"you haven't demonstrated why atheism is true" wow...really???? your WLC tactics FAIL, slick. tell me, what claim does atheism make that requires proof/evidence that it's valid? here, i'll give you a hint....THERE ISN'T ONE! atheism is NON-BELIEF. not a claim of any kind. fuckin idiot
any notice the fact jesus died in his 30's lets say 35 and most of those people died ca 100 ad so that means when jesus was doing his preaching most of these men were at least teens about 15 or greater with ability to record jesus's works that means they lived 85 years or so which in that roman eygpt about the time a website funded by muesems and universities cliams that living in a town gives a 1/181 short living from 80-84 no that many people all having witnessed jesus in a cities thats sketch
Sorry Kelly, but is Jesus is real. The BBC had a documentary that there was evidence of Jesus surviving the Crucifixion and that there where historical records of him preaching there for 5 years. After the execution, there are records of him going back to India and he died there and there was a tomb built for him.
@VRMadz you trust the bible? Not only the BBC has evidence there's other sources as well. The BBC is left wing so they have no motive to prove that Jesus exists.
The only thing these Theologians know is how to complicate a simple argument into coco jumbo. They pick words from a simple statement and start branching them off. Good work Kelly but I really praise your patience for not really hanging up on this idiot!
how do you know that ?=nothing can be known and all we can do is hope to pick the right leader who will keep us from suffering for our ignorance...I disagree.
Interesting how in the beginning of this debate Kelly says that she tries to be as intellectually honest as possible and yet as the debate progresses she keeps talking over him...
9:08: "I'D LIKE TO FINISH MY SENTENCES, THAT'D BE NICE."
I'm so tired of all these athiest that make subjective arguement after subjective arguement, I personally don't think Matt is defending Christianity to the best of his ability but this is insane. I know there's some athiest who's gonna reply to this and say how no she doesn't see any evidence but save it please. Most athiest are simply ignorant to the evidence they don't want to see
@TheAttackOfChuck Then please provide proof and evidence your god does exist, or any god for that matter, and collect your Nobel Prize. You can in one fell swoop become rich beyond your imagination, have lasting fame for all of time,
To claim someone is "simply ignorant to the evidence they don't want to see" is totally incorrect. The largest growing numbers in Atheism, come from churches. The quickest way to Atheism is to actually read the bible.
What would convince atheists? more like what would brain wash you to believe there isn't enough evidence to have certainity on it Matt says we don't have proof look at the fail of prayer look at the lack of evidence for the christian god and look at the contradictions in the bible what more proof do we need? give it up Matt atheism stands time for us to move on to others beliefs christians failed bye bye.
@FollowingChrist44 You missed the point the fact is Plato doesn't claim to be the son of god so his existience is realistic to reality nothing could be gained by lying about his existience, Jesus is important to your doctrine with out this guy your belief wouldn't be convincing or appealing to the emotions of the converts so of course he could be fabracted with the unrealistic claims behind him.
@FollowingChrist44 Its not my place to convert its my research my thoughts on the subject i can't prove it on youtube i invite you to look for yourself to me its very clear its all bogus i can't buy into such a story but i just want people to question what they believe you can't possibly claim full certainty in the bible you don't have all the data of the past none of us know what really happened am sorry but thats just fact.
@FollowingChrist44 I can and did prove it to myself and yes you can't prove it ive lived on both sides of the fence i see both views you only see one but the best i can do is tell you that as a christian prayer never worked and i never saw or heard god none of these self testamonies people have are really honestly true if they were you wouldn't have priests raping or having double standards among the churches but you do so they must not really believe in a hell hello....
@FollowingChrist44 If there is a super being out there i would bet my money it has nothing to do with our beliefs the bible was writen by humans that put words in the mouth of a great spirt but really its a very weak example of a god truly a great spirt would not need to author a book to get his point across in fact if i was a god i would be insulted by these holy books.
@wachnathan So... once again... you have no "proof" for anything, just some subjective thoughts? So you knock on Christians for having no "proof", but yet you have none yourself for rejecting Jesus Christ. Okay, that's funny.
@FollowingChrist44 Give me some proof that praying works? we both know you can't i was christian myself once and none of these claims are really true we just pretended it worked when the game of chance acted in our favor. I am really being honest here i don't knock on christians only the dogma and doctrine that wants every idea under the caption of christ which i cannot support how the hell can you support the bible after reading it word for word come on? its a very unmoral book.
@wachnathan What a beautiful speech. So you cannot provide enough objective evidence to disprove Christianity? Or can you? As far as I am concerned, those who reject Christianity only reject it on some odd subjective reason like how you just mentioned about prayer. Let me guess, you prayed and asked God for a million dollars to fall from the sky and it didn't happen, so you got upset and rejected the Bible?
@FollowingChrist44 No! now your attacking my character as if its my fault the bible just didn't provide enough data for me to be convinced we both know you have to take it on faith not by its evidence because there is none hello why else would you have to use such a word. Your lack of evidence is the evidence not to mention does prayer work? Ah no! thats good enough for me right there so don't disrespect my character its not my fault your belief is a fail.
@wachnathan I'm just saying, you can't prove Christianity is false, all you can do is provide some subjective arguments at best. All you have done is support my position so far. And yes, it is your fault. What kind of evidence would you like? Answer this question for me please... Do you believe the planet Neptune exists? If so, why? Once again, did you "prove" prayer not work because God didn't give you a million dollars when you asked Him for it?
@FollowingChrist44 Well of course you can't disprove or prove something that happened two thousand years ago thats the whole point its not realistic with the reality we know and it comes from the age of myth hello your hitching your wagon to a book that we can't even find anything about the authors not to mention the bible is just one book of many gospels that contradict each other. God is a different subject you have to prove not just a god but a christian one.
@FollowingChrist44 Here's an idea why don't you pray for god to actually do something or show a display of creation? am pretty certain nothing will happen but go ahead anyways with out god the rest of your arguments don't mean anything thats what theists should be doing not making up exuses for his hiddeness or put words in his mouth like most of you do. Think about this why doesn't god get rid of satan? because the story of salvation depends on it so really its just a comic book good vs evil.
@FollowingChrist44 There you go again, Listen it doesn't matter if he existed or not to me but there is a good chance that he didn't exist yes. It really doesn't matter if a person is real if it doesn't affect anyone but Jesus does affect people there is a doctrine based on him that dictates peoples lives so its important to find out if he was real or a fabracation.
@wachnathan I am asking you this question because if you say he didn't exist, you are being super silly. Even Bart Ehrman will say such a claim is stupid. I am also asking you if you believe Plato existed and if you believe the planet Neptune exists because these things cannot be "proven", but we can know they exist or in Plato's case exist-ed because of the evidences of their existence. The same can be applied to Jesus Christ, and God.
@wachnathan You don't care but at the same time you care about "His story"? You are not making sense. A part of you does care if you bothered to message me.
@FollowingChrist44 Proof is your burden your the ones who want to take over the world and convert everyone to think like you and in my mind your book is debunked but yet you still try to convert are you really that scared of the after life that you can't question your own belief?
Dumb bitch. Acting like a Christian (and dodging questions) isn't clever. She's the Palin of athiests. He was asking the softest questions and she carried on talking as though she was alone.
@FollowingChrist44 Plato wrote several dialogues and letters which have survived today. He also is mentioned and thoroughly discussed by his contemporaries, most famously by Aristotle.
Jesus doesn't have any of things going for him to prove his existence, and this is why people severely question his existence.
@mebe84 Almost all of them will tell you Jesus Christ existed. I believe Plato existed, but I don't agree with everything he wrote... what does that have to do with our topic? lol But there is no legitimate historical documentation of Athena goddess's existence lol... which is why historians call Athena a myth. You are comparing a man who existed verses a mythological character who did not...Our entire time line is built around the person of Christ.
@mebe84 You can also test their authenticity by reading the context, and see if there is anything that would prove the story to be a forgery... But this is still something you fail to do objectively, same for Kelly. I asked you earlier, Jesus is not the Eternal Son, who is He? And if you say He is a mere man, can you provide any evidence for your position?
@FollowingChrist44 "Jesus is not the Eternal Son, who is He?"you really can't think of another option?i'm tired of your babble. you have been thoroughly pwnd.and u keep digging your own intellectual grave.i never said that it was or wasn't a forgery,because it is irrelevant to my point,just like "textual criticism",plato,and homer. i'm not sure whether u can't get it or won't get it.as for my position,i told u,it is doubt.i doubt jesus is a god.the burden of proof is on u. study epistemology
@mebe84 I am saying you are inconsistent if you deny the person of Christ and the Gospels on account of a purely manuscript and historical analysis. If you reject the source because of miracles you're doing the same thing Kelly did here, which is judge it from a subjective standpoint... "I don't believe God exists, therefore the Gospels are false." That was my original argument, that you cannot come up with a valid objective argument to negate the Gospels.
@mebe84 I already told you, "textual criticism" is one of the methods that can disqualify a religion as truth or even a historical document. Also, the religion itself, for example Buddha specifically stated he does not know the truth and to not make a religion out of him. False prophecies as well determine a religion to be false (i.e. Joseph Smith has many false prophecies.).
2. u obviously have no idea what u r talking about. if u did, u would know that saying jesus' existence is as well established as homers' does not help your argument.
3. i believe jesus was a real person.
4. when ancient literature conflicts with empirical,scientific evidence, the latter negates the former. so idon't believe jesus walked on water, and if plato claimed to have walked on water, i wouldn't believe that either. i am not inconsistent
@mebe84 Exactly, you said it yourself, "he didn't know..." and why didn't he know? Because he was just a man. So there you go, you admit Buddhist follow and worship a mere man. And yes it does help my argument... If you compare manuscript evidence of the New Testament with the writings of Plato and Homer, you will find the New Testament is more well-preserved. Bravo, you believe Jesus was real... Now who was He?
@FollowingChrist44 bhudda never claimed to be more than a man. bhuddism has nothing to do with worship of anything. perhaps if u had any clue of what u were talking about you would know that. i am getting tired of trying to get u to understand this point. last time. do u have a response to point #4 in my previous comment? and could u please define "textual criticism". if not, i think i'm done here.
@mebe84 Exactly, but Buddhists still worship him because they look to him as their standard of living... He is their guide (that's a form of worship). I responded to #4 (it did not refute my original argument) and I told you to Wikipedia textual criticism... Perhaps if you were not so flustered with rage you would properly read my comments.
@FollowingChrist44 u have not done anything but make BASELeSS assertions. and when i explain why one should doubt, u simply follow up with more baseless assertions. i have to go to work, but i will google it since u can't define it . but since my reasons for doubting are not good enough, perhaps u could share your reasons for believing. p.s. i actually laughed out loud when u claimed i am not being objective, as if u are or something. bye have a great day
@mebe84 Saying the Gospels are false because it talks about miracles is simply just a subjective opinion because it is a personal opinion. I have given you objective arguments by comparing the evidence of Christ and validity and authenticity of the Gospels with that of ancient writings by historical figures from the ancient world like Plato and Homer... This is objective because it is without presupposition, your analysis of the Gospels is with bias (that God does not exist).
@FollowingChrist44 first of all, i never said a god doesn't exist.my position is one of doubt.i doubt the claims of the gospels.and here is where your flawed logic makes u misunderstand. comparing plato to the gospels has no relevance to whether the claims made within the gospels are true. it might be relevant if i claimed that the goddess athena is real and she protects odysseus (as homer said),but no one does that. it is irrelevant there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. wikipedia says
@mebe84 There is no legitimate historical document of a Goddess Athena though... so that example is flawed. No historian would tell you that a Goddess Athena existed, but they would tell you Jesus existed. Textual criticism tests the Gospels to see if they have been changed from the original... and the evidence shows they have not. These are the earliest sources of Christ. This is tied in with testing their authenticity.
@FollowingChrist44 keep digging. so if a historian tells you homer really existed, then u would believe in athena and the rest? if a historian says plato was real, then u believe in his philosophy of forms and the good life? if there is a legitimate historical document of the goddess athena, then u would believe it? the point is, that even if u have the original document, it doesn't make what is written IN the document true.and since it contradicts our current understanding,i doubt it's true.
@mebe84 If you're tired of my "babble" then go to sleep. I already showed you the Gospels and the New Testament writings as the historical evidence that Jesus is God. But yet you have shown me 0 evidence that Jesus is not God... yet you say the burden of proof is on me? And now I ask you... why do you simply just
"doubt" the Gospels, can you give me a reason? I am not looking at "a (one) historian"... I am looking at the historians in an entirety...
@FollowingChrist44 it's truly amazing to me how dense u are. it seems i cannot get through to u, but maybe someone will read our comments, and will learn something from my responses to your utterly illogical absurdity. 1 last pwning:obviously(to everyone but u)claims and proof are not the same thing. the gospels are not evidence that jesus is god, they simply make claims that jesus is god, claims which you and they have abjectly failed to give any evidece for. i gave u a reason; #4 peace
@mebe84 Yes, they make claims that Jesus is God, but they also died for this belief and the testimony that He had resurrected... were they all hallucinating? And I never said I can PROVE Jesus is God, but I can provide sufficient historical evidence to validate my position as mentioned earlier. Also, are you telling me you will only believe what is 100% factually been proven to you and you will not strictly rely on evidence to accept something?
@FollowingChrist44 I was just reading your debate you had with mebe84 and he is right the gospels are not evidence at all. So, what exactly is your evidence?
@surshot56 There are no contradictions in the Gospels. Secondly, my evidence are the Gospels and the NT and other historical sources, as well as historians and Biblical scholars (the same evidential sources used to analyze other ancient historical figures). Thirdly, yes, the Gospels are evidence... How are they not?
@FollowingChrist44 "The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original." notice it says nothing about determining the validity of the claims within the original text. therefore textual criticism does nothing to negate my argument #4,and it does not show me to be inconsistent, as i have made no claims concerning transcription errors in ancient documents.now i will tell u how u r being inconsistent
@FollowingChrist44 u keep saying that textual criticism and historical evidence can prove your religion. u actually went so far as to say " if you are rejecting Christ as the eternal Son of God and believing the Gospels to be false you are being inconsistent and unfair... It's that simple" by your own logic then, if we had the actual original document of the odyssey, and we could find evidence that the locales were real places(like troy) and things like that, cont
@FollowingChrist44 then u would believe in all the greek monsters and gods mentioned in this original manuscript and in the adventures of odysseus. but of course, even though there would have been no chance for transcription errors in this original document,and some of the secondary details seemed to be real, u still would not believe the fanciful tales on that basis alone,simply because it seems contrary to practical experience and empirical observation
@FollowingChrist44 this alone is more than enough reason to doubt.notice i am saying doubt here and not falsify. i think studying philosophy,particularly epistemology, would be helpful to you.
@FollowingChrist44 5. bhudda basically said he didn't know whether there was a god or heaven, and he didn't care. that's not what he was about. that does not in any way mean that anything else he said is true or false
@mebe84 In many ways, but what stood out to me was her inability to give a rational reason to support the position that the Gospels are false, or phony.
@FollowingChrist44 for the same reason that u don't believe the greek or nordic myths,the koran,or the vedas. now i'm not gonna play slick's little epistemological games with you,so i will simply say that there is no reason i am aware of to think of the bible any differently than other religios works that you yourself would discount.also,when historical evidence and empirical evidence conflict,empirical evidence wins because it is verifiable through repetition.burden of proof is on slick neway
@mebe84 But other religious can be discredited as false and cannot with stand "textual criticism", unlike the Gospels. Also, you need to be consistent, you can't apply a different methodology for examining the historical evidence and person of Jesus, and use another methodology for everyone else in the ancient world i.e. Plato, Homer.
@FollowingChrist44 wow.it's absolutely amazing that u can accuse me of being inconsistent,when i just explained to you how you are being inconsistent.i do use the same methodology.i do not believe any of the religions.u believe 1 religion but not the others.so who is being inconsistent? what criteria do all the other religions fail to meet that christianity fulfills?
i also made no positive claims about any historical figure. but i assure u there is no inconsistency.
@mebe84 You didn't mention historical figures, but you mentioned historical evidence. When you are examining the historicity of Jesus and the validity of the Gospels you need to evaluate them the same way you would evaluate other historical figures and historical documents. And if you are rejecting Christ as the eternal Son of God and believing the Gospels to be false you are being inconsistent and unfair... It's that simple. Demonstrating the falsehood of other faiths is easier than it looks.
@FollowingChrist44 oh, i didn't know i was being so unfair. (i really don't think i am though) but apparently you are convinced i am, since i'm not a christian. could you please answer my question then? how am i being inconsistent? you've so far only made baseless assertions. i want to know your evaluation methods. the ones that lead you to conclude that all other religions/beliefs are false except your own.tell me why it's so easy to see.please
@mebe84 If you examine the historical evidence of Christ, and examine the historical evidence of other historical figures from the ancient world, you will see the evidence for Christ and who He is just as good and even more convincing than the historical evidence of other figures like Plato, Homer and Emperor Tiberius for example. I already told you this. You cannot provide any objective reasons to negate the Gospels just like Kelly.
mew -- kelly is weak. she needs to represent the atheist position a little sterner. This Matt guy is an easy mark and she keeps him hanging around instead of crushing him.
bahahaha matt slick is an idiot...the gospels are proof that jesus was a god??? then the quran is my proof that muhammed was the prophet of the real god allah...pfsh ignorant bs
This guy is a retard..!!! He keeps going back again, and again to the argument that it is in the gospel. The fact that the claim that there was a riot in the temple is not documented by the Romans (who documented the smallest events!) is not important to him. He should have to prove that JC existed... she shouldn't need to disprove it. If that was the case, can he disprove that there are fairies living in the White House?!?! Just an example of how these religious kooks think..!!! Pathetic!
@ateopuertorico The burden of proof goes to the one making the claim. In general it's on the christian. It appropriately shifts during debates when the atheist makes strong claims. After the christian presents evidence that fulfills the burden of proof (which Matt Slick can do) the burden shifts to the atheist to try to provide a more resonable explanation.
@EVSjahms It would be different if the topic was about things no one believe in, like faeries, from how ridiculous it sounds is a fairy believer would hear someone say fairies don't exist then the fairy believer would shift the burden of proof on one who makes a negative claim?
Honestly, I see no way of how one who has the position of doubt can ever under any circumstances be considered to hold the burden of proof of something that has no proof to begin with.
@EVSjahms No, cause Atheists aren't making a positive claim, anything that has a positive claims has a burden of proof. Saying you don't believe in Atheism equals saying I don't believe in I don't believe in.
Saying for example as you said in the first quote, Atheists, would then be proven to be true by just talking to an Atheist, like me, Hi, I'm an Atheist, and my proof that I don't believe in god is that I don't believe in god.
It's inaccurate to disbelief in a disbelief and who disbelieve
@EVSjahms It's also like saying I don't believe Christians exist, or church, or the bible, those things do exist, but saying I don't believe in Christianity is valid since Christianity is a claim of an unproven god hypothesis. As so are the rest of the religions world wide.
@ateopuertorico I see your point to my wierd hypothetical post. But it's different- Once a non-believer is given an opportunity to know about (or believe in) God, the person must figure out whether it's a better decision to remain a non-believer or to move toward believing. God is an extremely plausible concept (I think certain), To not believe you'd have to say that his non-existence is the more plausible concept. At least after having knowledge of your options.
@EVSjahms The thing is that using a form of pascals wager is fallacious. This is not an issue of if there is a god, that is a scientific question, to discover whether or not there is such a thing in the universe we could call god. What is inconsistent is to propose it is better to believe because of after-life benefits in god, since the god hypothesis on earth comes from religions, so the bet of which god is the real one is 1 in a million. I can't believe in what cannot be proven to be true.
@ateopuertorico Come on, I didn't say anything like Pascal's Wager. To me the wager is not useful in demonstrating God's existence, but it is useful in demonstrating that the question should be taken very seriously. In debates like this video the evidence and reasons are usually looked at with no regard of the consequences- which is fine.
@EVSjahms The question is important, but people fail to see that the question does not refer to religions, and god or gods come from religions. When I say find something in the universe we could call a god doesn't mean a supernatural being that breaks the laws of the universe and created everything with magic. What I mean is a completely unknown factor of the universe that once discovered will be either named god, or come to the conclusion there is no such thing anywhere to be found.
@EVSjahms And besides, Atheists always ask theists to provide proof of their god of their specific religion. All they do is to point out to their only document, their holy book, in the end if the bible is proof of Yaweh, then the Qu'ran is proof of Muhammad and Alah.
As Carl Sagan said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@ateopuertorico That's just not true. What notable apologist only uses the Bible to prove itself and God's existence? William Lane Craig and Matt Slick (vs Barker) lay out a very convincing reason for God's existence in their opening statements based on science and logic.
@EVSjahms Science doesn't prove god whatsoever, science discovers the big bang, religious people put god behind it, science discovers evolution, religious people put god behind it. The only realm science touches is the natural realm, and god in science so far is a mere hypothesis, not yet proven to be true by anyone, there is no existing argument that could prove god's existence, only a philosophy that so far people keep making excuses and filling gaps just to find a reason to believe.
@ateopuertorico Looks like the deeper and closer we look at things, the more complexity and mysterious activity is going on. I see how the point is not really to prove or disprove God, but to discover. To kinda summarize, I see nature as God's fingerprint, you can look at it as ink on a page or as a representative of something greater.
@EVSjahms I use to see it that way too, but to the untrained mind nature may seem supernatural, if one educates himself to discover how things work they become less of a miracle and more of a natural thing that didn't need a magic wand to happen. Simple to complex is the terminology of what everything in the Universe works, not from nothing to suddenly complex as religion implies. It's easy to be overwhelmed by the complexity of life, but once you understand the terminology, things become clear.
@EVSjahms Oh and what do you mean by logic? Logic alone tells us that there can't be such a thing as a creator that needs no creator that created everything, who is immortal, infinite, perfect, omnipresent and all the details that came out of nowhere.
@ateopuertorico Logic itself is evidence of non-physical, transcendent truth. I think you need to look at the good evidence that Matt Slick and WLC present in debates before you say there is no logic to it.
@EVSjahms No, he simply said personal experiences and the bible, then he claims the bible is history just cause there are real places in it, its like saying spider-man is real just cause New York exists. Biblical claims are the ones atheists are concerned about, like walking on water, resurrecting the dead, etc. Not real actual places, we can always mix fiction with reality and create a really nice story. Logic demands for you to use common sense, and there is no common sense in the unseen.
@ateopuertorico Once again, you obviously didn't see the debates: Slick vs. Barker or William Lane Craig debate opening statements "No common sense in the unseen"- Again you're using unseen realities to try to disprove unseen realities.Common sense is an unseen.
@EVSjahms "Again you're using unseen realities to try to disprove unseen realities.Common sense is an unseen."
So common sense is that when a man walks into a bar and yells that he was kidnapped by aliens then we have to immediately believe him? Or is it common sense to expect some real evidence and not just a written testimony, a story, or just their word on it about being a personal experience?
Common sense demands empirical evidence, not superstition.
@ateopuertorico Personal experiance is not bad evidence. I understand it's subjective. But if there are geniune encounters with the presence of God- if there was only one encounter in history- That would prove His existence. Once you experience something, you know it exists in some way. (You could be deceived about what it is, though- demonic encounters, etc.)
@EVSjahms When you hear a voice in your head that commands you to kill your child and then changes his mind and tells you not to, it's more likely to be that you have schizophrenia rather than hearing a voice from a space god who has a bad sense of humor.
You think she really wants proof? No, she just want to be her own god, she doesn't want to believe in god cuz she dont want to take orders from god. I really believe people that are atheist are atheist not because of the lack of evidence, but because of some emotional reason.
@jonathanfater You generalize too much, every atheist has a different reason to disbelief, but we are mostly on a consensus of how all religions make claims and no one shows evidence that can be accepted by all. If there was real evidence there would be only one religion and no atheists.
In the end you are an Atheist when it comes to all religions of the world except your own, we just go one god further.
@jonathanfater Totally with you on that. Usually it's an emotional response to being done wrong by somebody claiming to be a believer. I think Kelly takes a lot of pride in being brash and arrogant. Anti-theism justifies her behavior, while theism may make it uncomfortable.
"How do you know that?" "How do you know that?" Matt has no case at all. He cant come up with any evidence so he has to say that the evidence is beyond our understanding. He doesn't understand that you don't have to prove that something doesn't exist, you only have to try and prove that it does. Which noone ever has.
@theembracedofgod Do I have evidence that I dont believe in god?? If you are asking if I have evidence that god doesn't exist then you don't understand logic. You cannot show me evidence that fairies exist. Atheists don't need to show proof he doesn't exist, believers need to show proof he does. You are the one that claims he is there.
Come on, Slick. How do I know the default is not believing the christian god? How many christians are there in India? Only 2.3% of the population is. 80% follows hinduism. This is clear proof people tend to follow the religion other people around they follow. And this is not the only proof! There are lots of other examples around the world!
What about the people who were alive before christianity existed? Why didn't they assume it by default, as you believe people do?
Sooo...believers want us to allow for a different definition of what is proof so that they can validate their belief in an invisible god that is unprovable in the definition of what constitutes proof??? LOL..Wow! They make the claim of this fantastical being and then constantly demand that we prove it untrue! Prove to me that spiderman is not real. Prove to me that Peter Parker was not a real guy that was bitten by a radioactive spider thereby giving him supernatural powers.
Look at the universe. billions of galaxies. And the creator sends as proof a book that looks exactly as if some bigoted backward tribe wrote it.
Even if he had resurrected, it could still be magic or a demon or satan or an extraterrestrial with superpowers or a time traveller who got his ass kicked and was seen after before he travelled.
@megawolf7 if u really think that u should probly look up her on tv vs kirk camoron cause she made him look stupid 4 2 days of debate. Plus hes totally taking advantage of her, Matt Slick was destroyd by the atheist experience
Prove that they were making things up... uh, they claimed that Jesus was resurrected? Show me one documented occurrence of a resurrection other than the resurrection of Jesus, and perhaps I'll consider entertaining the idea that there might be some truth to these otherwise outrageous claims.
All of Kelly's arguments are coming from blind assumptions, such as the blind assumption that Atheism being the default position. There's a lot of evidence against that claim anyway,.
Also history is not evidence of the claims of history. We know that Hitler existed, but by studying history, we don't know that his claims of Norse blood-purity were true. It takes a study of science, specifically genetics, psychology and biology to know that Hitler was factually wrong about his conception of a superior Aryan race.
History IS NOT PROOF of the claims of history. This is fundamental logic, and the fact that Slick chooses to bypass this is more evidence of his ignorance.
Slick precludes his own argument by saying God is not detectable by material proof, and then in the same breath saying that the historical record of the Gospels (NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, by the way, they were written decades after the events took place) proves Jesus' divinity.
You couldn't design a more perfectly self-defeating argument if you tried.
i love how he thinks Tacitus is contemporaneous. According what Slick said just moments earlier, Tacitus wasn't even born until 25 years after the death of Christ.
Evidence is that nowhere in the world was Jesus mentioned until the missionaries started spreading the word. I think that says that Atheism is the default position. In the middle east, none of the Mayan gods were known. Again, unless someone told them, they didn't know. That's all she should have said.
He is very well spoken. And incorrect. If the bible is historic record, as written by man, couldn't jesus have been a joseph smith, a muhamed, or any televangelist who makes claims? Just because I write it down, does not mean it is a literal word of a deity.
Also, For those here who want to call out "liar" in either direction from this talk, this level of civil discourse demands that you link your sources to make your argument about which history is true.
Slick is interrupting Kelly at every point of interruption on this track. Kelly does not once interrupt Slick. I notice this because my girlfriend pulls this maneuver that Slick made with me all the time.
To interject, I really must caution WatermelonyGoodness to stop with this fruitless debate.
You've presented an understanding, a wit, and a knowledge that far exceeds John's clearly limited cognitive facaulty, and unfortunately his overwhealmingly stubborn paradigm is impermeable to even the most complete of logic. You're wasting your time.
Still, you're clearly quite smart, save it for those who might be relieved of their faith in bronze age mythology.
Seems like ONLY Christian docs & ANY proof for ANYTHING Christian is discounted or is held to a HIGHER standard of proof than any other historical document. Matt can come up with Jesus' wallet with a photo ID + DNA & a skeptic and/or atheist would say that it is contestable. It is very sad when people rely on science or surveys to tell them how to think. Example: a survey determined sex on TV viewed by teens leads to teenage pregnancy. If science or survey doesn't say it, then its not true?!?!
"you haven't demonstrated why atheism is true" wow...really???? your WLC tactics FAIL, slick. tell me, what claim does atheism make that requires proof/evidence that it's valid? here, i'll give you a hint....THERE ISN'T ONE! atheism is NON-BELIEF. not a claim of any kind. fuckin idiot
chadwick0091 3 months ago
Kelly, Kelly, Kellyyy..........
We can tell you're in complete denial. She won't even stop talking, lol.....
" Give me evidence "
" Evidence is given "
" I reject it, because *insert horrendous reasons why* "
orlibonurb 3 months ago
Comment removed
orlibonurb 3 months ago
any notice the fact jesus died in his 30's lets say 35 and most of those people died ca 100 ad so that means when jesus was doing his preaching most of these men were at least teens about 15 or greater with ability to record jesus's works that means they lived 85 years or so which in that roman eygpt about the time a website funded by muesems and universities cliams that living in a town gives a 1/181 short living from 80-84 no that many people all having witnessed jesus in a cities thats sketch
tiny515515 4 months ago
Typical sign of someone in denial: keep talking kelly keep talking...
VRMadz 5 months ago
Sorry Kelly, but is Jesus is real. The BBC had a documentary that there was evidence of Jesus surviving the Crucifixion and that there where historical records of him preaching there for 5 years. After the execution, there are records of him going back to India and he died there and there was a tomb built for him.
pimkantunthong 6 months ago
@pimkantunthong lol
TheDcac 6 months ago
@pimkantunthong : WTF have you been smoking??
noronhacandrew 6 months ago
@pimkantunthong you actually trust the bbc?
VRMadz 5 months ago
@VRMadz you trust the bible? Not only the BBC has evidence there's other sources as well. The BBC is left wing so they have no motive to prove that Jesus exists.
pimkantunthong 3 months ago
@pimkantunthong provide other sources that he died in india please, if not stop deceiving people.
VRMadz 3 months ago
@pimkantunthong With all my heart.
VRMadz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only thing these Theologians know is how to complicate a simple argument into coco jumbo. They pick words from a simple statement and start branching them off. Good work Kelly but I really praise your patience for not really hanging up on this idiot!
attractivue 7 months ago
Comment removed
attractivue 7 months ago
how do you know that ?=nothing can be known and all we can do is hope to pick the right leader who will keep us from suffering for our ignorance...I disagree.
robertmck12 7 months ago
5:11 --- Matt Slick: "All you are doing is offering me subjective things which really can't be verified and tested" UMmmmm DUH :p
TattooedSnakeLady 8 months ago
Interesting how in the beginning of this debate Kelly says that she tries to be as intellectually honest as possible and yet as the debate progresses she keeps talking over him...
9:08: "I'D LIKE TO FINISH MY SENTENCES, THAT'D BE NICE."
GenRev1611 8 months ago
I'm so tired of all these athiest that make subjective arguement after subjective arguement, I personally don't think Matt is defending Christianity to the best of his ability but this is insane. I know there's some athiest who's gonna reply to this and say how no she doesn't see any evidence but save it please. Most athiest are simply ignorant to the evidence they don't want to see
TheAttackOfChuck 9 months ago
@TheAttackOfChuck Then please provide proof and evidence your god does exist, or any god for that matter, and collect your Nobel Prize. You can in one fell swoop become rich beyond your imagination, have lasting fame for all of time,
To claim someone is "simply ignorant to the evidence they don't want to see" is totally incorrect. The largest growing numbers in Atheism, come from churches. The quickest way to Atheism is to actually read the bible.
pumpstations 7 months ago
Can someone punch Matt Slick please.
TheAlexacaius 9 months ago 2
@TheAlexacaius
Why punch Matt Slick ? can't you hear that kelly is getting knocked out ?
opengates777 7 months ago
What would convince atheists? more like what would brain wash you to believe there isn't enough evidence to have certainity on it Matt says we don't have proof look at the fail of prayer look at the lack of evidence for the christian god and look at the contradictions in the bible what more proof do we need? give it up Matt atheism stands time for us to move on to others beliefs christians failed bye bye.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan Prove to me anything you just said.
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 You missed the point the fact is Plato doesn't claim to be the son of god so his existience is realistic to reality nothing could be gained by lying about his existience, Jesus is important to your doctrine with out this guy your belief wouldn't be convincing or appealing to the emotions of the converts so of course he could be fabracted with the unrealistic claims behind him.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan Prove to me that the Gospels were fabricated.
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Its not my place to convert its my research my thoughts on the subject i can't prove it on youtube i invite you to look for yourself to me its very clear its all bogus i can't buy into such a story but i just want people to question what they believe you can't possibly claim full certainty in the bible you don't have all the data of the past none of us know what really happened am sorry but thats just fact.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan So you can't prove it? But at the same time you have a problem with Christians believing in something that cannot be "proven"?
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 I can and did prove it to myself and yes you can't prove it ive lived on both sides of the fence i see both views you only see one but the best i can do is tell you that as a christian prayer never worked and i never saw or heard god none of these self testamonies people have are really honestly true if they were you wouldn't have priests raping or having double standards among the churches but you do so they must not really believe in a hell hello....
wachnathan 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 If there is a super being out there i would bet my money it has nothing to do with our beliefs the bible was writen by humans that put words in the mouth of a great spirt but really its a very weak example of a god truly a great spirt would not need to author a book to get his point across in fact if i was a god i would be insulted by these holy books.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan So... once again... you have no "proof" for anything, just some subjective thoughts? So you knock on Christians for having no "proof", but yet you have none yourself for rejecting Jesus Christ. Okay, that's funny.
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
Comment removed
wachnathan 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Give me some proof that praying works? we both know you can't i was christian myself once and none of these claims are really true we just pretended it worked when the game of chance acted in our favor. I am really being honest here i don't knock on christians only the dogma and doctrine that wants every idea under the caption of christ which i cannot support how the hell can you support the bible after reading it word for word come on? its a very unmoral book.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan What a beautiful speech. So you cannot provide enough objective evidence to disprove Christianity? Or can you? As far as I am concerned, those who reject Christianity only reject it on some odd subjective reason like how you just mentioned about prayer. Let me guess, you prayed and asked God for a million dollars to fall from the sky and it didn't happen, so you got upset and rejected the Bible?
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 No! now your attacking my character as if its my fault the bible just didn't provide enough data for me to be convinced we both know you have to take it on faith not by its evidence because there is none hello why else would you have to use such a word. Your lack of evidence is the evidence not to mention does prayer work? Ah no! thats good enough for me right there so don't disrespect my character its not my fault your belief is a fail.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan I'm just saying, you can't prove Christianity is false, all you can do is provide some subjective arguments at best. All you have done is support my position so far. And yes, it is your fault. What kind of evidence would you like? Answer this question for me please... Do you believe the planet Neptune exists? If so, why? Once again, did you "prove" prayer not work because God didn't give you a million dollars when you asked Him for it?
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Well of course you can't disprove or prove something that happened two thousand years ago thats the whole point its not realistic with the reality we know and it comes from the age of myth hello your hitching your wagon to a book that we can't even find anything about the authors not to mention the bible is just one book of many gospels that contradict each other. God is a different subject you have to prove not just a god but a christian one.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Here's an idea why don't you pray for god to actually do something or show a display of creation? am pretty certain nothing will happen but go ahead anyways with out god the rest of your arguments don't mean anything thats what theists should be doing not making up exuses for his hiddeness or put words in his mouth like most of you do. Think about this why doesn't god get rid of satan? because the story of salvation depends on it so really its just a comic book good vs evil.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan LOL so you can't prove Plato existed? Let me ask you something, are you one of those weirdos that completely deny Jesus's existence?
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 There you go again, Listen it doesn't matter if he existed or not to me but there is a good chance that he didn't exist yes. It really doesn't matter if a person is real if it doesn't affect anyone but Jesus does affect people there is a doctrine based on him that dictates peoples lives so its important to find out if he was real or a fabracation.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan I am asking you this question because if you say he didn't exist, you are being super silly. Even Bart Ehrman will say such a claim is stupid. I am also asking you if you believe Plato existed and if you believe the planet Neptune exists because these things cannot be "proven", but we can know they exist or in Plato's case exist-ed because of the evidences of their existence. The same can be applied to Jesus Christ, and God.
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 I told you that i don't care one way or another its his story thats in question.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@wachnathan You don't care but at the same time you care about "His story"? You are not making sense. A part of you does care if you bothered to message me.
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Proof is your burden your the ones who want to take over the world and convert everyone to think like you and in my mind your book is debunked but yet you still try to convert are you really that scared of the after life that you can't question your own belief?
wachnathan 11 months ago
We have proof people made up gods!
wachnathan 11 months ago
Dumb bitch. Acting like a Christian (and dodging questions) isn't clever. She's the Palin of athiests. He was asking the softest questions and she carried on talking as though she was alone.
LeeMarcelle 11 months ago
What exactly is your evidence for the existence of Plato?
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Plato wrote several dialogues and letters which have survived today. He also is mentioned and thoroughly discussed by his contemporaries, most famously by Aristotle.
Jesus doesn't have any of things going for him to prove his existence, and this is why people severely question his existence.
ShootNeutrality 11 months ago
@ShootNeutrality Yes, but if the Gospels were written during the time of the eyewitnesses, then that would deem the Gospels to be reliable.
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 Who cares he didn't make claims that are unrealistic so it doesn't matter only his logic is important anyways.
wachnathan 11 months ago
@mebe84 Almost all of them will tell you Jesus Christ existed. I believe Plato existed, but I don't agree with everything he wrote... what does that have to do with our topic? lol But there is no legitimate historical documentation of Athena goddess's existence lol... which is why historians call Athena a myth. You are comparing a man who existed verses a mythological character who did not...Our entire time line is built around the person of Christ.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@mebe84 You can also test their authenticity by reading the context, and see if there is anything that would prove the story to be a forgery... But this is still something you fail to do objectively, same for Kelly. I asked you earlier, Jesus is not the Eternal Son, who is He? And if you say He is a mere man, can you provide any evidence for your position?
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 "Jesus is not the Eternal Son, who is He?"you really can't think of another option?i'm tired of your babble. you have been thoroughly pwnd.and u keep digging your own intellectual grave.i never said that it was or wasn't a forgery,because it is irrelevant to my point,just like "textual criticism",plato,and homer. i'm not sure whether u can't get it or won't get it.as for my position,i told u,it is doubt.i doubt jesus is a god.the burden of proof is on u. study epistemology
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 Textual criticism can be explained on wikipedia
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@mebe84 I am saying you are inconsistent if you deny the person of Christ and the Gospels on account of a purely manuscript and historical analysis. If you reject the source because of miracles you're doing the same thing Kelly did here, which is judge it from a subjective standpoint... "I don't believe God exists, therefore the Gospels are false." That was my original argument, that you cannot come up with a valid objective argument to negate the Gospels.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@mebe84 I already told you, "textual criticism" is one of the methods that can disqualify a religion as truth or even a historical document. Also, the religion itself, for example Buddha specifically stated he does not know the truth and to not make a religion out of him. False prophecies as well determine a religion to be false (i.e. Joseph Smith has many false prophecies.).
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 1.what is textual criticism?
2. u obviously have no idea what u r talking about. if u did, u would know that saying jesus' existence is as well established as homers' does not help your argument.
3. i believe jesus was a real person.
4. when ancient literature conflicts with empirical,scientific evidence, the latter negates the former. so idon't believe jesus walked on water, and if plato claimed to have walked on water, i wouldn't believe that either. i am not inconsistent
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 Exactly, you said it yourself, "he didn't know..." and why didn't he know? Because he was just a man. So there you go, you admit Buddhist follow and worship a mere man. And yes it does help my argument... If you compare manuscript evidence of the New Testament with the writings of Plato and Homer, you will find the New Testament is more well-preserved. Bravo, you believe Jesus was real... Now who was He?
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 bhudda never claimed to be more than a man. bhuddism has nothing to do with worship of anything. perhaps if u had any clue of what u were talking about you would know that. i am getting tired of trying to get u to understand this point. last time. do u have a response to point #4 in my previous comment? and could u please define "textual criticism". if not, i think i'm done here.
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 Exactly, but Buddhists still worship him because they look to him as their standard of living... He is their guide (that's a form of worship). I responded to #4 (it did not refute my original argument) and I told you to Wikipedia textual criticism... Perhaps if you were not so flustered with rage you would properly read my comments.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 u have not done anything but make BASELeSS assertions. and when i explain why one should doubt, u simply follow up with more baseless assertions. i have to go to work, but i will google it since u can't define it . but since my reasons for doubting are not good enough, perhaps u could share your reasons for believing. p.s. i actually laughed out loud when u claimed i am not being objective, as if u are or something. bye have a great day
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 Saying the Gospels are false because it talks about miracles is simply just a subjective opinion because it is a personal opinion. I have given you objective arguments by comparing the evidence of Christ and validity and authenticity of the Gospels with that of ancient writings by historical figures from the ancient world like Plato and Homer... This is objective because it is without presupposition, your analysis of the Gospels is with bias (that God does not exist).
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 first of all, i never said a god doesn't exist.my position is one of doubt.i doubt the claims of the gospels.and here is where your flawed logic makes u misunderstand. comparing plato to the gospels has no relevance to whether the claims made within the gospels are true. it might be relevant if i claimed that the goddess athena is real and she protects odysseus (as homer said),but no one does that. it is irrelevant there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. wikipedia says
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 There is no legitimate historical document of a Goddess Athena though... so that example is flawed. No historian would tell you that a Goddess Athena existed, but they would tell you Jesus existed. Textual criticism tests the Gospels to see if they have been changed from the original... and the evidence shows they have not. These are the earliest sources of Christ. This is tied in with testing their authenticity.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 keep digging. so if a historian tells you homer really existed, then u would believe in athena and the rest? if a historian says plato was real, then u believe in his philosophy of forms and the good life? if there is a legitimate historical document of the goddess athena, then u would believe it? the point is, that even if u have the original document, it doesn't make what is written IN the document true.and since it contradicts our current understanding,i doubt it's true.
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 If you're tired of my "babble" then go to sleep. I already showed you the Gospels and the New Testament writings as the historical evidence that Jesus is God. But yet you have shown me 0 evidence that Jesus is not God... yet you say the burden of proof is on me? And now I ask you... why do you simply just
"doubt" the Gospels, can you give me a reason? I am not looking at "a (one) historian"... I am looking at the historians in an entirety...
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 it's truly amazing to me how dense u are. it seems i cannot get through to u, but maybe someone will read our comments, and will learn something from my responses to your utterly illogical absurdity. 1 last pwning:obviously(to everyone but u)claims and proof are not the same thing. the gospels are not evidence that jesus is god, they simply make claims that jesus is god, claims which you and they have abjectly failed to give any evidece for. i gave u a reason; #4 peace
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 Yes, they make claims that Jesus is God, but they also died for this belief and the testimony that He had resurrected... were they all hallucinating? And I never said I can PROVE Jesus is God, but I can provide sufficient historical evidence to validate my position as mentioned earlier. Also, are you telling me you will only believe what is 100% factually been proven to you and you will not strictly rely on evidence to accept something?
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 What is your evidence? Also, why are there contradictions in the gospels?
surshot56 11 months ago
@FollowingChrist44 I was just reading your debate you had with mebe84 and he is right the gospels are not evidence at all. So, what exactly is your evidence?
surshot56 11 months ago
@surshot56 There are no contradictions in the Gospels. Secondly, my evidence are the Gospels and the NT and other historical sources, as well as historians and Biblical scholars (the same evidential sources used to analyze other ancient historical figures). Thirdly, yes, the Gospels are evidence... How are they not?
FollowingChrist44 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FollowingChrist44 why should anyone believe religoius doctrine?
mebe84 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 please please please take a philosophy class, or research epistemology. u need it.
mebe84 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 "The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original." notice it says nothing about determining the validity of the claims within the original text. therefore textual criticism does nothing to negate my argument #4,and it does not show me to be inconsistent, as i have made no claims concerning transcription errors in ancient documents.now i will tell u how u r being inconsistent
mebe84 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 u keep saying that textual criticism and historical evidence can prove your religion. u actually went so far as to say " if you are rejecting Christ as the eternal Son of God and believing the Gospels to be false you are being inconsistent and unfair... It's that simple" by your own logic then, if we had the actual original document of the odyssey, and we could find evidence that the locales were real places(like troy) and things like that, cont
mebe84 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 then u would believe in all the greek monsters and gods mentioned in this original manuscript and in the adventures of odysseus. but of course, even though there would have been no chance for transcription errors in this original document,and some of the secondary details seemed to be real, u still would not believe the fanciful tales on that basis alone,simply because it seems contrary to practical experience and empirical observation
mebe84 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 this alone is more than enough reason to doubt.notice i am saying doubt here and not falsify. i think studying philosophy,particularly epistemology, would be helpful to you.
mebe84 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 5. bhudda basically said he didn't know whether there was a god or heaven, and he didn't care. that's not what he was about. that does not in any way mean that anything else he said is true or false
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 And one universal method to determine the validity of manuscripts is "textual criticism".
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
damn her voice is annoying
semajgnik 1 year ago
lol kelly got owned big time
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 how so?
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 In many ways, but what stood out to me was her inability to give a rational reason to support the position that the Gospels are false, or phony.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 for the same reason that u don't believe the greek or nordic myths,the koran,or the vedas. now i'm not gonna play slick's little epistemological games with you,so i will simply say that there is no reason i am aware of to think of the bible any differently than other religios works that you yourself would discount.also,when historical evidence and empirical evidence conflict,empirical evidence wins because it is verifiable through repetition.burden of proof is on slick neway
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 But other religious can be discredited as false and cannot with stand "textual criticism", unlike the Gospels. Also, you need to be consistent, you can't apply a different methodology for examining the historical evidence and person of Jesus, and use another methodology for everyone else in the ancient world i.e. Plato, Homer.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 wow.it's absolutely amazing that u can accuse me of being inconsistent,when i just explained to you how you are being inconsistent.i do use the same methodology.i do not believe any of the religions.u believe 1 religion but not the others.so who is being inconsistent? what criteria do all the other religions fail to meet that christianity fulfills?
i also made no positive claims about any historical figure. but i assure u there is no inconsistency.
so, what is the criteria?
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 You didn't mention historical figures, but you mentioned historical evidence. When you are examining the historicity of Jesus and the validity of the Gospels you need to evaluate them the same way you would evaluate other historical figures and historical documents. And if you are rejecting Christ as the eternal Son of God and believing the Gospels to be false you are being inconsistent and unfair... It's that simple. Demonstrating the falsehood of other faiths is easier than it looks.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
@FollowingChrist44 oh, i didn't know i was being so unfair. (i really don't think i am though) but apparently you are convinced i am, since i'm not a christian. could you please answer my question then? how am i being inconsistent? you've so far only made baseless assertions. i want to know your evaluation methods. the ones that lead you to conclude that all other religions/beliefs are false except your own.tell me why it's so easy to see.please
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 If you examine the historical evidence of Christ, and examine the historical evidence of other historical figures from the ancient world, you will see the evidence for Christ and who He is just as good and even more convincing than the historical evidence of other figures like Plato, Homer and Emperor Tiberius for example. I already told you this. You cannot provide any objective reasons to negate the Gospels just like Kelly.
FollowingChrist44 1 year ago
mew -- kelly is weak. she needs to represent the atheist position a little sterner. This Matt guy is an easy mark and she keeps him hanging around instead of crushing him.
irisheye801 1 year ago
bahahaha matt slick is an idiot...the gospels are proof that jesus was a god??? then the quran is my proof that muhammed was the prophet of the real god allah...pfsh ignorant bs
sera7ares 1 year ago
This guy is a retard..!!! He keeps going back again, and again to the argument that it is in the gospel. The fact that the claim that there was a riot in the temple is not documented by the Romans (who documented the smallest events!) is not important to him. He should have to prove that JC existed... she shouldn't need to disprove it. If that was the case, can he disprove that there are fairies living in the White House?!?! Just an example of how these religious kooks think..!!! Pathetic!
getafix58 1 year ago
Haha typical atheist rambling and ranting because she cant prove her point. xD
mbernal41 1 year ago
So typical of believers to throw the burden of proof on those who simply don't buy into that shit
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico The burden of proof goes to the one making the claim. In general it's on the christian. It appropriately shifts during debates when the atheist makes strong claims. After the christian presents evidence that fulfills the burden of proof (which Matt Slick can do) the burden shifts to the atheist to try to provide a more resonable explanation.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms It would be different if the topic was about things no one believe in, like faeries, from how ridiculous it sounds is a fairy believer would hear someone say fairies don't exist then the fairy believer would shift the burden of proof on one who makes a negative claim?
Honestly, I see no way of how one who has the position of doubt can ever under any circumstances be considered to hold the burden of proof of something that has no proof to begin with.
It makes no sense.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico So if I say I don't believe in Atheists/ Atheism, does that put the burden of proof on the Atheist?
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms No, cause Atheists aren't making a positive claim, anything that has a positive claims has a burden of proof. Saying you don't believe in Atheism equals saying I don't believe in I don't believe in.
Saying for example as you said in the first quote, Atheists, would then be proven to be true by just talking to an Atheist, like me, Hi, I'm an Atheist, and my proof that I don't believe in god is that I don't believe in god.
It's inaccurate to disbelief in a disbelief and who disbelieve
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@EVSjahms It's also like saying I don't believe Christians exist, or church, or the bible, those things do exist, but saying I don't believe in Christianity is valid since Christianity is a claim of an unproven god hypothesis. As so are the rest of the religions world wide.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico I see your point to my wierd hypothetical post. But it's different- Once a non-believer is given an opportunity to know about (or believe in) God, the person must figure out whether it's a better decision to remain a non-believer or to move toward believing. God is an extremely plausible concept (I think certain), To not believe you'd have to say that his non-existence is the more plausible concept. At least after having knowledge of your options.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms The thing is that using a form of pascals wager is fallacious. This is not an issue of if there is a god, that is a scientific question, to discover whether or not there is such a thing in the universe we could call god. What is inconsistent is to propose it is better to believe because of after-life benefits in god, since the god hypothesis on earth comes from religions, so the bet of which god is the real one is 1 in a million. I can't believe in what cannot be proven to be true.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico Come on, I didn't say anything like Pascal's Wager. To me the wager is not useful in demonstrating God's existence, but it is useful in demonstrating that the question should be taken very seriously. In debates like this video the evidence and reasons are usually looked at with no regard of the consequences- which is fine.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms The question is important, but people fail to see that the question does not refer to religions, and god or gods come from religions. When I say find something in the universe we could call a god doesn't mean a supernatural being that breaks the laws of the universe and created everything with magic. What I mean is a completely unknown factor of the universe that once discovered will be either named god, or come to the conclusion there is no such thing anywhere to be found.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@EVSjahms And besides, Atheists always ask theists to provide proof of their god of their specific religion. All they do is to point out to their only document, their holy book, in the end if the bible is proof of Yaweh, then the Qu'ran is proof of Muhammad and Alah.
As Carl Sagan said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico That's just not true. What notable apologist only uses the Bible to prove itself and God's existence? William Lane Craig and Matt Slick (vs Barker) lay out a very convincing reason for God's existence in their opening statements based on science and logic.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms Science doesn't prove god whatsoever, science discovers the big bang, religious people put god behind it, science discovers evolution, religious people put god behind it. The only realm science touches is the natural realm, and god in science so far is a mere hypothesis, not yet proven to be true by anyone, there is no existing argument that could prove god's existence, only a philosophy that so far people keep making excuses and filling gaps just to find a reason to believe.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico Looks like the deeper and closer we look at things, the more complexity and mysterious activity is going on. I see how the point is not really to prove or disprove God, but to discover. To kinda summarize, I see nature as God's fingerprint, you can look at it as ink on a page or as a representative of something greater.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms I use to see it that way too, but to the untrained mind nature may seem supernatural, if one educates himself to discover how things work they become less of a miracle and more of a natural thing that didn't need a magic wand to happen. Simple to complex is the terminology of what everything in the Universe works, not from nothing to suddenly complex as religion implies. It's easy to be overwhelmed by the complexity of life, but once you understand the terminology, things become clear.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@EVSjahms Oh and what do you mean by logic? Logic alone tells us that there can't be such a thing as a creator that needs no creator that created everything, who is immortal, infinite, perfect, omnipresent and all the details that came out of nowhere.
How can there be logic in something so illogical?
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico Logic itself is evidence of non-physical, transcendent truth. I think you need to look at the good evidence that Matt Slick and WLC present in debates before you say there is no logic to it.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms No, he simply said personal experiences and the bible, then he claims the bible is history just cause there are real places in it, its like saying spider-man is real just cause New York exists. Biblical claims are the ones atheists are concerned about, like walking on water, resurrecting the dead, etc. Not real actual places, we can always mix fiction with reality and create a really nice story. Logic demands for you to use common sense, and there is no common sense in the unseen.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico Once again, you obviously didn't see the debates: Slick vs. Barker or William Lane Craig debate opening statements "No common sense in the unseen"- Again you're using unseen realities to try to disprove unseen realities.Common sense is an unseen.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms "Again you're using unseen realities to try to disprove unseen realities.Common sense is an unseen."
So common sense is that when a man walks into a bar and yells that he was kidnapped by aliens then we have to immediately believe him? Or is it common sense to expect some real evidence and not just a written testimony, a story, or just their word on it about being a personal experience?
Common sense demands empirical evidence, not superstition.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@ateopuertorico Personal experiance is not bad evidence. I understand it's subjective. But if there are geniune encounters with the presence of God- if there was only one encounter in history- That would prove His existence. Once you experience something, you know it exists in some way. (You could be deceived about what it is, though- demonic encounters, etc.)
EVSjahms 1 year ago
@EVSjahms When you hear a voice in your head that commands you to kill your child and then changes his mind and tells you not to, it's more likely to be that you have schizophrenia rather than hearing a voice from a space god who has a bad sense of humor.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
You think she really wants proof? No, she just want to be her own god, she doesn't want to believe in god cuz she dont want to take orders from god. I really believe people that are atheist are atheist not because of the lack of evidence, but because of some emotional reason.
jonathanfater 1 year ago
@jonathanfater You generalize too much, every atheist has a different reason to disbelief, but we are mostly on a consensus of how all religions make claims and no one shows evidence that can be accepted by all. If there was real evidence there would be only one religion and no atheists.
In the end you are an Atheist when it comes to all religions of the world except your own, we just go one god further.
ateopuertorico 1 year ago
@jonathanfater Totally with you on that. Usually it's an emotional response to being done wrong by somebody claiming to be a believer. I think Kelly takes a lot of pride in being brash and arrogant. Anti-theism justifies her behavior, while theism may make it uncomfortable.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
She just got owned just with the references Matt gives her. She an idiot.
IsaHamzaBilal 1 year ago
Kelly is hot, too bad she's not saved.
Mrhawklanz 1 year ago
"How do you know that?" "How do you know that?" Matt has no case at all. He cant come up with any evidence so he has to say that the evidence is beyond our understanding. He doesn't understand that you don't have to prove that something doesn't exist, you only have to try and prove that it does. Which noone ever has.
rmharrison35 1 year ago
and you have evidence for atheism?
theembracedofgod 1 year ago
@theembracedofgod Do I have evidence that I dont believe in god?? If you are asking if I have evidence that god doesn't exist then you don't understand logic. You cannot show me evidence that fairies exist. Atheists don't need to show proof he doesn't exist, believers need to show proof he does. You are the one that claims he is there.
rmharrison35 1 year ago
That Kelly is a filibustering bimbo.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Come on, Slick. How do I know the default is not believing the christian god? How many christians are there in India? Only 2.3% of the population is. 80% follows hinduism. This is clear proof people tend to follow the religion other people around they follow. And this is not the only proof! There are lots of other examples around the world!
What about the people who were alive before christianity existed? Why didn't they assume it by default, as you believe people do?
lgalicki 1 year ago
Sooo...believers want us to allow for a different definition of what is proof so that they can validate their belief in an invisible god that is unprovable in the definition of what constitutes proof??? LOL..Wow! They make the claim of this fantastical being and then constantly demand that we prove it untrue! Prove to me that spiderman is not real. Prove to me that Peter Parker was not a real guy that was bitten by a radioactive spider thereby giving him supernatural powers.
AssilemakaMelissa 1 year ago
Look at the universe. billions of galaxies. And the creator sends as proof a book that looks exactly as if some bigoted backward tribe wrote it.
Even if he had resurrected, it could still be magic or a demon or satan or an extraterrestrial with superpowers or a time traveller who got his ass kicked and was seen after before he travelled.
I mean this stuff is so beyond ridiculous.
omnissient 1 year ago
Mat the moron Slick's "proof" = The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it.
TheCodedAtheist 1 year ago
I am really surprised that Kelly went in somewhat unprepared and didn't call Matt on the "historical" accounts for JC.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
will kelly allow him to speak?
pungadoo 1 year ago
Matt REALLY wants to shift the burden of proof... Sorry dude but you are making the claim, it lies with you lol.
Scanini 1 year ago
These are how cloudy minds of the lost think. Kelly I hope you come to God one day my dear, God Bless you!
ChristianHamOperator 1 year ago
Wow. Kelly is an absolute idiot.
megawolf7 1 year ago
@megawolf7 I agree with that statement
ChristianHamOperator 1 year ago
@megawolf7 if u really think that u should probly look up her on tv vs kirk camoron cause she made him look stupid 4 2 days of debate. Plus hes totally taking advantage of her, Matt Slick was destroyd by the atheist experience
tach69 1 year ago
@tach69 Kirk Cameron is an idiot just like Kelly. Slick did a good job though. He could have done better I think. But Kelly is still an idiot.
megawolf7 1 year ago
@megawolf7 can i ask are you a theist?
tach69 1 year ago
Prove that they were making things up... uh, they claimed that Jesus was resurrected? Show me one documented occurrence of a resurrection other than the resurrection of Jesus, and perhaps I'll consider entertaining the idea that there might be some truth to these otherwise outrageous claims.
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago 2
Matt Slick = god soaked idiot
InverStone 1 year ago
lmao Slick is an idiot.
emelianenkoo 1 year ago
Kelly ROCKS!!! Matt Slick can't prove squat so he resorts to LAME tactics which Kelly deflected!! Right on Kelly!!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
"All you're offering are subjective things"
Wtf. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
Springheel01 1 year ago
All of Kelly's arguments are coming from blind assumptions, such as the blind assumption that Atheism being the default position. There's a lot of evidence against that claim anyway,.
Autumn6 1 year ago
@Autumn6 Nope. There isn't.
RedDollShoes 1 year ago
@Autumn6 actually shes right the bible isnt evidence
tach69 1 year ago
WTF the Bible makes claims to the supernatural....other history books don't bother because no one is going to believe such stupid shit. lmao
care2goo 1 year ago
Also history is not evidence of the claims of history. We know that Hitler existed, but by studying history, we don't know that his claims of Norse blood-purity were true. It takes a study of science, specifically genetics, psychology and biology to know that Hitler was factually wrong about his conception of a superior Aryan race.
History IS NOT PROOF of the claims of history. This is fundamental logic, and the fact that Slick chooses to bypass this is more evidence of his ignorance.
F33bs 1 year ago
Slick precludes his own argument by saying God is not detectable by material proof, and then in the same breath saying that the historical record of the Gospels (NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, by the way, they were written decades after the events took place) proves Jesus' divinity.
You couldn't design a more perfectly self-defeating argument if you tried.
F33bs 1 year ago
8:44 hilarious
jmh0021 1 year ago
Also, she's getting dominated and doesn't even realize it. She is completely subjective.
jmh0021 1 year ago
@jmh0021 she's getting dominated LOL i think not
neoarcadezr 1 year ago
This girl is a terrible debater. 4:02-4:30 is a shoutdown.
jmh0021 1 year ago
At first I thought Kelly was just going too easy on Matt but her claws really came out in part 3, go Kelly!
So, the gospels are true, this means that there were zombies in Jerusalem after Jesus died...wow :S
handofnergal 1 year ago
i love how he thinks Tacitus is contemporaneous. According what Slick said just moments earlier, Tacitus wasn't even born until 25 years after the death of Christ.
jaylcage1123617 1 year ago
@jaylcage1123617: Well, it's contemporaneous in a grandfatherly sort of way :)
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Evidence is that nowhere in the world was Jesus mentioned until the missionaries started spreading the word. I think that says that Atheism is the default position. In the middle east, none of the Mayan gods were known. Again, unless someone told them, they didn't know. That's all she should have said.
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
Ever had an argument with an 11 year old? Talk to Matt Slick.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
Love Kelly!!! She is so bright!
rncoco 1 year ago
"Prove that they made things up."
Shroud of Turin anyone?
SneakyDudeBG 1 year ago
This man will debate his own mother's existence if doing so suits the point he is trying to make.
SneakyDudeBG 1 year ago
Jesus did mention that not one stone of the temple would be left upon another. Must have been a lucky guess!
windenergy777 1 year ago
and so must be the earthquakes and the wars... ppl r crzy not to c what Jesus wz warning us all about... i just wanna shack em a say WAKE UP!!!!
02alicat 1 year ago
Thank you Matt Slick, you owned this segment just as you did the first 2 segments.
BobSellers 2 years ago
I'll sum up this entire video.
Matt: Here is my evidence
Kelly: That is disputed contested evidence, so it's not proven to be true, so do you have any real evidence?
Matt: (Stupidly) I just told you. So give me proof God doesn't exist.
Kelly: My proof is the lack of your proof.
Matt: I just gave you proof. So let me go stick my head in this microwave some more.
danielvittet 2 years ago 2
LOl
taco1010 1 year ago
Kelly has better arguments, but Slick is prepared and setting the topic and is a better debater
Dpsersimon 2 years ago
He is very well spoken. And incorrect. If the bible is historic record, as written by man, couldn't jesus have been a joseph smith, a muhamed, or any televangelist who makes claims? Just because I write it down, does not mean it is a literal word of a deity.
53sled 1 year ago
Also, For those here who want to call out "liar" in either direction from this talk, this level of civil discourse demands that you link your sources to make your argument about which history is true.
youngidealist 2 years ago
Slick is interrupting Kelly at every point of interruption on this track. Kelly does not once interrupt Slick. I notice this because my girlfriend pulls this maneuver that Slick made with me all the time.
youngidealist 2 years ago
Kelly is lying right off the bat.
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
To interject, I really must caution WatermelonyGoodness to stop with this fruitless debate.
You've presented an understanding, a wit, and a knowledge that far exceeds John's clearly limited cognitive facaulty, and unfortunately his overwhealmingly stubborn paradigm is impermeable to even the most complete of logic. You're wasting your time.
Still, you're clearly quite smart, save it for those who might be relieved of their faith in bronze age mythology.
OctavioRedding 2 years ago
Seems like ONLY Christian docs & ANY proof for ANYTHING Christian is discounted or is held to a HIGHER standard of proof than any other historical document. Matt can come up with Jesus' wallet with a photo ID + DNA & a skeptic and/or atheist would say that it is contestable. It is very sad when people rely on science or surveys to tell them how to think. Example: a survey determined sex on TV viewed by teens leads to teenage pregnancy. If science or survey doesn't say it, then its not true?!?!
John6verse27 2 years ago