because YOU WANT to be with your loved ones after death was worthy of a stand up comedy act. This wasn't a debate. Matt presents arguments, Cliffe hardy does anything other that preach and assume.
Yeah his evidence is love because only god can love and without god love isn't love and then your love isn't worth it so bang another lady when yours dies of cancer. FML worst debate I've watched yet.
Dokutonninja Try the debate with sye ten. It's even worse than that.
Akhamesh The sad (apparent) truth is that for many believers, the kinds of things Cliffe says in this discussion about wanting, believing, feeling etc. counts as "evidence" for them - this is how the trick of self-deception is done. The whole exercise of religious or superstitious belief involves this move of letting faith stand in as a kind of evidence. The key is to figure out how to convince yourself of something when you don't actually have good reasons to believe it's true, and then figuring out how to make it seem like you had good reasons in the first place (apologetics in a nutshell).
Religious belief then (to distinguish the psychological aspects from the traditional practices and rituals) is just art of apologizing for and obscuring the core non-sequitur of wishful thinking that forms the epistemological foundation for the rest of the belief system. I think Sam Harris is really the only person I've heard speak about this fundamental philosophical point as clearly or perhaps in someways better than Dillahunty does, but they both make it very clear and unpack it very well (each to their own).
For believers, faith can stand in as a sufficient reason to believe, and so it becomes the line upon which so many of their beliefs are strung. You can see this in the whole "evidence of things unseen" bit, and I think it's also closely connected to the psychology behind the idea of faith being a virtue (building on a conflation with the idea of basic trust - which I suppose is a kind of virtue once it is actually earned and justified of course).
Having said this, psychoanalytic moves of the sort I just made border on being non-falsifiably vague also... As a result, I'm going to go out on a limb here and "trust" you to take what I've said here with precisely the right amount of salt. I certainly wouldn't want to ask you to just take my word for it, which is really what we skeptics and non-believers are on about in the first place.
"We ought to act in such a way so that whatever IS true can be verified to be so." This is a pretty useful quote from Bronowski IMHO, perhaps a few caveats to qualify the inherent uncertainty of the scientific method are needed, but this communicates the general idea.
In an unrelated point, I also just wanted to add - thumbs up on the Daedalus avatar! Deus Ex - now there is a game that had a rather masterful blend of philosophy, storytelling and plot for its time. There are ideas from that game and its sequels / prequels that I'd maintain are extremely useful for framing conversations about what kind of society we should attempt to build and how we ought to attempt to do it however much the technical details of sci-fi vs. actual viable science may vary (also provided we manage to make it that far...). It's fairly rare to find a science fiction story arc that manages to portrays a future scenario that's this plausible, and certainly its rare for it to include the relevant philosophical points in conjunction with it (conspiracy theories not withstanding of course). I suspect the details of the path we'll actually take is likely to be quite different than what is depicted in the game arc, but the destination we're headed for seems closer to being on the mark than most sci-fi anyway. At the very least, Deus Ex does a good job of forcing us to examine just what our nature is and what's reasonably likely to happen the moment we develop tools sufficient to alter or enhance it.
ConQuiX
I understand. I have been known to come up with my theories on the tragic self-deception of the religious folk as well. Of course for now it's all speculation based on what we know of the human mind and the fascinating ways it can go "haywire", but I think in the end it really is just another form of addiction. Evidence, the scientific method, rational thinking, none of them have any power or relevance when faced with years of indoctrination in combination with those human desires and wishful thinking that you mentioned.
This sort of theist becomes incapable of imagining for ONE second that this "perfect" world is possible or can at least sustain itself without the Allfather. To "wake up" and realize that the beliefs they have held and based their life around for decades are flawed and do not stand up to the most basic of rational thought? You would be trapped in a living nightmare.
The point i'm trying to make is, I would not be surprised if many of these people consider these possibilities and simply *choose* to keep on believing (subconsciously or not), afraid of the consequences of a life free from the eternal gaze of God. A life where no one reaps any rewards or is judged after death, a life where you know that that person who made you so miserable might never be punished, where your actions have no long term consequences, a worthless existence in a rotating blue sphere in a remote corner of the universe.
And many people would just be too "weakened" by this mental abuse to deal with the shock of reality and keep on living.
I believe that scene in the first Matrix movie which shows Reeves panicking after he learns that the planet has actually been a post-apocalyptic wasteland for centuries in contrast to the 21st century world he was used to when plugged in to the machines has been used by other atheists to illustrate points similar to this one. It's a bit similar to the fear of hell in a way as well. It would also explain those ludicrous rationalizations that you hear from many theists when you confront them with some of the more immoral parts of their holy books. That is why the religious worldview will always be the dominating mindset, until at least a couple of generations die off. Well, that's my theory anyway.
Regarding Deus Ex, i can do little more except agree with you. The game was a masterpiece and its influence is still felt in the industry to this very day. And the story was indeed so brilliant, that some of its "predictions" ended up being true only a couple of years later (Deus Ex = 1, Bible = 0). And some were truly freaky. Like the story behind the absence of the Twin Towers from the NYC skyline in the game. Do you know about that one?
Akhamesh
I think the fear of death is also a huge barrier to be overcome by theists. Since as long as they can recall, they've always been told that they would go to paradise (if they behave as god wants them to), that otherwise they'll be punished, that they need to believe in paradise, that it'll be the happiest place where everyone you loved and lost are waiting for you, and where you'll simply be able to live.
I recall a conversation with a christian friend. I'm french, and around here fundamentalists are extremely rare. But there are still a large number of christians, specifically catholics. What she said really struck me. She said that she thought about death that day, and I was surprised to see her answer when I said that it was a hard thing to think about. She immediately said that it wasn't, that she didn't fear death at all, this kind of thing. But everything she said went like this: if it wasn't for christianity, she was abso-fucking-lutely terrified to die. Terrified to not go to heaven. In short, she was terrified by death. This fear was exacerbated by christianity, and then it gave her an armor of delusion to make her believe she was protected against it.
Deus Ex fan here too, by the way, I find the first one to be great as well. What I also really liked is how even though it happens in 2052, the world is a lot like today's, a bit as if progress has stopped in many ways. It feels like a realistic future (although maybe a bit pessimistic), conspiracy theories aside, where shitty politicians and corrupted administrations got their way and the rest of the population suffers the consequences.
And I didn't notice the absence of the WTC. Do you know if it was intentional or if it was just an oversight on the developers' part ?
*Love the sermon*
Amen.
Matt sounds like the "use my pronoun"/white supremacy/ social justice warriors of 2022 🤣
The look on Matt's face while Cliffe is talking is priceless!
I know. Matt is like "Why am I even debating this brainwashed numbskull?".
I find extreme irony in Cliffes story and disgust at the man from MIT dating his computer. How is that any different from a monk or nun or priest who takes vow of celibacy and devote their entire life to chanting to a god and reading a book over and over again?
I don't find either to be healthy but if they are fulfilling to the individual I'm not gonna stop em. They aren't hurting anything or anyone. But don't have double standards about it. The geek with his PC is no different than the monk with his bible.
Yeah, there was a LOT of irony in his speech
See the problem is that beliefs can and DO hurt others. When one has the belief that God told them to drown their kids and they do are they not hurting anyone? When the US government decides to outlaw stem cell research because of religious beliefs does the harm that something like that creates not harmful to those that could benefit the cures that could be found through research like this?
So you see...there is a difference.
When did i ever make the claim that drowning kids isn't hurting anyone?
I made the comparison of someone going celibate and someone marrying their PC. Neither one is healthy but as long as they aren't hurting anyone I'm not going to stop them.
No one is saying ALL atheists are immoral. we are all sentient, moral, spiritual beings having a very brief earthly experience. The abject poverty of a materialistic worldview implies, if you dont worship God u have to worship at the altar of something! How u make sense of your world moreover, will have profound influence on how u view your role in life. So what's your god then- power, wealth, self image, career, sport, gambling, drugs porn, violence etc?
. When morality is doing no more than what is fashionable in some culture at some point in history, mankind is doomed. 100mill killed by godless despots in the 20th century and then today, the likes of Assad, SI and Kim Jong Un believing there is no accountability and certainly no ultimate justice.
And I reject your implication because you have started with assumption that their even is a god. So to assume that because you feel YOU need a god to fear means I need a god to fear is just plain ignorant. I do good things because I think of the consequences of those good things and the outcome I make up combined with my ability to empathize makes me feel good. The same works in reverse. I don't do bad things because I think of the consequences and the outcome combined with my ability to empathize makes me feel bad.
I have no reason to believe that i will ever be rewarded for the random good things I do. All I can do is hope those people thought "Hey that was a swell guy." when I lend them a hand or something. There are logical reasons to be a good person. You don't need the threat of judgement in order to be good.
So that answers you're question. I worship nothing. I wouldn't even know how to worship something. It's not a skill I possess.
Now a question for you, is your god the only thing that keeps you morally good? If he or she suddenly said you could kill, rape and pillage all you liked, would you?
I'll answer my own question first if you'd like to show I'm a good sport about this. My answer would be to murder exactly no one. To rape literally no one and pillage absolutely nothing. I've literally zero desire to do any of that shit. So even if a god magically appeared in the sky and said "Hey here I am I exist and you can now murder and rape each other!" I still wouldn't do it. Apart from defending myself and family from any raping people who were hiding in the shadows because they feared a god would hurt them.
Trouble is if your answer is the same as mine what use have you for these moral code in your holy book? You're morally good without them. With or without god you are a good person.
However if you WOULD rape, murder and pillage, then you aren't a good person. If the only thing that keeps you good is threat of punishment then I am more moral than you because I don't need the fear, you do.
I laughed out loud when Matt was introduced as the PRESIDENT of atheism 😂
Well,in all fairness, Matt Dillahunty has been pathologically ranting against something that doesn't exist according to him, for years. 😂Indeed, Matt Dillahunty 's pathological fixation on something that doesn't exist according to him, causes Matt to insult it at times. Matt Dillahunty called something that doesn't exist according to him, he called it a "thug". Matt Dillahunty hosts the " I don't believe that something exists" Experience (' Atheist Experience '), and is a member of the " I don't believe that something exists " community ( atheist community)of Austin,Texas.
@@kubejunkie It does. I won't argue with that. What's so incredibly strange about it, however, is that Matt Dillahunty is on record, repeatedly saying...... that all atheism is is a "lack of belief in God or gods '. Period.
Matt Dillahunty goes far far beyond a simple"lack of belief ". He pathologically rants, argues, hosts podcasts, has joined fellow pathological ranters against something that doesn't exist according to them, etc.
@@kubejunkie I agree with you one hundred percent. Matt Dillahunty's moral compass is "make it up as we go along '. It's incredibly amazing that he will categorically judge the actions of something that doesn't exist according to him as" immoral ", and then state that there is no" Objective Morality '.
@robinrobyn1714 It's literally his job.
Around 56:25, Cliffs says that athiests live for something besides (a god or gods). He says he knows a few that "live for money". Money, an item exchanged for goods in our society.
I don't think they "live" for that, but they probably spend a portion of their time, mind AND money to increase how much they have, why, because this allows people to have more in our societies.
Does money buy everything, no, but it provides a level of security. If we aren't giving that away, then it must be bought.
Many circumstances impact our starting point and we may overcome those in time, but they certainly have an effect on how and when we could get to our intended goal, and we may not have enough time for what we want.
We all make compromises, and we do not always go with our own philosophies as they are mindset that are not locked in, even consistency takes practice.
And this is why mid-life crisis’ occur.
There must be a god, because when Matt was religious he felt God calling him to do the Good Work. Well, God must exist cause Matt is doing the good work so eloquently
About seventy Matt's fans (who believes that life comes from nonlife) trying to prove by comments, that he won:)
The fruits of rejection of Christ's way/commandments: Stalin (and USSR), Chernobyl, Mao, Pol Pot, French revolution, Hitler, North Korea, Islamists and other terrorists etc. Experiments on people. All crimes, AIDS, satanism, racism, all kinds of porn, drugs, GMOs, perverted churches (of the hypocrites, who pretend to be disciples of Christ), the most terrible weapons of mass destruction etc. = destroyed planet!
That is why rejection of Christ's way is wrong and foolish. End of the debate!
You know what Jesus Christ taught, and you know that this is right, but you're doing the opposite. And all that I have listed - It is the opposite to Christ's teaching.
Why would a Christian like someone who leads people to hell? Are you sure you are a Christian? I wouldn't want my worse enemy spend eternity in hell. For you that is ok?
"Since God is dead all things are permitted" must be an ironic tombstone epitaph for many of the deniers over the past 3000yrs when the Psalmist proclaimed "a fool in his heart says there is no God' Ps 19
Since the Bible is the only scripture that concerns you, allow me assure deniers of one fact. It might shock u but no one goes to hell in a Biblical sense unless they want to. The idea that people are in hell crying to be let out is false. Just read Dante or CS Lewis who put it this way, “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” People will go to hell because they want to avoid an ultimate authority who tells them what they should and shouldn’t do. People in hell are saying it’s miserable, but they wouldn’t want to be in heaven if God is just pushing us around all the time.
On the other hand people want to go to heaven and submit to God in a loving relationship, a fact that give their life meaning, hope and destiny. The most fair understanding of the afterlife is the Christian view that God only gives you what you want. If you want to be your own savior and lord, you will get it. Your choice! As atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, “If God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist.” Such perfect circular logic will appeal to many who demand moral autonomy at the price of "unyielding despair." (B. Russell)
@@Gericho49 All you have done is make assertions. You have no evidence for any of them.
oh good the Xtian is starting with an allegorical tale... Matt opened with 5 minutes. This guy is still going on at 15 minutes.
Further... was this guy a preacher? The whole thing is one long memorized script.
Yeah, Cliffe actually lives a few towns over from me (he hails from New Caanan, CT). He has been doing this talk for decades. He frequently goes to universities and holds talks outside. He challenges questions of non-believers. I have to say that he takes on all comers which I do respect. I just do not agree with his assertions.
all these people critical of Cliff, wouldn't talk like this in public or in any serious forum. typical keyboard warriors that get no respect here or in open, honest discussions.
I would pay money to speak in front of him. What in the world makes you think ANYONE would be afraid to speak in public. He is on the losing side of this argument. Just because your parents brainwashed you into having false heroes and believing in sky daddies doesnt give any of these morons any credibility.
Keyboard warriors ? LOL uhh that is a title for people who talk tough. Nobody in here (on the skeptics' side) is talking tough. They are talking from doubt, skepticism, education, research, and the reluctance to not jump to conclusions, and only believe in things with evidence.
Try reading some harder books, not just 1 easy one that promises you cake at the end.
@TechSys If your own parents had given you no moral training, would you be looking for someone to love, or would you have fallen into taking advantage of others? I saw an NDE where the man stood before God asking Him questions. He asked about all the people who have never heard of Jesus. He asked about a man in an isolated African village, for instance. God actually said to Him: "He would know not to steal his neighbour's goat, "for instance", meaning that we all have our consciences, right? Many people who meet the Creator come away with the feeling that we give Him a few laughs, as do our own small children, when we actually will speak to Him. Selfish little fallen brats, we usually treat Him like poochie and ignore or make fun of Him! No wonder when we choose Justice over Love, we get sent to outer darkness or are mocked by demons. But the REAL question is, even if what you said is true, why do you care. By caring, you sort of prove yourself incorrect...
Your response was biased, judgmental, presumptive and condescending. Good argument dude!
Criticism =/= Nastiness. I would be incredibly critical of Cliffe's supernatural nonsense, but I would still be respectful.
An statement, opinion or whatever does not become true or untrue if it can be said to a person's face or in public. It simply is true or not.
28:38 Did Matt use the term Solipsism? He hates that word and refuses to talk about it when someone brings it up. ACA was the first time I had heard of the term and when I researched the topic, a part of me began to believe in it.
I don't understand the NEED to have a purpose. If the nature of the universe is such that it was not created, and that our lives have no inherent purpose, then so be it. I see no reason to fabricate myths in order to make our lives worth living. Atheism does not imply nihilism. I enjoy my life perfectly well without believing that there is any meaning or reason behind it.
Okay did anyone for a second believe that those stories Cliffe was telling about the kid with CP, and the French Rioters were in any way true?
No
I was so eager to get to the open discution but it never happened, I'm so disappointed.
I find it humorous how so many atheist make the statement that "I'm not saying God doesn't exist" JUST so they can try to avoid any kind of questioning about what they believe. Then spend their time attacking others who make the claim that they believe in God.
You might have fun attacking people who believe in God but keep in mind those people have the courage to stand for what they believe in while you hide behind semantics.
(Just a heads up don't bother trying to engage me in a debate. I wont reply to any messages)
Wezlb8 Yeah its circular reasoning and also why some theists wont debate this Matt guy. His wordplay is good, but he has a habit of declaring that "people are putting words in his mouth" when they catch him circling around in his arguments. Then he hangs up on them. Sad!
So do you accept everything's existence on someone's word or do you want evidence?
Why would I not want evidence?
Bigfoot, aliens.....I guess you take those on FAITH.
Are you really so daft that you missed the irony of refusing to stand by your position?
I really try not to believe that theists are dumb but boy do they make it hard...
Even Matt’s analogies say nothing at all. Why would someone even debate that is like this?
Sorry I'm abit late to the party but I had to comment
What's wrong with people? Even being a Christian I can see how illogical cliff is! The strength he has is his orating abilities which deserves an A+ no doubt about it. But it looks like he appeals to peoples emotions whereas Matt seems to make sense with facts I duno rethinking my faith
15:20 Is Cliffe not aware that most animals can also love? It is hardly a uniquely human trait. Is he so blinded by his creation myth fantasy reality that he is unaware that HE to is an animal? Religion may not make you stupid but it certainly helps make you clueless, or at least to appear so.
Quote from him is "you are not an animal. You are a human being".
Jos van Weesel I agree with you. When he said that, I facepalmed myself.
@Phelan If love and all these things are mechanical, then love can mean anything. Not only that, it means things like murder can show to just be a byproduct of our evolution. Love in its totality cannot be described by science, unless you can show me sources.
Animals can have love? Biblical love? Source please!
@@noahm44 Biblical love? What the F is that
2:15 Matt Dillahunty knocks a glass jar off of the table at *that* height and it doesn't shatter. Yet he still doesn't believe in God? WTF!?
WTF Layton glass doesn't always break ,but you are always silly
@@bradzimmerman3171 I'm pretty sure Nick is an atheist and he was joking. And even he was a theist they can joke on their god.
Text idea is awesome
Opening statement leads me to better understand the logic of no absolutes.
It's true that it isn't true.
We don't know what we believe...
We don't believe that we believe anything...
We trust that we don't have faith...
Cliff uses so many tired old arguments from Christian apologetics that have already been shelved while ignoring everything Matt says... so much #Facepalm
Cliffe Knechtle was adequately prepared for the circumstance, articulating his thoughts with eloquence. I find the likelihood of God's existence to be quite compelling, supported by substantial evidence concerning Jesus.
Oops. Not quite.
Bro you made ai write that lmao
did someone forget to tell Cliffe that this was supposed to be a debate and not a sermon? So fucking annoying
Well to be fair he is a preacher so he is going to have a preacher tone.
exactly I get that he's passionate about his beliefs but holy shit he just repeats the same logical inconsistencies with such confidence
It's not about logic
Cliffe is quite the preacher but not very good at providing evidence for his beliefs other than “I believe it so it must be true”.
As a Christian, I will not throw Matt under the buss like some atheists might do to Cliffe - just to show support for my position. I do think this debate was way long...but I give credit to both sides doing a good job presenting what they believe in.
P Foster I do see what you are saying as Cliffe seemed to give more of a reason(s) why he believes in God, rather than providing any kind of evidence that people can take away and do some research on for themselves. However, in fairness, although he seemed pretty mellow in this debate, Matt can get a little demeaning with people as well. I was impressed with Matt because I have seen some debates where he really didn't do very well. But in this situation, I don't feel like he did well because Cliffe did bad - instead I think he did well on the merits of his own arguments and rebuttals.
To me the real test is to see how they answer questions - like if they try to slither out of it or not. I think in this debate, neither attempted to do so, which is why I think they both did a pretty good job.
I have been a long time subscriber of this channel. The comments are usually quite civil except for when cliffe debates matt, then some of the people who follow matt get very bitter in the comments. I find it strange how some of the atheists in the comments claim to be morally superior, yet mock at the same time.
We’re not morally superior, just intellectually superior.
@@carncats07 your atheistic position makes you look like foolish. As soon as the atheistic position gets pushed it fails.
@@hvrlxm_3348 no, it really doesn't.
@@zacharyberridge7239 - Yes, it does. The moment you get bitter just from arguments, you fail.
@@lifethroughromans8295 who said I'm bitter because of arguments? Way to assume, bud
Regards the section at 1:36:00. I am an atheist and I have been to the funeral of other atheists and I have never heard "Maybe the great spirit....".
God bless you all and I pray that anyone that doesn't believe, finds their way to Jesus!
Odin bless you and I pray you repent to him before it's too late for you.
@@crasssh00
I'll stick with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, parmesan be upon Him 🙏 Ramen 😂
Matt is the only one on stage actually participating in a debate. He presents rational points, explains his position clearly, makes reasoned arguments, and actually responds to what his opponent says and frequently corrects misconceptions.
By contrast, Cliffe merely recites his pre-written script and tells pointless anecdotes. Everything he says is coming from someone who either wasn't listening to Matt, or didn't understand. It's like he's just waiting for his turn to talk, and participating in the discussion he imagined ahead of time would take place rather than the one that's actually happening.
I had a feeling this would be the case from the very beginning. Notice that Cliffe had a couple stacks of books prepared and had prepared his entire speech ahead of time. Matt has a notepad, a pen and the jar of gumballs. He had one thing planned (the gumballs), then a pen and pad to take notes and respond to what is actually said. It was Matt vs. no one with some guy saying nonsensical things while Matt took breaks.
Bryan West "It was Matt vs. no one with some guy saying nonsensical things while Matt took breaks."
Ha ha ha ha, I love how you phrased that. So true! :-)
Yeah.....right......!I think the opposite.
@@jedfloydteniedo9267 So does Cliffe. Like his god.
@@billcross8381 yeah right I think the opposite..
I knew where this debate was going as soon as Cliffe started his Billy story
Also that smirk when he talks about his atheist friends...
I do not know if Zeus, Brahman, Allah, or Yahweh exist.
I would have to exercise faith and hope to make it so.
That story about the crippled kid sounds like made-up story to me to "pray" on emotions.
I love 💕 the debate
Cliffe relies on appeals to emotion and word games. You can not poem God into existance.
Also Cliffe seems to duck out on questions.
no, he seems more to spout pre-prepared statements than actually answering them legitimately... like blatantly stating that atheists "have faith" IMMEDIATELY after Matt rebutted it AND Matt's opening statement, which was PRIMARILY discussing that very point...
lol wdym? Cliffe provides clear examples and some what proof for his argument.
Cliffe Knechtle is very theatrical and puts on a good "show" but if you listen carefully to what he actually says its full of flawed logic.
How So?
It's not this person just came into the debate to hear the side he liked.
@@coreygossman6243 it is and was thoroughly exposed during the debate
Don't bother explaining because you'll just have to lie.
@@keepthechange2811 or you could watch the video and it's self evident
I'm asserting my belief that only Christians can tolerate Knechtle, because I had to FF him throughout.
"even when I've always addressed it."
Why do christians always say things like "it is objectively wrong to hurt children for fun"
I don't get it. Haven't they read Psalm 137:9?
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."
Well it says "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"
And I interpret that as meaning "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"
The implication being that according to the bible, enjoying killing children is at least sometimes right, which means that it can't be objectively wrong.
Jesus said " But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
So fantasizing about sinning is the same as doing it.
The "psalmist' as you call it is traditionally thought of as being Jeremiah. The words Jeremiah used were god's own, as said in Jeremiah 1 “The lord… …said to me: I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”
So this verse about being happy when killing children is condoned by god.
It is not the only place in the bible where god condones the killing of children, often as a part of a genocide he orders. I only chose the verse I did, because it used the word "happy", I could have chosen from many more.
You need to read your bible more.
You say that these culture's were vile, were the children vile too? The bible says nothing about sending them to heaven. What about the first born of Egypt, are Egyptians vile too, or was it just the oldest children of that generation that happened to be vile?
2nd Timothy 3 16:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."
So the verse saying "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" was "inspired by god" and "make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.". I can't remember the verse were it is recanted, nor the verse that explains that god didn't agree with it. In fact, when reading it in context with the rest of the books of the old testament, it doesn't seem out of line with gods personality at all.
I'm sure you are a good person, your comments here show that you are more moral than your god. You would be an even better person if you didn't let your morality be corrupted by ancient superstitions. I hope you do read the bible objectively.
You do seem relatively friendly (abuse comes from both sides). I also realize you don't have all the answers (neither do I), and I don't expect to change your mind on an internet forum.
I honestly hope you consider the bible objectively. It is a rare christian that does, and they often walk away non believers.
I maintain that you would be at least as good, and probably a better person if you didn't believe. There is nothing moral that you couldn't do as a non believer that you do do now. On the other hand, as a non believer you wouldn't feel the need to justify genocide and child killing.
Don't be scared to doubt. There is no bogey man on the other side of the door.
***** Surely if god sent these kids to heaven, that would make him worse? Think about it:
If god has the ability to make a pre-emptive strike and kill children, therefore ushering them straight into heaven, when they would have otherwise (as you put it) grown up to become heathens and condemned, then why does he only do it for THOSE children?
That would mean that billions upon billions of people that are going to go to hell could had been saved by god via this method, but he chose not to.
Something that Cliffe said that bothered me very much, something that was highly suspect. He said he grew up in New England (as did I). As a matter of fact, he lives 4 towns over from me. He said that at his school that he and 1 other were the only believers in Christ. Now, I will go out on a limb and say that is a lie because just 4 towns over I experienced the exact opposite.
Exactly, i live in NYC, work in CT, and travel alot in New England, where some of the largest Dioceses exist. Not to mention huge populations of Irish Catholics, Roman Catholics, and other religious denominations. It was a flat out lie!
It fits better with his plot of misunderstood, self-sacrificing and brave christians. It's hard to prove in a society where christianity is the religion of the majority.
At 01:56:00, did Cliffe say he was unfaithful with his wife? Was that before or after he became a Christian?
Free of any beliefs or gods and couldn't be happier ty
If we find something and we don't understand how it works, say we discover some material deep underground that we have never seen before that is anti gravitational, it floats.
Do we take this stuff to scientists or priests?
How would "god does it" help at all in understanding anything about this material or process?
Scan How would anti gravitation material be forced by gravity into a ball of spacerock and hidden deep underground if not by an act of God?
Are youbsuggesting all people who believe in God that stupid? You are incredibly judgemental... Someone can believe in God and still make a great advancement in science... Check out newton
Science is studying the process... Duh... Im a firm believer of Christ.. But I'm so fascinated with science like dark matter, string theory, quantum physics... Like by understanding science how everything works out well together makes me even more amaze of how the world is created...i didn't stop myself to learn the process by saying God did it...
But I will be amazed with God on how He produce that process...
Don't be judgemental please.. Believing in God is not the same with being ignorant with science... You are false
@@wawangunawan9355 I have no need of that hypothesis
Cliff made assertion after assertion after assertion without any evidence in any way to back up his claims then refused to speak about anything that Matt gave in response to those assertions with actual facts to support Matts arguments. It amazes me that someone can get up and preach for the entire time and someone else can actually provide evidence based arguments and this is still called a "debate" in any way.
Except that he did give evidence. You believe Columbus sailed here, you believe there was a man named napoleon and what he did, you believe there was a Greek philosopher names Aristotle, etc etc. why do you believe these things? Historical records from eyewitness testimony..that is evidence
What would be an example of that "evidence" you reference?
What is the point of two teams debating before an audience, if the audience doesn't get to vote on who made the better argument on the day?
There isn't anything more to reality, reality is reality and that's that.
How do you know that?
@@rprestarri There is a lack of evidence.
The laws of reality as you know it say something can’t be made out of nothing. Yet the entire universe exploded into existence out of nothing. Reality is reality, but this experience is not all of reality.
@@rprestarriread his post and your question again😂 think about what you asking😅
@@JB-zd8gv Your assuming laws of Logic. But you have no basis for laws inherent in the universe, otherwise theres a Lawmaker.
45 minutes in... is Cliffe actually going to make real points... or just preach? EVERYTHING he is saying is just a sermon with fluffy thoughts and wishful thinking. This guy doesn't actually know how to debate.... kind of sad really. At least Matt is addressing the points very clearly and not with tales of yore, and excepts from the bible that are subject to interpretation.
Cliffe pretty much proves my point in his response to life after death... wishful thinking. He is clearly being intellectually dishonest. Appeals to claims with no proof and asserting that it is true. Matt already rebutted that with the alien analogy. You have thousands of people alive today that "claim" aliens, why shouldn't I believe them, but believe a 2000 year old account in a book that has been translated and rewritten many times.
everything is based upon Belief
Don’t be so harsh on him, he’s used to bully students on universities and even they give him some hard times
Matt, an atheist, kept making appeals to objective morality?!?!! His worldview is not privy to make such appeals....you have none.
Cliffe kept emphasizing that the existence of an intricately designed universe and its intelligibility point to an intelligent origin,, as all of humanity has inferred in our history. They used their reason to conclude that...even your great prophet Dawkins said it seems designed, but the lack of reason to see that it logically follows that something that seems designed might have a designer, but nope! The evidence that has sufficed for all other humans, atheists are too dense or disingenuous to admit.
Science and reason, ok. Science: never has anyone observed one species turn into another, Evolutionists make that inference(faith by what they consider fossil evidence)...reason: never have we observed something coming from nothing, life from non-life...so the universe is something, it did not come from nothing...life did not come from a rock and primordial soup...that's reason, which the lot of you seem to lack. MORALITY: You have no right if you claim no God. And if you think you do go ahead and try to make the case for it.
@@walterdaems57 you call the dialogues he has with students bullying?
Why don't you rebut his points instead of this soft soap you try to comfort yourself with....you like Matt, all you do is refuse all evidence that confront you and when pressed on an issue you fall on that cheap cop out of, like Hitchens said, "our beliefs are not beliefs" type of rationale,, as if you don't have a worldview.....you do, just no good arguments, zero evidence, and insults,,
Atheists comments are the most ad hominem in nature. Can't argue reason so you go after the person. Please. Grow some balls and be honest with yourself, you want atheism to be true coz the existence of God and the chance that you'll be morally accountable is highly inconvenient, and you wanna live your life how you want. You wanna be God.
2:06 Yeah, they are "unique perspectives" but the most important event of that religion, the resurrection, is not even remotely consistent across the 4 gospels. The details of who was there, who saw what, how many angels (or if any angels were present), zombie jews or no zombie jews... the BIG news stories aroind this cemtral belief vary widely to the point of absurdity. And NOBODY saw the resurrection event itself! They just discovered an empty tomb. Of course WHO discovered the empty tomb is ALSO not in agreement between the 4 books, and those who "saw" zombie jesus didnt even recognize him. Consistency? Hardly. But of course few Christians have read and compared all four accounts. And it is all beside the point. Written stories (especially ones written decades after the event as in all of the gospels) are not evidence of the true nature of actual events.
I'm with you on the logistics. Who could hear mumbles from a broken battered face hoisted high on a cross?..the garden where jesus prays alone - how is there a transcript? or of his temptation by satan? Thomas is like who are you and the voice, nothing clicks? So this guy has stigmata or something and Thomas is playing about in a man's wounds, yet believers think that makes the crap more credible?
and how superior and blessed a man could have been if he was allowed to see the resurrecting body of Christ! When Jesus himself rose, Peter saw his bare hands with the marks of crucifiction.
I am not convinced in the existence of any god for I have never encountered _any_ credible evidence, including _any_ sound argument, that suggests such an existence. Therefore, I will suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god _until_ such evidence or argument is introduced.
Am I not rationally justified in my position?
Can we talk about how fun it is to say Cliff Knechtle?
Try it. Cliff Connectley
He also seems like he is purposefully distorting the truth when he says his atheist friends live for money. That is complete bullshit. This is nasty ugly fallacy (Dicto simpliciter). That frankly disgusts me in how he uses it. Trying to make it seem as if atheist are greedy people. I think most humans live for the experience. That entails everything our experience comes with. If you live in a society where money is necessity for food and needed resources then you do "need" money in that sense. Especially as a means of promoting philanthropy (charity organizations). He doesn't make this distinction. He continues by saying pleasure is what they live for. As if god isn't just an opiate for the people who fear death. He says many people do like money... its beneficial. Its so sad he generalizes people who cant defend themselves to make other people who are watching think the wrong things... this is dishonesty. I cant understand why people are saying they admire his honesty. All he did the whole time was appeal to emotion and fallacies. And then in his own words passed it off as "logic/ clear thinking" and "truth".
@ryan gray
"He also seems like he is purposefully distorting the truth when he says his atheist friends live for money."
- let's give it up for prosperity theology
Come on Ryan! No one is saying ALL atheists are greedy. we are all sentient, moral, spiritual beings having a very brief earthly experience. The abject poverty of a materialistic worldview implies, if you dont worship God u have to worship at the altar of something! What's your god then- power, wealth, self image, career, sport, gambling, drugs porn, violence etc? We all have a worldview of how we make sense of our world and our place in it. When morality is doing no more than what is fashionable in some culture at some point in history, mankind is doomed. 100mill killed by godless despots in the 20th century and then today, the likes of Assad, SI and Kim Jong Un believing there is no accountability and certainly no ultimate justice.
"You cannot manipulate or force love."_Cliffe
"Love and worship me or I set you on fire."_ God.
Right. -_-.
MrOmniblast Wrong.
ada2step It’s sad that you’re oblivious and ignorant and missed the point.
Preach it brothers
"My atheist friends". Hard to imagine an atheist putting up with Cliff foe more than four minutes. High on my list of men not to be stuck in a lift with.
Lying is a core Christian tenet, Cliffe is in all probability lying when he says he has atheist friends, he may have acquaintances that are atheist , but atheist never, no atheist could befriends with a biased bigot like Knectle that can't stand any one having a different view to his, he demonstrated theirs in another debate with Matt Dillahunty were he lost himself big time and constantly shouted and ranted at Dillahunty to shut up.
NOBODY says that "unless you can scientifically prove it it's not true". Nobody that I've heard, at least. :/
you gotta get out more and meet more people, as i am sure it will come up.
billyrockproductions I don't think I want to meet that kind of person. They don't seem so smart.
My brother the other day said.. "well if there is no god, where did everything come from?" And to be honest, that was the question that kept me holding on to my fatih..and then I realized just because I don't know, doesn't mean there being a god helps make any more sense out of it.
Life is fascinating and I believe it is fascinating solely because we don't know all the answers..and I wouldn't trade that for the world
rsr789 That's a false dichotomy.
There are varying degrees of knowledge, with scientifically proven things being the highest form of knowledge for any falsifiable claims.
But, for example, what about something like "my favourite ice cream is vanilla" - how do I apply the scientific method to that? It's knowledge, but it's not a valid scientific question.
And besides that, we're not talking about the acceptance of claims, which is a question of belief, anyway. What I said was that I wouldn't want to meet someone who says "unless you can scientifically prove it it's not true". Truth is a question of KNOWLEDGE with reference to a claim - and I wouldn't want to meet someone who claims that EVERYTHING must be scientifically proven or they are automatically deemed to be untrue.
The argument that everything man made thing has a designer is unbelievably naive.
Exactly, Mr Knechtle. It requires a mind to have morality. That is why it is inherently subjective - God or no God! Humans value human life, regardless of whether your god does. From that axiom all of Mr Dillahunty's conclusions follow consistently.
You can clearly see the Priest has a listening device in his left sleeve. Watch his watch and him listening to it before he gets up at 34:50 and other times in the background.
1:55:45 "there's life after death because when you love somebody you want to be with them" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lol, I clocked this too. Hilarious.
wishful thinking.
Bill Brown its self evident. clearly no need to discuss this.
Bill Brown : He's laughing because it's a non sequitor argument. That is, what one wishes to be true has nothing to do with what IS true. I didn't laugh either, Bill, chiefly because I've heard the same silly argument about a thousand times. For me it's lost its edge.
Watch it again. He said that love is the REASON for life after death, not the PROOF OF life after death.
Omg! He did the creation has a creator analogy...
Yeah with the shirt and everything. Also, he insisted we need to exclude nature from this, which may seem logical but is not since nature is the one thing we have 0 evidence to support a creator with.
@@nsignific Maybe, but Natural Law and modern science today was founded by a Judeo-Christian philosophy which states that humans can observe there is Law and order to the universe... Not God-denying subjectivists who cannot intellectually justify their existence between their personal revelation and vain opinionated perspective.
"There's more to reality than matter and energy" How can he possibly, possibly make that claim!!
Becuase we have minds and live lives that have meaning
@@lukash3049 and how are minds and lives not composed of matter and energy?
@@PhilipOMeara You can not make life from unlife or a mind from not a mind
@@lukash3049 So you're saying life has existed for an eternity? Without a beginning?
@@jsmall10671 No, I am saying God is eternal
Seems that for any religious person, it mostly boils down to the need of an answer for how anything became too. Just the god of the gaps fallacy, I don't know therefore god. Then feelings back up the belief to the person.
Does Cliffe not know the counterarguments? I know that he does because I've seen him in other debates where the flaws in his arguments were pointed out. So, he chooses to ignore those valid counterarguments, which is disingenuous.
We are the only species that knows we will someday die and yet we spend our entire lives pretending we never will.
Yes, and that's one of the rasons we invented the concept of eternal life after death. Evolution produced being who is aware of its death, but has not provided solution of being aware to cease to exist. Becouse of that we tell ourselves fairy tales to keep our mind in peace.
Also. Future is not set. Death is also not certain. Future generations could overcome death. Please check www.sens.org/
mfoundation.org/
www.sierrasci.com/
That was not even close Matt talks about reality and truth and Cliffe makes a lot of claims that are not proven in anyway. Sorry Cliffe but magic has never been shown to be real.
Did you know that Atheist is a religion?
@@svmarshmallow8399 Seriously 🤣
atheists spend all of their time trying to disprove Theism. They Religiously attack it and even though they no-life their studies they still don't even get close to it.
@@svmarshmallow8399 Do you know anything?
@@TheMidnightModder Theism disproves itself.
"There are no accidents" - Master Oogway
Cliffe Knechtle had no chance against Matt.
Knechtle is a stereotypical caricature of every apologist out there. His arguments hold not one iota of value in logical reasoning. If I were a theist while still possessing the ability to reason, I would be cringing at every word this guy spewed out in this debate.
Ironically, laws of logic aren't even possible under atheism, so your appeal to a logic and reason couldn't be made if atheism were true.
Logic doesn't need a god.
@@rrock2025 ironically you used reason to come to that (false) conclusion, and since laws of logic are eternal, abstracted and metaphysical entities, yes they require the mind of God to exist.
Nick wow! So many claims yet no evidence, what an arrogant idiot you are
Nick the irony in saying logic isn’t possible if you’re an atheist yet atheist are literally the only ones that use logic.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. Tried it but god didn't turn up.
June 26 2014 a number of us held a surprise birthday party for our mum and she did turn up.
"there must be a god because if there is no god then there is no absolute morality."
...so?
Would like to know you for the rest of your life and right down each time you point out really get and wrong so I can say it's none of your business or dint worry about it.
There are no absolutes therefore it is not your concern
Has this guy got anything else apart from an argument from emotion?
How is he using emotion?
@@havard94 cliffe is basically going "if god doesnt exist then good and evil is subjective, and we dont want that. If there is no god then life is meaningless and we dont want meaningless lives."
@@carlosbecerril3317 call it God or intelligent design it shows there has to be a superior being than us. Otherwise your the person that defines good and evil, which if you believe that then how can you say who’s right and who’s wrong and yes your life would be meaningless in the big picture if there is no superior being or intelligent design. These are evidence that there has to be some superior being than us. He’s trying to emphasise nobody would can live them out truly!
@@carlosbecerril3317 Plus you can say that without being emotional
@@havard94 no, you are literally making a leap in logic. The ONLY way you can say any of this is with an appeal to emotion: "if god foes not exist then life is ultimately meaningless." Is fine, but reason cliffe is giving for why its wrong is because we dont want a meaningless life, that's an appeal to emotion. What we want is irrelevant to whether or not its true.
I'm sorry Cliffe, but your attitude pushes myself and others I know away from being able to listen to a word you are saying. Very difficult trying to understand that you actually believe what you are saying, due to the edge in your voice.
ironic how your username is "alwaysthinkforyourself" but you are affected by how others react to things. Im guessing you have never heard of something called rhetoric we cant all be as boring as dillahunty sad to say.
vegeta3739 Yes we are all affected by how others react to things,,,its a part of how we evolve. Look that up
Vegeta3739, Having the inability to follow along with the individual due to the edge in his voice is a normal human reaction. Not an inability for me to not be able to think for myself. Having reason and logic, has nothing to do with a human reaction to his attitude. If he lowered his attitude, it might be easier to listen. Simple.
vegeta3739
alwaysthinkforyourself didn't say s/he's "affected by how others react to things." Rather that Knechtle's tone is off-putting. He sounds insincere, as though he's giving a sermon, not speaking extemporaneously.
Disagreeing with Matt is one thing, but I have the impression you didn't even listen to anything he said, if you think he's boring.
The mere fact of having to ask the question centuries after the invention of gods puts believers at a disadvantage. Claims & faith is all there ever was, ever will be. What a waste of time for humanity.
Matt I commend you for this debate u did a great Job, do I think u won, no.... but I commend you at this debate. Your other ones have been ehhhh you had more fire here