David Silverman is one of the most compassionate outspoken atheist I know of. If we had more people like him on earth the world would be a better place.
Rob Allen Exactly, Just Answer the question... YES OR NO. That's Called Spin in politics when you Avoid, and Magically change the Subject to defend your Argument. I should have popped corn for this, Seriously.
He is using Street Epistemology. Look up Anthony Magnabosco's videos. It is based on Socratic method. It is a really productive way to talk to religious folks without getting bogged down with apologetics and discussing specific theology. it also seems to be quite productive.
And holy crap is this a dishonest apologist!!! He's dancing around Silverman's questions, trying to discredit Silverman with strawman arguments even after David has pointed out that they're strawmans, tried to fear monger using a misrepresentation by bringing up communism out of nowhere, refused to acknowledge the god of the gaps argument after David had explained it very clearly, and a fuck ton of other stuff! This debate was not even about the existence of any god, but this apologist couldn't help but to filibuster David's question time.
Farland is horribly intellectually dishonest. The points in his opening statement where just ridiculous. The very first question Silverman asks Alex - Alex says yes, then makes a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Typical dishonest christian apologetics. It is very hard to listen to McFarland and have a critical mindset. He is very dishonest in his replies. Did I say Farland was dishonest? Cause he is. lol.
Thank you to David Silverman for being honest during the discussion. I find the behavior exhibited by Alex McFarland to be typical of the religious people I have met, and whom I grew up with, who can't be honest about what they believe. They prefer to equivocate and outright avoid honestly answering questions. Mostly I think they avoid being honest because they know deep down inside, how wrong they are. They have invested to much of themselves in this one position and don't know how to be anything else.
Can you provide a specific example, with a time stamp, for where you believe an equivocation fallacy was commited by the Christian? Along with your reasoning for why you're claiming it's an equivocation fallacy? Keep in mind, I'll be able to respond and address your claims. I can list PLENTY for the Atheist. For example, he constantly switches his position from attacking Christianity to attacking other religions. He switches his position from "God doesn't exist" on offense (required to dispute Theistic arguments) to "I just lack belief God exists" or "I'm not convinced God exists" (equivalent to philosophical Agnosticism, not Atheism) constantly to avoid defending the position he just held moments earlier on offense. Those are both equivocation fallacies and he did both numerous different times. I could list many more.
Wow....David was on fire here. I honestly used to not like the guy much....he just seemed too petty juvenile and tedious to me. And yeah, he's got whatever flaws he's got...but in this recent debate, it's clear to me he's gotten _a lot_ better at debate in general...and in how he presents himself. He's still a total firebrand...but now, for the first time, I think he's doing it really well and effectively. Alex McFarland was simply no match for this level of intellectual and ethical and honest form of attack. I dare say David de-converted at least a few people in that audience...or at least got a lot of people to really rethink their presupposed faith-based beliefs. Anyway...I'm just impressed with David here. He did _not_ let Alex wiggle out of _anything_. It's refreshing to see that...although I could tell Alex realized he was way in over his head at a certain point. It's not fun to be a con-man undergoing the process of being sharply and legitimately and succinctly called-out in real time in front of an audience.
Exposing is one thing, but another important thing is to try and lead the people out of the religion. Sometimes the firebrand way works, sometimes a softer touch is needed - an overt approach might serve to drive people deeper into the sickness, whereas a more measured approach can slowly get them to confront it for what it is. Truth is, it takes all sorts - there's no one perfect way that will always work on everybody. I too have been liking Silverman more and more lately.
You should read David's book "Fighting god" as it addresses precisely, with hard data, why firebrand atheism works so much better, is indeed the more moral thing to do, compared to skirting around the issues. As a person interested in facts, Overton windows and so on I found his book to be quite novel and his approach in general to be very good. He also gives us a simple metric to work with when addressing any sort of religion or superstition, the number 0 being to total amount of scientifically validated miracles and supernatural events in the whole history of mankind. As for the gentle approach, David makes 2 important points in his book: 1) Be firebrand atheists when it comes to religions because it seems to work. 2) be gentle to religious people, understand that they are victims.
during the time ive been rationalizing my belief, watching silverman in debates has help me became a full blown atheist. thank you silverman. i miss watching him in debates.
Dude, this mother can dance around questions like no one I have ever seen before. He still hasn't answered a single question put forth to him. Go Silverman.
It's just insanity to ask Alex any questions. He does not answer them, not even gets close to subject, but starts immediately with the preaching session.
he is dead in sin as all atheist are and don't understand that God sent his only begotten son to rescue them from sin and reconcile them to God man blames God for there sin and sins punishment in the lake of fire but man is without excuse because God provided the way to excape his wrath on sin because God will punish all who trodden the son of God underfoot
Never have I seen anyone get so slaughtered in what I take was set out to be an equal debate. McFarland is clearly uncomfortable, and is left squirming like a beached whale as he makes up stuff as he goes along. He has absolutely no defence against Silverman's concrete and direct no nonsense approach. It can't be easy to be confronted by the obvious contradictions of his belief. Thank you for living out one of my dreams, David Silverman.
This is how Alex talks - You ask him, Alex, I'd like to have the mango sauce to go with my hot dog, do you have any on you? He responds- Um.....we have the tomato sauce to go with it, it's good. You say , no, is like the mango one please. He responds- Umm....we also have the mustard sauce which is just as good.... See the metaphor?
Great debate! Very informative and a excellent performance by both participating parties. If you came to this video and went directly to the comment section... I highly recommend you watch the debate in its entirety. Assuredly you will not be disappointed, but you will be far more educated in subject matter directly related to Atheism and Christianity.
I hate when people say we’re following the New Testament with Jesus Not the Old Testament, but didn’t Jesus say “ I didn’t come to change the Law of come to fulfill it” which means the laws in the Old Testament still stands
Except come on with racist blurs when I think I can come away with them. What an incredible dork Alex is. He's not there to debate. He is there to preach...sneaky bastard. Not all the hounds are barking in his drawer...
When a child has relationship with the hidden friend we call it child's play. When an adult has relationship with the hidden friend we call it religion. But here is the kicker. When the child's invisible friend doesn't go away after a while the adults take their child to a shrink.
+ScreamingCheese Don’t be to hard on him, [Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God] he probably hasn’t got the intellect to understand the atheists logic in the first place?
In your opinion. In my opinion Dr. McFarland won. Dr. McFarland didn't use fallacious hypothetical questions to try to trap Silverman with an illogical premise. People did bad things in the name of God because they wanted to push their own agenda. In reality they did not really believe in the God of the Bible which was what Dr. McFarland was trying to explain. The questions were rigged to make McFarland and Christianity look bad which was why McFarland refused to answer them the way Silverman wanted him to. The fact is that Christianity does not teach immorality, and those who practice immorality in the name of Christianity are not Christians. They reject the teachings of God, and only pick ones that they agree with. The question about "if an atheist wants to go to Africa in order to help people and a Christian wants to go to Africa because God told him too. Which one is moral?" That's a fallacy. First he is painting Christians in a negative light. Second they are trying to claim that because that Christian thinks that what he perceives as objective morality is different from what McFarland believes is objective that all morality must be subjective. That's not true because the Christian that believes he can go to heaven through good works does not believe the objective truth of salvation through accepting Jesus Christ in the Bible, therefore does not believe in the same God. He believes in something different from what the Bible says which means he believes his view is objective when it isn't the objective truth of the Bible. He does not believe in the same God as McFarland, yet Silverman lumps them together. "You both get your view of objective morality from the same book." That's not true because McFarland believes in what the book actually says while the "hypothetical" Christian does not. Therefore, the question is disingenuous and fallacious. From the point of who is more moral, both the actions of the atheist and the Christian are moral because they help other people which objectively moral in every society. Neither goes to heaven because the atheist does not believe God exists and the Christian believes that good works will get him into heaven when the Bible says otherwise. That was McFarland's point which Silverman and the crowd ignored.
Oggy Oggy Yes it does. Those who inherit the Kingdom of Heaven have everlasting life. That would be immortality. John 3:16 the most iconic Bible verse ever says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” You don’t know what your talking about. God offers us immortality if he repent of our sins to believe and worship him. That’s the whole crux of the religion.
@@SNORKYMEDIA Nice try, but the no true Scotsman fallacy does not apply here since the said member of my group is a hypothetical creation by Silverman. One is not a Christian just because they claim to be. If they do not practice the word of God, then they can’t truly be a Christian as they will not go to Heaven.
It was a very one-sided debate. Alex basically conceded the debate in his opening remarks. During the Q & A, Alex tried to dodge every question, and droned on and on, just wasting time instead of answering simple questions.
I started liking him after the Frank Turek debate, I just love how he is so unapologetic about saying morality is subjective. There is plenty he says that I don't fully agree with and plenty of arguments that he uses that I think are kinda weak compared to someone like Matt Dillahunty or Christopher Hitchens but he has a very solid worldview and is quite good at defending it aggressively.
michael vigil I think Silverman is smarter than Hitchens. Hitchens deliberately dodges questions. Silverman at least attempted to answer the same question of free will from Frank Turek. Of course Silverman couldn’t answer and he was speechless. But at least he tried.
at 1:49:32 David Silverman apparently didn't read Ephesians 2:8-9 which says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith. And that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."
Out of the gate: Silverman... supporting example, supporting example, supporting example. McFarland... I believe in goofy mythology and "no true Christian".
Animuldok HOW DARE YOU. God sent his only son Jesus to be dead for a weekend for you so you would not burn forever. Respect the sacrifice. One weekend of Jesus being dead = all eternity of evreyone.
The most disturbing part slipped in almost unaddressed when he mentioned that he thought children were "sinners" if they lied to their parents about eating a cookie before dinner. It happens around the 120 minute mark. I would really love it if a Christian here in the comments section could explain to me how that doesn't implies that children will go to hell when they die. Before you answer please remember that the context here is a question about "why doesn't the Christian god just forgive everyone and allow everyone into heaven?"
Silverman used fallacious questions in order to try to trap Dr. McFarland. He can't just say that objective morality does not exist because I don't believe in it. Truth is truth whether you believe in it or not. His line of questioning was set of to destroy McFarland, and McFarland had no intent to use those fallacious strategies. The problem is that Silverman is trying to debate something that he doesn't understand.
Tony Kim Everyone in the room rejects reality. They refuse to be accountable for their sins. They reject the fact that it is scientifically impossible for something to be created from nothing, yet believes that’s how the world came to be. The facts are that there were numerous witnesses of Jesus Christ crucifixion, and several witnesses claiming to see him alive after rising from the dead. Every single disciple gave up their life preaching about Jesus. If they knew that he was dead and didn’t rise they would not have risked their lives. No one is willing to risk their lives for anything if they believe it isn’t true. Those are the facts.
@@MonarchEAS you're the one who's rejecting reality, claiming to have made the greatest scientific discovery of all time when you haven't. Do you really think you've made the greatest scientific discovery of time? Because that's exactly what you're saying.
Tony Kim It’s not God of the gaps it is scientifically impossible for matter to be created or destroyed. Therefore the Big Bang theory is extremely flawed because it is not possible for it to transpire. There are only two possibilities. Either the universe has always existed, or a supernatural being with the power to create the laws of physics had to construct the universe. You still have not answered the question of how life began when Christianity has a clear answer that fits within the laws of physics. Also your point about people dying for Koresh makes no sense. They believe without a doubt that their beliefs are true, so of course they would give their life up. The point many atheist make is that Jesus’ disciples stole his body to try to start a religion. They would not give their lives up for something if they absolutely knew it was 100% false. That’s just logic. The reason they gave up their lives was because they saw Christ alive after he was crucified. Paul was a terrorist that killed Christians. Yet, he saw Jesus alive after he died, and turned into an evangelist. He gave up his life and position as a Roman soldier to follow Christ. He was imprisoned multiple times, and was eventually executed. Why would someone who hated Christians so much would give up his life to worship God unless he actually saw Jesus Christ after His death? These are historical facts that happened. Not to mention that it fulfilled the Jewish prophecy of a messiah to a T. Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem. Check. He was to be nailed to a tree. Check. He was to be stabbed in the side. Check. He was to rise from the dead after three days. Check. The four disciples account of Jesus match perfectly with the prophecy that was written 400 years prior. These historic facts have remained unchallenged to this day, and no body of Jesus has ever been found when there are graves containing the dead bodies of so many religious figures around the world. These are facts that you don’t like to look at. You call it God of the gaps, well I call plugging an answer into the equation. So far it checks out every time. I can turn around and say since you believe that there is no God that the universe has to have created itself from nothing with a giant blast over billions of years. When people reject God they don’t believe in nothing because they will believe in anything. You fill billions of years in the gaps when there is no evidence to suggest that the universe even existed that long. Those estimates are just that. Assumptions and nothing more. It all comes down to what you believe. You either believe that a God created the universe or you believe that a random explosion created the universe from nothing. That’s what all that it comes down to.
inertiaforce I haven’t made the biggest scientific discovery. It is just a scientific fact that matter can not be created nor destroyed, so nothing exploding into everything is logically inconsistent with physics. Although, it is impossible to know what happened at the beginning of time because there is no way to be able to test either theory of how the world came to be because no one was there to witness it. Logically speaking the only possible way to create matter is if there is a supernatural being with infinite power to be able to write the laws of physics. Everything in the universe is perfectly constructed and complicated all the way down to the smallest microscopic organism. The chances of everything in the universe to be made so perfectly by accident is the lowest possible percent conceivable. If the Big Bang did create the universe it would be unstructured and falling apart. If you throw a bucket of paint at a canvas the Mona Lisa won’t materialize. You have to physically make the Mona Lisa. Also with DNA which is coherent information, cannot happen without being created. There is no coherent information or code that exist on earth that has not been made by someone. How can you sit there and not acknowledge the fact that coherent information cannot happen by accident. It had never happened. You make inferences about the world because you try to explain it’s existence by rejecting the God who created you. You fill in the gaps with billions and billions of years. Do you actually know if there has been billions of years. No, you don’t. You just assume that it must have happened over that long time period because we don’t experience any of it over the course of human history. You try to explain our existence as humans by saying we have evolved from one species of animals into the species we are now when there is a huge gap in the fossil record. Now if there was a half man, half ape person in existence in the middle of our evolution, then where’s the scientific evidence that they ever existed? There isn’t any. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead than there are ape like men in the middle of our evolutionary transition from monkey to human. Many witnesses claimed to see Jesus alive after he died, and no body was ever found when the bodies of every other earthly religious figure is buried in the ground. Why would those people allow themselves to be executed if they knew that their cause was fake? They had to have seen Jesus with their own eyes or they would have rejected the religion in order to save their lives. There is so much corroboration in the Bible while most other religious text are not. If these scientist were so right about there being no God, then how come they have not been able to disprove the Bible when they were able to disprove other religions. Maybe it’s because the Bible is true and it corresponds with reality. Making any scientific investigation support the scripture and not able to disprove any of it. I don’t think you have ever read the Bible and looked at scientific evidence through those lens. You look at science with a disposition against God instead of considering the possibility that maybe God does exist. As Dr. McFarland would always say, Jesus loves you and died for your sins, so that you could be with him in heaven forever. I pray that out of all of this you would at least look at the teachings of the Bible. God Bless you!
Great debate David. Alex is one of the few apologists that I actually think is a good person and non judgmental. Of coarse I don't agree with him but its nice to see a non snarky arrogant Christian up on the stage for a change.
Alex goes for the god of the gaps argument at every opportunity, also supports the idea of original sin, and believes people who don't follow his doctrine to be condemned, I don't see the good person in that.
If this was a boxing match, Alex basically spends the whole match missing punches and getting absolutely hammered in the face by David, it's a cringe worthy and humuliating defeat if I ever saw one.
I'm almost certain that literally every member of that audience is smarter than Alex. This man is either unable or unwilling to understand and answer any question asked of him.
McFarland: "well i was in smogbahtsingtsangdong with local village goat repairman and came to a conclusion god is true. Read Barbara O'Smelmyfarts "the blind truth" and some of the greatest minds of all time agree that even einstein was a christian" Silverman: "answer the damn question! Did god give bonobos morality!?"
You do not understand logic. If there is no God, then morality does not exist. Anything is permissible. We would just be animals, and any crime would be justified. No animal on the planet thinks twice about what they do, but we do. Morality comes from God, and whether you believe in him or not it does not change the fact that he exist. It takes just as much faith to believe that a giant explosion created everything from nothing as it does to believe an all powerful God created everything that exist. Another point of logic is that if you are right about atheism, then we just die, but if I'm right about Christianity, there is a heaven and hell. Who is making the better decision?
@@MonarchEAS Yeah definitely, you are right, ignorance is a bliss. But here are some hard facts for you, you can't force yourself to believe something you don't even if it would mean a better deal at the end... you just simply can't. Furthermore, morality is subjective and man made. Take a look around you...
@@adriennetoth7586 Morality cannot be subjective. It does not matter if you believe that murder is wrong or not. The fact is that you killed another human being. All cultures hold murders accountable in some way. If morality was subjective, then why do we know that murder is wrong? Why do we know that cheating on a test or lying is wrong? If morality was truly subjective because there is no God, then morality wouldn't exist. The hard fact is that there is objective morality in this world, and there are consequences for breaking these moral standards while animals have no consequences. God will destroy all sin one day, but he is willing to forgive those who want forgiveness. You do not truly understand the concepts of heaven and hell. Hell is a place that you do not want to go to. A place of eternal torment permanently separated from God forever. Burning in the lake of fire forever and never burning up. You cannot image how painful it would be. The fact is that there is no way to know how the universe was created, but one thing is for sure. There is very little evidence supporting creation by evolution. There is no evidence in the fossil record of a human/ape hybrid that would later evolve into present day homosapiens. There is also no evidence that there have been millions of years. Those are estimates based on the assumptions that things change over long periods of time. Carbon dating technology is also based on those assumptions. Also the theory of evolution has still no clear idea of how life began. There are different theories about how lightning might have started it, but no concrete evidence for that either. Finally, the theory of similar ancestors is based on assumptions as well. Scientist assume that since a lot of living creatures have similar makeup that they must have a common ancestor. The fact that bone structure is made of the same material for most animals that have bones does not mean they came from a common ancestor. I could turn the argument around, and claim that it represents common creator. Since animal bones are made out of the same material it could be that they had the same creator who designed bone structure that way. Did I prove anything? No! I just made an assumption. The thing with the scientific evidence is that atheist scientist, and Christian scientist look at the same evidence through their world view. Because there is no objective evidence suggesting that either side is correct these debates will go on until the end of time. There is no way to know 100% how the world was created. Weather by intelligent design or by pure accident. Ultimately, it comes down to what you believe because science can only go so far.
Closet gaytheist here who’s always been stuck in Catholic family and education. Trust me, it’s a total monopoly and it quite possibly will destroy my life even in this 21st century “progress.” Every person who blocks out atheist reason I associate with the corrupt and disgusting pigs that lied to my face my whole life and had the nerve to judge ME. The morality is truly all to their liking and honestly the most sinister type I’ve ever seen. David is the well-spoken, moral, honest, and meticulous leader atheists deserve.
Joseph Marton how come did you blame God for the issues like "no food or no jobs" ? Never seen something like that before, it's like saying " I blame God for cancer" and you have a McDonald's on every corner
The moderator was lame, he was silent while Alex went way off topic and preached. I was surprised David put up with it. His logic massacred the preacher, in my opinion.
Oh my god.....this Alex guy just can't ever answer a direct question. He skips and prances around it, but never actually answers the questions given to him. Not too bright.
Huh? I have no clue how you got to that conclusion. The man is bereft of any logical thought. Let alone not knowing what the 'god of the gaps' means. It's simply embarrassing.
Depends on what you view bright as. He's bright in the sense that he's avoiding answering a question that proves him wrong, and not too bright in the sense that he can't admit being wrong.
Actually he answered the questions many times. Silverman disliked his responses so he claimed that McFarland was avoiding the question or that his answer had nothing to do with his question when his questions were in it of themselves logical fallacies.
take a look at Frank Tureks debate against Silverman and see if you have the same opinion. although in this one i agree that the theist couldnt answer well.
@@diogogouveia3317 I've seen it and it was it was a massive loss for Turek. When you base your world views on feelings as opposed to facts or logic you'll lose, period. Or as a Ben Shapiro, says, "Facts don't care about your feelings."
@@Apistevist faith is based on evidence not blindly believing. look for the defenition of faith first. and if "there is no truth" then how can i believe that statement? is it true that there is no truth? see where we go?
Wow I'm only into the opening statements I can tell that Silverman is going to mop the floor with this guy. McFarland has told so much nonsense in his opening statement alone that you just know that this is going to be a massacre.
McFarland Doesnt address the Topic "Can Christianity cause immoral behaviour" All he does is say why focus on the abortions of Christianity and not the good....Im glad Silverman pointed him out on that opening statement
Religion is Man Made, it's ok to Admit this... Due to the Hundreds of GOD, but POOF* Christianity just so Happens to be the TRUTH beyond others. it's Amazing what imagination we have to Rule this Temporary LIFE. WHEN YOU DIE IT'S OVER, PERIOD! So be well, and stop prepping for the Afterlife, there is NONE!... IT'S OK.
Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God If you Came from Dirt as you "BE LEAVE" Then Worm Food is where you will be at the End. Your Heaven is NOW not Later. But if you are Happy with THE GOD you chose, so be it right. Heaven was described By Living Men. Dead men tell NO TALES... and that's TRUTH. (TAKES A BOW)
that's like asking someone at noon, "why aren't you wearing your jammies?" life is now, the time to care is now. when i'm on my death bed, then i'll be ready to be worm food. until then, I CARE.
Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God Faith is fueled by Fear, it's Insurance for your Imagination lol. I understand it's Scary not knowing, but I'm not taking and invisible gamble on zero evidence. Most are Logical until it becomes Mythical. Haunted by Maybe* and What if*
David should have insisted he answer his first question and not let the apologist dodge with different questions of his own. I’m sure they wouldn’t have got past the first question. The apologist is probably a world champion dodge ball player.
That's just you, I don't see how he can give off any homosexual vibe. While he clearly lost the debate I see him as a good person, he was debating with respect and that's good for a change, I have seen other apologist debaters that are cringy and complete assholes.
D-Hunter Van Der Horst agreed. He did seem like a nice guy. Especially compared to other apologist I've seen. Still, I don't know if it's just the southern twang or if perhaps he is actually gay. I've seen many Christians who will fight it with all they got in order not to piss off their god. I guess it's just me. No one else gets the gay vibe from this guy. Lol
You are right. People are perfectly capable of holding conflicting world views in their heads at the same time. It doesn't make you irrational. But David is right, you are a victim and we should all feel sorry for you. Also, you get no credits for stating that you believe in gods or other things for which there is valid proof that they exist. In general I would think the opposite to be the case.
You, on average, may have a rational set of beliefs and you may even be intelligent. But your god belief is not in itself rational. You cannot present any objective evidence that uniquely supports the existence of your god, let alone directly demonstrate its existence.
In ref to 1:25:00) - Sin is just an ancient way of labelling guilt. It's a 'bar tab' of guilt that's held on a heavenly storage drive up in the sky or wherever heaven is.
Amazed at Alex McFarland's lack of historical context when discussing the "benevolence" of Christianity as well as his assumptions informed by the American elite/military war machine.
His answer about what the Old Testament and New Testament says about homosexuality was ambiguous and then his ultimate response was based on naturalistic scientific standards and not on what the Bible clearly says.
David Silverman is one of the most compassionate outspoken atheist I know of. If we had more people like him on earth the world would be a better place.
I really wish more of Silverman's debates were online. He does a lot but only a handful are online.
McFarland's flares and chaff were not enough to confuse Silverman's missiles.
Anthony Magnabosco 1:44:50 was the best part lol David got him to admit to God of the Gaps.
what an honor to see you in the comments! love your work, sir.
I'd love to see more debaters do what David did here, pressing him on the questions, keeping it on topic and not letting him easily elude.
How about Atheists? Should they ever defend anything? Or should we just begin with the assumption Atheism is true?
Very impressed by Silverman's performance here. Constantly calling out Alex's dancing around from giving a straight answer.
Rob Allen Exactly, Just Answer the question... YES OR NO. That's Called Spin in politics when you Avoid, and Magically change the Subject to defend your Argument. I should have popped corn for this, Seriously.
He is using Street Epistemology. Look up Anthony Magnabosco's videos. It is based on Socratic method. It is a really productive way to talk to religious folks without getting bogged down with apologetics and discussing specific theology. it also seems to be quite productive.
I find your use of capitalization amusing.
Mutations are easily AMUSED, now Follow go Fetch...
I Suppose you "THINK" you are clever, HOWEVER, the only "Mutation" here is Your Grammar.
Now what am I supposed to go fetch?
Silverman at his best, should've called the other guy out for preaching though.
And holy crap is this a dishonest apologist!!! He's dancing around Silverman's questions, trying to discredit Silverman with strawman arguments even after David has pointed out that they're strawmans, tried to fear monger using a misrepresentation by bringing up communism out of nowhere, refused to acknowledge the god of the gaps argument after David had explained it very clearly, and a fuck ton of other stuff! This debate was not even about the existence of any god, but this apologist couldn't help but to filibuster David's question time.
Farland is horribly intellectually dishonest. The points in his opening statement where just ridiculous.
The very first question Silverman asks Alex - Alex says yes, then makes a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Typical dishonest christian apologetics.
It is very hard to listen to McFarland and have a critical mindset. He is very dishonest in his replies. Did I say Farland was dishonest? Cause he is. lol.
Thank you to David Silverman for being honest during the discussion. I find the behavior exhibited by Alex McFarland to be typical of the religious people I have met, and whom I grew up with, who can't be honest about what they believe. They prefer to equivocate and outright avoid honestly answering questions. Mostly I think they avoid being honest because they know deep down inside, how wrong they are. They have invested to much of themselves in this one position and don't know how to be anything else.
Can you provide a specific example, with a time stamp, for where you believe an equivocation fallacy was commited by the Christian? Along with your reasoning for why you're claiming it's an equivocation fallacy?
Keep in mind, I'll be able to respond and address your claims.
I can list PLENTY for the Atheist. For example, he constantly switches his position from attacking Christianity to attacking other religions. He switches his position from "God doesn't exist" on offense (required to dispute Theistic arguments) to "I just lack belief God exists" or "I'm not convinced God exists" (equivalent to philosophical Agnosticism, not Atheism) constantly to avoid defending the position he just held moments earlier on offense. Those are both equivocation fallacies and he did both numerous different times. I could list many more.
"Tide goes in tide goes out you can't explain that." LoL brilliant.
Robert G yeah, Macfarland is just as dense as O’Reilly
Wow....David was on fire here. I honestly used to not like the guy much....he just seemed too petty juvenile and tedious to me. And yeah, he's got whatever flaws he's got...but in this recent debate, it's clear to me he's gotten _a lot_ better at debate in general...and in how he presents himself. He's still a total firebrand...but now, for the first time, I think he's doing it really well and effectively. Alex McFarland was simply no match for this level of intellectual and ethical and honest form of attack. I dare say David de-converted at least a few people in that audience...or at least got a lot of people to really rethink their presupposed faith-based beliefs.
Anyway...I'm just impressed with David here. He did _not_ let Alex wiggle out of _anything_. It's refreshing to see that...although I could tell Alex realized he was way in over his head at a certain point. It's not fun to be a con-man undergoing the process of being sharply and legitimately and succinctly called-out in real time in front of an audience.
He's a total firebrand, is that not the best way to expose the sickness of religion? Do you have a more productive way ?
Exposing is one thing, but another important thing is to try and lead the people out of the religion. Sometimes the firebrand way works, sometimes a softer touch is needed - an overt approach might serve to drive people deeper into the sickness, whereas a more measured approach can slowly get them to confront it for what it is. Truth is, it takes all sorts - there's no one perfect way that will always work on everybody. I too have been liking Silverman more and more lately.
You should read David's book "Fighting god" as it addresses precisely, with hard data, why firebrand atheism works so much better, is indeed the more moral thing to do, compared to skirting around the issues. As a person interested in facts, Overton windows and so on I found his book to be quite novel and his approach in general to be very good. He also gives us a simple metric to work with when addressing any sort of religion or superstition, the number 0 being to total amount of scientifically validated miracles and supernatural events in the whole history of mankind.
As for the gentle approach, David makes 2 important points in his book: 1) Be firebrand atheists when it comes to religions because it seems to work. 2) be gentle to religious people, understand that they are victims.
Alex should be on Dancing With the Stars because he can't stop dancing around an answer.
This is a massacre. One of the best I ever saw.
during the time ive been rationalizing my belief, watching silverman in debates has help me became a full blown atheist. thank you silverman. i miss watching him in debates.
David Silverman has definitely improved his debating skills. I enjoyed the back and forth at the 1:01:52 mark.
Johnathan B I think he looks more improved than he is because of his opponent.
Dude, this mother can dance around questions like no one I have ever seen before. He still hasn't answered a single question put forth to him. Go Silverman.
It's just insanity to ask Alex any questions. He does not answer them, not even gets close to subject, but starts immediately with the preaching session.
Please join my GOD, he will grant you a passage to heaven.
I've never seen anyone so quickly admit that they've LOST the debate. Moving right along.
atomicrooster56 Being semi honest is a nice change
Silverman : "how do you know your objective morality is right?"
McFarland : "You have to understand that while wild geese migrate..."
You made my day. lol
Wild geese go out, wild geese come back. You can't explain that!
Achille Talon hahahahahaha good one
David Silverman is awesome.
joerndyck I so agree!
he is dead in sin as all atheist are and don't understand that God sent his only begotten son to rescue them from sin and reconcile them to God man blames God for there sin and sins punishment in the lake of fire but man is without excuse because God provided the way to excape his wrath on sin because God will punish all who trodden the son of God underfoot
joerndyck
He acted like a douche to me. And what makes it even worse, he acts so smug about stuff that he’s wrong about
@@thetannernation - you're an idiot.
*SILVERMAN ROCKS*
Never have I seen anyone get so slaughtered in what I take was set out to be an equal debate.
McFarland is clearly uncomfortable, and is left squirming like a beached whale as he makes up stuff as he goes along. He has absolutely no defence against Silverman's concrete and direct no nonsense approach. It can't be easy to be confronted by the obvious contradictions of his belief. Thank you for living out one of my dreams, David Silverman.
Silverman won this debate
Good one
This is how Alex talks -
You ask him, Alex, I'd like to have the mango sauce to go with my hot dog, do you have any on you?
He responds-
Um.....we have the tomato sauce to go with it, it's good.
You say , no, is like the mango one please. He responds-
Umm....we also have the mustard sauce which is just as good....
See the metaphor?
Very impressive mr silverman. It's been some time since I've seen a point by point beat down like this one. Keep um coming!
Great debate! Very informative and a excellent performance by both participating parties. If you came to this video and went directly to the comment section... I highly recommend you watch the debate in its entirety. Assuredly you will not be disappointed, but you will be far more educated in subject matter directly related to Atheism and Christianity.
David should pay to participate in these debates, he has so much fun.
I hate when people say we’re following the New Testament with Jesus Not the Old Testament, but didn’t Jesus say “ I didn’t come to change the Law of come to fulfill it” which means the laws in the Old Testament still stands
That makes sense. Also, they don't contradi t yo each other, so it makes no sense to deny the unity.
Alex only has his king on the chessboard. How frustrating for him to move around the board and not call defeat.
"Hello, I'm Alex Mcfarland, and I won't be answering a single question tonight!"
Except come on with racist blurs when I think I can come away with them. What an incredible dork Alex is. He's not there to debate. He is there to preach...sneaky bastard. Not all the hounds are barking in his drawer...
When a child has relationship with the hidden friend we call it child's play. When an adult has relationship with the hidden friend we call it religion.
But here is the kicker. When the child's invisible friend doesn't go away after a while the adults take their child to a shrink.
+Jesus Christ
Judging from your username you haven't heard it enough.
+ScreamingCheese
Don’t be to hard on him, [Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God] he probably hasn’t got the intellect to understand the atheists logic in the first place?
Is it just me, or was the debate not over when McFarland conceded the point less than a minute into his opening remarks?
59min in he starts the character assassination attempts
If there was a Guinness World Record for the most questions dodged during a debate, McFarland would take it easily.
David Silverman opened the debate and won instantly
In your opinion. In my opinion Dr. McFarland won. Dr. McFarland didn't use fallacious hypothetical questions to try to trap Silverman with an illogical premise. People did bad things in the name of God because they wanted to push their own agenda. In reality they did not really believe in the God of the Bible which was what Dr. McFarland was trying to explain. The questions were rigged to make McFarland and Christianity look bad which was why McFarland refused to answer them the way Silverman wanted him to. The fact is that Christianity does not teach immorality, and those who practice immorality in the name of Christianity are not Christians. They reject the teachings of God, and only pick ones that they agree with. The question about "if an atheist wants to go to Africa in order to help people and a Christian wants to go to Africa because God told him too. Which one is moral?" That's a fallacy. First he is painting Christians in a negative light. Second they are trying to claim that because that Christian thinks that what he perceives as objective morality is different from what McFarland believes is objective that all morality must be subjective. That's not true because the Christian that believes he can go to heaven through good works does not believe the objective truth of salvation through accepting Jesus Christ in the Bible, therefore does not believe in the same God. He believes in something different from what the Bible says which means he believes his view is objective when it isn't the objective truth of the Bible. He does not believe in the same God as McFarland, yet Silverman lumps them together. "You both get your view of objective morality from the same book." That's not true because McFarland believes in what the book actually says while the "hypothetical" Christian does not. Therefore, the question is disingenuous and fallacious. From the point of who is more moral, both the actions of the atheist and the Christian are moral because they help other people which objectively moral in every society. Neither goes to heaven because the atheist does not believe God exists and the Christian believes that good works will get him into heaven when the Bible says otherwise. That was McFarland's point which Silverman and the crowd ignored.
Hawk Moth EAS
“Christianity does not teach immortality”.
Okay, you keep telling yourself that.
Oggy Oggy Yes it does. Those who inherit the Kingdom of Heaven have everlasting life. That would be immortality. John 3:16 the most iconic Bible verse ever says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” You don’t know what your talking about. God offers us immortality if he repent of our sins to believe and worship him. That’s the whole crux of the religion.
@@MonarchEAS that's called the no true Scotsman fallacy. Oooh they couldn't be "real" christians else that makes us wrong
@@SNORKYMEDIA Nice try, but the no true Scotsman fallacy does not apply here since the said member of my group is a hypothetical creation by Silverman. One is not a Christian just because they claim to be. If they do not practice the word of God, then they can’t truly be a Christian as they will not go to Heaven.
Oh what a load of fart gas!
McFarland had his pants down and was blowing his faith out of his back hole.
Bravo Silverman, nice job.
You are not very educarse are you? Your language provea it.
Educated I mean.
Rolf but that is not easy ,with his head up there too , he must be full of it
It was a very one-sided debate. Alex basically conceded the debate in his opening remarks. During the Q & A, Alex tried to dodge every question, and droned on and on, just wasting time instead of answering simple questions.
aaaaand I became fan of Silverman at this point :D And I didn't like him before. Now I'm in love - great, great agressive but meritoric debate style
You should go watch his fox news appearances. He always kicks fox news asses.
I started liking him after the Frank Turek debate, I just love how he is so unapologetic about saying morality is subjective. There is plenty he says that I don't fully agree with and plenty of arguments that he uses that I think are kinda weak compared to someone like Matt Dillahunty or Christopher Hitchens but he has a very solid worldview and is quite good at defending it aggressively.
Wirus Wiary
I like how he wasn’t able to act like that when debating Frank Turek. Turek owned him
michael vigil
I think Silverman is smarter than Hitchens. Hitchens deliberately dodges questions. Silverman at least attempted to answer the same question of free will from Frank Turek. Of course Silverman couldn’t answer and he was speechless. But at least he tried.
Alex is so desperately trying to avoid the David's questions that I feel ridiculous instead of him!
my parents absolutely love David. So I decided to give him a try. I actually am genuenky impressed by how much I have liked this debate.
at 1:49:32 David Silverman apparently didn't read Ephesians 2:8-9 which says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith. And that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."
Out of the gate: Silverman... supporting example, supporting example, supporting example. McFarland... I believe in goofy mythology and "no true Christian".
Animuldok HOW DARE YOU. God sent his only son Jesus to be dead for a weekend for you so you would not burn forever. Respect the sacrifice. One weekend of Jesus being dead = all eternity of evreyone.
The most disturbing part slipped in almost unaddressed when he mentioned that he thought children were "sinners" if they lied to their parents about eating a cookie before dinner. It happens around the 120 minute mark.
I would really love it if a Christian here in the comments section could explain to me how that doesn't implies that children will go to hell when they die.
Before you answer please remember that the context here is a question about "why doesn't the Christian god just forgive everyone and allow everyone into heaven?"
I haven't seen that big of an ass kicking since Mike Tyson fought Marvis Frazier!!!!!!!
The audience member who begins speaking around 1:31:00 really has a grip on what needs to occur.
Silverman smoked this fool.
Silverman used fallacious questions in order to try to trap Dr. McFarland. He can't just say that objective morality does not exist because I don't believe in it. Truth is truth whether you believe in it or not. His line of questioning was set of to destroy McFarland, and McFarland had no intent to use those fallacious strategies. The problem is that Silverman is trying to debate something that he doesn't understand.
Tony Kim Everyone in the room rejects reality. They refuse to be accountable for their sins. They reject the fact that it is scientifically impossible for something to be created from nothing, yet believes that’s how the world came to be. The facts are that there were numerous witnesses of Jesus Christ crucifixion, and several witnesses claiming to see him alive after rising from the dead. Every single disciple gave up their life preaching about Jesus. If they knew that he was dead and didn’t rise they would not have risked their lives. No one is willing to risk their lives for anything if they believe it isn’t true. Those are the facts.
@@MonarchEAS you're the one who's rejecting reality, claiming to have made the greatest scientific discovery of all time when you haven't. Do you really think you've made the greatest scientific discovery of time? Because that's exactly what you're saying.
Tony Kim It’s not God of the gaps it is scientifically impossible for matter to be created or destroyed. Therefore the Big Bang theory is extremely flawed because it is not possible for it to transpire. There are only two possibilities. Either the universe has always existed, or a supernatural being with the power to create the laws of physics had to construct the universe. You still have not answered the question of how life began when Christianity has a clear answer that fits within the laws of physics. Also your point about people dying for Koresh makes no sense. They believe without a doubt that their beliefs are true, so of course they would give their life up. The point many atheist make is that Jesus’ disciples stole his body to try to start a religion. They would not give their lives up for something if they absolutely knew it was 100% false. That’s just logic. The reason they gave up their lives was because they saw Christ alive after he was crucified. Paul was a terrorist that killed Christians. Yet, he saw Jesus alive after he died, and turned into an evangelist. He gave up his life and position as a Roman soldier to follow Christ. He was imprisoned multiple times, and was eventually executed. Why would someone who hated Christians so much would give up his life to worship God unless he actually saw Jesus Christ after His death? These are historical facts that happened. Not to mention that it fulfilled the Jewish prophecy of a messiah to a T. Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem. Check. He was to be nailed to a tree. Check. He was to be stabbed in the side. Check. He was to rise from the dead after three days. Check. The four disciples account of Jesus match perfectly with the prophecy that was written 400 years prior. These historic facts have remained unchallenged to this day, and no body of Jesus has ever been found when there are graves containing the dead bodies of so many religious figures around the world. These are facts that you don’t like to look at. You call it God of the gaps, well I call plugging an answer into the equation. So far it checks out every time. I can turn around and say since you believe that there is no God that the universe has to have created itself from nothing with a giant blast over billions of years. When people reject God they don’t believe in nothing because they will believe in anything. You fill billions of years in the gaps when there is no evidence to suggest that the universe even existed that long. Those estimates are just that. Assumptions and nothing more. It all comes down to what you believe. You either believe that a God created the universe or you believe that a random explosion created the universe from nothing. That’s what all that it comes down to.
inertiaforce I haven’t made the biggest scientific discovery. It is just a scientific fact that matter can not be created nor destroyed, so nothing exploding into everything is logically inconsistent with physics. Although, it is impossible to know what happened at the beginning of time because there is no way to be able to test either theory of how the world came to be because no one was there to witness it. Logically speaking the only possible way to create matter is if there is a supernatural being with infinite power to be able to write the laws of physics. Everything in the universe is perfectly constructed and complicated all the way down to the smallest microscopic organism. The chances of everything in the universe to be made so perfectly by accident is the lowest possible percent conceivable. If the Big Bang did create the universe it would be unstructured and falling apart. If you throw a bucket of paint at a canvas the Mona Lisa won’t materialize. You have to physically make the Mona Lisa. Also with DNA which is coherent information, cannot happen without being created. There is no coherent information or code that exist on earth that has not been made by someone. How can you sit there and not acknowledge the fact that coherent information cannot happen by accident. It had never happened. You make inferences about the world because you try to explain it’s existence by rejecting the God who created you. You fill in the gaps with billions and billions of years. Do you actually know if there has been billions of years. No, you don’t. You just assume that it must have happened over that long time period because we don’t experience any of it over the course of human history. You try to explain our existence as humans by saying we have evolved from one species of animals into the species we are now when there is a huge gap in the fossil record. Now if there was a half man, half ape person in existence in the middle of our evolution, then where’s the scientific evidence that they ever existed? There isn’t any. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead than there are ape like men in the middle of our evolutionary transition from monkey to human. Many witnesses claimed to see Jesus alive after he died, and no body was ever found when the bodies of every other earthly religious figure is buried in the ground. Why would those people allow themselves to be executed if they knew that their cause was fake? They had to have seen Jesus with their own eyes or they would have rejected the religion in order to save their lives. There is so much corroboration in the Bible while most other religious text are not. If these scientist were so right about there being no God, then how come they have not been able to disprove the Bible when they were able to disprove other religions. Maybe it’s because the Bible is true and it corresponds with reality. Making any scientific investigation support the scripture and not able to disprove any of it. I don’t think you have ever read the Bible and looked at scientific evidence through those lens. You look at science with a disposition against God instead of considering the possibility that maybe God does exist. As Dr. McFarland would always say, Jesus loves you and died for your sins, so that you could be with him in heaven forever. I pray that out of all of this you would at least look at the teachings of the Bible. God Bless you!
It's interesting how the ads for Christan movies pop up when Davis is about punctuate a great argument.
Great debate David. Alex is one of the few apologists that I actually think is a good person and non judgmental. Of coarse I don't agree with him but its nice to see a non snarky arrogant Christian up on the stage for a change.
Jeff T I had a hard time following Alex. Granted I am not a philosopher or anything like that. It seemed like he kept going on tangents.
Alex goes for the god of the gaps argument at every opportunity, also supports the idea of original sin, and believes people who don't follow his doctrine to be condemned, I don't see the good person in that.
great debate, keep up the good work David, you were nailing this guy !!
A "degree" in apologetics. Really?? A college degree???
Liberty is a christian university that teaches evolution is absurd
Silverman is a beast! Thank you David for your work.
If this was a boxing match, Alex basically spends the whole match missing punches and getting absolutely hammered in the face by David, it's a cringe worthy and humuliating defeat if I ever saw one.
I wish they had a room for the people who wanted to make speech and the mic was for people who wanted to ask a question
Wow. David is super at debates!
I'm almost certain that literally every member of that audience is smarter than Alex. This man is either unable or unwilling to understand and answer any question asked of him.
Silverman is awesome!!! way to go man
I am astonished how Alex cannot even answer very basic questions without trying to hijack the topic.
i applaud the audience for asking smart logical questions that make alex sweat and david look stronger
David didn't need to be there, Alex didn't seem to hear a single question he ever asked, because he certainly never answered any of them.
McFarland: "well i was in smogbahtsingtsangdong with local village goat repairman and came to a conclusion god is true. Read Barbara O'Smelmyfarts "the blind truth" and some of the greatest minds of all time agree that even einstein was a christian" Silverman: "answer the damn question! Did god give bonobos morality!?"
I like how David aggressively debated against this Theist Apologist.
Silverman is brilliant and McFarland is a cowardly little man dodging EVERY question. Enough said...
You do not sean very educated.
Barbara Rowe neither do you if you can't spell seem! just saying.
You do not understand logic. If there is no God, then morality does not exist. Anything is permissible. We would just be animals, and any crime would be justified. No animal on the planet thinks twice about what they do, but we do. Morality comes from God, and whether you believe in him or not it does not change the fact that he exist. It takes just as much faith to believe that a giant explosion created everything from nothing as it does to believe an all powerful God created everything that exist. Another point of logic is that if you are right about atheism, then we just die, but if I'm right about Christianity, there is a heaven and hell. Who is making the better decision?
@@MonarchEAS Yeah definitely, you are right, ignorance is a bliss. But here are some hard facts for you, you can't force yourself to believe something you don't even if it would mean a better deal at the end... you just simply can't. Furthermore, morality is subjective and man made. Take a look around you...
@@adriennetoth7586 Morality cannot be subjective. It does not matter if you believe that murder is wrong or not. The fact is that you killed another human being. All cultures hold murders accountable in some way. If morality was subjective, then why do we know that murder is wrong? Why do we know that cheating on a test or lying is wrong? If morality was truly subjective because there is no God, then morality wouldn't exist. The hard fact is that there is objective morality in this world, and there are consequences for breaking these moral standards while animals have no consequences. God will destroy all sin one day, but he is willing to forgive those who want forgiveness. You do not truly understand the concepts of heaven and hell. Hell is a place that you do not want to go to. A place of eternal torment permanently separated from God forever. Burning in the lake of fire forever and never burning up. You cannot image how painful it would be. The fact is that there is no way to know how the universe was created, but one thing is for sure. There is very little evidence supporting creation by evolution. There is no evidence in the fossil record of a human/ape hybrid that would later evolve into present day homosapiens. There is also no evidence that there have been millions of years. Those are estimates based on the assumptions that things change over long periods of time. Carbon dating technology is also based on those assumptions. Also the theory of evolution has still no clear idea of how life began. There are different theories about how lightning might have started it, but no concrete evidence for that either. Finally, the theory of similar ancestors is based on assumptions as well. Scientist assume that since a lot of living creatures have similar makeup that they must have a common ancestor. The fact that bone structure is made of the same material for most animals that have bones does not mean they came from a common ancestor. I could turn the argument around, and claim that it represents common creator. Since animal bones are made out of the same material it could be that they had the same creator who designed bone structure that way. Did I prove anything? No! I just made an assumption. The thing with the scientific evidence is that atheist scientist, and Christian scientist look at the same evidence through their world view. Because there is no objective evidence suggesting that either side is correct these debates will go on until the end of time. There is no way to know 100% how the world was created. Weather by intelligent design or by pure accident. Ultimately, it comes down to what you believe because science can only go so far.
Wow. I’ve not heard of Alex before, but I’ve never heard someone talk so much and say so little.
Mic drop after the point ~42 minutes
Can any sane person really find the idea of a human sacrifice a beautiful thing?
Closet gaytheist here who’s always been stuck in Catholic family and education. Trust me, it’s a total monopoly and it quite possibly will destroy my life even in this 21st century “progress.” Every person who blocks out atheist reason I associate with the corrupt and disgusting pigs that lied to my face my whole life and had the nerve to judge ME. The morality is truly all to their liking and honestly the most sinister type I’ve ever seen. David is the well-spoken, moral, honest, and meticulous leader atheists deserve.
Caroline Is Online what Tha hell are you talking about
Joseph Marton what the hell? So you blame God cause the government is ripping you off?
Joseph Marton how come did you blame God for the issues like "no food or no jobs" ? Never seen something like that before, it's like saying " I blame God for cancer" and you have a McDonald's on every corner
The moderator was lame, he was silent while Alex went way off topic and preached. I was surprised David put up with it. His logic massacred the preacher, in my opinion.
Silverman drops metric tons of truth
Nothing has done more to solidify my atheism than listening to xtian apologists...
a new god bashing debate video?! excellent , get out the beer!
This is so freaking awesome from David Silverman
Oh my god.....this Alex guy just can't ever answer a direct question. He skips and prances around it, but never actually answers the questions given to him.
Not too bright.
Domzdream he's bright enough to recognize the end of the debate if he answers the question honestly.
Huh? I have no clue how you got to that conclusion. The man is bereft of any logical thought. Let alone not knowing what the 'god of the gaps' means. It's simply embarrassing.
It's my point. The reason he won't answer is because he knows he's been had.
Depends on what you view bright as. He's bright in the sense that he's avoiding answering a question that proves him wrong, and not too bright in the sense that he can't admit being wrong.
Actually he answered the questions many times. Silverman disliked his responses so he claimed that McFarland was avoiding the question or that his answer had nothing to do with his question when his questions were in it of themselves logical fallacies.
Good debate, watched all of it
As usual, absolute destruction by Silverman
take a look at Frank Tureks debate against Silverman and see if you have the same opinion. although in this one i agree that the theist couldnt answer well.
@@diogogouveia3317 I've seen it and it was it was a massive loss for Turek. When you base your world views on feelings as opposed to facts or logic you'll lose, period. Or as a Ben Shapiro, says, "Facts don't care about your feelings."
@@Apistevist never did Turek based it on feelings, normaly its always the atheist who do it. Theists dong go for feelings but truth. The truth of God.
@@diogogouveia3317 There can be no truth where faith is involved. Faith is for the weak minded.
@@Apistevist faith is based on evidence not blindly believing. look for the defenition of faith first. and if "there is no truth" then how can i believe that statement? is it true that there is no truth? see where we go?
Wow I'm only into the opening statements I can tell that Silverman is going to mop the floor with this guy. McFarland has told so much nonsense in his opening statement alone that you just know that this is going to be a massacre.
The topic is "CAN Christianity cause immorality" and the Christian conceded that point within the first 2 minutes of his opening statement
Thumbs up to Silverman , Love to here him stand up to Delusions of theist.
stop calling it the Spanish inquisition or the crusades and call it what was, THE CHRISTAIN IMPOSITION is the appropriate term.
McFarland Doesnt address the Topic "Can Christianity cause immoral behaviour" All he does is say why focus on the abortions of Christianity and not the good....Im glad Silverman pointed him out on that opening statement
Religion is Man Made, it's ok to Admit this... Due to the Hundreds of GOD, but POOF* Christianity just so Happens to be the TRUTH beyond others. it's Amazing what imagination we have to Rule this Temporary LIFE. WHEN YOU DIE IT'S OVER, PERIOD! So be well, and stop prepping for the Afterlife, there is NONE!... IT'S OK.
Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God If you Came from Dirt as you "BE LEAVE" Then Worm Food is where you will be at the End. Your Heaven is NOW not Later. But if you are Happy with THE GOD you chose, so be it right. Heaven was described By Living Men. Dead men tell NO TALES... and that's TRUTH. (TAKES A BOW)
that's like asking someone at noon, "why aren't you wearing your jammies?"
life is now, the time to care is now. when i'm on my death bed, then i'll be ready to be worm food. until then, I CARE.
Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God Faith is fueled by Fear, it's Insurance for your Imagination lol. I understand it's Scary not knowing, but I'm not taking and invisible gamble on zero evidence. Most are Logical until it becomes Mythical. Haunted by Maybe* and What if*
Minute 1:23:20 would children lie so much to their parents when a threat of violence isn't there?
Damn, David is ON FIIIIIRRREEEEE
Evil-Dog Productions. No, he is an angry man looking for answers.
David should have insisted he answer his first question and not let the apologist dodge with different questions of his own.
I’m sure they wouldn’t have got past the first question.
The apologist is probably a world champion dodge ball player.
I think Mcfarlane ran out of names to drop.
Mike Henwood Another Christian trope: Running out the clock.
To be fair, it is hard to defend religion against reason.
Is it just me or does this Christian give off a heavy homosexual vibe?
Just you. He seems kind and gentles but that does not make him gay. It just makes him a good person.
That's just you, I don't see how he can give off any homosexual vibe. While he clearly lost the debate I see him as a good person, he was debating with respect and that's good for a change, I have seen other apologist debaters that are cringy and complete assholes.
D-Hunter Van Der Horst
agreed. He did seem like a nice guy. Especially compared to other apologist I've seen. Still, I don't know if it's just the southern twang or if perhaps he is actually gay. I've seen many Christians who will fight it with all they got in order not to piss off their god. I guess it's just me. No one else gets the gay vibe from this guy. Lol
I don't know if I've seen a debate against a Christian so brutal since Hitchens. McFarland got his ass handed to him.
No intelligent, rational person believes in a god.
You are right. People are perfectly capable of holding conflicting world views in their heads at the same time. It doesn't make you irrational. But David is right, you are a victim and we should all feel sorry for you. Also, you get no credits for stating that you believe in gods or other things for which there is valid proof that they exist. In general I would think the opposite to be the case.
You, on average, may have a rational set of beliefs and you may even be intelligent. But your god belief is not in itself rational. You cannot present any objective evidence that uniquely supports the existence of your god, let alone directly demonstrate its existence.
> I'm intelligent. I'm rational. I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
> and i do not understand what "rational" and "intelligent" mean.
A The only assertions being made are that you’re rational and intelligent.
Bob Davis I'll take my chances dude
Bread goes in toast comes out. You can't explain that.
40:00 man when Silverman gets into the objective morality he shreds the fuck out of the McFarland. It was beautifully done.
I think you could have a revelation of some general sort, but then come the details. Hindoes and Buddhists have revelations too.
I'm so impressed of this debate
The fact that the accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are explicitly corroborated is evidence for you Silverman.
In ref to 1:25:00) -
Sin is just an ancient way of labelling guilt. It's a 'bar tab' of guilt that's held on a heavenly storage drive up in the sky or wherever heaven is.
from 1:06:00 - 1:07:22 That is one of the best points made in this debate.
17:20 debate is over. That was fast.
Amazed at Alex McFarland's lack of historical context when discussing the "benevolence" of Christianity as well as his assumptions informed by the American elite/military war machine.
The debate premise is really loaded. I think a better worded topic would be:
Atheism or Christianity: Which is the moral superior?
I feel like David and Alex didn't remain friends after this..
Someone clearly came to preach, and the other came to debate....
Alex used a lot of words but gave no answers at all. But he did go to Mt. Moriah.
His answer about what the Old Testament and New Testament says about homosexuality was ambiguous and then his ultimate response was based on naturalistic scientific standards and not on what the Bible clearly says.
I don't think I've ever seen someone avoid answering a single question for so long in my life! For f#@&$ sake, ANSWER THE QUESTION!