I watched every second of this debate and this doctor character was making me feel embarrassed for him. I'm not even joking I felt embarrassed by the reasoning he was given. Imagine if I told you I had a book and the book was roughly over 2,000 years old. Imagine this book is a compilation of stories that we have no idea who wrote them. Not only that it's a book that we know that there's forgeries and mistakes a whole bunch of problems. And then I tell you that I think the stories in this book are true because I trust the authors of this book, and I trust the people that the unknown authors in this book are talking about. And imagine that I had the audacity to call this strong evidence of the story being true. Any human would find it hard not to laugh in the person's face!...
As a call screener, I can promise you that I'm listening intently for the best, most articulate, most knowledgeable callers, theist or atheist alike. It's not like we are reaching out to bobo callers and baiting them into calling.
@@mrcurly1147 ♥️ Why would I want to call in when the show has the advantage of dismissing me without a cause? Where Dillahunty is always visible and the caller is left invisibly to the imagination. Is it not a level playing field here where I can say to you, once you have dismissed God and creation you are left with an imaginary godless universe forged by a miraculous accident requiring more faith than our belief in God. Now you must say, "But I made no such claim so the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove God exists." "Is it now? I have already proved God exists to my satisfaction, why should I bear your burden for you? Do you think this is a debate and we must follow your debate rules? I am simply a messenger and here is my message to you who are "dead in your sins. When you dismiss God and creation you are left with a universe created and designed by a miraculous accident. The same goes for your self creating self designing evolutionary theory so many atheists are calling a fact! More faith is required to believe such "cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16) than to believe in your Creator. May I suggest you go to my free online Bible School to study the Word of God outside of religion at: Lifeishid.com "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." ♥️ Jesus ♥️
Gotta love the 'no true christian' argument, wherein for some strange reason the *only* theists who ever call the show are low hanging fruit, which is why the arguments always fall flat. Not because they're not good arguments, no no, it's because the *good* arguments are being wielded by those that never call for some reason.
I do agree with Jonathan that Matt interrupts callers and often wants to argue about other things, slavery in the Bible for instance. This debate was the ideal set-up for him where Matt couldn't interrupt and had to stay on topic. Most Axp callers do not get that opportunity but he still failed to be convincing and he can not blame Matt or the debate format for that.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 He can jump the gun a bit at times, but most of the time I feel that the interruptions are warranted. With slavery for example it's a great way to instantly spike any attempt to claim that the bible/biblical god is a good source of morals as it forces them to defend the indefensible, and on more general terms if an argument is built upon a flawed premise it's a waste of everyone's time to let them spend several minutes laying out the argument only to have to go back to the start and point out a flaw that might invalidate the rest of the argument. If someone's argument had as one of it's starting points 'fire is cold' then you're not gaining anything by letting them continue past that point until it's addressed.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 People are terrible at preparing for their calls. They should know immediately that if morality comes up, then morals in the bible are fair game. They sit there for hours waiting to talk, and they don't plan their statements or rebuttals with any kind of seriousness. They just think they're going to get to talk for a half hour. They're calling a call in talk show. They should be able to get their idea out in a minute. Demanding more time to speak is just being spoiled and a little presumptuous.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 The whole problem with debating with theists is their habit of spewing a barrel-load of points at an opponent in an attempt to hide the fundamentally flawed nature of each point and distract the opponent from pinning them down to specifics. This is why it is NECESSARY to interrupt theists, as they try to avoid direct challenge in this way.
Thanatos elNyx It proves who has the more sensitive skin and it was entertaining. There’s no conclusion to the god debate, but theists inevitably rage quit or resort to untestable personal revelation when forced to confront a well- reasoned challenge to magical thinking.
2 points that occurred to me during the debate: 1) Jonathan keeps asking what they (the disciples) had to gain from inventing the resurrection story. Well, the question should be, 'what did they have to lose'. As strict followers of Jesus, they had cut family ties, forsaken personal possessions and abandoned their livelihoods. There was no welfare state in 1st Century Palestine so how were they going to resume their life? Surely, the easiest option for them was to continue preaching, perpetuating the story and embellishing it. 2) The argument that Women discovering the empty tomb was more convincing precisely because they wouldn't automatically be believed. My impression is that they used Women discovering the empty tomb because if Men discovered it, everyone would think they rolled the stone away. With Women, of course they couldn't do it, so it must be supernatural.
@@nejileesansenpai Maybe, lol. I think he came back because he knew it was rude and didn't want to be an asshole. While there are a few people Matt's debated who would leave and not come back on principle, this guy didn't seem like a jerk, just overwhelmed and unprepared. Matt is too good at tearing down their arguments
After watching the debate and have been watching TAE for more than 10 years, I can say with confidence: McLatchie is not different from most theist callers.
My suspicion is that he tried to lie about biology and he got dismissed because none of the hosts have the expertise to tell if he's being accurate or not
What’s more, one wonders why so many (i.e. the vast majority) theists have such poor justification for their beliefs. It seems to me the “stupid callers” are merely less prepared than apologists who toss about convoluted fallacies disguised as reasons (e.g. Kalaam).
Jonathan's whole schtick is feigning offense, he has a problem with everybody, he's offended at everything, and piles a massive persecution complex on top of all that.
It is a deflection strategy, to shift attention from his inability to make a rational argument in support of his beliefs. This kind of thing is not necessarily entirely conscious, but likely arises from the brain trying to maintain it's integrity against what it sees as an attack from an aggressor.
That debate was a slaughter. One of the most one-sided debates I’ve seen on any subject in a long time and I watch a lot of these debates. Too many in fact.
"Lord Voldemort is real and has great powers. We have eyewitnesses: Harold Potter, Hermione Granger and Ronald Weasley." This is the whole essence of "Dr." McLatchie's entire argument. What's the point in pretending it is anything more than that, even just to be polite?
100% matches John's argument and when I told him so (even used Harry Potter as my example) and asked what he thought... he stopped responding rather than be honest lol.
I gave him grief. After the debate, he did a “post debate” interview and claimed he’s done many debates (not new to this, as Matt believes) and called Matt a fraud and repeated all the accusations against Atheist Experience.
You have such big baby eyes Matty. Very interesting debate. I like how you review them. Also your opponent quit like callers hang up on your show Matt. They just give up.
I found this piece by accident and just have to respond to it. I commented on this video 2 years ago when it was fairly new. A couple of weeks ago, that’s two years after my comments, McLatchie contacted me to respond to my comment. We had numerous messages back and forth and all he wanted to push was to misrepresent your position on evidence and for me to concede to his view on evidence. He hammered down that Matt D says that claims can not be evidence and wanted me to agree with him that Matt D was wrong on that. I had to go back and watch the debate again because I found it strange that Matt D would be that firm. And of course there was context. Matt D said that claims are not evidence but added that anything can technically be evidence but not everything is STRONG evidence which was the topic of the debate. McLatchie ignored that completely and went on to push that claims absolutely can be evidence and that Matt D was wrong. So in conclusion from this video and my interaction with McLatchie: The gospels are true because it’s reasonable to believe that the disciples didn’t lie. And claims can be evidence. I don’t think that McLatchie will show up to any debates in the future being a low hanging fruit.
How to alienate so many theist callers to the show: Insult them as "Stupid, low hanging fruit". Well done, Dr McLatchie, you've done Matt's job for him!
@@optimusprime4090 You missed the point of the comment you're replying to. Yes, the ACA should encourage theists to call and try to not alienate them. The point of Jock's comment was that you've never heard someone on the ACA say the theist callers are "stupid, low hanging fruit". Yet a butt-hurt xtian apologist made that characterization.
I would not go and attack Mr McLatchie. In fact, by his returning and apologizing, he earned some respect. We've all done things we wish we hadn't. We've all acted childish and regretted it at times. It is how we respond that shows our nature. He had the guts to come back and apologize. Kudos to him for that. As to his arguments, I agree wholeheartedly with Matt that they were unconvincing.
Hats off to you Matt. You did very well in the debate. Independent of the debate itself (I am an atheist btw), I respect the fact that you are being very respectful in your talk about Jonathan despite his behavior and despite that he also released kind of scathing remarks about you with his apologist buddies in a debate review. You don't seem like you see the need to go on the offensive. Weirdly enough, kind of reminds me of my days as a Christian about trying to be a "good witness", only this time, it seems to be the atheists that are being the "good witness" Hope that you continue to do what you do for a long time. I have you to credit for helping me find my way out of religion, at age 40. Unfortunately, seems so late, but better late than never. Thanks again!
The difference between a "theologian" arguing with atheists and an "atheist" arguing with lay Christians is that for the Christian, the idea that god exists is the most important belief in their entire existence. The 'lay' Christian should be an expert, because this belief is so important to them that they claim to base all of their actions on what the bible or god or whatever says. For the 'lay' atheist, whether or not a god exists often is not one of the most important things they base their life on. That's hard for the believer to understand. I get that. The believer claims to base everything on their god belief, so I hope they've spent a lot of time working out why they believe. I rarely think about whether or not a god exists. It is simply not at the top of my list of daily thoughts. Why would I put the same level of thought into "not believing" as someone who thinks their eternal soul's existence rests on whether that god appreciates what they're doing? If you're going to base your whole life on your beliefs about a deity existing, then you should really have a good explanation for why you're doing that. If you don't, you should probably work that out better.
Lets run through a hypothetical scenario here. A travelling vacuum salesman comes to your door with a vacuum (do these guys still exist?) and tells you all about how great it is, how much suction it has how quiet it is etc etc and shows you the vacuum so you purchase said vacuum and love it. 5 years later he comes back to your door with a new model. It has more attachments, handles pet hair better and even has a wet function. You again purchase this vacuum and you LOVE it even more. He repeats this 5 more times each time showing the vacuum and telling you about its features and you purchase it. On the 8th time he doesn't bring a vacuum and tells you this one is special. It not only cleans but turns all the dirt into dollar bills and is able to be flown around the neighborhood by riding it but you just have to believe him. He has been honest and trustworthy 7 other times do you believe him this time? Of course not because he while honest before is making a claim that defies the reality we experience. Dr McLatchie's argument is basically the vacuum salesman was right 7 times before so he must be right about this last claim too. PS - Matt he runs apologetics academy or whatever its called. You were on his show for a solid hour and a half a while ago i think.
Not only that, but most liers tell the truth most of the time. It's precisely when the stakes are high that people are more likely to lie, so his "reasoning" doesn't make sense at all: by definition, everyone is honest when they are not lying
Problem with the analogy is we don't have the 7experiences, given the sales man had given me personal experience each ever more incredible then the last and the fact it's just a vaccume I may take that risk. We don't have that though we have unverifiable claims of 7 experiences of someone else and what I'm trading for this claim is the most valuable thing we have our lives.
@@michaele.4702 No analogy is perfect, so long as the point comes through that's fine. Dr McLatchie is saying that the sources are trustworthy to him, thus he believes them when they say Jesus was resurrected. The analogy was made to show why even with those personal trustworthy experiences, believing them about something that defies reality isn't justified on word alone.
@@michaele.4702 Most of the time the assertion is that there are true things in the gospel accounts and those have proven reliable so therefore that allows us to look with confidence in these other claims. That's how it compares to the vacuum salesman. Trust has been built on the claims of things we expect a vacuum to do. That tells us less than nothing when we get to the extraordinary or supernatural claims which are completely different because they are not only different by degree but of kind. Those would need to be demonstrated to be true on their own merits and not simply piled on the back of more mundane claims to avoid that burden.
Nice job Matt. For your reference, his first call on AExp was about ‘specified complexity’ in DNA, and you pointed out that his definition of specified complexity required an intelligent designer, and he had just assumed that based on how complex DNA appears that it had to be ‘specified complexity’, thereby smuggling in God with circular reasoning.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 not really, oration technique might help you win a court case or formal debate but not a logical argument. Atheist simply needs to ask for evidence for their belief and any Christian, even st Augustine could not give a good justification for their beliefs.
@@mrnarason I totally agree !! Logic is logic no matter how you deliver it. Do you have the title of the video ? Is it the video where the guy threatens the kid by telling him that his father thinks otherwise? I have been looking for the video since quite a while now
@Love Logic many reasons. 1. The idea of immortality sounds pretty damn good. 2. Being able to see dead loved ones and be with them forever 3. Feeling a sense of superiority over others. I guess these reasons are for why people believe in religion and not for why any rational person would believe. Maybe the two coincide though.
Kudos to that guy. It takes a lot of guts to come back into a public setting and apologise that your emotions got the better of you, definitely not something I'd do.
In the darkness of the current era we are in, you are a very welcome light in that darkness. I thank you for your on-going and much needed public service, sir.
One thing in the debate that hit at a major question about claims being evidence came from audience. I think it should be addressed. Matt correctly pointed out claims aren't evidence. Mclatchies whole case. Audience asked Matt something like " if a woman claims rape is that not evidence?". I'm not phrasing it right, but it came across as a gotcha. Intuitively it seemed like a huge problem. It got a reaction from Matt even. It kind of got swept under rug. But the reason it's a good point is that it makes EVERYONE immediately intuit a natural reaction that comes from today's society. We know to take a rape claim seriously.bit seems to back up Johnathan. The question was against Matt's point. I think it's good to bring this up. If we step back from our intuition, and rationally think. Rape claim is a claim, not evidence. However, it's not to be taken lightly. A rape claim is serious and should never automatically be believed. Many people have been unjustly arrested, lost child custody, etc on JUST THE CLAIM. Lives ruined for a false claim. Rape claims, as all claims need evidence too. I just think it's a good topic for things like claims and evidence and how we need to not just believe claims. Mclatchie was a big disappointment. After hearing him on the show, I expected better.
McLatchie has one highly dubious source for all of his thin arguments and impotent evidence. His calls to AXP weren’t that much different to this debate: a list of declarations that the Sunday School stories he grew up with are true, based on little else but the stories themselves. He’s the low-hanging fruit, and his view of himself as a scholar of history is utterly delusional.
Christians make themselves look bad when they call in. It's totally a level playing field. His comments are disengaged and outright false. I've watched the show for a long time...and if what he writes holds any merit at all....I probably would not watch the show. Great vid Matt 👌
Good on ya Matt for being nice to your opponent. It's true we don't hate the religious just don't believe in religions as there is no Evidence to convince us.
These religious people always start off so confident, and all of a sudden good old reality sets in and they have nothing but blind faith, hollow claimsand baseless assertions.
Honestly, on the atheist side the most difficult part of defending an alternative to creationism is that the scientific evidence for the big bang, for the formation of the solar system, or for evolution is complex and technical. Virtually no one is (simultaneously) an expert in paleontology, geology, human biology, and astrophysics. So fully understanding and explaining the science is difficult for a layperson atheist. A Christian just has to explain that the bible is divinely inspired and it says X, Y, and Z. And the book never changes, while scientific knowledge is constantly developing and occasionally contradicts our previously held understanding.
“You don’t have to watch House to know that” has just become my new favorite thing to say. Sorry I don’t have a more productive comment related to the topic, but I really can’t add anything of value to what you already said.
Johnathan got destroyed by Tracie on a call. He's called in many times even with Matt. But with Tracie, Johnathan argued about claims and his "undesigned coincidence" theory that he ALWAYS talks about. After he went against historians Tracie brought up, he didn't like that Tracie took the side of historians. So his Facebook comment was almost exactly what he told Tracie. "What's the point of the show, if you just go with historians?". His only angle is claims are evidence and because undesigned coincidence.
There's a problem with giving equal time, when the other person uses their time to steamroll you with bullshit. Apologists hate nothing more than a level playing field.
I wonder what McLatchie thinks about claims for other resurrections besides Jesus? I'm going to wager he doesn't believe any of them unless they come from the bible. So he probably believes Lazarus and the saints all resurrected, but as far as the resurrection stories of other religions... I'm thinking you'll get a big fat "nope" on any of those. One other interesting thing I've noticed... resurrection claims only seem to be made in the context of religious claims. I cannot find a resurrection story that originated from an unbiased scientific or historical investigation. There's always an agenda attached to sell a religion.
A current Christian paradigm as I've experienced it is that if they can just believe in the evidence for the resurrection then all other inconsistencies are irrelevant. So they've bet everything on this sole miracle to convince the flock because if it's true anything else is possible.
I felt as if Dr. McLatchie looked down on Matt a little bit because Matt is not a “doctor” like him and Matt did not bow down to him and recognized the superiority of his PhD kinda like Loki telling the Hulk he is a god right before the Hulk smashed him like a wet rag....
Claims can be evidence, that is the probability that a proposition is true given a claim can be higher than its prior (e.g. P(proposition) = 0.5, P(proposition|claim) = 0.9). That's the case when people are truthful and reliable, which on certain topics they can be. Issue for the theist is that people can also be unreliable on certain topics (e.g. alien abduction), and that according to theists most religious claims are wrong, so people are unreliable on these topics.
Asking if there's strong evidence for the resurrection is like asking if there's strong evidence for Harry Potter. All anyone can do is point to their book, there's nothing in reality to support it and there's a reason for that.
Matt, your style of discussion reminds me of a Harry Truman quote when he was campaigning for president (after having become President when Franklin Roosevelt died in office). During his stump speech a member of the crowd yelled out "Give 'em He'll, Harry!" Truman stopped and said "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's Hell."
I guess the smart theists don't bother calling, knowing they can't rationally defend their positions. Better to keep your mouth shut and have people believe you are fool than open it and remove all doubt. Ben Franklin gets credit for that gem of wisdom, if I remember my history!
Wow, Matt is extremely generous to Dr. Bible here, but honestly it was a painful and frustrating debate to watch, with Doc's side presenting nothing, then stomping off because Matt won't accept no evidence as evidence. Sad, that the Doc can't think past his own BS, but, then again, considering it's his entire basis for living, makes sense he clings to it so desperately. How exhausting to have to do so many mental gymnastics to try to justify a false world view. If there was a god, apparently it delights in making its followers look utterly foolish.
To be fair there is evidence. It is really the quality of the evidence that is in dispute. The gospels are both part of the claim and evidence in favor of it. But they are by no means strong evidence. The problem with Christians like the angry toddler with a PhD is that they start with the position they want to believe and attempt to steelman it with evidence that they would point out is extremely flimsy if it came from any other religion. It is an unfortunate fact of life that not all people come by their views honestly or can look on them with an unbiased eye. None of this necessarily means that the gospels are false but the evidence falls far short of warranting a belief in their veracity and that was the point Matt made very well I think.
@@sypherthe297th2 Presenting what doesn't rise to the level of acceptable evidence to demonstrate veracity is pointless. It was insulting to Matt that this guy was not prepared to debate. He had no evidence, and to grant a scale of evidence is just patently silly, for the purpose of debate. One would not seriously present "weak evidence" at trial, or ask a jury to consider "cumulative" weak evidence. One may as well claim hearsay, although not strong evidence, should be considered as a "form of evidence." So, no, in fairness, there are claims, not evidence, as Matt repeated endlessly until the Doc had a tantrum. It is frankly nauseating, the whole "evidentiary" approach this man claims to take. I'd respect his position as merely desiring to believe baseless claims because it makes him feel better to have an imaginary friend, and a fantasy world view he prefers to reality. That's at least honest. But this whole" proving Christianity" crap is pathetic. As I say, Matt was incredibly generous, as he was also to Ray Comfort. Amazing how the atheist can behave in a "Christ-like" manner, and the god believer can't, haha. Just shows the depth of this entire sad hypocrisy.
@@sypherthe297th2 I have yet to hear any that counts as sufficient for an argument worth making. Such is why no one has prevailed in any debate on the issue. In a vaguely loose, dishonest semantic sense, yes, perhaps crap evidence exists, insufficient evidence exists, evidence not worthy to be presented exists, in the same way I could say that my evidence that you could have robbed the bank down the street is because you exist on planet Earth. If the word evidence means nothing worth saying, in any substantive state, then maybe, as a semantic classification, bad evidence exists. Such is why it's a losing effort, however, and why atheism itself exists. If there was evidence beyond garbage, no one would stop believing as soon they develop a sound epistemology. In this debate, claims were made. Claims are not evidence. Claims are claims. Evidence supports claims, not the other way around. If you think there's evidence that is not claims, call Matt, lol, I'm sure he'd love to set things straight, as he and others continue to do, daily, across the globe, year in and year out.
@@135ipocketrocket2 Because you don't get to judge the sufficiency of the evidence without evidence being put forth in the first place. While it is irritating to cover the same ground repeatedly, one does not get to the point of evaluating the sufficiency of evidence without it being put forth by the advocate. Evidence runs the gamut from non-existent or weak to strong and overwhelming and expecting the advocate to realistically evaluate their own case before presenting it is a bit untenable. I wish it wasn't but we live in the real world.
Apologists seem to think AxP and those presenting aren't interested in the truth and would either find a way out of it or not accept it if a believer presented compelling evidence.
My first Atheist debate I got smoked because I got the jitters and brain farted on things I know very well. They hit me with pascal's wager and I said it's a waste of of time to pretend to kiss the feet of an imaginary deity. It fell apart for me at that point. The 30 minute car ride home I was talking aloud and refuting the hell out of pascal's wager. It was my first public debate and I was scared. Since then I have seen many of the same faces in the crowd and was told you are getting a lot better keep it up, and by some "believers". A shot of Johnnie Walker Black doesn't hurt before starting. 1 an only 1 shot helps my jitters! I learn this from the late great Hitchens.
I watched this debate I thought it was deplorable on John's behalf. Everything with the atheist experience has always been upfront and told to people watching that anyone could call in. It seems to me that Johnny Boy is the one that's being dishonest and is himself a low-hanging fruit as he removed himself from the debate. I think his actions to remove himself from the debate is speaks volumes on his childish and extremely unprofessional attitude.
Resurrection schmesurection.... Jebus being a martyr was the issue. They (officials)didn't want that. So they gave him a "seaman's grave" (officials emptied his grave so no one could visit, just like Bin Laden, Saddam etc.). No mystery.
My problem with the debate, beyond many problems with reasoning, was primarily the very, very bad history McLatchie kept stating as true. He made errors about what credible historians actually think about the gospels, Peter and James, the authors of the gospels, and even crucifixion as used by Romans.
Nice job! You were able to interpret my question too (had to try to get it across with limited amount of words)! McLatchie kept asserting his sources were trustworthy but gave no extra biblical evidence of those claims - why should we trust/have confidence in the claims of Paul and the disciples?
I have written and spoken extensively about the evidence (including extra-biblical evidence) that the gospel accounts are substantially trustworthy. Given the time constraints of the debate, I was not able to develop this case here, but would refer you instead to my channel and website where I have made that case.
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie hey! I actually have seen some of your work: debate with Alex Oconnor, other discussions with Matt, and your channel. I haven’t seen your website, but I’ll check it out. Fair enough, limited time to go over the more nuanced details. From what I have seen though, it does seem largely sourced from the Bible it self, and I don’t understand how a book like that - a biased account, written to spread Christianity, containing myth-like stories, can be considered reliable. I’ve read some of Bart Ehrman’s books, and watched his debates, and that seems to be one of his driving points - it’s unreliable. (Not that his view is superior, just validating my skepticism)
I have listened to quite a few conversations with Jonathan and it seems genuinely confused that his knowledge alone isn't enough to be considered strong evidence. Almost incredulous that a dedicated life to theological studies fails to convince anyone. I would suggest theist apologists spend more time in a lab or doing field study in anthropology, evolutionary psychology and even primatology to grasp the underpinnings of human god beliefs. Lacking those bridges to our current philosophical capacities seems to form this illusory epoch of specialness, purpose and requirement for redemption to account for our own, naturally evolved self awareness. A check list I use when listening to emotive people. 1. Statement 2.Repetition 3.Avoidance 4.Retaliation 5.Retreat (Watch an adolescent chimp interact within it's troop when denied access to something and you can make the same checks.) Emotive stages during conflict from silence to outspokenness. 1.Fellow human - envy 2.Share what they believe - pride 3.Defend what they believe - pity 4.Threaten to evoke their beliefs - disgust Median factors 1.Between pride and envy -desire to associate 2.Between pity and pride - desire to help 3.Between pity and disgust - exclude and demean 4.Between envy and disgust - desire to attack.
In that debate we learned that Mclatchie is also a Muslim, and a Jew, and a Pagan, and a Wizard, and a Druid and.....holy shit he's every claim that ever was, is and will be. Is Mclatchie God?
Great video Matt. Michael is smart but he has tuned every single one of his IQ points into confirmation bias and his insecurity (probably due to the insane cognitive dissonance) comes across clearly in most of his interactions. He is an interesting guy.. this waa a good vid
I watched the whole "debate". For me as a native german the good Dr. was very hard to understand. For two reasons. His pronunciation and the speed of his talk. He should improve here. Then he told everyone that claims are evidence. Matt did not, so he rage quit. Ok, i guve him credit for coming back, but that's it. He is one bad debater. At least in my opinion as a viewer.
Matt . Mc latchie lives in my hometown here in Newcastle UK. Yes he has been a caller into the show before , I can’t remember the number of the show but he was the one who made reference to Mount Rushmore and elements from design. This guy is well known in our town amongst the atheist community is being somebody who is an aspiring apologist he bounces around certain types of credentials which I would hazard to say should be investigate whether not their true. As I suspect that they are not . I have also debated him on a few occasions and he’s holds homophobic biblical opinion ions. And he also displays flawed logic on a numerous amount of biblical topics ,he is one of these types of people who never seems to see that he’s actually been defeated or has a wrong opinion .He is completely self-deluded and gripped by confirmation bias he doesn’t seem to have any interest in whether or not his arguments have any validity only that he wants to try and make a name for himself to some sort of debater .
Jonathan got to make his point just fine and Matt didn't interrupt. He accepts the Bible where it claims that several people claim to have witnessed Christ ressurected and argues that those claims are the evidence that Christianity is true. Matt argues that claims are not evidence and Jonathan gets frustrated and ends the call. The only difference between this debate and AXP is that there weren't a dozen other callers waiting when Jonathan hung-up.
I'm not an expert on the question but I think that applying the modern concept of being "truthful" or "lying" the these ancients people is probably an anachronism. Magic and mythology was everywhere at the time, it was infused in the culture, and was real in that way, these people were probably neither truthful nor lying but something else.
I am an atheist myself, but it´s true when callers want do discuss something more academic or when particularly they want to challenge the consensus of experts, they are often told to go somewhere else. But these are the rules of the programme and I understand them. But one does get a felling of unfairness towards theists sometimes.
Matt I'm trying to figure out how an intelligent person could believe in a book that is written bye ignorant people I don't mean to be mean but they had no knowledge of the things that goes on in our world in our universe they were ignorant we're not ignorant like that anymore are we so how can an intelligent person seek in a make-believe no proof I don't get it
Also, contrary to Matt's assertion, I am not new to this. I have done somewhere between 40 and 50 moderated debates. Of the debates I have done on the resurrection, Matt was the weakest opponent I have faced. If you see some of my other debates, my opponents engaged directly with my argumentation and we had a substantive discussion. With this one, I am not sure that Dillahunty even addressed any of my arguments in any meaningful way.
Wow. You're absolutely pathetic. You're in the comment section of a review of a debate that you lost. Maybe utilize that time to, idk... learn how to make better arguments for your case? I mean, did you even go back and watch it? It was weak sauce, sir.
What I've noticed about the show, and I've been listening for years is that they are not there to make theists look stupid. Although Matt does have a very short temper. Also I feel like he is afraid that he might be wrong and exposed on the show. For example, when talking to vegans he got very defensive and went on the attack with name calling. This tells me that he is not interested in going where the truth leads so I'm not a big fan of him. The other hosts are far more level headed.
I watched every second of this debate and this doctor character was making me feel embarrassed for him. I'm not even joking I felt embarrassed by the reasoning he was given. Imagine if I told you I had a book and the book was roughly over 2,000 years old. Imagine this book is a compilation of stories that we have no idea who wrote them. Not only that it's a book that we know that there's forgeries and mistakes a whole bunch of problems. And then I tell you that I think the stories in this book are true because I trust the authors of this book, and I trust the people that the unknown authors in this book are talking about. And imagine that I had the audacity to call this strong evidence of the story being true. Any human would find it hard not to laugh in the person's face!...
I think 8 of the books have decent source identification. The rest are anonymous.
💯💯💯
And then the golden part is, only my book is trustworthy and the other religions aren’t.
@@rembrandt972ify which are the 8 books
@@potiphajerenyenje6870 Sorry, I made a mistake, I should have said 7. Acts and the 6 Pauline Epistles that aren't forgeries.
McLatchie is a Literalist. WHen you told him that 'we're done' , figuratively, he took it literally...Good on him for his multiple apologies
He got frustrated when you didn't follow the script in his head and he had to argue his case.
As a call screener, I can promise you that I'm listening intently for the best, most articulate, most knowledgeable callers, theist or atheist alike. It's not like we are reaching out to bobo callers and baiting them into calling.
Thank you for your service! 👍
Now watch someone call in as Bobo!
Johnny Philindablanq A poor craftsman blames the tools for his failure.
The few smart theists know better than to call in and get bitch slapped in a debate. They get all the S&M they could desire from their book.
@@mrcurly1147 ♥️ Why would I want to call in when the show has the advantage of dismissing me without a cause? Where Dillahunty is always visible and the caller is left invisibly to the imagination. Is it not a level playing field here where I can say to you, once you have dismissed God and creation you are left with an imaginary godless universe forged by a miraculous accident requiring more faith than our belief in God. Now you must say, "But I made no such claim so the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove God exists." "Is it now? I have already proved God exists to my satisfaction, why should I bear your burden for you? Do you think this is a debate and we must follow your debate rules? I am simply a messenger and here is my message to you who are "dead in your sins. When you dismiss God and creation you are left with a universe created and designed by a miraculous accident. The same goes for your self creating self designing evolutionary theory so many atheists are calling a fact! More faith is required to believe such "cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16) than to believe in your Creator. May I suggest you go to my free online Bible School to study the Word of God outside of religion at: Lifeishid.com "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." ♥️ Jesus ♥️
Gotta love the 'no true christian' argument, wherein for some strange reason the *only* theists who ever call the show are low hanging fruit, which is why the arguments always fall flat. Not because they're not good arguments, no no, it's because the *good* arguments are being wielded by those that never call for some reason.
I do agree with Jonathan that Matt interrupts callers and often wants to argue about other things, slavery in the Bible for instance. This debate was the ideal set-up for him where Matt couldn't interrupt and had to stay on topic. Most Axp callers do not get that opportunity but he still failed to be convincing and he can not blame Matt or the debate format for that.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 He can jump the gun a bit at times, but most of the time I feel that the interruptions are warranted. With slavery for example it's a great way to instantly spike any attempt to claim that the bible/biblical god is a good source of morals as it forces them to defend the indefensible, and on more general terms if an argument is built upon a flawed premise it's a waste of everyone's time to let them spend several minutes laying out the argument only to have to go back to the start and point out a flaw that might invalidate the rest of the argument. If someone's argument had as one of it's starting points 'fire is cold' then you're not gaining anything by letting them continue past that point until it's addressed.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 People are terrible at preparing for their calls. They should know immediately that if morality comes up, then morals in the bible are fair game.
They sit there for hours waiting to talk, and they don't plan their statements or rebuttals with any kind of seriousness.
They just think they're going to get to talk for a half hour.
They're calling a call in talk show. They should be able to get their idea out in a minute. Demanding more time to speak is just being spoiled and a little presumptuous.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 The whole problem with debating with theists is their habit of spewing a barrel-load of points at an opponent in an attempt to hide the fundamentally flawed nature of each point and distract the opponent from pinning them down to specifics. This is why it is NECESSARY to interrupt theists, as they try to avoid direct challenge in this way.
"Matt interupted me"
Translation: "Matt wouldn't let me gish galap me way through the debate"
Not in this case. Jonathan really only had the one point. He is arguing he would have been interrupted if he called into AXP.
and then matt bitches at ppl for calling him out on it and "picking on him"
which is pretty stupid
You’re a better Matt than me. I would count getting a theist to ragequit as a lifetime achievement.
I would count it as just another thursday
Getting people to rage quit is easy and in no way proves who was right. It is not an achievement, lifetime or otherwise.
Thanatos elNyx It proves who has the more sensitive skin and it was entertaining. There’s no conclusion to the god debate, but theists inevitably rage quit or resort to untestable personal revelation when forced to confront a well- reasoned challenge to magical thinking.
2 points that occurred to me during the debate:
1) Jonathan keeps asking what they (the disciples) had to gain from inventing the resurrection story. Well, the question should be, 'what did they have to lose'. As strict followers of Jesus, they had cut family ties, forsaken personal possessions and abandoned their livelihoods. There was no welfare state in 1st Century Palestine so how were they going to resume their life? Surely, the easiest option for them was to continue preaching, perpetuating the story and embellishing it.
2) The argument that Women discovering the empty tomb was more convincing precisely because they wouldn't automatically be believed. My impression is that they used Women discovering the empty tomb because if Men discovered it, everyone would think they rolled the stone away. With Women, of course they couldn't do it, so it must be supernatural.
The rage quit was my favorite part of the debate. I watched the entire thing just for that.
@@nejileesansenpai Maybe, lol. I think he came back because he knew it was rude and didn't want to be an asshole. While there are a few people Matt's debated who would leave and not come back on principle, this guy didn't seem like a jerk, just overwhelmed and unprepared. Matt is too good at tearing down their arguments
It's the best debate ever and it's the first one I've seen the apologist rage quit🤣😂😂🤣
After watching the debate and have been watching TAE for more than 10 years, I can say with confidence: McLatchie is not different from most theist callers.
My suspicion is that he tried to lie about biology and he got dismissed because none of the hosts have the expertise to tell if he's being accurate or not
Its always “low hanging fruit” and “you arent talking to the right people, or the people who really have the good arguments”. Its a little sad.
Well. You shouldn't be surprised. Religious people always drop the same arguements over and over.
No true arguer fallacy, I love it when they bring up someoneMat should speak to that Mats already argued with.
What’s more, one wonders why so many (i.e. the vast majority) theists have such poor justification for their beliefs. It seems to me the “stupid callers” are merely less prepared than apologists who toss about convoluted fallacies disguised as reasons (e.g. Kalaam).
I call it the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" argument.
"You just wait until my apologist friend shows up! He knows arguments that will destroy you!"
I hope you live a long life, good man. I'd have been lost without you.
Jonathan's whole schtick is feigning offense, he has a problem with everybody, he's offended at everything, and piles a massive persecution complex on top of all that.
K Hewett So... he represents christians well, then?
Sounds like someone else we know, too.
EXACTLY. You nailed him. I can’t figure out if it’s an act or if he genuinely feels persecuted.. but it’s pathetic and sooo transparent
It is a deflection strategy, to shift attention from his inability to make a rational argument in support of his beliefs. This kind of thing is not necessarily entirely conscious, but likely arises from the brain trying to maintain it's integrity against what it sees as an attack from an aggressor.
I don't know where you get that idea. I am rarely offended by anything.
That debate was a slaughter. One of the most one-sided debates I’ve seen on any subject in a long time and I watch a lot of these debates. Too many in fact.
"Lord Voldemort is real and has great powers.
We have eyewitnesses: Harold Potter, Hermione Granger and Ronald Weasley."
This is the whole essence of "Dr." McLatchie's entire argument.
What's the point in pretending it is anything more than that, even just to be polite?
Harold?
100% matches John's argument and when I told him so (even used Harry Potter as my example) and asked what he thought... he stopped responding rather than be honest lol.
if there was a one single strong argument then we would all be believers
Simultaneously enjoyed the debate and found Dr. McLatchie so frustrating.
that's how most of these debates are going
Where is the debate?
You weren't the only one who was frustrated, McLatchie was quite frustrated to at some point!
I gave him grief. After the debate, he did a “post debate” interview and claimed he’s done many debates (not new to this, as Matt believes) and called Matt a fraud and repeated all the accusations against Atheist Experience.
@@peimanrazavi705 modern day debates TH-cam channel.
You have such big baby eyes Matty. Very interesting debate. I like how you review them. Also your opponent quit like callers hang up on your show Matt. They just give up.
I found this piece by accident and just have to respond to it.
I commented on this video 2 years ago when it was fairly new. A couple of weeks ago, that’s two years after my comments, McLatchie contacted me to respond to my comment.
We had numerous messages back and forth and all he wanted to push was to misrepresent your position on evidence and for me to concede to his view on evidence.
He hammered down that Matt D says that claims can not be evidence and wanted me to agree with him that Matt D was wrong on that. I had to go back and watch the debate again because I found it strange that Matt D would be that firm.
And of course there was context. Matt D said that claims are not evidence but added that anything can technically be evidence but not everything is STRONG evidence which was the topic of the debate.
McLatchie ignored that completely and went on to push that claims absolutely can be evidence and that Matt D was wrong.
So in conclusion from this video and my interaction with McLatchie:
The gospels are true because it’s reasonable to believe that the disciples didn’t lie.
And claims can be evidence.
I don’t think that McLatchie will show up to any debates in the future being a low hanging fruit.
The AXP show ALLOWS Christians to look foolish. Nobody's MADE to do anything. RockOn, Matt.
Mclatchie calling other christians low hanging fruits, and then shows up as a low hanging fruit, very ironic
How to alienate so many theist callers to the show: Insult them as "Stupid, low hanging fruit". Well done, Dr McLatchie, you've done Matt's job for him!
Matt's job is to invite theists to the show. Not alienate them.
@@optimusprime4090 Bit a dope, aren't you, Mr Prime?
@@optimusprime4090 You missed the point of the comment you're replying to. Yes, the ACA should encourage theists to call and try to not alienate them. The point of Jock's comment was that you've never heard someone on the ACA say the theist callers are "stupid, low hanging fruit". Yet a butt-hurt xtian apologist made that characterization.
He only missed calling them deplorable it worked so well for Hrc it lost her the election.
@@KurtisRader oh i see. Well jock guess i am abit of a dope lol. Hope you are satisfied with your unfounded feelings of superiority.
I would not go and attack Mr McLatchie. In fact, by his returning and apologizing, he earned some respect. We've all done things we wish we hadn't. We've all acted childish and regretted it at times. It is how we respond that shows our nature. He had the guts to come back and apologize. Kudos to him for that.
As to his arguments, I agree wholeheartedly with Matt that they were unconvincing.
"The moderator would handle it" Yeah, but James on Modern Day Debates doesn't really moderate, though.
"claims are evidence"
This gave me a real headache.
Hats off to you Matt. You did very well in the debate. Independent of the debate itself (I am an atheist btw), I respect the fact that you are being very respectful in your talk about Jonathan despite his behavior and despite that he also released kind of scathing remarks about you with his apologist buddies in a debate review. You don't seem like you see the need to go on the offensive. Weirdly enough, kind of reminds me of my days as a Christian about trying to be a "good witness", only this time, it seems to be the atheists that are being the "good witness"
Hope that you continue to do what you do for a long time. I have you to credit for helping me find my way out of religion, at age 40. Unfortunately, seems so late, but better late than never. Thanks again!
The central thing to remember in science is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-Richard Feynman
There was that French scientist (I forget the name), who completely imagined all his observations.
The difference between a "theologian" arguing with atheists and an "atheist" arguing with lay Christians is that for the Christian, the idea that god exists is the most important belief in their entire existence.
The 'lay' Christian should be an expert, because this belief is so important to them that they claim to base all of their actions on what the bible or god or whatever says.
For the 'lay' atheist, whether or not a god exists often is not one of the most important things they base their life on.
That's hard for the believer to understand. I get that. The believer claims to base everything on their god belief, so I hope they've spent a lot of time working out why they believe.
I rarely think about whether or not a god exists. It is simply not at the top of my list of daily thoughts.
Why would I put the same level of thought into "not believing" as someone who thinks their eternal soul's existence rests on whether that god appreciates what they're doing?
If you're going to base your whole life on your beliefs about a deity existing, then you should really have a good explanation for why you're doing that.
If you don't, you should probably work that out better.
I miss the videos you did outdoors from different camera angles.
Me too
Effect of lockdown
And the trampoline
"The Atheist Experience call in show, now call screener-screened by certified theist" 😉
Lets run through a hypothetical scenario here. A travelling vacuum salesman comes to your door with a vacuum (do these guys still exist?) and tells you all about how great it is, how much suction it has how quiet it is etc etc and shows you the vacuum so you purchase said vacuum and love it. 5 years later he comes back to your door with a new model. It has more attachments, handles pet hair better and even has a wet function. You again purchase this vacuum and you LOVE it even more. He repeats this 5 more times each time showing the vacuum and telling you about its features and you purchase it. On the 8th time he doesn't bring a vacuum and tells you this one is special. It not only cleans but turns all the dirt into dollar bills and is able to be flown around the neighborhood by riding it but you just have to believe him. He has been honest and trustworthy 7 other times do you believe him this time? Of course not because he while honest before is making a claim that defies the reality we experience. Dr McLatchie's argument is basically the vacuum salesman was right 7 times before so he must be right about this last claim too.
PS - Matt he runs apologetics academy or whatever its called. You were on his show for a solid hour and a half a while ago i think.
Not only that, but most liers tell the truth most of the time. It's precisely when the stakes are high that people are more likely to lie, so his "reasoning" doesn't make sense at all: by definition, everyone is honest when they are not lying
Problem with the analogy is we don't have the 7experiences, given the sales man had given me personal experience each ever more incredible then the last and the fact it's just a vaccume I may take that risk. We don't have that though we have unverifiable claims of 7 experiences of someone else and what I'm trading for this claim is the most valuable thing we have our lives.
@@michaele.4702 No analogy is perfect, so long as the point comes through that's fine. Dr McLatchie is saying that the sources are trustworthy to him, thus he believes them when they say Jesus was resurrected. The analogy was made to show why even with those personal trustworthy experiences, believing them about something that defies reality isn't justified on word alone.
@@michaele.4702 So you are saying that you would believe a claim without good evidence....
@@michaele.4702 Most of the time the assertion is that there are true things in the gospel accounts and those have proven reliable so therefore that allows us to look with confidence in these other claims. That's how it compares to the vacuum salesman.
Trust has been built on the claims of things we expect a vacuum to do. That tells us less than nothing when we get to the extraordinary or supernatural claims which are completely different because they are not only different by degree but of kind. Those would need to be demonstrated to be true on their own merits and not simply piled on the back of more mundane claims to avoid that burden.
Matt you have a difficult job, i appreciate your hard work.
GOD EXISTS, REPENT NOW
@@mattm.9452 Do you actually expect spamming this copy\paste everywhere to accomplish anything?
Genuinely curious.
Might just be trolling.
@Barry Anderson Did you drop out in the second grade?
@Barry Anderson it is not an atheist battle to prove god does not exist.
Nice job Matt. For your reference, his first call on AExp was about ‘specified complexity’ in DNA, and you pointed out that his definition of specified complexity required an intelligent designer, and he had just assumed that based on how complex DNA appears that it had to be ‘specified complexity’, thereby smuggling in God with circular reasoning.
A very usual "low hanging fruit" kind of call. ahahah
Yes. Every time he tried to make a point, he began with "and I would argue" followed by some unscientific or fallacious nonsense
Even a lay atheist would destroy a learned Christian apologist. Look at the video of the 6th grader atheist versus that one Christian dude
This is not true. Performance is an important aspect of debate and only a fraction of atheists are practiced public speakers.
@@zephaniahgreenwell8151 not really, oration technique might help you win a court case or formal debate but not a logical argument. Atheist simply needs to ask for evidence for their belief and any Christian, even st Augustine could not give a good justification for their beliefs.
@@mrnarason I totally agree !! Logic is logic no matter how you deliver it. Do you have the title of the video ? Is it the video where the guy threatens the kid by telling him that his father thinks otherwise? I have been looking for the video since quite a while now
@@WHIRLWOLF th-cam.com/video/HhDPrP-tpeo/w-d-xo.html
@@mrnarason Yes that's the one 😆 thank you!!
Matt Dillahunty - the voice of reason in a sea of bigotry and ignorance.
After watching McLatchie's "review" of the debate it became very clear that you trigger him quite easily.
Thanks Matt , you're a (almost ) daily dose of vitamins for the brain. Always washed down with honesty.And that's is precious.
I thought he left because Matt didn't accept his "evidence" otherwise known as the claim?
@Love Logic many reasons.
1. The idea of immortality sounds pretty damn good.
2. Being able to see dead loved ones and be with them forever
3. Feeling a sense of superiority over others.
I guess these reasons are for why people believe in religion and not for why any rational person would believe. Maybe the two coincide though.
@Love Logic necrophilia is sex with dead people.
Know what you on about please.
Wow this thread went sideways in an unexpected way! 8-D
@Love Logic lol.
Y?
You attracted to children mate.
Child
Also on your ability to use a dictionary.
Congrats
This whole 'claims are evidence' trend needs to die. They simply aren't.
Very important to accept an honest apology. Bugs me when one apologizes and then still gets crap about it.
Kudos to that guy. It takes a lot of guts to come back into a public setting and apologise that your emotions got the better of you, definitely not something I'd do.
In the darkness of the current era we are in, you are a very welcome light in that darkness. I thank you for your on-going and much needed public service, sir.
One thing in the debate that hit at a major question about claims being evidence came from audience.
I think it should be addressed.
Matt correctly pointed out claims aren't evidence. Mclatchies whole case.
Audience asked Matt something like " if a woman claims rape is that not evidence?".
I'm not phrasing it right, but it came across as a gotcha. Intuitively it seemed like a huge problem. It got a reaction from Matt even. It kind of got swept under rug. But the reason it's a good point is that it makes EVERYONE immediately intuit a natural reaction that comes from today's society. We know to take a rape claim seriously.bit seems to back up Johnathan. The question was against Matt's point.
I think it's good to bring this up.
If we step back from our intuition, and rationally think. Rape claim is a claim, not evidence. However, it's not to be taken lightly. A rape claim is serious and should never automatically be believed. Many people have been unjustly arrested, lost child custody, etc on JUST THE CLAIM. Lives ruined for a false claim.
Rape claims, as all claims need evidence too.
I just think it's a good topic for things like claims and evidence and how we need to not just believe claims.
Mclatchie was a big disappointment. After hearing him on the show, I expected better.
Love your work! Keep it up. What I think may have led to the rage quit, consciously or subconsciously, was when you called his god "too stupid".
Thanks for doing the debate review videos. I would almost rather just watch the review than the actual debate.
McLatchie has one highly dubious source for all of his thin arguments and impotent evidence. His calls to AXP weren’t that much different to this debate: a list of declarations that the Sunday School stories he grew up with are true, based on little else but the stories themselves. He’s the low-hanging fruit, and his view of himself as a scholar of history is utterly delusional.
Christians make themselves look bad when they call in. It's totally a level playing field. His comments are disengaged and outright false. I've watched the show for a long time...and if what he writes holds any merit at all....I probably would not watch the show. Great vid Matt 👌
Don't forget: They have an all-powerful and all-knowing deity behind them. Holy spirit my ass... ;)
@@SirPayne right! This deity must want them to look bad on purpose...to teach us a lesson in the grand scheme of things bla bla bla bible! Lmfao 😆🤣😜
Good on ya Matt for being nice to your opponent. It's true we don't hate the religious just don't believe in religions as there is no Evidence to convince us.
THREE videos by my favorite aerodynamic sexy beast in one day? Matt! Yay! :)
Aerodynamic lol. He is a sexy beast though
@@optimusprime4090 He has no hair (makes Him aerodynamic. Shit for that matter? hydrodynamic as well, lol), and again... He IS a sexy beast ;)
@@2ahdcat I understood the aerodynamic thing. Just found it a funny way to describe someone lol.
@@optimusprime4090 🤪
Were do I rank on that aero scale???
These religious people always start off so confident, and all of a sudden good old reality sets in and they have nothing but blind faith, hollow claimsand baseless assertions.
Honestly, on the atheist side the most difficult part of defending an alternative to creationism is that the scientific evidence for the big bang, for the formation of the solar system, or for evolution is complex and technical. Virtually no one is (simultaneously) an expert in paleontology, geology, human biology, and astrophysics. So fully understanding and explaining the science is difficult for a layperson atheist. A Christian just has to explain that the bible is divinely inspired and it says X, Y, and Z. And the book never changes, while scientific knowledge is constantly developing and occasionally contradicts our previously held understanding.
“You don’t have to watch House to know that” has just become my new favorite thing to say. Sorry I don’t have a more productive comment related to the topic, but I really can’t add anything of value to what you already said.
Johnathan got destroyed by Tracie on a call. He's called in many times even with Matt. But with Tracie, Johnathan argued about claims and his "undesigned coincidence" theory that he ALWAYS talks about. After he went against historians Tracie brought up, he didn't like that Tracie took the side of historians.
So his Facebook comment was almost exactly what he told Tracie. "What's the point of the show, if you just go with historians?".
His only angle is claims are evidence and because undesigned coincidence.
Matt, "Let's talk about that" Rhett & Link, "Heeeeyyyy"
I agree with you, Matt. He completely misrepresented the Atheist Experience. His understanding of it is completely flawed.
Dr. McLatchie failed to present strong evidence for the resurrection. Full stop.
I love the House reference, "everybody lies"
Keep up the good work Matt!
There's a problem with giving equal time, when the other person uses their time to steamroll you with bullshit. Apologists hate nothing more than a level playing field.
That was not a debate. That was a TKO. And the guy is Dr who says claims are evidence.
I wonder what McLatchie thinks about claims for other resurrections besides Jesus? I'm going to wager he doesn't believe any of them unless they come from the bible. So he probably believes Lazarus and the saints all resurrected, but as far as the resurrection stories of other religions... I'm thinking you'll get a big fat "nope" on any of those.
One other interesting thing I've noticed... resurrection claims only seem to be made in the context of religious claims. I cannot find a resurrection story that originated from an unbiased scientific or historical investigation. There's always an agenda attached to sell a religion.
A current Christian paradigm as I've experienced it is that if they can just believe in the evidence for the resurrection then all other inconsistencies are irrelevant. So they've bet everything on this sole miracle to convince the flock because if it's true anything else is possible.
I felt as if Dr. McLatchie looked down on Matt a little bit because Matt is not a “doctor” like him and Matt did not bow down to him and recognized the superiority of his PhD kinda like Loki telling the Hulk he is a god right before the Hulk smashed him like a wet rag....
Claims can be evidence, that is the probability that a proposition is true given a claim can be higher than its prior (e.g. P(proposition) = 0.5, P(proposition|claim) = 0.9). That's the case when people are truthful and reliable, which on certain topics they can be. Issue for the theist is that people can also be unreliable on certain topics (e.g. alien abduction), and that according to theists most religious claims are wrong, so people are unreliable on these topics.
In all future debates, to prevent rage quit, use a safe word: BananaMan
Thoughtfully said.
Keep up the good work, folks!
I actually think the tipping point for him is when you called his God stupid lol. That's when he hung up
Asking if there's strong evidence for the resurrection is like asking if there's strong evidence for Harry Potter. All anyone can do is point to their book, there's nothing in reality to support it and there's a reason for that.
Haha Jonathans comments are hilarious. Especially since Matt absolutely destroyed him and made him run away like a bitch.
Matt, your style of discussion reminds me of a Harry Truman quote when he was campaigning for president (after having become President when Franklin Roosevelt died in office). During his stump speech a member of the crowd yelled out "Give 'em He'll, Harry!" Truman stopped and said "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's Hell."
I guess the smart theists don't bother calling, knowing they can't rationally defend their positions. Better to keep your mouth shut and have people believe you are fool than open it and remove all doubt. Ben Franklin gets credit for that gem of wisdom, if I remember my history!
As all atheists are, Matt, you are very gracious & generous.
Wow, Matt is extremely generous to Dr. Bible here, but honestly it was a painful and frustrating debate to watch, with Doc's side presenting nothing, then stomping off because Matt won't accept no evidence as evidence. Sad, that the Doc can't think past his own BS, but, then again, considering it's his entire basis for living, makes sense he clings to it so desperately. How exhausting to have to do so many mental gymnastics to try to justify a false world view. If there was a god, apparently it delights in making its followers look utterly foolish.
To be fair there is evidence. It is really the quality of the evidence that is in dispute. The gospels are both part of the claim and evidence in favor of it. But they are by no means strong evidence. The problem with Christians like the angry toddler with a PhD is that they start with the position they want to believe and attempt to steelman it with evidence that they would point out is extremely flimsy if it came from any other religion.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that not all people come by their views honestly or can look on them with an unbiased eye. None of this necessarily means that the gospels are false but the evidence falls far short of warranting a belief in their veracity and that was the point Matt made very well I think.
@@sypherthe297th2 Presenting what doesn't rise to the level of acceptable evidence to demonstrate veracity is pointless. It was insulting to Matt that this guy was not prepared to debate. He had no evidence, and to grant a scale of evidence is just patently silly, for the purpose of debate.
One would not seriously present "weak evidence" at trial, or ask a jury to consider "cumulative" weak evidence. One may as well claim hearsay, although not strong evidence, should be considered as a "form of evidence." So, no, in fairness, there are claims, not evidence, as Matt repeated endlessly until the Doc had a tantrum.
It is frankly nauseating, the whole "evidentiary" approach this man claims to take. I'd respect his position as merely desiring to believe baseless claims because it makes him feel better to have an imaginary friend, and a fantasy world view he prefers to reality. That's at least honest. But this whole" proving Christianity" crap is pathetic.
As I say, Matt was incredibly generous, as he was also to Ray Comfort. Amazing how the atheist can behave in a "Christ-like" manner, and the god believer can't, haha. Just shows the depth of this entire sad hypocrisy.
@@135ipocketrocket2 That's the entire crux of the problem really but it is overreach to say that there is no evidence.
@@sypherthe297th2 I have yet to hear any that counts as sufficient for an argument worth making. Such is why no one has prevailed in any debate on the issue. In a vaguely loose, dishonest semantic sense, yes, perhaps crap evidence exists, insufficient evidence exists, evidence not worthy to be presented exists, in the same way I could say that my evidence that you could have robbed the bank down the street is because you exist on planet Earth. If the word evidence means nothing worth saying, in any substantive state, then maybe, as a semantic classification, bad evidence exists. Such is why it's a losing effort, however, and why atheism itself exists. If there was evidence beyond garbage, no one would stop believing as soon they develop a sound epistemology. In this debate, claims were made. Claims are not evidence. Claims are claims. Evidence supports claims, not the other way around. If you think there's evidence that is not claims, call Matt, lol, I'm sure he'd love to set things straight, as he and others continue to do, daily, across the globe, year in and year out.
@@135ipocketrocket2 Because you don't get to judge the sufficiency of the evidence without evidence being put forth in the first place. While it is irritating to cover the same ground repeatedly, one does not get to the point of evaluating the sufficiency of evidence without it being put forth by the advocate. Evidence runs the gamut from non-existent or weak to strong and overwhelming and expecting the advocate to realistically evaluate their own case before presenting it is a bit untenable. I wish it wasn't but we live in the real world.
I remember some older AE episodes where Matt devoted entire episodes to professional (?) TAG apologists. The arguments just aren't good.
Apologists seem to think AxP and those presenting aren't interested in the truth and would either find a way out of it or not accept it if a believer presented compelling evidence.
My first Atheist debate I got smoked because I got the jitters and brain farted on things I know very well. They hit me with pascal's wager and I said it's a waste of of time to pretend to kiss the feet of an imaginary deity. It fell apart for me at that point. The 30 minute car ride home I was talking aloud and refuting the hell out of pascal's wager. It was my first public debate and I was scared. Since then I have seen many of the same faces in the crowd and was told you are getting a lot better keep it up, and by some "believers". A shot of Johnnie Walker Black doesn't hurt before starting. 1 an only 1 shot helps my jitters! I learn this from the late great Hitchens.
Hitchens is an imperialist liar.
I watched this debate I thought it was deplorable on John's behalf. Everything with the atheist experience has always been upfront and told to people watching that anyone could call in. It seems to me that Johnny Boy is the one that's being dishonest and is himself a low-hanging fruit as he removed himself from the debate. I think his actions to remove himself from the debate is speaks volumes on his childish and extremely unprofessional attitude.
Resurrection schmesurection....
Jebus being a martyr was the issue. They (officials)didn't want that.
So they gave him a "seaman's grave" (officials emptied his grave so no one could visit, just like Bin Laden, Saddam etc.).
No mystery.
My problem with the debate, beyond many problems with reasoning, was primarily the very, very bad history McLatchie kept stating as true.
He made errors about what credible historians actually think about the gospels, Peter and James, the authors of the gospels, and even crucifixion as used by Romans.
Atheist “debates” - I’m not convinced and who knows is not a “debate”
Nice job! You were able to interpret my question too (had to try to get it across with limited amount of words)! McLatchie kept asserting his sources were trustworthy but gave no extra biblical evidence of those claims - why should we trust/have confidence in the claims of Paul and the disciples?
I have written and spoken extensively about the evidence (including extra-biblical evidence) that the gospel accounts are substantially trustworthy. Given the time constraints of the debate, I was not able to develop this case here, but would refer you instead to my channel and website where I have made that case.
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie hey! I actually have seen some of your work: debate with Alex Oconnor, other discussions with Matt, and your channel. I haven’t seen your website, but I’ll check it out. Fair enough, limited time to go over the more nuanced details. From what I have seen though, it does seem largely sourced from the Bible it self, and I don’t understand how a book like that - a biased account, written to spread Christianity, containing myth-like stories, can be considered reliable. I’ve read some of Bart Ehrman’s books, and watched his debates, and that seems to be one of his driving points - it’s unreliable. (Not that his view is superior, just validating my skepticism)
I have listened to quite a few conversations with Jonathan and it seems genuinely confused that his knowledge alone isn't enough to be considered strong evidence. Almost incredulous that a dedicated life to theological studies fails to convince anyone. I would suggest theist apologists spend more time in a lab or doing field study in anthropology, evolutionary psychology and even primatology to grasp the underpinnings of human god beliefs. Lacking those bridges to our current philosophical capacities seems to form this illusory epoch of specialness, purpose and requirement for redemption to account for our own, naturally evolved self awareness.
A check list I use when listening to emotive people.
1. Statement
2.Repetition
3.Avoidance
4.Retaliation
5.Retreat
(Watch an adolescent chimp interact within it's troop when denied access to something and you can make the same checks.)
Emotive stages during conflict from silence to outspokenness.
1.Fellow human - envy
2.Share what they believe - pride
3.Defend what they believe - pity
4.Threaten to evoke their beliefs - disgust
Median factors
1.Between pride and envy -desire to associate
2.Between pity and pride - desire to help
3.Between pity and disgust - exclude and demean
4.Between envy and disgust - desire to attack.
In that debate we learned that Mclatchie is also a Muslim, and a Jew, and a Pagan, and a Wizard, and a Druid and.....holy shit he's every claim that ever was, is and will be. Is Mclatchie God?
Hmmm, that would mean Mclatchie does not exist. 😱
Given his interaction with PZ Myers, I'm pretty sure him "knowing more" isn't and issue. 😂
Great video Matt. Michael is smart but he has tuned every single one of his IQ points into confirmation bias and his insecurity (probably due to the insane cognitive dissonance) comes across clearly in most of his interactions. He is an interesting guy.. this waa a good vid
It was good for Dr. McLatchie to come back. That must have been hard to do. Good for him.
I think he realized (or maybe James the moderator told him) that he wouldn’t get paid his cut if the Superchats if he didn’t come back.
the only way was up....im sure he realised that. weak sauce for a supposed believer.
Thanks!
If someone's getting that frustrated the a alternative debate format should be applied, why I love modern day debates channel they are great at this.
I watched the whole "debate". For me as a native german the good Dr. was very hard to understand. For two reasons. His pronunciation and the speed of his talk. He should improve here.
Then he told everyone that claims are evidence. Matt did not, so he rage quit.
Ok, i guve him credit for coming back, but that's it. He is one bad debater. At least in my opinion as a viewer.
This is an odd episode of Good Mythical Morning
Let's talk about that!
I wonder if McLatchie thinks that his PhD trains him in philosophy. 🤔🤔🤔
Pretty sure his Christian diploma mill PhD in evolutionary biology didn’t actually train him in evolutionary biology either
Matt . Mc latchie lives in my hometown here in Newcastle UK.
Yes he has been a caller into the show before , I can’t remember the number of the show but he was the one who made reference to Mount Rushmore and elements from design. This guy is well known in our town amongst the atheist community is being somebody who is an aspiring apologist he bounces around certain types of credentials which I would hazard to say should be investigate whether not their true. As I suspect that they are not . I have also debated him on a few occasions and he’s holds homophobic biblical opinion ions.
And he also displays flawed logic on a numerous amount of biblical topics ,he is one of these types of people who never seems to see that he’s actually been defeated or has a wrong opinion .He is completely self-deluded and gripped by confirmation bias he doesn’t seem to have any interest in whether or not his arguments have any validity only that he wants to try and make a name for himself to some sort of debater .
Sounds like he’ll be a pretty typical apologist then
Latchie reminds me of a movie scene when they realized "we are the 5th wave!". In his case it would be "we are the low hanging fruit".
Jonathan got to make his point just fine and Matt didn't interrupt. He accepts the Bible where it claims that several people claim to have witnessed Christ ressurected and argues that those claims are the evidence that Christianity is true. Matt argues that claims are not evidence and Jonathan gets frustrated and ends the call. The only difference between this debate and AXP is that there weren't a dozen other callers waiting when Jonathan hung-up.
I watched it also. I attest your description is accurate.
I'm not an expert on the question but I think that applying the modern concept of being "truthful" or "lying" the these ancients people is probably an anachronism. Magic and mythology was everywhere at the time, it was infused in the culture, and was real in that way, these people were probably neither truthful nor lying but something else.
I am an atheist myself, but it´s true when callers want do discuss something more academic or when particularly they want to challenge the consensus of experts, they are often told to go somewhere else. But these are the rules of the programme and I understand them. But one does get a felling of unfairness towards theists sometimes.
Matt I'm trying to figure out how an intelligent person could believe in a book that is written bye ignorant people I don't mean to be mean but they had no knowledge of the things that goes on in our world in our universe they were ignorant we're not ignorant like that anymore are we so how can an intelligent person seek in a make-believe no proof I don't get it
Because it allows them to extract cash from the gullible, ignorant and vulnerable, and avoid getting a real job.
Also, contrary to Matt's assertion, I am not new to this. I have done somewhere between 40 and 50 moderated debates. Of the debates I have done on the resurrection, Matt was the weakest opponent I have faced. If you see some of my other debates, my opponents engaged directly with my argumentation and we had a substantive discussion. With this one, I am not sure that Dillahunty even addressed any of my arguments in any meaningful way.
Wow. You're absolutely pathetic. You're in the comment section of a review of a debate that you lost. Maybe utilize that time to, idk... learn how to make better arguments for your case? I mean, did you even go back and watch it? It was weak sauce, sir.
What arguments do you think you made?
Matt chopped you down when he pointed out that all you have is claims and claims aren't evidence!
And if Dillahunty was your weakest opponent, I would love to know who your strongest opponent was.
Why did you walk off ? I recall it was when Matt refused to accept the Bible as evidence, which is all you had
Absurd comment, you're either incredibly dishonest or remarkably deluded, most likely both
What I've noticed about the show, and I've been listening for years is that they are not there to make theists look stupid. Although Matt does have a very short temper. Also I feel like he is afraid that he might be wrong and exposed on the show. For example, when talking to vegans he got very defensive and went on the attack with name calling. This tells me that he is not interested in going where the truth leads so I'm not a big fan of him. The other hosts are far more level headed.