@@pierrelabounty9917 Nope. We just reject dogma and prefer critical thinking. The kind that says "hey maybe we shouldn't base the laws we govern by on a book that claims to be from a divine source...without any proof"
As Christians we also often times reject scholarly consensus. It's not necessarily bad to reject scholarly consensus if the evidence takes you that way.
@@eshoosca Right. But it's just ironic that this particular skeptic appeals to "evidence based reasoning" and then dismisses a scholarly consensus with no argument at all, but rather just declaring it to be "bullshit".
A reflection of “evidence based” secularist values. Surely we can all get along by just trusting our egos and flesh. Phil Zuckermann is such a good example.
If the debate was on who could come up with the cringiest strawmans for things the other person never even said, he destroyed IP. Maybe if he read Aquinas, he'd understand how to steelman his opponents.
@bluebible1199that’s the joke. Reference to a denomination, then people think IP is in that denomination. Like people said he’s Catholic cause tweeted something about Mary. It’s just a joke people make anytime IP makes a statement relating to a particular denomination.
I'm losing my mind. He actually interrupts Mike on his second rebuttal and scoffs, is this real life? lmao. Mike really got under his skin by just being cordial.
@@davethebrahman9870 This is not the topic of the debate. The debate is which belief system is better for humanity, and IP came with the data and sources from theist and non-theist alike, historians, etc to back his position while Phil only rejected the data without providing any of his own (because there's none) except "trust me bro".
@@davethebrahman9870 Again, that's not the subject of the debate, and what is your proof and evidence? IP's evidence and sources prove the opposite of your claim.
@@davethebrahman9870 But there's no purely rational belief system that can work over the whole of society. Secular societies reinvent irrational beliefs, look at people bleating about karma, obsessing over conspiracy theories or worshipping celebrities. Secularism at scale is plainly worse than modern Christianity. This guy is a perfect example. He's an educated guy, quite intelligent, but he's trying to make an argument and winds up throwing a lot of emotional appeals at the wall and hoping they stick. This is _common_ even in people who have been trained in critical thinking. It's a discipline that requires constant attention and effort to maintain; just digging up sources is hours of tedious work. People can reason carefully when they have a motivation to put the effort in, but it's often just easier to take shortcuts, or they simply aren't aware of their biases, prejudices or presuppositions. A robust doctrinal system must account for this, and Christianity is shockingly good at it compared to virtually everything else we've ever tried.
This debate is so difficult to watch. Mike's arguments are rooted in essays, published papers, scholars and experts, whereas Phil's authority is himself. Love you Mike, keep up the good work & integrity.
"Authority is himself." Exactly. When he got mad about humans being depraved, I couldn't help but think, "He's upset that Christianity is calling him out on how he lives."
"We must abandon blind dogmatic faith in our judgments and adopt a scientific method in order to judge what is good and what is bad" "We must all adhere to human rights" Bruh. Good luck to this person to discover human rights in the world using the scientific method.
Science can't prove the scientific method. Unless you define science as simply a rigourous study where one tries to find truth. But going by that logic, every philsopher, including philosophers of religion is a scientist and thats not what these people usually mean when they throw claims like this out. Science as it is understood traditionally is defined as a rigorous study and analysis of the natural/physical world that often involves empirical evidence and hypotheses that are held up to scrutiny.
Yeah! This is just old time Soviet Leninism & is so incredibly dumb. The statement is a philosophical statement & not scientific. Therefore it is a basic obvious self-Contradiction & embraces what it denounces
Ironically, Aron Ra exhibits confirmation bias in the debate given the type of arguments he used where he used his presupposed conclusion despite him telling Mike he wasn't biased.
Atheists: Christians just pick and choose which values to believe in the bible! Also atheists: I want to pick an choose the values from Christianity I find more appealing.
1:35:00 Oh yes, because the UK is such a lovely place right now thanks to zuckerman’s timeless values. Really enjoying the spiral into the void over here.
As a UK citizen I can confirm that I am thoroughly enjoying the Utopian paradise secular atheism has created and am in no way considering moving to Florida with it's silly ideas like "human rights".
What the f are you talking about. You're gonna flee transphobic island that hates trans people to go to a shitty red state that hates all queer people? I just don't nsee the logic here, not even offended or anything @RedcoatHistory-gj7xf
Michael not only demonstrated academic integrity and competence, but outclassed a PhD in Sociology! Michael exemplified a Christian witness in the midst of strawman attacks and handled the debate with grace. Thanks Michael for showing Christians can be intellectually honest and respectful. I mean, some of Phil’s arguments would have been silenced if he only knew about Biblical Christianity. We care for animals Proverbs 12:10 (explicit). There is inherent value in all human life Gen. 1:27 (implicit). Jesus reinforces the value of the Ten Commandments by summarizing the core principles of the Mosaic Law that as followers of His, we must Love God with all our heart, soul, MIND, and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31).
What were the "strawman attacks"? Did Yeshua not send 2,000 pigs to fall off a cliff and drown? Oh really? Then why does Yawheh have no problem telling his followers to kill the "heretics". Slaughtering women, children, and animals. A desert warrior god is the Creator of the Universe, really? Why do you have to worship a being to be moral?
I used to sound a lot like this dude when I was an atheist. Ppl like Mike are a huge reason why I went back to church. Thank you so much for what you do! ❤ also love hearing you call out Christian nationalists whenever you do
Christian nationalist is such paradox. You can't murder for Christ. You are called to bring the Word to all mankind, not all mankind in one country with imaginary lines
So, I'm only partway through Dr Zuckerman's opening statement and all I'm hearing is him not engaging with the actual question, while attacking a strawmaned characature of Christianity.
Edit: Did Dr Zukerman just admit that his "secular" society built on Christian values was superior? I don't even think he realizes he just conceded the debate. I think this proves that he doesnt even really understand what IP was actually saying. For some reason, even though IP clearly stated that he wasn't arguing for a Christian theocracy, yet Dr Zukerman treated the debate like he was and argued accordingly.
@@SuperBossGiovanni He didn't concede the debate with that. Best I can tell, he's arguing that Christianity was like a chrysalis and while it may have been good for humanity in the past, we need to metamorphosis to something more suited for the future. Which, in his opinion is secularism. Him ceding that Christianity was good for the past does not mean that Christianity is the superior choice for humanity in the present or future. That said, Mike provided more and better evidence than Phil. Phil seemed to be focused on trying to inject doubt into Christianity/Mike's argument for a good portion of the debate rather than presenting a positive case for secularism. Which is a bold choice when debating a well prepared apologist of a religion that says to be ready to present a defense for their hope.
The opening statements shouldn't be to refute the other's positions or opening statement, but to present your positions... the refutations comes in the corresponding sections of the debate.
@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD I have completed the debate now, but my point stands. He didn't engage with the actual question of the debate at all in his opening. All he was doing (and continued to do throughout the debate) was mock a characature of Christianity. His refutations were weak and as I alluded to in my edit reply, he seemed to be attacking a strawman of Mike's position.
Zuckerman comes off as insanely arrogant and basically unwilling to actually have a dialogue with the opposition. Pretty much par for the course for secularists though. He also doesn’t understand multivariate analyses. He just sees “Scotland > Ethiopia” and “Scotland = More Secular” and can’t comprehend any reason other than religiosity that Scotland may have a better quality of life.
It's unfortunately a quality of new-age atheists. Begin argument with presupposition. Reassert and restate assertion without evidence. Leave argument with same presupposition, never understanding that being convinced of your own arguments isn't evidence for said argument.
my gosh your right ... ive paused at his rebuttal and my gosh "well um uh i don't really think those scholar's could really get the human condition" like give me a break! ...
It almost seems like they were arguing two different topics. Michael was actually debating the debate topic: Which is better for the world, Christianity or Secularism and Phil was just stating why he doesn’t like Christianity
He’s an actual professor? I’d stay away from whatever university let him through.. And he says he’s in the nordics? I for sure have a completely different experience about religion in the nordics than this guy.. 3.5 million out of 5 is still part of the church in Norway, by their own choice.. Even though not all of them consider themselves practising christianity, they still want to keep the tradition.. could it be because we realize it has a role in keeping our society together? Cause it for sure does..
What a surprise - a dude hating on Christianity because it shows him how bad he is and he has to stop sinning. No more lies, no more porn, no more cheating, no more lusting, no more pride, no more greed for you Mr. Zuckerman. Of course he hates it - because he is already dead from the inside.
I'm an atheist, but Phil should be embarrassed by his performance. That rambling opening statement alone demonstrated how woefully unprepared he was, and it didn't get any better.
Who would you consider a strong atheist debater ? The best I’ve seen is maybe Alex O’Connor but my hunch is he is gonna be Christian in time. It’s like how there are no educated Muslims. There’s no wise atheists.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 The "ha ha, religion is so obviously stupid to smart people like me that debate prep isn't worth my time" tactic might have flown in the era of New Atheist cults of personality and unimaginative, formulaic, apologist-in-a-box debaters. But times have changed. The world is a different place. American Christians have become more well read and widely read, educated themselves on opposing views and kept up with developments in many areas of research, and generally gotten their act together, whereas so many pugnacious antitheists don't sound any different today than they did in 2004.
He didn't even show that secularism is better in any meaningful way, honestly. Only that some secular societies are nice to live in. But what about China? Would he want to live there?
Mike: "Here, have all these studies that show that Christianity and reliosity build all these good ideas" Phil: "You believe in sky daddy, where's the evidence for what you said!" Phil somehow managed to both come off as entirely uneducated on the topic and insanely unlikeable. Phil's point about rights vs the 10 commandments is nonsensical. Rights are a list of things the government can't do, the laws laid out in the Bible are what you individually do. Comparing the 10 commandments a list of rights is a nonstarter. They aren't designed for the same purpose.
I honestly don't understand what exactly Sociologists study based on his debate performance besides maybe learning how to sound uneducated and crass. His degree is like the educational equivalent of pre-torn designer jeans.
Zuckerman: Did you know it’s current year? Sky daddy won’t solve climate change. Virgin vagina. Magic man. Checkmate!” As a former atheist I was constantly cringing whenever he spoke and hoping I never sounded like that. Great debate IP!
Tbf he could make that argument but he would have to do 2 things: 1. Prove that Christianity is false 2.Prove that false things lead to worse societies. He didn’t do either of those things. Thus his argument doesn’t stand.
Tbf he could make that argument but he would have to do 2 things: 1. Prove that Christianity is false 2.Prove that false things lead to worse societies. He didn’t do either of those things. Thus his argument doesn’t stand.
@@danielboone8256 In other words, the debate is whether Christianity or Secularism is better for society. It’s not about whether Christianity is true or not.
@@thomasperez9255 Yeah, idk why I didn't understand that initially. Didn't have a problem understanding it reading his comment a 2nd time (before I read your reply)
@RabidLeech1 to add even if we grant Christianity is false it still doesn't show that secular humanism is true. Zuckerman is presuposing that secular athiesm is the neutral position when it's not
Based on Phil's opening statement, I'm not sure he's at the right debate. He spent half his time bashing religion, and I learned nothing about secularism.
"As a Jew, I wouldn't want to live in a Christian society", -meanwhile living in a society who's flag is a cross. "Christians are our greatest allies," -President of the one Jewish nation on Earth. "In an atheist society, Christians can keep their practices." -Like in China, North Korea, or Russia, Czechia, Slavakia, or Hungary when they embraced Communism?
I only remember one point he made about why secularism is better: you get to masterbate. I'm only kidding btw but yeah, he didn't say much about how being secular helps us.
You just had a taste of secularism in the video. To the Secularist, no viewpoint is right, except the secular atheist view, but from my understanding, most secularists believe in Subjectivism, not Objectivism, so that's hypocrisy right there.
What do you mean? Of course he pointed out negatives in Christianity. That is literally what the debate is about Wanting him to not have made great arguments is delusional lol
I've seen him debate, he sounds good because most Christians are polite in debates. his technique is basically "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" and he is somehow proud of that as an answer, that's why when he finally faced a Christian that is willing to call out and don't let go of any of his BS answer, he quit to avoid ruining his career.
I'm left wondering whether Zuckerman did any actual prep for this debate, because he doesn't give the impression that he did. I was particularly stunned by two badly-thought threw points. The first was claiming that historians can't tell how people in the past thought (does he not know that their writings literally tell us in many cases?) The second is claiming that Nigerian is a theologically Christian country (has nobody told him that most of Northern Nigeria has Sharia law?)
Stereotypical left-wing academic elitist figuring he needs no prep to take on anyone silly enough to disagree with him. His innate smartness was supposed to carry the debate. It didn't.
It almost makes me lose respect for Mike by proxy just because I don't understand how Mike respects this guy. I almost have to worry that this is like when Creationists debate Bill Nye (a non-scientist) over evolution instead of a real Evolutionary Biologist. I do hope Mike brings on better opponents than Mr. "Skydaddy and gay rights"... but somehow I have a funny feeling those people are hard to find.
@@MajorTomFisherthere are no better atheist debaters. I've watched all the best and they all do the same thing - the debate topic is thrown aside into "but God not real though" even when that's not the topic. Christian debaters are smart to not even get into that discussion because the atheist can't help but show their true colours by arguing outside of the topic.
I'm pretty sure Mike wasn't expecting this shitshow, the thing with these guys is that they make relatively reasonable arguments when they write their books and academic papers, where their views face little to no intellectual questioning from the other side of the argument because they're arguing with themselves against the strawmen they've created, and then when they step into the ring, they lose by knockout because they spend most of their time in their bubble, where their word and self-proclaimed authority on the matter rules over reason and facts.
That ending from his was atrocious. Im surprised thats how he chose to end the debate. He was fully tilted and mad IP didnt fall for any of his bait tactics.
He says the quiet part out loud. It's not about homelessness, it's not about poverty, it's not about education and it's not about charity. It's not even about "science" or ontological naturalism. It's about him protecting his ability to have sex with a bunch of women without consequence (because they can block it or kill it if the need arises) and protecting his ability to have sex with men. I wonder why secular people have such low birth rates... 🤔
IP argues Christian societies tend to be lasting and improve over time. Secular society can't reproduce and has other detrimental effect, which probably makes them wither away over longer periods of time Phil argues that he likes the current state of secular post Christian societies and that his humanist manifesto is superior in morals to the Bible. The two are having a different debate. IP wants to debate two scientific views about societal effects. Phil wants to talk about his feelings on certain nations in their current state and his feelings about his interpretation of humanism an Christianity.
Is it a requirement to be insufferably obnoxious when arguing against Christianity? It's almost as if his arguments wouldn't be sufficient on their own without emotional disdain doing the heavy lifting. Great job IP, glad one of you could walk away with dignity and having substantiated their position with historic data and studies. Phil lost the debate on merit not beliefs.
I believe Phil doesnt deserved to be called an "intelectual", since the way he arguing is either dishonesty or dismissing the study cases. Like seriously, who would have thought to consider every experts are liar? Phil, you need to do more research before blaming these professors, who are more expert on the fields than you.
I was particularly impressed by him writing off ancient cultures not sharing "enlightenment values" by saying basically, "well historians are full of s#!t".
Brah. Japan is massively influenced by the US Christian values. They are also so culturally religious they don't even realize how much of their culture is religion.
Japanese was constantly at war with themselves before they got invaded by the west and got westernized. also the human experiment they did in WW2 was pretty scary.
@@zupremo9141the one where they had two bombs dropped on cities full of civillians just so the US could pound its chest to russia? Those experiments? Yes imperial japan was bad but lets not forget the mirror
@@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w but even then, he doesn't ever prove Christianity caused that evil. He just pointed out something that Christians did. You'd have to use scripture in order to determine whether or not the doctrine commands this or condems it. On top of that, he makes multiple correlation causation mistakes. Insinuating that countries are doing good because they aren't religious.
@@_.incredible_magnum._291 i agree. Hpwever Those countries are religious. Japan and acandinavia are both majority religious. He took credit for a secular government. Completly denying their history and culture which shows how ignorant he is on the matter. Also both countries listed proves IPs opening statement about decular governments resulting in lower birth rates.
Congrats to Michael, this was great. I love how he misrepresented many of your positions in his closing statement and decided to just complain about his conception of Christianity. I’ve never seen a more thorough and meticulous win in a religious debate against a Secular Academoid in my life
The problem with Phil Zuckerman's version of secularism, is that it is a Luxury Belief. It's something that emerged long after the struggles and upheavals associated with state formation and industrial process. And part of more liberal "individual autonomy". Unlike say, the secularism of the Soviet Union (which was aggressive and doctrinaire atheism).
Oh yeah I think I see what you mean, a lot of people forget the deep hole that society has been carrying itself out of for the past thousands of years where enforceability of rules in growing societies wasn't very easy back then, also its harder to deal with the more detailed things of human rights when you're bigger priority is getting basic rights (e.g. food) in a place with a lower economy
Ironically the secularist claim to be motivated by science but gives no studies or statistics in his opening statement. Where IP in his opening statement gives a mountain of studies and statistics
@@theylivewesleep.5139 Just a couple tidbits too about science and Christianity: Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minister who coined Bayes Theorem, which supports a lot of the math behind most AI algorithms today. Thomas Mendel was a Catholic iirc.
@@Elioc-ed6wr Hell, the father of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a catholic priest and physicist. The whole point of it was to prove that the universe did not always exist and had a beginning, an origin point, which just so happens to line up with "Let there be light".
And this man talks about the "arrogance of faith"?? Amidst his smirking condescension all throughout and his snide remarks and hurtful intentions - he forgets what the debate is about! Well done Mike for staying focused, well prepared and not falling for his provocations (Santa/fairy jokes). How sad! How ignorant!!
What I don’t understand is why he was idealizing Nordic nations and Japan. Sweden has had a large scale influx of crime and murder. While Japan’s wealth inequality, lack of worker protections, and suicide rates are a massive problem…. Japan and Nordic nations have massively profited off the US’ war against communism. Nordic nations have served as the US’ buffer against Russia and Japan against China. He’s also selectively choosing “secular” nations. North Korea and China are also secular nations. Unlike the Nortic nations there is no Christian tradition underlying their culture nor are they culturally Christian. They have been secular for generations. It blows my mind to say that North Korea would be a better place to live than the US because it is more secular.
Phil: Belief that people are inherently sinful is a terrible and insane idea that is bad for society 24:44 Phil less than a minute before that: “we are flawed, we are jealous, we are violent, we are petty, we are tribalistic, we have inherited all of these traits…” 24:07 Interesting thought flow in the opening statement… 🤔
It’s funny Phil says that Christianity is all just based on feelings and emotion, but literally almost his entire rebuttal’s were based on his feelings and emotion on why he doesn’t like Christianity 🤷🏼♂️.
Is this what atheists consider to be good debating? Basing 90 percent of your argument on emotional appeals, making a whole bunch of disparaging statements, avoiding the topic and barely addressing your opponents arguments. Pretty pathetic.
Zuckerman's argument basically amounts to "I like all the things Christianity gave us, just without the Christians." The guy came across as a complete clown, Michael handily won this debate, no contest.
Michael respect for your patience man, you were very nice and respectful throughout the debate, despite of him mocking your beliefs every 2 minutes, then assuming you don't apply the same thinking to your beliefs as for these studies, trying to get points by talking about things that aren't part of this debate, and I'm glad you didn't talk about them, i really love how professionally you handle things. Around 1:20:00 he becomes ultra cringe and you handle it nicely. Much love man, show em how Christ teaches us. ☦️
I said this in the live chat, but you are beyond appreciated for this ministry Mike. I would not be a Christian today if I had not found your videos that defended theistic evolution, the guests you invite into your live streams, as well as your studies on ANE and your exodus series that David Falk helped you with. In fact, I found these right as I was beginning the process of abandoning Christianity. Now, I plan to get my bachelor's and eventually a PhD in Old Testament/Ancient Near East, and that is heavily due to my being introduced to the study of these topics by your videos. So the bottom line is, thank you, Mr. Jones. I'm just one person out of many who I'm sure share the same gratitude for this channel and you. God bless sir 🙏
Currently writing my Bachelor Thesis on this topic, which you inspired me (no pun intended) alot to. While there are some instances of missionaries (especially Protestants, that's what I'm focusing on) mishandling situations and even doing some evil things, the absolute majority of evidence points towards the great, long-term effects which Protestant missionary had on socioeconomic development in Southeast Asia and colonial Africa.
@@theamericanpotatonamedphil4306 I think for the most part he was arguing about its utility. He did slip here and there but on the whole he was arguing about utility. His first half was fairly on point for consistency with his argument, but then he started straw manning. I could always be mistaken though. Could you point me to where you think he was arguing about truth?
@@bluecat4802 well you already admitted to him doing the thing you said he isnt doing in this comment which i find to be self defeating. But Phils comments in his closing statement where he says "the main claims that Michael says that makes you a Christian (the Nicene creed), there is no evidence for" that would imply the birth of jesus from a virgin, he is the son of God, death on a cross, his resurrection etc. Hes also done this a couple times earlier in the debate but this is not the main topic or question of the debate is it?
@@bluecat4802 re listen to his opening statement, a major part of his argument is pointing out how silly and stupid he thinks Christianity is, he references that it's bad because it's not true multiple times. He had no substance on why secularism is better past his poor attempts at logical arguments. He had no actual sources so he relied on attacking Christianity.
“In a secular society masturbation is natural and healthy and ok…” I think he just argued that “Secularism is better for society because choking the chicken. “
I remember when IP debated Arab Ra and Aran said that "why should a woman be forced the breast feed in a public bathroom just because it offends some guy who calls his wife mother." That point was so hilarious to me. He was basically saying "atheism better cause FREE THE NIPPLE!!"
@@1sosukeaizen1 Ah yes, the evil Nazis went to war against the Jews, Russia France and the world because of the divine order from God and Hitler called himself the reincarnation of Christ and pope, such a true story...
@@justadude189 yes Mr H*tler and his camarades had belts with the cross on them. The pope told the crusaders :”go k*ll your sins are forgiven” and Americans prayed in the church before k*lling 2M Muslims in Iraq. All in the name of your religion you can’t run away
The birth rates thing is nazi-esque. Rich, well-off nations get more secular. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with immigrants from a range of places . Making more people in service of a myth just to keep more of society Christian? That's stupid as hell @@crazyfast5593
It's also interesting how he was able separate Christian vales and faith here but when IP does it later by separating theological and sociological Christianity he had a melt down
I was going to watch AP and the Dizzle's coverage of this, but the debate speaks for itself. Good work, Mike. I appreciate just how much prep you put into this debate. God Bless!!! 🙏
This is like watching a rebellious teenager who dislikes religion, because they think it does bad things, but when told otherwise starts mocking all the evidence proving otherwise... what a brutal debate.
I love how when he realised michael was pulling out the reciepts, he attacked the integrity of these experts in their field after advocating for evidence based decision makimg over faith based decision making.
It’s funny how IP been stooping this guy left right and center throughout the whole debate and IP says it’s okay, but the one time he thinks he’s done the same he starts starts yelling “I got ya”
A Christian man came with facts and evidence. The atheists dude came with nothing to convince me. I use to be agnostic, this channel has open me up to be more excepting to religion and has made into a believer.
@InspiringPhilosophy I know you said you won't do anymore shorts, but can you do one last on a channel called Jeff ( yes that is the entire name) titled "you can't argue for God." I listened to the one minute video and I know it has dumb arguments but I just can't explain why it's dumb.
This is a tough, tough listen. Almost felt like skipping Phil's sections, even with my watch speed being 2x. Still sat and watched it, but wow, was it tough.
All I heard was a guy that was full of hate and anger towards Christianity Where was the evidence that Christianity is bad All I heard was evidenced that human beings do horrible things
Funny how the people who go on and on about racism, sexism, bigotry, and “hatred” towards other’s people are the same ones who are the MOST hateful, bigoted, and emotional towards ANYONE who even slightly disagree with them. Just look at how they reacted to Trump becoming president. 😠
This dude really appealed to Scandanavia and Japan as examples of secular success. Two parts of the world that have massive population decline. Nordic countries are being filled and replaced with muslim populations, and as a result will see freedom of speech limited (Denmark has anti-blasphemy laws disguised as anti Islamophobia laws)and antisemitism rise. Meanwhile Japan, who until WW2 was hated by its neighbors because of how violent and cruel they could be, is now suffering from a loneliness epidemic, and still has a racism problem against darker skinned asians. This video should just get re-titled: IP vs Reddit Athiest
i found that hilarious considering Japan's history and what they did to Christians before ww2. he also completely ignored why the Japanese are the way they are, which is their culture which is rooted in Buddhism and Taoism, so even if you remove Christianity from the equation its still not secularism. the only reason they have a secular society today is the American influence after ww2. before that Japan was run by emperors whom they called kami aka divine. if you look to the history of Christianity in Japan, the emperor and daimio found it a threat, not because they were doing anything horrible but because it undermined their power hold on the population with teachings of freedom.
You did great Michael, thanks for you Jesus for using your Child in this way. Thanks for all you do. Reading research and articulation. We appreciate you God Bless you and yours in Jesus name 🙏🏻
Hearing Zuckerman describe God as being like a grandfatherly figure sitting on a throne in the sky somewhere was, regrettably, all I needed to hear to imagine how this debate was going to go and I wasn't disappointed. Is it too much to ask for these people to have some insight into an Idealist conception of God as Reality itself?
I would love to see Michael talk with Alex O'Connor. Alex is the best face of atheism - while skeptic, he's full of wonder, legitimate curiousity, honesty and respect. He recently debated with the Knechtles and while the debate was respectable and very interesting for both sides, the comments are full of anger and arrogance towards Cliffe and his son.
Democracy doesn’t flow from secularism just ask the one’s abandoning family and friends because of their political ideology. The spirit of democracy doesn’t flow from them.
Michael brought facts and research, and Phil brought his emotions. Someone should tell Phil that having strong feelings on a topic doesn't make you correct.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Phil's arguments weren't base on "emotions" , that's the strawman. And the debate is about what is the preferable social structure for society. So citing Christian charity is irrelevant because Christians do charity work in a secular society. And then there's the focus on birth rates, which is just bizarre. Having high birth rates has certain economic advantages and certain risks, but doesn't just automatically mean that an idea that leads to higher birthrates is "better". There's no logical connection there He lists so many desirable aspects of a secular society, idk how you can just pretend not to hear them?
@@wgo523 Phil's debate approach was more emotional than factual, and he spent most of his time explaining why he disagreed with Christianity instead of addressing the topic. Meanwhile, IP made well-researched arguments that Phil failed to counter because he brought little to no counter-evidence, even though he kept talking about evidence over and over again. It's pretty obvious to any thinking person that sustainable birth rates benefit humanity more than declining ones.
42:58 My step-father began his multi-citywide property sanitation business to help and hire homeless people expressly motivated by his belief in Christianity. He also works with local churches who also help in this way by providing necessities for the homeless by donating his time and resources. These were needs that were not being fulfilled within the secular framework.
Z: secularism results in science (invokes no science) J: here's some science Z: it is all nonsense Z: secularism results in reason (argues from emotion) J: here's some reason Z: it is all nonsense Z: secularism is responsible for HOW we do things me: but it has nothing to say about WHY we do anything
Just watching the first 3 minutes of Zuckerman's statement gave me a headache. The guy does not debate the topic, he simply pointed out that religious authoritarianism is bad. Newsflash: As a former Atheist/secular Jew, and now a confessional Lutheran Christian, I fully agree that a Christian theocracy is a bad idea. It ended badly for us Lutherans in Calvinist Geneva and, Zurich, and it ended badly for us under the Puritans in the 13 Colonies. However, that is not the debate topic. The debate topic is whether Christianity or secularism are better for humanity as a whole, and, even if I disagree with Michael Jones about some of the basic presuppositions of what is better for humanity (I am highly skeptical of liberal democracy, among other things), I do think he makes a much better case for the position that Christianity is better for civilization as a whole than Zuckerman did for secularism. One point in favour of Zuckerman though: He at least acknowledge Stalinism as a form of secularism rather than deflect on the topic. P. S.: On a side note, as a Lutheran, I really appreciate Michael Jones referencing the Augsburg Confession, which is the most basic confession of faith of the Lutheran church.
Good job on this debate, IP. I almost stopped watching because of how snarky Phil was, but you stood your ground well. It’s always interesting watching atheists try to take the moral high ground while simultaneously being insufferable and insulting.
They don't even address many of IP's points lol. They just parrot antitheistic nonsense from their leaders that don't even really have anything to do with the debate. Absolutely embarrassing. I would be ashamed if I was an atheist.
Michael was absolutely respectful and collected in his arguments. This phil guy is insulting, egotistic and an all-around insufferable person-a great representative of secularism!
My whole thing watching this debate for the third time was, Why exactly does he talk about christianity not being true when the debate was WHICH IS BETTER FOR SOCIETY? whether or not christianity is true is fundamentally irrelevant to the conversation
It’s the whole I hate GOD cuz GOD denounces LGBT stance ofc hence now I MUST denounce Christianity as being True. Meanwhile you can simply be both & accept that GOD does NOT condone such. Why is that such an Issue when it’s obvious we were NOT created for such acts
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed watching this debate. First on Apologetics Roadshow's channel for a breakdown of the opening statements then swung over to IP's channel for the rest. IP did a great job at formulating claims and backing them up with evidence. Good on IP for keeping it together when Phil said his "critical thinking" comment. I'm convinced people like Phil, as much as they deny caring or having any interest with Christianity, that he like others has such a high level of disregard that they think themselves experts and above any level of curiosity or true interest towards the material that he claims to want to refuse. It was truly a debate of facts vs meme opinions. Phil showed a pop culture understanding of what Christianity is and a misunderstanding of even what is the "point" of Jesus is or his real role in the faith. Ex: His "overlord" comment. Also, as I'm elbow deep in the comment, does he not know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, as it pertains to the use of the word "slave" in the bible. Does he think that by simply mentioning a word that it implicitly and explicitly condones an act? I feel like reading a commentary or two would have cleared up a lot with regards to Paul. If IP was a less kind person I feel like for his closing statement he could have just said, "refer back to Phil's mockery and insults during his opening statement and rebuttals and judge for yourself whose behavior is better for humanity." Keep on rockin' IP.
man... phil's opening was rough. kept forgetting what the debate was about, very common among atheist and seculars, like not even Muslims are this bad.
@@GeometryCube1 yeah it was. I would love to watch him lose but I can't sit down and watch his debates because he is constantly talking past his opponents. Can we throw him in jail for being a pedo yet? How much more information do we need?
Also, it was so interesting that secularism was using emotional arguments against Christianity, but the Christian was using actual evidence that the "facts and logic" securlism didn't address any of the points made
IP, you came off the same way you do in your informational videos. Forgot I was watching a debate until the end of your opening statement. Always a great presenter!
“Secularism values evidence based reasoning”
*Secularist rejects scholarly consensus*
They may say that, but they don't. They value their ends not means. Undermine, by twisting science into scientism.
*Pregnant men*
@@pierrelabounty9917 Nope. We just reject dogma and prefer critical thinking. The kind that says "hey maybe we shouldn't base the laws we govern by on a book that claims to be from a divine source...without any proof"
As Christians we also often times reject scholarly consensus. It's not necessarily bad to reject scholarly consensus if the evidence takes you that way.
@@eshoosca Right. But it's just ironic that this particular skeptic appeals to "evidence based reasoning" and then dismisses a scholarly consensus with no argument at all, but rather just declaring it to be "bullshit".
Note how in the opening statement, Michael doesn’t insult the beliefs of secularists, but Zuckerman spends a good time mocking Christian beliefs.
Always, it’s pride and arrogance that blinds these people to how foolish they are.
A reflection of “evidence based” secularist values. Surely we can all get along by just trusting our egos and flesh. Phil Zuckermann is such a good example.
@@standard-user-name It seems a common go to strategy if “evidence” and “rational” secularists don’t prepare properly for debates. Kind of ironic…
I'm on Phil's side of the argument but yeah he could've been a little less passive aggressive
@ I’d reconsider your side. It’s full of this.
It’s like somebody told Phil that if he could just be super unlikable, he might win. It did not work.
If the debate was on who could come up with the cringiest strawmans for things the other person never even said, he destroyed IP.
Maybe if he read Aquinas, he'd understand how to steelman his opponents.
Eyyy. It’s Matt!
PROOF that IP is a Roman Catholic! Just joshing, love ya Matt
@bluebible1199that’s the joke. Reference to a denomination, then people think IP is in that denomination. Like people said he’s Catholic cause tweeted something about Mary. It’s just a joke people make anytime IP makes a statement relating to a particular denomination.
Haha, yeah it’s just a meme at this point
What in the r/atheism did I just listen to? IP absolutely trounced this man.
I'm losing my mind. He actually interrupts Mike on his second rebuttal and scoffs, is this real life? lmao. Mike really got under his skin by just being cordial.
Bro, never in a thousand years would I’ve envisioned you being in a Christian apologetics TH-cam channel. Still, it’s a welcome surprise!
@@YTuser2019 What are you talking about? Pretty sure you don't know me.
@@mac-1157 you’re a better man then I, I tried but I couldn’t get through it. So cringey, I couldn’t take it.
Actually though 💀
Mindlessly parroting "no evidence" wont make the mountains of evidence disappear, Phil.
Atheist don’t like evidence or science studies when it doesn’t appeal to them
@@davethebrahman9870 This is not the topic of the debate. The debate is which belief system is better for humanity, and IP came with the data and sources from theist and non-theist alike, historians, etc to back his position while Phil only rejected the data without providing any of his own (because there's none) except "trust me bro".
@@davethebrahman9870 Again, that's not the subject of the debate, and what is your proof and evidence? IP's evidence and sources prove the opposite of your claim.
@@davethebrahman9870 But there's no purely rational belief system that can work over the whole of society. Secular societies reinvent irrational beliefs, look at people bleating about karma, obsessing over conspiracy theories or worshipping celebrities. Secularism at scale is plainly worse than modern Christianity.
This guy is a perfect example. He's an educated guy, quite intelligent, but he's trying to make an argument and winds up throwing a lot of emotional appeals at the wall and hoping they stick. This is _common_ even in people who have been trained in critical thinking. It's a discipline that requires constant attention and effort to maintain; just digging up sources is hours of tedious work.
People can reason carefully when they have a motivation to put the effort in, but it's often just easier to take shortcuts, or they simply aren't aware of their biases, prejudices or presuppositions. A robust doctrinal system must account for this, and Christianity is shockingly good at it compared to virtually everything else we've ever tried.
@@davethebrahman9870Lmao what a cop out response “my answers will be censored ! So I won’t make my point” ok nerd
The rules of TH-cam clearly state that posting footage of real murder is prohibited, yet, this video has been up for several hours.
💀💀
@@sunny.litty353 genuinely funny comment, you deserve a like and a good day
that's a good one. got a chuckle from it. I may borrow this...
Ba dum tish!
🎉winning comment🎉
This debate is so difficult to watch. Mike's arguments are rooted in essays, published papers, scholars and experts, whereas Phil's authority is himself. Love you Mike, keep up the good work & integrity.
"Authority is himself." Exactly. When he got mad about humans being depraved, I couldn't help but think, "He's upset that Christianity is calling him out on how he lives."
@@zachindes So humans are born depraved?
I used to think atheism was better but now I'm convinced that it's Christianity 🙏✝
You were never a atheist
@@Pessi-m7e8h Basically, former atheists are not real atheists while former Christian can? You seem to be enjoying living in double standards life.
@dariusga6752 this person was never a real atheist
What convinced you that atheism was true and then what convinced you that Christianity was then better?
Tbh both are mad, atheists have no clue about life, Christians don’t satisfy their mind because if they try to scrutinize their belief it collapses.
"We must abandon blind dogmatic faith in our judgments and adopt a scientific method in order to judge what is good and what is bad"
"We must all adhere to human rights"
Bruh. Good luck to this person to discover human rights in the world using the scientific method.
Science can't prove the scientific method. Unless you define science as simply a rigourous study where one tries to find truth. But going by that logic, every philsopher, including philosophers of religion is a scientist and thats not what these people usually mean when they throw claims like this out. Science as it is understood traditionally is defined as a rigorous study and analysis of the natural/physical world that often involves empirical evidence and hypotheses that are held up to scrutiny.
Science was also pioneered by Christians. The amount of straw manning in his arguments was sad.
He'd be so surprised to suddenly rediscover eugenics😅😅😂
Scientific method pioneered by Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler all Christians...
Yeah! This is just old time Soviet Leninism & is so incredibly dumb.
The statement is a philosophical statement & not scientific. Therefore it is a basic obvious self-Contradiction & embraces what it denounces
This was on par with Mike’s debate with Aron Ra, where both Aron and Phil underestimated Michael, but he ended up destroying them
Ironically, Aron Ra exhibits confirmation bias in the debate given the type of arguments he used where he used his presupposed conclusion despite him telling Mike he wasn't biased.
New Atheist types tend to constantly assume any Christian they debate is going to be easy prey. They never account for educated people like Michael.
I guess Phil's career and impact will be virtually over after this as well.
@@lionofamosWe can only hope, but considering how cringe and deslusionally in his favor the comments on the original video are I'm not so sure.
@Snow-Willow The internet is not real life. Hold the line.
Phil Zuckerman showed us why being a horrible person probably isn't the best way to win a debate.
Atheists: Christians just pick and choose which values to believe in the bible!
Also atheists: I want to pick an choose the values from Christianity I find more appealing.
1:35:00
Oh yes, because the UK is such a lovely place right now thanks to zuckerman’s timeless values. Really enjoying the spiral into the void over here.
As a UK citizen I can confirm that I am thoroughly enjoying the Utopian paradise secular atheism has created and am in no way considering moving to Florida with it's silly ideas like "human rights".
@@RedcoatHistory-gj7xf Did they take away your free speech? I've heard they've been fining people for being mean which is just ridiculous.
@RedcoatHistory-gj7xfAre you being sarcastic or...?
@@chrisanderson7258 it’s a little obvious.
What the f are you talking about. You're gonna flee transphobic island that hates trans people to go to a shitty red state that hates all queer people?
I just don't nsee the logic here, not even offended or anything
@RedcoatHistory-gj7xf
Michael not only demonstrated academic integrity and competence, but outclassed a PhD in Sociology! Michael exemplified a Christian witness in the midst of strawman attacks and handled the debate with grace.
Thanks Michael for showing Christians can be intellectually honest and respectful.
I mean, some of Phil’s arguments would have been silenced if he only knew about Biblical Christianity.
We care for animals Proverbs 12:10 (explicit).
There is inherent value in all human life Gen. 1:27 (implicit).
Jesus reinforces the value of the Ten Commandments by summarizing the core principles of the Mosaic Law that as followers of His, we must Love God with all our heart, soul, MIND, and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31).
What were the "strawman attacks"?
Did Yeshua not send 2,000 pigs to fall off a cliff and drown?
Oh really? Then why does Yawheh have no problem telling his followers to kill the "heretics". Slaughtering women, children, and animals. A desert warrior god is the Creator of the Universe, really?
Why do you have to worship a being to be moral?
I used to sound a lot like this dude when I was an atheist. Ppl like Mike are a huge reason why I went back to church. Thank you so much for what you do! ❤ also love hearing you call out Christian nationalists whenever you do
I agree that IP is great at strengthening people's faith. He also strengthened mine.
Christian nationalist is such paradox. You can't murder for Christ. You are called to bring the Word to all mankind, not all mankind in one country with imaginary lines
So, I'm only partway through Dr Zuckerman's opening statement and all I'm hearing is him not engaging with the actual question, while attacking a strawmaned characature of Christianity.
Edit: Did Dr Zukerman just admit that his "secular" society built on Christian values was superior? I don't even think he realizes he just conceded the debate. I think this proves that he doesnt even really understand what IP was actually saying. For some reason, even though IP clearly stated that he wasn't arguing for a Christian theocracy, yet Dr Zukerman treated the debate like he was and argued accordingly.
@@SuperBossGiovanni He didn't concede the debate with that. Best I can tell, he's arguing that Christianity was like a chrysalis and while it may have been good for humanity in the past, we need to metamorphosis to something more suited for the future. Which, in his opinion is secularism.
Him ceding that Christianity was good for the past does not mean that Christianity is the superior choice for humanity in the present or future.
That said, Mike provided more and better evidence than Phil. Phil seemed to be focused on trying to inject doubt into Christianity/Mike's argument for a good portion of the debate rather than presenting a positive case for secularism. Which is a bold choice when debating a well prepared apologist of a religion that says to be ready to present a defense for their hope.
The opening statements shouldn't be to refute the other's positions or opening statement, but to present your positions... the refutations comes in the corresponding sections of the debate.
@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD I have completed the debate now, but my point stands. He didn't engage with the actual question of the debate at all in his opening. All he was doing (and continued to do throughout the debate) was mock a characature of Christianity. His refutations were weak and as I alluded to in my edit reply, he seemed to be attacking a strawman of Mike's position.
he certainly was tiring to listen to ... it felt like every single atheist comment section talking point wrapped in arrogance and privilege.
Zuckerman comes off as insanely arrogant and basically unwilling to actually have a dialogue with the opposition. Pretty much par for the course for secularists though.
He also doesn’t understand multivariate analyses. He just sees “Scotland > Ethiopia” and “Scotland = More Secular” and can’t comprehend any reason other than religiosity that Scotland may have a better quality of life.
Which is so weird. It's not like religious people can't have better healthcare no matter what.
@@avivastudios2311 and it aint like scotland wasnt built off the back of religion
It's unfortunately a quality of new-age atheists. Begin argument with presupposition. Reassert and restate assertion without evidence. Leave argument with same presupposition, never understanding that being convinced of your own arguments isn't evidence for said argument.
@@constantineolkasis Well, Christianity and some seriously stubborn Scots!
my gosh your right ... ive paused at his rebuttal and my gosh "well um uh i don't really think those scholar's could really get the human condition" like give me a break! ...
It almost seems like they were arguing two different topics. Michael was actually debating the debate topic: Which is better for the world, Christianity or Secularism and Phil was just stating why he doesn’t like Christianity
Welcome to Christian vs. Atheist debates. 😂
He’s an actual professor? I’d stay away from whatever university let him through.. And he says he’s in the nordics? I for sure have a completely different experience about religion in the nordics than this guy.. 3.5 million out of 5 is still part of the church in Norway, by their own choice.. Even though not all of them consider themselves practising christianity, they still want to keep the tradition.. could it be because we realize it has a role in keeping our society together? Cause it for sure does..
Pretty much. I hardly remember what the good things about secularism were from him. One of them was that you get to masterbate.
@@elijahjohnson_3 this might explain why I found this painful to watch
What a surprise - a dude hating on Christianity because it shows him how bad he is and he has to stop sinning.
No more lies, no more porn, no more cheating, no more lusting, no more pride, no more greed for you Mr. Zuckerman.
Of course he hates it - because he is already dead from the inside.
I'm an atheist, but Phil should be embarrassed by his performance. That rambling opening statement alone demonstrated how woefully unprepared he was, and it didn't get any better.
Who would you consider a strong atheist debater ? The best I’ve seen is maybe Alex O’Connor but my hunch is he is gonna be Christian in time.
It’s like how there are no educated Muslims. There’s no wise atheists.
Thank you for being genuine seriously
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 The "ha ha, religion is so obviously stupid to smart people like me that debate prep isn't worth my time" tactic might have flown in the era of New Atheist cults of personality and unimaginative, formulaic, apologist-in-a-box debaters.
But times have changed. The world is a different place. American Christians have become more well read and widely read, educated themselves on opposing views and kept up with developments in many areas of research, and generally gotten their act together, whereas so many pugnacious antitheists don't sound any different today than they did in 2004.
He didn't even show that secularism is better in any meaningful way, honestly. Only that some secular societies are nice to live in. But what about China? Would he want to live there?
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 Quite the sign when THE professor of secular sociology studies puts up this amount of a defense.
Mike: "Here, have all these studies that show that Christianity and reliosity build all these good ideas"
Phil: "You believe in sky daddy, where's the evidence for what you said!"
Phil somehow managed to both come off as entirely uneducated on the topic and insanely unlikeable.
Phil's point about rights vs the 10 commandments is nonsensical. Rights are a list of things the government can't do, the laws laid out in the Bible are what you individually do. Comparing the 10 commandments a list of rights is a nonstarter. They aren't designed for the same purpose.
I honestly don't understand what exactly Sociologists study based on his debate performance besides maybe learning how to sound uneducated and crass. His degree is like the educational equivalent of pre-torn designer jeans.
And the ten commandments were partially spiritual. That's why it says "thou shall not covet."
I got terrible second hand embarrassment from Zuckerman. Thanks so much for being so kind and polite with him.
Zuckerman: Did you know it’s current year? Sky daddy won’t solve climate change. Virgin vagina. Magic man. Checkmate!”
As a former atheist I was constantly cringing whenever he spoke and hoping I never sounded like that. Great debate IP!
You probably did tbh. But hey, at least you changed. Just ask God for forgiveness, lol. Its what i do, when im too angry.
The Debate says it's over what's best, but Phil keeps positing it's which is true.
Tbf he could make that argument but he would have to do 2 things:
1. Prove that Christianity is false
2.Prove that false things lead to worse societies. He didn’t do either of those things. Thus his argument doesn’t stand.
Tbf he could make that argument but he would have to do 2 things:
1. Prove that Christianity is false
2.Prove that false things lead to worse societies. He didn’t do either of those things. Thus his argument doesn’t stand.
@@danielboone8256 In other words, the debate is whether Christianity or Secularism is better for society. It’s not about whether Christianity is true or not.
@@thomasperez9255 Yeah, idk why I didn't understand that initially. Didn't have a problem understanding it reading his comment a 2nd time (before I read your reply)
@RabidLeech1 to add even if we grant Christianity is false it still doesn't show that secular humanism is true. Zuckerman is presuposing that secular athiesm is the neutral position when it's not
Based on Phil's opening statement, I'm not sure he's at the right debate. He spent half his time bashing religion, and I learned nothing about secularism.
"As a Jew, I wouldn't want to live in a Christian society", -meanwhile living in a society who's flag is a cross.
"Christians are our greatest allies," -President of the one Jewish nation on Earth.
"In an atheist society, Christians can keep their practices." -Like in China, North Korea, or Russia, Czechia, Slavakia, or Hungary when they embraced Communism?
I only remember one point he made about why secularism is better: you get to masterbate.
I'm only kidding btw but yeah, he didn't say much about how being secular helps us.
You just had a taste of secularism in the video. To the Secularist, no viewpoint is right, except the secular atheist view, but from my understanding, most secularists believe in Subjectivism, not Objectivism, so that's hypocrisy right there.
What do you mean? Of course he pointed out negatives in Christianity. That is literally what the debate is about
Wanting him to not have made great arguments is delusional lol
@@wgo523All he did in his opening statement was say what he disliked about certain religions. No arguments. No evidence.
Also, I said it before: this dude is Matt Dillahunty from Temu.
Ouch, that's quite a roast. And accurate.
Nope Dillamonkey has always been a temu product griftor
@@SuperBossGiovanni Someone might say that burn was so bad it looked like the N-1 launches. 😏🤨🤔😳
I've seen him debate, he sounds good because most Christians are polite in debates. his technique is basically "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" and he is somehow proud of that as an answer, that's why when he finally faced a Christian that is willing to call out and don't let go of any of his BS answer, he quit to avoid ruining his career.
Phil sounds like an r/atheism user
Precisely
I'm left wondering whether Zuckerman did any actual prep for this debate, because he doesn't give the impression that he did. I was particularly stunned by two badly-thought threw points. The first was claiming that historians can't tell how people in the past thought (does he not know that their writings literally tell us in many cases?) The second is claiming that Nigerian is a theologically Christian country (has nobody told him that most of Northern Nigeria has Sharia law?)
😂😂😂
Maybe he had some persona issues or underestimated Mike.
Stereotypical left-wing academic elitist figuring he needs no prep to take on anyone silly enough to disagree with him. His innate smartness was supposed to carry the debate. It didn't.
Dude Mike did you pick this guy to make secularism look bad 🤣
It felt like he was arguing a different debate too. He kept thinking someone was trying to force him to convert
😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣
It almost makes me lose respect for Mike by proxy just because I don't understand how Mike respects this guy. I almost have to worry that this is like when Creationists debate Bill Nye (a non-scientist) over evolution instead of a real Evolutionary Biologist. I do hope Mike brings on better opponents than Mr. "Skydaddy and gay rights"... but somehow I have a funny feeling those people are hard to find.
@@MajorTomFisherthere are no better atheist debaters. I've watched all the best and they all do the same thing - the debate topic is thrown aside into "but God not real though" even when that's not the topic. Christian debaters are smart to not even get into that discussion because the atheist can't help but show their true colours by arguing outside of the topic.
I'm pretty sure Mike wasn't expecting this shitshow, the thing with these guys is that they make relatively reasonable arguments when they write their books and academic papers, where their views face little to no intellectual questioning from the other side of the argument because they're arguing with themselves against the strawmen they've created, and then when they step into the ring, they lose by knockout because they spend most of their time in their bubble, where their word and self-proclaimed authority on the matter rules over reason and facts.
Can’t wait to watch this
You better
That ending from his was atrocious. Im surprised thats how he chose to end the debate. He was fully tilted and mad IP didnt fall for any of his bait tactics.
He says the quiet part out loud. It's not about homelessness, it's not about poverty, it's not about education and it's not about charity. It's not even about "science" or ontological naturalism. It's about him protecting his ability to have sex with a bunch of women without consequence (because they can block it or kill it if the need arises) and protecting his ability to have sex with men. I wonder why secular people have such low birth rates... 🤔
Apparently Phil's Secular Values came from a Christian community in Europ and Not from Saudia Arabia or India or Africa 😅.
IP argues Christian societies tend to be lasting and improve over time. Secular society can't reproduce and has other detrimental effect, which probably makes them wither away over longer periods of time
Phil argues that he likes the current state of secular post Christian societies and that his humanist manifesto is superior in morals to the Bible.
The two are having a different debate. IP wants to debate two scientific views about societal effects.
Phil wants to talk about his feelings on certain nations in their current state and his feelings about his interpretation of humanism an Christianity.
It's amazing how woefully unprepared Phil came to this.. was looking forward to a much more interesting conversation.
He came in thinking bluster and confidence was enough to win.
Fr!!
IP: here’s the statistics and facts.
PZ: sky daddy!
David Wood was right.
Is it a requirement to be insufferably obnoxious when arguing against Christianity? It's almost as if his arguments wouldn't be sufficient on their own without emotional disdain doing the heavy lifting. Great job IP, glad one of you could walk away with dignity and having substantiated their position with historic data and studies. Phil lost the debate on merit not beliefs.
I believe Phil doesnt deserved to be called an "intelectual", since the way he arguing is either dishonesty or dismissing the study cases. Like seriously, who would have thought to consider every experts are liar? Phil, you need to do more research before blaming these professors, who are more expert on the fields than you.
I was particularly impressed by him writing off ancient cultures not sharing "enlightenment values" by saying basically, "well historians are full of s#!t".
Brah. Japan is massively influenced by the US Christian values. They are also so culturally religious they don't even realize how much of their culture is religion.
And there is a growing trend towards Christianity that is slowly growing in Japan.
@@ifirespondiamstupid7750 still in its infancy, though. Pray for Japan.
Brah used Japan as an example of secular values at work, right after condemning tribalism and nationalism....
Japanese was constantly at war with themselves before they got invaded by the west and got westernized. also the human experiment they did in WW2 was pretty scary.
@@zupremo9141the one where they had two bombs dropped on cities full of civillians just so the US could pound its chest to russia? Those experiments?
Yes imperial japan was bad but lets not forget the mirror
IP deals with facts and logic, Zuckerman just comes off as an uncultured bigot.
he also straight up lied in several of his talking points, like the "largest p ring in history" being catholic ? what an absolute hack.
Self-titled liberals can be the worst bigots
@@jaskitstepkit7153 Leftists are illiberal
@@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w but even then, he doesn't ever prove Christianity caused that evil. He just pointed out something that Christians did.
You'd have to use scripture in order to determine whether or not the doctrine commands this or condems it.
On top of that, he makes multiple correlation causation mistakes. Insinuating that countries are doing good because they aren't religious.
@@_.incredible_magnum._291 i agree. Hpwever Those countries are religious. Japan and acandinavia are both majority religious. He took credit for a secular government. Completly denying their history and culture which shows how ignorant he is on the matter. Also both countries listed proves IPs opening statement about decular governments resulting in lower birth rates.
Congrats to Michael, this was great. I love how he misrepresented many of your positions in his closing statement and decided to just complain about his conception of Christianity. I’ve never seen a more thorough and meticulous win in a religious debate against a Secular Academoid in my life
The problem with Phil Zuckerman's version of secularism, is that it is a Luxury Belief. It's something that emerged long after the struggles and upheavals associated with state formation and industrial process. And part of more liberal "individual autonomy". Unlike say, the secularism of the Soviet Union (which was aggressive and doctrinaire atheism).
Oh yeah I think I see what you mean, a lot of people forget the deep hole that society has been carrying itself out of for the past thousands of years where enforceability of rules in growing societies wasn't very easy back then, also its harder to deal with the more detailed things of human rights when you're bigger priority is getting basic rights (e.g. food) in a place with a lower economy
I agree with the part about secularism emerging from relative luxury/wealth-- but I don't know how that's a problem for his arguments
Ironically the secularist claim to be motivated by science but gives no studies or statistics in his opening statement. Where IP in his opening statement gives a mountain of studies and statistics
Zukerman even pointed this is out with a backhanded compliment.
Apparently the people who say “believe the science” are the ones who will dismiss it because it doesn’t fit their “progressive” atheistic worldview. 😒
@@theylivewesleep.5139 Just a couple tidbits too about science and Christianity: Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minister who coined Bayes Theorem, which supports a lot of the math behind most AI algorithms today. Thomas Mendel was a Catholic iirc.
@@Elioc-ed6wr Hell, the father of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a catholic priest and physicist. The whole point of it was to prove that the universe did not always exist and had a beginning, an origin point, which just so happens to line up with "Let there be light".
And this man talks about the "arrogance of faith"?? Amidst his smirking condescension all throughout and his snide remarks and hurtful intentions - he forgets what the debate is about! Well done Mike for staying focused, well prepared and not falling for his provocations (Santa/fairy jokes). How sad! How ignorant!!
I feel like he spent so much time just bashing religion rather than actually showing how secularism is a better option for society
“If you’re afraid of the Religious Right, wait till you see the non-religious Right” as Al Mohler likes to quip
What I don’t understand is why he was idealizing Nordic nations and Japan. Sweden has had a large scale influx of crime and murder. While Japan’s wealth inequality, lack of worker protections, and suicide rates are a massive problem…. Japan and Nordic nations have massively profited off the US’ war against communism. Nordic nations have served as the US’ buffer against Russia and Japan against China. He’s also selectively choosing “secular” nations. North Korea and China are also secular nations. Unlike the Nortic nations there is no Christian tradition underlying their culture nor are they culturally Christian. They have been secular for generations. It blows my mind to say that North Korea would be a better place to live than the US because it is more secular.
Phil: Belief that people are inherently sinful is a terrible and insane idea that is bad for society 24:44
Phil less than a minute before that: “we are flawed, we are jealous, we are violent, we are petty, we are tribalistic, we have inherited all of these traits…” 24:07
Interesting thought flow in the opening statement… 🤔
The truths always comes out
It’s funny Phil says that Christianity is all just based on feelings and emotion, but literally almost his entire rebuttal’s were based on his feelings and emotion on why he doesn’t like Christianity 🤷🏼♂️.
Is this what atheists consider to be good debating? Basing 90 percent of your argument on emotional appeals, making a whole bunch of disparaging statements, avoiding the topic and barely addressing your opponents arguments. Pretty pathetic.
They reject the Truth with a capital T and at the root they reject truth in the general sense. Of course they can't craft an argument.
Zuckerman's argument basically amounts to "I like all the things Christianity gave us, just without the Christians." The guy came across as a complete clown, Michael handily won this debate, no contest.
Michael respect for your patience man, you were very nice and respectful throughout the debate, despite of him mocking your beliefs every 2 minutes, then assuming you don't apply the same thinking to your beliefs as for these studies, trying to get points by talking about things that aren't part of this debate, and I'm glad you didn't talk about them, i really love how professionally you handle things. Around 1:20:00 he becomes ultra cringe and you handle it nicely. Much love man, show em how Christ teaches us. ☦️
@@shin.511 I wish I could hit the thumbs up button on your statement more than once. 👍👍👍
@@shin.511 👌👌👌
I said this in the live chat, but you are beyond appreciated for this ministry Mike. I would not be a Christian today if I had not found your videos that defended theistic evolution, the guests you invite into your live streams, as well as your studies on ANE and your exodus series that David Falk helped you with. In fact, I found these right as I was beginning the process of abandoning Christianity. Now, I plan to get my bachelor's and eventually a PhD in Old Testament/Ancient Near East, and that is heavily due to my being introduced to the study of these topics by your videos. So the bottom line is, thank you, Mr. Jones. I'm just one person out of many who I'm sure share the same gratitude for this channel and you. God bless sir 🙏
I think IP’s opening statement basically sealed the debate. Well done Mike 👍
Fr, it doesn't get better and phil didn't engage with most of those studies at all during this debate. This wasn't a debate, it was murder.
Currently writing my Bachelor Thesis on this topic, which you inspired me (no pun intended) alot to. While there are some instances of missionaries (especially Protestants, that's what I'm focusing on) mishandling situations and even doing some evil things, the absolute majority of evidence points towards the great, long-term effects which Protestant missionary had on socioeconomic development in Southeast Asia and colonial Africa.
The professor was essentially a troll who prepared for the debate by reading memes from Facebook and Reddit and used arguments from 'trust me bro'
Zuckerman sounds painful to listen to. He is still living in the new athiest era. His arguments against Christianity being true is not even relevant
Nobody is arguing Christianity isn’t true
@@bluecat4802 Phil in this debate was literally doing that
@@theamericanpotatonamedphil4306 I think for the most part he was arguing about its utility. He did slip here and there but on the whole he was arguing about utility.
His first half was fairly on point for consistency with his argument, but then he started straw manning.
I could always be mistaken though. Could you point me to where you think he was arguing about truth?
@@bluecat4802 well you already admitted to him doing the thing you said he isnt doing in this comment which i find to be self defeating. But Phils comments in his closing statement where he says "the main claims that Michael says that makes you a Christian (the Nicene creed), there is no evidence for" that would imply the birth of jesus from a virgin, he is the son of God, death on a cross, his resurrection etc. Hes also done this a couple times earlier in the debate but this is not the main topic or question of the debate is it?
@@bluecat4802 re listen to his opening statement, a major part of his argument is pointing out how silly and stupid he thinks Christianity is, he references that it's bad because it's not true multiple times. He had no substance on why secularism is better past his poor attempts at logical arguments. He had no actual sources so he relied on attacking Christianity.
“In a secular society masturbation is natural and healthy and ok…”
I think he just argued that “Secularism is better for society because choking the chicken. “
I remember when IP debated Arab Ra and Aran said that "why should a woman be forced the breast feed in a public bathroom just because it offends some guy who calls his wife mother."
That point was so hilarious to me. He was basically saying "atheism better cause FREE THE NIPPLE!!"
Without Christianity. The world would been in a worse place
True the crusades, ww1 and ww2 just happen to be between Christians and from them for some reason 😂
@@1sosukeaizen1 thats false information concerning WW1 and 2.
@@1sosukeaizen1 Ah yes, the evil Nazis went to war against the Jews, Russia France and the world because of the divine order from God and Hitler called himself the reincarnation of Christ and pope, such a true story...
@@1sosukeaizen1 You are terrible at cherry picking that it's so obvious. Don't embarrass yourself.
@@justadude189 yes Mr H*tler and his camarades had belts with the cross on them. The pope told the crusaders :”go k*ll your sins are forgiven” and Americans prayed in the church before k*lling 2M Muslims in Iraq. All in the name of your religion you can’t run away
Seems like Phil’s rebuttals quickly became “I don’t think so, but I could be wrong”. And then threw his arms up in victory?
He did that w the birth rates “he’s like damn that sucks” but then says it’s the answer to society
The birth rates thing is nazi-esque. Rich, well-off nations get more secular. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with immigrants from a range of places . Making more people in service of a myth just to keep more of society Christian? That's stupid as hell
@@crazyfast5593
1:02:22 Man that was really cringe
😂
It's also interesting how he was able separate Christian vales and faith here but when IP does it later by separating theological and sociological Christianity he had a melt down
It's beautiful.
@@stefanmilicevic5322it's absolutely cringe
I was going to watch AP and the Dizzle's coverage of this, but the debate speaks for itself. Good work, Mike. I appreciate just how much prep you put into this debate. God Bless!!! 🙏
This is like watching a rebellious teenager who dislikes religion, because they think it does bad things, but when told otherwise starts mocking all the evidence proving otherwise... what a brutal debate.
I love how when he realised michael was pulling out the reciepts, he attacked the integrity of these experts in their field after advocating for evidence based decision makimg over faith based decision making.
It’s funny how IP been stooping this guy left right and center throughout the whole debate and IP says it’s okay, but the one time he thinks he’s done the same he starts starts yelling “I got ya”
A Christian man came with facts and evidence. The atheists dude came with nothing to convince me. I use to be agnostic, this channel has open me up to be more excepting to religion and has made into a believer.
"I think I've got you in a corner." Who says that in a debate?!
1:00:25 He actually thought he just owned IP with the most comically new atheist argument 😂
I know 😂
@InspiringPhilosophy I know you said you won't do anymore shorts, but can you do one last on a channel called Jeff ( yes that is the entire name) titled "you can't argue for God." I listened to the one minute video and I know it has dumb arguments but I just can't explain why it's dumb.
This is a tough, tough listen. Almost felt like skipping Phil's sections, even with my watch speed being 2x. Still sat and watched it, but wow, was it tough.
It's hilarious to hear Zuckerman citing The Arrogance of Faith in the most pretentious attitude and tone.
Yup. Secularism doesn't mean humility.
Michaels opening statement: shows genuine facts that show That Christianity is better for the world
Phil’s opening statement: RAHH SECULARISM BETTER
IP gained aura in this debate
All I heard was a guy that was full of hate and anger towards Christianity Where was the evidence that Christianity is bad All I heard was evidenced that human beings do horrible things
Funny how the people who go on and on about racism, sexism, bigotry, and “hatred” towards other’s people are the same ones who are the MOST hateful, bigoted, and emotional towards ANYONE who even slightly disagree with them. Just look at how they reacted to Trump becoming president. 😠
"I don't think that.."
"I don't want to..."
"obviously.."
This is what atheism arguments boil down to without fail
Wow, I thought the comments were biased towards Michael but I’m about 30 minutes in and damn..Phil really did mess this up
This dude really appealed to Scandanavia and Japan as examples of secular success. Two parts of the world that have massive population decline. Nordic countries are being filled and replaced with muslim populations, and as a result will see freedom of speech limited (Denmark has anti-blasphemy laws disguised as anti Islamophobia laws)and antisemitism rise. Meanwhile Japan, who until WW2 was hated by its neighbors because of how violent and cruel they could be, is now suffering from a loneliness epidemic, and still has a racism problem against darker skinned asians.
This video should just get re-titled: IP vs Reddit Athiest
Not to mention the sue i cide rates in both Scandinavia and Japan
i found that hilarious considering Japan's history and what they did to Christians before ww2.
he also completely ignored why the Japanese are the way they are, which is their culture which is rooted in Buddhism and Taoism, so even if you remove Christianity from the equation its still not secularism. the only reason they have a secular society today is the American influence after ww2. before that Japan was run by emperors whom they called kami aka divine.
if you look to the history of Christianity in Japan, the emperor and daimio found it a threat, not because they were doing anything horrible but because it undermined their power hold on the population with teachings of freedom.
Japanese people are not atheist on average anyway
Yeah all the Muslim immigrants that make up like 3% after a decade of hysteria. Maybe just consider if you're a bit racist
Bro said Tom hollands historical records on ancient Babylon is “historical bullshit you can’t read their minds”😭😭😭😭 that’s when he conceded.
You did great Michael, thanks for you Jesus for using your Child in this way. Thanks for all you do. Reading research and articulation. We appreciate you God Bless you and yours in Jesus name 🙏🏻
Hearing Zuckerman describe God as being like a grandfatherly figure sitting on a throne in the sky somewhere was, regrettably, all I needed to hear to imagine how this debate was going to go and I wasn't disappointed.
Is it too much to ask for these people to have some insight into an Idealist conception of God as Reality itself?
Next time, IP should just stream while responding to r/Atheism.
😂
I would love to see Michael talk with Alex O'Connor. Alex is the best face of atheism - while skeptic, he's full of wonder, legitimate curiousity, honesty and respect.
He recently debated with the Knechtles and while the debate was respectable and very interesting for both sides, the comments are full of anger and arrogance towards Cliffe and his son.
I don’t understand why atheists hate them so much
They talked about god sending people to hell together
They've had 2 debates, just search Alex O Connor vs Michael Jones
“Knechtles” 🤣🤣🤣
Phil using countries which are Christians and build on Christian values and saying that it's better because of secularism 😂 phil is a clown
Dude was complaining abt mediaeval Christian’s and what they did then appeals to the people who put the foundation as secular😭
It's better because they got rid of Christianity
@@Pessi-m7e8hthey are getting worse
Countries which are secular, with large christian populations. Created, in the us case, specifically to prevent religion from controlling society
Democracy doesn’t flow from secularism just ask the one’s abandoning family and friends because of their political ideology. The spirit of democracy doesn’t flow from them.
Michael brought facts and research, and Phil brought his emotions. Someone should tell Phil that having strong feelings on a topic doesn't make you correct.
Yet here you are strawmanning his arguments emotionally
@@wgo523Phil brought zero sources to the debate. What strawman are you referring to?
@@IWasOnceAFetus Phil's arguments weren't base on "emotions" , that's the strawman.
And the debate is about what is the preferable social structure for society. So citing Christian charity is irrelevant because Christians do charity work in a secular society.
And then there's the focus on birth rates, which is just bizarre. Having high birth rates has certain economic advantages and certain risks, but doesn't just automatically mean that an idea that leads to higher birthrates is "better". There's no logical connection there
He lists so many desirable aspects of a secular society, idk how you can just pretend not to hear them?
@@wgo523 Phil's debate approach was more emotional than factual, and he spent most of his time explaining why he disagreed with Christianity instead of addressing the topic. Meanwhile, IP made well-researched arguments that Phil failed to counter because he brought little to no counter-evidence, even though he kept talking about evidence over and over again. It's pretty obvious to any thinking person that sustainable birth rates benefit humanity more than declining ones.
@@wgo523 Saying that he made emotional arguments is not a "strawman." The post above wasn't making an argument. He was making a statement.
42:58 My step-father began his multi-citywide property sanitation business to help and hire homeless people expressly motivated by his belief in Christianity.
He also works with local churches who also help in this way by providing necessities for the homeless by donating his time and resources.
These were needs that were not being fulfilled within the secular framework.
Z: secularism results in science (invokes no science)
J: here's some science
Z: it is all nonsense
Z: secularism results in reason (argues from emotion)
J: here's some reason
Z: it is all nonsense
Z: secularism is responsible for HOW we do things
me: but it has nothing to say about WHY we do anything
YES please do more debates. It’s better when you actually show that you know what your talking about
Just watching the first 3 minutes of Zuckerman's statement gave me a headache. The guy does not debate the topic, he simply pointed out that religious authoritarianism is bad.
Newsflash: As a former Atheist/secular Jew, and now a confessional Lutheran Christian, I fully agree that a Christian theocracy is a bad idea. It ended badly for us Lutherans in Calvinist Geneva and, Zurich, and it ended badly for us under the Puritans in the 13 Colonies. However, that is not the debate topic. The debate topic is whether Christianity or secularism are better for humanity as a whole, and, even if I disagree with Michael Jones about some of the basic presuppositions of what is better for humanity (I am highly skeptical of liberal democracy, among other things), I do think he makes a much better case for the position that Christianity is better for civilization as a whole than Zuckerman did for secularism.
One point in favour of Zuckerman though: He at least acknowledge Stalinism as a form of secularism rather than deflect on the topic.
P. S.: On a side note, as a Lutheran, I really appreciate Michael Jones referencing the Augsburg Confession, which is the most basic confession of faith of the Lutheran church.
Good work Mike, I used to think I was a patient person, but you are much more patient than me.
Good job on this debate, IP. I almost stopped watching because of how snarky Phil was, but you stood your ground well. It’s always interesting watching atheists try to take the moral high ground while simultaneously being insufferable and insulting.
The comments on the original video are a dumpster fire of r/atheism level nonsense
Yes, 0 iq comments.
They don't even address many of IP's points lol. They just parrot antitheistic nonsense from their leaders that don't even really have anything to do with the debate. Absolutely embarrassing. I would be ashamed if I was an atheist.
Cope
Fr
@@Pessi-m7e8h No u
I finally understand what I heard from another video about secularists and atheists wanting the fruit but not the tree.
Michael was absolutely respectful and collected in his arguments. This phil guy is insulting, egotistic and an all-around insufferable person-a great representative of secularism!
My whole thing watching this debate for the third time was, Why exactly does he talk about christianity not being true when the debate was WHICH IS BETTER FOR SOCIETY?
whether or not christianity is true is fundamentally irrelevant to the conversation
It’s the whole I hate GOD cuz GOD denounces LGBT stance ofc hence now I MUST denounce Christianity as being True. Meanwhile you can simply be both & accept that GOD does NOT condone such. Why is that such an Issue when it’s obvious we were NOT created for such acts
Why are atheists so smug and snide with almost contempt for religion?
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed watching this debate. First on Apologetics Roadshow's channel for a breakdown of the opening statements then swung over to IP's channel for the rest. IP did a great job at formulating claims and backing them up with evidence.
Good on IP for keeping it together when Phil said his "critical thinking" comment.
I'm convinced people like Phil, as much as they deny caring or having any interest with Christianity, that he like others has such a high level of disregard that they think themselves experts and above any level of curiosity or true interest towards the material that he claims to want to refuse. It was truly a debate of facts vs meme opinions. Phil showed a pop culture understanding of what Christianity is and a misunderstanding of even what is the "point" of Jesus is or his real role in the faith. Ex: His "overlord" comment.
Also, as I'm elbow deep in the comment, does he not know the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, as it pertains to the use of the word "slave" in the bible. Does he think that by simply mentioning a word that it implicitly and explicitly condones an act? I feel like reading a commentary or two would have cleared up a lot with regards to Paul.
If IP was a less kind person I feel like for his closing statement he could have just said, "refer back to Phil's mockery and insults during his opening statement and rebuttals and judge for yourself whose behavior is better for humanity."
Keep on rockin' IP.
Same here! Came from Davids live
man... phil's opening was rough. kept forgetting what the debate was about, very common among atheist and seculars, like not even Muslims are this bad.
Idk man, maybe go rematch the Daniel ineedtopoo debate again.
@@perennem_equitem_57 uff, rough one as well
@@GeometryCube1 yeah it was. I would love to watch him lose but I can't sit down and watch his debates because he is constantly talking past his opponents. Can we throw him in jail for being a pedo yet? How much more information do we need?
This bros argument was “Cosmic Santa Clause” 😂 I’m dying. Never heard that phrase before
I suppose it's a refreshing change from "sky daddy" 😂
@ indeed 😂
Absolute master class, thank you for edifying us
Also, it was so interesting that secularism was using emotional arguments against Christianity, but the Christian was using actual evidence that the "facts and logic" securlism didn't address any of the points made
Zuckerman likes confidently to say the Bible is bs, but when asked about his own views hes a deer in headlights.
This guy is a college professor?? Man, the collegiate system is more broken than I could have ever imagined...
IP, you came off the same way you do in your informational videos. Forgot I was watching a debate until the end of your opening statement. Always a great presenter!
I’m confused was this about Christianity being true or beneficial seemed like Phil was more concerned about that
It’s about what’s beneficial for human society.